HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 06-43RESOLUTION NO. 06-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN (UFEIS/EIR")
FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
(ZONE CHANGE) 05-002 AND DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-01; AND ADOPTING A
REVISED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby finds, determines and orders:
A. That the City of Tustin ("City") and Tustin Legacy Community Partners
(TLCP), LLC (a venture of Centex Homes, Shea Homes and Shea
Properties) propose Amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
(collectively "Zone Change 05-002"). Zone Change 05-002 does not
"substantially amend" the Specific Plan. Instead, Zone Change 05-002
generally adjusts Planning Area boundaries and redistributes and/or
eliminates planned land uses within the Specific Plan area. Zone Change
05-002 would not increase the overall development potential or residential
capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
B. That the City and Tustin Public Finance Authority also propose to enter
into a Disposition and Development Agreement with TLCP to facilitate the
sale, leasing, and development of Tustin Legacy, including the Master
Developer footprint ("DDA 06-01 "). The proposed DDA, which includes a
proposed Development Plan establishes certain key terms, including but
not limited to: (a) the phasing and conditions precedent to the City's
obligation to sell and convey and/or lease certain property within each
phase of the Master Developer footprint to the Master Developer; (b) the
purchase price of the property to be conveyed to the Master Developer;
and (c) establishes a schedule of performance for future development
including obligations for construction of Tustin Legacy Backbone
Infrastructure and Local Infrastructure.
C. That Collectively, Zone Change 05-002 and DDA 06-01 constitute a
"project" that is subject to the terms of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code 921000 et. seq.).
D. That On January 16, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-90
certifying the FEIS/EIR and adopting findings of fact, a statement of
overriding consideration, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program. The FEIS/EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the reuse
Resolution No. 06-43
Pagel of 286
and disposal of MCAS -Tustin, which included the adoption of a Specific
Plan and other implementing actions.
F. That as documented in the Addendum, Zone Change 05-0002 and DDA
06-01 do not create any new significant environmental effects or result in
a substantial increase in the severity of any of the environmental effects
previously identified the FEIS/EIR and addressed in the Findings of Fact
and Statement of Overriding Considerations that the City Council adopted
pursuant to Resolution 00-90. There have also been no changes in
circumstances since certification of the FEIS/EIR that create any new
significant impact or result in a substantial increase in the severity of any
previously identified significant impact. Finally, no "new information of
substantial importance" has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR
that must be addressed in an SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15162, subsection (a) (3).
G. That the City Council has considered the Addendum and Errata along with
the FEIS/EIR prior to making a decision on Zone Change 05-002 and
DDA 06-01 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, and approves
the Addendum and Errata, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
H. That Zone Change 05-002 and DDA 06-01 would result in the same
significant and unavoidable impacts that were identified in the FEIS/EIR
and these impacts are overridden for the reasons set forth in the
previously adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached to Resolution 00-90.
I. That the Addendum and Errata refined certain mitigation and
implementation measures that were previously adopted and incorporated
into a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council
therefore adopts the Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on
the 3rd day of April, 2006. A A
_yn-Q
PAMELA STOKER,
City Clerk
Resolution No. 0643
Page 2 of 286
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
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. 06-43 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3'd day of
April, 2006 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: DAVERT, HAGEN, AMANTE, BONE, KAWASHIMA (5)
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
City Clerk
NONE (0)
NONE (0)
Resolution No. 06-43
Page 3 of 286
MCAS TUSTIN
Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002
Disposition and Development Agreement
Development Plan
ADDENDUM
Prepared for:
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Prepared by:
Awa 7s;�4q
C O N S U L T I N G
BonTerra Consulting
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200
Costa Mesa, California 92626
March 2006
MCAS Tustin
Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
Master Developer Disposition and Development Agreement, and
Development Plan
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin
Prepared for:
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Contact: Mr. Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director
Prepared by:
BonTerra Consulting
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Contact: Tina Andersen, Principal
March 2006
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Paae
Section 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Previous Environmental Documentation.................................................1-1
1.2 Purpose of Addendum ............................................................................1-1
1.3 Basis for an EIR Addendum ...................................................................1-2
1.4 Evaluation of Alternatives .......................................................................1-3
1.5 Summary of Findings..............................................................................1-4
Section 2.0 Project Background .........................................................................................2-1
2.1 MCAS Background and MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan ................................2-1
2.2 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.....................................................................2-1
2.3 Additional Background and Status of Environmental Setting .................2-2
Section 3.0 Project Description ..........................................................................................3-1
3.1 Project Location ......................................................................................3-1
3.2 Project Components ...............................................................................3-1
3.2.1 Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002 .....................3-1
3.2.2 Disposition and Development Agreement.................................3-15
3.2.3 Proposed Development Plan ....................................................3-16
Section 4.0 Environmental Analysis Checklist..................................................................4-1
Section 5.0 Environmental Analysis and Explanation of Checklist Responses ............5-1
5.1 Aesthetics ...............................................................................................5-3
5.1.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ....................................5-3
5.1.2 Current Conditions ......................................................................5-4
5.1.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts..................................................................................... ..5-5
5.1.4 Mitigation And Implementation Measures..................................5-7
5.1.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................5-7
5.2 Agriculture............................................................................................... 5-8
5.2.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ....................................5-8
5.2.2 Current Conditions ......................................................................5-8
5.2.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts....................................................................................... 5-9
5.2.4 Mitigation and implementation Measures ...................................5-9
5.2.5 Conclusion. ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ........ ........ .............. ...... ....... ...5-9
5.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................... ...5-10
5.3.1 Summary of Impacts From Final EIS/EIR .................................5-10
5.3.2 Current Conditions ....................................................................5-11
R :\Projects\T ustin\J004\Addendum Cover .031306 doc
Table of Contents
MCAS TusUn Zone Change (Specific Plan AmendmenO 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section
Paae
5.3.3
Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.................................................................................... .5-18
Mitigation and Implementation Measures .................................5-25
Conclusion............................................................................... .5-27
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................5-28
5.4.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ..................................5-28
5.4.2 Current Conditions ................ ................ ..... ...............................5-29
5.4.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.................................................................................... .5-33
5.4.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures .................................5-38
5.4.5 Conclusion............................................................................... .5-39
5.5 Cultural/Scientific Resources................................................................ 5-40
5.5.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ..................................5-40
5.5.2 Current Conditions ....................................................................5-41
5.5.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.................................................................................... .5-42
5.5.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures .................................5-43
5.5.5 Conclusion............................................................................... .5-45
5.6 Geology and Soils.................................................................................5-46
5.6.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ..................................5-46
5.6.2 Current Conditions ....................................................................5-46
5.6.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.................................................................................... .5-46
5.6.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures .................................5-48
5.6.5 Conclusion............................................................................... .5-49
5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................5-49
5.7.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ..................................5-49
5.7.2 Current Conditions ........................ ......... ............... ................. ...5-51
5.7.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.................................................................................... .5-52
5.7.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures .................................5-55
5.7.5 Conclusion .... .... .... ........ ..... .... ........... .... ..... ...............................5-55
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................5-56
5.8.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ..................................5-56
5.8.2 Current Conditions ............ ............ ..... ........... ......................... ...5-58
5.8.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.................................................................................... .5-75
5.8.4 I mplementation measures........................................................ .5-90
5.8.5 Conclusion .... .... .... ........ ..... .... ............... .... ..... .... .... ...................5-91
5.9 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................5-92
5.9.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ..................................5-92
5.9.2 Current Conditions ................................................................... .5-92
R:\ProjectsITustin\JOQ4\Addendum Cover.031306.doc
Table of Contents
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section Paae
5.9.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts..................................................................................... 5-93
5.9.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures .................................5-94
5.9.5 Conclusion................................................................................ 5-94
5.10 Mineral Resources........................ .................................... ............ ...... ..5-95
5.10.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ..................................5-95
5.10.2 Current Conditions ....................................................................5-95
5.10.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.................................................................................... .5-95
5.10.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures .................................5-96
5.10.5 Conclusion ..................... .... .... ...... .............................................5-96
5.11 Noise ....................................................................................................5-96
5.11.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ..................................5-96
5.11.2 Current Conditions ....................................................................5-97
5.11.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.................................................................................... .5-97
5.11.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures ...............................5-100
5.11.5 Conclusion ..............................................................................5-101
5.12 Population and Housing......................................................................5-101
5.12.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ................................5-101
5.12.2 Current Demographic Data .....................................................5-102
5.12.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts. .... .... ........ ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .............5-1 04
5.12.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures ...............................5-111
5.12.5 Conclusion ..............................................................................5-111
5.13 Public Services ...................................................................................5-112
5.13.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ................................5-112
5.13.2 Current Conditions ..................................................................5-114
5.13.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.......................................................................... .........5-115
5.13.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures ...............................5-120
5.13.5 Conclusion ..............................................................................5-122
5.14 Recreation........................ ........ ................................................... .......5-122
5.14.1 Summary of Impacts from Final EIS/EIR ................................5-122
5.14.2 Current Conditions ..................................................................5-123
5.14.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts................................................................................... 5-124
5.14.4 Mitigation and Implementation Measures ...............................5-125
5.14.5 Conclusion. .......... .................. ...... .......................... ............ .....5-127
5.15 Transportation and Traffic...................................................................5-127
5.15.1 Summary of Impacts from FEIS/EIR.......................................5-127
5.15.2 Current Conditions ..................................................................5-129
R\ProjectsITustin\J004IAddendum Cover-031306.doc
iii
Table of Contents
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Section
Table
1-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5-
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
5-15-
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-22
5-23
5-24
5-25-
5-26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Paae
5.15.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts................................................................................. ..5-131
5.15.4 Mitigation Measures/Implementation Actions .........................5-140
5.15.5 Conclusion ..............................................................................5-146
5.16 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................5-147
5.16.1 Summary of Impacts from FEIS/EIR.......................................5-147
5.16.2 Current Conditions ..................................................................5-149
5.16.3 Comparison of Proposed and Previously Approved Project
Impacts.................................................................................. .5-151
5.16.4 Implementation Measures.............................. ................... ..... .5-160
5.16.5 Conclusion ..............................................................................5-164
TABLES
Paae
Summary of Impacts for the FEIS/EIR and this Addendum ...........................................1-5
Fugitive Dust Control Actions for Exemption to Monitoring (Rule 403, 2) ....................5-14
Required Best Available Control Measures (SCAQMD Rule 403,1)...........................5-15
Track out Control Options (Rule 403,3) ......................................................................5-18
Comparison of Regional Pollutant Emissions for the Original SpecifiC Plan with
Previous and Updated CARB Model............................................................................5-20
Revised Regional Pollutant Emissions Estimate for ....................................................5-21
Regional Pollutant Emissions Estimate for the Proposed Project................................5-22
Differences in Regional Pollutant Emissions Between the Original and Proposed
Specific Plan/Reuse Plan............................................................................................. 5-22
CDFG Jurisdictional Streambed................................................................................... 5-31
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. ..................................................................................5-31
Temporary Impacts to CDFG Jurisdiction ....................................................................5-35
Permanent Impacts to CDFG Jurisdiction....................................................................5-35
Temporary Impacts to Waters of the U.S. ....................................................................5-36
Permanent Impacts to Waters of the U.S.....................................................................5-36
Nutrient TMDL Allocations for the Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek.............5-68
Selenium TMDLAllocations for San Diego Creek........................................................ 5-70
Dissolved Metal TMDL Allocations for San Diego Creek.............................................5-71
Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos TMDL Allocations............................................................... 5-72
Organochlorine TMDL Allocations for San Diego Creek.............................................. 5-72
Water Quality Impacts Associated with Typical Urban Pollutants of Concem .............5-82
OCP-96 Projections for Orange County and the City of Tustin, 2000-2020...............5-103
OCP-2004 Projections for Orange County and the City of Tustin, 2000-2030...........5-103
Non-Residential Land Use Employment Generation .................................................5-105
Residential Land Use Comparison.............................................................................5-106
Proposed Project's Estimated Population at Build-out...............................................5-107
City of Tustin Regional Housing Needs Assessment Targets, Construction
Need, 1998-2005 ........ ........ ...................................... ......... .................................. ......5-109
Performance Criteria for Intersections ...................... .......................................... .....5-132
iv
Table of Contents
R:\ProjectsITustinU004\AddendumCover-031306_doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLES
(Continued)
Table Paae
5-27 Tustin Legacy Trip Generation ...................................................................................5-132
5-28 Planning Area Trip Budget Comparison (Non-Residential Uses)...............................5-133
5-29 Peak Hour Intersection ICU Summary (On-Site)........................................................5-135
5-30 Off-Site Intersection Impact Analysis .........................................................................5-136
5-31 Santa Ana Intersection Analysis ................................................................................5-137
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLES
Table Paae
2-1 Land Use Plan Summary ..... .................................................................................3-4
3-1 Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis Organized by Land Use Designation ......................3-5
3-2 Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis Organized by Neighborhood...................................3-9
3-3 Planning Area Trip Budget...........................................................................................3-13
4-2 Phasing Plan Requirement ........................................................................................5-163
4-3 On-site Arterial Circulation Improvements .................................................................5-143
4-4 On-site ADT Development Thresholds ......................................................................5-144
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Follows Paae
1 Master Development Footprint......................... ......................................... ............ .........2-2
2 Development Plan................ _... _................................................................................... 3-16
3 Phasing Plan................................................................................................................ 3-16
4 CDFG Jurisdictional Delineation .................................................................................5-32
5 USACE Jurisdictional Delineation ................................................................................5-32
6 Hazardous Materials - Related Environmental Conditions..........................................5-52
8 2025 On-Site ADT Volumes (OOOs) (Original Specific Plan) ......................................5-134
9 2025 On-Site ADT Volumes (OOOs) (Proposed Master Development Plan Project) ..5-134
10 On-Site Intersections.................................................................................................. 5-134
11 2025 ADT Volumes (OOs) Project Impact Differences................................................5-136
12 Intersections Meeting Impact Analysis Criteria ..........................................................5-136
13 School Sites Within Master Development Plan ..........................................................5-138
14 Planned On-Street Parking ........................................................................................5-140
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN FIGURES
Fiaure Follows Paae
2-1 Land Use Plan.......... .... .... .... .... .... .... .............. ........... .... .... .... .................................. .......3-2
2-2 Neighborhoods............................................................................................................... 3-2
3-1 Land Use Planning Areas ..............................................................................................3-2
3-2 Neighborhoods............................................................................................................... 3-2
R:\Projects\T ustin\J004\Addend u m Cover -031306.doc
v
Table of Contents
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1,1 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Final Joint Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmentallmpact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the
Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the EIS/EIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of
the Navy (DoN) in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental POlicy Act (NEPA). The FEIS/EIR analyzed the environmental
consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the
Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analyzed
the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of
Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, including but not
limited to the adoption by the City of Tustin of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
(herein referred to as the "Specific Plan"), and adoption of the MCAS Tustin Redevelopment
Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by the
Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001.
The DoN published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001, as the environmental
documentation for the disposal of surplus federal property at MCAS Tustin and approving the
MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan.
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR analyzed a multi-year development
period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the MCAS Specific
Plan are proposed, the agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if
their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being
within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to
Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor
would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then
no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required.
1.2 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
Pursuant to City Council direction given on November 3, 2004, Tustin Legacy Community
Partners, LLC with its members being Centex Homes, Shea Homes, and Shea Properties (the
"Master Developer") and the City of Tustin are proposing modifications to the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan which entail proposed Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-
002. Throughout this document, this action is also referred to as the "Specific Plan
Amendmenf'. The Master Developer, City and Tustin Public Financing Authority have also
negotiated a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), including a
Development Plan, for the purchase and development of certain property located at the former
MCAS Tustin (the "Master Developer footprint").
This document, prepared pursuant to CEQA, provides the following: (a) an analysis of whether
there are any new or more substantial adverse environmental effects than analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183 and (b) an Addendum to the
MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 and 15183.
Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin is the lead agency
for the project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment. The
R\ProjectsITustin\J004\1t03-031306.doc
1-1
Introduction
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
City, as the lead agency, has the authority for project approval and certification of the
accompanying environmental documentation.
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the potential differences, if any, in the
environmental effects associated with the Specific Plan and Implementing Actions previously
approved by the City of Tustin, which were studied in the FEIS/EIR, and those associated with
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan (collectively these are
referred to herein as the "proposed project") which are currently being proposed.
1.3 BASIS FOR AN EIR ADDENDUM
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall
prepare an addendum to a previously certified EI R if some changes or additions are necessary
but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a
subsequent EIR have occurred." Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines states:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or
more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EI R or negative declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects:
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EI R or
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
the previous EI R was certified as complete or the negative declaration was
adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the previous EI R or negative declaration;
(8) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the previous EIR:
(C) 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, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) 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, but project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
R:\Projects\TustinW004\1to3-031306.doc
1-2
Introduction
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
The proposed project is consistent with the City of Tustin General Plan. Section 15183 of the
CEQA guidelines (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning) says in part:
(a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density
established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for
which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review,
except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific
significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the
review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental
studies.
(b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency
shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency
determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would
be located;
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning
action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is
consistent;
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts
which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general
plan, community plan or zoning action; or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of
substantial new information which was not known at the time the
EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse
impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
(c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as
a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the
imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as
contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be
prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.
Through the analysis described in this document, the City of Tustin has determined that
changes associated with the proposed project are not substantial. There are no new significant
impacts resulting from these changes, nor is there any substantial increase in the severity of
any previously identified environmental impacts. In addition, the changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken would not result in new or more
severe significant environmental impacts. Where appropriate, the City has considered the
availability of any new project design features (PDFs) and/or mitigation or avoidance measures
to reduce previously identified significant environmental effects of the Specific Plan
development. If new measures are available and appropriate, the City is requiring performance
of these measures.
1.4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives to the project,
including the "No Project" alternative. This Addendum relies on the MCAS Tustin Specific
R\Prajects\T usti n\J004\ 1to3-031306. doc
1-3
Introduction
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Plan/Reuse Plan FEIS/EIR for the evaluation of alternatives. The FEIS/EIR evaluated two
alternative land use plans in addition to the selected Alternative 1-LRA Reuse Alternative: (a)
Alternative 2-Arterial Grid Pattern/No Core/High Residential and (b) Alternative 3-Arterial Loop
Pattern/Reserve Area/Low Residential. The FEIS/EIR also evaluated the No Action Alternative.
The FEIS/EIR (Section 2.5.3) found Alternative 1-LRA Reuse Alternative to be the most
environmentally superior alternative and which best met the project objectives.
The FEIS/EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. The Specific Plan
Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan are consistent with the General Plan. There have not
been substantial changes in the environment or applicable regulations that would make a new
alternative feasible or environmentally superior. Consistent with Section 15183 of the State
CEQA Guidelines that identifies which environmental evaluation is required for projects that are
consistent with a community plan or zoning, there is not a need to address new alternatives in
this Addendum. Additionally, there are no circumstances cited in Section 15162 of the State
CEQA Guidelines which require preparation of a subsequent EIR relative to alternatives.
1.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on the environmental checklist form prepared for the project (provided in Section 4) and
supporting environmental analysis (provided in Section 5) and pursuant to Section 15162,
15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has determined, on the basis of
substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that:
(a) The amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project which
would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more
severe significant environmental effects than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR;
(b) There have been no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project
will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or
substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously analyzed
in the FEIS/EIR; and
(c) No new information of substantial importance as described in subsection (a)(3) of
Section 15164 has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR
or its conclusions.
Additionally, all appropriate available PDFs, minimization, and mitigation measures have been
evaluated and incorporated, as appropriate.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum to the previously certified
FEIS/EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed project. Potential
environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA,
and Development Plan have been evaluated and, except for those previously determined to be
significant and unavoidable in the FEIS/EIR, the impacts would be less than significant or
reduced to a level considered less than significant with mitigation. For significant and
unavoidable impacts, the City has considered the availability of new avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation measures; has incorporated any available measures; and has determined that
the project will continue to have the same significant unavoidable impacts related to: aesthetics,
cultural resources, agricultural resources, traffic/circulation, air quality and cumulative impacts
as the original project that was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. Table 1-1 provides a summary of the
level of Significance of project impacts before and after mitigation as concluded in the FEIS/EIR
and this Addendum.
R :\Projects\T wstinIJ004\ 1103-031306 doc
1-4
Introduction
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOR THE FEIS/EIR AND THIS ADDENDUM
R:P,ec Uu2inV0 1ro-031309doc
F
Addendum .
Level of SlgniCicartce
Before Mitfgallorl
Levet of $igriificance After
Mitgatfon
Levet of Significance Levet of S" noe After
Before M1Ngaltsn M
Land Use
Significant
Mitigated to a level
considered less than
significant
Significant Mitigated to a level
considered less than
significant
Socioeconomics
Less than significant
Less than significant
Less than significant Less than significant
Utilities
Less than significant
Less than significant
Less than significant Less than significant
Public Services and Facilities
Less than significant
Less than significant
Less than significant Less than significant
Aesthetics
Significant
Significant
Significant Significant
Cultural Resources
Significant
Significant
Significant Significant
Biological Resources
Significant
Mitigated to a level
considered less than
significant
Significant Mitigated to a level
considered less than
significant
Agricultural Resources
Significant
Significant
Significant Significant
Soils and Geology
Less than significant
Less than significant
Less than significant Less than significant
Water Resources
Less than significant
Less than significant
Less than significant Less than significant
Hazardous Wastes, Substances
and Materials
Less than significant
Less than significant
Less than significant Less than significant
Traffic/Circulation
Significant
Significant
Significant Significant
Air Quality
Significant
Significant
Significant Significant
Noise
Significant
Mitigated to a level
considered less than
significant
Significant Mitigated to a level
considered less than
significant
R:P,ec Uu2inV0 1ro-031309doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 MCAS BACKGROUND AND MCAS TUSTIN REUSE PLAN
Pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Part A of Title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U,S,C, Section 2687 Note), as amended (the "Base Closure Law"), the
Federal Govemment determined to close MCAS Tustin located substantially within the City of
Tustin, In 1992, the City was designated as the Lead Agency or Local Redevelopment Authority
under the Base Closure Law for preparation of a Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin in order to
facilitate the closure of MCAS Tustin and its reuse in furtherance of economic development of
the city and surrounding region, The MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan was developed in accordance
with this procedure and adopted by the Tustin City Council on October 17, 1996, and
subsequently amended in September 1998,
Owned and operated by DoN for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 acres of property at the
former MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs and the military
facility was officially closed in July 1999,
2.2 MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin adopted a General Plan land use designation (MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan) for that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin (Tustin
Legacy), The Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on February 3, 2003 (Ordinance
1257), establishing the zoning designation, development standards, and entitlement framework
for future development of Tustin Legacy within the City of Tustin, including approximately
820 acres of property comprising the Master Development footprint (refer to Exhibit 1), The
Specific Plan conforms to and implements the Reuse Plan and the City's General Plan,
Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC (TLCP) was selected by the City to be the Master
Developer of the Master Developer footprint after a Request of Qualifications process in
October 2003 and entered into an Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate (ENA) with the City in
November 2003 with the objective of reaching agreement on the terms of a DDA. The ENA
implements the goals and objectives of the City as expressed in the Specific Plan, as amended,
It is intended that the DDA, which includes a proposed Development Plan, will comply with the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
Since the original adoption of the Specific Plan, minor amendments to the Specific Plan have
been approved by the City of Tustin as follows:
. On March 7, 2005, the Tustin City Council approved Specific Plan Amendment/Zone
Change 04-03 modifying certain Specific Plan site development standards as they affect
Planning Areas 4 and 5 (Ordinance 1297), The applicant on this request was Marble
Mountain Partners, LLC (William Lyon Homes and Lennar Communities),
. On March 7, 2005, the Tustin City Council also pre-zoned MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Disposition Parcel 36 from the City of Irvine to the City of Tustin and amended the
Specific Plan to establish Tustin site development standards for Disposition Parcel 36
(Ordinance 1294 and 1295), Disposition Parcel 36 was subsequently annexed to the
City of Tustin, The applicant on this request was Marble Mountain Partners, LLC,
R:\Pro)eclsITustin\J00411to3.031306.doc
2-1
Project Background
Master Development F
nt
r a
� \
4
Exhibit 1
C , N,u.,,. a
__G.gah_MDF ,
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05.002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
. On June 5, 2005, the Tustin City Council approved Specific Plan Amendment 05-01
(Ordinance 1299). The purpose of this amendment was to facilitate the application and
implementation of some of the requirements contained in the Specific Plan, and provide
for minor clarifications and modifications as the amendment primarily related to density
calculations, the definition of a development unit, and the transfer of residential units
between planning areas. The City was the applicant on this request.
