HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3883RESOLUTION NO. 3883
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT FINDINGS THAT
THE MCAS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MCAS TUSTIN
PROGRAM EIS/EIR) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT
EIS/EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16507, AND FINDING
THAT THE MCAS PROGRAM EIS/EIR (MCAS TUSTIN PROGRAM
EIS/EIR) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR
THE CONCEPT PLAN 03-002, DESIGN REVIEW 03-018, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-016; APPLICABLE MITIGATION
MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
That Concept Plan 03-002, Tentative Tract Map 16507, Design Review
03-018, and Conditional Use Permit 03-016 are considered "projects"
pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and,
That the MCAS Tustin Final Program EIS/EIR previously certified on
January 16, 2001, was considered through an Initial Study checklist for
this Project. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
find Tentative Tract Map 16507 is within the scope of the previously
approved MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR and hereby finds Design Review 03-
018, Conditional Use Permit 03-016, and Concept Plan 03-002 are within
the scope of the previously approved MCAS Tustin Specific Plan based on
an Initial Study checklist evaluation attached as Exhibit A, as well as the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan previously approved by the City Council on
February 3, 2003 with adoption of Ordinance No. 1257; the effects of the
project relating to all environmental impact issues were examined in the
MCAS FEIS/EIR. The applicable mitigation measures developed in the
MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR are incorporated into DDA 03-03 (Parcel 34) or
will be conditions of entitlement approvals (Concept Plan 03-002,
Tentative Tract Map 16507, Design Review 03-018, and Conditional Use
Permit 03-016); and,
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find for
Tentative Tract Map 16507 and hereby finds for Concept Plan 03-002,
Design Review 03-018, and Conditional Use Permit 03-016 that the
environmental effects of the project are within the scope of the MCAS
Tustin FEIS/EIR and were fully examined in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR;
Resolution No. 3883
Page 2
no substantial changes are proposed in the Project or have occurred with
respect to circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken
since certification of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR; no new information has
become available since the certification of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR,
and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2116, and the
requirements of CEQA regulations promulgated with respect thereto
including Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and
15168(c) no additional environmental analysis, action or document is
required by the CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a
regular meeting on the 25th day of August, 2003.
." I. JNDA C. JENNINGS/, '
.... ' .... Chairperson
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that
Resolution No. 3883 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of August, 2003.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT A
Of Resolution No. 3883
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3883
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin
This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution
No. 3883) takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of
the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to
Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s): Development of 189 residential units in Planning Area 21
Lead Agency:
City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi
Phone: (714) 573-3126
Project Location:
Planning Area 21, MCAS-Tustin Specific Plan, bounded by Edinger Avenue on
the north, the City of Irvine medium high density and medium density residential
district and Harvard Avenue on the east, Jamboree Road on the west, and existing
former military housing on the south.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
John Laing Homes
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92612
General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Zoning Designation:
Low Density Residential (LDR), Planning Area 21
Project Description: Approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the City
of Tustin and John Laing Homes for conveyance of 36.84 acres and Concept Plan 03-002, Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 16507, Design Review 03-018, Conditional Use Permit 03-016 for the purpose of
developing 189 residential units including 138 single family detached and 51 patio homes within the
site.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Edinger Avenue, Residential
East: City of Irvine, Medium High Density Residential
South: Existing Former Military Family Housing
West: Jamboree Road
Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine
Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council
on January 16, 2001.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
[--]Land Use and Planning
~--]Population and Housing
[~Geology and Soils
[--]Hydrology and Water Quality
[~]Air Quality
[--]Transportation & Circulation
[--]Biological Resources
[--]Mineral Resources
[~Agricultural Resources
C. DETERMINATION:
[~Hazards and Hazardous Materials
[-~Noise
[--]Public Services
[~Utilities and Service Systems
[--]Aesthetics
I-]Cultural Resources
[--]Recreation
["~Mandatory Findings of
Significance
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparer: ~~~
Minoo Ashabi, As~n~ate Planner
Date:
Christine A. Shingleton, AssiSt City Manager
Date
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
Date
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See A~ached
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: W3aere available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
New More
Significant Severe
Impact Impacts
No Substantial
Change From
Previous
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 ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department 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 resoumes, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
New More
Significant Severe
Impact Impacts
No Substantial
Change From
Previous
Analysis
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ora
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
New More
Significant Severe
Impact Impacts
No Substantial
Change From
Previous
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 con~'ibute 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?
