Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 05-42 RESOLUTION NO. 05-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS, TUSTIN ("FEIS/FEIR") IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 04-001, PREZONE 04-001, ZONE CHANGE (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) 04-001, AND ANNEXATION NO. 159. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That General Plan Amendment 04-001, Prezone 04-001, Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 04-001, and Annexation No. 159 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. That the FEIS/FEIR was certified by the City Council on January 16, 2001. The FEIS/FEIR is a Program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA.") The FEIS/FEIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with the development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. C. That an Environmental Analysis checklist, attached as Exhibit A hereto, was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Environmental Analysis checklist demonstrates that all potential impacts of the Project were addressed by the certified FEIS/FEIR, no additional impacts have been identified, and all applicable mitigation measures in the FEIS/FEIR will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36. . II. The City Council hereby finds find that this Project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/FEIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 22nd day of February 2005. Resolution No. 05.42 Page 10133 ----/Z <I N LOU BONE Mayor ~~ City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 05-42 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 22nd day of February, 2005, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: RON, DAV,RT. AMANTE. HAGEN. KAWASHIMA NONE NONE NONE (5 ) (0) (0) (0) ~) PA ELA STOKER City Clerk Resolution No. 05-42 Page 2 of 33 EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-42 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JOO Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (EISIEIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts (Attachment I to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42) takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Lead Agency: General Plan Amendment 04-001, Prezone 04-001, Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 04-001, and Annexation 159 for MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36 City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 . Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573-3016 Lead Agency Contact Person: Project Location: The site is identified as Disposition Parcel 36 in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The site is located within a portion of Planning Area 21 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is bounded by the City of Tustin/City of Irvine boundary to the north, an Edison easement to the east, Peters Canyon Channel to the west, and a flood control channel and Warner Avenue to the south. Moffett Meadows Partners LLC c/o Lennar Communities 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: City of Irvine Mediwn Density Zoning Designation: City ofIrvine 2.3 Medium Density Residential Project Description: Approval of General Plan Amendment 04-001, Prezone 04-001, Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 04-00 I, and Annexation 159 for the purpose of annexing MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36 and establishing new development standards on Parcel 36. Surrounding Uses: Resolution No. 05-42 North: Vacant - MCAS Tustin Planning Area 21 - ResidentialPage 3 of 33 East: Southern California Edison property, Harvard A venue and City of Irvine Planning Area 38 - Residential South: Flood control channel, Warner Avenue and Vacant - MCAS Tustin Planning Area 22 - Residential West: Peters Canyon Channel and Self Storage Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (Program FEISÆIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16,2001. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. OLand Use and Planning DPopulation and Housing OGeology and Soils DHydrology and Water Quality DAir Quality OTransportation & Circulation DBiological Resources DMineral Resources DAgricultural Resources DHazards and Hazardous Materials DNoise DPublic Services DUtilities and Service Systems DAesthetics DCultural Resources DRecreation DMandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGA TlVE DECLARA nON will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGA TlVE DECLARA nON will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [8J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL FN~~~t effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed Page 4 of 33 adequately in an earlier ErR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ErR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ~~ ~'-:) Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner ?2~§~.L Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Preparer: Date: ,/r~/O7 Date 1-1?J~ðS- D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS See Attached Resolution No. 05-42 Page 5 of 33 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Suóstantiaf New More Change From Significant Severe Previous I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 181 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 0 181 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 181 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 181 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Lal1d Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Cal ifomia Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? 0 0 181 b) Conflict with existing znning for agricultural use, or a Wiltiamson Act contract? 0 0 ~ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 ~ ilL AIR OUALITY: 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) Contlict with or obstruct implementation ofth. applicable air quality plan? 0 0 ~ h) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 r8J c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 0 0 ~ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 ~ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people 'Resolution No. 05-42 0 0 ~ Page 6 of 33 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? New S;gnifìcanl Impact More Severe Impacts No Subslantial Change From Previous AnalysLr 0 0 ¿?J b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 ~ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 oflhe Clean Water Act (including, but nollimited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct remavsl, filling, hydrological inteITUption, 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? 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 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 Habilat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or stale habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as deemed in § 15O64.5? 0 0 cg 0 0 ¿?J 0 0 ~ 0 0 cg b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § I 5O64.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including tbose interred outside of fonnal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people ar structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including Ibe risk ofloss, injury, or death involving: Resolution No. 05-42 t"'age I or ;j3 No SubstanJial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analys;s i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Puhlication 42. D D ~ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D ~ ¡ii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? D D ~ iv) Landslides? D D ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil? D D ~ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a resul1 of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? D D ~ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defmed in Table 18-l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? D D IZI e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? D D ~ VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard 10 the public or the envirorunenl through the rouline transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? D D IZI 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? D D ~ 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 D IZI 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 il create a significanl hazard to the public or the environment? D D ~ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within tWo miles ofa public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? D D ~ t) For ¡¡¡pl!lt ltdi~tNia.dI¡;";\2inity of a private airstrip, would tl'li3_a:oIe'iíilt in a safety hazard for people residing or working in Ihe project area? D D ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Impacts Analysis adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? D D ~ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized aTeas or where residences are inlennixed with wildlands? D D ~ VIII. HYDROLOGY ANDWATEROUALlTY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? D D ~ 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 penn its have been granted)? 