Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 PC REPORT AMEND TO CUP 01-030_DR 2015-022_CUP 2015-18 OC RESCUE MISSIONITEM #2 AGENDA REPORT PF MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2015 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-030, DESIGN REVIEW 2015-022 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-18 APPLICANT: Jim Palmer Orange County Rescue Mission Inc. 1 Hope Drive Tustin, CA 92782 PROPERTY OWNER: Orange County Rescue Mission Inc. (OCRMI) and City of Tustin (the City) LOCATION: 1 Hope Drive (Assessor Parcel Number 430-283-02) and Assessor Parcel Number 430-283-05 GENERAL PLAN: Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan (SP1) ZONING: MCAS SP1 District: Planning Area 3 and Planning Area 1-H EXISTING LAND USE: Transitional Housing Facility and Vacant Land 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 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 MCAS, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified Planning Commission Report October 27, 2015 Amend CUP 01-030 CUP 2015-18 DR 2015-022 Page 2 significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. REQUESTS: To increase the transitional housing facility capacity from 192 beds to 387 beds, construct a new parking lot and establish an ancillary church use at the Village of Hope (VOH) transitional housing facility (facility). The project includes: Adding beds within the existing residential units; constructing a new parking lot with twenty-six (26) spaces along Valencia Avenue; and hold church worship service and church meetings available to the general public within the existing auditorium building. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt: 1) Resolution No. 4299, approving an increase to the transitional housing capacity and construct a new parking lot in a vacant parcel, and 2) Resolution No. 4300, establishing a church use at the VOH facility. APPROVAL AUTHORITY: Pursuant to MCAS SP1 Section 3.3.4C, the Community Development Director determined that ancillary church uses are conditionally permitted uses within the Transitional/Emergency Housing land use designation of the MCAS SP1. The proposed increase in the transitional housing capacity and establishment of a church use open to the public require an amendment and approval of conditional use permits. Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9291 authorizes the Planning Commission to consider conditional use permit applications. Pursuant to TCC Section 9272b, approval of a Design Review is required for the proposed parking lot prior to issuance of building permits. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On December 10, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3817, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 01-030 to allow the establishment of a transitional housing facility. The transitional housing facility included construction of new buildings for administration, security, food services, warehousing and assembly activities, as well as conversion of two (2) existing military barracks into transitional housing units. These barracks are three stories each, with 32 rooms on each floor, having a total of 192 rooms. The VOH facility was conditioned to allow for a single homeless occupancy in each room, totaling 192 persons at any given time. On January 2, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-09 approving an amendment to CUP 01-030 allowing a 4,000 square -foot medical and dental clinic that is open to the general public. It should be noted that Resolution Nos. 3817 and 08-09 erroneously state the CUP number as CUP 01-031. The correct CUP number for the VOH facility is CUP 01-030. Planning Commission Report October 27, 2015 Amend CUP 01-030 CUP 2015-18 DR 2015-022 Page 3 Site Location The VOH facility is located on a 5.22 -acre parcel in Planning Area 3, Neighborhood A with a Land Use Plan designation of Transitional / Emergency Housing. The proposed parking lot site is located on a 1.32 -acre parcel, Planning Area 1-H, Neighborhood A with a Land Use Plan designation of Education Village. Both project sites have a General Plan Land Use designation of MCAS SP1. The sites are bounded by Valencia Avenue to the north, Lansdowne Road to the east, Hope Drive to the south and Red Hill Avenue to the west. (Figure 1) Figure 1: Aerial Project Description The applicant has proposed to increase the capacity of the transitional housing facility from 192 beds to 387 beds in order to assist more individuals and families with children to transition from homelessness to stable independent living, and construct a new parking lot with twenty-six (26) spaces on an existing vacant parcel north of the facility that is owned by the City. The applicant also proposes to establish an ancillary church use with 276 seats that is open to the general public and includes worship services on Sundays between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., and church activities on weekdays from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM. The church activities would be held within the existing auditorium/chapel building. The weekday church activities would include smaller group meetings such as bible study, youth groups and parent training. Onsite church administration and Sunday school activities are not proposed. (Figure 2) Planning Commission Report October 27, 2015 Amend CUP 01-030 CUP 2015-18 DR 2015-022 Page 4 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 ' 1 e Chapel \ 1 � 1 \ I \ 1 1 1 \ 1 Transitional VOH Facility `�,i Housing Units Figure 2: Site Plan General Plan Conformity ROAD Proposed Parking Lot Currently, the 1.3 -acre proposed parking lot site is owned by the City. The City will enter into a real estate transaction with OCRMI to transfer ownership of the property to the applicant. The real estate transaction will be considered separately by the City Council at a later date. Pursuant to Section 65402(c) of the California Government Code (Planning and Development Law), a general plan conformity determination from local planning agencies, prior to acquisition or disposition of real property by a local agency is required. The proposed disposition supports General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies as follows: Land Use Element 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. 2. Land Use Element Goal 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses in the community; the City's circulation network; availability of public facilities; existing development constraints; and the City's unique characteristics and resources. 3. Land Use Element Goal 4: Assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. 4. Land Use Goal 6: Improve urban design in Tustin to ensure development, that is both architecturally and functionally compatible, and to create uniquely identifiable neighborhoods. Planning Commission Report October 27, 2015 Amend CUP 01-030 CUP 2015-18 DR 2015-022 Page 5 5. Land Use Goal 13: Continue to implement the Specific Plan/Reuse for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use and master planned development. Based upon the City's adopted General Plan, the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of the parking lot site to OCRMI for the construction of 'a new parking lot for the existing VOH transitional housing facility is in conformance with the approved General Plan. The aforementioned findings have been included in Resolution No. 4299. Design Review The new parking lot will have twenty-six (26) parking spaces north of the facility (Figure 3). The proposed parking lot would be accessed from the existing access drive for the facility's basketball court area. The existing gate would be relocated to allow access to the new parking lot. The proposed parking lot is located on a narrow parcel south of Valencia Avenue and north of the VOH basketball court area. The proposed lot would encroach into the thirty-foot (30) landscape setback along Valencia Ave. at varying distances, but no more than ten (10) feet. The majority of the encroachment into the landscape setback is from the widened area for a bus turnout. As proposed, the parking lot will be in substantial compliance with requirements and meets the intent of the landscape setback requirement by providing ample opportunities for planting and screening. The project will be conditioned to relocate or replace existing trees at a one-to-one ratio. I ..�-. ....._.. 'D . .nom-.... _ _____VALENCIA AVENUE Figure 3: Proposed Parking Lot The parking lot parcel will remain as a separate parcel and will have deed restrictions imposed upon it to ensure that the parking lot will be maintained and that the use will be only for the VOH facility. Conditional Use Permits The applicant's proposal requires amending existing CUP 01-030 for the transitional housing facility and establishment of new CUP 2015-18 for the new church use. Planning Commission Report October 27, 2015 Amend CUP 01-030 CUP 2015-18 DR 2015-022 Page 6 • Amendment to CUP 01-030 —Increase capacity of transitional housing facility. CUP 01-030 currently limits the facility to 192 beds based on the 192 rooms existing at time of transfer. During the entitlement, the facility was limited to a single person per room and therefore the occupancy was limited to 192 beds. This was reflected in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Following the approval, the facility undertook major modification and was determined that other ancillary uses such as health clinic, common areas, study rooms, counseling rooms and other support services areas were necessary and therefore the ground floor of each barrack buildings were converted. This modification resulted in a total of 128 rooms available for the homeless. If approved, the proposed amendment would increase the maximum beds allowed within the facility by 195 beds, to a total of 387 beds. The applicant has indicated that the increase in occupancy would accommodate families with children. This amendment would allow VOH to serve unmet needs of the homeless families population. As mentioned, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan currently indicates a maximum occupancy of 192 "beds" not "rooms." However, all the impact analysis in the FEIS/EIR was based upon "rooms." The increase in beds will be in compliance with the original intent of the