It should be noted that the City of Tustin conducted an Environmental Analysis Checklist and
associated environmental review for each of these actions. In each case, the City Council
determined that the amendments were within the scope of the FEIS/EIR and that none of the
circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 triggered preparation of a
supplemental or subsequent El R.
2.3 ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND AND STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Historically, the former MCAS Tustin facility was used as a Marine Corps helicopter training
facility. The facility is still largely undeveloped land that was previously used for interim
agricultural out-leasing by the Marines, and is also improved with landing strips and tarmac
areas. Irrigation and agricultural uses have ceased. While there has been considerable progress
towards reuse and redevelopment at the former facility, many abandoned buildings and most
obsolete infrastructure at the former facility have not yet been removed. The City has initiated a
Phase I roadway project, Valencia/Armstrong, which includes some demolition of tarmac areas,
landing strips, and some obsolete utilities. This will result in installation of roadway segments
water, and sewer Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure on a portion of the former facility as
well as initial storm drains, and interim retention facilities.
Following an extensive review of requests for property at MCAS Tustin, the DoN approved the
conveyance of a portion of the property at MCAS Tustin to the City of Tustin. This Economic
Development Conveyance (EDC) for the former MCAS Tustin was approved on May 13, 2002,
with the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement between the United States of America,
acting through the DoN, and the City of Tustin (the "EDC Agreement"). The EDC Agreement
provides for the phased conveyance of approximately 1,153 acres of property to the City of
Tustin and includes all previously Navy-owned utility systems at the former facility and certain
personal property items. The EDC Agreement also identified parceis that the federal
government would auction to private developers. As part of the first phase of conveyance to the
City under the EDC Agreement, 977 acres of property were initially conveyed.
Of the 1,153 acres to be conveyed to the City under the EDC Agreement, approximately
1,000 acres have been deeded to the City to date, while approximately 153 acres remain leased
by the DoN to Tustin through a Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (L1FOC) pending
completion of a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) and approval by state and federal
environmental regulators. The DoN also conveyed to the City all electrical, gas, telephone cable
systems, water, sewer, and storm drain systems under ownership by the federal government by
separate bill of sale.
Since the City entered into the EDC Agreement with the DoN, the following has occurred:
. The City entered into two Disposition and Development Agreements (DDAs) for MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcels 33 and 34 with WL HOMES (John Laing
Homes). Pursuant to the DONs, 25.3 acres were conveyed by the City to this developer
for Tustin Field I (Parcel 33) and 36.84 acres for Tustin Fields II (Parcel 34). The DDAs
complied with the Specific Plan. This development, including required infrastructure, is
R\Projecls\T ustinIJ004\ 1 to3-031306. doc
2-2
Project Background
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
currently under construction. It should be noted that the City of Tustin prepared an
Environmental Analysis Checklist and associated environmental review for each
development and determined that each development was within the scope of the
FEIS/EIR and that none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 triggered preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
. The City conveyed a 15-acre site to Rancho Santiago Community College District
(RSCCD) at the proposed intersection of Warner Avenue and Armstrong Road. RSCCD
has submitted plans to construct a law enforcement training facility authorized by the
Specific Plan. This facility is currently under construction. RSCCD is the Lead Agency.
. A Conveyance Agreement was executed with South Orange County Community College
District (SOCCCD) and the City. Under the terms of the Conveyance Agreement, the
City conveyed 37.66 acres by quitclaim deed to SOCCCD and 30.71 acres were leased
to them. Title to the leased property will be conveyed to SOCCCD when the DoN
completes environmental remediation. SOCCCD is the Lead Agency authorized by the
Specific Plan.
SOCCCD plans to construct an Advanced Technology Education Park (ATEP) at the
corner of Valencia Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. Plans have been submitted by
SOCCCD for the initial phase of its ATEP and grading permits have been issued.
. A L1FOC was entered into between the City of Tustin and the DoN for a 24-acre
community park shown on the northwest portion of the Specific Plan boundaries as
authorized by the Specific Plan. The City of Tustin is the Lead Agency and has initiated
preparation of a master plan for the park.
. A DDA has been executed between the City and Vestar/Kimco, L.P. for Reuse Plan
Disposition Parcels 10, 11, and 12 located at the northwest comer of Jamboree Road
and Barranca Parkway. The agreement provides for the phased acquisition of
approximately 87 net acres of land. On June 8, 2005, approximately 56 acres were
initially conveyed to the developer as part of Phase 1. The remaining 31 acres will be
conveyed to the developer in Phase 2.
All planning entitlements have been granted for development on the site of over one
million square feet of retail space. The project, to be named THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN
LEGACY, will be a lifestyle and power retail center containing both big box and lifestyle
uses such as restaurants, specialty retail, and a 14-screen, 3,000 seat theater. This
development was authorized by the Specific Plan. Site demolition is completed and
grading and building construction have been initiated. It should be noted that the City of
Tustin conducted an Environmental Analysis Checklist and associated environmental
review for this development and determined that it was within the scope of the FEIS/EI R
and that none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
triggered preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
. The City completed an analysis of an Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Plan of Work
for water and sewer improvements at Tustin Legacy. The City of Tustin subsequently
coordinated with IRWD in IRWD's formation of the improvement district for the purpose
of financing water and sewer facilities at Tustin Legacy. Such utilities are within the
scope of the Specific Plan and comply with the requirements of the FEIS/EIR.
RIProjects\T ustin\J004\ 1 103-031306. doc
2.3
Project Background
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
. Phase I Tustin Legacy infrastructure improvements were initiated in May 2005 and
include construction of streets and utilities for Valencia Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to
the West Connector, the West Connector, Landsdowne, and Armstrong from Valencia
south to Warner Avenue (with IRWD water and sewer utilities being installed south to
Barranca Parkway). These improvements implement infrastructure requirements of the
Specific Plan, and the City of Tustin completed an Environmental Analysis Checklist
demonstrating that impacts were analyzed as part of the FEIS/EIR (Resolution
No. 04-81).
. In addition to the DoN EDC Agreement, the DoN also conveyed a 5.1-acre site to the
City at Red Hill and Valencia for accommodation of a transitional homeless facility. The
City of Tustin has entered into a Ground Lease and a Conveyance Agreement with the
Orange County Rescue Mission (OCRM), which is currently constructing a Village of
Hope. Under terms of the Conveyance Agreement, the City will convey the site to the
OCRM upon OCRM's completion of all site improvements and its compliance with all
pre-conditions to conveyance of the site. This use is permitted under the Specific Plan
and was analyzed as part of the FEIS/EI R.
. The federal Department of Education (DoE) has conveyed a 10-acre site adjacent to
Red Hill Avenue to the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) for educational purposes.
Within the City of Irvine the DoE has conveyed an 8-acre site adjacent to Harvard
Avenue to the City of Irvine for park, and a 20-acre site at Harvard Avenue/Barranca
Parkway to the Irvine Unified School District for educational purposes. These uses
comply with the Specific Plan, and were analyzed as part of the FEIS/EIR and
subsequently in a mitigated negative declaration.
. On March 2003, the City of Tustin entered into a Cooperative Agreement (002-119) with
the OCFCD and the County of Orange (hereinafter referred to as the "County") for the
improvement of regional drainage facilities throughout the Tustin Legacy site (within the
City of Tustin). The Cooperative Agreement identified conditions for the development of
certain portions of Tustin Legacy, including largely improvements to a portion of Peters
Canyon Channel within the City of Tustin. Specifically, the agreement establishes the
terms and conditions under which the channel improvements will be scheduled,
engineered, financed, constructed, operated, and maintained. It should be noted that the
responsibility to construct the channel improvements can be passed from the City of
Tustin to developers within the Specific Plan area. The City and the County
subsequently approved Amendment NO.1 to Agreement 002-119 which includes
provisions for the construction of additional regional improvements to the Peters Canyon
Channel within the City of Tustin, and milestones for implementation of these
improvements.
The City of Irvine required improvements for the portion of Peters Canyon Channel in its
jurisdiction (from the City of Tustin limits to Barranca Parkway) to be completed by
Marble Mountain Partners, LLP. The City of Tustin has entered into an agreement with
the City of Irvine for funding of channel improvements in the City of Irvine by Marble
Mountain Partners, LLP. The City of Irvine will use Community Facilities District fees for
funding. As part of this agreement, these improvements have been incorporated into the
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program.
. On December 6,2004, the City of Tustin certified a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the
Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin for the Extension of Tustin Ranch Road between
Walnut Avenue and the Future Alignment of the Valencia North Loop. The proposed
R\Projects\Tustin\J004\1to3-031306.doc
2-4
Project Background
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
roadway is approximately one mile in length and includes an overpass and connector
loop road to Edinger Avenue. The proposed roadway will join the existing southem
terminus of Tustin Ranch Road at Walnut Avenue. The Supplement to the FEIS/EIR was
prepared based on more refined engineering Project Study information available for this
project that had not been fully available at the time the original FEIS/EIR was certified.
The original FEIS/EIR did identify the development of this infrastructure project.
. As indicated above, certain property excluded from the EDC Agreement was offered by
the DoN through a public bid sale. Approximately 192 acres of what was sold by the
DoN is within the City of Tustin and approximately 47 acres are within the City of Irvine.
The successful bidder for the parcels was a partnership of Lennar Communities and
William Lyon Homes (Moffett Meadows Partners, LLC). The City of Tustin has
subsequently entitled each of the Moffett Meadows Partners development sites on
Reuse Plan Disposal Parcels 24 and 25 (Columbus Square) and 35 and 36 (Columbus
Grove). Building demolition has been completed on each of the parcels and rough
grading and construction has begun. City of Tustin entitlements for these residential
projects were granted in the spring of 2005. Development will include a total of
1,075 units in Columbus Square of which 811 will be market rate and 266 units will be
affordable to households of very low, low, and moderate income. The Columbus Grove
development will include 465 units of which 423 units will be market rate units and 42 will
be affordable. City of Irvine entitlements were granted for the Reuse Plan Disposal
Parcel 37 (Columbus Grove) site to permit development of up to 402 dwelling units.
Development in the City of Irvine is permitted by the MCAS Reuse Plan and zoning
amendments adopted by the City of Irvine, and were analyzed in the FEIS/EIR.
Construction has been initiated.
R.\PrOjeclSITustin\J00411to3.031306.doc
2-5
Project Background
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The site subject to proposed Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002
consists of the entire MCAS Tustin Specific Plan property within the City of Tustin in Orange
County, California. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan project area encompasses approximately
1,606 gross acres. The majority of the Specific Plan area (1,533 acres) is located in the
southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining area is located within the City of Irvine. The
City of Santa Ana borders the site to the southwest.
The Specific Plan area is bound by Red Hill Avenue on the west; Edinger Avenue (Tustin) and
Irvine Center Drive (Irvine) on the north; Harvard Avenue on the east; and Barranca Parkway on
the south. Jamboree Road transects the site and provides access to the Eastern Transportation
Corridor.
While certain administrative clarifications and minor Specific Plan modifications associated with
the proposed project will affect most property in the Specific Plan boundaries within the City of
Tustin, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will largely affect property within the Master
Developer footprint. Similarly, the proposed DDA which includes the proposed Development
Plan, will affect the Master Developer footprint. The Master Developer footprint primarily
includes Planning Area 15 within Neighborhood G, Planning Area 7 within Neighborhood B,
Neighborhood D, and Neighborhood E. The Master Developer footprint is approximately
820 acres which comprise about half of the former MCAS Tustin property. The Master
Developer footprint is shown on Exhibit 1.
3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project evaluated in this Addendum includes three primary components described further in
the sections beiow:
. Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002
. Disposition and Development Agreement
. Development Plan
3.2.1 ZONE CHANGE (SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT) 05-002
Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002 is proposed by Tustin Legacy
Community Partners, LLC (TLCP) and the City of Tustin. The proposed Specific Plan
Amendment can be broadly described below by topic. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment
is anticipated to be adopted prior to the DDA which includes the proposed Development Plan. It
should be noted that the Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the overall density of
development planned, including the area within the Master Developer footprint, though densities
and uses within some neighborhoods would be adjusted. The Specific Plan Amendment
generally readjusts Planning Area boundaries and redistributes and/or eliminates planned land
uses within the Specific Plan area.
R:\ProjectsITustin\J00411to3-031306.doc
3.1
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
land Use
The following figures from the Specific Plan have been revised and are attached: Figure 2-1,
Land Use Plan; Figures 2-2 and 3-2, Neighborhoods (same exhibit); and Figure 3-1, Land Use
Planning Areas. For informational purposes, the current versions of these figures from the
original Specific Plan are also attached. In summary, the following land use modifications are
proposed.
1. Eliminate references to Golf Course uses in all sections of the Specific Plan. The Golf
Course will no longer be a required land use within the Specific Plan. As a replacement
for the golf course, public and private parks; greenbelts; trails; and open space areas will
be integrated into the neighborhoods.
2. Increase park acreages to include an additional Community Park, a linear park system
and other park areas. Land use tables have been updated to reflect this change.
3. Amend the boundaries of Neighborhood D, originally comprised of Planning Area 8 and
the proposed high school, to incorporate Planning Areas 13 and 14 with Planning Area 8
into a single section of the Specific Plan document. This results in a revised southern
Neighborhood boundary of Barranca Avenue rather than Warner Avenue. Planning
Areas 13 and 14 would be also be amended to be included in the Community Core land
use designation in the SpecifiC Plan rather than the Commercial Business land use
designation shown on the Land Use Plans (Figures 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2). The amended
text includes: modifications to the permitted land uses within the Community Core and in
Neighborhoods 8, 13, and 14; modifications to the trip budget distribution (the total
number of trips remains the same); and development standards which support mixed
use development (already permitted in the Community Core land use designation), with
an overall floor area ratio of 0.5 and 891 dwelling units, of which a maximum of 123 units
may be multi-family rentals as a permitted use. Floor area ratios for Planning Area 8
would be applied to the entire amended Community Core land use designation which will
include Planning Areas 8, 13, and 14. Additionally, height limit restrictions have been
added to the Community Core. Land use and trip budget tables (Tables 2-1, 3-1, 3-2,
3-3) have been updated to reflect this change. Revised changes to Table 2-1 are shown
with underline (new text) and strikeout (deleted text), and the changes to Tables 3-1 and
3-2 are highlighted. Note that refinements to the Specific Plan land use statistics have
been made during the subdivision and design review stage of individual projects.
Refined land use statistics reflecting the entitled uses have been assumed for analysis
purposes, and is further addressed in the respective analyses presented in Section 5
(e.g., traffic, population and housing).
4. Amend the boundaries of Neighborhood E, originally comprised of Planning Areas 9
through 14, to remove Planning Areas 13 and 14, and define the new eastern boundary
for Neighborhood E as Armstrong Road. The amendment would consolidate acreages,
land uses, and development standards and trip budget for Planning Areas 9 through 12
to provide a comprehensive land use pattern of primarily office park uses with some light
industrial/R&D and commercial uses. Extended stay hotels would be added to the list of
uses. The amendment eliminates separate Specific Plan sections for Planning Areas 9,
10, 11, and 12, and provides a single consolidated development standards section in the
Specific Plan. As previously noted, land use and trip budget tables (Tables 2-1, 3-1, 3-2,
and 3-3) have been updated to reflect this change.
R\Projects\Tl.lstinIJOO4\1t03-031306.doc
3-2
Project Descripffon
Current Figure 2.1, Lard Use Plan
I Revised Figure 2.1, Land Use Plan
Land Use Plan Current and Revised Figure 2-1
CON 5 U L T I N C
m
T-- I,... „s �3.,,. mrs
a>req.oi.,n.xmxomc,.gn®wcc... ilv_amwe.mr
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
3
I
j
I
I Revised Figure 2.1, Land Use Plan
Land Use Plan Current and Revised Figure 2-1
CON 5 U L T I N C
m
T-- I,... „s �3.,,. mrs
a>req.oi.,n.xmxomc,.gn®wcc... ilv_amwe.mr
Current Figure 3.1, Land Use Planning Areas
s
Revised Figure 3.1, Land Use Planning Areas
Ij
Land Use Planning Areas Current and Revised Figure 3-1
C O N5 U L TIN G
-..�.. s. �w.murMParman AO a']M6 RVigcu,T�wnV[U efnO�ceVg]-1_WM_O3NOBOef
LEGEND
®-,6MM000 a-LErWP9nvioE
- logeoepao a - vEiE¢ IAMN4
®
. MDRMmE C-(AWMIY CMC
-,FyfpOpLO E - feRDMOR fCMRM
. MAOIXO F-12CMUT-omm cu/OIM P[[mCi
■ - IEOOaYV G . R4CRlVL L/RL
. IEGIF[IN H - PYIF H4dNL
-eICK TVSIM AYEUN[I
MfE/lU6FWSWlI. MN BCLMMT
tKfaG'PPKNFIF¢MtlGP/RYHGVtfH�4GGMLEM [M
�I-59ECfC tLV B]1MMf
J
PE6PbPM4A!IIA/1WgN6RlMfdliAiGf dYNGCRICEFl [pµ
`wl�d�m�w
-marc nw eawMr
aswae�n n�irl �m�l,ax�rwn �xwN"'
Current Figures 2-2 and 3-2, Neighborhoods
LEGEND
-e�tl��.[nWEtl aula
. •mamneo � , .aEME MEm,c
• ,mlAfgN < - RIOM PMI
. rtueeum o c»EEREry me
• [FROUW E - EYtOr,di ¢MER
-1IDByYgpp f - gEOlWLY4V. p[Im COYMY OIEICi
• [EDS.'YEIDCC 4 - I,FSLLN[4l VR
ffA9t9rAJ N - MYEE IC91t`Ihl
. If.K MR EDtR�11,!
.NN[RYSINISMfa NM LVM.M
tKfaG'PPKNFIF¢MtlGP/RYHGVtfH�4GGMLEM [M
Ec.RNv,ewxaaaoN.wsv �ruRE [lo[[snw wMCEOM..
-marc nw eawMr
mamrc,ewl.[..w.�s[rfx�.vxnsec..e+n+.�«m+mnv.
Revised Figures 2-2 and 3-2, Neighborhoods
Neighborhoods Current and Revised Figures 2.2 and 3-2
• :e.. �_. c�„wv P.mv. zmR •.,= mn C O N 5 U L T I N G
�Pq[mTwl,m/Wa,Grynucgl.3ug31_Megnm,mL Db H6VA
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specmc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5. Amend Neighborhood G, Planning Area 15 as follows:
'" ,~
a. Eliminate all references to the Golf Course originally identified in Planning Area 15;
b. Add the land use designation for Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) as an
acceptable use to allow for the transfer of unused units from Planning Area 20 to
Planning Area 15. Add accompanying standards for this use, using the MHDR
standards from Planning Area 20. The new MHDR land use designation and
standards in Planning Area 15 will permit a maximum of 192 MHDR dwelling units,
which is noted in the amended text;
c. Add the provision for office uses, using the same list of allowable uses and floor area
ratio development standards from amended Planning Area 7;
d. Add congregate care facilities for the elderly as a conditional use; and
e. Expand the list of allowable commercial uses to include a full range of typical
neighborhood commercial uses while eliminating hotel uses. Commercial uses would
be limited to the area adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road and between the North Loop
Road and Warner Avenue.
6. Amend regulations in certain portions of Planning Areas 7 through 15 to update use
categories, including: the addition of parks to the list of allowable uses in all planning
areas; changing daycare limits to match state requirements; updating terminology for
adult uses; and consolidating uses within general categories.
7. Amend Planning Area 7 within Neighborhood B to reduce the total square footage of
development permitted within it and to accommodate a transfer of square footage to
Neighborhood G in order to allow development of certain commercial uses within
Planning Area 15.
8. Land use and trip budget tables (refer to Revised Tables 2-1, 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3) have
been updated to reflect the changes above. However, the overall number of trips that will
be generated by new development within the Specific Plan area has not significantly
changed from the original projections. The projected trips have only been redistributed
within the Specific Plan boundary.
R:\ProjectsIT ustin\J004\ 1 tc3-031306. doc
3-3
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 2-1
LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY
RESIDENTIAL
Low Density
Medium Density
Medium-High Density
TransitionaVEmergency Housing
Residential CoreCelf Village La'l:
geRsily
Gelf Village Meai"", De"sity
SUBTOTAL
181.3
125.1
29.4
5.1
245.8
4&e
~
586.7
444,&
1 - 7 du/acre
8 -15 du/acre
16 - 25 du/acre
7 dulacre 8 15 du/acre.
16 25 du/acre
B 15 a"lasre
3,710 Dwelling Unils Max.
COMMERCIAUBUSINESS
Commercial/Business
Commercial
Residential Core2Calf Village '"'
164.8
~
55.3
29.3
~
20.7
310.6
~
580.7
138A
16 - 25 du/acre'
Village Services
Community Core
SUBTOTAL
891 Dwelling Unils Max.
INSTITUTIONAURECREATIONAL
Educationleami"g Village
Community Park
Urban Regional Park
SUBTOTAL
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Arterial Roadways
128.30
24.1
84.5
236.!!i
Drainage (Flood/stormdrains)
SUBTOTAL
173.4
4S8A
28.5
201.9
436.9
1606.2
16.7
4.1
1,585.4
4,801 Dwelling Unils Max.
GRAND TOTAL
Less Federal Property
Less Private Property
Total MCAS Tustin
Disposal Acreage
NOTES:
1. Gross acreage for each Planning Area is an estimated allocation measured from the edge of the
adjacent arterial or secondary roadways, any public roadway shown on the Land Use Plan,
and/or the boundary of the Planning Area. The amount of land devoted to roadways is calculated
under the Right-of-Way designation. Actual acreage will be refined during the site plan and
subdivision process.
2. Aeresge Jig\:lre iRsllolaes 159.4 seras af galf 66\:lFee u't:liet:l is ~aFt af t!:le Calf Village (PlaRRiRij
Af:ea.-4.5) Subiect to Section 3.6.2.EA and G2 of the Scecific Plan.
88 Dwelling Units
4,518 Dwelling Unils
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\1to3-031306.doc
3-4
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-1
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESIGNATION
Deslligna4pMPlanning Area
Acreage Aoit-rWdential
uses
(teltktsiitial'Us ',
a Taal Hoot Area
GroseNstY F.A R. (Sq. Ft}°
Odsthrg Floor Potential Hoar
Area tat,, Ft, Area (Sq. ll t }°
DUs
Par,. Toted
!#ere `. tiUsa
AtSIDENIIIAL' .
