The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03 PC REPORT TTM 18197 I AGENDA REPORT ITEM #3 1W MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18197 PROPERTY OWNER/ CITY OF TUSTIN APPLICANT: 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: PROJECT SITE GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WARNER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, LEGACY ROAD AND TUSTIN RANCH ROAD TO THE EAST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND ARMSTRONG AVENUE TO THE WEST. GENERAL PLAN: TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1) ZONING: TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1 ) PLANNING AREA 8, 13 & 14 REQUEST: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18197 SUBDIVIDING A 114.3-ACRE SITE INTO 15 NUMBERED LOTS AND 7 LETTERED LOTS FOR FINANCE AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On January 16. 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an addendum to the FEISIEIR and, on May, 13, 2013. the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17- 23 approving a second supplement to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR, along with its addendums and supplement, is a program EIR underthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, addendums and supplement have considered the potential Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract Map 18197 September 10, 2019 Page 2 environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Tustin. An environmental checklist has been prepared for the project and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEISIEIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEISIEIR. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4392 approving Tentative Tract Map 18197 to subdivide a 114.3-acre site into fifteen (15) numbered lots and seven (7) lettered lots for the purpose of finance and conveyance. APPROVAL AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9321 b, the tentative tract map shall be considered by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND: Section 4.2.1 of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan defers to the TCC regarding subdivision and parcelization of land, and the State Subdivision Map Act. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 18197 is a Sector A Map, which is a subdivision map that subdivides the property for conveyance of financing purposes only and will not by itself be a grant of vesting or development rights. DISCUSSION: Site and Surroundings The project site is generally bounded by Warner Avenue to the north, Legacy Road and Tustin Ranch Road to the east, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Armstrong Avenue to the west within Neighborhood D (Planning areas 8, 13 and 14) of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Attachment A— Location Map). Tentative Tract Map 18997 TTM 18197 is a request to subdivide a 114.3-acre site into fifteen (15) numbered lots and seven (7) lettered lots for finance and conveyance purposes. Additional maps, Design Review, and other entitlement applications will facilitate development proposals on the proposed lots and will be forthcoming. Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract Map 18197 September 10, 2019 Page 3 The following summarize TTM 18197 proposed lots: Private Area • • Lot Number - r Plan Land Use Acreage Acreage Commercial Business/Residential Lot 1 Development Parcel 15.8 Lot 2 Development Parcel 5.8 Lot 3 Development Parcel 2.2 Lot 4 Development Parcel 5.5 Lot 5 Development Parcel 2.8 Lot 6 Development Parcel 2.6 Lot 7 Development Parcel 2.6 Lot 8 Development Parcel 4.0 Lot 9 Development Parcel 4.0 Lot 10 Development Parcel 4.2 Lot 11 Development Parcel 7.0 Lot 12 Development Parcel 6.9 Lot 13 Development Parcel 5.5 Lot 14 Development Parcel 6.1 Lot 15 Development Parcel 3.3 Subtotal 78.3 Open Space Lot A Linear Park 2.5 Lot B Linear Park 2.7 Subtotal 5.2 Infrastructure Lot AA Street "A" "D" 5.4 Lot BB Street "B" "C° "E" "F" "H" 7.6 Lot CC Street "E" 0.7 Lot DD Street "F" 0.6 Lot EE Street "C" NG" 2.8 EX PUBLIC STREET 13.7 Subtotal 30.8 Total (Private/Public) 83.5 30.8 Total 114.3 Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract Map 18197 September 10, 2019 Page 4 The proposed TTM 18197 has been analyzed for conformity to the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, the TCC, applicable City of Tustin guidelines and standards, applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified FEISIEIR, and other agreements with the City of Tustin. In addition, the Public Works Department has reviewed the map and determined that it is technically correct and, as conditioned, TTM 18197 would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and TCC Section 9323 (Subdivision Code). ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program FEISIEIR for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEISIEIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia north loop road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEISIEIR and, on May 13, 2013,the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a Second Addendum to the FEISIEIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-23 approving a second Supplement to the FEISIEIR. The FEISIEIR, along with its addendums and supplements, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEISIEIR, addendums and supplementals considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist (initial Study) has been prepared and concluded that the proposed actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEISIEIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEISIEIR. Other Agencies Input In compliance with State Subdivision Map Act, the City sent out letters along with a copy of the TTM 18197 to affected agencies. At the time of finalizing this report, responses were received from four (4) agencies (Attachment C). The South Orange County Community College District indicated that the District did not have concerns. The Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) stated that, should a CEQA document be prepared for the proposed project, SCAQMD may provide recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts. The City of Irvine provided technical comments regarding the proposed TTM. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided comments regarding the review of future developments. No further comments were received. i Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract Map 18197 September 10. 2019 Page 5 CONCLUSION: The proposed TTM 18197 is consistent with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and the General Plan and any potential impact to the overall development of Tustin Legacy has been analyzed in the FEISIEIR for Tustin Legacy as amended. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve TTM 18197. - K"'.' C:�21Z��g 4;�� Samantha Beier, AICP Elizabeth A. Binsack Associate Planner Director of Community Development Attachments: A - Location Map B - Tentative Tract Map 18197 C - Other Agencies Comments D - Resolution No. 4892 • Exhibit A: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan EIS/EIR Initial Study and Checklist ATTACHMENT A Location Map LOCATION MAP TTM 18197 NEIGHBORHOOD D SOUTH r� O } PROJECT SITE s IN RD 1,000' "- 500 ),-TT i 1 il� 1 Y 1 � w E ATTACHMENT B Tentative Tract Map 18197 L6181 ON"N lOtltll 3ALLVIN31 AOtl031 NIISM N aSE ,I 1 41 LL Lu > 8 Lu 0 LU z LLI 0'- co z 3 3 JJJ - ----- - ------ w EE —TT" C43 q 2; it vJ LU co 0 CO T—F 0mare k Z Wn 0 (L z>-co)z < // I °•� < CO >w 0 f— L Z 0 LL OZMOo 0 13 CO) F— Z M M W <t7 M > LLI Z z < W - z F— 0 ULw x <s co LU Lu� Ln LU w Lag,ON dtlW ntltll MIVM31 �� l NUSM L6181 ON"M l l 3A VIN31 A 31 NIISM V. C-4 o t— LU mIm waao •aV6� "wm=Vy iL o LU LU CD o LL LU 01. o ZT -Z WeLLON I-O&W ---- ---�— -4— i z T NOA Na L w. �u ru (0) LU z o CID to CID LU T 6 po T, T n A ZI, a�.7 ul F, lu LWU CID LU ca z LU ij oj o Z. 4 U� A o wl- '81 T'T—3nk3AV s, s73- MIN01:1.1.91MV A C, 0 Ld z a. id L6191 ON dtlW ntl IMIVIN31- NUSl L6181 ON"N l l 3A VIN31 A 31 NIISM b mmuJWol 111 l•aV6 o��wmi Vy x� iL 4133HS 339 3NIlHOLVW F- LU LL Z >O z Ly 0 co Iz z X, w LU co z ru LU LLI T�7 x cc m �o �� 00 cc �! o N h\ rc aw r. LU z Me v-1A. 0 ZLU ol zo Lag,ON dtlW ntltll MIVM31 �� l NUSM L6181 ON"N l l 3A VIN31 A 31 NIISM V. LLI mm wE o :a 6� m=Vy a. F- F- Lu LL —A 0 zw P:�0'- co P z'T. V HH z Z H zo LL, (0) z 4t 1s A \/1- e OL o 4 rc E LU ca LU ru LU ? 2133HS 33S tilHolvW L6191 ON dtlW ntl IMIVM31-AOtlO3l NUSIU L6181 ON"IN l l 3A V1N31 A 31 NIISM LLI mm wE o :a 6� m=Vy a. F— F— Lu —j z 9133HS 33S 3NIIHOIVW LL w P:�0'- CO Z lz z W (0) z C43 V it m \ J�y��\\ v 69 \\\��-Q� �u1 A� % o< M LU T06 x cc LU LU cc --6 LLI z x� N ma 7 3nN3AV 4- E)NOUISMV —--------- ------------- X LU L61,91 ON dtlW ntl IMIVM31-AOtlO3l NUSIU L6181 ON"IN l 13A V1N31 A 31 NIISM iL Z Q F- F- Lu LL —A 0 zw Z0'- 'T . V HH 1z Z H z 0 - Zc Min E avow AZVD31 Ti ru Z; LU YYY LU LU CID LU cm z I�k A -fl S.1.33HS 33S 3NI'll Lag,ON dtlW ntltll MIVM31 �� l NUSM L6181 ON"N l l 3A VIN31 A 31 NIISM V. a. --------- - z z 0 ----------- LU me LU Q -j ZW .0 0 '- x�eCO ZT -------------- a. z z w - ------ ------- V c Piz z ps 0 JJJA —�2-t -a FN Wy A I N, J�l -1 ago -AN, ...... 