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
[]
[]
No Substantial
Change From
Previous
Analysis
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resoume 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
groundbome 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 infi-astructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
New More
Significant Severe
Impact Impacts
No Substantial
Change From
Previous
Analysis
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] []
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
No Substantial
Change From
Previous
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?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
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 fi.om existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
No Substantial
Change From
Previous
Analysis
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
ATTACHMENT 1 OF EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3883
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16507, CONCEPT PLAN 03-002, DESIGN REVIEW 03-018,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-016
PLANNING AREA 21 - MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
BACKGROUND
The former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially closed on July 2, 1999 as a
result of recommendations of the Federal Base Closure and Realignment Commission. The City
was designated as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the reuse of MCAS Tustin and,
acting as such, approved a Reuse Plan that provided for future land uses at the former MCAS Tustin
on October 1996 and subsequently amended on September 1998 ("the Reuse Plan"). The Reuse Plan
was subsequently reviewed and approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as consistent with federal law regarding the homeless.
In accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") of 1969, as
amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the federal government and
City prepared a Joint Final Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin
certified the Final Joint Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
for the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin (referenced as FEIS/EIR herein).
The project is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, part of the approximately 1,153 acres
agreed to be conveyed to the City by the Department of the Navy for redevelopment of the
former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). On'May 13, 2002, 977 acres were conveyed to the
City and 176 acres were leased to the City.
The project site is comprised of 36.84 acres owned by the City and located within a portion of
Planning Area 21 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project site is bounded by Edinger
Avenue on the north, the City of medium density and medium high density residential district
and Harvard Avenue on the east, Jamboree Road on the west, and existing former military
housing on the south. Access to the site is currently provided from Moffett Avenue.
The proposed project would develop 189 units as follows:
Single Family Detached
Patio Homes Detached
138 Units
51 Units
Total 189 Units
In accordance with the requirements of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.9.3 (J), forty
(40) affordable units (19 moderate-income, 10 low income, and 11 very low income) are
required to be dispersed throughout the site. The affordable units would be located in the patio
home units in the center of the site.
The project includes development of a 1.7-acre recreational site including a minimum one (1)
acre public recreational area and facility improvements for which parkland credit will be
provided in accordance with the requirements of the Quimby Act and the City's Subdivision
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CLIP 03-016
Page 2
requirements. Access to the public park site would be provided by public access easements from
two entry points to the site with recordation of an easement on Tentative Tract Map 16507. A
portion of the site would also include private amenities available to the residents of the
development.
As part of the analysis of the MCAS Tustin FEIR/EIS for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan,
Planning Area 21 was identified as a Low Density Residential (LDR) site, with a development
potential of 1-7 dwelling units per acre. There were 711 existing units within Planning Area 21
(Table 3-1, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan). At the time, rehabilitation of these units were
considered and therefore the total number of 711 units was included in the land use analysis
included in the MCAS Tustin FEIR/EIS for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Planning Area 21 includes 95.5 net acres with potential development of maximum 668 units at 7
units per acre. The net area of the project site is 27-acres that would allow development of 189
units in this site at 7 traits per acre, consistent with the FEIS/E1R analysis. All related
environmental impacts were addressed in the FEIS/EIR and implementation and mitigation
measures were incorporated into the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, which are included in the DDA
or with conditions of approval for the other entitlement portions of the project as identified in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix (Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883).
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the
Environmental Analysis Checklist.
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The project
would be consistent with the permitted uses identified within the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan. Development of low-density residential units within Planning Area 21 was
considered within the FEIS/EIR and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site when
mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR are incorporated with approval of the
project. All exterior design is required to be in compliance with Section 2.17.3(A) - Urban
Design Guidelines for Residential Development of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and the
Landscape Concept Section 3.17.2 as they relate to design of Harvard Avenue south of
Edinger Avenue, Edinger Avenue from Jamboree Road to Harvard, Moffett Drive, and
primary street comers and project entries. Since the site is bounded by two arterials, the
Landscape/Screening standards noted in Section 3.11.12. The proposal includes a design
review, which requires that the design of the project is cohesive and in harmony with
surrounding uses. All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CUP 03-016
Page 3
night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section
2.17.3 (A) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The
proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts
previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR as identified in the Mitigation and Implementation Measures
matrix (Attachment 2); these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the
project.
Sources:
Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-152 to 2-175, 3-146)
Tustin Security Ordinance
Tustin General Plan
II.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
The project would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide
importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Famdand Managing and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. Also, the
property is not zoned for aghcultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the
proposed use involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The project site is not zoned or used as
agricultural land; consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis
previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources:
Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (Page 3-84)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Tusfin General Plan
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CUP 03-016
Page 4
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?
As documented in the FEIS/EIR, the project is part of larger project that was projected to
result in air quality impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was
adopted by the Tusfin City Council on January 16, 2001. Since the project will construct
189 units on an area that previously contained 278 units and will result in less density than
previously existed on the site, all environmental impacts related to development of the
Specific Plan were considered in the adopted FEIS/EIR. The project would not add any
impacts beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIS/EIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the
Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that
Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully
mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the
Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001.