Low Density (1-7 du/ac)
Planning Area 4
54.2
43.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
304
Planning Area 21 - Tustin
127.1
115.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
14
703
Medium Density (8-15 du/ac)
Planning Area 51e
51 7
41.4
N/A
I N/A
I N/A
15
621
Planning Area 22°
Elementary School K-830
Neighborhood Park10
73.4
61.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
402
Medium -High Density (16-25 du/ac)
Planning Area 20'"
29.4 23.5
N/A N/A NAT
25
F 310
Transitional/Emergency Housing -
Planning Area 3
5.1 1 5.1 1
0.6
133,294
1 85,215 48,079
1 0
1 0
Residential Core
Planning Area 1514
Low Density (1 7 dUft)
112.(3
104;3
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
Medium Density (8-15 dulae)
51.8
- 47,8
NIA
N/A
N/A
15
480
Medk
dulac)
m,High Density (W25
8.3
7.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
26
192
ElemenfarytScIndole
40
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
i
NgK
Parks anis Opera $ ' 1
6311
133.'i
N/A
I N/A
I N/ANA0A3710
-----------------
Subtotal, Restdentiat Ute, PA 18
245:8
232:8
SUBTOTAL
80.1)
523:3
N/A
133,294
85,215
48,079
N/A
RiProje kTu4inr 4N10 031308 doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESIGNATION
Aoiesge
Designati¢n/Planning Area dross' Ne43
Non4resldential Uses
Reamential uses
-total Floor Atha
F A R.3 Sq Ft y'
Ezisting FBor
Area {Sq. Ft,)s
Pot"O'st Floor
Area (>tq. Ft.}e
aue
Per"_ ioYai
AereTs
COMMERCIAL WSIKSS
Commercial/Business
Planning Area 9-12
Parks and Open Space
Subtotal, Planning Area 9-12
76.9
38.6
197:5
64.5
38.8
103-1
See standards
1,267,324
88,344
1,178,980
0
Planning Area 16
31.0
27.9
0.4
486,130
206,640
279,490
0
Planning Area 17
16.3
16.3
0.4
284,011
63,289
220,722
0
Commercial
Planning Area 18's
16.7
14.5
0.35
40,8461
40,846
1 0
1
0
Planning Area 19
38.61
672,566
1 3,9901
668,576
0
Residential Core
Planning Area 1$
29.3 26.8
Bee standards
46M,M37 8,106 45�a31
N/A
0
Village Services
Planning Area 7
20.7
19.0
See standards
248,2921
01
240,2921
EUA
1 0
Community Core
Planning Area 8
Park
Planning Area 13
Park
Planning Area 14
High Schools."
89.5
56.3
77.5
12.9
34-2
40.0
88.5
58.3
59.3
12.9
26:2
40.0
See standards
Sse standards
See standards
1,975,992
2,132,417
648,870
329,032
0
700
,M48,900
2,132,417
640,170
N/A
25
25
26
N/A
891
Subtotal, Community Core
310.6
263.2
4;767,279
329,732
4,427,547
891
SUBTOTAL
980=1
51!9:4
N/A
8,223,085
740,947
782138
N/A
891
R. PMe tsRus in1.10 kl\ 031306.doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 0&002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addand„m
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESIGNATION
R:�, ts\Tu4mn 4M.3-031306.4.
Aoreag�
Non-rd�idnMF�f Uc
#'t>�itl�hdatU;1.,
Designation/Plannin Arca
9
6r"Si
,. Nets
I A R
Total Fr Area E>Elating '' . potbo-al Noor
iia. Ft.j' ...' Area (Sq, Ft Ft. a
Pier 'fotat
Aore' s
INSTITUTIONALIRECREATIONAL
Education V1111260
Planning Area I"
Planning Area 1-A
International Education Village
Elementary School's
Planning Area 1-B
Law Enforcement Training
Planning Area 1-C
Children's Care Sheller
Planning Area 1-D
12$13
1084
0.3
1,412,651
822,556
590,095
0
0
Child Care Center
Planning Area 1-E
Child Care Center
Planning Area I -F
Educe
P(annittg Area 1-0
tither
Community Park
Planning Area 2
24.1 24.1
0.1 1'
40,531 40,531
0
0
0
Urban Regional Park
Planning Area 6 1
84.5 84.5
1 0.16
574,992 496,068 78,924
0
0
Right -of -Way
Arterial Roadways
173:4
173.4
0
0
0
0
0
Drainage (Flood Control, Storm
285
28.5
0
0
0
0
0
Drains)
SUBTOTAL
43$.$
418.9
NIA
2,028,174
1,359,155
669,019
0
0
TOTALS
1,606.2
lA t't:$
NIA
10,384,358
2,185,317 as
$;199,23$
0
4,601
R:�, ts\Tu4mn 4M.3-031306.4.
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESIGNATION
1 Gross acreage for each Planning Area is an estimated allocation measured from the edge of the adjacent future arterial and secondary roadway, any public roadway
shown on the Land Use Plan, and/or the boundary of the Planning Area. The amount of land devoted to roadways shown on the Land Use Plan is calculated under the
Right -of -Way designation. Actual acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process.
2. Net acreage is an estimated allocation based on gross acreage reduced for internal circulation (local roads) within a Planning Area. Net acreage is estimated
approximately for each Planning Area, based on permitted use, size of the Planning Area, and typical site planning considerations. Actual net acreages will be refined
during the site plan and subdivision process.
3. Floor Area Rado (F,kk).is"gross, floor area of all bu"n wMdo a Plarvdng Aiea tYVifisd liY tttenet a4Y®ag8 of the k?t rg Area for purposes of this 9tatlst cal
4. Total Floor Area is the total square footage of non-residential development derived by multiplying the floor area ratio by the net acreage, if applicable.
5. Existing Floor Area is the square footage of existing buildings by Planning Area
a. Potential Ft=Area is the potential squareicotage of now development w"each Planning Area.
7. DU's per Acre reflects the maximum density per acre at which dwelling units may be calculated
8. TOW 1)U14, is the maximum number of dwelling unift altocated to each Planning Area- Even though actual gross are' nOt weages raW lee reifhed
if.
12.
13, PX'8 i;audes a 40-tiare allocation for a "gh School. The precise wedge and looatitsnwill be determined bythe C.4. H'flte actuei ocretgievaries fl'bm 44 90e5, Man
the acteage ad}uadaerst wit boor made io. cite Gomlmurpty Gore des(gftaljoh, however, the iota Towable square fest of'i#an rssidarl#ial developmornt and fnat i rattri
dwelling units !n PA units the same.
t 4, PA 1 is ootrgwaed of nurribrotli pubic oorrveyanoe uses as specified in seebon 2.3 and 2.4 of 1FreSpeafie Pian;
15: PA 1,Aindudes8.104ft41lf ierfbrAnEiaMantar vof
t 8: The actuni amount of Ming square'fooia{fe is 2;183,9513. Hdwtivst, ddlJo ftnahts.to two Pflannifig )treat have Merl nldi . ti8t PA 2,. Gommur* Park, 40,63t ex ig
square footage is expend #p be iet�sed. Mn pP. A 5, Rtfium Dcnslly iden,ttse 3g+f$Fi exngsquare.footege rS $uPd+l?ereplacad by raattt
1T.. The davel��ntattitrttefyignesitgtheCarnfnuaityP�k�U:tFAR;fiakavar;.tfsaoxniFty)4p,5St�fastmsyti,>e,retrsed.
MPlanning Area t5 is ootriprised of subpitinning aror�, whidt devetopnwrd potentia by land uea type. The reatapimrnhig areas era runt spedtlo on f}s Laud
Use Pian in aaderfa eNow tot #exitdidjt infuturs;lt pterin.
M In PlannaifaAt`ea26, thine is 4�1 grossticxesin p€KratefnN+tnefsfdp (wi#s 3, ttaiacforsesdttterlfsstdevelopraeraEpafenUst};.fsiarvil(fgAree 'i8isltt'oaosed soba retatfsed
R:\Prgetl\Tutt nW 40 1o3-031300 do
MCAS Tustrn Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-2
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY NEIGHBORHOOD
R\Pml kTusinU 0411to-03130e do
Acreage
Non-re$ldeotta( U00
RsalderMAW"s
Existing
Potential
total Floor FlgotAma
Floor Area,
[IUs
IGtaf
Designstion/Pianning Area
Grose'
Nee F.A.R.'
Area (Sq- Ftf (Sq, Ft,
(Sq. Ft f
, Pei Aere1
t3Uss
NEIGHBORHOOD A
Planning Area 114
0.3
1,412,651
822,556
590,095
0
0
Planning Area 1-A
Educational Uses 56.5
50.2
Elementary School4s 10.0
10.0
Planning Area 1-B 10.0
10.0
Law Enforcement Training or
Education
Planning Area 1-C 4.0
4.0
Children's Care Shelter
Planning Area 1-D 2.4
2.4
Child Care Center
Planning Area 1-E 1.9
1.9
Education
PJAnrl Ares 1-F 16.0
15:0
E*Caooftw
Rtanna Ares 1-G 18:5
14A
Onset
SUBTOTAL PLANNING AREA 1 128.3
108.4
N/A
1,412,651
822,556
590,095
0
0
Planning Area 2 24.1
24.1
0.117
40,531
40,531
0
0
0
Planning Area 3 5.1
5.1
06
133,294
85,215
48,079
0
0
SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD A 1163:5
137A
N/A
1,586,476
948,302
638,174
0
0
NEIGHBGRHOOOO B
Planning Area 4
54.2
43.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
304
Low Density (1-7 du/ac)
Planning Area 511'
51.7
41.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
621
Medium Density (8-15 du/ac)
Planning Area 7
20.7
16.(i
See
248,292
0
241 2
0
twdartls
SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD B
126.6
40U
N/A
2MA02
0
, ",,...
N/A
925
NPlGHSORHOOO'C
Planning Area 6
84.5 84.5
0.16 574,992
496,068
78,924
0
0
SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD C
1 84.51 84.5
1 N/A 1 574,9921
496,0681
78,9241
N/A
1 0
R\Pml kTusinU 0411to-03130e do
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY NEIGHBORHOOD
R:9rojeft NTus inlJ00d1 W-031308 dot
Aor�age
IVon-raald�ptlal
tisea
R4�d�tial
t#s+�s_
EXiStlrlg
-Posen41a1
Tota, Floor
I=
Ftoor Area:
tale
Tofal
D"Jignatiorilplanning Area
C3ross
FAP-3 Area,(Sq. Ft )°
(S5: F0
: F#.
Par'Aana'
DUss
NEIGHBORHOOD:,:0
Planning Area 8
Muted Use 89.5
68,5 Sae
1,975,992
329,032
1,646,960
25
Park SO
563 standards
High School'g 40.0
40.0
Planning Area 13 77.8
59-3 See
2,132,417
0
2,132,4.17
25
$91
Park 12.9
12.9 standards
Planning Area 14 34.3
28.2 See
648,870
700
648,110
25
standards
SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD D 310.6
26U N/A
4,751,278
329,732
4,427,647
26
891
NEIGHBORHOOD E
PlanningAreasSA2
78:9 84.5
See
1,267,324
88,344
1,978,980
0
Parks and 0'pan Space
3116 1 38,61
standards
SUBTOTAL FbR NEIGHBORHOOD E
117.5 103.1
See
1,267,321
88,344
1,17$,980
0
standards
NEIGHBORHOOD',F
Planning Area 16 31.0 279 0.4 486,130
206,640 279,490
0
Planning Area 17 16.3 16.3 0.4 284,011
63,289 220,722
0
Planning Area 18'" 16.7 14.5 0.35 40,846
40,846 0
0
Planning Area 19 38.6 38.6 0.4 672,566
3,990 668,576
0
SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD F 102.6 97.3 N/A 1,483,553
314,765 1,168,788
N/A
0
R:9rojeft NTus inlJ00d1 W-031308 dot
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY NEIGHBORHOOD
R\FOjed kTmstn�\1103-031306. do
Acresd
Naeidsti01
thea;>Ntliia}lba
.._.
Pefentiaa
DesigniBcraJFiIauirgng Aroaatosai
Net=
FAR 3
Total Floor
Area {l4q, Ft )¢'
I=, Area
jSgrfk}
FicctArna..
(9q. F"
We .
Per Away
T
RU
NEIGHBORHOOD G
Planring AN* 1$10
1128
104.3
WA
N/A
NIA
7
Low DwWty (1e7 4w)
Plannw
Araa.15
S1.8
478
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
489
MBdiun
amity (&15 Otdae)
PlatfflittB fiXeEl' 5
8.3
7,7
25
192
tae;lita"IghiDer" (16-25
didae)
PWO04tgAMO 15: 1'`
10.0
10
0
Planning Also 15 nkat R"dsrr0e
29.3
26:9
Slee
488 S"
8,106
459.531
0
Standards
PlvnihngAnm 46PetktFA00h
63.1
63A
N/A
N/A
WA
0
Spacel
Planning Area 20'*
29.4
23.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
25
3
Medium -High Density (16-25
du/ac)
Planning Area 21 — Tustin
127.1
115.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
14
703
Low Density (1-7 du/ac)
SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD G
431.6
3982
N/A
488$37
8,106}
N/A
2,383
NEIGHBORRO 3D'H
Planning Area 22a
73.4
61.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
402
Medium Density (8-15 du/ac)
Elementary School K-810
Neighborhood Park's
SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD H
73.4
61.0 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
402
RIGHT « WAY
Roadways
173.4
1:73.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
Drainage (Flood Control, Storm
28.5
28.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
Drains)
SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
201.19
101;8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
TOTALS
1,606.2
IIAW$
N/A
10,884453
2,185,317!
8189=
N/A
4,601
R\FOjed kTmstn�\1103-031306. do
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY NEIGHBORHOOD
1 Gross acreage for each Planning Area Is an estimated allocation measured from the edge of the adjacent future arterial and secondary roadway, any public
roadway shown on the Land Use Plan, and/or the boundary of the Planning Area. The amount of land devoted to roadways shown on the Land Use Plan is
calculated under the Rightof-Way designation. Actual acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process.
2. Net acreage is an estimated allocation based on gross acreage reduced for internal circulation (local roads) within a Planning Area. Net acreage is estimated
approximately for each Planning Area, based on permitted use, size of the Planning Area, and typical site planning considerations. Actual net acreages will be
refined durinyg the Slte plan and subdrv�s�on process.
3. FYopr Afea,I,;afia i`.A,1�-i IS: the, gPwss lCot?t area etf �A W li1i�.s wkhin a PiaM166 Anti' 44th by." het_ pixemglx Qf.t(.�.. Plegr ft. Area for p9gwsey of tf
Stat li6al Ar 1y8(s unless?rfttatW1ae Ipa fi.devearpment trdan�tda for the Pl"no Area:. f applicable,6te KA.R: ooluoin apeafies a or area MW derived
from
anassuiried mhcoftAeewlthin a:Ptauaing Ates
4. Total Floor Area is the total square footage of non-residential development derived by multiplying the floor area ratio by the net acreage, if applicable.
5 Existing Floor Area is the square footage of existing buildings by Planning Area
S. Potendat Poor Area Is dfe potential square'':kmtiae:*f newdeveltophientwilhin each Planridng Af@a;
7 DUs per Acre reflects the maximum density per acre at which dwelling units may be calculated.
8. Totat pUaiatila nra lartwtr ittimt et of dvteEng larke allooatad each Plaahirlq Itroa� Everf though a0tuai grew and r .ecop cial may be retched durm0 the e
ii.
12.
13,
14
151
16'
17.
is.
19,
R:\Projects\Tus inW04\i\o3-031306 dm
Section 2.3 and 2.4 oftK6% Speaft Ptah
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Spacific Plan Amendmant) 05-002,
DDA and Davalopment Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-3
PLANNING AREA-TRIP BUDGET'
NEIGHBORHOOD A
ElementarvlMiddle School STU 550 561
Leamina Center TSF 1,293.86 7,920
1 Neiahbarhoad Commercial TSF 27.12 3,033
Tustin Facility SG 6,220
PA 1 Trio Budne! Total 1 320.98 17,734
2 Searls Park ACRE 24.10 1,297
3 Transitional Housina ROOM 192 941
Neiohborhood A Sauare Footaae Total TSF 1 ,320.98
Neiahborhood A Trio Budae! Total 17,734
NEIGHBORHOOD B
LDR 1-7 DU/Acre DU 145 1,388
4 MDR (8-15 DUlAcre\ DU 120 960
Senior Housina Attached DU 72 250
MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) DU 132 1056
5 MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre\ DU 438 2,903
Senior Housina Attached DU 170 590
Community Commercial TSF 1 03.46 7,052
7 General Office TSF 144.84 1,922
PA 7 Trio Budae! Total 248.30 8,974
Neiahborhood B Sauare Footaae Total TSF 248.30
Neiahborhood B Trio Budaet Total 8,974
NEIGHBORHOOD C
Community Commercial TSF 57.50 3920
6 Reaional Park ACRE 84.50 423
PA 6 Trio Budae! Total 3,920
Neiahborhood C Sauare Footaae Total TSF 57.50
Neiahborhood C Trio Budaet Total 3,920
NEIGHBORHOOD D
Hiah Schaal STU 1,850 3,312
Neiahbamaad Commercial TSF . 65.69 7,345
Genera I Office TSF 207 2,747
8 Office Park TSF 1,383.80 11280
Industrial Park TSF 319.51 3803
Park ACRE 10.30 52
Searls Park ACRE 46 2,475
PA 8 Trio BudDe! Total 1,976 28,487
MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) DU 891 5907
Hatel 1380 TSF\ ROOM 500 4115
Neiahborhood Commercial TSF 9.76 1,091
Communitv Commercial TSF 117.10 7,984
13 General Office TSF 1,512 20,065
Park ACRE 12.90 65
Hea~h Club TSF 30 988
HiQh-Turnover Restaurant TSF 12 1,526
PA 13 Trio Budae! Total 2,060.86 35,769
Community Commercial TSF 11.11 757
General Office TSF 136.90 1,818
14 Office Park TSF 547 5,645
Theatre (25 TSF\ SEAT 1,000 1,250
Hiah-Turnover Restaurant TSF 6 763
PA 14 Trio BudDe! Total 726.01 10,233
Neiahborhood D Sauare Footaae Total TSF 4,782.87
Neiahborhood D Trio BudDet Total 74,489
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\1to3-031306.doc
3-13
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-3 (Continued)
PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET
,....".... .'"......,>" ....L........."'..
'....".".",,"..... ... .,....'....""..... "." ... .... . . "'."....."...
NEIGHBORHOOD E
Industrial Park TSF 44.61 714
9 Park ACRE 1.10 6
SDOrts Park ACRE 6.10 328
PA 9 Trip Budaet Total 44.61 714
General Office TSF 156.82 2081
Industrial Park TSF 124.41 1,569
10 Park ACRE 1.40 7
Sports Park ACRE 4.30 231
PA 10 Trio Budoet Total 281.23 3650
Neiohborhood Commercial TSF 18.13 2,028
General Office TSF 371.89 4,935
11 Office Park TSF 278.78 2,663
Industrial Park TSF 138.52 2002
Park ACRE 25.70 130
PA 11 Trip Budaet Total 807.32 11,628
12 Office Park TSF 134.17 1,281
PA 12 Trio Budoet Total 134.17 1281
Neiahborhood E Sauare Footaae Total TSF 1,267.33
Neiahborhood E Trio Budaet Total 17,273
NEIGHBORHOOD F
16 ShoDDino Center TSF 448 13,772
PA 16 Trip Budaet Total 448 13772
17 Shooolno Center TSF 47 1,445
PA 17 Trip Budaet Total 47 1445
18 MiI~arv (Office) TSF 40.85 542
PA 18 Trio Budoet Total 40.85 542
ShoDDino Center TSF 435.60 13391 435.60 13391
19 Multiplex Theater (70 TSF) SEAT 3,500 6300
PA 19 Trio Budoet Total TSF 505.60 19691
Neiahborhood F Sauare Footaae Total TSF 1,041.45
Neighborhood F Trio Budaet Total 35,450
NEIGHBORHOOD G
LDR 11-7 DU/Acre\ DU 533 5,102
MDR (8-15 DU/Acre\ DU 489 3,912
MHDR (16-25 DUlAcre DU 192 1,273
Elementarv/Middle School STU 1,200 1,224
Neiohborhood Commercial TSF 26.68 2,983
15 Community Commercial TSF 130.68 8,908
Genera I Office TSF 150.28 1,994
Park ACRE 49 249
Senior Conareaate TSF 158.99 970
SDOrlS Park ACRE 14.10 758
P A 15 Tri 0 Budaet Total 466.63 14855
20 MHDR 116-25 DU/Acre) DU 376 2,493
21 LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) DU 189 1,809
MDR 18-15 DU/Acre) DU 465 3,720
Neighborhood G Sauare Footaae Total TSF 466.63
Neiahborhood G Trio Budaet Total 14855
R. \ProjectslT ustin\J004\ 1103-031306. doc
3-14
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-3 (Continued)
PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET
NEIGHBORHOOD H
LDR 1-7 DU/Acre DU 166 1,589
22 MDR 8-15 DU/Acre DU 243 1,944
Elementa IMiddle School STU 650 663
Ne' hborhood H S uare Feola e Total TSF 0
Nei hborhood H Tri Bud et Total 0
1 Residential and park uses are shown for informational purposes only and are not part of the non-residential trip budget.
General Development Reaulations
The General Development Regulations set forth in Section 3 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
are proposed to be amended to include a new Section 3.14 which will outline standards for
alcoholic beverage sales, based upon existing City guidelines. Parking standards would be
modified to provide for specific parking standards where mixed uses are anticipated in the
Community Core land use designation. Minor changes to the Chapter 4 administrative
procedures for development processing are also proposed.
Definitions
Minor amendments to the definitions set forth in the Specific Plan are proposed to clarify uses
permitted by the Specific Plan land use designations or categories as may be necessary for
clearer implementation.
3.2.2 DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The City of Tustin and Tustin Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") proposes to enter into
a DDA to facilitate the sale, leasing, and development of Tustin Legacy, including the Master
Developer footprint, in accordance with applicable federal and local requirements. The DDA,
however, is not a development agreement as provided in Government Code Section 65864, or a
grant of entitlement.
The proposed DDA which includes a proposed Development Plan (described in Section 3.2.3
below) establishes certain key terms, including but not limited to: (a) the phasing and conditions
precedent to the City's obligation to sell and convey and/or lease certain property within each
phase of the Master Developer footprint to the Master Developer; (b) the purchase price of the
property to be conveyed to the Master Developer; and (c) establishes a schedule of
performance for future development including obligations for construction of Tustin Legacy
Backbone Infrastructure and Local Infrastructure,
The majority of the Master Developer footprint is currently owned by either the City of Tustin or
Tustin Public Financing Authority. A portion of the area within the Master Developer footprint is
also currently owned by the DoN and leased to the City under a L1FCO and is expected to be
transferred to the City of Tustin, subject to the Navy's issuance of a Finding of Suitability to
Transfer (FOST) and deed provisions mutually acceptable to the Navy and City. The City will
transfer property to the Master Developer in phases with the exception of specific dedications
and easements that will be required for public uses and public access as stipulated in the DDA.
