Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 CIP NO 7139 LEGACY 09-20-04 AGENDA REPORT Agenda Item 6 Reviewed: rt City Manager Finance Director MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 FROM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION TO: SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE PHASE I TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (VALENCIA NORTH LOOP ROAD, ARMSTRONG AVENUE, LANSDOWNE ROAD, SEVERYNS ROAD, AND WEST CONNECTOR ROAD) (CIP NO. 7139) SUMMARY The plans and specifications for the Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project (Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Lansdowne Road, Severyns Road and West Connector Road) (CIP No. 7139) have been prepared and the project is now ready to be bid. The Project proposes to construct street, traffic signal, parkway, sidewalk, storm drain, water, reclaimed water, sewer, and dry utility backbone infrastructure improvements on Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Lansdowne Road, Severyns Road, and West Connector Road. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following Resolutions: 1. Resolution No. 04-81, approving the finding pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2116 and Section 15168(c) of State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines that the Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project is within the scope of the Final Joint Program MCAS Environmental Impact Statement! Environmental Impact Report (MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR), that no new environmental document is required, and that applicable mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project. 2. Resolution No. 04-82, approving the plans and specifications for the Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project (Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Lansdowne Road, Severyns Road, and West Connector Road) (CIP No. 7139) and authorizing and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project (Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Lansdowne Road, Severyns Road and West Connector Road) (CIP No. 7139) September 20, 2004 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The engineer's construction cost estimate to complete this work is $24,000,000. The City is currently working with Lennar Homes to develop a reimbursement agreement to fund this project. The City is also working with the Irvine Ranch Water District to prepare a reimbursement agreement for the project's water, sewer, and reclaimed water facilities. Costs for certain portions of the dry utility system will be reimbursed, as allowed under California Public Utilities Commission rules. BACKGROUND The proposed Project will construct street, traffic signal, parkway, sidewalk, storm drain, water, reclaimed water, sewer, and dry utility backbone infrastructure improvements on Valencia North Loop Road from Redhill Avenue to West Connector Road; on West Connector Road from Valencia North Loop Road to Edinger Avenue; and on Lansdowne Road from Valencia North Loop Road to the end of the cul-de-sac. Construction on Severyns Road will be limited to the intersection improvements at Valencia North Loop Road, with the extension of Severyns Road to be constructed by Lennar Homes at a later date. The Project will also include construction of the street, storm drain, water, sewer and reclaimed water line on Armstrong Avenue between Valencia North Loop Road and Warner Avenue, with only the sewer and water improvements being constructed between Warner Avenue and Barranca Parkway. Backbone dry utilities, including gas, electric, telephone and cable, will be constructed underground in conjunction with all street improvements. An environmental Checklist was prepared for the Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project that evaluated the Project in light of the MCAS Tustin Final Joint Program EIS/EIR ("MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR") certified by the City on January 16, 2001, and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Report Program for the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR. The Checklist was prepared to determine compliance with CEQA requirements and to determine whether any additional environmental documentation is required in conjunction with approval of the Project. Based upon findings in the environmental Checklist, the environmental effects of the Project are within the scope of the previously approved and certified MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR. The environmental effects of the Project were fully examined in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR. No substantial changes are proposed in the Project and no substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken since the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR was certified. No new information has become available since the certification of the MCCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR. Therefore, no additional environmental analysis, action, or documentation is required by the CEQA. All applicable mitigation measures described in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Report for the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR are incorporated into this Project. Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project (Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Lansdowne Road, Severyns Road and West Connector Road) (CIP No. 7139) September 20, 2004 Page 3 The tentative schedule for the project is as follows: Authorization to advertise for bids ................................................. 09/20/2004 First Legal Advertisement..............................................................09/30/2004 Second Legal Advertisement......................................................... 10/15/2004 Bid Opening ................................................................................... 11/02/2004 Award of Contract..........................................................................11/15/2004 Start Construction .......................................................................... 12/13/2004 Complete Construction .................................................................. 07/01/2006 ~;f~ fÚ,e. Tim D. Serlet ' Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~,"R.~ Engineering Services Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 04-81 with Exhibit A and Attachment 1 Resolution No. 04-82 Location Map S:\City Councilltems\2004 CouncilltemslApproval of P&S Valencia & Armstrong Project & Reso 04-82.doc RESOLUTION NO. 04-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2116 AND SECTION 15168(C) OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, PHASE I TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (VALENCIA NORTH LOOP ROAD, ARMSTRONG AVENUE, LANSDOWNE ROAD, SEVERYNS ROAD, AND WEST CONNECTOR ROAD) (CIP NO. 7139) IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE FINAL JOINT PROGRAM MCAS TUSTIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MCAS TUSTIN FEIS/EIR); THAT NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED; AND THAT APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project (Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Lansdowne Road, Severyns Road, and West Connector Road) (CIP No. 7139) is considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; B. That the Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement!Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program for the FEIS/EIR was approved and certified by the City Council on January 16, 2001. The FEIS/EIR considered the potential impacts associated with the construction of new roadway and infrastructure to support redevelopment at the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, including the construction of the Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project; C. That an Environmental Analysis Checklist (Exhibit A) was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the Project. The Environmental Analysis Checklist demonstrates that all potential impacts of the Project were addressed by the certified FEIS/EIR; that no additional impacts have been identified; and, that all applicable mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR will be implemented through the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program approved by the Tustin City Council with the certification of the FEIS/EIR and, as applicable, have been incorporated into bid documents and specifications. The City Council hereby finds that the Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project CIP No. 7139 is within the previously approved and certified FEIS/EIR; that the environmental effects of the project were fully examined in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR; that 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; that no new information has become available since the certification of II. Resolution No. 04-81 Page 2 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); and, no additional environmental analysis, action or document is required by the CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 20th day of September 2004. Tony Kawashima, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-81 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 StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (EISIEIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts (Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04- 81) 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 ofthe earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Lead Agency: Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project (Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Lansdowne, Severyns, and West Connector Roadway and Infrastructure Project) City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Project Location: Dana Ogdon Phone: (714) 573-3] 16 Reuse Disposal Parcel 40 at the former MCAS-Tustin, located northerly of Barranca Parkway, easterly of Red Hill Avenue, southerly of Edinger Avenue, and westerly of the future extension of Tustin Ranch Road. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin Public Works Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Project Description: Surrounding Uses: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan SP-1 Specific Plan Demolition, grading, and construction of new roadways, sanitary sewers, stonn drains, reclaimed water lines, domestic water lines, traffic signal systems, signing and striping improvements within "Tustin Legacy". North, West, South and East: Existing former MCAS Tustin Airfield Facilities Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact StatementiEnvironmentallmpact Report (Program FEIS/E1R) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #9407]005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16,2001. B. 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. OLand Use and Planning DPopulation and Housing DGeology and Soils DHydrology and Water Quality DAir Quality OTransportation & Circulation OBiological Resources DMineral Resources OAgricultural Resources OHazards and Hazardous Materials DNoise DPublic Services DUtilities and Service Systems DAesthetics DCultural Resources ORecreation DMandatory Findings of Significance c. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 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. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 1 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 ana]ysis 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 on]y the effects that remain to be addressed. ~ 1 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. 0 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: b~", U~t?-----. Dana Ogdon, Progra anager Date: 2'Jþt. /ð1 Date 'i-~Iðf D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Impacts Anaiysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista') 0 0 ~ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 0 ~ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 ~ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 ~ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 ~ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 ~ 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)? 0 0 ~ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 ~ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0 0 ~ 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 reguJations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and WiJdlife 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) lnterfere 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? t) 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: aJ 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 offonnal cemeteries? VI, GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death involving: New Significant Impact No Sub,.tantial Change From Previous Analysis More Severe Impacts 0 0 [2J 0 0 [2J 0 0 [2J 0 0 [2J 0 0 [2J 0 0 [2J 0 0 [2J 0 0 [2J 0 0 [2J 0 0 [2J No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 0 0 l:8J ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 l:8J iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 l:8J iv) Landslides? 0 0 l:8J b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 l:8J 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? 0 0 l:8J d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table IS-loB of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 l:8J 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? 0 0 l:8J 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? 0 0 l:8J b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materia]s into the environment? 0 0 l:8J c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 l:8J 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? 0 0 l:8J e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 l:8J 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? 