Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 ZONE CHANGE 05-001 05-16-05 City Manager 1 £ AGENDA REPORT Agenda Item Reviewed: Finance Director ~ MEETING DATE: MAY 16, 2005 TO: WilLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) 05-001 SUMMARY Zone Change 05-001 is a City-initiated amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to facilitate the application and implementation of some of the requirements contained in the Plan. On May 9, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001. Applicant: City of Tustin RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 05-71 finding that Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 is within the scope of the adopted Final EIS/EIR for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. 2. Introduce and have first reading by title only to adopt Ordinance No. 1299 approving Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 for MCAS Tustin. FISCAL IMPACT: Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 is a City-initiated project. Other than minor fiscal impacts associated with the staff resources required to process the Zone Change, there is no direct fiscal impact associated with the proposed Zone Change. ENVIRONMENTAL: On January 16, 2001, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact StatemenVEnvironmental Impact Report for the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and Specific Plan (FEIS/EIR). The proposed amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are consistent with the development intensity previously considered in the certified FEIS/EIR. City Council Report May 16, 2005 ZC 05-001 Page 2 of 4 As the FEIS/EIR is a Program EIR under CEQA, when 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 a project as being within the scope of the Program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. [Title 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15168]. Staff has prepared an Environmental Analysis Checklist that demonstrates all potential impacts of the project were addressed by the certified FEIS/EIR and no additional impacts have been identified (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 05-71). In addition, all applicable mitigation measures required in the FEIS/EIR will be recommended as conditions of approval in the entitlements for future development within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was closed on July 2, 1999. On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council approved General Plan Amendment (GPA) 00-001 which adopted amendments to various Elements of the General Plan and established a new "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan" General Plan designation for the former base property within the City of Tustin. A joint program Environmental Impact StatemenV Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was certified by the Tustin City Council at that time. In February 2003, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (the "Plan") was adopted, serving as the zoning for the site. 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, attached hereto as Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 1299, include the following minor clarifications and modifications: 1. Density Calculation. Specific Plan Sections 3.3 and 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 EIR/EIS. 2. Development Unit. Specific Plan Section 3.9.2 currently requires that condominiums, multiple family developments and patio homes be mapped in 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 City Council Report May 16, 2005 ZC 05-001 Page 3 of 4 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 realize the Land Use Plan envisioned in the Specific 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. Transfers shall be consistent with the uses and development standards of the receiving Planning Area; 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. On May 9, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001. A decision to approve Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 may be supported by the findings contained in Resolution No. 05-71 and Ordinance No. 1299. JuJr~ Scott Reekstin Senior Planner 8~ß.~.k Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director City Council Report May 16, 2005 ZC 05-001 Page 4 of4 Attachments: A. B. Resolution No. 05-71 (Environmental Findings) Ordinance No. 1299 (Zone Change/Specific Plan Amendment) S:\CddlCCREPOR1\ZC 05-001 GloIJal Amendments.doc ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION 05-71 (ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS) RESOLUTION NO. 05-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/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. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines 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/EI R 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 City Council hereby finds 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 16TH day of May 2005. LOU BONE, Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk Resolution No. 05-71 Page 2 S-¡:ATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 05-71 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16th day of May 2005, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-71 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 Statement/Environmental 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 Avenue to the north, Harvard Avenue 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 transfening 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 StatementJEnvironmental Impact Report (Program FEISÆIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. OLand Use and Planning OPopulation and Housing OGeology and Soils OHydrology and Water Quality OAir Quality OTransportation & Circulation OBiological Resources OMineral Resources OAgricultural Resources OHazards and Hazardous Materials ONoise OPublic Services OUtilities and Service Systems OAesthetics OCultural 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 MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [8J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL 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. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Date: Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Date Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Substantial New More ChaQge From Significant Severe Previous I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 ~ b) Substantially damage scenic resources. including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 0 ~ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 ~ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 ~ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects. lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? 0 0 ~ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 ~ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 ~ III. AIR 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? 0 0 ~ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 ~ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? D D ~ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 ~ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0 0 ~ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, eilher directly or lhrough 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 effecl on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans. policies, regulations or by lhe 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 lhe Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh. vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption. or olher 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? t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or olher 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 § 15O64.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15O64.5? 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 lhe 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 [8 D D [8 D D D [8 D D [8 D [8 D D [8 D D D [8 D D [8 D D [8 D D [8 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. D D ~ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D ~ iii) Seismic-related ground failure. including liquefaction? D D ~ iv) Landslides? D D ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D D ~ 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 D ~ 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? D D ~ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? D D ~ VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? D D ~ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? D D ~ c) Emit hazardous enrissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? D D ~ 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? D D ~ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted. within two miles 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? D D ~ t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? D D ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Impacts Analysis adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? D D 181 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? D D 181 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER DUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? D D 181 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)? D D 181 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? D D 181 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? D D 181 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? D D 181 t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D 181 g) Place housing within a lao-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? D D 181 h) Place within a lao-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? D D 181 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? D D 181 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D 181 IX, LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? D D 181 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Impact Impacts Anatysis regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan. local coastal program. or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 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 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 0 0 ~ XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 ~ 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 vicinity