Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 04-81 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, LANDSDOWNE 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. Resolution No. 04-81 Page 1 of 30 II. 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 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 20" "y of S",t~b" 2004. «f lÞ1 l~ TONY KAWASHIMA, Mayor ATTEST: D )'(wOo. ~ PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN ) )SS ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 04-81 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 20th day of September, 2004 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: KAWASHIMA, BONE, DAVERT, HAGEN, THOMAS NONE NONE NONE (5) (0) (0) (0) PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Resolution No. 04-81 Page 2 of 30 EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-81 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 9'2780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmentallropact Stateroent/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Àir 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 of the 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) 573-31 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-I Specific Plan Demolition, grading, and construction of new roadways, sanitary sewers, storm 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 Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071 005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16,2001. B. ENVIRONMENTALFACTORSPOTE~LYAFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, ~g~~&\ ~~5+mpact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. Page 3 of 30 OLand Use and Planning DPopulation and Housing DGeology and Soils DHydrology and Water Quality DAir Quality DTransportation& Circulation DBioJogical Resources DMineral Resources DAgricultural Resources OHazards and Hazardous Materials DNoise DPublic Services DUtilities and Service Systems DAesthetics DCultural Resources DRecreation DMandatory Findings of Significance c. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 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. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVffi.ONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 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 JMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects mat remain to be addressed. ¡g¡ 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. 0 I fwd that although me 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 mat earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or roitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: D~ do. Ù~t?-.. Dana Ogden, Progra anager Date: 2;~t. /c1- Date ~U!~ D, EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached Resolution No. 04-81 Page 4 of 30 EV ALVA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 t8) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 0 t8) 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 envirolWlental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (t 997) 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 Califonria Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?' 0 0 ~ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 ~ 0) 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 OUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by tbe 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 Resolution No. 04-81 of people? 0 0 Pl!!: e 5 of 30 TV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regionat 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 substantiaUy with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeotogical resource pursuant to § t5064.5? 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 fonnal 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 invol~esolution No. 04-81 Page 6 of 30 New Significant Impact Na Substantial Change From Preview' Analysis More Severe Impacts 0 0 rg¡ 0 0 rg¡ 0 0 rg¡ 0 0 [8 0 0 rg¡ 0 0 rg¡ 0 0 [8 0 0 [8 0 0 [8 0 0 rEI 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 Divisinn of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 0 0 L8J ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 L8J iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 L8J iv) Landslides? 0 0 L8J b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoi1? 0 0 L8J 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 L8J d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 L8J e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewets are not avaiIable for the dis¡>osal of waste water? 0 0 L8J VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the envirolUDeDt through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous malenats? 0 0 L8J b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidenl conditions involving the release of hazardous materia1s into the environment? 0 0 L8J c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or prnposed school? 0 0 121 d) Be located on a site which is included on a lisl 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 L8J e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a pIan has not been adopted, within two miles of a ¡>ublic aÌ!J>ort or public use airport, woutd the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 tE:I Resolution No. 04-81 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, Page 7 of 30 would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 tE:I No Substantial New More CMnge From Significant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Impacts Analysis adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 [8J 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? 0 0 [8J vIß. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 ~ 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- ex.isting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 0 ~ 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"! 0 0 ~ 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 ou- or off-site? 0 0 ~ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of ex.isting or planned storrnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 [8J t) Otherwise substantially de grade water quality? 0 0 ~ g) Place housing within a lDO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 ~ h) Place witmn a IOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 ~ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 [8J IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Phy~tdI\\1i11Nu¡. eslèlished community? 0 0 [8J Page 8 of 30 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Impact Impacts Anatysis 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 rð1 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural coIDnnmity conservation plan? D D rð1 X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? D D rð1 b) Resutt 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 0 rð1 Xl. 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 ordillance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 rð1 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? D 0 I8J c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 I8J d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 I8J e) For a project located wiUrin an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wiUrin 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? 0 0 I8J t) For a project wiUrin the vicinity of a private airstrip, woutd the project expose people residing or working in the proj ect area to excess noise levels? D 0 I8J XlI.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 inftastructure)? 0 0 I8J Resolution No. 04-81 b) Displace substantial nwnbers of existing housing, Page 9 of 30 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 _rð1 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impoct Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 ~ Police protection? 0 0 ~ Schools? 0 0 ~ Parks? 0 0 ~ Other public facilities? 0 0 ~ XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the proj ect 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? 0 0 ~ b) Does the projecr include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 ~ 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)? 0 0 ~ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 ~ 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 ~ 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 ~ Resolution No. 04-81 e) Re:fiUtQe iI&<bft itàte emergency access? 