0 0 l:8J 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? VßI. HYDROLOGY ANDWATEROUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantial1y deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantial1y with groundwater recharge such that there wou]d 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 wel1s would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantial1y alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including tluough 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) Substantial1y alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including tluough the alteration of the course of a stream or river. or substantial1y increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a maImer which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? t) Otherwise substantial1y degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ]nsurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 10O-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J D D [8J No Substantiai New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Impact Impacts Analysis 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? D D [gJ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? D D [gJ X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of avai]ability of a known mineral resource that would be ofvalue to the region and the residents of the state? D D [gJ 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? D D [gJ 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? D D [gJ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? D D [gJ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D D [gJ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D D [gJ e) For a project ]ocated 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 leve]s? D D [gJ 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? D D [gJ XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? D D [gJ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the constl1lction of rep]acement housing elsewhere? D D [gJ No Substantiai New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 ¡g¡ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental faci]ities, need for new or physically altered governmental faciJities, 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 pubJic services: Fire protection? 0 0 ¡g¡ Police protection? 0 0 ¡g¡ Schools? 0 0 ¡g¡ Parks? 0 0 ¡g¡ Other pubhc faciJities') 0 0 ¡g¡ XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facihties such that substantia] physical deterioration of the faciJity would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 ¡g¡ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion ofrecreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 ¡g¡ XV. TRANSPORTATIONiTRAFFIC - 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)? 0 0 ¡g¡ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard estabhshed by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 ¡g¡ 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? 0 0 ¡g¡ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 ¡g¡ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 ¡g¡ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 ¡g¡ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 0 [8J XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 [8J 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? 0 0 [8J 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? 0 0 [8J d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 [8J 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? 0 0 [8J t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 [8J g) Comply with federal. state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 [8J 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 drbp 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 II1J!jor periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 [8J b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumu]atively 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)? 0 0 [8J c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 [8J ATTACHMENT 1 OF EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-81 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PHASE I TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (VALENCIA NORTH LOOP ROAD, ARMSTRONG A VENUE, LANSDOWNE, SEVERYNS AND WEST CONNECTOR ROADWAY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT) BACKGROUND The former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially closed on Ju]y 2, 1999. The City was designated as the Local Redeve]opment Authority (LRA) for the reuse of MCAS Tustin and, acting as such, approved a Reuse P]an that provided for future land uses at the fonner MCAS Tustin on October 1996, subsequently amended on September ]998 ("the Reuse Plan"). The Reus.e Plan was subsequent1y reviewed and approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as consistent with federa] Jaw regarding the home1ess. On January 16, 200], the City of Tustin adopted a General Plan ]and use designation, "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan" for Tustin Legacy. The City of Tustin a]so prepared a Specific P]an with detailed planning policies, regulations, and implementation strategies to guide future deve]opment within the Tustin Legacy project. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on February 3, 2003, establishing the zoning for the Tustin Legacy project. The Specific Plan conforms and imp]ements the Reuse Plan and the City's General Plan. In accordance with the provisions of the Nationa] Environmental Policy Act ("NEP A") ofl969, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the federal government and City prepared a Joint Final Program Environmental Impact StatementiEnvironmenta] Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin (referenced herein as FEiS/EIR). On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the FEIS/EIR and approved a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project (Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Lansdowne, Severyns, and West Connector Roadway and Infrastructure Project) is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, which includes approximately 1,000 acres that was conveyed by deed from the Department of the Navy to the City of Tustin and approximate1y 153 acres conveyed by lease to the City of Tustin for redevelopment of the fonner Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). The project site includes approximately 33 gross acres within parcels deeded to the City of Tustin by the Navy legally described as Parce]s I-D-2, 1-E-5, I-E-6, I-G-6, I-H-3, 1-H-4, I-H-6) and a]so parcels ]eased to the City of Tustin through a Lease In Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) ]egally described as Parcels III-D-6, IV-J- 2, IV -J-3. The Proposed Project is bounded by Barranca Parkway to the south, future Tustin Ranch Road to the east, the existing Red Hil1 Avenue to the west, and existing Edinger Avenue to the north. The proposed project is the demolition, grading, and construction of new roadways, sanitary sewers, stonn drains, reclaimed water lines, domestic water Jines, traffic signa] systems, signing and striping improvements and dry utility conduits within "Tustin Legacy". Primary access to the project site during construction will likely be provided at the intersections of Va]encia Avenue and Red Hil1 Avenue and from Moffett Avenue and Harvard and other potentia] gate opening points to the former MCAS Tustin at Barranca Parkway and the future Armstrong and at Warner and the former MCAS Tustin westerly boundary. All re1ated environmenta] impacts associated with the construction and use of the Project were considered in the FEiS/EIR and all applicable implementation measures and mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved by the Tustin City Counci1 for the FEIS/EIR. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Reso]ution No. 04-8] Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 2 I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, inclnding, bnt not limited to, trees, rock outcrop pings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Snbstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new sonrce 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. Short-tenn and insignificant visual impacts may occur with the presence of heavy machinery during construction and demolition activities, but would only be visible within the constructionldemo]ition zone, which is a]most completely within the fonner MCAS Tustin, a facility which is closed to pub]ic access and view. Construction of the project through the site's existing antiquated private circulation system, vacant aircraft facilities, parking aprons, and open areas of short grasses would estabhsh a new cohesive and harmonious circu]ation streetscape through the p]anned community. The project would not substantial1y damage or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its scenic resources, but would enhance the pubhc's view of the site's aesthetic resources, including two historic bhmp hangars hsted on the Nationa] Register of Historic Places and views of the nearby Saddleback mountain range. The project willutihze street lighting designed to reduce g]are and spill-over, create a safe night environment, and avoid glare impacts to surrounding properties. The proposed project is to be constructed at grade so will not adversely impact day or nighttime views in the area. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Consequent]y, the proposed project will result in no substantia] changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Fie]d Observations Program EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin through 3-67, 4-81 through 4-92, and 7-22 through 7-24) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan (Pages 3-58 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: Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 3 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 Resonrces Agency, to non-agricultural nse? 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 Farmlaud to non-agricultural use? . The project wou]d convert to non-agricultural use a very small area of "prime farmland" located at the easterly extension of Valencia Loop Road, the West Connector Road and the southerly extension of Annstrong Avenue (where on]y utility infrastructure is being proposed) as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farm]and Managing and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The affected property is not zoned for agricultura] use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the proposed project involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of other farm]and to non-agricultural use. Other portions of the site affected by the project contain existing vacant miJitary buildings and facilities; no area of the project site is currently used or designated as agricultura] land. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the ana]ysis of the FE1S/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Consequently, the proposed project wi11 result in no substantia] changes to the environmenta] impacts previous]y evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Counci] adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultura] resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) Resolution No. 00-90 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollutiou 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? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project. Page 4 All air quality environmental impacts related to development of the entire Specific Plan area (inc1uding the project site) were considered in the adopted FEIS/EIR. Development of the entire project would: I) be inconsistent with the 1994 and 1997 South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) Air Quality Management P]an (AQMP); 2) exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresho]ds of significance for CO, NO, and ROC from long-tenn operation emissions ITom mobile (vehicular) and stationary sources; and 3) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance during some or all phases of the project for peak reduced emissions of suspended particulates (PM 10)' reactive organic compounds (ROC), and oxides of nitrogen (NO,) due to construction activities. However, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Counci] on January ]6, 200], identifYing specific justifiable economic, legal, socia], technological, or other considerations. Construction air emissions are also anticipated and would result from the following four (4) construction activities: ]) demolition (which may inc1ude asbestos removal); 2) grading; 3) site preparation and utility installation; and 4) roadway construction. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the ana]ysis of the FE1S/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Consequent1y, the proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific Mitigation and Implementation Measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifYing the FEIS/EIR for operationa] and construction activities. However, the FEIS/EIR also conc1uded that the Reuse Plan re]ated operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16,200] (Resolution No. 00- 90). Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 throughl53, 4-207 through 4-230 and pages 7-41 through 7-42) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Reso]ution No. 00-90 Tustin General P]an IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a snbstantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, ou any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Attachment] of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-8] Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 5 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 uursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservatiou policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Couservation Plan, Natural Community Couservation Piau, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation piau? The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not resu1t in impacts to federally Jisted threatened or endangered p]ant or animal species, however, the FEIS/EIR deteffi1ined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the construction of the proposed project) could have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation measures were included in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an a1temative off-site habitat, and requires the City (as the project proponent to obtain Section 401 (Regional Water QuaJity Control Board), 404 (CaJifornia Department of Fish and Game), Section 160] (Anny Corps of Engineers), and other peffi1its as necessary for areas on the project site affecting jurisdictional waters of the u.S. or vegetated wetlands. The City of Tustin has previously appJied for and received these pennits. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation and Implementation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Approved 40], 404 and] 60 1 Pennits Issued by Responsible Regulatory Agencies Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (pages 3-75 through 3-82, 4-]03 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27) Reuse P]an and MCAS Tustin Specific P]an (Chapter 2) Tustin Genera] Plan Approva] Letters trom Regu]atory Agencies v. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Canse a substantial adverse change iu the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuaut to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resonrce or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 6 Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the fonner MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concllITence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. A1though one archaeo]ogical site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possib]e that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontologica] resources within the project site could be significandy impacted by proposed grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the MCAS Tustin FEISIEIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a leve] of insignificance. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the ana]ysis of the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected ftom the analysis previous]y comp]eted in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation and Implementation Measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-74,4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26) Reuse P]an and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Attachment 1 of Exhibít A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 7 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of tbe Uniform Bnilding Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the nse 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 soiJs and geo]ogy resulting trom implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local sett]ement, regional subsidence, expansive soiJs, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fau]t displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground faiJure and ]urching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with darn fai]ure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin concluded that compliance with state and ]oca] regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, wou]d avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEiS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantia] change is expected trom the analysis previous]y completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations wou]d avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS 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 (Chapter 2) Tustin General P]an VIT. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: - Would the project: a) Create a siguificant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardons emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 8 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project resnlt 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 Navy issued a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) certain Parcels located within the Project boundaries (I-D-2, 1-E-5, I-E-6, 1-0-6, I-H-3, 1-H-4, I-H-6) determining that these portions of the project site were suitable for transfer and reuse as previously planned within the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin and as shown in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. These parcels were quitc]aimed to the City on May 13,2004. The Navy also issued a Finding of Suitability Lease (POSL) for certain Parcels located within the Project boundaries (ITI-D-6, IV-J-2, IV-J-3) detennining these parcels were suitable for lease to the City of Tustin with certain lease restrictions identified to prevent human exposure to potential military contaminants while Navy remedia] action and ongoing investigations are being conc1uded. According to Navy FOSL documents, the proposed project will impact Carve-Out Areas 3 and 5. The City leased the above parcels pursuant to a Lease In Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) on May 13, 2004. DemoJition and construction activities associated with the project will involve the removal of existing mi]itary buildings, faciJities, utiJities, soil and groundwater which may contain unknown quantities of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM), Lead Based Paint (LBP), and Vo]atile Organic Chemicals (VOCs). Since the project site is a closed military installation, the Department of Navy is responsible for the on-going remediation of all mi]itary-re]ated contaminants at the fonner MCAS Tustin with the exception of lead based paint and asbestos. Portions of the proposed project are located within areas of the site which are known to contain VOC contaminated groundwater. These areas of the site remain owned by the Department of Navy, and are leased to the City of Tustin through the LIFOC described above. The City has previous]y complied with LIFOC requirements requiring submittal to the Navy of the Engineering and Design Plans for the Project. On August 2, 2004, the Navy fonnally approved the project's Plans and Specifications. The Engineering and Design Plans and Specifications inc1ude specially designed elements and provisions that are intended to be protective of human health and the environment by imp]ementing construction techniques, design and materials that will prevent the transmittal of existing VOC contaminated groundwater away from its current locations while not interfering with on-going Navy remediation activities in the area. The Project Specifications require the selected contractor to manage any small amounts of hazardous substances that are Jikely to be identified during demolition, construction and dewatering activities. Proposed schoo]s would exist within one-quarter mile of the project site and where hazardous materials could be found or utilized. However, all project activities will be conducted in accordance with federal, state and ]ocal regulations governing the use, handling, transportation, and storage of hazardous materia]s, thereby reducing the potential of an unauthorized release to the environment. Also, adherence to federal, state and local regulations will ensure that the project will not create a significant hazard to the pubJic through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeab]e upset and accident conditions at the property. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-8] Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 9 In addition, the project is at least two (2) miles ftom John Wayne Airport, lies within a flight approach or departure corridor, and is within the within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP); however, the Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County has not adopted an Accidental Potential Zone (APZ) in the AELUP for MCAS Tustin. As a result, it does not pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is also not located in a wi]dland fire danger area. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the ana]ysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantia] change is expected ftom the ana]ysis previous]y completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing deed restrictions, rules, and regu]ations would avoid the creation of potential impacts; no mitigation is required. Sources: vm. Engineering and Design P]ans for the Project Fie]d Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3-117, 4- 130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific P]an (Chapter 2) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, ]4, and 42, and Parce]s 25,26,30-33,37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of SuitabiJity to Transfer (FOST) for Parcels 23, 29, 34, 35, and 36, and Portions of], 16, 17,24, 27, 28, 40 and 41. Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parce]s Carve-Out Areas 1,2, 3,and4 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Carve-Out Areas 5,6,7,8,9,10, and 11 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan Navy Project Approva] Letter dated August 2,2004 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Snbstantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere snbstantially with groundwater recharge, such that there wonld 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 runoffin 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? Attachment] of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 10 I) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housiug within a 1O0-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 tOO-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 project site is partially developed with several existing buildings and ancillary site improvements such as fonner military aircraft tarmac and parking areas. The remainder of the site is vacant. The site currently drains trom the northwest to the southeast; primari]y through existing earthen channe]s. Project construction could lead to temporary silt-laden runoff due to stonn events and watering to reduce dust re]ated air emissions. No long-tenn impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. In fact, the proposed project invo]ves the construction of a new public stonn drain system that will improve site drainage. Construction of the project will not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. Other than temporary utility construction re]ated de-watering activities, no groundwater removal (construction of wells) is proposed. The project proposes to utilize historic drainage patterns at the site and is consistent with drainage master plans prepared by the Orange County Flood Control District and the Runoff Management Plan (ROMP) prepared for the fonner MCAS Tustin by the City of Tustin. The project is not located within a FEMA 1O0-year flood area, and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk ofJoss, injury and death involving flooding as a result ofthe fai]ure of a levee or dam, nor is susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. In addition, in accordance with implementation measures in the FE1S/EIR, the City of Tustin and County of Orange entered into Cooperative Agreement D02-119 and an amendment to the agreement to ensure the improvement ofregional channel facilities through the Tustin Legacy site to mitigate development runoff through appropriate backbone intrastructure to accommodate issues of urban drainage, flood protection, and stonnwater quality. As discussed in the Hazardous Materia]s section, there are several existing parcels that are LIFOC ]eased to the City of Tustin from the Department of the Navy. Navy documentation indicates that known groundwater contamination is ]ocated wen below the proposed stonn drain system. SpeciaJ project design and specifications have been included in the project's deeper sewer lines to prevent any contaminated groundwater trom being transmitted or conveyed elsewhere. The FEIS/EIR found that reuse would not be impacted by hazardous materia]s in the groundwater or soil since the DON is in the process of implementing various remedial actions that win remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances located within the site. The City of Tustin has received Navy approva] to construct the proposed project within the LIFOC Parcels. Also, as previously noted, the project involves potential impacts to existing drainage channels at MCAS Tustin that have been detennined to contain jurisdictiona] waters and/or wetlands. Section 401 (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 404 (California Department of Fish and Game), Section ]601 CAnny Corps of Engineers), and other pennits as necessary for areas on the project site affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. The City of Tustin has previously applied for and received these pennits. Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page II Temporary construction re]ated activities would be required to comply with the Tota] Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires comp]iance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and Nationa] Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, a]ong with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptab]e risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected fTom the analysis previous]y comp]eted in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potentia] impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of insignificance and no mitigation is required. Specific Mitigation and Implementation Measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifYing the FEIS/EIR for temporary construction activities. Sources: IX. Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-105, 4- ]24 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific P]an (Chapter 2) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, ]0-2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33,37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Parcels 23, 29, 34, 35, and 36, and Portions of I, 16, 17, 24, 27, 28, 40 and 41. Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Carve-Out Areas 1,2, 3, and 4 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Carve-Out Areas 5,6,7,8,9,10, and ] I Tustin General Plan Navy Project Approval Letter dated August 2, 2004 FEMAMap(1999) Runoff Management Plan Cooperative Agreement D02-119, as amended Approval Letters fTom Regulatory Agencies LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land nse 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 and Specific Plan for those portions of the fonner base within the City of Tustin, such as ]and use designations, zoning categories, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infTastructure systems. On Attachment] of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-8] Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase 1 Tustin Legacy Backbone InfTastructure Project Page ]2 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 wou]d be supportive of redevelopment activities at the fonner base and complies with Chapters 2 of the Specific P]an, and compliance with state and ]ocal regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant ]and use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed project wil1 not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed project is within the scope of deve]opment considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantia] change is expected fTom the ana]ysis previously comp]eted in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. Consequent1y, no mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design P]ans for the Project Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General P]an x. MINERAL RESOURCES: Wonld the project: a) Result in the loss of availahility of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR indicates that no minera] resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss ofminera] resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any minera] resource plans. The proposed project is within the scope of deve]opment considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected fTom the analysis previously completed in the FEiS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Fie]d Observation FEiS/EIR for Disposa] and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific P]an (Chapter 2) 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 gronnd borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Attachment I of Exhibit A of Reso]ution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 13 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing withont the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient uoise 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 iu the project area to excessive noise levels? 