44 Al ATTACHMENT C Other Agencies Comments Reponses to Comments Tentative Tract Map 18197 The following are responses to comments received from other agencies. Comments and responses are organized by numbers added next to each comment by each Agency. For example, response to comment by South Orange County Community College District is identified as SOCCCD 1. Actual letters are attached to this response to comments. 1. SOCCCD 1: No comments. 2. SCAQMD 1: TTM 18197 is for conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. The City however will keep the information provided for future reference. 3. IRV 1: Comment noted. 4. CALTRANS 1: Amendment to TTM 17144 is for conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. The City however will keep the information provided for future reference. Beier, Samantha From: Medhanie Ephrem <mephrem@socccd.edu> Sent: Tuesday,August 6, 2019 9:53 AM To: Beier, Samantha Cc: Sandi Sembiazza Subject: RE:South Orange County Community College District- City of Tustin -"Tentative Tract Map 18197—Proposed Subdivision" Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello Samantha, Thanks for the follow-up. SOCCCD does not have any comments regarding the TTM 18197. Thanks again for the follow-up, Medhanie From: Beier,Samantha<SBeier@tustinca.org> Sent:Tuesday,August 6, 2019 8:58 AM To: Medhanie Ephrem <mephrem@socccd.edu> Cc:Sandi Sembiazza<ssembiazza@socccd.edu> Subject: RE:South Orange County Community College District-City of Tustin-"Tentative Tract Map 18197—Proposed Subdivision" Good morning, I wanted to check in with you to confirm that SOCCCD does not have any comments regarding Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 18197 provided for review as the deadline to respond has just past. Please confirm. Thank you! Samantha D.Beier,AICP I Associate Planner City of Tustin I Community Development department 300 Centennial Way I Tustin,CA 92780 P. 714-573-3354 1 F. 714-573-3113 sbeier@tustinca.orZ From: Medhanie Ephrem <mephrem@socccd.edu> Sent:Tuesday,July 23, 2019 9:37 AM To: Beier,Samantha<SBeier@tustinca.org> Cc:Sandi Sembiazza <ssembiazza@socccd.edu> Subject:South Orange County Community College District-City of Tustin-"Tentative Tract Map 18197—Proposed Subdivision" Hello Samantha, Just wanted to let you know that we are in receipt of the City of Tustin-"Tentative Tract Map 18197—Proposed Subdivision". We are currently reviewing the documents and will comment if necessary. I also wanted to let you know that the contact name you have for our District is outdated. Dr. Debra Fitzsimons is no longer employed with the District. The new contact/Chancellor for the District is Dr. Kathleen F. Burke. Thanks in advance for updating your files and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. i Medhanie Ephrem Director of ATEP Development South Orange County Community College District 28000 Marguerite Parkway ] Mission Viejo I CA 192692 949 582-4531 M CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This communication and any documents,files,or previous e-mail messages attached to it constitute an electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510.This communication may contain non-public, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s).The unlawful interception,use,or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient, or have received this communication in error,please notify the sender immediately by reply e- mail mephrem@socccd.edu or by telephone at(949)582-4531 and delete all copies of this communication,including attachments, without reading them or saving them to disk.Thank you. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 1 a (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA USPS AND E-MAIL: August 6, 2019 sbeier a tustinca.or Samantha Beier,AICP,Associate Planner City of Tustin, Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Site Plan Consultation for the Proposed Tustin Lelracy Specific Plan(Tentative Tract Map 18197) South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned project. South Coast AQMD staffs comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the Proposed Project that should be included in the CEQA document. Please forward a copy of the CEQA document directly to South Coast AQMD at the address in our letterhead. In addition, please send with the CEQA document all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessmeut files[. These include emission calculation spreadsheets and modeling input and output files not PDF files). Without all files and supporting documentation, South Coast AQMD staff will be unable to complete a review of the air quality analyses in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Quality Analysis South Coast AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analyses. Copies of the Handbook are available from the South Coast AQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. More recent guidance developed since this Handbook was published is also available on South Coast AQMD's website at: httt)://www.aqmd..govfhome/regulations/ceqa/air-quali - analysis-handbook/cega-air-quality-handbook-(1993). South Coast AQMD staff also recommends that the Lead Agency use the CalEEMod land use emissions software. This software has recently been updated to incorporate up-to-date state and locally approved emission factors and methodologies for estimating pollutant emissions from typical land use development. CalEEMod is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and replaces the now outdated URBEMIS.This model is available free of charge at:www.caleemod.com. On March 3, 2017, the South Coast AQMD's Governing Board adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP), which was later approved by the California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2017. Built upon the progress in implementing the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs, the 2016 AQMP provides a regional perspective on air quality and the challenges facing the South Coast Air Basin. The most significant air quality challenge in the Basin is to achieve an additional 45 percent reduction in 1 Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15174, the information contained in an EIR,if prepared, shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public.Placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR.Appendices to the EIR may be prepared in volumes separate from the basic EIR document, but shall be readily available for public examination and shall be submitted to all clearinghouses which assist in public review. Samantha Beier -2- August 6, 2019 nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in 2023 and an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 Ievels for ozone attainment. The 2016 AQMP is available on South Coast AQMD's website at: http://www.agmd.gov/home/library/cIean-air-plans/air-quality-m tg plan. South Coast AQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and South Coast AQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, South Coast AQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 2005. This Guidance Document provides suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review this Guidance Document as a tool when making local planning and land use decisions. This Guidance Document is available on South Coast AQMD's website at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/plauninulair-qualityguidance/comp lete-guidance- document.pdf. Additional guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing homes near freeways or other polluting sources)can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. A 'Community Health Perspective, which can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Guidance on strategies to reduce air pollution exposure near high-volume roadways can be found at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/rd technical advisory final.PDF. South Coast AQMD has also developed both regional and localized air quality significance thresholds. South Coast AQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency compare the emissions to the recommended regional significance thresholds found here: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/cega/handbook/seagmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts, South Coast AQMD staff recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LSTs can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore,when preparing the air quality analysis for the Proposed Project, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a localized analysis by either using the LSTs developed by South Coast AQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at: http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/cega/air-quality- analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds. When specific development is reasonably foreseeable as