approval of 192 rooms since the applicant will maintain the number of rooms by only adding bunk beds in the rooms (average of 3 beds per room). No improvements to the barrack buildings are proposed. Accordingly, the MCAS Tustin will be revised to reflect the correct term. To ensure no unintended consequence would result in the approval of this project, a checklist (see environmental section of this report) has been prepared and determined that the increase in the number of beds is negligible. • CUP 2015-18 — Church use Pursuant to MCAS SP1 Section 3.3.4C, the Community Development Director determined that ancillary church uses are conditionally permitted uses within the Transitional/Emergency Housing land use designation of the MCAS SP1. As proposed, the applicant is requesting approval of a church use, and will partner with an independent organization to provide church services at the facility. The intent is to provide religious services at the facility that is available to the general public and the residents at the transitional housing facility. The proposed church use would utilize the facility's existing chapel/auditorium building (Building C) with 276 seats for Sunday worship and church meetings. The VOH is a secure facility where visitors are asked to sign in before entering the premises. As proposed, the applicant will coordinate with the church to monitor admission of and provide instructions to off-site church patrons into the VOH facility. As proposed and conditioned, no negative impacts are anticipated in that church activities are required to take place inside the chapel building (Building C) and that the required number of parking spaces will be provided for church use (see parking section of the report). Planning Commission Report October 27, 2015 Amend CUP 01-030 CUP 2015-18 DR 2015-022 Page 7 Parking • VOH Increased Capacity The VOH transitional housing facility is currently required to provide forty-eight (48) spaces for transitional housing and eleven (11) spaces for the health clinic. The applicant proposes to construct a new parking lot with twenty-six (26) parking spaces to provide a total of ninety- two (92) on-site parking spaces. The facility is required to have parking spaces based on one (1) parking space for every four (4) beds. Therefore, to accommodate a total of 387 beds and the existing dental clinic, a total of 108 parking spaces would need to be provided on-site. Use Required Parking Provided Parkin Transitional Housing 97 81 (onsite) 16 offsite Health Clinic 11 11 onsite Total 108 108 Since only 92 parking spaces will be provided on-site, the applicant will be required to secure sixteen (16) additional off-site parking spaces. The applicant currently has approval to park vehicles within the Advanced Technology Education Park (ATEP) parking lots, which will satisfy the remaining need of sixteen (16) parking spaces. As conditioned, these spaces must be available at all times. Should these 16 spaces are no longer available in the future, the applicant will be required to reduce the number of beds to 324. • Church Use The proposed church use would utilize the facility's existing chapel/auditorium building with 276 seats for Sunday worship and church meetings. The parking requirement for a church use is one (1) parking space for each three (3) seats. Therefore, a total of 92 parking spaces would need to be provided for the church use. Currently the applicant has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the OCRMI and ATEP in which OCRMI can utilize adjacent parking areas along Hope Drive, Lansdowne and Valencia Avenue within the ATEP campus. These spaces are non-exclusive to OCRMI. There are approximately 250 spaces at these locations. Since the use of these spaces are limited to OCRMI and not the church operator, during church service, church patrons will be required to park within the VOH facility parking lots and the VOH residents/employees will be required to park in the adjacent ATEP parking lots. If in the future, the MOU is terminated and no other alternative parking spaces are available for church use, the applicant will be required to cease church services to the general public. Planning Commission Report October 27, 2015 Amend CUP 01-030 CUP 2015-18 DR 2015-022 Page 8 Environmental Review On January 16, 2001, the City certified the Program FEIS/EIR for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. 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 May 21, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the Final EIS/EIR in conjunction with the South Orange County Community College District project. The Final EIS/EIR as amended by the Supplement and the Addendums is referred to herein as the "FEIS/EIR." The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the CEQA. The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR analyzed potential impacts related to the establishment of VOH facility. The analysis was based on 192 "rooms." The proposed increase in the number of occupancy would be accommodated within the existing rooms (adding bunk beds) and the additional occupancy would consist of homeless families with children. An Environmental Checklist (Attachment D, Exhibit A) has been prepared and concluded that the proposed actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. The Public Works Engineering Division also has reviewed the proposed project, and based on the nature of the use (homeless/transitional facility) and that a limited number of residents have vehicles or allowed to have vehicles on-site, negligible or no impacts to traffic analysis are anticipated. FINDINGS: In determining whether to approve the proposed project, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed uses will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City; and that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposal will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. A decision to approve this request may be supported by the following findings: 1. That an amendment to CUP 01-030 is required to allow the increase in transitional housing capacity from 192 beds to 387 beds. 2. That the Final Traffic Technical Report of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR states that the analysis for transitional housing accounted for 192 rooms. That the proposed increase in transitional housing capacity does not involve increasing the number of rooms in the facility and would not cause to deviate from the environmental report findings. Planning Commission Report October 27, 2015 Amend CUP 01-030 CUP 2015-18 DR 2015-022 Page 9 3. That based on the nature of the use (homeless/transitional facility) and that a limited number of residents have vehicles or allowed to have vehicles on-site, negligible or no impacts to traffic analysis are anticipated. 4. That the applicant currently has authorization from the ATEP facility to utilize the ATEP parking lots for transitional housing facility parking. 5. That the increase in transitional housing capacity can be accommodated by the existing 128 transitional units/rooms, existing parking lot, proposed parking lot, and existing parking agreement with the ATEP facility. 6. That the proposed parking lot is in substantial conformance with the MCAS SP1 in that ample landscape area will provide landscape screening as a visual barrier between the public right-of-way and the parking lot. 7. That the applicant shall be required to record deed restrictions or any other acceptable form to hold the properties as one and provide reciprocal easements granting ingress and egress. 8. Pursuant to MCAS SP1 Section 3.3.4C., the Community Development Director has determined that ancillary church use is conditionally permitted within Planning Area 3 of the MCAS SP1. 9. That, as conditioned, the proposed church is an ancillary use to the primary transitional housing use in that the church activities are on Sundays and weekday evenings. 10. That the Public Works Department has reviewed the project and determined that the increase in capacity for homeless families with children and will not generate traffic impacts. 11. That the Public Works Department has reviewed the project and determined the church's Sunday service will take place during off peak hours and that, as conditioned, the required onsite parking will be provided and impacts to traffic are not anticipated. 12. That, as conditioned, the proposed church use can be accommodated by the existing auditorium/chapel building (Building C) and the existing and proposed onsite parking lot in that the vehicles associated with the transitional housing facility shall be parked off- site in the ATEP parking lots during Sunday church service. Edmelynnek Hutter Senior Planner Attachments: A. Location Map B. Land Use Fact Sheet C. Submitted Plans Eliza eth A. Binsack Director of Community Development Planning Commission Report October 27, 2015 Amend CUP 01-030 CUP 2015-18 DR 2015-022 Page 10 D. Resolution No. 4299 E. Resolution No. 4300 ATTACHMENT A Location Map LOCATION MAP VILLAGE OF HOPE 1 HOPE DRIVE / ATTACHMENT B Land Use Fact Sheet 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): AMENDMENT TO CUP 01-031, NEW CUP 2015-18, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2015-022 LOCATION: VILLAGE OF HOPE APN(S): 430-283-02 & 430-283-05 3. ADDRESS: 1 HOPE DRIVE PREVIOUS APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: CUP 01-031 SURROUNDING LAND USES.- NORTH: SES:NORTH: EDUCATIONAL SOUTH: VACANT EAST: VACANT WEST: OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: SP1 - MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN SOUTH: SP1 - MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EAST: SP1 - MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN WEST: SP3 & PC IND - PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (ORDINANCE NO. 400, AS AMENDED) SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN SOUTH: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EAST: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN WEST: PC COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS 9. SITE LAND USE: A. EXISTING: TRANSITIONAL HOUSING & VACANT LAND B. PROPOSED: TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, NEW PARKING LOT, AND NEW ANCILLARY CHURCH C. GENERAL PLAN: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED GP: SAME D. ZONING: SP1 - MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING: SAME DEVELOPMENT FACTS: 10. LOT AREA: 6.54 ACRES APPROX. 