Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3972 I. RESOLUTION NO. 3972 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN ("FEIS/FEIR") IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16792 FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES AND ALL APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED WITH RESOLUTIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That Tentative Tract Map 16792 for conveyance purposes (Planning Area 21) is considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; B. That the FEIS/FEIR was certified by the City Council on January 16, 2001. The FEIS/EIR is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, including development of residential uses within Planning Area 21, which were considered by the City Council on February 22, 2005 with the development application for the project area (Tentative Tract Map 16582); and, C. That an environmental checklist, attached as Exhibit A hereto, was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project. The environmental analysis checklist demonstrates that the proposed conveyance map has no potential for environmental impacts and all impacts for development of the site were addressed by the certified FEIS/FEIR, and all applicable mitigation measures in the FEIS/FEIR will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project previously adopted with City Council Resolution 05-35. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that the project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/FEIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15168 (c) and 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. Resolution No. 3972 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of t regular meeting on the 13th day of June, 2005. City of Tustin, at a J NIELSEN Chairperson ~~~ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3972 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of June, 2005. ß~~2~ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 3972 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 StatementÆnvironmental Impact Report (EIS/Effi) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972) 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): Tentative Tract Map 16792 for Conveyance Purposes Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Phone: (714) 573-3126 Project Location: Planning Area 21, MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan, bounded by Moffett Avenue on the north, Warner Avenue on the south, Peters Canyon Flood Control Channel on the west, and Harvard Avenue on the east. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Moffett Meadows Partners, LLC c/o Lennar Communities 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: Low Density Residential, Planning Area 21 Project Description: Approval of Tentative Tract Maps 16792 to subdivide a 86.26 acre site into twelve (12) parcels for conveyance purposes only. Surrounding Uses: North: Moffett Avenue, residential uses East: Harvard A venue- City of Irvine, residential uses South: MCAS Tustin Planning Area 22, residential West: Peters Canyon Flood Control Channe1- Jamboree Road Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Enyironmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) 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 DHydrology and Water Quality DAir Quality DTransportation & Circulation DBiological Resources DMineralFlesources DAgricultural Resources DHazards and Hazardous Materials DNoise DPublic Services DUti1ities and Service Systems DAesthetics DCultural Resources DRecreation DMandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE 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 IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOFlT 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 EIFl, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ~~~~ Preparer: c:::::-----c..-C- ~ Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner V~;dj ~t?~/ Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Date: tb- 2- _OS Date ¿ .;?o-S- D. EV ALVA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS See Attached EV ALVA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D rg¡ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? D D rg¡ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? D D rg¡ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? D D rg¡ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? D D rg¡ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? D D rg¡ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? D D rg¡ 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? D D rg¡ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? D D rg¡ 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 rg¡ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? D D ~ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? D D ~ ----v. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: \ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological 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? \ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 'dinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as deemed in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial .verse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death involving: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis D D IZI D D IZI D D IZI D D ~ D D IZI D D ~ D D IZI D D ~ D D ~ D D ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the .T 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 [gJ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D 0 ~ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? D D [gJ iv) Landslides? D D l?:ÇJ 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 defmed in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? D D l?:ÇJ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 0 0 ~ 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 [gJ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? D D [gJ 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 l?:ÇJ 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 [gJ f) For a project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? D 0 ~ ---;) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ldopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ¡Ian? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis D D ~ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving wildland rITeS, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? D D IZJ VIII. HYDROLOGYANDWATEROUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 ~ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 D IZJ 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 :rosion or siltation on- or off-site? D D IZJ l) 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 IZJ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? D 0 IZJ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D IZJ g) Place housing within a I DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 IZJ h) Place within a I DO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 IZJ 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 IZJ j2 Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 IZJ (. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 IZJ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Impact Impacts Analysis regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? D D ~ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? D 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? D D ~ 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? D D ~ 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 0 0 ~ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D 0 ~ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D D [8J 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? D D ~ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? D D [8J XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ,'---, directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? D D [8J b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D D 181 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the onstruction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 ~ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 0 ~ Police protection? 0 0 ~ Schools? 0 0 ~ Parks? 0 0 ~ Other public facilities? 0 0 ~ XIV. RECREATION - I Would the project increase the use of existing ~ighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 ~ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 ~ XV. TRANSPORT A TION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 0 0 ~ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 ~ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 0 0 ~ Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. arp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses . .g., farm equipment)? 0 0 ~ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 ~ t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 181 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 Ið1 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 Ið1 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 Ið1 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 Ið1 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project trom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 Ið1 e) Result in a determination by the wastewatèr treatment provider which serves ormay 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 Ið1 t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 Ið1 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 Ið1 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 Ið1 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 [8J c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 ~ ATTACHMENT 1 TO EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3972 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 16792 (MCAS TUSTIN DISPOSITION PARCELS 35 & 36) PLANNING AREA 21 - MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND The project site is comprised of 86.26 acres (gross) within a portion of Planning Area 21 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and generally bounded by Moffett Avenue to the north, a local drainage channel and Warner A venue in the City of Irvine to the south, Harvard Avenue and City of Irvine residential developments to the east, and Peters Canyon Flood Channel and Jamboree Road to the west. Tentative Tract Map 16582 for development of the site with 465 residential units (211 single family detached, 68 carriage way units, and 184 condominium units) was approved by City Council on February 22,2005. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin (FEIS/EIR). An environmental check list was prepared for the development of the site that concluded no additional environmental impacts for the project than the impacts considered and addressed in the FEIS/EIR. The proposed project includes subdivision of the 86.26 acre site area into twelve (12) parcels for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed with the project and therefore no environmental impacts are anticipated. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed subdivision is for fInancing and conveyance purposes only. No development plan is proposed with the subdivision and therefore the project will have no substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista. The proposed project has no potential for substantially damaging scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character, or create a new source of substantial light or glare. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. III. Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 2 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan II. AGRICUL TURE 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 subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is associated with the project. The project would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use. Also, the property is not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the proposed subdivision involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The project site is not zoned or used as agricultural land; consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan 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 Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 3 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 project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The conveyance tentative tract map has no potential to violate air quality standards, or contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for the project region. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration or create objectionable odor. Environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the site. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 4 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 project is a request for subdivision of the site for fmancing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project has no effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, or a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The conveyance map will not interfere with movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 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. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan v. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project has no potential to change the significance of a historical resource, or destroy a unique paleontological resource. The environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 5 development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan 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? 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 project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEISÆIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would "include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure." In addition, since no development is proposed, the project has no potential to result in soil erosion, development on expansive soil, or expose people to risk of loss or injury involving rupture of an earthquake fault or liquefaction. An environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin 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? t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically 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 subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. Environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22,2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 7 The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. In addition, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four (4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within a flight approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or workers. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan. VIII. 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'. t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a tOO-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 tOO-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 8 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? The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The proposed project will not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The project is not located within a 100-year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22,2005. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for fmancing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project will not divide an established community, and does not modify Tentative Tract Map 16582 as approved by the Tustin City Council on February 22,2005. Also, the proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. Environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 9 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan x. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss {)f availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The proposed project will not result in the loss of known mineral resources. An environmental analysis for development plans was prepared with the proposal and adopted by the City Council on February 22,2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 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? Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 10 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no noise impacts are anticipated. The proposed project will not expose person to noise levels in excess of local standards, or excessive ground borne vibration, nor does the project has a potential for substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. In addition, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four (4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and the site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The environmental analysis for development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan 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 project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project has no potential to induce population growth, displace existing housing, or displace substantial number of people. The environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 11 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISÆIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project will not impact governmental facilities or public services. The environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISÆIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin 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 project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project will not increase use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or require construction of recreational facilities. The environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 12 and adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Department Tustin General Plan xv. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? supporting alternative The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project has no potential to cause an increase in traffic, or result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity. The environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22,2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. '. -~ Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 13 Sources: FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project has no impacts on waste water treatment facilities, nor does the project require construction of new water, waste water and storm drain facilities. The environmental analysis for development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2005. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISÆIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3972 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tentative Tract Map 16792 Page 14 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 Calüornia 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? The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No impacts are anticipated and no impacts are anticipated. The environmental analysis for the development plans was prepared and adopted by the City Council on February 22,2005. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISÆIR; these measures were included as conditions of approval for development of the project. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observations FEISÆIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (pages 3-145 through 3-154). Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that the proposed financing and conveyance map will have no environmental impacts and all environmental effects of the development project were previously examined in the FEISÆIR for MCAS Tustin, and 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. S:\Cdd\MINOO\MCAS Tustin\Planning Area - Lennar&William Lyon\Conveyance Map Grove\Columbus Grove- Initial Study-analysis.doc