above 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 ~ t) 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,POPULA nON AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example. by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 0 ~ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 [g XIII, PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? D D [g Police protection? D D [g Schools? D D [g Parks? D D [g Other public facilities? D D [g 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? D D [g 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? D D [g XV. TRANSPORT A TIONrrRAFFIC - 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)? D D [g b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? D D [g c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns. including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D D [g d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 [g e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D [g t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 [g No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies. plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 0 ~ XVI, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 121 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 0 121 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 0 121 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 121 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 0 121 t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 121 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 121 XVII, MANDA TORY 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 0 121 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)? 0 0 121 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either directly or indirectly? 0 0 121 ATTACHMENT 1 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS COMPARED TO FEIS/EIR ZONE CHANGE (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENn 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 StatemenVEnvironmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin. This was a Program EIR under CEQA. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Final Joint Program Environmental Impact StatemenVEnvironmental Impact Report for the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin (referenced as 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 EIR/EIS. 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 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. 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 through153, 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) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The 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 waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. 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 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 3-75 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 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 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 10 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 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: 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 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The 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 Environmental Impacts 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 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 pages (3-106 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 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 interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 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 100-year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the 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 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: 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 that 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 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 (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 (i.e., 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 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 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 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. 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 PUBLIC SERVICES Sources: XIII. 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. 