Loading...
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