R:\Projects\Tuslin\J004\1Io3-031306.doc
3-15
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Although the entire Master Developer footprint encompasses approximately 820 acres, the
portion that will actually be conveyed to the Master Developer and developed for private
development will be comprised of approximately 420 acres. The Master Developer footprint
includes property that would not likely be transferred by the City to the Master Developer and
will either be retained by the City or is required to be dedicated (in fee or easement, as
applicable) by provisions in the DDA for a variety of public purposes including but not limited to:
roads, utilities, and other public uses such as parks and open space areas; and two school sites
to accommodate the Tustin Unified School District (a 40-acre high school and a 10-acre
elementary school site). However, the City will reserve the option of collaborating with the
Master Developer and the TUSD regarding options for construction of the high school, including
land conveyance mechanisms. In addition, a final City disposition decision on a 15-acre parcel
containing one of the blimp hangars is not possible until marketing efforts are completed and a
property disposition decision is made by the DoN in consultation with the Federal Advisory
Council and State Office of Historic Preservation (the "Hangar 29 Parcel").
3.2.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Parties
Upon conveyance by the City and the Tustin Finance Authority through provisions of the DDA,
TLCP will serve as the Master Developer and master land development entity that will seek the
implementation approvals for the property within the Master Developer footprint; grade the
property; build out certain DDA-defined Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure and Local
Infrastructure (as may be located within and outside of the Master Developer footprint); and then
sell parcels to vertical builders for construction of improvements (residential and non-residential)
in a portion of Neighborhood G and to builders for construction of improvements in a portion of
Neighborhood B, in Neighborhood D, and in Neighborhood E. TLCP has also indicated that in
addition to being members of TLCP (individual members of the partnership as Master Developer
affiliates) the Master Developer will also act as vertical builders for portions of the project, the
DDA and Development Plan contemplate that certain portions of the project will be developed
by third party developers as well.
Description of the Proposed Development Plan
Consistent with proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the proposed DDA, the scope of the
development proposed by the Master Developer is subject to any requirements that the Master
Developer, Master Developer affiliates, or third party vertical builders may have to fulfill to obtain
future entitlements (e.g., subdivision and design review approvals).
The Refined Master Development Plan (Development Plan) is presented in Exhibit 2. The
project site is to be conveyed to the Master Developer in up to four phases and developed in up
to four phases by vertical builders. The Phase 1 conveyance begins in September 2006; Phase
2 in September 2009; Phase 3 in July of 2011; and Phase 4, which involves the 15-acre Hangar
29 Parcel only after a determination is made regarding the economic viability of retention of
Hanger 29. Conveyance of this parcel to the Master Developer is at the City's sole discretion.
Exhibit 3 depicts the Phasing Plan. Proposed land uses within the Master Developer footprint
are described below.
Residential Improvements
Up to 2,105 dwelling units are proposed for construction on the Master Developer footprint on
approximately 185 acres of land, as follows:
R\ProJects\T usti n\J004\ 1to3.031306 doc
3-16
Project DescripNon
�ry.RK Vr
T@ d9IPu!
(VFSTI.11)
Nuh. rtNal ryttd �onf QIIadMa vAl
G�dalamdnM MlY1g illa$MW B
ppinggaessasdluutW In Sec,bn
adlhptpcskbn and petNromms
Nf�MnNa
Refined Master Development Plan Exhibit 2
' CON 5 ULTI NG
mey..r.�rm.,wo.w�w+��u.00 emwaoar
Phasing Plan Exhibit 3
C O N S U L I! N G
. =. w„wvo.M,..... cn. m.�i. cmc ar+=r•+.rv.w.vwoarroi+..�n no ox.ro¢w
MCAS Tustin Zone Chenge (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
. Approximately 533 dwelling units are to be constructed on approximately 104 acres
within a low density land use designation.
. Approximately 489 dwelling units are to be constructed on approximately 48 acres within
a medium density land use designation.
. Approximately 1,083 dwelling units are to be constructed on approximately 33 acres
within a medium-high density land use designation.
Regardless of the total number of dwelling units constructed, a minimum of 453 units will be
restricted to below market rate (identified in the DDA as Affordable Housing Units). In addition,
no more than 315 residential units within the Master Developer footprint will be permitted as
apartments with the balance of the residential units in the project required to be for sale and
homeownership. Additional information regarding additional affordability restrictions by type of
tenure and phase are discussed in more detail in the DDA Scope of Development and in
Article 13 of the DDA.
The anticipated phasing of residential development, including Affordable Housing Units, is
discussed below under "Phasing".
Non-residential Improvements
Up to approximately 6,739,042 square feet of non-residential development is proposed for
construction on approximately 234 acres, including:
. Approximately 29 acres in retail use.
. Approximately 145 acres in office use.
. Approximately 32 acres industrial use.
. Approximately 7 acres for a congregate care facility.
. A minimum of 500 hotel rooms (required by the provisions of the Scope of Development
included as an attachment to DDA) which may be developed in one or more hotel
projects with not less than 250 hotel rooms in at least one hotel project, and not less
than 100 hotel rooms in other hotel projects. There shall be conference facilities in at
least one of the hotel projects.
. A health club in the mixed use portion of the Community Core.
. Other uses including, without limitation, development of a minimum 25,000 square foot
theater consistent with the programming identified in the Scope of Development.
It should also be noted that the allowed 6,739,042 square feet of non-residential development
includes development on the Hangar 29 Parcel, provided the City is able, at its sole discretion,
to convey the parcel to the Master Developer. The use would be mutually agreed upon between
the City and the Master Developer, subject to the Specific Plan. If the Hangar 29 parcel is not
conveyed to the Master Developer, the non-residential square footage would be reduced as
identified in the DDA Scope of Development.
Public and Private Park, Open Space and Other Uses
In addition to the property to be developed for residential and non-residential uses, a total of
approximately 403 acres within the Master Developer footprint will be devoted to a variety of
private and public parks, greenbelt areas, trails, and open space areas (collectively "parkland");
schools; Master Developer's Backbone Infrastructure Work; and Local Infrastructure Work.
R.\ProjectsITustin\J004\1to3-031306.doc
3-17
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
These uses are specifically described in the "Scope of Developmenf' induded as an attachment
. to the DDA and are summarized below:
. Approximately 50 acres will be devoted to educational facilities, including a 40-acre high
school in Neighborhood D and a 10-acre elementary school in Neighborhood G. The
10-acre elementary school may also expand an additional 5 acres to accommodate a
combination elementary/middle school, based on negotiations with the City of Tustin and
Tustin Unified School District. Any increase in the school acreage to accommodate the
combination elementary/middle school will not require the Master Developer to provide
additional parkland. The traffic study has taken into account the increase in enrollment in
the event a combination elementary/middle school is developed on the property.
. A minimum of 170 acres of the property are proposed to be devoted to both public and
private parks, greenbelt areas, and recreational areas. Of the 170 acres of open space,
approximately 86 acres (or a minimum of approximately 50 percent) of the total park and
open space acreage will remain in public ownership, with the City responsible for
maintenance once such public parkland areas have been completed and accepted by
the City. The balance of parkland areas (approximately 84 acres) will be privately owned
and maintained. It is expected that public parkland will contain the following elements:
(a) a detention/sports field facility in Neighborhood E; (b) a 46-acre community park to
include a tennis facility and aquatic facilities, sports facilities, general play areas,
restrooms, and maintenance/storage area, and linear parks in Neighborhood D; and
(c) neighborhood parks and a community linear park system in Neighborhood G. All of
these uses are more specifically described in the Scope of Development included as an
attachment to the DDA.
Private parkland shall include private focal parks, linear parks, recreational facilities,
greenbelts, trails and open space areas.
It should be noted that the proposed open space redistributes the previous private golf
course open space area into community, neighborhood and linear parks that will be
more accessible to the public, and private park areas which will be required to be
accessible to the general public.
. Approximately 101 acres to accommodate roadways that are proposed as part of the
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Work, and 81 acres to accommodate roadways
and right-of-way that are proposed within Local Infrastructure Work. This infrastructure
area does not account for additional in-tract infrastructure or horizontal improvements
that may be constructed by vertical builders.
Phasing
As shown in Exhibit 3, the proposed sale of property to the Master Developer will be in up to
four phases. Development of each of these take down areas will also occur in four phases as
follows:
. Phase 1 proposes approximately 160 acres of revenue-producing private development
to consist of: (a) 1,560 residential units on approximately 111 acres in Neighborhoods D
(891 units) and G (669 units); (b) approximately 39 acres of multi-use retail, office,
and hotel development; (c) approximately 10 acres of office development; and
(d) approximately 21 acres of industrial development. The Master Developer will also be
required to construct all Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure (located within and
R:\Projects\TuslinU004\1103-031306.doc
3-18
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specine Plan AmendmenO 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
outside the Master Developer footprint) and Local Infrastructure related to Phase I;
public and private parks; and open space as identified for this Phase. The Master
Developer will also complete all finished pads in this Phase as necessary for school site
conveyances and other dedications by the City.
Development of Affordable Housing Units in Phase 1 will occur in Neighborhoods D and
G as outlined in Article 13 of the DDA.
An important development requirement in Phase 1 is the proposed mixed use
development proposed in Neighborhood D, which is described in more detail in the
Scope of Development attached to the DDA.
. Phase 2 proposes approximately 190 acres of revenue-producing private development
including: (a) 545 residential units on approximately 74 acres in Neighborhood G;
(b) approximately 26 acres of retail development; (c) approximately 84 acres of office
campus and office development; and (d) approximately 6 acres of industrial
development. The Master Developer will also be required to construct all Tustin Legacy
Backbone Infrastructure and Local Infrastructure Work; public and private parks; and
open space related to Phase II. The Master Developer will also complete all finished
pads in this Phase as necessary for school site conveyances and other dedications by
the City.
Affordable Housing Units in Phase 2 shall be constructed and designated for sale and
available for ownership occupancy to 70 Moderate Income Households.
. Phase 3 will be comprised of approximately 54 acres of revenue-producing private
development to consist of: (a) approximately 1.7 acres of retail development;
(b) approximately 35 acres of office development; and (c) approximately 16 acres of
industrial development. It is anticipated that the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure
would be completed with Phase 2. Local Infrastructure Work required in Phase 3 would
be completed in this Phase 3.
. Phase 4 will consist of the 15-acre Hangar Parcel (Blimp Hanger 29) within
Neighborhood D. The City conveyance of this parcel to the Master Developer and its
development is not guaranteed. Any reuse or development is first contingent upon a
determination of economic viability of any renovation and reuse of the Hangar Parcel by
the DoN in consultation with the State prior to any development on the Hangar 29 parcel.
Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Development of the Specific Plan area will contribute to the need for Tustin Legacy Backbone
Infrastructure located both in and off the Specific Plan site (the Tustin Legacy Backbone
Infrastructure Program). Following is a summary of the planned infrastructure and pUblic
facilities which are described in more detail in the Scope of Development attached to the DDA:
. Roadway improvements - The proposed conceptual arterial circulation system for the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan is presented in
Exhibit 7 in Section 5. For comparison, the circulation system for the original Specific
Plan is also provided. In summary, the following refinements to the circulation system in
the Development Plan have been made to accommodate the proposed development:
R \ProjectslT ustin\J004\ 1 003-031306 doc
3-19
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
(a) Carnegie Avenue would be extended to Armstrong Avenue from Red Hill Avenue
as a four-lane secondary arterial (Phase I);
(b) Aston Street shall be extended from Barranca Parkway to Carnegie Avenue as a
two-lane, local collector street (Phase 2);
(c) Legacy Road would be added as a four-lane secondary arterial to provide a
connection between the residential portion on the northeast side of the proposed
project with the non-residential portion to the southwest (Phase 1);
(d) Loop Road South, a four-lane secondary arterial west of Tustin Ranch Road, is
planned with an offset roadway alignment (as compared to the circulation for the
original Specific Plan) (Phase 1).
(e) Two connections to Tustin Ranch Road would be provided at Park Avenue and
at a yet to be named street (referred to here as "A" Street) both of which will be
four-lane secondary arterials (Phase 1);
(f) A second westbound left-turn lane at Red Hill AvenueNalencia Avenue will be
added (Phase 1); and
(g) A second westbound right-turn lane at Red Hill AvenuelWarner Avenue
(Phase 1).
. Traffic and circulation mitigation to support the Tustin Legacy project
. Domestic and reclaimed water sewer, telemetry, storm drain, and regional and Specific
Plan flood control channel facilities. Figure 2-10 of the Specific Plan sets forth the
conceptual storm drain improvement plan. This plan is a conceptual plan, and the
Specific Plan requires preparation of refined storm drain improvement plans for review
and approval of the City of Tustin during the design phase of the project. Since the
preparation of the conceptual plan, the City of Tustin has entered into various
agreements regarding storm drainage facilities and has prepared a Runoff Management
Plan (RMP). These agreements and the RMP call for design of a storm drain system
that is consistent with the Specific Plan conceptual storm drain plan, but which would be
a refinement of the original conceptual plan and which may ultimately alter the
alignments, sizes and extent of the certain storm drain improvements.
. Utilities backbone (gas, electricity, telephone, cable, telecommunications, etc.)
. Public park
. Recreational improvements and community facilities including, but not limited to: an
aquatic center, tennis club, community entry signs, fire station, and off-site Tustin
Library expansion
The Master Developer will have the responsibility to make a fair share contribution to the
development of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure on behalf of the Master Developer
project. In addition to the Master Developers' obligations to make its Project Fair Share
Contribution towards the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program Development, the
Master Developer will also be responsible for design and construction of a portion of the Tustin
Legacy Backbone I nfrastructure Program consistent with the Specific Plan and any approvals or
R:\Prcjects\TustinU004\1t03.031306doc
3-20
Project Description
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
requirements of any future implementation approvals. Vllhile the Master Developer is required to
complete Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure as specified in the Specific Plan. the City is
taking a more aggressive posture in the DDA and is requiring earlier completion of many of the
improvements required for Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure requiring completion of major
components of the program as a precondition to Phase 2 and Phase 3 land conveyance
phases.
The City of Tustin has already completed a number of actions to ensure implementation
(funding and construction) of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program. Cost
estimates for the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program have been developed and the
City has entered into agreements with each of the other developers within the Specific Plan
area regarding the required funding for the infrastructure improvements. Additionally. the City of
Tustin has entered into agreements with adjacent jurisdictions regarding funding for
infrastructure improvements that are not within the City of Tustin. It should be noted that the
Master Developer DDA being considered with the proposed project is the last agreement to be
executed for the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program. The proposed DDA. together
with agreements that the City of Tustin has already entered into with other Specific Plan
developers and adjacent jurisdictions, assures implementation of the Tustin Legacy Backbone
Infrastructure Program.
Site Preparation
The Master Developer will undertake site preparation (including demolition and relocation of
utilities) as necessary for provision of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure. Developer's
Backbone Infrastructure. Local Infrastructure Work. and to create parcels in order for the Master
Developer to sell parcels to Vertical Builders. Site preparation. may consist of but would be
limited to: (1) removal of any structures and improvements including subsurface structures and
removal of all bricks. lumber. pipelines. equipment and other materials and all debris and
rubbish resulting from demolition; (2) the removal of paving (including tarmac areas, catch
basins. curbs. gutters. drives and sidewalks on the site; and (3) the removal and abandonment
by the developer of what will be developer owned and by some public utility companies of such
utility lines. installations. facilities and related equipment from the site as necessary.
R\Projects\Tuslln\J004\1to3-031306doc
3-21
Project Description
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Wiry, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmeutaI Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin
The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an
earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to
Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s):
Lead Agency:
Zone Change (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002, Disposition and
Development Agreement, and Proposed Development Plan
City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Mr. Dana Ogdon
Proj ect Locati on:
Phone: (714) 573-3109
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan property, bound by Red Hill Avenue to the west,
Edinger Avenue to the north, Jamboree Road to the east, and Barranca Parkway to
the south.
Master Developer's Name and Address:
Project Applicant:
Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC (TLCP):
c/o Centex Homes
250 Commerce
Irvine, California 92602
City of TustinlTLCP
General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Project Description: Approval of Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002, and Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) between the City of Tustin and Tustin Legacy Community Partners,
LLe. including a proposed Development Plan. The proposed project generally involves minor
adjustments to Planning Area boundaries and redistribution and/or elimination of planned land uses
within the Specific Plan/Reuse Plan area. The revised Specific Plan/Reuse Plan allows for development
of 4,601 dwelling units, 273.8 acres ~f landscaped parks/open space, 580.7 acres of commercial/light
industrial office development (8,223,085 square feet), 128.3 acres of education village, four schools
~\ProjectslTustir)\J004\4_0Checkllst-031406_doc
4-1
Environmental Analysis Checklist
sites, and 201.9 acres of right-alway for arterial roadways and stormdrains. In summary, the proposed
Specific Plan Amendments, DDA and Development Plan do not propose additional residential units, and
the amount of commercial/light industrial office is reduced compared to the original Specific
Plan/Reuse Plan.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Metrolink rai/line, Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel, Residential
East: Peters Canyon Channel, Residential
South: Barranca Channel, Commercial
West: Commercial
Previous Environmental Documentation:
Program Final Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (program FEIS/EIR) for
the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse No.
94071005) certified by the Tustin City Counci/ 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
DGeology and Soils
OHydrology and Water Quality
OAir Quality
OTransportation & Circulation
DBiological Resources
DMineral Resources
DAgricultural Resources
OHazards and Hazardous Materials
ONoise
DPublic Services
OUtilities and Service Systems
OAesthetics
OCultural Resources
DRecreation
DMandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis ofthis initial evaluation:
o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o 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.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect I) 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."
RIPrOJectsITustIrlIJD04\4.0Checkllst-031406doc
4-2
Environmental Analysis Checklist
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
181 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 I) 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:
tilt~
~~k_
Date: 0 3 /14/0(,
~6
Date .%.1'0~
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Attached
R;\P~\TIJltin\.J0004\4,O Cheddilt-031406.doc
4-3
Environmental Analysis Checklist
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No Substontial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
L AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 IZI
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? 0 0 IZI
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surrouudings? 0 0 IZI
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighnime views in the area? 0 0 IZI
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultoral 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 optioual model to nse in assessing impacts
on agriculture and fannland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Fannland. Unique Fannland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Fannland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-
agricultoral nse? 0 0 IZI
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
WilIiantson Act contract? 0 0 IZI
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which.
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultoral use? 0 0 IZI
m. 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 IZI
b) Violate any air quality standard or contnbute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 IZI
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 ihresholds for ozone precursors)" 0 0 IZI
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 0 0 IZI
e) Create obJectiouable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? 0 0 IZI
R\Proiect~\TL<stin\J004\40 Checklist-031406 doc 4-4 Environmental Analysis Checklist
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modificatious, on any species identified as a
candidate, seusitive. or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulatious, or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ripatian habitat
or other seusitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulatious 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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or onlinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisious of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Distutb any human remaius, iucluding those interred
outside offormal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects. including the risk of loss. injury. or death
involving:
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
No Substantial
Change From
Previous
Analysis
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
[gJ
RIPrOjects\TustinIJ004\<l.OChecklisl-031406.doc
Environmental Analysis Checklist
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
4-5
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Impact Impacts Analysis
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for tbe area or based on otber
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publicalion 42. 0 0 [gJ
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 [gJ
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 [gJ
iv) Landslides? 0 0 [gJ
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 [gJ
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 0 0 [gJ
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? 0 0 [gJ
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting tbe use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 0 0 [gJ
VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? 0 0 [gJ
b) Create a significant hazard to tbe public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? 0 0 [gJ
c) Emit hazardons emissions or haodle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 [gJ
d) Be localed on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 0 [gJ
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 woIking in the project
area? 0 0 [gJ
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area? 0 0 [gJ
RIProject5\Tustin\JOO4\40Checklist-C31406.doc 4-6 Environmental Analysis Checklist
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Impacts Analysis
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? 0 0 C2:1
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injnry or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to mbanized areas or where resideuces
are intennixed with wildlands? 0 0 C2:1
VIIL HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: - Would
the project:
a) Violate aoy water quality standards or waste discharge
requiremeuts? 0 0 C2:1
b) Substantially deplete gronndwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
gronndwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nemby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existiug land uses or planned uses for which pennits
have been granted)? 0 0 C2:1
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, iucluding through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result iu substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 0 0 C2:1
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 floodiug on-
or off-site? 0 0 C2:1
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of pollutcd runoff? 0 0 C2:1
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 C2:1
g) Place housing within a I OO-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 C2:1
h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 C2:1
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofIoss,
injury or death involviug flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or daru? 0 0 C2:1
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami. or mudflow? 0 0 C2:1
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 C2:1
"<\ProjectsITlJstin\JOO4\40Checklist-031406doc 4-7 Environmental Analysis Checklist
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Impact Impacts Analysis
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 IZI
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? 0 0 i:8J
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 IZI
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 i:8J
XL 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? D D IZI
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
gronndborue vibration or groundbome noise levels? D D IZI
c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? D D i:8J
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? D D i: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 IZI
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 IZI
xn.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 infrastmctnre)? D D IZI
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing.
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? D D IZI
R \ProiectsITustinIJ004\40 Checklist.031406 do~ 4-8 Environmental Analysis Checklist
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
c) Displace substantial numbcrs of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D D t:8:l
XIIL 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 enviromuental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
perfonnance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? D D t:8:l
Police protection? D D t:8:l
Schools? D D t:8:l
Parks? D D t:8:l
Other public facilities? D D t:8:l
XN. RECREATION-
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional pmks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? D D t:8:l
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 enviromuent? D D t:8:l
xv. TRANSPORTATIONffRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of thc 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 t:8:l
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 t:8:l
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 t:8:l
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., f3IIll equipment)? D D t:8:l
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D t:8:l
I) Result in inadequate parking capacity? D D t:8:l
RIProjects\Tustm\JOO4\40Checklist-031406doc 4-9 Environmental Analysis Checklist
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analvsis
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? D D IZI
XVL UTIliTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? D D IZI
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of whieh could cause significant
environmental effects? D D IZI
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
constmction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? D D IZI
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are ncw or
expanded entitlements needed? D D IZI
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments? D D IZI
f) Be served by a landfIll with sufficient penuitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? D D IZI
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? D D IZI
XVIL 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 eudangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? D D IZI
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? C'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)? D D IZI
c) Does the project have environmeutal effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either
directly or indirectly? D D IZI
R \Projects\Tus~in\J004\40 ChE'cklist-031406doc 4-10 Environmentaf Analysis Checklist
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION OF
CHECKLIST RESPONSES
INTRODUCTION
This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts as identified in the environmental
checklist form provided previously in Section 4. For each topical issue identified in the Initial
Study Checklist the following information is provided in this section:
. Summary of the Impacts from the FEISlEIR
. Current Conditions (physical and regulatory selting)
. Comparison of Project and Previously Approved Project Impacts
. Mitigation and Implementation Measures
FEIS/EIR measures that have been completed
FEIS/EIR measures applicable to the proposed project
Refinements to FEIS/EIR measures
FEIS/EIR measures not applicable to the proposed project
. Sources (specific to each topical issue)
BASIS FOR PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The analysis of project-specific impacts presented in this section addresses the potential
impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan as described in Section 3, Project Description. It should be noted that for
purposes of analysis, refinements to land use statistics presented in the Specific Plan have
been made for specific topical issues (traffic/circulation, population, housing, etc.). The Specific
Plan is a planning document, with the maximum number of dwelling units determined based on
an estimate of available gross acreage. In refinements at the subdivision and design review
stages of individual development projects, actual number of units authorized by entitlements is
refined. The Specific Plan also does not reflect any density bonuses that have been granted by
the City as may be required by State Law. Land use statistics assumed in the respective
analyses presented in this Addendum are identified for relevant topical issues.