1) 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 would construct new Phase I public backbone inITastructure inc1uding roadways and utility backbone systems through the fonner MCAS Tustin. The construction of these Phase 1 inITastructure systems win enable access and provision of public utility systems wi11 support the new development to occur at Tustin Legacy. Construction of backbone roadways wi11 result in additionaj traffic and vehicular related noise impacts to project-adjoining properties as detai]ed in Section 4.]4 of the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR establishes noise contours around 65 Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) based upon aircraft and traffic ]eve]s. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate additiona] traffic noise beyond that previously anticipated by the FEIS/EIR. Future development at Tustin Legacy wi]] be required to use construction techniques and materials that ensure compatibility with maximum community noise levels. The FEIS/EIR indicates that at Tustin Legacy build-out, noise ]evels at nearby Va]encia Avenue west of Red Hi11 Avenue wou]d be impacted with noise increases greater than 3 dB CNEL to a tota1 CNEL of 68.5 dB. However, the FEIS/EIR has conc1uded that land uses located along this section of roadway are zoned and used for Professional Office and Industrial uses, which are determined to be compatible with a CNEL of up to 75dB. The FEIS/EIR indicates that existing uses on other roadways connected to the site wou]d not experience noise levels that exceed those established as acceptable for the affected land use resu1ting from the fu]] build-out of MCAS Tustin, and impacts wou]d be less than significant. There wi11 be construction related noise associated with the Phase I construction activities that were origina]]y anticipated in the FEIS/EIR. Temporary construction activities wi11 be required to comply with 10ca] regu]ations and standards identified in the City's Noise Ordinance (i.e. restricted days and hours of construction activities). These requirements have been inc1uded in the bid documents and specifications for the project. The proposed project is within the scope evaluated with the ana]ysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to noise to a ¡eve] of insignificance. Specific Mitigation and Implementation Measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR for temporary construction activities and these mitigation measures have been incorporated into the construction bid and specifications documents and wi11 be monitored by the Public Works Department, tluough a contract project manager. Attachment] of Exhibit A of Reso]ution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 14 Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observation FE1S/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 (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, uecessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project will not add new housing, remove existing housing, or displace any people to necessitate construction of additiona] housing. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the ana]ysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected ITom the analysis previous]y completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design P]ans for the Project Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4-]4 to 4- 29 and 7-]8 to 7-19) Reuse P]an and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan XIß. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Wonld the project result in substantIal adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed project will not direcdy resuh in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmenta] 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. The FEIS/EIR has detennined that such impacts could on]y occur as a resuh with the p]anned buildout of the Tustin Legacy project. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantia] change is expected ITom the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Attachment] of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase 1 Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 15 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Fie]d 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 P]an and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan XlV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, snch 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 and MCAS Tustin Specific P]an provides for the future provision of a new 85.5-acre Regiona] Park, a 24-acre Community Park, two Neighborhood Parks of more than five-acres and regiona] and community riding and hiking paths through the property. The proposed project will not direct]y impact existing or planned recreationa] facilities other than providing access and utility service to the planned Community Park and Urban Regional Park site. The proposed project is within the scope of deve]opment considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, 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: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project 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 (Chapter 2) 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 congestiou at intersectious)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestiou management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Resnlt in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that resnIts in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous Attachment] of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 16 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 FEIS/EIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased implementation and deve]opment of the approved Reuse P]an and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. A projected 2]6,445 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by fun redeve]opment of the base by year 2020 that, if left unmitigated, would overburden existing roadways and intersections surrounding the base property According to the FEiS/EIR, deve]opment related traffic and circulation impacts win be mitigated and planned roadways constructed on the faciJity as future development progresses at Tustin Legacy. However, the proposed project is a required p]anned improvement and mitigation measure in the FEIS/EIR before certain non-residential development leve]s can be authorized tied to certain Average Dai]y Trip thresholds. Fai]ure to complete the project will resu1t in deve]opment activity ceasing