Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3969 RESOLUTION NO. 3969 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT FINDINGS THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS, TUSTIN ("FEIS/EIR") IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR ZONE CHANGE (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) 05-001. I. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. That the FEIS/EIR was certified by the City Council on January 16, 2001. The FEIS/EIR is a Program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/EIR 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/EIR, no additional impacts have been identified, no new mitigation measures would be required, and that the City can approve the Specific Plan Amendments as being within the scope of the FEIS/EIR. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that this Project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/EIR 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. Resolution No. 3969 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 9th day of May, 20Ö5. ,,- JO NIELSEN Chairperson &~Þ! M~i ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3969 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 9th day of May, 2005. ¿;¿'~.d.~~s!: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3969 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (EISIEIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts (Attachment 1) 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): Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573-3016 Project Location: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, generally bounded by Edinger A venue to the north, Harvard A venue to the east, Red Hill Avenue. to the west, and Barranca Parkway to the south. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District Project Description: Approval of Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 to make minor administrative amendments that would modify the definition of density, revise the minimum size of a development unit, and allow more flexibility in transferring residential units between planning areas. Surrounding Uses: North: Residential, Light Industrial, and Commercial East: Residential South: Light Industrial and Commercial West: Light Industrial and Commercial - - -~---- 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. ENVIRONMENT AL 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 OHydrology and Water Quality OAir Quality DTransportation & Circulation OBiological Resources OMineral Resources OAgricultural Resources OHazards and Hazardous Materials DNoise OPublic Services OUtilities and Service Systems OAesthetics DCultural Resources ORecreation OMandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. IZI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 0 I 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 D I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL c~ NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: .J~~ Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner &f ;¿d~~6;~/- Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Date: '-/-/'I-tJ.5 Date ~- /-;('. ð S- D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS See Attached ~ EV ALUA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D ~ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? D D ~ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? D D ~ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? D D ~ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps .. prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? D D ~ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? D D ~ 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? D D ~ 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) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? D D ~ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? D D ~ 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 D ~ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? D D ~ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? D D ~ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish 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 intelTUption, 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? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: New Significant Impact No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis More Severe Impacts D D ~ D D ~ D D ~ D D ~ D D ~ D D ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ D D ~ 0 D ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 0 0 181 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 ~ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 181 iv) Landslides? 0 0 ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 ~ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 0 0 ~ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 ~ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ... septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 0 0 181 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 ~ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 181 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code.Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 0 ~ ---e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 181 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 ~ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fITes, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 ~ VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATEROUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 ~ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 0 ~ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course ofa stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 0 0 ~ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 0 0 ~ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 ~ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 ~ g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 ~ h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? D 0 ~ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam? D D ~ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D ~ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Impact Impacts Analysis regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 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 of a locally-important mineraI resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? D D ~ XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: """ß) 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 ~ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 0 0 ~ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 ~ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinityabove levels existing without the project? 0 0 ~ 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 ~ XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: :.) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either jirectly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infiastructure)? 0 0 ~ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 ~ ----- """-""-""--"------"""" c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating thE: construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 perfonnance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ [81 IZI 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 ¡:g¡ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 ¡:g¡ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 ¡:g¡ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 ¡:g¡ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or __expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 ¡:g¡ 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 ¡:g¡ t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 ¡:g¡ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 ¡:g¡ 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? 