11. TENANT SPACE: 15,694 S.F. 12. PARKING: 108 REQUIRED STALLS 92 PROVIDED ONSITE STALLS 16 PROVIDED OFFSITE STALLS 13. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS: APPROX. 12,000 SQUARE -FOOT PARKING LOT ATTACHMENT C Submitted Plans 0 6 a a� T5T r $ N wC7 �+ WWF 11WIr V 40 '10 CL w< I L v e o C:wBti#tt t L 7 z� Q J !A a o g CO +S i3 1olb1 !7 1 cn els 'ii gy i J ads g?g :� F rs lip tk ago g m;��_ c-� I 's� �s r ; e �< Viet I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 m Z J co m w 9 0 0 0 z J Ln oo LO LO 0 J Of I =, 11 k ATTACHMENT D Resolution No. 4299 RESOLUTION NO. 4299 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-030, ALLOWING AN INCREASE IN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING CAPACITY FROM 192 BEDS TO 387 BEDS AND DESIGN REVIEW 2015-022 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING LOT WITH 26 SPACES ALONG VALENCIA AVENUE, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE VILLAGE OF HOPE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITY LOCATED AT 1 HOPE DRIVE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by Jim Palmer, Orange County Rescue Mission Inc., requesting to increase the transitional housing capacity and construct a new parking lot to service the Village of Hope (VOH) transitional housing facility (facility), located at 1 Hope Drive. B. That the VOH facility and proposed parking lot site are zoned Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan (SP1) District and has a General Plan Land Use designation of MCAS Tustin SP1. The VOH facility is within Planning Area 3 of Neighborhood A of SP1. The proposed parking lot is within Planning Area 1 of Neighborhood A. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -element of the City of Tustin's (the City) General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub -element. C. That the proposed parking lot site is currently owned by the City and the City wishes to dispose of an approximately 1.3 -acre site within Planning Area 1- H to accommodate the proposed parking lot associated with the proposed transitional housing capacity at the VOH facility. D. That Section 65402(a) of Government Code provides that no real property shall be disposed until the location, purpose, and extent of the project has been reported upon by the local planning agency as to the conformity with the adopted general plan. E. That Section 65402(a) of Government Code authorizes the Planning Commission to determine whether the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of real property are consistent with the General Plan. F. The proposed disposition supports several General Plan Land Use Element goal, including the following: Resolution No. 4299 Page 2 1. Land Use Element 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. 2. Land Use Element Goal 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses in the community, the City's circulation network, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints, and the City's unique characteristics and resources. 3. Land Use Element Goal 4: Assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. 4. Land Use Goal 6: Improve urban design in Tustin to ensure development that is both architecturally and functionally compatible, and to create uniquely identifiable neighborhoods. 5. Land Use Goal 13: Continue to implement the Specific Plan/Reuse for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed use and master planned development. G. That the MCAS Tustin SP1 Section 3.3.4A states that transitional housing uses are permitted within Planning Area 3. H. That on December 10, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3817, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 01-030, allowing the establishment of a transitional housing facility with 192 beds. That on January 2, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-09, approving an amendment to CUP 01-030 allowing the establishment of a 4,000 square -foot ancillary medical and dental clinic open to the public. That Tustin City Code Section 9272 requires applicants to obtain Design Review (DR) approval prior to improvements. J. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for the subject project on October 27, 2015, by the Planning Commission. K. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City in that: Resolution No. 4299 Page 3 1. That an amendment to CUP 01-030 is required to allow the increase in transitional housing capacity from 192 beds to 387 beds. 2. That the Final Traffic Technical Report of the MCAS Tustin Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) states that the analysis for transitional housing accounted for 192 rooms. That the proposed increase in transitional housing capacity does not involve increasing the number of rooms in the facility and would not cause to deviate from the environmental report findings. 3. That based on the nature of the use (homeless/transitional facility) and that a limited number of residents have vehicles or allowed to have vehicles on-site, negligible or no impacts to traffic analysis are anticipated. 4. That the applicant currently has authorization from the Advanced Technology Education Park (ATEP) facility to utilize the ATEP parking lots for transitional housing facility parking. 5. That the increase in transitional housing capacity can be accommodated by the existing 128 transitional units/rooms, existing parking lot, proposed parking lot, and existing parking agreement with the ATEP facility. 6. That the applicant shall be required to record deed restrictions or any other acceptable form to hold the properties as one and provide reciprocal easements granting ingress and egress. 7. That the Public Works Department has reviewed the project and determined that the increase in capacity for homeless families with children and will not generate traffic impacts. L. That the location, size, and general appearance of the proposed parking lot, as conditioned, is compatible with the surrounding area in that the proposed parking lot is in substantial conformance with parking lot standards and provides ample landscape setback area to create effective landscape screening of the parking area. The proposal will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Planning Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Setbacks and site planning. 2. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. 3. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. Resolution No. 4299 Page 4 4. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 5. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 6. Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. M. On January 16, 2001, the City certified the Program 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 MCAS, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Amendment to CUP 01-030 and DR 2015-022 to increase transitional housing capacity and construct a new parking lot for the VOH facility located at 1 Hope Drive, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit B, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 27th day of October, 2015. JEFF R. THOMPSON Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4299 Page 5 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 City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4299 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27th day of October, 2015. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4299 Environmental Checklist COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Amend Conditional Use Permit 01-030; Design Review 2015-022; and Conditional Use Permit 2015-18. Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Edmelynne Hutter Phone: (714) 573-3174 Project Location: 1 Hope Drive (Assessor parcel Number 430-283-02) and Assessor Parcel Number 430-283-05. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jim Palmer Orange County Rescue Mission Inc. 1 Hope Drive Tustin, CA 92782 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP 1) / Transitional/Emergency Housing and Education Village Project Description: Amend Conditional Use Permit 01-030 and Design Review 2015-022 to allow increasing transitional housing capacity from 192 beds to 387 beds and construct a new parking lot with 26 spaces; and Conditional Use Permit 2015-18 to allow ancillary church use open to the general public. Surrounding Uses: North: South Orange County Community College District Advance Technology Education Park (ATEP) East: ATEP Parking Lot South: ATEP Parking Lot West: Red Hill Avenue C. Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils [—]Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials [—]Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Date: 104 1/ 5 Edmelynn utter, Senior Planner Date El zi abeth 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? ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N 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 enviromnent? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial ❑ New More Change From Significant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Impacts Analysis adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ plan? ❑ ❑ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? 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? xT NnTCF — 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have enviromnental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Village of Hope: Increase in capacity, new parking lot and new church use Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 01-030, Design Review 2015-022 and Conditional Use Permit 2015-18 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 Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan/MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the FEIS/EIR analyzed a multi-year development period for a planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the City of Tustin as lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (1-5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (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, 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 2 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is comprised of approximately 6.5 gross acres located within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy) boundaries affecting Planning Area 3 and 1-H. The project site is bounded by Lansdowne Avenue to the east, Hope Drive to the south, Red Hill Avenue to the west, and Valencia Avenue to the north within Neighborhood A, MCAS -Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Generally the applications can be described as follows: • Amendment of Conditional Use Permit 01-030: A request to increase the transitional housing capacity from 192 beds to 387 beds within the existing 128 rooms currently used as transitional housing. • Design Review 2015-022: A Design Review project for the construction of a new approximately 12,000 square -foot parking lot with twenty-six (26) spaces to serve the Village of Hope site and located on an existing vacant parcel known as Assessor Parcel No. 430- 283-05. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-18: A Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a church use, that is open to the public, within the existing auditorium/chapel (Building A) at the Village of Hope facility. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that this Project is within the scope of the Prior Environmental Review and that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), there are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, or any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Prior Environmental Review was certified showing that: (1) the project will have any new significant effects; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible will now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 3 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? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The original FEIR/EIS evaluated aesthetic impacts of redevelopment of the property and the proposed project would result in similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. The only significant visual impact identified in the FEIS/EIR was the potential loss of both blimp hangars which would change existing foreground, middleground, and background views. The development of a support use of a parking lot within Planning Area 1-H will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site. The parking lot use would service the existing transitional housing facility and would be primarily constructed outside the landscape setbacks, which maintain the visual buffer between the street and the proposed parking lot. The proposal includes a Design Review application, which requires that the Planning Commission ensure the design of the project, if approved, is found to be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section 2.17.3(8) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 4 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 Supplemental documents; and applicable measures will be required to be complied with as conditions of entitlement approvals (including design review associated with landscaping and compliance with development regulations for setbacks) for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans for Design Review FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-58 through 3- 67) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2-115 though 2-169, Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The proposed parking lot will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract or involve or cause changes in the environment resulting in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 5 measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related impacts to farmland were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83 through 3-87, 4-109 through 114) and Addendums (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. As documented in the FEIS/EIR, the project is part of a larger reuse project at Tustin Legacy that was projected to result in air quality impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The site is an existing transitional housing facility with 128 rooms. The project applicant proposes to increase bed capacity within the existing 128 rooms, which was assumed in the original analysis and construct a new parking lot, which will be conditioned to meet air quality control measures. Therefore, no significant impact beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIS/EIR is anticipated. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 6 environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and infeasible 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 Submitted Plans 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) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 7 The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The proposed parking lot site is currently graded and contains no natural biological resources or habitat. The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan/MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project) could impact the southwestern pond turtle and/or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. The overall Specific Plan area has been surveyed, and turtles were captured and moved off the site to another location as directed and overseen by the California Department of Fish and Game in 2004. Since that time, all former Marine Corps base drainage channels in the area were removed and graded by the former owner of the property with the required 401, 404 and 1601 permits issued by Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27), and Addendum pages 5- 28 to 5-39 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 to 3-58). Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 8 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The former MCAS Tustin contained two National Register listed blimp hangars, and several concrete or asphalt blimp landing pads that were considered historically or culturally significant, pursuant to the federal Section 106 process conducted at the site. Through the Section 106 process, these facilities were identified as part of a discontiguous Historic District. The Navy, State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and Advisory Council executed a Memorandum of Agreement (attached as part of the EIS/EIR) with City of Tustin and County of Orange as invited signatories that allowed for the destruction of the blimp pads. The EIS/EIR noted that it may not be financially feasible to retain the blimp hangars and there may be irreversible significant impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The mitigation program for the hangars was fully implemented by the City. No portion of the previously existing blimp landing pads nor the existing blimp hangars are located within the project site boundary. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. One recorded archaeological site (CA -ORA -381) was identified within the Specific Plan area; however, as reported in the FEIS/EIR, this site was destroyed prior to 1971 (when archaeological surveys were first conducted at MCAS Tustin) during construction of two large concrete tanks. The FEIS/EIR indicated that CA -ORA -381 was the only recorded archaeological site within the Specific Plan area. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 9 significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 to 3-58). 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility and will be conditioned to meet grading and soil erosion requirements. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 10 The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. 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." The FEIS/EIR additionally found that the entire Specific Plan area has a high probability of liquefaction and expansive soils. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin also concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4-115 through 4-123 and 7-28 through 7-29) and Amendment Pages 5- 46 through 5-49 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 to 3-58). 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 11 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. 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, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four (4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within a flight approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft -related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is also not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state and local regulations concerning handling and use of household hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 12 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), MCAS Tustin Tustin General Plan. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The project design and construction of facilities to treat Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 13 drainage from the new parking lot site would be required as conditions of approval of the project and the Water Quality Management Plan submitted as part of the entitlement applications. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. The proposed project will also not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The project is not located within a 100 -year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map (2011) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Physically divide an established community? a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 14 plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. During the original entitlement in 2001, the facility was limited to a single person per room and therefore the occupancy was limited to 192 beds. This was reflected in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Following the 2001 approval, the facility undertook major modification and was determined that other ancillary uses such as health clinic, common areas, study rooms, counseling rooms and other support services areas were necessary and therefore the ground floor of each barrack buildings were converted. This modification resulted in a total of 128 rooms available for the homeless. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Specific 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. The proposed project complies with Planning Area 3's development standards for transitional housing uses as noted in Sections 3.3.4.D of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as identified by the adopted FEIS/EIR. No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 15 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. 