result of the goals, policies, and guidelines in the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts and sources of air pollution that could occur using its best efforts to find out and a good-faith effort at full disclosure in the CEQA document. The degree of specificity will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the CEQA document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15146). When quantifying air quality emissions, emissions from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off-road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on- road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources(e.g., solvents and coatings),and vehicular trips (e.g.,on-and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, such as sources that generate or attract z In April 2017, CARE published a technical advisory, Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways: Technical Advisory,to supplement CA13,13's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:A Community Health Perspective. This technical advisory is intended to provide information on strategies to reduce exposures to traffic emissions near high-volume roadways to assist land use planning and decision-making in order to protect public health and promote equity and environmental justice.The technical advisory is available at:haps://www.arh.ca.gov/ch/laiiduse.htiti. Samantha Beier -3- I August 6, 2019 vehicular trips, should be included in the analysis. Furthermore, for phased projects where there will be an overlap between construction and operation, emissions from the overlapping construction and operational activities should be combined and compared to South Coast AQMD's regional air quality CEQA operational thresholds to determine the level of significance. If the Proposed Project generates or attracts vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Riskfrom Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis") can be found at: http//www.agmd.gov/homelregI lations/cega/air-quali, -analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics- analysis. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Mitigation Measures If the Proposed Project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (a)(1)(1)), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Several resources are available to assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the Proposed Project,including: • Chapter 11 "Mitigating the Impact of a Project" of South Coast AQMD's CEQA Air- Quality Handbook • South Coast AQMD's CEQA web pages available here: http://www.agmd.gov/home/regelations/cega/air-quality-analysis-tiandbook/mitigation-measu_res- and-control-efficiencies • South Coast AQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook for controlling construction-related emissions and Rule 1403 — Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities • California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures available here: http://www.cgpcoa.or /g_wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14- Final.pdf Alternatives If the Proposed Project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires the consideration and discussion of alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects of the project. The discussion of a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, including a "no project" alternative, is intended to foster informed decision-making and public participation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), the CEQA document shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the Proposed Project. Permits If implementation of the Proposed Project requires a permit from South Coast AQMD, South Coast AQMD should be identified as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project in the CEQA document. For more information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD's webpage at: http://www.agmd.gov/homp/permits. Questions on permits can be directed to South Coast AQMD's Engineering and Permitting staff at(909) 396-3385. Samantha Beier -4- August 6, 2019 Data Sources South Coast AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the South Coast AQMD's Public Information Center at(909) 396-2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the South Coast AQMD's webpage (http://www.agmd.goy). South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project air quality impacts are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. Please contact me at lsun@agmd.gov„ should you have any questions. Sincerely, zee swt Lijin Sun,J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning,Rule Development&Area Sources LS ORC190723-03 Control Number I �� 4F J'q A V o I �m Community Development ciityofirvine.org 1 Civic Center Plaza,Irvine,CA 92606-5206 949-724-6000 August 5, 2019 Ms. Samantha Beier Associate Planner 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Tentative Tract Map 18197 Dear Ms. Beier: Staff is in receipt of Tentative Tract Map 18197 in the City of Tustin. The Tentative Tract Map will subdivide a 144.3 acre site into 15 numbered lots and seven tettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes. The site is bounded by Warner Avenue, Legacy Road, Tustin Ranch Road, Barranca Parkway, and Armstrong Avenue within a portion of Neighborhood D (Planning Areas 9, 13 & 15) of the Tustin Legacy Specific Pan. Staff completed its review and has provided comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at ieauina(ftityofirvine.org or 949-724-6364. Sincerely, r In Equina Associate Planner Enclosures: 1. Staff comments 2. Redline plans ec: Kerwin Lau, Manager of Planning Services Marika Poynter, Principal Planner Lisa Thai, Supervising Transportation Analyst II I f i i ENCLOSURE1 CITY OF IRVINE COMMENTS 1. Confirm any land uses changes in the Concept Plan Land Use table on Page 1 of the tentative tract map. The City's traffic model (]TAM) includes hotel uses within the map area, but it is not identified on this map. 2. Revise the Warner Avenue cross section to reference L-L not K-K. I i TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.18197 'FOR FINANCE AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES' 'TUSTIN LEGACY' NEIGHBORHOOD D SOUTH CITYOFTUSTIN PKM3; Ar pct„ . r.. •ate..•... T..,. vwv 4111i �,. ...: unmwM m ......sv...,. r. x 6HFET4 \ TML.QT t -- INDEX MAP �yF•A\\ mrmr ivri wr+w r� _� rwe.�sttran T OHTffJtl�PME519�uTBff](F. CRYOFTUSTIN sir T[TLESHEET 1 _ REVISIONS TUSH LEGACY �M T gl0AT10 Nal TF.NTATNETRACT MAP cr NM 18187 T I f 1HTCH1NC6�&SYS MOUCKU EMMMErra trrr5SSS �, .n�.w t lDra r I rb -�..c_`2�I� �,} �a°�'y'•' � t�*R -/rf • f/� '�6-�l j I� a- '1 r°raTI ' - !.I II 1 'TMDMTPod P1� .{E1��yy}'7� �•1 `rs� � �J I I7re" t` p4 H --%GT. J�. III`�l - i � I �i' I il31EIS 1 , A — ffi .I cl f. i "'}' 7,Ir 'Il • tiffs V �r II'llllll ,.t-s-��^=�_ -� -e_ 5F-i•'- _ _ r�;"w trm"54�1 � �.- —_.— m ® T �� 91YiAAl1�WNtl01Y1�Y"".'– .— •- �- �_ •4 -�'�_� a– GTYOFTUSTIN S4UT CEMMREYiSI0N3 TUSnN LEGACY 1mT ra raTlerir_•� �•� `m �` TENTATIVE TRACT MAP d j _140.-18197.----- -.- . I I I I c WYCMa@6EE dFET6 � LOfA 1077 vt s y ��x� �} -,°� •C`` 4`� 1`�"ro 6.5IW � "div r.�us ay„ f ,1071-^-V�•: , � IAi. (� � •. �`' ` \ i.0 ' rte• M<C�MAPl 12r6Ma 1 a Lure E KARL AM I q 1078 y _ lo � ra 1.2 l 8FE@�Tx CITYOFTUS W 3 REVISIONS TUSTIN LEGACY TEWrATIVE TRACT MAP Q NO.1e197 7 t I WRCll1A MXWCETe ds \ �"1^r'�• �1XWTU C' ILALMM'"M" , Vie-=yy ell Lolril LOTS i.r' 1�� r..�.aui � g ' 9 ��/1/7 � � igALTM.11E07 �r d ^• \ �u;ac j/ ,•l r f= 'il@OOIWGI' i �'sww i 1NTgl➢lE WESlEET2 C"OFTUSi1N 4 REMION5 ®� TUSifN LEGACY � TEHTATiVE TRACT MAP �Noaalsr_ ]3111TI r- LA4 I I I h I r RUM �'�11� . s _ _. _ _ - �,_✓� V '=• i� '� Ire �aLOT@ torn 1 �iiGGf�1 �'�:�.3. � I�"i- —_ � ., i,.n�; �e..S. ��•:..� -.rte�, •� f,1�=_=T I � . J,I 3 LOT M - 'M» em to ` :.�...,. U. LUTA LOTT Y Y .L� �.' l� %�/�i.+.'33w �' �' r�r•`'•r�. ` R� � �-rwe wn`u"�a CITY OFTUMN 6 , � REVISIONS TUSTIN LEOAOY TEMATNETRACT MAP Q N0.98197Gant- T I MUM trio MAW + � rf 7 La.r, Una- :4 6'A.' l42 'I -(ti 17, 70 12 pp ticr nu.ourc �Ir� wuatnrarm I yrly a�ran�-" --= , `\ YATO{➢M MEf81EP74 CI;NOFTUSnN T 8 "� ktENS[ONS ®.a TUSTIN LEGACY � INTO Lv� ............_. TENPATNE TRACT MW T 1 � I � I I• �,n._yx ! 4 I i. _"-;r`r..-, yam•_-�-�_..�-z x?-,,-,.��..-._.- _. .` I Y _ I I J I V I i 1 1 1 1 ti ! I II AVE& _� 3 l � _+ D- i _._._ I a — crrYopnlsnN A>,llsrorls T>p:cALSSC OM 7 LEGACY i.rrte � TENT�TAACT W NO.18107 STATE QF L1FOFM6=.96VFORNfA STATE TRANSPORTAIMN AGENCY G6V[tl NEWSQM.jG�pvenor% DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE100 SANTA:ANA,:.CA 92705 Making C�pnservaflon PHONE .[657).3'2Ei-6247 a Carifom�!W*of'U�e. FAX (657)3�4-651 0 TTY 7111 , www.dotcagpy August. 1-4, 20-19 Ms; Samantha Beier File-' IGR/C50A City of Tustin I2-ORA-2017-Q1191 300 Centennial Way SR 55; 8R 261 ;.1-5; 1-405 Tustih, CA 92780 DearNsAeler, Thqhk you fdr.including the Cd[lfbtriia Depdrtm(�iqt bfTfarisp6rtd"jion (Caltrans) in the review of the Tentotive Tract Map for the Tuttin Legdcy Specific PId'O iffthe. -city-of Tustin.The mission of Caittarili 19 to provide a safe, sustainabl,.eF intdgrdted, and efficient kahs*poirtaition system to enhanciE.