0 0 ¡:g¡ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively -~onsiderable" means that the incremental effects of a project :U"e considerable when viewed in connection with the effects )f past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 0 0 ¡:g¡ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 ¡:g¡ ""------- " ATTACHMENT 1 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS COMPARED TO FEIS/EIR ZONE CHANGE (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) 05-001 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"). In accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") of 1969, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , the federal government and City prepared a Joint Final Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin. This was a Program EIR under CEOA. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Final Joint Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the disposal and reuse of MCAS- Tustin (referenced as FEIS/EIR herein). In February 2003, based on the FEIS/EIR, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (the "Plan") for Alternative 1, the LRA Reuse Plan, was adopted for the MCAS Tustin property, serving as the zoning. The City is proposing changes to the text of the Plan, and desires to evaluate whether those changes will trigger the preparation of a new environmental document or whether the changes are within the scope of the FEIS/EIR. City-initiated Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 is proposed to facilitate the application and implementation of some of the requirements contained in the Plan. The proposed amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, include the following minor clarifications and modifications: 1. Density Calculation. Specific Plan Section 3.2.2; footnotes to Tables 3-1 and 3- 2; and the Definitions section (Chapter 6) of the Specific Plan currently define the calculation of dwelling units per acre (density) within the Specific Plan. The present definition is based upon net acreage rather than an adjusted gross acreage. Using net acreage and the densities allowed by the Specific Plan, it is not possible to achieve the residential yields assumed in the Specific Plan. The proposed text amendment to the definition of density would allow the density calculation to be based on a gross acreage basis, allowing for inclusion of local roads while retaining the dwelling unit thresholds envisioned in the plan and analyzed in the project EIRIEIS. r- 2. Development Unit. Specific Plan Section 3.9.2 currently requires that condominiums, multiple family developments and patio homes be mapped in Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 2 development units at a minimum ten (10) acre size. The Definitions section (Chapter 6) defines the term "development unit". The 10-acre minimum results in large neighborhoods of the same product type and inhibits the blending of product types within a neighborhood. The proposed amendment would reduce the minimum size of a development unit to five (5) acres, and would further require comprehensive site planning for development units with multiple products. In addition, the Definitions section (Chapter 6) would be revised to state that a development unit may contain multiple products, at an average density not to exceed the maximum densities for each applicable land use designation (i.e. low density, medium density and medium high density). The . proposed amendment responds to current industry standards and precedents set in other master planned communities in the region such as Ladera Ranch and Irvine Ranch. The minimum 5-acre size allows for adequate maintenance by the Homeowners Association, and allows for the flexibility of developing multiple residential products while reducing the likelihood that a mass development of a single product type would occur. 3: Transfer of Residential Units. Specific Plan Section 3.2.3 currently defines the provisions for the transfer of residential units between planning areas in cases where a planning area is developed with less than the maximum units allowed, limiting such transfers to a maximum of 10 percent of the maximum dwelling units prescribed in the receiving planning area, without a Specific Plan Amendment. Recent development within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area has resulted in undeveloped units. Additional flexibility in the transfer of these units will allow the City to more readily realize the maximum potential of the Land Use Plan. The proposed amendment to Section 3.2.3 would allow the transfer of units to exceed 10 percent without a Specific Plan Amendment, subject to a written finding by the Director of Community Development, under certain criteria, including the following: a. Such transfers shall not increase the total units allowable in the overall Specific Plan; b. Unit transfers must remain within the original school district boundaries; c. Transfers shall be consistent with the uses and development standards of the receiving area; d. Units shall be transferred at the same density category as originally planned; . e. Transfers shall not exceed environmental thresholds established in the project EIR/EIS. The proposed criteria would ensure that any transfer of residential units be compatible with the planning area to which they are transferred and would minimize the potential for environmental impacts resulting from the development of the transferred units. Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 3 COMPARISON WITH FEIS/EIR AND CONCLUSIONS As the FEIS/EIR is a Program EIR under CEQA, if the City does an analysis of the proposed Specific Plan Amendments under Title 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15162 and finds that no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the City can approve the Amendments as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. [Title 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15168]. The key issues under Section 15162 are whether: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect; or (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the - project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of identified significant effect; or (c) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: (i) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; or (ii) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; or (iii) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or (iv) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. In this case, after analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed project under Section 15162, the City has concluded that no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required and that the City can approve the Specific Plan Amendments as being within the scope of the FEIS/EIR. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified above and in the Environmental Analysis Checklist, as compared to the analysis in the FEIS/EIR. Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 4 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? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause aesthetic impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not have direct effects on a scenic vista, scenic resources, or the visual character or quality of the Specific Plan area, or create any new sources or substantial light or glare. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not permit an increase in the number of residential units or residential floor area assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR. While the project allows more flexibility in the location of residential units and the mix of product types, the urban design features of the Specific Plan (which are not proposed to change) will ensure that residential development under the Specific Plan Amendments will not adversely affect aesthetics. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and because the mitigation measure recommended in the FEIS/EIR (see page 4-87) has been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial ChangeslNew Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 4-81 to 4- 87) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-152 to 2-175) Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 5 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause agricultural resources impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not directly 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 in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area is not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the proposed project involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use beyond what was previously analyzed. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not permit an increase in the number of residential units or residential floor area assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project. The mitigation measures for agricultural resources impacts resulting from the implementation of FEIS/EIR Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) were found to be infeasible and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. Substantial ChangeslNew Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 6 Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-83 to 3- 87 and 4-109 to 4-113) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Figure COSR-2 III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors )? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause air quality impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project would not conflict with an air quality plan, violate an air quality standard, result in an increase of any pollutant, expose sensitive receptors, or create odors. As documented in the FEIS/EIR, the implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan was projected to result in unavoidable significant air quality impacts. The proposed project would not indirectly increase air quality impacts related to the development of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan beyond those previously considered in the adopted FEIS/EIR because the proposed project would not alter the development potential assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and because the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIS/EIR (see pages 4-221- to 4-224) have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial Changes/New Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 7 Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through 153, 4-207 through 4-224 and pages 7-41 through 7-42) MCAS Tustin Specific 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) Inteñere 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 proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause biological resources impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any species, habitat, wetlands, or wildlife, nor will it conflict with any plans or ordinances related to biological resources. The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan could Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 8 impact jurisdictional waterslwetlands and the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waterslwetlands. The proposed project would not indirectly increase biological resources impacts related to the development of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan beyond those previously considered in the adopted FEIS/EIR because the proposed project would not alter the development potential assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and because the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIS/EIR (see pages 4-106- to 4-107) have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial Changes/New Infonnation: The Specific Plan that was Altemative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-107, and 7-26 through 7-27) MCAS Tustin Specific 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? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments' will not directly cause cultural resources impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not adversely change the significance of a historical or archaeological resource, destroy any paleontological or geologic resource, or disturb any human remains. The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan may result in the loss of one or both of the blimp hangars if it would Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 9 not be financially feasible to retain either of the hangars. If this were the case, there would be irreversible significant impacts. Also, 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 MCAS Tustin site. . The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and because the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIS/EIR (see pages 4-97- to 4-99) have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial ChangeslNew Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-74,4-93 through 4-99 and 7-24 through 7-26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Figure COSR-3 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: . Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. . Strong seismic ground shaking? . Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? . Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 1 0 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 proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause geology and soils impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. The FEIS/EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would "include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure." However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Altemative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Substantial Changes/New Infonnation: The Specific Plan that was Altemative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEISÆIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EI R was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-122 and 7-28 through 7-29) Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 11 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 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 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 inteñere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause hazards and hazardous materials impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, 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. In addition, future construction and residential uses associated with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 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 MCAS Tustin site are suitable for reuse as planned within the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin and as shown in the Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmehtallmpacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 12 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. In addition, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 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 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations concerning handling and use of these hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not chahge the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Substantial Changes/New Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-135 and 7-30 through 7-31) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), MCAS Tustin (3-1 06 Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 13 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inteñere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of suñace 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? Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 14 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 Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause hydrology and water quality impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not directly cause hydrology and water resources impacts, nor result. in additional impacts beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIS/EIR. The design and construction of facilities to fully contain drainage of the MCAS Tustin site would be required as conditions of approval of the future development projects. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the future development of the MCAS Tustin 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 patterns at the site. The MCAS Tustin site is not located within a 1 OO-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 MCAS Tustin 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) 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. Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 15 The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Substantial Changes/New Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: IX. Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-105,4-124 through 4-128 and 7-29 through 7-30) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan FEMA Map (August 9, 2002) 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 proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause land use and planning impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not directly physically divide an established community, nor conflict with any applicable land use plan, 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 Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 16 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. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Altemative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. . Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Substantial ChangesINew Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3- 17,4-3 to 4-7 and 7-16 to 7-18) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Land Use Element 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? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause mineral resources impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 17 Chapter 3.9 of the FEIS/EIR indicates thåt no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse Plan area. The implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Substantial ChangeslNew Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 18 use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause noise impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not directly expose people to excessive noise or vibration, or permanently or temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Future development allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan could result in implementation activities that generate noise. The FEIS/EIR indicates that full build-out of the base will create noise impacts that would be considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors would exceed those considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the Noise Elements of the Tustin General Plan. The City of Tustin will ensure that construction activities associated with future development of the Specific Plan area 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 Tustin City Code for residential use. Future development projects 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. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and because the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIS/EIR (see pages 4-236- to 4-237) have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial Changes/New Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 19 Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3- 162, 4-231 to 4-237 and 7-42 to 7-43) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Noise Element XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause population and housing impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not directly induce substantial population growth in the area, nor displace people nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. It is anticipated that the total number of units would be consistent with the number of units considered in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. The proposed amendment to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.2.3 would allow the transfer of units to exceed 10 percent without a Specific Plan Amendment, subject to a written finding by the Director of Community Development, under certain criteria, including the following: a. Such transfers shall not increase the total units allowable in the overall Specific Plan; b. Unit transfers must remain within the original school district boundaries; c. Transfers shall be consistent with the uses and development standards of the receiving area; d. Units shall be transferred at the same density category as originally planned; e. Transfers shall not exceed environmental thresholds established in the project EIRIEIS. The proposed criteria would ensure that any transfer of residential units be compatible with the planning area to which they are transferred and would Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 20 minimize the potential for environmental impacts resulting from the development of the transferred units. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Substantial Changes/New Infonnation: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3- 34,4-14 to 4-21 and 7-18 to 7-19) MCAS Tustin Specific 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 Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause public services impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. The project will not directly change the amount of development of the site that would require public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails. Fire Protection. The development of the MCAS Tustin site 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 Attachment 1 . Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 21 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 at and surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed build out of the Specific Plan. 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 MCAS Tustin site would increase the need for police protection services. As a condition of approval for the future development of the MCAS Tustin site, developers 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 residential development proposed within the Specific Plan area is located within the Tustin Unified and Irvine Unified School Districts (TUSD) and (IUSD). The implementation of the Reuse Plan provides for school sites to serve the growing student population within the area. As a condition of approval for the future development of the Reuse Plan area, residential developers would be required to pay applicable school fees to TUSD or IUSD prior to issuance of building permits. Under the proposed zone change (specific plan amendment) transfers of residential units will be required to remain within the same school district, thereby eliminating any possible additional impacts to school facilities. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Recent communication from the Orange County Library System indicates that implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would result in an increased library demand. The City is exploring financing opportunities afforded by conveyance and development of the site to fund expansion of an existing County-owned library within the City to meet this additional demand for library services. In addition, three existing public libraries exist within a three-mile radius of the base. With an additional funding source established for library expansion, implementation of the proposed project will not result in an increase in the demand for and utilization of public services and facilities beyond the existing capacity nor create a demand that exceeds the available planned capacity of those services. GenerallmDlementation 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 FEIS/EIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and -~ - ---- ~ Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC ($PA) 05-001 Page 22 because the mitigation measures recòmmended in the FEIS/EIR (see pages 4-66- to 4-67) have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial ChangeslNew Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3- 57,4-56 to 4-67 and 7-21 to 7-22) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 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 proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause recreation impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not directly increase the use of existing parks or require the construction of recreational facilities. 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, developers are required to provide in-lieu fees or publicly accessible park space (where approved by the City). Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 23 The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and because the implementation measures recommended in the FEIS/EIR (see pages 4-67-to 4-70) have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial ChangeslNew Information: The Specific Plan that was Altemative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3- 57,4-67 to 4-70 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Department Tustin General Plan xv. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 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 curves or dangerous intersections) or equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? a design feature (e.g., sharp incompatible uses (e.g., farm Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 24 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause transportation and traffic impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not directly cause an increase in traffic, exceed a level of service standard, change air traffic patters, increase hazards, result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted alternative transportation programs. The FEIS/EIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. A projected 216,445 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by full redevelopment of the base by year 2020 that, if left unmitigated, would overburden existing roadways and intersections surrounding the base property. The FEIS/EIR indicates that traffic circulation activities at MCAS Tustin generated a baseline of 12,400 ADT when the base was fully operational (1993). As a military facility, the FEIS/EIR considered the traffic impact and developed a mitigation program to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. In addition, construction activities are required to be meet all Transportation related FEIS/EIR Implementation and Mitigation Measures (e.g., lane closures, street/utility construction, construction vehicle traffic, etc.). The FEIS/EIR implementation and mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to the traffic and circulation system to a level of insignificance. The proposed zone change would not change the dwelling unit thresholds or residential density analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, nor generate any additional traffic. The proposed amendment to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.2.3 would allow the transfer of units to exceed 10 percent without a Specific Plan Amendment, subject to a written finding by the Director of Community Development, under certain criteria, including the following: a. Such transfers shall not increase the total units allowable in the overall Specific Plan; b. Unit transfers must remain within the original school district boundaries; c. Transfers shall be consistent with the uses and development standards of the receiving area; d. Units shall be transferred at the same density category as originally planned; e. Transfers shall not exceed environmental thresholds established in the project EIRIEIS. The proposed criteria would ensure that any transfer of residential units be compatible with the planning area to which they are transferred and would Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 25 minimize the potential for environmental impacts resulting from the development of the transferred units. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and because the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIS/EIR (see pages 4-154- to 4-163) have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial ChangeslNew Information: The Specific Plan that was Altemative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-118 through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-163 and 7-32 through 7-41) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Circulation Element 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 Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 26 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)? The proposed Specific Plan Amendments will not directly cause utilities and service systems impacts because they are changes to a zoning text, not a development proposal. Similarly, the project will not directly affect waste water, storm water drainage, water supplies, landfill capacity, solid waste, or Best Management Practices. Developers will 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 MCAS Tustin 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. The proposed project would also not result in a need for new landfill service systems or facilities. The project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and because the implementation measures recommended in the FEISIEIR (see pages 443-to 446) have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial ChangeslNew Infonnation: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 27 importance that involves new Or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-46 and 7-20 through 7-21) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Public Safety Element 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 FEIS/EIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated ~nvironmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air .quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEIS/EIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Consequently, the project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects in addition to those identified in the FEIS/EIR because the project does not change the scope of Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 28 development assumed by Alternative 1 (the Specific Plan) in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin; and no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation Measures: No new mitigation measures are warranted because there are no new substantial adverse environmental effects resulting from the project and because the mitigation and implementation measures recommended in the FEISIEIR have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Substantial ChangeslNew Information: The Specific Plan that was Alternative 1 in the FEIS/FEIR is not proposed to be substantially changed. As discussed above and elsewhere in this evaluation, the changes to the text of the Plan simply provide flexibility in the location and mix of residential units and in the case of density, allow an interpretation that is consistent with the maximum density assumptions for Alternative 1 in the FEISIEIR. There is no substantial change in circumstances from when the FEIS/EIR was approved or new information of substantial importance that involves new or more severe environmental effects or new mitigation measures. '-. Sources: Project Description FEIS/EIR for Disposal and through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. S:\Cdd\SCOmTustin Legacy\Global Specific Plan Amendments Initial Study Evaluation.doc