0 0 ~ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previow; Impact Impacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 0 ~ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 ~ 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 ~ 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 ~ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or - expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 ~ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1Ieatment provider which serves or may serve the proj ect that it has adequate capacity to serve the project"s projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 0 ~ 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 0 181 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 drtJp below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elinùnate a plant or animal conmnmity, 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? 0 0 ~ b) Docs 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)? 0 0 ~ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will Resolution No. 04-81 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either Page 11 of 30 directly or indirectly? 0 0 ~ 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 July 2, 1999. 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, subsequently amended on September 1998 ("the Reuse Plan"). The Reus.e 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. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin adopted a General Plan land use designation, "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan" for Tustin Legacy. The City of Tustin also prepared a Specific PIan with detailed planning policies, regulations, and implementation strategies to guide future development within the Tustin Legacy project. The MCAS Tustin Specific PIan was adopted by the City Council on February 3, 2003, estab]ishing the zoning for the Tustin Legacy project. The Specific Plan conforms and implements the Reuse Plan and the City's General Plan. In accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") ofl969, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the federal government and City prepared a Joint Final Program Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmentallmpact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin (referenced herein as FElSÆIR). On January 16, 200 I, the City of Tustin certified the FEISÆIR 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 approximately 153 acres conveyed by lease to the City of Tustin for redevelopment of the former 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 Parcels l-D-2, I-E-5, I-E-6, I-G-6, l-H-3, I-H-4, I-H-6) and also parcels leased to the City of Tustin through a Lease In Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) legally described as Parcels IlI-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 Hill 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, storm drains, reclaimed water lines, domestic water lines, traffic signa] systems, signing and striping improvements and dry uti]ity conduits within "Tustin Legacy". Primary access to the project site during construction will likely be provided at the intersections of Valencia Avenue and Red Hill Avenue and nom Moffett Avenue and Harvard and other potential 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 related environmentaJ impacts associated with the construction and use of the Project were considered in the FElS/E1R and all applìcable implementation measures and mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved by the Tustin City Council for the FEISÆIR. The following infonnation provides background support for the conclusions identified in the EnvironmentaJ Analysis Checklist. Resolution No. 04-81 Page 12 of 30 Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 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, Including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppiBgs, 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. Short-term and insignificant visual impacts may occur with the presence of heavy machinery during construction and demolition activities, but would only be visible within the construction/demolition zone, which is almost completely within the fonner MCAS Tustin, a facility which is closed to public 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 establish a new cohesive and hannonious circulation streetscape through the planned community- The project would not substantially damage or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its scenic resources, but would enhance the public's view of the site's aesthetic resources, including two historic blimp hangars listed on the National Register of Historic Places and views of the nearby Saddleback mountain range. The project will utilize street lighting designed to reduce glare and spiJI-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 FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Consequently, the proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEISIEIR. 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 Field Observations Program EISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-58 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 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation aDd Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Calüornia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Resolution No. 04-81 Page 130f30 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 Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conmct 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, conld result in CGnversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? . The project would 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 Armstrong Avenue (where only utility infrastructure is being proposed) as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The affected property is not zoned for agricultural 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 farmland to non-agricultural use. Other portions of the site affected by the project contain existing vacant military buildings and facilities; no area of the project site is currently used or designated as agricultural land. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Consequently, the proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEISÆIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultural 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 1Il. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality. management or air poUution control district may be relied npon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conßict 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 pollntant for which the project region is non-attainmellt 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? Resolution No. 04-81 Page 14 of 30 Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project. Page 4 AIl air quality environmental impacts related to development of the entire Specific Plan area (including the project site) were considered in the adopted FEISÆIR. Development of the entire project would: t) be inconsistent with the 1994 and 1997 South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); 2) exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance for CO, NO, and ROC fÌ'om long-tenn operation emissions from 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 par\iculates (PM,o), reactive organic compounds (ROC), and oxides of nitrogen (NO,) due to construction activities. However, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEISÆIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, identifying specific justifiable economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations. Construction air emissions are atso anticipated and would result from the following four (4) construction activities: I) demolition (which may include 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 analysis of the FEISÆIR. for MCAS Tustin. Consequently, the proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEISÆIR.. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific Mitigation and Implementation Measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/ElR for operational and construction activities. However, the FElSÆIR also concluded that the Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully ITÚtigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16,2001 (Resolution No. 00- 90). Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FEISÆIR 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) Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan IV. BIOWGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, On any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, polIcIes, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. FIsh and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive uatural 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 Ciean Water Act (including, but not limIted to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, ruling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Resolution No. 04-81 Page 150f30 Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 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 nursery sites? e) Conflict with any iocal policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1) Conßict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Couservatiou Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The FEISIEIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally 1isted threatened or endangered plant or animal species, however, the FEISfEIR detennined 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 FElSfEIR to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative ofT-site habitat, and requires the City (as the project proponent to obtain Section 401 (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 404 (California Department ofFish and Game), Section 1601 (Army Corps of Engineers), and other permits 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 permits. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEm. 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 401, 404 and 1601 Permits Issued by Responsible Regulatory Agencies Field Observations FEISfEIR fot Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (pages 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27) Reuse P1an and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan Approval Letters fTom Regulatory Agencies 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? Resolution No. 04-81 Page 16 of 30 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase ITustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 6 Numerous archaeologicaJ 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-38l) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area., it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified bmied archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by proposed grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the MCAS Tustin FEISÆIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the aIUIlysis of the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected irorn the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation and Implementation Measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISÆIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS 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 (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Wollld 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) Resnlt In substantial soil erosion orthe loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstabl,~ as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or conapse? Resolution No. 04-81 Page 170f30 Attachment 1 of Exhibit 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 derIDed in Table IS-I.B of the Uniform Bnilding Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapahle of adequately supporting the nse of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The FEISIElR 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, seismical1y induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure. However, the FEISIEIR 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. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected ITom the analysis previously completed in the FElSlE1R for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance. with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FEISIEIR 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 Plan vn. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident .conditions involving the releue of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or hlUldle 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 R I t. Nresnlt In a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proj ect area? eso U Ion o. u4-ET- Page 18of30 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Inftastructure Project Page 8 t) 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 inteñere 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 (FaST) certain Parcels located within the Project boundaries (I-D-2. I-E-5, l-E-6, I-G-6, I-B-3, I-B-4, I-B-6) determining that these portions of the project site were suitable for transfer and reuse as previously plarmed within the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin and as shown in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. These parcels were quitclaimed to the City on May 13, 2004. The Navy a]so issued a Finding of Suitability Lease (FOSL) for certain Parcels located within the Project boundaries (III-D-6, N-J-2, N-J-3) determining 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 remedial action and ongoing investigations are being concluded. 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. Demolition and construction activities associated with the project will involve the removal of existing military buildings, facilities, utilities, soil and groundwater which may contain unknown quantities of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM), Lead Based Paint (LBP), and Volatile 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 military-related contaminants at the former MCAS Tustin with the exception of lead based paint and asbestos. Portions of the proposed project are ]ocated 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 previously complied with LIFœ requirements requiring submittal to the Navy of the Engineering and Design Plans for the Project. On August 2, 2004, the Navy formally approved the project's Plans and Specifications. The Engineering and Design Plans and Specifications include specially designed elements and provisions that are intended to be protective of human health and the environment by implementing construction techniques, design and materials that will prevent the transmittal of existing VOC contaminated groWldwater away from it¡¡ 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 schools would exist within one-quarter mile of the project site and where hazardous materials could be found or utilized However, all project activities wi]] be conducted in accordance with federal, state and local regulations governing the use, handling, transportation, and storage of hazardous materials, 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 public through the transport. use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. Resolution No. 04-81 Page 19 of 30 Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 9 VIII. In addition, the project is at least tWo (2) miles from 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 wildland fire danger area. 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: Compliance with existing deed restrictions, rules, and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts; no mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3-117, 4- 130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FaST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FasT) for Parcels 23, 29, 34, 35, and 36, and Portionsofl,IG,17,24,27,28,40and41. 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 II Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan Navy Project Approval Letter dated August 2, 2004 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inteñere substantially with groundwater recharge, such tbat there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., tbe production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support ensting land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, includIng tbrough 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 ofsuñace runoff in a manner, which wonld 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 poUuted runotr! Resolution No. 04-81 Page 20 of 30 Attaclunent I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 10 1) Othenvise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a IOO-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 IOO-year Rood hazard area structures, which would Impede or redirect Bood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, InJnry or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the fallure 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 former military aircraft tarmac and parking areas. The remainder of the site is vacant. The site currendy drains from the northwest to the southeast; primarily through existing earthen channels. Project consb'uction could lead to temporary silt-laden runoff due to storm events and watering to reduce dust related air emissions. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. In fact, the proposed project involves the construction of a new public storm drain system that will improve site drainage. Construction of the project win not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. Other than temporary utility construction related 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 former MCAS Tustin by the City of Tustin. The project is not located within a FEMA lOa-year flood area, and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk ofJoss, injury and death involving Booding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam, nor is susceptible to inWldation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. In addition, in accordance with implementation measures in the FEISÆIR, the City of Tustin and County of Orange entered into Cooperative Agreement D02-119 and an amendment to the agreement to ensure the improvement of regional channel facilities through the Tustin Legacy site to mitigate development runoff through appropriate backbone inftastructure to acconunodate issues of urban drainage, flood protection, and storrnwater quality. As discussed in the Hazardous Materials section, there are several existing parcels that are LIFOC leased to the City of Tustin from the Department of the Navy. Navy documentation indicates that known groundwater contamination is located well below the proposed storm drain system. Special project design and specifications have been included in the project's deeper sewer lines to prevent any contaminated groundwater from being transmitted or conveyed elsewhere. The FEISÆIR found that reuse would not be impacted by hazardous materials in the groundwater or soil since the DON is in the process of implementing various remedial actions that wiU remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances located within the site. The City of Tustin has received Navy approval 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 determined to contain jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands. Section 401 (Regional Water Quality Control Board), 404 (California Department of Fish and Game), Section 1601 (Army Corps of Engineers), and other permits 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 permits. Resolution No. 04-81 Page 21 of 30 Attachment I of Exhibit A of Res oJ uti on No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page II Temporary construction related activities would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (1MDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid llilacceptable 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 FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential 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 FEISÆIR for temporary construction activities. Sources: IX. Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observation FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS 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 (Chapter 2) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FaST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33,37 and Portion of40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FaST) for Parcels 23, 29, 34, 35, and 36, and Portionsofl,16,17,24,27,28,40and41. Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Carve-Out Areas I, 2, 3, and 4 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Carve-Out Areas 5,6,7,8,9,10, and 11 Tustin General Plan Navy Project Approval Letter dated August 2, 2004 FEMA Map (1999) Runoff Management Plan Cooperative Agreement DO2-119, as amended Approval Letters fi:om Regulatory Agencies LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) PhysicaUy 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 and Specific Plan for those portions of the fonner base within the City of Tustin, such as land use designations, zoning categories, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infrastructure systems. On Resolution ~o. 04-81 Page 22 of 30 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 12 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 would be supportive of redevelopment activities at the fonner base and complies with Chapters 2 of the Specific Plan, and 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 conununity conservation plan. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS 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 Plan x. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that wonld be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availablUty of .a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated OD a local general plan, specl1lc plan or other land use plan? The MCAS Tustin 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. 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. Mitigarion/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (page 3-91) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Wonld 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? Resolution No. 04-81 Page 23 of 30 Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No: 04-8] Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page I3 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 excessive noise levels? The proposed project would construct new Phase I public backbone infrastructure including roadways and utility backbone systems through the former MCAS Tustin. The construction of these Phase I infrastructure systems will enable access and provision of public utility systems will support the new development to occur at Tustin Legacy. Cons1ruction of backbone roadways willresult in additional traffic and vehicular related noise impacts to project-adjoining properties as detailed in Section 4.]4 of the FEISIEIR. The FEISÆIR establishes noise contours around 65 Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) based upon aircraft and traffic levels. The proposed project is not anncipated to generate additional traffic noise beyond that previously anticipated by the FEISÆIR. Future development at Tustin Legacy will be required to use construction techniques and materials that ensure compatibility with maximum community noise levels. The FElSÆlR indicates that at Tustin Legacy build-out, noise levels at nearby Valencia Avenue west of Red Hill Avenue would be impacted with noise increases greater than 3 dB CNEL to a total CNEL of 68.5 dB. However, the FElSÆIR has concluded 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 ofup to 75dB. The FElSÆIR indicates that existing uses on other roadways connected to the site would not experience noise levels that exceed those established as acceptable for the affected land use resulting from the full build-out ofMCAS Tustin, and impacts would be less than significant. There will be cons1ruction related noise associated with the Phase I construction activities that were originally anticipated in the FEISÆIR. Temporary cons1ruction activities will be required to comply with local regulations and standards identified in the City's Noise Ordinance (i.e. restricted days and hours of construction activities). These requirements have been included in the bid documents and specifications for the project. The proposed project is within the scope evaluated with the analysis of the FEISÆIR 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 level of insignificance. Specific Mitigation and Implementation Measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEISÆIR for temporary construction activities and these mitigation measures have been incorporated into the construction bid and specifications documents and win be monitored by the Public Works Department, through a contract project manager. Resolution No. 04-81 Page 24 of 30 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution 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 FEISÆIR for D:isposal and Reuse ofMCAS 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 substautial 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 infrll!ltructnre)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, uecessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitaûng the construction of replacement bousing elsewhere? The proposed project will not add new housing, remove existing housing, or displace any people to necessitate construction of additional housing. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected fTom the analysis previously completed in the FElSIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (pages 3-18 to 3-34,4-14 to 4- 29 and 7-18 to 7-19) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan XIn. PUBUC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physlcaUy 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 peñormance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed project will not directly 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. The FEISIEIR has determined that such impacts could only occur as a result with the planned buildout of the Tustin Legacy project. Th~ proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Resolution No. 04-81 Page 25 of 30 Attachment! of Exhibit A of ResoJution No. 04-8! Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 15 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No nútigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project 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 Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) 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 facUity 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 Plan provides for the future provision of a new 85.5-acre Regional Park, a 24-acre Community Park, two Neighborhood Parks of more than five-acres and regional and community riding and hiking paths through the property. The proposed project will not directly impact existing or planned recreational 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 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: No mitigation is required. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observation FEISIEIR 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 Tustin Specific Plan (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan xv. TRANSPORTATION!TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase 1u 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) Exeeed, 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? Resolutid~ l'iP.~ally increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous Page 26 of 30 Attachment I 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) Resnlt In Inadequate emergency access? t) 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 deve1opment 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 According to the FEIS/EIR, development related traffic and circu1ation impacts win be mitigated and planned roadways constructed on the facility as future development progresses at Tustin Legacy. However, the proposed project is a required planned improvement and mitigation measure in the FEISÆIR before certain non-residential development levels can be authorized tied to certain Average Daily Trip thresholds. Failure to complete the project will resu1t in development activity ceasing within the Tustin Legacy project until completion of the Phase I improvements The proposed project would cause temporary construction related traffic impacts. Construction activities are required to comply with all transportation related FEIS/EIR Implementation and Mitigation Measures (e.g., lane closures, street/utility 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 circulation resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected ¡¡-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 compliance 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. Project bid and specification documents have included applicable 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 Plans for the Project Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-142, 4- 139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-41) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific P1an (Chapter 2) Tustin General Plan Development Phasing Plan Resolution No. 04-81 Page 27 of 30 Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environrnental IÌnpacts 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) Reqnire or resnlt in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constrnction of which could cause significant environmental effects? . c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of exbting facilities, the construction of whlcb 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 tbe wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve tbe project that it bas adequate capacity to serve tbe project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The FEIS/EIR analyzed new off-site and on-site backbone utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed retail development, including water, sewer, drainage, elec1ricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste management. The FEISæffi. concluded that no utility capacity issues would occur nom the ultimate bui1dout of Tustin Legacy, provided planned new infrastructure backbone was constructed when required for the Tustin Legacy project. The proposed project proposes to construct new public backbone utility services needed for futlÌre redevelopment at Tustin Legacy. When completed, dry and wet utility components (water, sewer, electricity, gas" etc.) win be supported by utility service that has been previously cornmitted to and designed by the responsible public and private utility purveyors. The City has also plarmed for additional systems such as stonn drainage, etc. Construction activities are required to comply with all FElSÆIR. Implementation and Mitigation Measures (e.g., lane closures, street/utility construction, construction vehicle traffic, etc.) as identified in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With these Mitigation Measures in place, potential temporary construction impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISæffi. for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected trom the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEffi. 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 compliance 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 FElSÆIR. for temporary construction activities. Resolution No. 04-81 Page 28 of 30 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 Field Observations FEISIErn. for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS 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 (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 anilnal commonity, 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 effeçts, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis 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 applicable incorporation into bid and specification documents for the project, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated environmental impacts that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly nor degrade the quality of the envirorunent, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten. eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City CoWlcil on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90) for issues relating to air quality, aesthetics, cultwa1 and paleontological resources, agricultural resources, and traffic/circulation. Again, the proposed proj eet does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the FEISIEIR. Sources: Engineering and Design Plans for the Project Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3-105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan Resolution No. 04-81 Page 29 of 30 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-81 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Phase I Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Project Page 19 CONCLUSION The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will 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 alternatives applicable to the projectthat 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 FEISIEIR on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90), and will apply to the proposed project. Applicahle provisions have been incorporated into bid and specification documents to be monitored by the Public Works Department through a contract project manager.. mcaslenvironmentatissuesiv 01 encia- Armstrong -C EQ A Anal ys is .doc Resolution No. 04-81 Page 30 of 30