The area of physical impact for the proposed project includes the following: (a) the Specific Plan
area; (b) improvements to Peters Canyon Channel within and in the vicinity of the Specific Plan
(between the Metrolink rail crossing and Barranca Parkway); (c) impacts to Barranca Channel,
and (d) potential impacts to the Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel.
In compliance with Section 15130(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the cumulative analysis
presented in Section 5 of the FEIS/EIR is based on "a summary of projections contained in an
adopted general plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or areawide
conditions." Specifically, the FEIS/EIR evaluated cumulative impacts associated with build-out of
the general plans in the affected geographic area, including the cities of Tustin, Irvine, and
Santa Ana. To determine whether there have been any changes in circumstances relative to
cumulative conditions which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR, the general plans of
these jurisdictions, including amendments that have been adopted since certification of the
RIProjects\Tuslm\J004\5 En\lircn Analysis-031306.doc
5-1
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS TusNn Zone Change (Spec;;c Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
FEIS/EIR, have been reviewed in light of the currently proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and
the proposed DDA and Development Plan. The analysis of project impacts presented in this
Addendum takes into consideration updates to the respective General Plans and pertinent
Regional Plans, as well as projections adopted for relevant topical issues. Specifically, the
updated General Plans and Orange County Projections (OCP) 2004 demographic information
has been used in the modeling for traffic impacts and local and regional demographic
projections, which are addressed in this Addendum (refer to Section 5.11, Population and
Housing). These demographic projections are the basis for regional planning efforts; including
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Planning
projections and the South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan
(refer to Section 5.2, Air Quality). Following is a summary of updated General Plan information
for each jurisdiction.
CITY OF TUSTIN
The City of Tustin adopted its current General Plan in January 2001 and its Housing Element
within the General Plan in November 2002. A description of the City of Tustin study area is
provided in the FEIS/EIR. When the FEIS/EIR was prepared it was identified that the City was
largely built out with the exception of Tustin Ranch, infill projects, and the MCAS Tustin site.
Tustin Ranch is now completely built out, consistent with General Plan projections. Since the
FEIS/EIR was prepared, the City of Tustin has adopted General Plan Amendments to largely
address the following: Housing Element update, Newport Avenue, EI Camino Real
reclassification; Columbus Grove reorganization; and to designate the former MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan/Reuse Plan area. These General Plan Updates have been reviewed by the City of
Tustin and are assumed in the regional analysis of this Addendum (e.g., traffic, air quality,
population and housing). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan
are consistent with existing adopted General Plan projections.
CITY OF IRVINE
The City of Irvine adopted its 2000 General Plan Update in March 1999. Since adoption of the
General Plan there have been a number of General Plan Amendments, which are outlined in
General Plan Supplements 1 through 4. The General Plan Supplements identify City Council
approved General Plan Amendments from September 25, 2000 through December 2005.
Table A-1 of the City of INine General Plan, Maximum Intensity Standards by Planning Area,
and Table A-2, Non-Regulatory Maximum Intensity Standards: Land Use Acreage by Planning
Area, have been updated by the City to reflect currently allowed development (as of December
2005). Based on current information, the assumed land use distribution at buildout for the City of
Irvine, is as follows: 93,345 dwelling units (du) within the Residential designation; 2,850 du and
2,295,205 sf within the Multi-Use designation; 10,230 du, 4,684,366 sf of public facility use, and
14,433,204 sf of educational facility use within the Institutional designation; 6,536 du and
114,004,623 sf of industrial use in the Industrial designation; and 1,550 du and 22,195,420 sf of
commercial use in the Commercial designation. The City of Tustin has reviewed this information
for preparation of this Addendum, as well as projects currently being considered by the City of
Irvine. This information has been assumed in the regional analysis of impacts for traffic, air
quality, population and housing.
CITY OF SANTA ANA
A description of the City of Santa Ana study area is provided in the FEIS/EIR. As noted, the City
encompasses approximately 27 square miles (17,408 acres) and is largely built out. Any new
R:\ProJectsITustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-2
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Spec/fie Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
development in the City would consist of redevelopment and infill development on the remaining
and under-utilized parcels. Since preparation of the FEIS/EIR, the City of Santa Ana updated its
Housing Element (December 2000). The updated housing information has been assumed in the
analysis presented in this Addendum. It should also be noted that the City is in the process of
updating its Airport Environs Element to reflect changes consistent with the County of Orange
Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The City of Tustin has reviewed
this information for preparation of this Addendum and has concluded that this will not change
the conclusions of this Addendum. This information has been assumed in the regional analysis
of impacts for traffic, air quality, population and housing.
REFERENCES USED IN DOCUMENT PREPARATION
For each topical issue in this section, sources/references used that are specific to the respective
issue are identified. To avoid repetition, following is a list of the primary sources used that are
applicable to each topical issue:
California. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. "Article 11. Types of EIRs." CEQA.
Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act. 1996. California Resource Agency. January 17,
2006 <http://ceres.ca.gov/topiclenv-'aw/ceqalguidelines/art11.html> .
Department of the Navy and City of Tustin. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)/Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corp Air
Station (MCAS) Tustin. Tustin and Irvine: Department of the Navy, January 10, 2001.
Irvine, City of. City of Irvine 2000 General Plan Update. March 9, 1999, and amended through
December 2005.
Planning Center, The. Tustin Legacy Specific Plan/Reuse Plan for the Marine Corps Air Station
(MCAS) Tustin. Tustin, California: Planning Center. 1996.
Planning Center, The. Tustin Legacy Specific Plan/Reuse Plan for the Marine Corps Air Station
(MCAS) Tustin. (Specific Plan Amendment). Tustin, California: Planning Center. 1996.
2006 [Draft].
Santa Ana, City of. Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element. Prepared by Blodgett &
Associates. February 1998.
Tustin, City of. City of Tustin General Plan. Tustin, California: the City. January 16, 2001.
5.1 AESTHETICS
5.1.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EISIEIR
The FEIS/EIR addressed the change and contrast associated with implementation of various
land use categories in the Specific Plan area and Implementing Actions, with conclusions
focusing on impacts to identified sensitive viewers. Visual impacts were considered significant if
"sensitive viewers" (identified as the foreground residential viewers along Edinger A venue and
Harvard Avenue) would experience a strong contrast or if there would be strong contrast to
areaslfeatures of high scenic quality. The visual analysis in the FEIS/EI R used a contrast rating
system to analyze the potential visual impact of proposed development and activities. Contrast
is measured by comparing the project features with the major features in the existing landscape.
R:\ProjeclslTuslin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-3
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05.002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Strong contrast is defined when the element contrast demands attention, will not be overlooked,
and is dominant in the landscape.
Views from Surroundina Viewshed
The FEIS/EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan and Implementing Actions
would result in varying degrees of visual changes (from "no impact" to "moderate-to-strong
impact") as seen from surrounding "sensitive viewers." The following project components were
determined to have no aesthetic impacts that would be visible to sensitive viewers or that would
require mitigation: replacing aircraft parking aprons with urban-scale land uses; adding
buildings, pavement, and open space in place of the agricultural lands; changes to the
Community Park's existing facilities; rehabilitating aging military family housing; commercial
changes to the Community Core (e.g., office buildings, residences, and supporting public
services); and ongoing construction.
The following project components were determined to have weak-to-moderate visual changes
that were potentially positive and no mitigation is required: replacement or reuse of the main
station and the replacement of the paved areas of the blimp hangar areas with landscaping.
Moderate-to-strong visual changes that were not considered significant would result from:
changing the agricultural lands, aircraft parking aprons, and open areas to Commerciall
Business facilities and adding a Medium-density residential development (including single- and
multi-family housing, streets, driveways, walls, and landscaping) in place of the open area on
Edinger Avenue and Jamboree Road.
The only significant visual impact identified in the FEIS/EIR was the potential loss of both blimp
hangars which would change existing foreground, middleground, and background views.
Views from Within the Reuse Plan Area
The FEIS/EIR concluded that the transition of land within the reuse area to housing would
create more "sensitive viewers" over the twenty-year development period. This would create
potential visual impacts and benefits. The retention of one or both hangars may reduce view
corridors to those living in the area in years to come. The potential for significant impacts would
be greater if landscaping and urban. design does not completely address aesthetic
considerations.
Liaht and Glare
The FEIS/EIR identified that high-intensity development would lead to more lighting sources.
However, this increase in lighting would not be noticeable from medium-to-far-range views
because of the flat topography of the area. Therefore, it was concluded in the FEIS/EIR that
increased lighting would not be a significant impact.
\/IIhile increased glare is a safety concem, the FEIS/EIR determined that it could be controlled
through review and approval processes necessary in the cities of Tustin and Irvine. Therefore,
this impact was determined not to be significant.
5.1.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Based on the current City of Tustin General Plan (2001) and the City of Irvine General Plan
(2000), there are no designated scenic roadways or scenic vistas in the project vicinity. The
R:\Projects\Tuslin\J004\5 Environ Anatysis-031306 doc
5-4
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
sensitive viewers identified in the FEIS/EIR are the existing residences located north of Edinger
Avenue and east of Harvard Avenue. These residential uses are still present; however, new
single-family and multi-family residences within the MCAS Specific Plan area have been
constructed west of Harvard Avenue. Views from the previously identified "sensitive viewers"
along Harvard Avenue into the proposed project area have been altered with the introduction of
new residential development; however, this development has been implemented in compliance
with the development/reuse regulations and design standards outlined in the Specific Plan. The
new residential development is visually consistent with existing residential development. It
should also be noted that the perimeter wall along Harvard Avenue that previously obstructed
views to the west has been removed.
Consistent with Information presented in the FEIS/EIR, there are no residences or sensitive
viewers south of Barranca Parkway or east of Red Hill Avenue.
5.1.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As indicated above, there are no designated
scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. This
conclusion is consistent with the FEIS/EIR which did not identify impacts to a scenic vista.
B. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Although the project site is not located
within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway, the FEIS/EIR concluded that the loss of
both historic blimp hangars would be a significant visual impact, while the loss of only one
hangar would be less than significant. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would not change the conclusions of the analysis from the FEIS/EIR relative
to these visual changes since the status of the hangars would not change with the proposed
changes in land use.
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Although the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would result in the implementation of a modified land
use plan compared to that adopted in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the types of uses to be
developed are consistent and would result in similar visual changes as those previously
analyzed. In the northern portion of the Specific Plan area, there have been no changes to the
proposed Low Density Residential and Village Service land use designations (refer to
Figure 2-1). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in changes to the visual setting or
aesthetic character of the area that is visible to sensitive viewers along Edinger A venue that
was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, foreground residential views
R\ProjectsITustin\J00415 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5.5
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Chenge (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
would be obstructed due to intervening noise walls. This conclusion would not change with
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan.
The previously designated Golf Village has been re-designated as Residential Core. Both of
these land use designations involve construction of residential uses along Edinger Avenue and
would not change the visual character anticipated in the FEIS/EIR. It should be noted that the
uses north of Edinger Avenue that would have views into the Residential Core area consist of
commercial and industrial uses and there are no sensitive viewsheds. As noted previously,
views from previously identified sensitive viewers along Harvard Avenue have changed since
completion of the FEIS/EIR with the introduction of new residential development, in compliance
with the Specific Plan. The proposed Residential Core uses would be visually consistent with
the new residential uses constructed to the east and proposed adjacent uses identified in the
revised Specific Plan (Community Core and Village Services). All development would be
designed in accordance with the Urban Design Plan (Section 2.17) and Development/Reuse
Regulations (Chapter 3) outlined in the Specific Plan which have been developed to ensure
compatibility (physically and visually) within the Specific Plan Area. Master design guidelines
are being developed by the project.
It should also be noted that development within the Specific Plan area would not impede
background views of the Lomas Ridge/Foothills as seen from Jamboree Road.
The land uses proposed for development with the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would not result in a significant difference in the type of proposed uses in
areas that can be seen from sensitive viewers, and would not cause a substantial increase in
the severity of aesthetic impacts from what was identified in the FEIS/EIR.
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The re-designation of Golf Village as
Residential core (low nighttime lighting) would continue to include residential development,
some additional commercial uses, and open space and parkland areas and has the potential to
create nighttime lighting. However, consistent with the conclusions presented in the FEIS/EIR,
the lighting that would be introduced with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would be similar to light sources associated with the
existing commercial, industrial, and residential uses adjacent to the project site, and the
residential and commercial uses originally envisioned in the Golf Village (hotels, etc.).
All aspects of project design, including lighting, landscaping, and residential development are
required to be in compliance with Section 2.17 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Urban Design
Plan. Mitigation Measure Vis-1 from the FEIS/EIR includes a design review, which requires the
design of the project to be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. Proposed light and
glare sources are regulated by Section 2.17.3(A), Urban Design Guidelines for Residential
Development, and Section 3.11.13, Lighting, of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Compliance
with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan and implementation of mitigation Vis-1 would
reduce potential visual impacts to less than significant. This impact conclusion is consistent with
the environmental impacts previously evaluated in the FEIS/EIR.
R\Projects\TustinW004\5Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-6
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.1.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
FEIS/EIR Measures That Have Been Completed
Vis-1 In conjunction with any zoning ordinance amendments to implement the Reuse
Plan in Tustin or Irvine, an urban design plan shall be adopted to provide for
distinct and cohesive architectural and landscape design, features and
treatments, as well as harmony with adjacent landscaping. The urban design
plan shall have the following elements:
. landscaping concept and master signage plan;
. design review and approval process;
. limits on development intensity for each specific land use;
. limits on height of structures and lot coverage;
. minimum site building setbacks;
. minimum on-site landscaping requirements;
. buffering requirements, including berms, masonry walls, and landscaping;
. lighting regulations, including regulations ensuring that exterior lighting does
not negatively impact surrounding property;
. screening regulations for mechanical equipment and outside storage; and
. site signage requirements, including sign permit approval.
FEIS/EIR Measures Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
The mitigation measure applicable to the proposed project has been implemented with adoption
of the original Specific Plan.
Refinements to FEISlEIR Measures and New Measures
No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required.
FEIS/EIR Measures Not Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
The FEIS/EIR mitigation measures are all applicable to the proposed project.
5.1.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (al the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting aesthetics and
visual resources, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no
substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will
require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to aesthetics and visual resources than previously analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in
subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to aesthetics and visual
resources has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its
conclusions.
There are no new mitigation measures or alternatives that could be implemented that would
reduce the significant unavoidable visual impact associated with the removal of the blimp
R:\ProJects\TustinlJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-7
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Devalopmant Plan
Addendum
hangars. Therefore, the removal of the blimp hangars would continue to be a significant
unavoidable visual impact. However, the proposed project would not result in a substantial
increase in the severity of visual impacts beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR. The Tustin City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEISlEIR on January 16,
2001.
SOURCES
I n addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address aesthetic issues:
BonTerra Consulting. Field Reconnaissance conducted by Christina Andersen, Principal,
January 28, 2006.
5.2 AGRICULTURE
5,2.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
The FEIS/EIR concluded that the conversion of 682 acres of Prime Farmland and 20 acres of
Farmland of Statewide Importance to urban uses would result in a significant unavoidable
impact. While development of designated Farmland is considered a significant effect, pursuant
to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and Department of the Navy (DoN) deemed that protection under the FPPA was not
warranted. Additionally, it was identified that there are no areas within the project site subject to
Williamson Act Contract.
Mitigation involving replacement and protection of the impacted farmland, including:
(a) purchase of off-site farmland to replace the farmland that will be lost; (b) the purchase and
improvement of non-agricultural farmland; or (c) protection of the existing farmland with
agricultural easements, transfer of development rights, right-to-farm ordinances, and/or the
Williamson Act were all considered in the FEIS/EIR and were determined to be infeasible.
Because there is no long-term viable mitigation to offset the impact of converting Farmland to
urban uses, this impact was identified as significant and unavoidable.
5.2.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Since certification of the FEIS/EIR all agricultural activities on site have ceased. However, the
current (2004) California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) has not been updated to reflect the absence of agricultural activities, but
instead continues to map farmland within the Specific Plan area based on the previous
agricultural activities. As a result, based on the review of the current (2004) information provided
by the FMMP, designated Farmland (Prime and Statewide Importance) identified within the
Specific Plan area has not changed since preparation of the FEIS/EIR. It should be noted,
however, that with the termination of agricultural activities on site, it is likely that in future
mapping cycles (conducted by the Department of Conservation every two years), areas
designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would be reclassified.
R:\ProjectsITustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-8
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.2.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The physical impact area for the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan is the same as that identified in the
FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would continue to impact areas mapped
(though not used) as Prime Farmland. Designated Farmland of Statewide Importance within the
Specific Plan area is outside of the Master Developer footprint, and is located north of Barranca
Parkway, west of Harvard Avenue, and east of Jamboree Boulevard. The area is currently
under development. Additionally, there are no areas subject to a Williamson Act contract, and
conservation of farmland in this area was deemed unwarranted by NRCS. Implementation of the
proposed project would not change the impact conclusions presented in the FEIS/EIR. The loss
of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and
unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEIS/EIR are still
infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with the
loss of mapped/designated farmland. No new mitigation options are available to reduce this
impact to a level considered at less than significant beyond those considered in the FEIS/EIR.
5.2.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
As previously noted, the FEIS/EIR identified replacement or protection of Farmland as the only
mitigation that would reduce the significant effect on agricultural resources to a level considered
less than significant. These measures were determined to be infeasible and remain infeasible
for the reasons identified in the FEIS/EIR. Further, these measures would be ineffective to
reduce the localized adverse affects associated with the loss of mapped/designated farmland.
5.2.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting agricultural
resources, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no
substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require
major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to agricultural resources than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR;
and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to agricultural resources has been revealed that
would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
R:\Projects\Tustin\JOO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-9
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would reduce
the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to urban uses.
Mitigation options identified in the FEIR/EIR determined to be infeasible are still infeasible and
ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. There would not be a
substantial increase in the severity of project-specific and cumulative impacts to agricultural
resources beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR; however, these impacts would continue to be
significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. The Tustin City Council adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001.
SOURCES
I n addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address agricultural issues:
Califomia. Division of Land Resource Protection. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
"Farmland Map: Orange County, CA." Sacramento: FMMP, 2004.
5.3 AIR QUALITY
5.3.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EISIEIR
The FEIS/EIR addressed construction-related (short-term) and operational (long-term) air
quality emissions; localized carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots"; air toxies and consistency with
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plans
(AQMPs). The FEIS/EIR concluded that development of the Specific Plan and Implementing
Actions would result in significant short-term construction and long-term operational air quality
impacts. While the City of Tustin has an existing Traffic ReductionlTraffic Demand Management
(TRITDM) program (Ordinance No. 1062, approved in 1991) in place as part of its Congestion
Management Program and has policies in place that help to reduce long-term emissions
(e.g., use of bicycle transportation), the FEIS/EIR concluded that these programs and policies
are not sufficient to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. Short- and long-
term emissions were identified as significant and unavoidable.
In addition, the FEIS/EIR concluded that the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan would not be consistent
with the 1994 and 1997 AQMPs because these plans did not consider emissions associated
with the planned intensity assumed by the Specific Plan and Implementing Actions. This impact
was identified as significant and unavoidable.
The CO hot spot analysis in the FEIS/EIR addressed CO levels at intersections with the highest
traffic volumes and LOS during the analysis years (2005 and 2020). The intersections selected
for the Year 2005 analysis were: Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway, Jamboree Road/
Michelson Drive, Grand Avenue/Edinger Avenue, and Von Karman Avenue/Barranca Parkway.
The intersections evaluated for 2020 conditions were: Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway,
Jamboree Road/Michelson Drive, Tustin Ranch RoadlWalnut Avenue, Culver Drive/Irvine
Center Drive, and Grand Avenue/Edinger Avenue. Based on the analysis, the FEIS/EIR
concluded that no sensitive receptors at these locations would be exposed to CO hot spots in
the years 2005 and 2020; therefore, the CO impact was considered less than significant.
The FEIS/EIR also concluded that operational emissions from proposed businesses would
comply with SCAQMD's regulations for operation, and would be less than significant.
R\Projects\Tustin\JOO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-10
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.3.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Reaulatorv Settina
The Specific Plan area continues to be within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) under the
jurisdiction of the SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board (CARB). Since certification of
the FEISIEIR, a new AQMP has been adopted. The SCAQMD and Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), in coordination with local governments and the private
sector, have developed the AQMP for the air basin. The AQMP is the most important air quality
management document for the basin because it provides the blueprint for meeting state and
federal ambient air quality standards. The 2003 AQMP is the current approved applicable air
plan. The plan was adopted locally on August 1, 2003, by the governing board of the SCAQMD.
CARB adopted the plan as part of the California State Implementation Plan on October 23,
2003. The EPA adopted the mobile source emission budgets on March 25, 2004. The PMlO
attainment plan received final approval on November 5, 2005, with an effective date of
December 14, 2005. The EPA has not approved the ozone or CO attainment plans to date. For
federal purposes, the 1997 AQMP with the 1999 amendments is the current applicable Ozone
attainment plan. The CO attainment plan in the 1997 AQMP was approved by the EPA but only
on an interim basis through 1998. Therefore, the basin does not have a federally approved CO
attainment plan.
State law mandates the revision of the AQMP at least every three years, and federal law
specifies certain dates for attaining criteria pollutant standards, and preparing plans to meet
them. Under federal law, the SCAB has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) as a non-attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended
particulates. The SCAB has met the federal nitrogen dioxide standards for the third year in a
row, and therefore is qualified for re-designation to attainment. However, SCAB is still
designated as being in non-attainment; therefore, a maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide is
included in the 2003 AQMP. Under California state law, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA)
mandates the implementation of a program that would achieve the California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the CCAA mandates the implementation of new air quality
performance standards.
The overall control strategy for the 2003 AQMP is to meet applicable state and federal
requirements and to demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 2003
AQMP contains short- and long-term measures. These measures are included in Appendix IV-B
of the 2003 AQMP.
Short-term measures propose the application of available technologies and management
practices between 2005 and 2010. The 2003 AQMP includes 24 short-term control measures
for stationary and mobile sources that are expected to be implemented within the next several
years. The stationary source measures in the 2003 AQMP include measures from the 1997
AQMP and 1999 Amendment to the Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) with eleven
additional new control measures. In addition, a new transportation conformity budget backstop
measure is included in the 2003 AQMP.
One long-term measure for stationary sources is included in the 2003 AQMP. This control
measure seeks to achieve additional volatile organic compounds (VOG) reductions from
stationary sources. The long-term measure is made up of Tier I and Tier II components. The
Tier I long-term measure has an adoption date between 2005 and 2007 and implementation
R\ProJects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-11
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05.002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
date between 2007 and 2009 for Tier I. Tier II has an adoption date between 2006 and 2008
and implementation date between 2008 and 2010.
To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards, additional emission reductions will be
necessary beyond the implementation of short-term measures. The long-term measure relies on
the advancement of technologies and control methods that can reasonably be expected to
occur between 2005 and 2010. Additional stationary source control measures are included in
Appendix IV-B of the AQMP Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California SIP.
Contingency measures are also included in Appendix IV, Section 2 of the 2003 AQMP.
It should be noted that significance thresholds established in the SCAQMD's 1993 CEQA
Handbook are still applicable for use in assessing the regional impact of project-related air
pollutant emissions.
Air Quality Modelina
The vehicular emissions model that was used for analysis of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
(i.e., EMFAC7G) has been modified since certification of the FEIS/EIR in January 2001.