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. General Implementation Requirements: To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with 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 because the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIS/EIR (see pages 4-66- to 4-67) have been adopted by incorporation into the Specific Plan. Attachment 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ZC (SPA) 05-001 Page 22 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 bikeway/trail 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 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 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, streeVutility 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 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 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 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 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 FEIS/EIR (see pages 4-43-to 4-46) 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 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 environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The 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 FEIS/EIR 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 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 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:ICddlSCOTI\Tustin LegacylGlobal Specific Plan Amendments Initial Study Evaluation.doc ATTACHMENT B ORDINANCE NO. 1299 (ZONE CHANGE/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE NO. 1299 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) 05-001 TO AMEND SECTIONS 3.2; 3.2.2; 3.2.3; 3.9.2; FOOTNOTES TO TABLES 3-1 AND 3-2 AND THE DEFINITIONS SECTION OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RELATING TO DENSITY CALCULATION, DEVELOPMENT UNIT DEFINITION, AND TRANSFER OF UNITS. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That City staff has identified proposed amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 to amend Sections 3.2; 3.2.2; 3.2.3, 3.9.2, footnotes to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 and the Definitions section (Chapter 6, Appendix D) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as identified in Exhibit A attached hereto. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on April 25, 2005, and continued to May 9, 2005, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001. C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on May 16, 2005, by the City Council. D. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the City's goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The Tustin Land Use Element identifies ten goals, which include the following: 1. 2. Achieve balanced development. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs Revitalize older commercial, industrial, and residential development. Improve city-wide urban design. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 3. 4. 5. Ordinance No. 1299 Page 2 6. Coordinate development with provision of adequate public facilities and services. Ensure that the development character of East Tustin is compatible with the surrounding man-made and natural environment. Strengthen the development character and mixture of uses in the Old Town/First Street area. Promote an integrated business park character for the Pacific Center East area. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master-planned development. 7. 8. 9. 10. These goals establish the framework for policies related to allocation of land use in the City, and the implementation policies reflect the direction and image the City seeks for the future. Proposed Zone Change 05-001 supports the General Plan goals and the policies established for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including the following: 1. Goal 1. Provide for a well balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial and industrial land, open space and community facilities and services while maintaining a healthy, diversified economy adequate to provide future City services. a. Policy 1.10 - Ensure that the distribution and intensity of land uses are consistent with the Land Use Plan and classification system. 2. Goal 13. The project will implement policies under the goals and policies for future development of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan including: a. Policy 13.2 - Encourage a development pattern that offers a connectedness between buildings and uses, and has a strong sense of place through architectural styles and creative landscape design. b. Policy 13.5 - Promote high quality architecture, landscaping, signage, open space design, circulation patterns, and landscape patterns distinct from surrounding areas Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-001 ("Zone Change") to amend Sections 3.2; 3.2.2; 3.2.3; 3.9.2, footnotes to Tables 3-1 and 3-2 and the Definitions section (Chapter 6, Appendix D) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, as identified in Exhibit A, attached. Ordinance No. 1299 Page 3 Section 3. SEVERABILITY All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish the purpose of the regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall apply only to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall continue to be fully effective. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the day of , 2005. LOU BONE Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1299 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1299 was dul~ and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16t day of May, 2005 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _day of , 2005 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT A OF ORDINANCE NO. 1299 Chapter 3. Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations Specific Plan by defining appropñate locations for certain land uses and permitted development intensities. The Land Use Plan includes thirteen (13) separate. land use designations as described in Section 2.2.1. Each parcel within the Specific Plan has been assigned a specific land use designation. Each designation has been assigned a Planning Area (PA) number, as shown on Figure 3-1. The Planning Area is the smallest regulatory unit for the application of development regulations: The development standards are customized for each Planning Area and grouped according to the neighborhood in which they belong. The Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis is organized in two ways. Table 3- 1 is the Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis organized by land use designation, and Table 3-2 is the Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis organized by neighborhood. The neighborhoods of the Plan are shown again for reference in Figure 3-2. Each statistical analysis contains the approximate acreages, square footage allocations and dwelling units pennitted in each Planning Area shown on the Land Use Plan. Each Planning Area is assigned an amount of land devoted to existing buildings (where applicable), and includes an allocation of land available for new uses based on the density/intensity standards established in the Specific Plan. The maximum number of dwelling units and total square footage of non-residential development provided for in the Specific Plan are prescn'bed in the Statistical Analysis and further defined in the following I regulations sections. Calculation of development potential is based on øet grQLacreage figures for each Planning Area, which excludes land devoted to arteñal roadways as identified in the Circulation Plan (Figure 12-5) aB6 leoal æSlhl'ays (p1l~I¡e BnEI pw'ate) wIliek - eH eeted te eeolll' 'NiIIHB eoeli P'___'_g fdeB. The shaded area on the Land Use Planning Areas map (Figure 3-1) indicates where alternative conceptual roadway alignments for Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue could occur. The Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis assumes the most easterly alignment for Tustin Ranch Road and the most southerly alignment for Warner A venue. If either fmal alignment differs ftom these assumed conceptual locations, the provisions of Section 3.2.5, below, shall apply. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3-5 Chapter 3 . Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations TABLE3-] LAND USE PLAN STA TlSTlCAL ANAL fSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESlGNA TION I ACREAGE 1 NON-RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES To"'l Floor Exl.tthrtf Floor Potmtial Floor DU'. Potmllol Exbtlntf Total DuitfllationIPlo""¡,,tf Area Grø..' Net' F AB-' An. (Sq. FL)' Area (Sq. FL) , Area (Sq. FL) , Per Acre T DU'.' DU'3" DUO." INSTITUTIONAIAlECREATIONAL (CONTINUED) Ri.ht-o~WaY Arterial RoadwaY' 23 158.4 158.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drainage (Flood Contro~ Stann 28.5 28.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DraiD6) SUBTOTAl 423.5 403.6 N/A 1,m.174 1.359.1511 '" 0 0 0 TOTALS: 1,606.1 1,461.5 NJA 11,406,975 1,185,317 ',111,658 0 3,064 1,537 4,601 Notes: I. Gross ........ fin' each PI""""s Ana is on - øUoc:otion """"""" Iiom 1110 odgo oflho adj""'" f\mue II!teriaI one! ....",. ¡gy roadway. my public roadway obown on 1bo Land Uoe PI3o. omdIor Ibo bouoduy of1bo Plonning A= Tho IDIKIIIII! o£lone! devotod In roadways obown 00 1bo PI.. is caleulolad - tbo Rigbt-of-Way do3i¡notioo. Actuo1........ will be - dwing tho ,iIS pion ODd subdivi3ionpro<eoo. 2. Net""""'1!8 is.. - "!location bued 00 - """"Pnoducad IòrÚllorll3l cin:oIation(1ocal rœds)witlUnaPlanningA= Net""""P iscstimaladllppVXimalelyfureach1'lMUt1&Areo._00 3. ~ ":.w ~ ~)"!....::... ~.::::tøU'tw~..:= ~di~ ~ ': =~ '=:~7~~ AnaIyJi3. Tho FAR. column opocifics " BOOT orea ratio dcri"'¡ Iiom .. - mix of..... within " PImninø A= Tho mix of CO1!ID1Otcial, ~ office. or _.... that 110m hem initiøUy 8O3Îgood to each l'lonnqA1œ ora shown on Toblo 3-3. TlUs B...- .... ratio "'" beeoi U3Od In caleuI8Ie Total Floor Area ("'I""'" roo.) øU....œd In each Pl8IDlin¡ Area Tho maxim..,. floor... - 81 wbich a particuIaT ... COD be doveIopod is spocifiod inChap>:r 3. FI...oreandio spocifios deYelopmontinlmlity fin'IKJD....n.!oatial uses, wboroas DUs pee... spocifY maxim... daIsity IòrRSidontial..... 4. Total Floor Area is Il1o 1oIal3< Uora footage of IlOO- œ..Jopmont dcri"'¡ by multiplying die fl... .... ratio by tho DOt """"P. S. EMiDg Floor Ana is the 3< Uora fooIBgo of existing buiIdiDøs by Plonning A= 6. Potontial Floor An:a is tho poI«dial square footage ofnow dc..lopmont witIUn ooch PIanniС Am. ........ tbo - -.. devotod to ....... -... ........ I 7. DUs per Acre roll.... tbo maximum dansiIy per - 81 which dwelling oni1s may be calculat!:d. Tho dansiIy _fur ooch - land... do8i ¡nodioo .. opociIiod in Socti", 2.2.1. 8. Potontial DU, is tbo.......... number of now dwellings units, booed on tbo doosiIy per_furlbo PIanniСAn:a 9. Existing DUs identifioo tho existing military fimtiIy houoin¡ unit! witIUn oacb Planning A= Tho bachoIor housiu¡ (or bonacts qoartIn) is ~ fur in tho Existing Floor Area coIomn. 