within the Tustin Legacy project until completion ofthe Phase I improvements The proposed project would cause temporary construction related traffic impacts. Construction activities are required to comply with all transportation re]ated FEIS/EIR Implementation and Mitigation Measures (e.g., lane closures, streetJutiJity construction, construction vehicle traffic, etc.) as identified in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With these mitigation measures, potential temporary impacts to transportation and circu]ation resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the ana]ysis previously completed in the FE1S/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed project will only cause temporary construction related traffic and circulation impacts that can be mitigated through enforcing contractor compJiance with existing ru]es and regu]ations would reduce any potentia] impacts related to noise to a level of insignificance. Specific Mitigation and Implementation Measures have been adopted by the Tustin City CounciJ in certifYing the FEIS/EIR for temporary construction activities. Project bid and specification documents have included appJicable provisions on these mitigation measures which will be monitored during construction by a project manager contracted for by the City's Public Works Department. Sources: Engineering and Design P]ans for the Project Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposa] and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-142, 4- 139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-41) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan Development Phasing Plan Attachment 1 of Exbibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 17 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 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 regnlations related to solid waste? The FEIS/EIR ana]yzed new off-site and on-site backbone utility systems required for deve]opment of the site as necessary to support the proposed retaiJ development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, te]ephone, cable television, and solid waste management. The FEISIEIR concluded that no utiJity capacity issues would occur ti-om the u]timate buildout of Tustin Legacy, provided p]anned new inITastructure backbone was constructed when required for the Tustin Legacy project. The proposed project proposes to construct new public backbone utility services needed for future redevelopment at Tustin Legacy. When completed, dry and wet utility components (water, sewer, e]ectricity, gas" etc.) will be supported by utility service that has been previously committed to and designed by the responsib]e public and private utiJity purveyors. The City has also planned for additional systems such as storn1 drainage, etc. Construction activities are required to comply with all FEIS/EIR Implementation and Mitigation Measures (e.g., lane closures, streetiutiJity construction, construction vehicle traffic, etc.) as identified in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With these Mitigation Measures in place, potentia] temporary construction impacts can be reduced to a leve] of insignificance. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected ti-om the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed project will only cause temporary construction related traffic and circulation impacts that can be mitigated through enforcing contractor comp]iance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to noise to a level of insignificance. Specific Mitigation and Implementation Measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifYing the FEIS/EIR for temporary construction activities. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 18 Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Fie]d 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 7-2]) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cnmu1ative1y 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 canse substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FE1S/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the imp]ementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the ana]ysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. With the enforcement of FEiS/EIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and their applicab]e incorporation into bid and specification documents for the project, the proposed project wou]d not cause unmitigated environmental impacts that will cause substantia] effects on human beings either directly or indirectly nor degrade the quaJity of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildJife populations to decrease or threaten, eJiminate, or reduce anima] ranges, etc. To address cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 200] (Resolution No. 00-90) for issues relating to air quality, aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural resources, and traffic/circulation. Again, the proposed project does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FE1S/EIR for Disposa] and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-] ]) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3-105 through 110, 3-115 through ]18) Reso]ution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infi-astructure Project Page 19 CONCLUSION The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEiS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects wi ] occur, no new mitigation measures will be required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or a]ternatives appJicable to the project that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FE1S/EIR on January ]6, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90), and will apply to the proposed project. AppJicable provisions have been incorporated into bid and specification documents to be monitored by the PubJic Works Department through a contract project manager.. mcas/environmentalissuesiv alencla-Armstrong-CEQA Analysis.doc RESOLUTION NO. 04-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PHASE I TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (VALENCIA NORTH LOOP ROAD, ARMSTRONG AVENUE, LANDSDOWNE ROAD, SEVERYNS ROAD, AND WEST CONNECTOR ROAD) (CIP NO. 7139) AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California to contract for the construction of the Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project (Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Landsdowne Road, Severyns Road and West Connector Road) (CIP No. 7139); and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented plans and specifications for the construction of said work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City Engineer are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for: Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project (Valencia North Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, Landsdowne Road, Severyns Road and West Connector Road) (CIP No. 7139) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for the performance of the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications; PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tustin held on the 20th day of September 2004. Tony Kawashima, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF TUSTIN PROJECT NAME: VALENCIA NORTH LOOP RD. AND ARMSTRONG AVE. WITHIN MCAS TUSTIN (CIP NO. 7139)