EMFAC2002, published by the California Air Resources Board, is the current version of the
model (with the April 2003 version being the most recent) and provides updated exhaust
emissions rates and evaporative emissions data for vehicles. In addition, it more accurately
estimates heavy-duty vehicle emissions. The SCAQMD has posted vehicular emission factors
on their CEQA website that are derived from EMFAC2002, and such emission factors were
used to calculate emissions for the proposed project.
While the trip generation numbers associated with the original Specific Plan/Reuse and the
proposed project may be minimal or unchanged, potential emission rates may be different
(increased or decreased) due to differences in regional emission calculation methodologies and
assumptions which are described in more detail in Appendix A. Therefore, in addition to use of
the new model to evaluate the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan, to
ensure an "apples to apples" comparison and assessment of the proposed project and the
existing Specific Plan, EMFAC2002 and its new emission factors were also used to re-asses the
existing Specific Plan Land uses.
CO Hot Spot Analvsis
As stated above, the FEISlEIR analyzed whether CO hot spots would result from
implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Implementing Actions. Except for revised
emission factors from the EMFAC2002 program, neither state or federal CO standards, nor the
methods used to analyze CO hot spots have substantially changed since certification of the
FEIS/EIR. The current EMFAC2002 program reports lower CO emission factors than the
EMFAC7G program used in the FEIS/EIR. These lower emission factors would result in lower
CO concentrations than reported in the FEIS/EIR. In fact, the recent trend in air quality emission
analysis is to no longer perform CO hot spot analyses because, over time, they have not proven
to be an effective indicator of localized air quality. This is based on CO modeling performed for
the 2003 AQMP to demonstrate attainment of the federal CO standards. Modeling was
performed for four intersections considered the worst-case intersections in the South Coast Air
Basin. These intersections included Wilshire at Veteran, Sunset at Highland, La Cienega at
Century, and Long Beach at Imperial. Table 4-10 of Appendix V of the AQMP shows that
modeled 1-hour average concentrations at these four intersections for 2002 conditions are
R:\ProJeclsITustin\J00415 Environ Analysis-031305.doc
5-12
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
actually below the B-hour standard of 9 parts per million (ppm). The highest modeled 1-hour
average concentration of 4.6 ppm occurred at the Wilshire and Veteran intersection.
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403
As noted in the FEIS/EIR, during construction of the proposed project, the City and its
contractors would be required to comply with regional rules, which would assist in reducing
short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD updated its fugitive dust control rules
(i.e., Rule 402 and Rule 403) in January 2005, after certification of the FEIS/EIR. SCAQMD
Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions should not create a nuisance off-site. SCAQMD
Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so the
presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the
emission source. Two options are presented in Rule 403: monitoring of particulate
concentrations or active control. Monitoring involves a sampling network around the project with
no additional control measures unless specified concentrations are exceeded. The active
control option does not require any monitoring, but requires that a list of measures be
implemented starting with the first day of construction. Monitoring of particulate concentrations
does not reduce fugitive dust emissions; therefore, to minimize fugitive dust emissions, the City
and its contractors would utilize the measures presented in SCAQMD Rule 403 rather than the
monitoring option during project construction activities.
Rule 403 requires that "A person conducting active operations within the boundaries of the
South Coast Air Basin shall utilize one or more of the applicable best available control measures
to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type which is part of the
active operation." Rule 403 also requires that the construction activities "shall not cause or allow
PM,o levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined by simultaneous
sampling, as the difference between upwind and down wind sample." A project is exempt from
the monitoring requirement "if the dust control actions, as specified in Table 2 are implemented
on a routine basis for each applicable fugitive dust source type." Table 2 from Rule 403 is
presented below as Table 5-1. Under high wind conditions (i.e., when wind gusts exceed
25 miles per hour), additional control measures are required and "the required control measures
for high wind conditions are implemented for each applicable fugitive dust source type, as
specified in Table 1." Table 1 from Rule 403 is presented below as Table 5-2.
Further, Rule 403 requires that the project shall "prevent or remove within one hour the track-out
of bulk material onto public paved roadways as a result of their operations." Alternatively, the
project can "take at least one of the actions listed in Table 3." Table 3 from Rule 403 is
presented below as Table 5-3. In addition, the project would be required to "prevent the track-
out of bulk material onto public paved roadways as a result of their operations and remove such
material at anytime track-out extends for a cumulative distance of greater than 50 feet on to any
paved public road during active operations; and remove all visible roadway dust tracked-out
upon public paved roadways as a result of active operations at the conclusion of each work day
when active operations cease. (SCAQMD 2005)"
R:IProJects\TustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-'3
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS TusUn Zone Chenge (Specmc Plen Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-1
FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL ACTIONS FOR EXEMPTION TO MONITORING
(RULE 403, TABLE 2)
Earth-moving (except
construction cutting and filling
areas, and mining operations)
Earth-moving: Construction fill
areas
Earth-moving: Construction cut
areas and mining operations
Disturbed surface areas (except
completed grading areas)
Disturbed surface areas:
Completed gradin areas
Inactive disturbed surface areas
Unpaved Roads
Open storage piles
All Categories
(1a) Maintain soii moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM
method 0-2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the
California Air Resources Board, and the USEPA Two soil moisture evaiuations must
be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day,
and two such evaluations each subsequent four-hour period of active operations; OR
(1a-1) For any earth moving which is more than 100 feet from all property lines, conduct
watering as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in
length in any direction.
(1b) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, as determined by ASTM
method 0-2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the
Cal~ornia Air Resources Board, and the USEPA For areas which have an optimum
moisture content for compaction of less than 12 percent, as determined by ASTM
Method 1557 or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer and the
California Air Resources Board and the USEPA, compiete the compaction process as
expeditiously as possible after achieving at least 70 percent of the optimum soil
moisture content. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first
three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations
during each subsequent four-hour period of active operations.
(1c) Conduct W'8tering as necessary to prevent visible emissions from extending more
than 100 feet beyond the active cut or mining area unless the area is inaccessible to
watering vehicles due to slope conditions or other safety factors.
(2a/b) Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized
surface. Any areas which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced by wind driven fugitive
dust must have an application of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent of
the unstabilized area.
(2c) Appiy chemicai stabilizers within five working days of grading completion; OR
(2d) Take actions (3a or (3c) specified for inactive disturbed surface areas
(3a) Apply water to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface areas on a daily
basis when there is evidence of \Mnd driven fugnive dust, excluding any areas which
are inaccessible to W'8tering vehicles due to excessive slope or other safety
conditions; OR
(3b) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantny and frequency to maintain a stabilized
surface; OR
(3c) Establish a vegetative ground cover wnhin 21 days after active operations have
ceased. Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of
unstabilized ground wnhin 90 days of planting, and at all times thereafter; OR
(3d) Utilize any combination of control actions (3a), (3b), and (3c) such that, in total, these
actions apply to all inactive disturbed surface areas.
(4a) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two hours of
active operations; OR
(4b) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to
15 miles per hour; OR
(4c) Apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity and
frequency to maintain a stabilized surface.
(5a) Apply chemical stabilizers; OR
(5b) Apply water to at ieast 80 percent of the surface area of all open storage piles on a
daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust; OR
(5c) Install temporary coverings; OR
(5d) install a three-sided enclosure \Mth walls with no more than 50 percent porosity which
extends, at a minimum, to the top of the pile.
(6a) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the USEPA as
equivalent to the methods specified in Table 2 may be used.
5-14
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
R:\ProjectsITustin\J00415 Environ Ana~sl&031306.doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-2
REQUIRED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES
(SCAQMD RULE 403, TABLE 1)
Backfilling
01-1 Stabilize backfill material when not actively
handling; and
Stabilize backfill material during handling; and
Stabilize soil at completion of activity.
01-2
01-3
Clearing and Grubbing
02-1 Maintain stability of soil through pre-watering of sile
prior to clearing and grubbing; and
02-2 Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing
activities; and
02-3 Stabilize soil immediately afler clearing and
grubbing activities.
Clearing Forms
03-1 Use water spray to clear forms; or
03-2 Use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; or
03-3 Use vacuum system to clear forms.
Crushing
04-1 Stabilize surface soils prior to operation of support
equipment; and
04-2 Stabilize material after crushing.
Cut and Fill
05-1 Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activilies; and
05-2 Stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities.
Demolition - Mechanical/Manual
06-1 Stabilize wind erodible surfaces to reduce dust;
and
06-2 Stabilize surface soil where support equipment and
vehicles will operate; and
06-3 Stabilize loose soil and demolilion debris; and
06-4 Comply with AQMD Rule 1403.
Disturbed Soil
07-1 Stabilize disturbed soil throughout the construction
site; and
07-02 Stabilize disturbed soil between structures
. Mix backfill soil with water prior to moving
. Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to
backfilling equipment
. Empty loader bucket slowly so that no dust plumes
are generated
. Minimize drop height from loader bucket
. Maintain live perennial vegetation where possible
. Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent
generation of dust plumes
. Use of high pressure air to clear forms may cause
exceedance of Rule requirements
. Follow permil condilions for crushing equipment
. Pre-water material prior to loading into crusher
. Monitor crusher emissions opacity
. Apply water to crushed material to prevent dust
plumes
. For large sites, pre-water wilh sprinklers or water
trucks and allow time for penetration
. Use water trucks/pulls to water soils to depth of cut
prior to subsequent cuts
. Apply water in sufficient quantities to prevent the
generation of visible dust plumes
. Limit vehicular traffic and disturbances on soils
where possible
. If Interior block walls are planned, install as early
as possible
. Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient
quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust
plumes
R:IProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Anatysis-031306.doc
5-15
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustfn Zone Change (SpeclRc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-2 (Continued)
REQUIRED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES
(SCAQMD RULE 403, TABLE 1)
Earth-Moving Activities
08-1 Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts; and
08-2 Re-apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a
damp condition and to ensure that visible
emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction;
and
08-3 Stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are
complete.
Importing/Exporting of Bulk Materials
09-1 Stabilize material while loading to reduce fug~ive
dust emissions; and
09-2 Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul
vehicles; and
09-3 Stabilize material while transporting to reduce
fugitive dust emissions; and
09-4 Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive
dust emissions; and
09-5 Comply ~h Vehicle Code Section 23114.
Landscaping
10-1 Stabilize soils, materials, slopes
Road Shoulder Maintenance
11-1 Apply water to unpaved shoulders prior to clearing;
and
11-2 Apply chemical dust suppressants and/or washed
gravel to maintain a stabilized surface alter
completing road shoulder maintenance.
Screening
12-1 Pre-water material prior to screening; and
12-2 Lim~ fugitive dust emissions to opacity and plume
length standards; and
12-3 Stabilize material immediately after screening.
Staging Areas
13-1 Stabilize staging areas during use; and
13-2 Stabilize staging area soils at project completion.
. Grade each project phase separately, timed to
coincide w~h construction phase
. Upwind fencing can prevent material movement on
s~e
. Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient
quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust
plumes
. Use tarps or other suitable enclosures on haul
trucks
. Check belly-dump truck seals regularly and
remove any trapped rocks to prevent spillage
. Comply ~h track-out prevention/m~igaton
requirements
. Provide water while loading and unloading to
reduce visible dust plumes
. Apply water to materials to stabilize, maintain
materials in a crusted condition
. Maintain effective cover over materials
. Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil binders until
vegetation or ground cover can effectively stabilize
the slopes
. Hydroseed prior to rain season
. Installation of curbing and/or paving of road
shoulders can reduce recurring maintenance costs
. Use of chemical dust suppressants can inhibit
vegetation growth and reduce Mure road shoulder
maintenance costs
. Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to
screening operation
. Drop material through the screen slowly and
minimize drop height
. Install wind barrier with a porosity of no more than
50% upwind of screen to the height of the drop
point
. Lim~ size of staging area
. Lim~ vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour
. Limit number and size of staging area
entrances/exists
R:\ProjectsITustin\J0Q4\5 Environ Ana~sis-031306doc
5-16
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-2 (Continued)
REQUIRED BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES
(SCAQMD RULE 403, TABLE 1)
StockpileslBulk Material Handling
14-1 Stabilize stockpiled materials.
14-2 Stockpiles wrthin 100 yards of off-site occupied
buildings must not be greater than eight feet in
height; or must have a road bladed to the top to
allow water truck access or must have an
operational water irrigation system that is capable
of complete stockpile coverage.
Traffic Areas for Construction Activities
15-1 Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas; and
15-2 Stabilize all haul routes; and
15-3 Direct construction traffic over established haul
routes.
Trenching
16-1 Stabilize surface soils where trencher or excavator
and support equipment will operate; and
16.2 Stabilize soils at the completion of trenching
activities.
Truck loading
17-1 Pre-water material prior to loading; and
17.2 Ensure that freeboard exceeds six inches (CVC
23114)
Turf Overseeding
18-1 Apply sufficient water immediately prior to
conducting turf vacuuming activities to meet
opacity and plume length standards; and
18-2 Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site.
Unpaved Roads/Parking lots
1 9-1 Stabilize soils to meet the applicable performance
standards; and
1 9-2 Limit vehicular travel to established unpaved roads
(haul routes) and unpaved parking lots.
Vacant land
20-1 In instances where vacant lots are 0.10 acre or
larger and have a cumulative area of 500 square
feet or more that are driven over and/or used by
motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles, prevent
motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing,
parking and/or access by installing barriers, curbs,
fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees or other
effective control measures.
. Add or remove material from the downwind portion
ofthe storage pile
. Maintain storage piles to avoid steep sides or
faces
. Apply graveVpavlng to all haul routes as soon as
possible to all future roadway areas
. Barriers can be used to ensure vehicles are only
used on established parking areas/haul routes
. Pre-watering of soils prior to trenching is an
effective preventive measure.
. For deep trenching activities, pre-trench to 18
inches, soak soils via the pre-trench and resume
trenching
. Washing mud and soils from equipment at the
conclusion of trenching activities to prevent
crusting and drying of soil on equipment
. Empty loader bucket such that no visible dust
plumes are created
. Ensure that the loader bucket is close to the truck
to minimize drop height while loading
. Haul waste material immediately off-site
. Restricting vehicular access to established
unpaved travel paths and parking lots can reduce
stabilization requirements
R\Projec:tsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-17
Environmenta! Analysis and
Expfanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tus"n Zone Change (Specinc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-3
TRACK OUT CONTROL OPTIONS
(RULE 403, TABLE 3)
(1) Pave or apply chemical stabilization at sufficient concentration and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface
starting from the point of intersection with the public paved surface, and extending for a centerline distance of
at least 100 feet and a width of at least 20 feet.
(2) Pave from the point of intersection wrth the public paved road surface, and extending for a centerline distance
of at least 25 feet and a width of at least 20 feet, and install a track-out control device immediately adjacent to
the paved surface such that exrting vehicles do not travel on any unpaved road surface after passing through
the track-out control device.
(3) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the USEPA as equivalent to the methods
specified in Table 3 may be used.
5.3.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Conffict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Reduced Impact from Previous Analysis. As noted above, the FEIS/EIR concluded that the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Implementation Actions would not be consistent with the 1994
and 1997 AQMPs because these plans did not consider emissions associated with the planned
intensity assumed by the Specific Plan and Implementation Actions. This inconsistency was
addressed during preparation of the 2003 AQMP which considered regional operational air
quality impacts associated with buildout of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan by incorporating more
current growth projections. As a result, the adopted project is no longer inconsistent with the
AQMP. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not
change the total number of allowed residential units within the area (it merely redistributes
them), reduces the amount of non-residential development, and would be substantially
consistent with the growth projections assumed in the 2003 AQMP. No impact would result.
B. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
C. Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Following is a discussion of the impacts of
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan as they relate to each of
the topics addressed in the FEIS/EIR. As noted above, the significance thresholds provided in
SCAQMD's 1993 CEQA Handbook are still applicable.
R\Projects\Tustin\JOO4\5 Environ Analysls-03130l3.doc
5-18
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Construction
In recognition that actual construction schedules would be determined at a later date, the
construction analysis presented in the FEIS/EI R was based on assumptions for the peak
construction year. This information was then used to estimate construction activity during the
peak construction quarter and peak construction day. Based on current phasing assumptions of
the DDA (see Section 3.2.3 of this Addendum), construction activities associated with the
proposed project would be consistent with the assumptions for peak construction activities
outlined in the FEIS/EIR.
Because the proposed project would not change the construction efforts required to implement
the project, it would not result in substantially different or more severe air pollutant emissions
during construction. Section 5.3.4 below includes measures carried forward from the FEISlEIR
as well as an updated MM AQ-1 for reducing construction-related air quality impacts. The intent
of MM AQ-1 remains the same, but as modified incorporates additional strategies for controlling
fugitive dust (also known as PM10 or particulate matter) emissions, and reflects provisions of
SCAQMD's updated fugitive dust control rules (i.e., Rule 402 and Rule 403), which became
effective in January 2005, after certification of the FEIS/EIR. Compliance with refined MM AQ-1
would yield greater PM10 reduction benefits than the original mitigation measures included in the
FEIS/EIR.
Consistent with the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would result in
significant short-term construction air quality impacts. Because the construction activities have
not changed, the proposed project would not substantially increase the type or severity of
construction-related air quality impacts from identified in the FEIS/EIR. Because MM AQ-1 is
modified to require compliance with the updated dust controls now mandated by Rules 402
and 403, new control technologies available to reduce construction air quality impacts would be
implemented during project construction.
Operation
The primary source of long-term regional emissions generated by the proposed project would
be from motor vehicles. Other long-term emissions are associated with regional power plants
and facilities (off-site stationary sources), which would supply electricity and natural gas for the
site. As detailed in Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic, implementation of the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would result in average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes that are consistent with those assumed in the FEIS/EIR. However, as noted
under the discussion of "current conditions" above, the vehicular emissions model that was used
for analysis in the FEIS/EIR has been modified.
Mestre Greve Associates, I nc. prepared an updated analysis of the potential regional air quality
impacts for the proposed project, which is available for review at the Community Development
County at the City of Tustin City Hall. The analysis includes the following: (1) discussion of the
differences in calculating predicted regional emissions between the analysis in the FEIS/EIR
and the updated analysis; (2) updated modeling to predict emissions associated with introducing
development pursuant to the proposed project; (3) comparison of the predicted emissions for
the approved project from the FEIS/EIR and what those emissions would be with the
revised/current vehicular emission factors; and (4) comparison of emission calculations for the
approved project and the proposed amendments that were performed with the same
assumptions so that the two scenarios could be compared accurately. Detailed information
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-19
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS TusUn Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
about the assumptions included in the analysis is presented in Appendix A and a summary of
the conclusions is provided below.
Effects Of Revised Vehicular Emission Factors On Oriainal Analvsis
As previously noted, the FEISlEIR concluded that estimated CO, RaG, NO" and SO, emissions
exceeded the SCAQMD significance thresholds, resulting in a significant regional air quality
impact. As discussed in the technical analysis conducted by Mestre Greve Associates, the only
change in strict modeling methodology (as opposed to modeling interpretation) is the revision in
vehicular emission factors. Table 5-4 presents a comparison of vehicular emissions from the
original FEIS/EIR that were calculated using the previous EMFAC7G and the emissions that
would be estimated using the current EMFAC2002. Both calculations assume 1,550,935 vehicle
miles traveled per day, the same value used in the air quality calculations in the FEIS/EIR. The
specific modeling methods for emissions from natural gas consumption and electrical
generation have not changed since preparation of the FEIS/EIR. Therefore, except for modeling
interpretation differences, these emission rates would remain the same for a direct comparison.
TABLE 5-4
COMPARISON OF REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FOR THE
ORIGINAL SPECIFIC PLAN WITH PREVIOUS AND UPDATED CARB MODEL
EMFAC7G (Orlg. EIR)
EMFAC2002 (Latest)
Difference
20,936.6
7,194.9
-13,741.7
1,673.3
999.7
-a73.6
3,901.8
1,866.7
-2,035.1
99.4
158.7
59.3
263.7
18.7
-245.0
Table 5-4 shows that simply using the updated CARB model and its revised emission factors,
without considering any changes to the proposed land uses of the Specific Plan results in
substantial reductions in the estimated emissions of CO, RaG, NO" and sax. The EMFAC2002
model estimates for CO, RaG, and NO, emissions are between 40 percent and 65 percent less
than estimates derived with the prior model and SO, emissions are 93 percent less than those
derived from the EMFAC7G model. However, PM,o emissions estimates are approximately
60 percent greater than those derived from the EM F AC7G model.
Despite reductions in predicted emissions, with the EMFAC2002 model, emissions from CO,
RaG, and NO, still exceed the significance threshold. However, SO, emissions are below the
significance threshold compared to the EMFAC7G model (prior SO, model emissions exceeded
the threshold. With the EMFAC2002 model, PM,o emissions exceed the significance threshold.
Using the EMFAC2002 model, predicted emissions continue to result in significant long-term
operational air quality impacts, as predicted in the FEIS/EIR.
Revised Emission Estimates and Effect of the Proposed Proiect
Because of the differences in modeling interpretation and in order to provide an "apples-to-
apples" comparison of the original Specific Plan to the proposed project, the estimated
emissions with the original Specific Plan were recalculated and are presented in Table 5-5. The
emissions estimate presented in Table 5-5 is different from those presented above because the
updated trip generation rate from the traffic study prepared for the proposed project was applied
to the proposed land uses along with refined trip lengths by land use category. Further, the
categorization of land use types into the uses for which natural gas and electrical consumption
R:\ProJeclsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-20
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
are provided in the SCAQMD Handbook has been changed and updated from the original
calculations. The specific assumptions used are presented in the technical analysis prepared by
Mestre Greve Associates.
TABLE 5-5
REVISED REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATE FOR
THE ORIGINAL SPECIFIC PLAN/REUSE PLAN
Vehicular Trips 8,661.2 1,229.0 2,536.7 196.7 23.6
Natural Gas Consumption 35.4 9.4 183.0 0.4 0.0
Consumer Product Usage 0.0 214.0 00 0.0 0.0
Electrical Generation 76.8 3.8 441.6 15.4 46.1
Total Project Emissions 8,773.4 1,456.2 3,161.3 212.4 69.6
SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150
The emissions with the proposed project were calculated using the same methodology and are
presented in Table 5-6. Calculating the emissions with the original Specific Plan and with the
proposed project using a consistent set of updated modeling assumptions allows the two results
to be compared accurately using the latest assessment technology. The comparison of the two
calculations, presented in Table 5-6, reflects only differences in the emissions under conditions
with the proposed project compared to conditions with the original Specific Plan. Comparing the
emissions estimate with the proposed project presented in Table 5-5 with the emissions
estimates presented in Table 5-1 reflects not only differences due to the proposed project but
also differences in modeling methodology. This is not an accurate comparison.
Table 5-5 presents the results of the revised emissions estimate for the original project. Land
use and trip generation information used in the calculations were taken from the traffic study
prepared for the proposed project by Austin-Foust Associates (2006). Information and
worksheets regarding specific data used for the modeling are included in Appendix A.
Table 5-5 shows that the revised regional pollutant emissions estimate for the original Specific
Plan results in the same conclusions as would occur with the original estimate with the
EMFAC2002 vehicular emission factors. Emissions of CO, ROG, NO" and PMlO are projected
to be in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds, resulting in a significant air quality impact as
identified in the FEIS/EIR.
Table 5-6 shows the regional pollutant emissions estimate for the proposed project using the
same methodology that was used to calculate the emissions for the original Specific Plan
(presented in Table 5-5).