Sources:
Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143
through153, 4-207 through 4-230 and pages 7-41 through 7-42)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
Tustin General Plan
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a)
h)
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?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CLIP 03-016
Page 5
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?
The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal
species. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the
analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR determined that implementation
of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project) could
impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on
jurisdictional waters/wetlands. The project site is not located in an area that would affect the
southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No
substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources:
Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-
82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
Tustin General Plan
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CUP 03-016
Page 6
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?
Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In
1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all
open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources.
Although one archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan
area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buffed
archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly
impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of a mitigation measures
that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced
to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously
completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the 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)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
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?
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CLIP 03-016
Page 7
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
The FEIS/EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of
the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would "include non-seismic hazards (such
as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and
mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground
shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding
associated with dam failure." However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin concluded that
compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established
engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of
significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for
development of the project f~om the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin.
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)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
Tustin General Plan
b)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: -Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
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)
d)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Attachment 1 o f Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CLIP 03-016
Page 8
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions at the property. In addition, construction and residential uses would not emit
hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Navy has
approved a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) determining that the Quitclaim
portions of the project are suitable for reuse as planned within the Reuse Plan for MCAS
Tustin and as shown in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. In addition, the project site is
located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least
four (4) miles tYom John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within an flight approach or
departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future
residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area.
Compliance with all federal, state and local regulations concerning handling and use of these
hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No
substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing
roles 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)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154)
Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), MCAS Tustin
Tustin General Plan.
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CUP 03-016
Page 9
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 includes construction of 189 residential units that would increase
runoff. However, the project will not result in additional impacts beyond what was analyzed
in the adopted FEIS/EIR. The project design and construction of facilities to fully contain
drainage of the site would be required as conditions of approval of the project. No long-term
impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. The
proposed projects will not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow
aquifer. The proposed project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of
historic drainage pattems at the site. The project is not located within a lO0-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
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CUP 03-016
Page 10
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 fxom the analysis
previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
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)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154)
FEMA Map (August 9, 2002)
Tustin General Plan
IX.
LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Reuse Plan for the
former base, such as land use designations, zoning categories, recreation and open space
areas, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infxastmcture systems.
On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council approved the Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin
that established land use and development standards for development of the site. The
proposed project meets the density requirements of Table 3-2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan and development standards of Planning Area 21 as they relate to Single Family
Residential Units and Patio Homes as noted in Sections 3.9.4 of MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of
significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with
any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS
Tustin.
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.
Sources: Field Observation
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CUP 03-016
Page 11
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3
to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
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?
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 t~om the analysis
previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Require& No mitigation is required.
Sources:
Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
Tustin General Plan
XI. NOISE: Would the project:
a)
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
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?
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CUP 03-016
Page 12
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project could result in implementation activities that generate noise. The
FEIS/EIR indicates that full build-out of the base will create noise impacts that would be
considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors would exceed those
considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the Noise
Elements of the Tustin General Plan. No substantial change is expected from the analysis
previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. However, the City of
Tusfin will ensure that construction activities comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and
the housing units are designed with adequate noise attenuation (i.e., window design, sound
walls) to meet the allowable noise levels as required by Tustin City Code for residential use.
The project would be sound attenuated against present and projected noise so as not to
exceed an exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior
standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms to reduce noise-related impacts to a level of
insignificance. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations
and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid
unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval
for the project.
Sources:
Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3-162,
4-231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
Tustin General Plan
POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
b)
c)
The proposed project would construct 189 new residential units on a site that includes 278
existing military housing units that have been vacant since mid-1997. The current condition
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CUP 03-016
Page 13
of the housing requires significant improvements prior to occupation. The proposed project
will not displace people or necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The
proposed number of residential units is consistent with the density than was previously
considered in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. The project will remove vacant military
housing units; however, it is anticipated that the total number of units for Planning Area 21
upon completion of the entire planning area would be consistent with the number of units
considered in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tusfin. No substantial change is expected bom the
analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources:
Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4-
14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tusfin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
Tusfin General Plan
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
The site contains military housing which has been vacant since mid-1997. Development of
the site would require public services such as fire and police protection services, schools,
libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails.
Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County
Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding demolition, construction materials and
methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems,
building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would
reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire
protection services to the site. The number of fire stations in the areas surrounding the
site will meet the demands created by the proposed project.
Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of
resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Development of
the site would increase the need for police protection services. The developer as a condition
of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to
ensure that adequate security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access,
address signage are implemented in the project at plan check.