0 0 IZI c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a - stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? D D IZI d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe 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? 0 D IZI e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff! D D IZI f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 D IZI g) Place housing within a lOa-year flood hazard arcaas mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? D D t8I h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? D D t8I i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? D D t8I j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 D t8I IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: 0) Physically divide an established community? D 0 ReSoluti~,NO. 05-42 go 8 "r 33 No Subs/ani/a! New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Impac/ Impacts Analysis regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 ~ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 ~ X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 0 0 ~ b) Result in the loss of availability ofa locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 0 0 ~ XI. NOISE- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 [8J b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groWldborne vibration or grOlU1dborne noise levels? 0 0 IZI c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 IZI d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 IZI 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? 0 0 ~ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? 0 0 IZI XII, POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 0 IZI b) Displieecsll!!ilÞll1l1111.r&iftØ&s of existing housing, necessita~lh¡ 0<Øfs8ûction of rep]acement housing elsewhere? 0 0 ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating tbe construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 I8J XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of neW or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 0 ~ Police protection? 0 0 I8J Schools? 0 0 ~ Porles? 0 0 ¡g¡ Other public facilities? 0 0 ~ XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parles or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would oCcur or be accelerated? 0 0 ~ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the conSb'uctioD or expansion ofrecreatiooal facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 I8J XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the sb'eet system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle b'ips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 0 0 ~ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 I8J c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in b'affic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risles? 0 0 l8I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 Resoluti~o. 05-42 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 p~ 11 of33 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 l8I ---------- No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 0 [8J XVI. UTI LITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 I8J b) Require or result in the constnJction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constnJction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 I8J c) Require or result in the constnJction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities., the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 IZI d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project fTom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 IZI e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 0 IZI t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 IZI g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 [8J XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, subst>lntially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popula jon tQ drop belQW self-sustaining Jevels, 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? 0 0 ~ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the increment>ll effects ofa project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 0 0 [8J c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause subMløl~e~n human beings, either directly olAlI(þetS)Of 33 0 0 IZI ATTACHMENT 1 TO EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-42 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 04-001, PREZONE 04-001, ZONE CHANGE (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) 04.()O1, AND ANNEXATION 159 MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISPOSITION PARCEL 36 BACKGROUND The former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially closed on July 2, 1999, as a result of recommendations of the Federal Base Closure and Realignment Commission. The City was designated as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the reuse of MCAS Tustin and, acting as such, approved a Reuse Plan that provided for future land uses at the former MCAS Tustin. The Reuse Plan was approved in October 1996 and was subsequently amended in September 1998 ("the Reuse Plan'). The Reuse Plan was subsequently reviewed and approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as consistent with federal law regarding the homeless. In accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") of 1969, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act {"CEOA'ì, the federal govemment and City prepared a Joint Final Program Environmental Impact StatemenVEnvironmentallmpact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Final Joint Program Environmental Impact StatemenVEnvironmental Impact Report for the disposal and reuse of MCAS- Tustin (referenced as FEISÆIR herein). Former MCAS Tustin is comprised of 1602 acres and is located within the boundaries of Tustin and Irvine (Attachment A). The majority of the site, or approximately 1,507 acres, is located within the City of Tustin, and approximately 95 acres is situated within the City of Irvine. On June 7, 2004, Moffett Meadows Partners, LLC, which purchased a portion of former MCAS Tustin from the Department of Navy, submitted an application to the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to have approximately 22 acres of property on former MCAS Tustin within the City of Irvine annexed to the City of Tustin. The proposed annexation site is identified as Disposition Parcel 36 in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The site is located within a portion of Planning Area 21 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is bounded by the City of Tustin/City of Irvine boundary to the north, an Edison property to the east, Peters Canyon Channel to the west, and a flood control channel and Warner Avenue to the south. Access to the site is currently provided from Moffett Avenue via the Tustin portion of Planning Area 21 (Attachment B). Prior to LAFCO's consideration of the annexation, the City of Tustin must amend its General Plan and prezone the site. The applicant is also requesting a zone change consisting of an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to establish new development standards for Disposition Parcel 36. The proposed project is a general plan amendment, prezone, zone change, and annexation that w&MPlljifIsI..