R:IProJects\TustinlJOQ4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-21
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-6
REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATE FOR THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
Vehicular Trips 8,517.7 1,185.1 2,227.8 188.3 22.2
Natural Gas Consumption 33.1 8.8 170.6 0.3 0.0
Consumer Product Usage 0.0 210.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Electrical Generation 71.9 3.6 413.3 14.4 43.1
Total Project Emissions 8,622.7 1,407.6 2,811.7 203.0 65.4
SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150
Table 5-6 shows that the regional pollutant emissions estimate with the proposed project results
in the same conclusions as would occur with the original Specific Plan. Regional emissions are
projected to be in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds and the project would result in a significant
regional air quality impact.
Table 5-7 presents the difference in pollutant emissions with the proposed project (Table 5-6)
and the recalculated emissions from original Specific Plan (Table 5-5). Table 5-7 shows slight
reductions in predicted emissions with the proposed project when compared with the original
Specific Plan. However, the reductions are not substantial. The greatest reduction is only
11 percent for NOx. The reductions resulting from implementation of the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not change the significance finding for the
project as identified in the FEIS/EIR. The proposed project would continue to have a significant
regional air quality impact; however, there would not be a substantial increase in the severity of
this impact from what was identified in the FEIS/EIR.
TABLE 5-7
DIFFERENCES IN REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS BETWEEN THE
ORIGINAL AND PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN/REUSE PLAN
Vehicular Trips -143.5 -43.9 -308.9 -8.5 -1.3
Natural Gas Consumption -1.4 -0.4 -7.1 0.0 0.0
Consumer Product Usage 0.0 -3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Electrical Generation -3.9 -0.2 -22.4 -0.8 -2.3
Total Project Emissions -148.8 -48.4 -338.4 -9.3 -3.7
SCAQMD Thresholds 550 55 55 150 150
The data presented above shows that vehicles are the largest source of air pollutant emissions
associated with the proposed project. The greatest emissions reductions are realized by
reducing vehicular use. Mitigation measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 from the FEIS/EIR (prOVided in
Section 5.3.4 below) present Traffic Demand Management (TOM) measures to reduce travel
demand, vehicle miles traveled, and their associated air pollutant emissions. These measures
are still applicable to the Project Amendments. There are currently no additional TOM measures
available or recommended.
R:\Projects\TustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-22
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Emissions from natural gas combustions sources (i.e., water heaters and fumaces) are
regulated by SCAQMD by imposing emission standards for these devices. Emissions from
consumer products are also regulated by SCAQMD and CARB. Energy efficiency reduces
emissions associated with electrical consumption. However, California's Title 24 energy
efficiency requirements as well as other regulations ensure that reasonable energy efficiency
measures are incorporated into the project. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are
currently available or are required.
CO "Hot Spot"
As stated above, the FEIS/EIR included an analysis to determine whether CO hot spots would
result from implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Implementing Actions. Neither
state or federal CO standards, nor the methods used to analyze CO hot spots have substantially
changed since certification of the FEIS/EIR. Likewise, the land uses in the vicinity of the
proposed project have not significantly changed during the past few years.
None of the intersections in the project area have peak hour traffic volumes that exceed those at
the intersections modeled in the AQMP (described above) nor do they have any geometric
qualities that would result in higher concentrations than for the intersections modeled for the
AQMP. Therefore, no intersections in the project vicinity would be expected to experience CO
concentrations in excess of the state or federal standards. Therefore, the project would not
result in a significant local air quality impact.
Air Taxies
The proposed SpecifiC Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not change the
types of land uses proposed within the Specific Plan area from what was analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR. Therefore, the analysis of air toxic emissions from proposed land uses presented in
the FEIS/EIR is still applicable. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, operation of proposed uses would
be conducted in compliance with all applicable SCAQMD regulations (Rule 1401 New Source
Review of Toxic Air Contaminants). Consequently, potential impacts related to exposure of
sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants would be less than significant.
The project site is located approximately 1.8 miles northeast of John Wayne Airport (JWA).
Under typical weather conditions aircraft are arriving to JWA from the direction of the project.
Near the project the arriving aircraft are typically lined up with the runway. This results in the
aircraft being approximately 2,000 feet to the west of the project at the nearest point (west of the
intersection of Barranca Parkway and Red Hill Avenue). The nearest potential residential use
proposed by the amendments would be southeast of the intersection of Warner Avenue and
Armstrong Avenue. This point is approximately 2.3 miles northeast of the airport and
approximately 5,000 feet east of the arrival flight track.
In recent years concern has been raised regarding air toxic emissions from airport operations.
However, much of the air toxic emissions from airport operations are due to sources operating
on the airport property. For cancer risk impacts, the primary source of the impacts is diesel
particulate matter (DPM). The primary source of DPM is the ground service equipment
operating at the airport. Due to the distance between the airport and the project, emissions from
the airport are substantially dispersed by the time they reach the project. Therefore, the toxic air
contaminant concentrations at the project site are much lower than in areas near the airport.
As discussed above, the project site is located in the direction that aircraft typically use to
approach the airport. Aircraft only take off from the airport in the direction of the project during
R:\ProjectsITustinl..OD4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-23
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Santa Ana wind conditions. Aircraft on approach to an airport emit much lower pollutant levels
because they are using less engine power. Emissions from aircraft approaching the airport
would not be expected to generate considerable pollutant concentrations at the project site.
In 2001, JWA prepared an EIR for the proposed settlement agreement extension. This EIR
examined the impacts from toxic air pollutants on surrounding uses and concluded that the
airport would have a significant impact. However, this finding was based on the maximally
exposed individual (MEI) receptors, which were generally located to the west and south of the
airport and well away from the project site. The EIR only presented cancer risks and hazard
risks for these MEI receptors. One MEI receptor was located northeast of the airport,
approximately 2,000 feet from it. The analysis showed that this receptor was the MEI for
sensitive uses' acute non-cancer hazard. An acute non-cancer hazard is a measure of impact
due to a short-term, 24-hour, exposure. The acute non-cancer hazard index at this receptor was
just above the significance threshold; less than 10 percent above the threshold for the approved
scenario (Scenario 1). Short-term toxic air contaminant concentrations at the project site would
be expected to be much lower, and less than significant because the project area is located
approximately 7,500 feet further from the airport than the sensitive acute non-cancer hazard
MEI, and the nearest residential use is located more than 12,000 feet further away than the
sensitive acute non-cancer hazard ME!. In April 2005, CARB released Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. This document discusses specific significant
sources of air pollutants, primarily air toxies, and recommends land use strategies, primarily
restricting residential uses within a certain distance, to minimize the impacts of these facilities.
The facilities discussed include freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, petroleum
refineries, chrome plating operations, dry cleaners using Perchlorethylene, and gasoline-
dispensing facilities. Airports are not discussed in the document. Because of this and based on
the discussion presented above, the project would not be significantly impacted by air toxics
from operations at John Wayne Airport.
E. Create objectionable odors affectIng a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from PrevIous Analysis. The Initial Study prepared for the FEIS/EIR
concluded that the Specific Plan and Implementing Actions would not generate objectionable
odor and did not require further analysis. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would involve development of various land uses including, but not limited to,
residential, commercial/business, institutionalleducation, and recreation. In general, future
development, as proposed, would involve odor-generating activities (e.g., residential uses would
generate odor from backyard barbeque smoke, lawn mower exhaust, application of exterior
paints). The types and concentrations of odors that would be generated on-site are typical of
similar communities, including communities in surrounding areas, and are not considered
significant, as concluded in the FEIS/EIR. It should also be noted that the amount of industrial
uses proposed has been reduced; therefore, the potential for odor generated by these uses is
also reduced. Further, development within the Specific Plan area would be in compliance with
Section 3.11 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, General Development Regulations, which
requires that uses which produce odors, toxic gases, or noxious matter that would be detectable
outside the property lines of the premises be modified to prevent such emissions
(Section 3.11.7 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan).
R:\ProjectsITustinWOO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-24
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.3.4 MITIGATION ANO IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
FEIS/EIR Measures That Have Been Completed
No mitigation measures related to air quality have been completed.
FEIS/EIR Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
MM AQ-2
Unless determined by the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, to
be infeasible on a project-by-project basis due to unique project characteristics,
each city shall require individual development projects to use low vac
architectural coatings for all interior and exterior painting operations.
MM AQ-3
Prior to the issuance of development permits for new non-residential projects
with 100 or more employees, and expanded projects where additional square
footage would result in a total of 100 or more employees, the City of Tustin and
the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall impose a mix of TOM measures which,
upon estimation, would result in an average vehicle ridership of at least 1.5, for
each development with characteristics that would be reasonably conducive to
successful implementation of such TOM measures. These TOM measures may
include one or more of the following, as determined appropriate and feasible by
each city on a case-by-case basis:
. Establish preferential parking for carpool vehicles.
. Provide bicycle parking facilities.
. Provide shower and locker facilities.
. Provide carpool and vanpoolloading areas.
. Incorporate bus stop improvements into facility design.
. Implement shuttles to shopping, eating, recreation, and/or parking and transit
facilities.
. Construct remote parking facilities.
. Provide pedestrian circulation linkages.
. Construct pedestrian grade separations.
. Establish carpool and vanpool programs.
. Provide cash allowances, passes, and other public transit and purchase
incentives.
. Establish parking fees for single occupancy vehicles.
. Provide parking subsidies for rideshare vehicles.
. Institute a computerized commuter rideshare matching system.
. Provide a guaranteed ride-home program for ridesharing.
. Establish alternative work week, flex-time, and compressed work week
schedules.
. Establish telecommuting or work-at-home programs.
. Provide additional vacation and compensatory leave incentives.
. Provide on-site lunch rooms/cafeterias and commercial service such as
banks, restaurants, and small retail.
. Provide on-site day care facilities.
. Establish an employee transportation coordinator(s).
R\Pro)ectslTustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-25
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Speclnc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
MM AQ-4
If not required under each individual development's TDM plan, the City of Tustin
and the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall implement the following measures, as
determined appropriate or feasible by each city on a case-by-case basis:
. Reschedule truck deliveries and pickups for off-peak hours.
. Implement lunch shuttle service from a worksite(s) to food establishments.
. Implement compressed work week schedules where weekly work hours are
compressed into fewer than five days, such as 9/80, 4/40, or 3/36.
. Provide on-site child care and after-school facilities or contribute to off-site
developments within walking distance.
. Provide on-site employee services such as cafeterias, banks, etc.
. Implement a pricing structure for single-occupancy employee parking, and/or
provide discounts to ridesharers.
. Construct off-site pedestrian facility improvements such as overpasses and
wider sidewalks.
. I nclude retail services within or adjacent to residential subdivisions.
. Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers or multi-modal stations.
. Contribute to regional transit systems (e.g., right-of-way, capital
improvements).
. Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development.
. Construct, contribute, or dedicate land for the provision of off-site bicycle
trails linking the facility to designated bicycle commuting routes.
. Include residential units within a commercial development.
. Provide off-site bicycle facility improvements, such as bicycle trails linking the
facility to designated bicycle commuting routes, or on-site improvements,
such as bicycle paths.
. I nclude bicycle parking facilities such as bicycle lockers.
. Include showers for bicycling and pedestrian employees' use.
. Construct on-site pedestrian facility improvements, such as building access
which is physically separated from street and parking lot traffic and walk
paths.
Refinements to Measures Included in the FEIS/EIR
MM AQ-1 in the FEIS/EIR outlined measures to reduce construction-related emissions. As
noted above, since certification of the FEIS/EIR, amendments to SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403
have become effective. Therefore MM AQ-1 has been updated to reflect current regulatory
requirements for PM,o control within the South Coast Air Basin. This is not a new mitigation
measure but rather a refinement of a previous measure requiring compliance with Rule 403.
MM AQ-1
DurinQ construction of the orooosed oroiect. the Citv. and/or develooer and its
contractors shall be reQuired to comolv with reQional rules. which would assist in
reducinQ short-term air oollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 402 reQuires that air
oollutant emissions should not create a nuisance off-site. SCAQMD Rule 403
reQuires that fUQitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures
so the oresence of such dust does not remain visible in the atrnosohere bevond
the orooertv line of the emission source. The Citv and its contractors shall use
the measures oresented in SCAQMD Rule 403 Tables 1. 2 and 3 (oresented in
Tables 5-1. 5-2 and 5-3 of this Addendum). This comoliance measure shall be
R\ProjeclslTustinW004\5Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-26
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
included in the contractor's soecifications and verified on City oroiects bv the
Deoartment of Public Works.
5.3.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting air quality, which
would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no substantial changes in
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to air
quality than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new information of substantial
importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related
to air quality has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its
conclusions.
While MM AQ-1 has been refined, there are no new mitigation measures that could be
implemented that would reduce the significant unavoidable short-term and long-term and
cumulative air quality impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.
Compliance with AQMP and SCAQMD requirements will assure incorporation of the most
updated technological measures available at the time of the project implementation to reduce air
quality impacts. Nevertheless, although the air quality impacts from the proposed project would
not be substantially more severe than that identified in the FEIS/EIR, the air quality impacts
continue to be significant and unavoidable as previously concluded.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City
Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long-term and
cumulative air quality impacts.
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address air quality issues:
California Legislature. "California Clean Air Act." Health and Safety Code, Section 39000. 1975,
1988
Governing Board. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management
Plan. August 1, 2003. Diamond Bar, California: SCAQMD. January 17, 2006.
<http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/AQMD03AQMP.htm> .
Jones, Matthew B. (Mestre Greve Associates). Letter to Mr. Dana Ogdon (City of Tustin)
regarding MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 05-002, Regional Air Quality Impacts
Analysis. March 2, 2006.
South Coast Air Quality Management Board. "EMFAC 2002 (v2.2) Emission Factors (On-
Road)." March 11, 2005. SCAQMD. January 17, 2006. <http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa
Ihandbook /onroad/onroad.hlml>.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar,
California: SCAQMD. April 1993, November 1993. (updates at <http://www.aqmd.gov
/ceqa/oldhdbk. hlml>).
R\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-27
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Davolopmant Plan
Addendum
South Coast Air Quality Management District. "Rule 402: Nuisance" (Adopted May 7, 1976).
Regulation IV Regulations. June 29, 2005. SCAQMD. February 16, 2006.
<http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04_tofc.html> .
South Coast Air Quality Management District. "Rule 403: Fugitive Dust" (Amended June 3,
2005). Regulation IV Regulations. June 29, 2005. SCAQMD. February 16, 2006.
<http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04_tofc.html> .
South Coast Air Quality Management District. "Rule 1401: New Source Review of Toxic Air
Contaminants" (Amended March 4, 2005). Rules Recently Adopted, Amended, or
Repealed. February 9, 2006. SCAQMD. February 16, 2006. <http://www.aqmd.gov/rules
/recentrules.html>.
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5.4.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
The FEIS/EIR identified that on-site vegetation is of low quality and the site has been degraded
by past land use activities. The impacts from replacing existing agricultural fields, non-native
grasslands, and ornamental landscaping with reuse development was addressed in the
FEIS/EIR and was not considered a Significant impact because of the low quality of vegetation
and the past disturibances on-site. However, the FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of
the Specific Plan and associated Implementing Actions would result in significant impacts to
jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle.
A portion of the Peters Canyon Channel passes through the boundaries of the Specific Plan
area. The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) planned to re-construct this portion of
the channel, independent of the reuse project to meet regional flood capacity requirements.
Although not a direct project impact, the FEIS/EIR concluded that because the Specific Plan
would transfer this channel into OCFCD ownership it would indirectly facilitate the improvement,
resulting in an impact to approximately 12.8 acres of jurisdictional waters. The FEIS/EIR further
concluded that other natural bottom channels and seasonal ponds within the Specific Plan area
may be impacted by development including, but not limited to, jurisdictional areas within on-site
ditches and drainages, the Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel, the Barranca Channel, and Peters
Canyon Channel as identified in Figure 3.7-1 of the FEIS/EIR. It was estimated that impacts to
approximately 16.2 acres of jurisdictional waters, of which 2.4 acres are classified as existing
vegetated wetlands, would be impacted with the Specific Plan and Implementing Actions. The
FEIS/EIR assumed complete destruction of all wetland and jurisdictional waters.
The FEIS/EIR identified that no impacts to federally-listed Threatened or Endangered plant or
animal species would occur and Section 7 consultation would not be required. However, filling
of wetlands habitat in and around the San Joaquin Channel would significantly impact the
southwestem pond turtle, a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) "species of
special concern" requiring mitigation. In addition, the FEIS/EIR identified that habitat for the
loggerihead shrike, also a CDFG species of special concern, would be eliminated from the site.
No nesting habitat would be impacted. Although the proposed reuse would result in the direct
loss of four loggerhead shrike (possibly two nesting pairs), it was concluded that there would be
no overall adverse effect to the population in southern California and the impact was not
considered significant.
R\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Ana~sis-031306.doc
5-28
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.4.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Bioloaical Resources
The environmental setting for biological resources within the Specific Plan area has not
substantially changed since preparation of the FEIS/EIR. Specific to areas under the jurisdiction
of the USACE and CDFG and as documented during completion of the jurisdictional delineation
by Vandermost Consulting (discussed below), the Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel has a rip-rap
bottom and sides. The channel is actively maintained by OCFCD and contains little to no
vegetation. Barranca Channel has rip-rap sides and a soft bottom and is also activity
maintained. The Barranca Channel is primarily unvegetated with small areas of non-native
vegetation.
On February 8, 2006, a biologist with BonTerra Consulting conducted a biological constraints
survey within Peters Canyon Channel between the Barranca Parkway overpass and the
Metrolink rail crossing to determine if channel conditions along the entire reach of the channel
are similar to conditions identified in the FEIS/EIR. Littie vegetation grows on the rip-rap slopes
and berm tops of Peters Canyon Channel; what exists is non-native. The three vegetation types
or land uses present include: (1) open water (flowing or ponded fresh water); (2) flood control
channels (supporting a limited number of plants such as slender cattail [Typha domingensis],
pigweed [Amaranthus sp.], rabbit-foot grass [Polypogon monspeJiensis], California fan palms
[Washingtonia fiJifera]), common horseweed [Conyza canadensis], telegraph weed [Heterotheca
grandiflora], short podded mustard [Hirschfeldia incana], Russian thistle [Salso/a tragus], castor
bean [Ricinus communis}, sweet fennel [Foeniculum vulgare], oat [Avena sp.], and ripgut grass
[Bromus diandrus]); and (3) urban areas which include structures, pavement, bare ground,
overpasses, and gum (Eucalyptus sp.), Califomia fan palm, and Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifoJius) trees.
These vegetation types within the Peters Canyon Channel provide limited habitat value for
wildlife species. Common wildlife species expected to occur frequently within these areas
include the Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla) , western fence lizard (Sce/oporus occidentaJis), side-
blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Arriea alba),
snowy egret (Egretta thula), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American coot (FuJica americana),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi
nudipes). However, none of these species were identified during the site visit. Habitat value is
further limited by the maintenance of these channels necessary to preserve public safety from
floods, and by rainy season scouring.
Special status species are those species that have been listed as Threatened or Endangered
under state and/or federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) , or are of concern to state and/or
federal resource agencies or private conservation organizations. Several special status plant
species are known to occur in the project region (CNPS 2006). Only one of these species is
currently listed as Threatened or Endangered by the USFWS and/or CDFG (San Fernando
Valley Spineflower [Chorizanthe parryi var. femandina]); however, this species is not expected
to occur within the Peters Canyon Channel due to the lack of suitable habitat. In addition,
several CNPS listed species (List 1B, 2, or 3) are known to occur in the project region and have
a limited potential to occur within the Peters Canyon Channel due to lack of habitat.
RIProjects\TustinlJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-29
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS TusM 20ne Chenge (Specific Plen Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Jurisdictional Delineations
To address current site conditions since certification of the FEISlEIR, the 1999 jurisdictional
delineation was updated for the Master Development footprint, Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel,
Peters Canyon Channel, and the Barranca Channel. It should be noted that updated
jurisdictional delineations for other parcels within the Specific Plan area have been conducted
for individual development projects as each developer is required to obtain necessary permits
(refer to mitigation measure Bi0-1),
As identified in the FEIS/EI R, jurisdictional areas on-site are associated with the Santa
Ana/Santa Fe, Barranca, and Peters Canyon Channels and agricultural ditches from previous
agricultural operations (that are no longer being irrigated). The Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel,
Peters Canyon Channel, and Barranca Channel are maintained by the OCFCD and consist of
improved channel walls (refer to description provided in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality). The Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel has a rip-rap bottom and Peters Canyon Channel
and Barranca Channel have soft bottoms. Because they are maintained by OCFCD for flood
control purposes, these larger channels contain limited habitat. Additionally, the channels are
typically maintained for flood safety purposes and scoured during winter rains due to the velocity
of stormwater.
As previously discussed in Section 2.3 of this Addendum, the City of Tustin has entered into an
agreement with the OCFCD regarding the portion of Peters Canyon Channel within the City of
Tustin. The City of Irvine has required improvements to the portion of the channel in their
jurisdiction by Marble Mountain Partners, LLP. The City of Tustin has also entered into an
agreement with the City of Irvine for their funding improvements to the portion of Peters Canyon
Channel within the City of Irvine. Pursuant to these agreements, these improvements will now
be constructed as part of the proposed project. To ensure that all jurisdictional areas and
wetlands potentially impacted by implementation of these improvements are comprehensively
evaluated/calculated, the entire length of the Peters Canyon Channel within and adjacent to the
Specific Plan area is addressed herein.
RBF Consulting completed a delineation of the Barranca Channel from Red Hill Avenue to east
of Von Karman Avenue, and a delineation of Peters Canyon Channel in the City of Tustin from
the Metrolink rail crossing south to the city limits and in the City Irvine from the city limits south
to Barranca Parkway. Vandermost Consulting conducted a site visit on February 11, 2004, for:
(1) the Master Development site, (2) Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel, and (3) Peters Canyon
Channel (from Barranca Parkway to the Metrolink crossing). During this site visit they also
confirmed the RBF delineation. A site visit for these areas was conducted with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on
February 17, 2005, to confirm the delineation. The delineations have been conducted in
compliance with current regulations and required procedures. While a final determination
regarding acreage has not yet been reached and is subject to the processing of required
permits pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1602 of the
California Fish and Game Code, an estimate of the proposed delineations is provided in
Tables 5-8 and 5-9.
Two of the on-site agriculturai ditches (Drainages Band B3) contain riparian vegetation such as
willow (Salix sp.), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and cattail (Typha sp.) plant species.
Drainages Band B3 receive artificial flow from the active dewatering operation conducted by the
Navy. The dewatering flows would be re-directed to the sewer system when Armstrong Road is
improved.
R:\Projects\Tustir1\J004\5 Environ Arlalysis-031306.doc
5-30
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-8
CDFG JURISDICTIONAL STREAMBED
Peters Canyon Channel (Crty of Tustin -
from Metrolink crossin to crt limrts
Peters Canyon Channel (Crty of Irvine-
from the cit limrts to Barranca Parkwa
Barranca Channel
Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel
A
Al
B
B2
B2-A
B3
B4
Sub-Total
TOTAL
Source: Vandermost Consultin ,2006.
11.71
4.04
1.74
0.10
0.20
0.00
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.04
32.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.80
32.98
TABLE 5-9
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S.
,:Nj)iVI~.nll
7.76 0.03
Peters Canyon Channel (City ofTustin-
from Metrolink crossing to crty Iimrts)
Peters Canyon Channel (City of Irvine-
from the city limrts to Barranca Parkway)
Barranca Channel
Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel
A
Al
B
B2
B2-A
B3
B4
Sub-Totals
TOTAL
Source: Vandermost Consulting, 2006.