- California's economy and livability. 'The Tentative Tract Map 1s'forfinqnQ*e arid-Conveyance purposes only to: subdivide. a 11 :3-acrb site into 1.5 numbered lots and-7 lettered JoLt§,.loCated within a portion of.Neighborhood.D of the Tustin legacy Specific Plan. The project site is bounded by WarnerAVenue, Legacy Road;, Tustin Ranch Road,. garranca-Parkway, and Armstrong Avenue iii the-City of Tustin. n. Freeway access -is provided' by State'Roufes 55 (5. R 55) and 261 (SP 261) and Interstates 5 (1-5) and 405(1-405). Cdltrans is:,a respohsibleagena' ancl'ha5 the followihg�cbmMerilv. Transportation Plarining I .- 49w-d'Ov6loprhOnts '�,nade within the new.lott-Must be Seht'to Ca.1tran.s additional review. Please be aware that cumulative impacts from existing facilities and-fbture..developments may create-significant impacts on1he State:Highway System. AeNV6 Transr orfaflofi: 2,: Please O.nsuf-e that the project plans qcco.rTimodc(te.for the proposed and existing bicycle facilities documented in t-h-eJustin Legacy S'peciffc Plan (2017).According to the Bikeways and Trails Plan in the Specific Plan, there.are. proposed Class 1[ .bicycle lanes on Worher-.A.VenLie d.nd kmstro-ng Av' OuO, arid,in. theb"citihwest corner of'ffie site.. c. Existing C Class 11 facilities i0s arP- l9cdfed on .Legaty-Road{.'Barrah qa Park-way,and Tustin Rarich Road'. 'Trqvljdi 6 safe;sustto ain bI6,.Integrdtadand'effigiefit trdnspsystemorl SYStp able;. City of Tustin August 14, 2019 Page 2 3. Mixed-use development offers an opportunity to encourage multi-modal travel and a reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Short local car trips can potentially be replaced with Walking and bicycling trips. 4. As such, Caltrans encourages the design of Complete Streets that include high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are safe and comfortable for users of all ages and abilities. 5. VMT can also.be reduced by providing good first/last mile connectivity to transit. Please ensure good access and connectivity to the Class I trail proposed within the Tustin Legacy Park. This proposed Class I trail will be an important first/last mile connection to the Tustin Metrolink Station, as well as other transit stops near Tustin Legacy. Encroachment Permits: 6. Any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Right-of-Way (ROW) would require an encroachment permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans's requirements for work done within State ROW, additional documentation would be required before approval of the encroachment permit. Please coordinate with Caltrans to meet requirements for any work within or near State ROW. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans's Encroachment Permits Manual at: httpJ/www.dot.ca.-gov/ha/traffor)s/develor)sery/permits/ Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Jamoralin at (657) 328-6276 or Joseph.Jamoralin@dot.ca.aoy Sincerely, S*OHLLEY Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 Provide a safe,sustainable,Integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" ATTACHMENT D Resolution No. 4392 RESOLUTION NO. 4392 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18197 FOR FINANCING AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES ONLY TO SUBDIVIDE A 114.3-ACRE SITE INTO 16 NUMBERED LOTS AND 7 LETTERED LOTS LOCATED WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD D (PLANNING AREAS 8, 13 & 14) OF THE TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WARNER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, LEGACY ROAD AND TUSTIN RANCH ROAD TO THE EAST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND ARMSTRONG ROAD TO THE WEST. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 18197 was initiated by the City of Tustin to subdivide a 114.3-acre site into fifteen (15) numbered lots and seven (7) lettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes. The site is generally bounded by Warner Avenue to the north, Legacy Road and Tustin Ranch Road to the east, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Armstrong Road to the west; B. That the proposed TTM 18197 is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan land use designation of Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and the Tustin Legacy Specific Pian which designates the project site (Planning Areas 8, 13 & 14) as Mixed-Use Urban which provides for future development of entertainment and recreationally based development, retail, residences, and parks; C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map on September 10, 2019, by the Planning Commission; D. That the map would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code); E. That the City Engineer has examined the TTM and found it to be substantially in conformance with all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code; F. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report(FEIS/EIR)for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No.,06-43 approving an Addendum to the Resolution No. 4392 TTM 18197 Page 2 FE1S/EiR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-23 approving a second Supplement to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplements is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplements considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS, Tustin; and G. That the proposed subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development rights are associated with approval of this conveyance map. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been prepared, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes, or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR as amended. II. The Planning Commission hereby approving of TTM 18197 for the subdivision of an approximately 114.3-acre site into fifteen (15) numbered lots and seven (7) lettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes only. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 10th day of September, 2019. STEVE KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary a Resolution No. 4392 TTM 18197 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN } I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4392 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of September, 2019. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A Tustin Legacy Specific Plan EIS/EIR Initial Study and Checklist Appendix-G~ (Environmental Checklist Form) TVJ 1 IN CITY OF TUSTIN r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (794) 573-3100 BLIIIIINi,OUR IU It,Kk 110ti0AING(_IL F.PAf f ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EISIEIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A, BACKGROUND Project Title: Tentative Tact Map 18197 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Samantha D. Beier Phone. (714) 573-3354 Project Location: Disposition Package 2C & 8 is 114.3 acres within Planning Area 8, 13 & 14 of Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, bounded by Warner Avenue to the north, Legacy Road and Tustin Ranch Road to the east, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Armstrong Avenue to the west. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin cfo Ryan Swiontek 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Project Description: Requesting Planning Commission approval of Tentative Tract Map 18197 to subdivide a 114.3-acre site into 15 numbered lots and 7 lettered lots for finance and conveyance purposes General Plan Land Use Designation. Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Zoning Designation: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, Planning Areas 8, 13 & 14 INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North. Vacant Tustin Legacy Planning Area 8, 13 & 14, Mixed-Use Urban East: The District Tustin Legacy Planning Area 16-19, Commercial; Area 8, 13 & 14, Mixed-Use Urban West: Vacant--Tustin Legacy Planning Area 9-12, Commercial/Business South: City of Irvine— IBC, Urban Neighborhood. Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEISIEIR)for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEISIEIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia north loop road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEISIEIR and, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a Second Addendum to the FEISIEIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-23 approving a second Supplement to the FEISIEIR. The FEISIEIR, along with its addendums and supplements, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEISIEIR, addendums and supplemental considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. Other public agencies whose approval is required: ❑ Orange County Fire Authority ❑ City of Santa Ana ❑ Orange County EMA District ❑ City of Irvine ❑ South Coast Air Quality Management ❑ Other ❑ Orange County Health Care Agency Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Attachments: EXHIBIT 1: Location Map INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin 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 on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Land Use 1 Planning Materials ❑ Noise ❑ Population I Housing ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of ❑Tribal Cultural Resources Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Preparer: Date: Samantha D.Beier,Associate PIanner-Planning Date Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director 3 ] Page - - - --------- — ---- — -- - -- - - - - Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: See Attached, 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15663(c)(3)(D). In this case. a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin D. INITIAL. STUDY Less Than No Change Potentially Significant From Significant With Mitigation Previous Issues: Impact Incorporated Analysis 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, rocks outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of ❑ ❑ substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 51 Page - INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Potentially Less Than No Change Issues: Significant Significant With From Impact Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause ❑ ❑ rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ 0 implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Previous Mitigation Analysis Incorporated b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality Violation? C) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: P) 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on E 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? -- - -- -- - —- --- - - - -- INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant With From Impact Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis C) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the E] E 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 E] E ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an El ❑ 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 ❑ El 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 § 1506,4.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique El E paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 8Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant With From Impact Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis d) Disturb any human remains, including E] ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: L Rupture of a known earthquake E fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and;Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? El ❑ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, El F1 including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? E b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the E loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil 0 that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? - - ---- -- - - - - - - ---- - INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant With From Impact Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, ❑ ❑ either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 10 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant With From Impact Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis d) Be located on a site which is ❑ El '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 ❑ ❑ El airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a El ❑ private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? -- - - - -- - - - -- - - 11EPage INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (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 ❑ E] drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantia I*additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ quality? 12Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis g) Place housing within a 100-year flood El El hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ El area structures that would impede or redirect flows? 1) Expose people or structures to a ❑ El 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? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established El 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? i INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne-noise levels? G) A substantial permanent ❑ ❑ 19 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? 14Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less T1ian No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis 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? XIII. 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 road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ E people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 15 Page I INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical E] 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: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? E] ❑ iii. Schools? iv. Parks? V. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis XVI. TRANSPORTATION 1 TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion ❑ management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ EJ patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards El ❑ due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate ❑ F-1 emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or El ❑ programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 171 Page - - ---- -- - -- - - - — - INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No, Change Significant Significant From Impact With Previous Mitigation Analysis Incorporated XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or is eligible for listing in the El ❑ California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). b) A resource determined by the lead El ❑ agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment El ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? - - - -- - - - - -- - - - isIPage INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Previous Mitigation Analysis Incorporated b) Require or result in the construction ❑ of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction ❑ of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with ❑ ❑ sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ------- --- -- --- - - ----- - -- -- - _ ----- --- ---- ------------ 19Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Previous Mitigation Analysis Incorporated XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to E] E] degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have El El environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. - --- ---- ------ ----- - ----- -- --- - - -- --- - --- - - -- ------- -- - - - 201Page EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Tentative Tract Map 18197 BACKGROUND On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report(FEISIEIR) for the reuse and disposal of Marine Corp Air Station (MCAS) Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEISIEIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Councii adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEISIEIR. On May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEISIEIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-23 approving a second Supplement to the FEISIEIR in conjunction with Specific Plan Amendment 2016-01 (Ordinance 1482) for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (formerly MCAS Tustin Specific Plan). The FEISIEIR, along with its addendums and supplements, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEISIEIR, addendums and supplemental considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEISIEIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEISIEIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEISIEIR, Addendums and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan/MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Tustin Legacy Specific Plan proposed and the FEISIEIR analyzed a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEISIEIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEISIEIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana (1-5), Laguna (SR-133) and San Diego (I- 405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the northwest, Edinger Avenue on the northeast, Harvard Avenue on the southeast, and Barranca Parkway on the southwest. Jamboree Road and Tustin Ranch Roach transect the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the northeast providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. r Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 2 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located within the southern part of Neighborhood D (Planning areas 8, 13 and 14) of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and bounded by Warner Avenue to the north, Legacy Road and Tustin Ranch Road to the east, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Armstrong Avenue to the west. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 18197 is a request to subdivide a 114.3-acre site, also known as Disposition Parcels 2C and 8, into 15 numbered lots and 7 lettered lots for finance and conveyance purposes only. Future development of these parcels is anticipated to include the development of residential, non-residential, open space, and public streets. Each of the proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that this Project is within the scope of the Prior Environmental Review and that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), there are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, or any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Prior Environmental Review was certified showing that: (1) the project will have any new significant effects; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible will now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not directly result in aesthetic impacts. TTM 18197 is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums and have been found to have no demonstratable negative aesthetic impact. i Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 3 The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The project would be consistent with the permitted uses identified within the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The future development of residential, non-residential, open space, and public streets within Planning Area 8, 13, and 14 were considered within the FEISIEIR and will have no` negative aesthetic effect on the site when mitigation measures identified in the FEISIEIR are incorporated with approval of the project. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEISIEIR, the Supplemental,and Addendum. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEISIEIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR, Addendum and Supplement; and applicable measures will be required to be complied with as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83 through 3-87, 4-109 through 114), Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-7) and Addendum 2 (Page 24 through 26) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39, 3-56 through 3-76) Tustin General Plan H. AGRICULTURE AND_FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 4 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not directly result in agricultural impacts. TTM 18197 is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums and have been found to have no demonstratable negative agricultural impact. The proposed project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, or involve or cause changes in the environment resulting in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. As documented in the FEISIEIR, the project site is part of Tustin Legacy Specific Plan that contained 702 acres of farmland. The FEISIEIR concluded that there would be no viable long-term mitigation to offset the impact of converting farmland on MCAS Tustin to urban uses. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental'or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEISIEIR. However, the FEISIEIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related impacts to farmland were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Evaluation of Environmenta[ Impacts TTM 18197 Page 5 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83 through 3-87, 4-109 through 114), Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-9) and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 28) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan Ill. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause Air Quality impacts. TTM 18197 is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums and have been found to have no new effects as a result of the proposed project. As documented in the FEISIEIR, the project is part of a larger reuse project at Tustin Legacy that was projected to result in air quality impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The site is presently not in use. No significant impact beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIS/E1R is anticipated. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent-or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or(3)the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 6 Mitigation/Moniforing Required. Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEISIEIR. However, the FEISIEIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-143 through 163, 4-207 through 4-230 and 7-41 through 7-42), Addendum (Page 5-10 through 5-27) and Addendum 2 (Page 29 through 32) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Page 5.1-1 through 5.1- 34) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Table 2, 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL. RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. TTM 18197 is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. The Physical impacts resulting from development of uses proposed with the Tentative Tract Map would be similar to those identified in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums. Specifically, impacts to-on-site vegetation and loss of habitat. The FEISIEIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and Tustin Legacy Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISIEIR, the Supplementals and Addendums for MCAS Tustin. The Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 7 FEISIEIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (including the proposed project) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. The project site has been surveyed, and turtles were captured and moved off the site to another location as directed and overseen by the California Department of Fish and Game. Since that time, all former Marine Corps base drainage channels in the area were removed and graded by the former owner of the property with the required 401, 404 and 1601 permits issued by Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consequently,the proposed project would not affect the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27),Addendum (Page 5-28 through 5-39) and Addendum 2 (Page 33 through 35) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to cultural resources. TTM 18197 is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums. It should be noted that the former MCAS Tustin contained two National Register listed blimp hangars, and several concrete or asphalt blimp landing pads that Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 8 were considered historically or culturally significant, pursuant to the federal Section 106 process conducted at the site. Through the Section 106 process, these facilities were identified as part of a discontiguous Historic District. The Navy, State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and Advisory Council executed a Memorandum of Agreement (attached as part of the EISIEIR) with City of Tustin and County of Orange as invited signatories that allowed for the destruction of the blimp pads. The EISIEIR noted that it may not be financially feasible to retain the blimp hangars and there may be irreversible significant impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Consistent with the-above referenced agreement, the previous owner of the property removed the blimp pad from the project site and leveled the property. However, no portion of the previously existing blimp landing pads nor the existing blimp hangars are located within the project site boundary. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation, measures that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural resources. Specifically,there have not been: (1)changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial,!ncrease in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26), Addendum (Page 5-40 through 5-45) and Addendum 2 (Page 36 through 37) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental impacts TTM 18197 Page 9 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? f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not cause any direct impacts to geology or soil. TTM 18197 is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums and have been found to have no demonstratable negative geology or soil effect on the site. The FEISIEIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and Tustin Legacy Specific Plan would "include non- seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure." However, the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin also concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 10 substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required:As identified in the FEISIEIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123 and 7-28 through 7-29), Addendum (Page 5-46 through 5-49) and Addendum 2 (Page 38 through 40) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not cause any direct impact to greenhouse gas emissions. TTM 18197 is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. The FEIS/EIR did not evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions impacts because, prior to SB 97,which went into effect January 1, 2010, it was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and the City of Tustin did not have adopted thresholds at the time of preparation. The City has prepared the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR), which was adopted in June 2017 in conjunction with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Modified Project). The FSEIR analyzed the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Adopted Specific Plan) would have generated GHG emissions at levels that would exceed the thresholds established by Southern California Air Quality Management District. The FSEIR concluded that the Modified Project would contribute to global climate change through direct emission of GHG from onsite area sources and vehicle trips and indirectly through offsite energy production required for onsite activities, water use and waste disposal. However, the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions at a reduced rate than the rate GHG emissions would have been produced under the Adopted Specific Plan. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR;these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin Addendum 2 (Page 41 through 43) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Page 5.2-1 through Pages 5.2-30) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 11 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not involve the creation the creation of a hazard or hazardous materials. TTM 18197 is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums. The proposed Tentative Tract Map would result generally in the same types of land uses being developed within the project area. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. In addition, construction and residential uses would not emit hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Navy conveyed the property in 2002 as unrestricted and suitable for residential reuse. In addition, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four(4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within a flight approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is also not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state and local regulations concerning handling and use of household hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 12 Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.As identified in the FEISIEIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/E1R for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31), Addendum (Page 5-49 through 5-55) and Addendum 2 (Page 44 through 47) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan. 1X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a mannerwhich.would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would,exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which+would impede or redirect flood flows? E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 13 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not cause any direct impact to hydrology and water quality, however an addendum to the existing Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment Sub-Area Master Plan Update has been approved by the Irvine Ranch Water District to address updates to the mixed-use land site layout and distribution of proposed uses for undeveloped area. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums and have been found-to have no demonstratable negative hydrology and water quality effect on the site. Project design and construction of facilities to fully contain drainage of the site would be required as conditions of approval of each project and submitted/approved Water Quality Management Plans. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. The proposed project will also not affect groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The project is not located within a 100-year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase_in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity .of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 14 FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-98 through 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30), Addendum (Page 5-56 through 5-91) and Addendum 2 (Page 48 through 51) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) FEMA Flood Map: FIRM Panel 06059CO279J (Dec. 2, 2009) Tustin General Plan Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map (2011) X. LAND USE AND PLANNING —Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Future development of these parcels, also known as Disposition Parcels 2C and 8, is anticipated to include the development of residential, non-residential, open space, and public streets. Each of the proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums. The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Reuse Plan for the former base, such as land use designations, zoning categories, recreation and open space areas, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infrastructure systems. On July 18, 2017,the Tustin City Council approved the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan for Tustin Legacy project area that established land use and development standards for development of the site. The proposed project complies with Planning Area 15's development standards for residential units as noted in Section 3.13.2 of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The City must support density bonus requests, concessions or incentives when projects provide affordable housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1), as authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Approval of a Development Agreement and Design Review would be required at a later date. In addition, the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 15 substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as identified by the adopted FEISIEIR. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18), Addendum (Page 5-92 through 5-94) and Addendum 2 (Page 52 through 54) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Page 5.2-1 through Page 5.2-16) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan XI. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The FEISIEIR and addendum indicated that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR and Addendums. Chapter 3.9 of the FEISIEIR indicates that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 16 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91), Addendum (Page 5-95 through 5-96) and Addendum 2 (Page 55 through 56) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan X111. NOISE—Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Future development of these parcels, also known as Disposition Parcels 2C and 8, is anticipated to include the development of residential, non-residential, open space,. and public streets. Each of the proposed uses } are consistent with the approved Specific Plan. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums. The FEIS/EIR indicates that full build-out of the base will create noise impacts that would be considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors would exceed those considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the Noise Elements of the Tustin General Plan. For interior noise, N-3 identified in the FEIS/EIR requires plans demonstrating noise regulation conformity be submitted for review and approval prior to building permits being issued. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. At Design Review, a noise study will be required to ensure the project complies with City noise standards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been; (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/E1R due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TfM 18197 Page 17 of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR;these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources. Field Observation Submitted Plans FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-154 to 3-162, 4- 231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43), Addendum..(Page 5-96 through 5-101) and Addendum 2 (Page 57 through 60) FSE1R for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Page 5.4-1 through 5.4- 30) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan Xlll. POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision.map. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will provide a similar amount and type of residential and non-residential uses as those included in the Specific Plan. The project would not lead to the removal of existing housing or displacement of any people to necessitate construction of additional housing are proposed with the Tentative Tract Map consistent with the Specific Plan and previously approved FEISIEIR and Addendums. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FE1SIEiR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums would not have adverse effects on population or housing. Similar to the conclusions in the FEISIEIR, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 18 severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplementals or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-18 to 3-34, 4-14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19), Addendum (Page 5-101 through 5-111) and Addendum 2 (Page 61 through 62) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Page 5.5-1 through 5.5- 16) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan XIV. 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: No Substantia! Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. The FEISIEIR and Addendums for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails; however new facilities will be provided within the Master Developer footprint to which the applicant will contribute a fair share. The site is currently vacant. Development of the site would require public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails. Fire Protection. The future project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations existing and planned in the area surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed based on resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Future development of the site would increase the need for police protection services. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access, address signage are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. The site is located within Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) and Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). The implementation of the Reuse Plan would provide ,two 10-acre sites for elementary schools and a 40-acre high school site to serve the Evaluation of Environmental'Impacts TTM 18197 Page 19 growing student population within its district. As a condition of approval for future projects, developers will be.required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of the building permit. In summary, no new additional students are anticipated beyond what-was considered in the FEIRIEIS for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS, Tustin,and in any event, City required mitigation is limited by State law to requiring payment of the SB 50 school impact fees. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of 10,000 square feet for a branch library and would not trigger the need for a new facility. General Implementation Requirements: To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with FEISIEIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to public services. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3)the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22), Addendum (Page 5-112 through 5-122) and Addendum 2 (Page 63 through 65) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Page 5.6-1 through 5.6- 12) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 20 XV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. TTM 18197 is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map, though a minimum of 76 acres of land is anticipated in conjunction with the development of future segments of the Linear Park. The acreage of open space area remains consistent with the Specific Plan; thus the proposed Tentative Tract Map would not result in a new or substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services compared to conclusions of FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3)the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval forthe project. Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22, Addendum (Page 5-122 through 5-127) and Addendum 2 (Page 66 through 67) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Department Tustin General Plan XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC —Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and_ relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 21 intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed Tentative Tract Map is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Streets proposed in the TTM are consistent with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The FEISIEIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The FEISIEIR and Supplements identified the trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum to create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) of 216,440 trips. The Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed project would not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the FEISIEIR and its Supplemental and Addendums. According to the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, a maximum of 2,894 residential dwelling units are permitted within Planning Area 15 (Neighborhood G) with an established trip budget of 38,936 ADTs. The proposed project has a total of 114 units with projected 758 ADTs. Given this comparison, the proposed project is well within the trip budget established for the project site. The analysis has shown that the proposed project has not resulted in new significant impacts that would require mitigation. Moreover, the proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer has analyzed the proposed project and the associated trip generation and determined that it is within the traffic budget for the project site. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to traffic. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 22 circumstances,under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental of Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources. Field Observation Submitted.Plans FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-118 to 3-142, 4- 139 to 4-206 and 7-32 to 7-41, Addendum (Page 5-127 through 5-146) and Addendum 2 (Page 68 through 73) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Page 5.7-1 through 5.7- 34) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39)' Tustin General Plan XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause .a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1'(k). b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. The proposed Tentative Tract. Map is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. The project would not cause substantial adverse change in a tribal cultural resource in that the property does not contain historical cultural resources and the proposed use and modifications would not result impacts to historical or cultural resources. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26), Addendum'(Page 5-40 through 5-45) and Addendum 2 (Page 36 through 37) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ; TTM 16197 Page 23 Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan XVIII. 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? g) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Substantia! Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to utilities and service systems. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is for finance and conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendums. The FEIRIEIR analyzed residential development on the proposed site, which is consistent with the proposed project. Deveiopment of the site would require on-site improvements and off-site infrastructure improvements to utilities and roadway systems, including payment of fair share contribution related to the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program and construction of.landscape and irrigation on the public right-of-way Also, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of wastewater treatment. The number of proposed units can be supported by the Irvine Ranch Water District for domestic water and sewer services. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;.or (3) the 4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ' TTM 18'197 Page 24 availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental orAddendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR;these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-35 through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21), Addendum (Page 5-147 through 5-164) and Addendum 2 (Page 74 through 76) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Page 5.8-1 through 5.8- 28) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects,of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEISIEIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air Quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The FEISIEIR, the Supplemental and Addendums previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEISIEIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEISIEIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 18197 Page 25 Mifigafion/Moniforing Required: The FEISIEIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 5-4 through 5-11) and Addendum 2 (Page 77 through 78) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Page 3-36 through 3-39) Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEISIEIR on January 16, 2001 and July 5, 2017 and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Exhibit 1: Location Map SOUTH 6 SANTA ANA EDINGER AVENUE Project Site WARNER AVENUE P 4RR4NCA PKWY 55 IRVINE 0 21Page