10. Tolal DU. is tho maximum numba' of dweIIin¡ oni1s aI1ocaIod .. each PImUn& A= Bven1bou8h 1Idual- ODd DOt - may be - during tbo ... plan ond subdivision -. tho maxim... numbcrofdwelling oni1s in each PImUn& Ana sb8Il not...-..l tba mnnba'dosi¡n8Ied on tho Slalistical ADaIyoi3. oxcopt as specifiod in Section 3.2.3. 11. ThoDU's per acro Ii- of7.0 -111. msximum daIsity of deveIopmmt sbould 1bo eoisting housing be nplacod by DOW ~ 12. A portion ofPA 21 (ISOunil3) ondall ofPA 22 (402 uniI3)OIOlocatod within tho City oflrvim>. Thoponnjtlod density nmp in PA 22 sbalI not..-! I2.SdMlling unil3per"""'at"" bigbend 13. PA22 is within the 1rvinojuri3diolionallimil3.1t incJudes ,20....aJlocatioo fur a K-8 sdIool. Thoprocisc """"Pond - will be - wben IheNavy's ReconI ofDocisioo ùisouod PA 22 also include3 an 8-aao allocation fin' a Neighborhood Park su.. Tho pR>Cise - one! location will be dotennined prior In property - In tho City of1rvino, however, tho 1oIal aIIowablo dwoUinø units in P A 22 will remain 1bo same. 14. PA I S -A includes a S-.... ~ion for a ne;ghborbood pa:k silo. The pn:cÏ3e - ond loc:ation will be detenninod prior InIin3l subdivision - approval. however. 1bo total ano.,¡,lo dwdIin¡ units inPA IS-A will romain 1110 samo. 15. PA IS-B includ03 a 10-.... allocation fur an Biemont"'Y SdIooI. Tho pn:cÏ3o oaoago ond loc:ation will be - wboo tho Navy's ReconI ofDocisioo is issuod.lftbo - - wries l!um 10 ......1bonen ""'""8" acljustmentwill be mad, ..thoModiumDonsity do:Ii¡nation.howe...-.1ho maximum unil3 obown in tho SIaIisticalAnaly3is sball ootbe 0Xt00d0d. PA ¡SoB aboil:luda a S-aao alIoc:atiort for a neighborhood pa:k si... The pn:cÏ30 acreago ond location will be doConninod prior In final subdivisioo - appruwI. however, the total allowablo dwolling nnil3 in PAIS- II will romain Ibo sama. 16. P A 8 incl- a 40-""", allocation for allì¡¡b School. Tho procisc - ond location will be doConninod wben tbo Navy's ReconI of Decision is issuod.lflho actuaI""""P Y1Iries Ii1m ~...... 1bon tho acro3 ' acljustment will be made In tbo Community Core dosigœtion, howe...-, tho1olal aIlowablo - fi:ot ofnøn-mìdontiaJ development one! møimnm dwolling oni1s inPA 8 wilhemain 1bo same. 17. PA I is oomposod ofn...""". public coovoyanco..... as opooifiod in Soctioo 2.3 ond 2.4 oflho Spocifio PIen. 18. PAl-A inclodes a IO-acro aJlocatioo fur on Hlom"""", SdIooI. Tho pR>Cise oaoago and loc:atioo will be - wboo tho Navy's ReconI ofDocisioo is issuod. If tbo - ....... Y1Irio3l!um 10 ...... 1bon an acreage acljustmoot will be made In Il1o Learning Village - however. tbo 1oIal øUowablo square fi:ot of ram-<OSidential dovoIo¡nnent in P A I-A will romaintbo samo. City of Tustin Page 3-8 MCAS Tustin Specific ÞlanlRiitis& Plan Chapter 3. Land Use and DevelopmentlReu!SeRegulations TAlJLE3-2 LA.ND USE PLAN STA71STICAL ANALYSIS ORGANZBD BY NEIGHIJOBHOOD ACREAGE NON-lllISfflENTlAL USES RESfflEN1'lAL USES Exillin,1 Potmtlal Total FlDor FloorAr~a Floor Ar~a DU'o Potmtliú Exbling Totøl Dair"øtionIPlon"ÚfI1 Ana Gro.. 1 Nd' FAR.' Ana (Sf. FL)' (Sf. FL) 0 (Sf. FL)' PuAcn' DUOo' DU..' Dll'r'o NEIGHBORHOOD H PIBDDing ^"'" 22 12 73.4 61.0 N/A N/A N/A IS 0 402 'II" Medium Density (8-15 dulac) EtementBIy School K-8" NeigbbodIood Pade " SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD B 73.4 61.0 NIA NI NI NIA NI 0 48Z 401 R1GIIT~F-WAY Roodways" 1S8.4 158. N/A N/A NIA . 0 0 0 0 Drainage (Flood Control, Stmm 28.5 28.5 N/A NI NI~ 0 0 0 0 Drains) SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF W A 1116.9 1116.9 NIA NI NI NI 0 0 TOTALS: 1,606.1 1,461.5 NIA 11,406,'175 1,185,317'" 9,221,658 NI 3,064 1,537 4,601 Notes: I. Groos........ fbr _Planning Area is on estimated 0110c0tì0n m-lIom!be od¡e oftbo lIIljoccnt fUtuno --.J and oocondary roodwoy, my public roodwoy ohown on"'" Land U.. Plan, 8111Vortbo boUI1dmy of the Planning Area Tho.noun! ofland dewtod to --.J rosdwBys sbown 011 tho PI.. is aloWoled""""'" Right-of-Way deoriplion. AcIooI.....,. will be - dorinø tho !rile plan and _vision process. 2. ~ :.~ ~ ~ =~-=.= ~"'::=,,~~~~N;"¿~_~ fur_PlomingAra,_... 3. Floor Area ltatio (fAR) is1ho puss Ooor""",ofo11 buildi!lgswilhin,PIanningArea di'rided by1ho ""_of1ho i'laJmjngAreafur_oftbis S1a1illicalAnalysis. Tho FAR column opc<itio a floor .... ratio derived from on wumed mix of.... within 'PIanninS Area Tho mix of commercial, ind1æiol, oftiœ, or other uoeslllat have boon initially IISIisnod to each l'bmoiDg Area .. shown... =..i\ ~3~:=-:,= ==~~==~~:=~ ~=::=-=aporticolar...can be_loped is 4. ToIIol Floor ARB is 1ho to1aI 'QIAIIO IboIB¡c of non- development derived by multiplying II1e Ooor ""'" noiio by tho ... _. S. Exiotin¡ Floor Area is the _fbotaø1: of cxistiJa buíldiDp by l'bmoiDg ARe. 6. PotcmiaI Floor Area is !be po1eDtial JIC 1IIII1> IboIB¡c ofnew devoIopmentwithin eoob Plannin¡¡Aroo,8OSOI1IÎDgtho 0 11111'0 IboIB¡cdewtod to oxistin¡¡ -_. I 7. DU', per Acro reflects the maximum doooio/ per ....... at wbic:h dwoIIin¡¡ units - be calculated. Tho da1sit¥ ...... fur "Eln- land .... cIesignotion ... specified in Section 1.2.1. 8. PotenIisl DUo is the maximum number ofoew dwdIin¡s III1ÌI:I. - 011 tho da1sit¥ per""'" furlbe PIannin¡¡ Area 9. Existioø DUo identifies the oxistin¡¡ mililmy IàmiIy housing units within œcb Planning ARe. Tho ~or housing (or bonatb<pwlln) is """""*'" fur in !he Exiotin¡Floor Area column. 