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. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). XI. NOISE: Would the project: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 16 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. As conditioned, the increase in transitional housing capacity and new church use shall be conducted within the transitional housing facility and primarily indoors and will be conditioned to comply with noise standards. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 17 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3-162, 4-231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. In addition, historically, the Marine Corps housed 2-3 persons in each of the 192 rooms at the site, which is consistent with the proposed transitional housing capacity increase. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 18 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. The Village of Hope operates as a closed environment, with restricted access and egress for program participants, staff and visitors affecting the following public service area: Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations existing and planned in the area surrounding the site are adequate for 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. The proposed increase in transitional housing capacity is negligible and will not increase the need for police emergency and protection services. Schools. The increase in transitional housing capacity could result in occupancy by school age children. The proposed project is located within Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). However, the number of children generated by the existing capacity and proposed capacity increase will not significantly impact TUSD. The Reuse Plan provides for two 10 -acre elementary school sites and one 40 -acre high school site within the TUSD to address school needs associated with the build -out of the Reuse Plan. In addition, the TUSD is permitted to collect the statutory development fees allowed by State Law collected from the Orange County Rescue Mission. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 19 with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with FEIS/EIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to public services. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. 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 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. For parks and recreation, the Tustin General Plan standard for determining capacity is three acres per 1,000 population. Using this standard, approximately 37.5 acres of parkland would be required to support the projected on-site residential population at build -out of the Reuse Plan. The Reuse Plan provides for a new 85.5 -acre Regional Park, a 24 -acre Community Park and a number of regional and community riding and hiking paths through the property. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 20 The increase in capacity is negligible and can be accommodated in the planned parks and other recreational opportunities. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 21 The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The Village of Hope allows only certain residents to have personal vehicles at the facility if they meet specific criteria and have approval from the program administrators. The additional residents would be subject to these programmatic rules. In addition, the proposed church use would occur during off-peak hours and, as conditioned, will not generate traffic or parking impacts. According to the Specific Plan's Phasing Plan (Table 4-1), the Village of Hope was anticipated to create only 941 ADT, based on 192 rooms at the facility. The proposed transitional housing capacity increase will be accommodated within the existing 128 rooms currently used for resident rooms. Consequently, based upon the nature of the use and the program criteria in place, no traffic impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed capacity increase and ancillary church use. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Submitted Plans 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) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 22 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The Village of Hope facility was completed in 2007 with the required and necessary utilities to serve the site. No building improvements are proposed. Consequently, the existing utilities are sufficient to accommodate the proposed project. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 23 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEIS/EIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEIS/EIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154). Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 24 would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4299 Conditions of Approval GENERAL EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AMENDMENT TO CUP 01-030: TRANSITIONAL HOUSING DR 2015-022: NEW PARKING LOT 1 HOPE DRIVE The proposed use shall substantially conform to the project description and submitted plans for the project date stamped October 27, 2015, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code (TCC) and other applicable codes. (1) 1.2 This approval shall become null and void unless the use is established within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a written request and associated fee are received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.4 Approval of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 01-030 and Design Review (DR) 2015-022 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk -Recorder a "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 As a condition of approval of amendment to CUP 01-030 and DR 2015- 022, the applicant and property owner shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Tustin (the City), its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTIONS Resolution No. 4299 Exhibit B Page 2 other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant and/or property owner of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in the defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.6 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to TCC Section 1162(a). (1) 1.7 The applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney's fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.8 CUP 01-030 may be reviewed at any time by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with CUP 01-030 or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding tenants or neighborhood, the Community Development Director may impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts, or may initiate proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. *** 1.9 Approval of the subject projects shall be contingent on a successful transfer of ownership of the vacant parcel (APN 430-283-05) from the City to the applicant. ** 1.10 All applicable conditions of Resolution Nos. 3817 and 08-09 remain in effect. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING USE RESTRICTIONS *** 2.1 The maximum number of beds in the facility shall be 387, based on the 92 parking spaces provided on-site and sixteen (16) off-site parking spaces provided within the Advance Technology & Education Park (ATEP) site. If parking spaces within the ATEP parking lots are no longer available to the applicant, the applicant shall reduce its capacity to a maximum 324 beds or secure sixteen (16) off-site parking spaces in a manner reasonably acceptable to the City. The applicant shall notify the City if and when the ATEP parking lots are no longer available for use by the Village of Hope facility. (1) 2.2 If, in the future, the City determines that a parking or traffic problem exists on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the proposed project, Resolution No. 4299 Exhibit B Page 3 the Community Development Director may require the applicant to prepare a parking demand analysis or traffic study and the applicant and/or property owner shall bear all associated costs. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic problem, the applicant and/or property owner shall be required to provide measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department. Said measure may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Reduce the number of persons allowed in the facility at any given time. b. Provide additional parking. PLAN SUBMITTAL *** 3.1 The applicant shall relocate or otherwise replace trees removed as a result of parking lot construction at a ratio of 1:1. (1) 3.2 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the latest edition of the codes (building codes, Green Building Code), City Ordinances, State, Federal laws, and regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City. (1) 3.3 All private onsite design and construction of improvement work shall be designed and performed in accordance with the applicable portions of the City's "Grading Manual" and "Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drain and On -Site Private Improvements," except as otherwise approved by the Building Official. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Drive aisle paving; all drive aisles, and curb return radius shall be consistent with the City's design standards for private street improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Official, and all roadway and driveway widths and parking area widths (and lengths where appropriate) shall be dimensioned on the plans; B. Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connections to the public storm drain system with approval of the City; and, C. Underground utility connections: All new utility lines shall be placed underground by the developer. (1) 3.4 Parking lot lighting shall be installed to direct glare away from adjacent properties in compliance with the TCC. Resolution No. 4299 Exhibit B Page 4 *** 3.5 Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall execute deed restrictions or other acceptable documents, as stipulated in the Transfer Agreement, that ensure the VOH facility and the new parking lot are held as one (1) to accommodate the VOH facility. *** 3.6 Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall record an ingress and egress easement, or deed restriction as deemed appropriate by the City, allowing the parking lot parcel access through the existing driveway on the VOH parcel. nRnniNr. (1) 4.1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a final grading plan, prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted and approved. The grading plan shall be consistent with the approved site and landscaping plans. (1) 4.2 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a grading bond (on a form acceptable to the City) will be required. The engineer's estimate, which covers the cost of all work shown on the grading plan, including grading, drainage, water, sewer and erosion control, shall be submitted to the City for approval. (1) 4.3 The applicant shall comply with all City policies regarding short- term construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed fifteen (15) miles per hour. WATER QUALITY (1) 5.1 This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State, and Regional Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations. (1) 5.2 Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all work related to this development shall be required. (1) 5.3 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The WQMP shall identify Low Impact Development (LID) principles and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to retain storm water and treat predictable pollutant run-off. Structural BMPs identified in the WQMP shall be shown on the grading plan. Resolution No. 4299 Exhibit B Page 5 The WQMP shall identify the following: a. Implementation of BMPs. b. Assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessees, etc.). c. Reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. (5) 5.4 Prior to submittal of a WQMP, the applicant shall submit a deposit of $2,700.00 to the Public Works Department for the estimated cost of reviewing the WQMP. (1), 5.5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall record a (5) "Covenant and Agreement Regarding Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Qualitv BMPs. Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification" with the County Clerk -Recorder. This document shall bind current and future owner(s) of the property regarding implementation and maintenance of the structural and non- structural BMPs as specified in the approved WQMP. (1)3 5.6 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy (5) of the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Quality Control Board. SOLID WASTE RECYCLING (1), 6.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Reduction Plan (5) (WRRP). A. The applicant/contractor is required to submit a WRRP to the Public Works Department. The WRRP must indicate how the applicant will comply with the City's requirement (TCC Section 4351, et al) to recycle at least 50 percent of the project waste material or the amount required by the California Green Building Standards Code. B. The applicant will be required to submit a $50.00 application fee and a cash security deposit. Based on the review of the submitted Waste Management Plan, the cash security deposit in the amount of five (5) percent of the project's valuation as determined by the Building Official, rounded to the nearest thousand, or $2,500, whichever is greater. In no event shall a deposit exceed $25,000. Resolution No. 4299 Exhibit B Page 6 C. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit the required security deposit in the form of cash, cashier's check, personal check, or money order made payable to the "City of Tustin". FEES (1) 6.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of final approval of the project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above -noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. ATTACHMENT E Resolution No. 4300 RESOLUTION NO. 4300 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-18, ALLOWING AN ANCILLARY CHURCH USE WITH 276 SEATS OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE VILLAGE OF HOPE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITY LOCATED AT 1 HOPE DRIVE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by Jim Palmer, Orange County Rescue Mission, requesting to allow church use that is open to the public at the Village of Hope (VOH) transitional housing facility (facility), located at 1 Hope Drive. B. That the VOH facility is zoned Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan (SP1) District and has a General Plan Land Use designation of MCAS SP1. The VOH facility is within Planning Area 3 of Neighborhood A of SP1. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -element of the City of Tustin (the City) General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub -element. C. That pursuant to MCAS SP1 Section 3.3.4C, the Community Development Director has determined that ancillary church uses are conditionally permitted uses within the Transitional/Emergency Housing land use designation of the MCAS SP1. D. That on December 10, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3817, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 01-030, allowing the establishment of a transitional housing facility with 192 beds. That on January 2, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-09, approving an amendment to CUP 01-030 allowing the establishment of a 4,000 square -foot ancillary medical and dental clinic open to the public. E. That pursuant to MCAS SP1 Section 3.3.4C, the Director of Community Development has determined that ancillary church use is a conditionally permitted use within Planning Area 3. F. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for CUP 2015-18 on October 27, 20151 by the Planning Commission. G. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working Resolution No. 4300 Page 2 in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City in that: 1. Pursuant to MCAS SP1 Section 3.3.4C., the Community Development Director has determined that ancillary church use is conditionally permitted within Planning Area 3 of the MCAS SP1. 2. That, as conditioned, the proposed church is an ancillary use to the primary transitional housing use in that the church activities are on Sundays and weekday evenings. 3. That the Public Works Department has reviewed the project and determined the church's Sunday service will take place during off peak hours and that, as conditioned, the required onsite parking will be provided and impacts to traffic are not anticipated. 4. That, as conditioned, the proposed church use can be accommodated by the existing auditorium/chapel building (Building C) and the existing and proposed onsite parking lot in that the vehicles associated with the transitional housing facility shall be parked off-site in the Advanced Technology Education Park (ATEP) parking lots during Sunday church service. H. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR, along with its Addenda and Supplement, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist attached hereto as Exhibit A has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. Resolution No. 4300 Page 3 II. The Planning Commission hereby approves CUP 2015-18 to establish an ancillary church use open to the public at the VOH facility located at 1 Hope Drive, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit B, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 27th day of October, 2015. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting on the 27th day of October, 2015. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary JEFF R. THOMPSON Chairperson hereby certify that I am the Planning California; that Resolution No. 4300 was of the Tustin Planning Commission, held EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 4300 Environmental Checklist COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Amend Conditional Use Permit 01-030; Design Review 2015-022; and Conditional Use Permit 2015-18. Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Edmelynne Hutter Phone: (714) 573-3174 Project Location: 1 Hope Drive (Assessor parcel Number 430-283-02) and Assessor Parcel Number 430-283-05. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jim Palmer Orange County Rescue Mission Inc. 1 Hope Drive Tustin, CA 92782 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP 1) / Transitional/Emergency Housing and Education Village Project Description: Amend Conditional Use Permit 01-030 and Design Review 2015-022 to allow increasing transitional housing capacity from 192 beds to 387 beds and construct a new parking lot with 26 spaces; and Conditional Use Permit 2015-18 to allow ancillary church use open to the general public. Surrounding Uses: North: South Orange County Community College District Advance Technology Education Park (ATEP) East: ATEP Parking Lot South: ATEP Parking Lot West: Red Hill Avenue 0 C. Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the enviromnent, 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: Date: 10 2 1/6 Edmelynne Rutt Senior Planner ziv Date A10, 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 OUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have enviromnental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Village of Hope: Increase in capacity, new parking lot and new church use Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 01-030, Design Review 2015-022 and Conditional Use Permit 2015-18 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 Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan/MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the FEIS/EIR analyzed a multi-year development period for a planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the City of Tustin as lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (1-5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (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, 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 2 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is comprised of approximately 6.5 gross acres located within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy) boundaries affecting Planning Area 3 and 1-H. The project site is bounded by Lansdowne Avenue to the east, Hope Drive to the south, Red Hill Avenue to the west, and Valencia Avenue to the north within Neighborhood A, MCAS -Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Generally the applications can be described as follows: • Amendment of Conditional Use Permit 01-030: A request to increase the transitional housing capacity from 192 beds to 387 beds within the existing 128 rooms currently used as transitional housing. • Design Review 2015-022: A Design Review project for the construction of a new approximately 12,000 square -foot parking lot with twenty-six (26) spaces to serve the Village of Hope site and located on an existing vacant parcel known as Assessor Parcel No. 430- 283-05. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-18: A Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a church use, that is open to the public, within the existing auditorium/chapel (Building A) at the Village of Hope facility. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that this Project is within the scope of the Prior Environmental Review and that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), there are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, or any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Prior Environmental Review was certified showing that: (1) the project will have any new significant effects; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible will now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 3 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? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The original FEIR/EIS evaluated aesthetic impacts of redevelopment of the property and the proposed project would result in similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. The only significant visual impact identified in the FEIS/EIR was the potential loss of both blimp hangars which would change existing foreground, middleground, and background views. The development of a support use of a parking lot within Planning Area 1-H will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site. The parking lot use would service the existing transitional housing facility and would be primarily constructed outside the landscape setbacks, which maintain the visual buffer between the street and the proposed parking lot. The proposal includes a Design Review application, which requires that the Planning Commission ensure the design of the project, if approved, is found to be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section 2.17.3(B) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 4 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 Supplemental documents; and applicable measures will be required to be complied with as conditions of entitlement approvals (including design review associated with landscaping and compliance with development regulations for setbacks) for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans for Design Review FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-58 through 3- 67) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2-115 though 2-169, Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The proposed parking lot will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract or involve or cause changes in the environment resulting in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 5 measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related impacts to farmland were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83 through 3-87, 4-109 through 114) and Addendums (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. As documented in the FEIS/EIR, the project is part of a larger reuse project at Tustin Legacy that was projected to result in air quality impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The site is an existing transitional housing facility with 128 rooms. The project applicant proposes to increase bed capacity within the existing 128 rooms, which was assumed in the original analysis and construct a new parking lot, which will be conditioned to meet air quality control measures. Therefore, no significant impact beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIS/EIR is anticipated. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 6 environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and infeasible 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 Submitted Plans 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) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 7 The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The proposed parking lot site is currently graded and contains no natural biological resources or habitat. The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan/MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project) could impact the southwestern pond turtle and/or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. The overall Specific Plan area has been surveyed, and turtles were captured and moved off the site to another location as directed and overseen by the California Department of Fish and Game in 2004. Since that time, all former Marine Corps base drainage channels in the area were removed and graded by the former owner of the property with the required 401, 404 and 1601 permits issued by Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27), and Addendum pages 5- 28 to 5-39 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 to 3-58). Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 8 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The former MCAS Tustin contained two National Register listed blimp hangars, and several concrete or asphalt blimp landing pads that were considered historically or culturally significant, pursuant to the federal Section 106 process conducted at the site. Through the Section 106 process, these facilities were identified as part of a discontiguous Historic District. The Navy, State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and Advisory Council executed a Memorandum of Agreement (attached as part of the EIS/EIR) with City of Tustin and County of Orange as invited signatories that allowed for the destruction of the blimp pads. The EIS/EIR noted that it may not be financially feasible to retain the blimp hangars and there may be irreversible significant impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The mitigation program for the hangars was fully implemented by the City. No portion of the previously existing blimp landing pads nor the existing blimp hangars are located within the project site boundary. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. One recorded archaeological site (CA -ORA -381) was identified within the Specific Plan area; however, as reported in the FEIS/EIR, this site was destroyed prior to 1971 (when archaeological surveys were first conducted at MCAS Tustin) during construction of two large concrete tanks. The FEIS/EIR indicated that CA -ORA -381 was the only recorded archaeological site within the Specific Plan area. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 9 significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 to 3-58). 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility and will be conditioned to meet grading and soil erosion requirements. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 10 The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. 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." The FEIS/EIR additionally found that the entire Specific Plan area has a high probability of liquefaction and expansive soils. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin also concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4-115 through 4-123 and 7-28 through 7-29) and Amendment Pages 5- 46 through 5-49 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 to 3-58). 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 11 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. 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, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four (4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within a flight approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft -related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is also not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state and local regulations concerning handling and use of household hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 12 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), MCAS Tustin Tustin General Plan. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The project design and construction of facilities to treat Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 13 drainage from the new parking lot site would be required as conditions of approval of the project and the Water Quality Management Plan submitted as part of the entitlement applications. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. The proposed project will also not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The project is not located within a 100 -year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map (2011) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Physically divide an established community? a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 14 plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. During the original entitlement in 2001, the facility was limited to a single person per room and therefore the occupancy was limited to 192 beds. This was reflected in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Following the 2001 approval, the facility undertook major modification and was determined that other ancillary uses such as health clinic, common areas, study rooms, counseling rooms and other support services areas were necessary and therefore the ground floor of each barrack buildings were converted. This modification resulted in a total of 128 rooms available for the homeless. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Specific 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. The proposed project complies with Planning Area 3's development standards for transitional housing uses as noted in Sections 3.3.4.D of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as identified by the adopted FEIS/EIR. No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 15 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. 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. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). XI. NOISE: Would the project: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 16 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. As conditioned, the increase in transitional housing capacity and new church use shall be conducted within the transitional housing facility and primarily indoors and will be conditioned to comply with noise standards. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 17 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3-162, 4-231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. In addition, historically, the Marine Corps housed 2-3 persons in each of the 192 rooms at the site, which is consistent with the proposed transitional housing capacity increase. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 18 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 3, which contemplates the development of 192 -room transitional housing units in total. The Village of Hope operates as a closed environment, with restricted access and egress for program participants, staff and visitors affecting the following public service area: Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations existing and planned in the area surrounding the site are adequate for 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. The proposed increase in transitional housing capacity is negligible and will not increase the need for police emergency and protection services. Schools. The increase in transitional housing capacity could result in occupancy by school age children. The proposed project is located within Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). However, the number of children generated by the existing capacity and proposed capacity increase will not significantly impact TUSD. The Reuse Plan provides for two 10 -acre elementary school sites and one 40 -acre high school site within the TUSD to address school needs associated with the build -out of the Reuse Plan. In addition, the TUSD is permitted to collect the statutory development fees allowed by State Law collected from the Orange County Rescue Mission. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 19 with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with FEIS/EIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to public services. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. 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 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. For parks and recreation, the Tustin three acres per 1,000 population. parkland would be required to supl build -out of the Reuse Plan. The F Park, a 24 -acre Community Park ar hiking paths through the property. General Plan standard for determining capacity is Using this standard, approximately 37.5 acres of ort the projected on-site residential population at euse Plan provides for a new 85.5 -acre Regional d a number of regional and community riding and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 20 The increase in capacity is negligible and can be accommodated in the planned parks and other recreational opportunities. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 21 The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The Village of Hope allows only certain residents to have personal vehicles at the facility if they meet specific criteria and have approval from the program administrators. The additional residents would be subject to these programmatic rules. In addition, the proposed church use would occur during off-peak hours and, as conditioned, will not generate traffic or parking impacts. According to the Specific Plan's Phasing Plan (Table 4-1), the Village of Hope was anticipated to create only 941 ADT, based on 192 rooms at the facility. The proposed transitional housing capacity increase will be accommodated within the existing 128 rooms currently used for resident rooms. Consequently, based upon the nature of the use and the program criteria in place, no traffic impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed capacity increase and ancillary church use. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Submitted Plans 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) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 22 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project is for the increase in transitional housing capacity, construction of a new parking lot and establishment of a church use within the existing transitional housing facility. The site is an existing transitional housing facility, which was originally included in the analysis for the FEIS/EIR. The Village of Hope facility was completed in 2007 with the required and necessary utilities to serve the site. No building improvements are proposed. Consequently, the existing utilities are sufficient to accommodate the proposed project. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 23 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEIS/EIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEIS/EIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154). Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to CUP 01-030, new CUP 2015-18, DR 2015-022 Page 24 would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. EXHIBIT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 4300 Conditions of Approval GENERAL EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CUP 2015-18: CHURCH USE 1 HOPE DRIVE The proposed use shall substantially conform to the project description and submitted plans for the project date stamped October 27, 2015, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code (TCC) and other applicable codes. (1) 1.2 This approval shall become null and void unless the use is established within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a written request and associated fee are received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.4 Approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-18 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk - Recorder a "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 As a condition of approval of CUP 2015-18, the applicant and property owner shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant and/or property owner of any such claim or action filed against the City SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTIONS Resolution No. 4300 Exhibit B Page 2 and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in the defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.6 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to TCC Section 1162(x). (1) 1.7 The applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney's fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.8 CUP 2015-18 may be reviewed at any time by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with CUP 2015-18, or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding tenants or neighborhood, the Community Development Director may impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts, or may initiate proceedings to revoke the CUP. *** 1.9 Approval of the subject project shall be contingent on a successful transfer of ownership of the vacant parcel (APN 430-283-05) from the City to the applicant. *** 1.10 Approval of the subject project shall be contingent on the Planning Commission approving Design Review 2015-002 allowing the construction of a new parking lot with twenty-six (26) spaces. CHURCH USE RESTRICTIONS 2.1 The church use, which will be open to the general public, at the Village of Hope (VOH) transitional housing facility (facility) shall be ancillary to the primary transitional housing use and limited to the following schedule: Sunday worship service: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Weekday activities: 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Modifications to the above schedule shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. *** 2.2 Approval for the church use shall be limited to the assembly room in Building C with maximum 276 seats and shall provide a minimum ninety- two (92) parking spaces onsite for church use. Resolution No. 4300 Exhibit B Page 3 *** 2.3 A minimum ninety-two (92) parking spaces shall be available onsite for the priority use by church patrons during worship service. Church patrons shall park personal vehicles within the VOH facility parking lots. The residents and employees of the VOH facility campus shall park personal and company vehicles within the off-site parking lots during Sunday worship service as needed to accommodate the church patrons. (1) 2.4 All church activities shall be located entirely within the VOH facility. No congregation and/or loitering in the parking areas or walkways are allowed in association with the use. (1) 2.5 Temporary directional and informational signs shall comply with the City Sign Code. No permanent signs or other permanent forms of advertising or attraction for the church use may be placed on the site without approval from the Community Development Department. *** 2.6 If parking spaces within the ATEP site are no longer available to the applicant, the applicant shall cease providing church worship services to the general public or secure ninety-two (92) off-site parking spaces in a manner acceptable to the City. (1) 2.7 If in the future the City determines that a parking, traffic, or noise problem exists on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the proposed project, the Community Development Director may require the applicant to prepare a parking demand analysis, traffic study, or noise analysis and the applicant shall bear all associated costs. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic or noise problem, the applicant shall be required to provide measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department. Said measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Establish alternative hours of operation. b. Reduce the number of persons allowed in the facility at any given time. c. Provide noise attenuation. FEES (1) 3.1 Within forty-eight (48) hours of final approval of the project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period Resolution No. 4300 Exhibit B Page 4 that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above -noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.