ÐICfál5i1?e development of up to 150 additional dwelling units within the City of Tustin ~M ~'Õ¡ffn Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 2 up to 150 fewer dwelling units in Planning Area 21 in the City of Irvine. The development of the 150 dwelling units was analyzed in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR. As part of the analysis of the MCAS Tustin FEIRIEIS for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the Irvine portion of Planning Area 21 was identified as a Low Density Residential (LDR) site, with a development p01ential of 1-7 dwelling units per acre. There were 150 existing units within the Irvine portion of Planning Area 21 (Table 3-1, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan). At the time, rehabilitation of these units was considered and therefore the total number of 150 units was included in the land use analysis included in the MCAS Tustin FEIRIEIS for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed general plan amendment, prezone, and zone change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) would retain the Low Density Residential (LDR) designation of the site, pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Related environmental impacts were addressed in the FEIS/EIR and implementation and mitigation measures were incorporated into the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The applicable mitigation measures developed in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36. 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 outcropping., 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 8ubstantiallight or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project site is not located on a scenic highway, nor will the project affect a scenic vista. The proposed general plan amendment, prezone, zone change, and annexation would allow development that is consistent with the permitted uses identified within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Development of low-density residential units within the Irvine portion of Planning Area 21 was considered within the FEIS/EIR and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site when mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR are included as conditions of the entitlement approvals for MCAS Tustin Disposition Parcel 36. All exterior design is required to be in compliance with Section 2. 17.3(A) - Urban Design Guidelines for Residential Development of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the Landscape . ConceJ1t.~ion 3.17.2 as they relate to the design of Harvard Avenue south of ~:~~I~~~g~rXvenue and primary street comers and project entries. Since the site is Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 3 bounded by two arterials, the Landscape/Screening standards noted In Section 3.11.12 would apply. The development of the site would include a design review, which requires that the design of the project is cohesive and in hannony with surrounding uses. All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section 2.17.3 (A) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR. MitigationIMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISÆIR; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-152 to 2-175, 3-146) Tustin Security Ordinance Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use In assessing Impacts on agriculture and fannland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a WIllIamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes In the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? The proposed general plan amendment, prezone, zone change, and annexation would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the farmland Managing and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use. Also, the property is not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the proposed use involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uS%J"b~ti~r~~~~~ is not zoned or used as agricutturalland: consequently, no subs'fãRtlitr~~~j§ expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCÄ"ลก Tustin. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 4 MitigationlMonitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result In a cumulatively considerable net Increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attalnment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? As documented in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed general plan amendment, prezone, zone change. and annexation will accommodate development that is part of a larger project that was projected to result in air quality impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISJEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Since the proposed actions would accommodate the development of up to 150 housing units, which is consistent with the Specific Plan, all environmental impacts related to the project and the development of the site were considered in the adopted FEISÆIR. The project would not add any impacts beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIS/EIR. MitigationIMonitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEiSÆIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISJEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources; Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230 and pages 7-41 through 7-42) Resolution No. 05-42 Page 16 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 5 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3- 37). 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? The FEISÆIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed general plan amendment, prezone, zone change, and annexation will accommodate development that is consistent with the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. The FEISÆIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan could impact jurisdictional waterslwetlands and the southwestem pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waterslwetlands. The project site is not located in an area that would affect the southwestem pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Resolution No. 05-42 Page 170f33 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 6 Sources: Field Observations FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan 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 § 15064.51 c) Directly or Indirectly destroy a unIque paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA- ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities associated with future development of the site. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. MitigationIMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISÆIR; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36 Sources: Field Observations FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan Resolution No. 05-42 Page 18of33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 7 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 soli erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result In on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The FEISÆIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would "include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure." However, the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for the future development of the project site from the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEISlEIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tu§t¡I'PI~~~91r~~ . through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123 and 7-28 through 7-29rage Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 8 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditIons Involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions Dr 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 Dr death Involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. In addition, future construction and residential uses resulting from the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Navy has approved a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) determining that the Quitclaim portions of the project are suitable for reuse as planned within the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin and as shown in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. In addition, the Resolu~~~js located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; Page 2601'33" Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 9 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 not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state, and Ioçal regulations concerning handling and use of these hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of signifICance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEISIEIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), MCAS Tustin Tustin General Plan. 