10. ToIBI DU', is the maximum numberofdwe11ing units 0110c0ted to œcbPIannio¡Area Evonthoo¡boctoo1 JIIOO' and ""-may be ndiDeddorinøthosiloplon andsubclMsionpmœso, tho maxim.... number of d...llmg units in eoobi'laJmjng Area sba1l not.......t 1ho manber dooiaJ18Iod on tho s- Analysis. awoptullpecified in Section 32.3. 11. ThoDU', per acre 6- of7.0 - tho maximum density ofdovolopmart should tho exiotiog housio¡be replaced by new bousin¡¡. 12. AportiOl1ofPA 11 (150 ","",)and o11ofPA22 (402 ","",)...I0c0ted within tho City oflrvine. Thopamilteddemilynap inPA22sba1l not.......t 12.5 dwe11ingunitsattholU¡hend. 13. PA22 includes, 20..... aIIocotion fur.x;.8 ..boo!. Tho""'" """"II" and IocoIionwill be_wben tho N"'Ÿo - ofDecißoail- PA 2201"" includes ... s....allocotion fora neiglibmhood pad< oðo. Tho precise - "'" location will be - prior to propa1y - to tho City oflrvine. however, the toœ1 o11owable dwelling ani" in PA 22 will....... the lIBIDo. 14. PA JS-.'\. includes. 5-acre sllocotion for a neigbborbood perl< site. Tho""'" saeoge and locotioo will be determined prior to fino1..bdivisÕOJl map approval, however. tho to1aI o11owable dwoIlIDg- m PA IS-.'\. will ~ the same. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tuslin Page 3-15 . Chapter 3 . land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations 3.2.1 land Use Boundaries Land use designation boundaries are generally as depicted on the Land Use Plan, Figure 2-1. The Planning Area boundaries are equivalent to the land use designation boundaries, and are shown in Figure 3-1. Adjustments in boundaries resulting from final road alignments or more precise surveys, or technical refinements will not require a Specific Plan Amendment While precise boundaries and acreages will be detennined when more definitive plans are submitted, the maximum development limìts as shown in the Land Use S1atistical Analysis (Table 3-1) shall apply, subject to transfer conditions between' neighborhoods provided below in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4. 3.2.2 Maximum Dwelling Units The maximum number.of dwelling units in each Planning Area may not exceed the numbers as specified on the Land Use Statistical Analysis. The calculation of residential density, as stated in dwelling units per acre, shall be based on Bel-1!!Qtt..acres for each project. Wet-Gross acres is defined as ~ acres less be arterial roadways as identified on the Circulation Plan (Figure 2-5) aøtf lasalFeatfwllrs (bath flYillis aøtf flr+vato~ iDtemal to the PlamI.iø.g f A'eà. 3.2.3 Transfer of Dwelling Unit Allocations If a Planning Area is developed with less than the maximum number of units allowed, then the "unused" residential development potential may be transferred to another Planning Area which supports residential uses. In no case shall transfers of units result in: A. The maximum number of dwelling units in a Planning Area exceeding prescribed Planning Area maximums by more than 10 percent without a Specific Plan Amendment, as shown on the Land Use Statistical Analysis (Table 3-1). unless the following criteria are met. subject to a written finding by the Director of Conununitv DevelODIDent 1. Such transfers shall not increase the total units allowable in the overall Soecific Plan: 2. Transfers shall be consistent with the uses and development standards of the receivin¡¡ Planning Area: B. Significant alteration of the basic character of development in the gaining or losing Planning Area. MCAS Tustin Specific PlenIReuse Plan City of Tustin pege 3-17 Chapter 3 . Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations . 5. Tenure - Development in Planning Area 15 of apartments is a discretionary action requiring approval of a conditional use penn it. No more than 25 percent of the total number of units pennitted within the Tustin portion of the Specific Plan area may be approved for apartments. 6. Prior to approval of any subdivision map or site plan in Planning Area IS, a precise boundary plan for the golf course shall be submitted by the developer to the City of Tustin for review and approval. This plan shall precisely derIDe the edges of the course and show fi'ontages and visibility fi'om Edinger Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road, and North Loop Road. In addition, the plan shall identify a program for public use of the golf course, and conceptually identifyllocate proposed buildings and facilities such as clubhouse, driving range, golf school, snack bar, and maintenance yards. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits for golf course facilities, the ultimate owner or operator of the golf course shall enter into a recordable agreement with the City of Tustin that will specify that the course: a) Will remain open to the public; b) Will make available a certain percentage of high demand tee times for public walk-on use; and c) Will establish a fonnuJa to guarantee the affordability of a round of golf to Tustin residents. 8. Condominiums, multiple family developments, and patio homes may contain nùmerous lots, but shall be designated as a ¡ e'¡ele lmeøt DeveloDment IlBit-Unit on a tentative map. The minimum size for a development unit shall be ~2.acres. DeveloDment Units which contain multiDle Droducts shall be comorehensivelv site Dlanned. 