Schools. The proposed project is located within Irvine Unified School District (IUSD).
The implementation of the Reuse Plan would provide for a 20-acre school site to 1USD to
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CLIP 03-016
Page 14
serve the growing student population within its district. As a condition of approval for the
project, the developer would be required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of
the building permit.
Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only
result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This
relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of
10,000 square feet for a branch library and would not trigger the need for a new facility.
General Implementation Requirements: To support development in the reuse plan area, the
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent
with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with FEIS/EIR
implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council.
No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval
for the project.
Sources:
Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-
56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
Tustin General Plan
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
The Reuse Plan provides for a new 84.5-acre Regional Park, a 24-acre Community Park and
three (3) Neighborhood Parks of more than five-acres, and five (5) community riding and
hiking paths through the property connecting to the regional bikeway/trail system, a
privately owned 159-acre golf course, play areas associated with schools, and child care
facilities.
Since the Reuse Plan process included public conveyance of approximately 35 acres of city
parks and 85 acres of Urban Regional Park, individual developers were relieved of the
requirement to dedicate land for park purposes. However, pursuant to the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan, the developers are required to provide in-lieu fees or public accessible park
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CLIP 03-016
Page 15
space (where approved by the City). This requirement will be included in the conditions of
approval for the project.
The proposed project would not generate an increase in the use of existing neighborhood
parks since a park s~te would be included in the site. However a negligible increase in the
use of regional parks or other recreational facilities may be experienced prior to
development of the entire MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Consequently, no substantial
change is expected fi'om the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS
Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the. FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval
for the project.
Sources:
Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56
to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tusfin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154)
Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Department
Tustin General Plan
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The project site is accessed from Edinger Avenue and Moffett Drive. Internal circulation
of the site would be managed through private streets designed in compliance with the
roadway standards of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 2.5.2(B) related to major
arterials and private streets standards.
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CLIP 03-016
Page 16
The FEIS/EIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created
through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan. A projected 216,445 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by full
redevelopment of the base by year 2020 that, if left unmitigated, would overburden
existing roadways and intersections surrounding the base property. The FEIS/EIR
indicates that traffic circulation activities at MCAS Tustin generated a baseline of 12,400
ADT when the base was fully operational (1993). As a military facility, the FEIS/EIR
considered the traffic impact and developed a mitigation program to reduce potential
impacts to a level of insignificance. This site will be conditioned to participate in its fair
share responsibility for both on-site and off-site circulation mitigation and implementation
measures. In addition, construction activities are required to be meet all Transportation
related FEIS/EIR Implementation and Mitigation Measures (e.g., lane closures, street/utility
construction, construction vehicle traffic, etc.). The FEIS/EIR implementation and
mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to the traffic and circulation system to a
level of insignificance. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis
previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City
Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for
the project.
Sources:
Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (Pages 3-118 through 3-
142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-41)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
Tustin General Plan
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CLIP 03-016
Page 17
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?
t) 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 FEIR/EIR analyzed low-density residential development on the proposed site, which
is consistent with the proposed project. Development of the site would require on-site
improvements and off-site infrastructure improvements to utilities and roadway systems,
including final design and construction of Moffett Avenue from Harvard Avenue to
Peters Canyon Wash Bridge. Improvements to Moffett'Avenue would include design
and installation of a Class II bike trail, a new domestic water line if required by the Irvine
Ranch Water District, a new brine line, a new reclaimed water line if required by the
Irvine Ranch Water District, a new sanitary sewer line if required by the Irvine Ranch
Water District, a storm drain with adequate capacity to accommodate runoff from the
proposed development, and new backbone underground dry utilities (electric, gas, cable
TV, telephone, etc). In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal,
state, and local standards for design of wastewater treatment. The number of proposed
units can be supported by the lrvine Ranch Water District for domestic water and sewer
services. Improvements to Peters Canyon Channel will be installed at a later date
through an implementation agreement between City of Tustin and the Orange County
Flood Control District (OCFCD) as previously required by the adopted FEIS/EIR. No
substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval
for the project.
Sources:
Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3-
46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154).
Tustin General Plan
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CUP 03-016
Page 18
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to
decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of
FEIS/EIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council,
the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause
substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed
project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of
the former MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with
adoption of the FEIS/EIR. 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:
Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11)
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 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
would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3883
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TT 16507, DR 03-18, CLIP 03-016
Page 19
to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered
and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding
Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 and shall apply to the proposed
project, as applicable.
S:\Cdd~VlINOOhMCAS Tustin~Planning Area 21- Tract 16507XJLH-PA 2 t-Initial Study-analysis.doc