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-exlsting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or rIver, In a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-aite? 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-aite? 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? Resolution No. 05-42 Page 21 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 10 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death Involving flooding, Including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? I} Potentially Impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? m) Result In a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result In a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? 0) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? The proposed general plan amendment, prezone, zone change, and annexation will allow development that would increase runoff. However, the project will not result in additional impacts beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIStEIR. The project design and construction of facilities to fully contain drainage of the site would be required as conditions of approval of the future development project. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the future development of the project site. The proposed future development will not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed future development would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage pattems at the site. The project site is not located within a 1 DO-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 project site susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations associated with future development of the site 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) Resoluti(j)f" l o. ~nal Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) and the Page 22 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 11 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 FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. MitigationIMonitoring Required: As identified in the FEISÆIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154) FEMA Map (August 9, 2002) Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Reuse Plan for the Tustin portion of 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 February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council approved the Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin that established land use and development standards for development of the site. The proposed general plan amendment, prezone, zone change, and annexation will allow development that meets the density requirements of Table 3-2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed general plan amendment, prezone, and zone change would retain the low Density Residential (lDR) designation of the site, . pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community ~ ~ Page 23 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 12 Consequently, no change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. MitigationIMonitorlng Required: The proposed project is consistent with the density requirements of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as identified by the adopted FEISÆIR. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3- 17,4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project a) Result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally Important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Chapter 3.9 of the FEIS/EIR indicates that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Pian (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154), Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Resolution No. 05-42 Page 24 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 13 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 mile. 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 excesaive noise levels? Future development allowed by the proposed project could result in implementation activities that generate noise. The FEISIEIR indicates that full build-out of the base will create noise impacts that would be considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensiöve receptors would exceed those considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the Noise Elements of the Tustin General Plan. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. However, the City of Tustin will ensure that construction activities associated with future development of the site comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and the housing units are designed with adequate noise attenuation (Le., window design, sound walls) to meet the allowable noise levels as required by Tustjn City Code for residential use. The future development project would be sound attenuated against present and projected noise so as not to exceed an exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms to reduce noise-related impacts to a level of insignificance. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. MitigationlMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISJEIR; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3- 162,4-231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustjn Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan Resolution No. 05-42 Page 25 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 14 XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other InfrastrucbJre)? 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? The proposed general plan amendment, prezone, zone change, and annexation will allow development that would include up to 150 new residential units on a site that once included 150 military housing units. The proposed project will not displace people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The maximum number of allowable residential units is consistent with the density that was previously analyzed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. It is anticipated that the total number of units for Planning Area 21 upon completion of the entire planning area would be consistent with the number of units considered in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. MitigationlMonitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3- 34,4-14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result In substantial adverse physical impacts assocIated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed general plan amendment, prezone, zone change and annexation will allow development of the site that would require public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and bikinglhiking trails. If the proposed project is approved, police protection services and recreation facilities for the area identified as Disposition Parcel 36 would be provided by the City of Tustin rather than the City of Irvine. All of the other services listed below ResolutiWtØd~ovided by the same agencies. Page 26 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 15 Fire Protection. The development of the site allowed by the proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding demolition, construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants. sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations in the areas surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Development of the site accommodated by the proposed project would increase the need for police protection services. The developer, as a condition of approval for the future development of the site, would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access, and address signage are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. The proposed project is located within the Irvine Unified School District (IUSD). The implementation of the Reuse Plan provides for a 20-acre school site to IUSD to serve the growing student population within its district. As a condition of approval for the future development of the site, the developer would be required to pay applicable school fees to IUSD prior to issuance of the building permit. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of 10,000 square feet for a branch library and would not trigger the need for a new facility. Generallmolementation Reauirements: 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 FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin for fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36. Resolution No. 05-42 Page 27 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 16 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3- 57,4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Reuse Plan provides for a new 84.5-acre Regional Park, a 24-acre Community Park, two (2) Neighborhood Parks of at least five-acres each, and bicycle trails, and riding and hiking paths traversing the property connecting to the regional bikewayltrail system, play areas associated with schools, and child care facilities. Since the Reuse Plan process included the accommodation of public conveyance of approximately 35 acres of city parks and 85 acres of Urban Regional Park, individual developers were relieved of the requirement to dedicate land for park purposes. However, pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the developers are required to provide in-lieu fees or public accessible park space (where approved by the City). The future residential development allowed by the proposed project would not generate an increase in the use of existing neighborhood parks since a park site would be included in the site. However, a negligible increase in the use of regional parks or other recreational facilities may be experienced prior to development of the entire MCAS Tustin Specmc Plan. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. MitigationlMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISÆIR; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 347 to 3- 57,4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154) Resolution No. 05-42 Page 28 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 17 Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Department Tustin General Plan xv. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an Increase In traffic, which 18 substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (I.e., result In a substantial increase In either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at Intaraectlons)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results In substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous I"taraections) or Incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result In inadequate emergency access? f) Result In inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The project site would be accessed from Moffett Drive and Harvard Avenue via Planning Area 21 within the City of Tustin. Internal circulation of the site would be managed through private streets designed in compliance with the roadway standards of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 2.5.2(8) related to major arterials and private streets standards. The FEISÆIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. A projected 216,445 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by full redevelopment of the base by year 2020 that, if left unmitigated, would overburden existing roadways and intersections surrounding the base property. The FEISÆIR indicates that traffic circulation activities at MCAS Tustin generated a baseline of 12,400 ADT when the base was fully operational (1993). As a military facility, the FEISÆIR considered the traffic impact and developed a mitigation program to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The project site will be conditioned to participate in its fair share responsibility for both on-site and off-site circulation mitigation and implementation measures. In addition, construction activities are required to be meet all Transportation related FEIS/EIR Implementation and Mitigatio';!.J~I ~a~ures 8~, lane closures, street/utility construction, construction vehicle 'IYâI'I'I~~o~~~ FEISIEIR implementation and mitigation measures will reduce potential'mpa~ 0 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 18 the traffic and circulation system to a level of insignificance. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. MitigationIMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36. Sources: Field Observation FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-118 through 3-142,4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-41) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan XVI. UTiliTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result In significant environmental effects (e.g. Increased vectors and odors)? Resolutioo No. 05-42 Page 30 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 19 The FEIS/EIR analyzed low-density residential development on the proposed site, which is consistent with the proposed project. Development of Planning Area 21 would require Developer on-site improvements and off-site infrastructure improvements to utilities and roadway systems, including final design and construction of Moffett Avenue from Harvard Avenue to Peters Canyon Wash Bridge. Improvements to Moffett Avenue would include design and installation of a Class II bike trail, a new domestic water line if required by the Irvine Ranch Water District, a new brine line, a new reclaimed water line if required by the Irvine Ranch Water District, a new sanitary sewer line if required by the Irvine Ranch Water District, and a storm drain with adequate capacity to accommodate runoff from the proposed development. The developer will also be responsible for their fair share contribution to the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Improvement Program which includes, but is not limited to, roadways, water and sewer systems, and backbone underground dry utilities (electric, gas, cable TV, telephone, etc). In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of wastewater treatment. The number of allowable residential units can be supported by the Irvine Ranch Water District for domestic water and sewer services. Improvements to Peters Canyon Channel adjacent to Parcel 36 will be the responsibility of the developer, including all jurisdictional wetland mitigation, subject to the provisions of a Cooperative Agreement between the developer and the City of Tustin. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. MitigationIMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISÆIR; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36. Sources: Field Observations FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan Resolution No. 05-42 Page 31 of 33 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 20 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of CalifornIa history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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 FEISÆIR 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 FEISIEJR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEISÆIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. MitigationIMonitoring Required: The FEISÆIR 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 FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3- 154). Tustin General Plan Resolution No. 05-42 Page 32 of 33 Attachment 1 of I::xhibit A of Resolution No. 05-42 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 04-001, PZ 04-001, ZC 04-001, Annexation 159 Page 21 CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed projecfs effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or altematives 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 shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. S:\CddlSComTustin Legacy\Lennar Annexation Initial Study Evaluation.doc Resolution No. 05-42 Page 33 of 33