9. Hotel and commercial uses, not including the golf course, shall be located only in the vicinity of Edinger Avenue and Jamboree Road. 10. Refer to Section 3.11.24 for dedication requirements for the Santa Ana - Santa Fe Channel. 11. If the fmal alignment for Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue differs from the assumed alignments as described in Section 3.2, adjustments in acreage and development potential for Planning Area 15 and Planning Area 8 (Community Core) shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.2.5. While the respective Planning Area boundaries may shift slightly, Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue will remain the common boundary between Planning Area IS and Planning Area 8. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3-135 Appendices D. DEFINITIONS Words, phrases and tenns not specifically defined herein shall be as defined in the Tustin City Code. Acres. Gross. An estimated allocation of land area within a Planning Area, measured. ITom the edge of the adjacent arterial roadways and/or the . boundary of the Planning Area (as shown on the Land Use Planning Areas map). Acres. Net. An estimated allocation of land area within a Planning Area, based on gross acreage reduced for internal circulation (local roads) within a Planning Area. Baseline Mix of Uses. An assumed mix of ron-residential uses for each neighboIhood, which establish a baseline capacity of average daily trips for each neighborhood. Building Setbacks. Building setback distances are measured ITom future rights-of-way. Non-conforming buìlding setbacks will be permitted to remain to accommodate existing buildings not in future rights-of-way. Children's Intermediate Care Shelter. A 6O-bed emergency shelter for abused, neglected children. Conceot Plan. A type of plan required concurrent with submission of a new development proposal, reuse project, or subdivision used to document and insure that the necessary linkages are provided between the development project and the Planning Area/Neighborhood in which it is located, the integrity of the Specific Plan and pllIpOse and intent of each NeighboIhood is maintained, and applicable considerations of City requirements are identified and satisfied. Develonment Unit. Consists of all building sites, their private open space, common recreation and open space areas, and public and/or private streets serving the project. A development unit mav contain multiple products. at an average densitY not to exceed maximum densities for each applicable land use desÌlmation (i.e. low density. medium densitY. and medium high densitY). Dwelling Units. Existing. The existing military family housing units within the MCAS Tustin boundary. I Dwelling Units per Acre. The maximum density per ~øet acre at which dwelling units may be calculated. This overall density may not be exceeded even by a fÌ'action. City of Tustin Page 6-36 MCAS Tustin Specific P/an/Reuse Plan Appendices Dwelling Units. Potential. The maximum number of new dwelling units, I based on the density per ~acre for the Planning Area. Dwelling Units. Total. The maximum number of existing and potential dwelling units allocated to each Planning Area (where applicable). Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.). The gross floor area of all buildings within a Planning Area divided by the net acreage of the Planning Area. Existing Floor Area. The square footage of existing buildings within the MCAS Tustin boundary. Floor Area. Potential. The potential square footage of new development within each Planning Area, assuming the square footage devoted to existing structure remains. Floor Area. Total. The total square footage of non-residential development derived by multiplying the floor area ratio by the net acreage. Household Income Level. Low. Fifty to eighty percent of the County median income level. Household Income Level. Moderate. Eighty. to one-hundred twenty percent of the County median income level. Household Income LeveL Very Low. Zero to fifty percent of the County median income level. Interim Use. The purpose for which a parcel of land or a structure is or may be intended, designed, arranged, constructed, erected, occupied, leased, maintained, altered, moved andlor enlarged for a limited period of time in excess of six months and not to exceed 5 years from the date of the interim lease, in lieu of a pennanent use in accordance with this Specific Plan. . Landscape Setbacks. Landscape setback distances are measured from the back of the curb and are a combination of parkway, sidewalk, and planting areas. Non-conforming landscape setbacks will be permitted to remain to accommodate existing walls not in future right-of-way. Law Enforcement Training Facility. An educational facility including classroom training, office space, obstacle course, gym, locker and shower facilities, canine training, indoor pistol range, laser village and weapons storage to be located within the proposed Urban Regional Park site. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 6-37