6.01 0.08
1.19 0
0.58 0
0.10 0
0.20 0
o 0.15
0.05 0
0.03 0
o 0.42
0.04 0
15.96 0.68
16.64
The remaining agricultural ditches do not receive natural hydrology or support riparian
vegetation. It appears these ditches were excavated in uplands solely for agricultural purposes.
The ditches contain limited habitat which are comprised on non-native grasses. In addition, one
non-jurisdictional swale (B-1) was identified on-site.
R.\PrOJectsITustinlJ004\5 Environ Analysls-031306.doc
5-31
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklisr Responses
MCAS TusM Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Table 5-8 identifies CDFG jurisdictional streambed totals and Table 5-9 identifies jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. under the USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction based on updated surveys.
These areas are depicted on Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively.
As shown in Table 5-8, there are 32.98 acres of CDFG jurisdictional streambed on-site, with
0.8 acre consisting of riparian vegetation. As shown in Table 5-9, jurisdictional waters of U.S.
total 16.64 acres with 0.68 acre consisting of wetland habitat. Note that the FEIS/EIR identified
29.0 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and 2.4 acres of wetland habitat. The change in
area is associated with changes in jurisdictional delineation procedures, and consideration of
the segments of Peters Canyon Channel that will be subject to regional improvements in
compliance with the agreement the City of Tustin has entered into with the OCFCD
(Cooperative Agreement D02-119, as amended) and requirements for channel improvements
that the City of Irvine has imposed on developers in its jurisdiction.
Southwestern Pond Turtle
In October 2003, a Biological Resources Report for the Southern Portion of the Tustin MCAS,
Orange County, California was prepared by Twining Laboratories, Inc., for the proposed Vestar
Development. The Vestar Development is located southeast of the Master Developer footprint,
specifically, north of Barranca Parkway and west of Jamboree Road. As part of the biological
resources report effort, and at the request of CDFG, a focused survey for the southwestern
pond turtle was conducted in September 2003. During the survey, one adult male southwestern
pond turtle was observed in approximately the same location three separate times. Since only
one southwestern pond turtle was seen at any given time, it was assumed that only one
individual was present at the location.
At the recommendation of the CDFG a "capture and relocation" plan and an appropriate
mitigation plan were prepared. The Proposed Tustin Marine Corps Base Southwestern Pond
Turtle Relocation and Mitigation Plan was approved by CDFG in April 2004. In summary, the
Relocation and Mitigation Plan included the following: (a) evaluation of turtle habitat during
trapping periods; (b) determination of sex and numbering of turtles; (c) documentation of weight
and length; (d) age determination; and (e) relocation to Hoag Pond at the San Joaquin Marsh
within 24 hours of capture. The mitigation further required a funded study of the San Joaquin
Marsh pond turtle population, construction monitoring and stream alterations so that any
additional turtles observed could be relocated, and capture and relocation of other reptiles and
amphibians observed during construction. The trapping and relocation of southwestern pond
turtles within the Vestar site was completed in July and August 2004. Five southwestern pond
turtles were captured, measured, numbered and relocated to the San Joaquin Marsh consistent
with the approved Relocation and Mitigation Plan.
No additional surveys for the remainder of the Specific Plan area or Master Developer footprint
have been completed.
R\ProjectsITustin\J004\5Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-32
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
64
v
LEGEND
Q MaEter Darebper Sire DaaMary
_ - Lima CO Pekrs Canyon Channel
• NomJuktllcllmg Seale
Jhirindletinhal Sl eaabed
Impuck in Macre! Dav9oper Fee"
auftll dby Velar Penile
Impacts In Me.. Developer Feel"
aadadae by city a Tuain A ancng
Avenae Pardee
2 C!>FG Judedicdonel Wgri F Feet
_.VaJ. a
DFG Jurisdictional Delineation
Exhibit 4
-
MM
�p
Ib
r$$}}
_
nNroYKenuNnlMrGpnvsEu-fIIFWO U3�3M.pCl
S
�S�
BS.-
1
j r
\Vf
l!
VESTAR
i
t
rY
_
AR:IA N -
—.
Bertprce PeAwaY 4l�q
__ -_ -.- - aemw®v.nvar-
-- -
_• - _-
i
a
LEGEND
Q MaEter Darebper Sire DaaMary
_ - Lima CO Pekrs Canyon Channel
• NomJuktllcllmg Seale
Jhirindletinhal Sl eaabed
Impuck in Macre! Dav9oper Fee"
auftll dby Velar Penile
Impacts In Me.. Developer Feel"
aadadae by city a Tuain A ancng
Avenae Pardee
2 C!>FG Judedicdonel Wgri F Feet
_.VaJ. a
DFG Jurisdictional Delineation
Exhibit 4
MM
�p
C O N S U L T I N G
_
nNroYKenuNnlMrGpnvsEu-fIIFWO U3�3M.pCl
-
�•
}: -EW ESesM -..
... xveuomuM AY
hr4
LEGEND
Q
Meeh O.M.P. Me Boundary
Limns Of Pelan Canyon Channel
--•
Wo msdmtmal Swale
f.
(,.:
hn I;nal Wate3 of the U.S
i.
•••••
enh d In IIIUevabPv`o irrt
t
.uM izd by Vestar Permits
Bdt"
i
•••-•
MlPanls In hi Deo WI'Mixint
numnrieed by City d Tuetln Mmevr
B3 ._
-
_.. _t 1.2 '_.-
2
Menoe Pam is
Cm, dm n ional Width in Feet
iU
tp2 -_ -.
I >
fAvaaBe wMM
W.
11
;ww
1q 50tie"in.,pdOe aNlMWpa,it
foam pie Amutrgg
,n,for,
AServx MdmF9 A1C e.Ie�slq..
S
<
..
89lb
_
aAd"_❑
__.
an
�1
t
Wats�Aeenue
w A t
`
3�J3
5
--VESTAR
BARRANC CHANN a—
pyei RoaC _.
_
-
Beiexa PBkMY—_
_
-_
s.i;.xa Paway Q�
ACOEjurisdictional Delineation
Exc�h--ibbi-i-t S
C O N S U f T f N G
....w c,...a..e s.M.+ ix twos
wmw�n.e..moe�m.w�.eu .cos,o osomp
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05.002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.4.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
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 Services?
No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The physical impacts resulting from
development of uses proposed with the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan
would be similar to those identified in the FEISlEIR. Specifically, impacts to on-site vegetation
and loss of habitat for the loggerhead shrike, a CDFG species of special concem, would be less
than significant. It should be noted that project construction activities would be completed in
compliance with federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). The MBTA governs the
taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests.
The analysis of potential impacts to biological resources was updated to address the current
conditions of the Barranca, Peters Canyon, and Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channels, and on-site
ditches, and to address the entire length of Peters Canyon Channel in the vicinity of the Specific
Plan/Reuse Area (between the Metrolink railroad and Barranca Parkway). The impacts in Peters
Canyon Channel would be temporary since the channel would be reconstructed with a wider
soft-bottom channel. Impacts to habitat that has limited potential to support the previously
identified special status species within the on-site channels are not expected to result in
potentially significant impacts because the habitat values of the channels are too low to support
a substantial population of special status species that would meet the significance criteria in
Section 15380 of CEQA Guidelines. Several special status wildlife species are known to occur
in the project region; however, no special status wildlife species currently listed by the resource
agencies as Candidate, Threatened, or Endangered are expected to nest/reside within the
channels due to the lack of suitable habitat, and no special status species were observed during
the site visits conducted.
Based on the documented presence of the southwestern pond turtle within the Specific Plan
area (most recently found in 2004 during surveys for the Vestar Development conducted as part
of the relocation and mitigation plan) the potential impact identified in the FEIS/EIR for impacts
to habitat for the southwestern pond turtle would still apply. This impact would be considered
significant prior to mitigation. Mitigation measures Bi0-2, Bio-3, and Bio-4 presented in the
FEIS/EIR for this impact would also be applicable to the proposed project and potential impacts
would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.
Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not result
in new impacts to any special status species or their habitat, or result in substantially more
severe impacts than that addressed in the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation measures presented in the
FEIS/EIR, as refined in Section 5.4.4 below, would be sufficient to reduce these impacts to a
level that is less than significant.
R.IProjects\TustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-33
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tusan Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
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 Services?
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?
No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the only
sensitive natural community that would be impacted by the proposed project is jurisdictional
area and small areas of riparian habitat. No other sensitive vegetation communities or areas
protected by existing regulatory requirements were identified on site. This impact conclusion has
not changed. Updated jurisdictional delineations were completed for the proposed project to:
(a) address current site conditions; (b) quantify jurisdictional area consistent with existing
regulations and required procedures; and (c) update the habitat characteristics within
jurisdictional areas. As previously noted, the FEIS/EIR assumed complete removal of
jurisdictional areas and riparian/wetland habitat within the Specific Plan area. Based on the
updated delineation, the impacts to jurisdictional areas and riparian/wetland habitat have been
refined for the proposed project and are summarized below. It should be noted that the
calculation of jurisdictional areas potentially impacted by implementation of the proposed project
is estimated based on current project information. The actual impact area will be confirmed
during the permitting process.
The following impact analysis addresses the following: (a) covering of the Barranca Channel for
the required widening of Barranca Parkway; (b) regional improvements to Peters Canyon
Channel within the cities of Tustin and Irvine from the Metrolink crossing to Barranca Parkway
(agreements in place and entitlement conditions of approval for implementation of these
improvements are described in Section 2.3 of this Addendum); (c) impacts to the Santa
Ana/Santa Fe Channel (the identified impacts could be reduced with construction of a culvert
crossing to accommodate a connection of the East Connector Road with Edinger Avenue); and
(d) construction activities within the Master Developer footprint, in its entirety.
Impacts to CDFG Jurisdictional Areas
Impacts to the CDFG streambed resulting from the proposed project include permanent impacts
to approximately 7.0 acres and temporary impacts to approximately 25.98 acres of jurisdictional
area. Permanent impacts consist of approximately 7.0 acres, of which 0.80 acre consists of
vegetated agricultural ditches Band B3. Approximately 6.2 acres are un vegetated agricultural
ditches, Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel, and Barranca Channel. Tables 5-10 and 5-11 summarize
temporary and permanent project impacts to the CDFG jurisdictional streambed. It should be
noted that this assumes that the entire segment of the Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel, which is
under the jurisdiction of the CDFG, would be impacted; however, the actual impacts could be
reduced and more limited in the event that only a culvert crossing is constructed.
R:\ProjeclslTustin\JOO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306_doc
5-34
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-10
TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO CDFG JURISDICTION
Peters Canyon Channel (Cny of Tustin -from Metrolink crossing to cny limns)
Peters Canyon Channel (City of Irvine- from the city iimits to Barranca Parkway)
Temporary Impacts T olal
Source: Vandermost Consulting, 2006.
14.27
11.71
25.98
14.27
11.71
25.98
TABLE 5-11
PERMANENT IMPACTS TO CDFG JURISDICTION
;III!~~..
1.74
4.04
0.10
0.20
0.38
0.05
0.03
0.42
0.04
7.0
Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel
Barranca Channel
A
A1
B (vegetated)
82
B2-A
B3 (vegetated)
B4
Permanenllmpacts Tolal
Source: Vandermost Consulting, 2006.
It should be noted that impacts to approximately 0.55 acre of the Barranca Channel and
unvegetated agricultural ditches were previously permitted by a CDFG Streambed Alteration
Agreement to the City of Tustin for the extension and widening of Armstrong Road
(File #5-2002-0169). These impacts have not yet occurred and are included in this assessment.
In addition, impacts to approximately 0.11 acre of agricultural ditches B and B-3 on-site would
be impacted by the Vestar project. The impacts from the Vestar project are included in their
regulatory permits and are therefore not included in this assessment.
After the regional widening improvements are complete, it is assumed that the soft bottom of
Peters Canyon Channel would be replaced at the pre-existing contours. Therefore, temporary
impacts to Peters Canyon Channel are considered self-mitigating at a 1:1 ratio. Additionally,
Peters Canyon Channel would be widened approximately 40 feet along the length of the
channel from Barranca Parkway to the Metrolink rail crossing, for an increase of approximately
8.0 acres of CDFG jurisdictional streambed.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Impacts to jurisdictional waters resulting from the proposed project total approximately
16.64 acres, including 13.88 acres of temporary impacts and 2.76 acres of permanent impacts.
Permanent impacts consist of discharge of fill material to approximately 0.57 acre of wetlands in
ditches Band B3 and approximately 2.19 acres of non-wetland waters, including unvegetated
agricultural ditches, the Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel, and the Barranca Channel. The small
agricultural ditches would be filled and/or replaced with a constructed storm drain system that
R\ProJectsITustin\JOO4\5Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-35
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS TusUn Zone Change (Specific Plan AmendmanO 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
would serve the new development in accordance with City of Tustin and County of Orange
Flood Control Standards.
As previously noted, the Barranca Channel as proposed in the Specific Plan would be covered
to facilitate the required widening of Barranca Parkway, and Peters Canyon Channel would be
widened resulting in temporary impacts. The impacts to the Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel are
associated with a potential culvert crossing, and have been calculated based on an assumption
that the entire segment of the channel is considered "Waters of the United States," as shown on
Exhibit 4 would be impacted, although impacts could be less in the event of construction of a
culvert crossing. Tables 5-12 and 5-13 summarize temporary and permanent project impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
TABLE 5-12
TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.
Peters Canyon Channel (City of Tustin 7.76 0.03 7.79
from Metrolink crossing to city limits)
Peters Canyon Channel (City of Irvine 601 0.08 6.09
from the city limits to Barranca Parkway)
Temporary Impacts Total 13.77 0.11 13.88
Source: Vandermost Consulting, 2005.
TABLE 5-13
PERMANENT IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S.
Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel 0.58
Barranca Channel 1.1 9
A 0.10
A1 0.20
B (wetland) 0.15
B2 0.05
B2-A 0.03
B3 (wetland) 0.42
B4 0.04
Permanent Impacts Total 2.76
Source: Vandermost Consulting, 2005.
It should be noted that impacts to approximately 0.45 acre of the Barranca Channel and
unvegetated agricultural ditches were previously permitted by an RWQCB Section 401
Certification to the City of Tustin for the extension and widening of Armstrong Road (USACE file
#200200381-YJC). These impacts have not yet occurred and are included in this assessment.
In addition, impacts to approximately 0.11 acre of agricultural ditches B and B-3 on-site would
be impacted by the Vestar project. The impacts from the Vestar project are included in their
regulatory permits and are therefore not included in this assessment.
R\Projects\TustinlJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-36
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
\/\lith implementation of MM Bio-1, impacts to areas under the jurisdiction of the CDFG and
Waters of the U.S. would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. In compliance
with mitigation measure Bio-1 from the FEIS/EIR, the Master Developer would be required to
submit applications to the CDFG, RWQCB, and USACE to obtain required permits for
implementation of the proposed Development Plan. Note that MM Bio-1 has been refined to
reflect that the Peters Canyon Channel improvements are being completed as part of the
proposed project, with Marble Mountain Partners, LLP assuming financial responsibility for the
portion of the channel in the City of Irvine, and not by the OCFCD, as anticipated in the
FEIS/EIR.
Based on the above analysis, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA,
and Development Plan, including implementation of improvements to the Peters Canyon
Channel, would not result in a substantial change in the impact conclusions of the FEIS/EI R. As
identified in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would impact areas under this jurisdiction of the
USACE and CDFG, including riparian habitats. The information presented in this section
clarifies/quantifies the impacts based on current conditions and regulations. The proposed
project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to these resources
beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation measures presented in the FEIS/EIR, as
refined in Section 5.4.4 below, would be sufficient to reduce these impacts to a level that is less
than significant.
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 impeded 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?
No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. Based on the information provided in the
FEIS/EIR regarding on-site vegetation, the Specific Plan area does not support wildlife
movement. As indicated below, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area is not within the Natural
Communities Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) Reserve and
does not contain any areas identified as important for wildlife movement. Additionally, there are
no local policies or ordinances which protect biological resources that are relevant to the
Specific Plan area. As a result, no significant impacts related to wildlife movement or local
resource protection ordinances and policies, or the NCCP/HCP would occur as a result of the
proposed project.
F. Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis. The project site is within the County of
Orange Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP. The NCCP/HCP was adopted by the CDFG, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and participating agencies (including the City of Tustin) in 1996
to address protection and management of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and CSS-obligate
species and other covered habitats and species. The NCCP/HCP mitigates anticipated impacts
to those habitats and species on a programmatic, sub-regional level, rather than on a project-
by-project, single species basis. The NCCP/HCP involved the establishment of an approximate
37,OOO-acre Reserve for the protection of CSS, other upland habitats, the coastal Califomia
gnatcatcher, and other species identified in the NCCP/HCP. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
R:\ProjeclslTustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-37
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
area is not within the NCCP/HCP Reserve; rather, it is within a development area identified in
the NCCP/HCP. The proposed project therefore would not conflict with the NCCP/HCP and no
significant impacts with respect to the applicable regional NCCP/HCP would occur.
5.4.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
FEIS/EIR Measures That Have Been Completed
No mitigation measures related to biological resources have been completed for Specific Plan
areas within the Master Developer footprint. Mitigation measures have been implemented for
the approved Vestar Development that is currently under construction, and are currently being
completed by the City of Tustin for the Phase I Tustin Legacy Infrastructure Improvements.
FEIS/EIR Measures Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
MM Bio-3
Permits from the CDFG shall be obtained for live-capture of the turtles and for
transporting them to the relocation site.
Refinements to FEISlEIR Measures
MMs Bi0-1, Bio-2, and Bio-4 have been refined to further describe the mitigation requirements
for impacts to jurisdictional areas. These do not represent new mitigation and are consistent
with the intent of MMs Bio-1, Bi0-2, and Bio-4 as presented in the FEIS/EIR
MM Bio-1
MM Bio-2
The project proponents of any development affecting jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. or vegetated wetlands shall obtain Section 401. Section 404, Section
~1602, and other certifications. approvals and permits as necessary. Copies
of the necessary state and federal permits shall be provided to the City prior to
the issuance of mass or aradina permits for aradina activities impactina
iurisdictional areas. A replacement ratio for affected wetland resources shall be
determined in consultation with regulatory agencies as part of the permitting
process and shall be no less than 1:1 replacement of function and value.
Additional criteria and reauirements will be as follows: TAe astieAS f3FElf39Seg en
Peter Car:1yrm CRar:1A91 sRall ~e r-T-litig3tes ey the OerCD ',VRS is the pFsjest
prOpOr:l8nt fsr flood c0r:1tr.g1 iR=lpr,s'J8ffier1ts.
. Create (establish). restore. or enhance wetland/riparian habitats on-site to
the maximum extent practicable to minimize and replace the on-site loss
of USACE and CDFG iurisdictional acreaae and function. or off-site as
mav be permitted bv the USACE and CDFG.
. To retum iurisdictional habitats that are temporarilv disturbed durina
construction to pre-construction conditions.
. To provide for maintenance. manaaement and monitorina of the
mitiaation site or sites for a minimum of three vears as determined
throuah the permittina process.
Based on consultations with CDFG, City of Tustin, or a project proponent as
applicable, an off-site relocation site for southwestem pond turtles captured on
site shall be identified that is as close to the Reuse Plan area as possible and
that is sustainable in perpetuity. (No appropriate habitat in the City of Tustin is
5-38
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Ana~sis-031306_doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
available for relocation.) Potential relocation sites include but are not limited to a
turtle pond and relocation site fI elEll'l9AEI (GblR'eAtiy lReblgl=1t ElpJ) located in upper
Shady Canyon within the Orange County Nature Preserve tRat GebllEl be
iR'lI'lFe'l9d er I'8Etel'8d Ie Eel'le aE a I'8leGalien 8ite; or the San Joaquin Marsh,
which is managed by UC Irvine, Irvine Ranch, and the Orange County Water
District. Some property owners and public agencies may be adverse to the
relocation of species of special concern onto their property or jurisdiction, and it
would be speculative to identify actual sites prior to completion of consultation
with CDFG and with potential property owners and/or appropriate public
agencies. A relocation and mitiaation plan shall be prepared bv a aualified
bioloaist for approval bv the CDFG. The relocation and mitiaation plan shall
include the followina:
. Reauirement for focused surveys for southwestern pond turtles prior to
construction activities and submittal of survey report to the CDFG.
. Identification of specific relocation site within the Newport Bav watershed.
. Methodoloav for trappina. capture. recordation and release of
southwestern pond turtles.
. Reauirement of bioloaical monitorina durina construction and reauirement
for capture and relocation bv a aualified bioloaist of any additional
southwestern pond turtles observed durina construction.
MM Bio-4
A proiect proponent shall neaotiate an 8gr99R'l9At El=1all be negoliated with the
CDFG, City af Tbl8liA, I'lrojeGt I'lFel'laAeAl, or other agency or organization as
appropriate, for relocation of turtles and/or contribution of funds to improve,
restore, or create IRe ~ relocation site as turtle habitat, in coniunction with any
reaulatorv permits necessarv.
5.4.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting biological
resources, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EI R; (b) there have been no
substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require
major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to biological resources than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EI R;
and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to biological resources has been revealed that
would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project wouid not result in any significant
unavoidable impacts to biological resources. Additionally, the proposed project would not result
in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to biological resources beyond that identified
in the FEIS/EIR.
R:\Projects\TustinW004\5 Environ Analysls-031306.doc
5-39
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (SpecJt/c Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address biological resource issues:
Barranca Channel (F09)-Armstrong Avenue Crossing and Armstrong Avenue Storm Drain,
Peters Canyon Channel (F06) and Peters Canyon Bikeway Cooperative Agreement
002-119 between City of Tustin and Orange County Flood Control District and The
County of Orange. Tustin, California. 2003.
BonTerra Consulting. Field Reconnaissance conducted by Lindsay Messett, Ecologist,
February 8, 2006.
California Department of Fish and Game. Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake
Alteration, Notification No. 1600-2004-953-R5 for Vestar Development. October 10,
2004.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online
edition). Sacramento, California. Accessed in February 2006 from <http://www.cnps.org/
inventory>.
Cobb, Donna L. (CDFG). Letter to Mr. Chris Enyedy (The Twining Laboratories, lnc). April 30,
2004.
Goodman Jr., Robert H. Tustin Marine Corp Air Station Southwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys
[Actinemys or Emys] marmorata pallida) Relocation Project (Project 047214.03).
Diamond Bar, California: Robert H. Goodman, Jr., September 2004.
Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange,
Central and Coastal Subregion. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental
Management Agency and United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department
of Fish and Game. July 17, 1996.
RBF Consulting. Final Runoff Management Plan for Tustin Legacy. Prepared for the City of
Tustin. December 2004.
Twining Laboratories, Inc. Biological Resources Report for Southern Portion of the Tustin
MCAS, Orange County, California. Fresno, California: October 31,2003.
5.5 CUL TURAUSCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
5.5.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
As part of the DoN's disposal of MCAS Tustin, DoN was responsible for compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Because the title transfer resulted
in the transfer of a Historic District from federal ownership, this was identified as a significant
unmitigable impact under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Pursuant to Section 106, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, the Navy, the City of Tustin, and the County of Orange executed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (included in Appendix H to the FEIS/EIR) that identifies
measures to mitigate the effects of the destruction of portions of the eligible historic district,
R\ProjeclsITuslinW004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-40
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
including the hangars (refer to mitigation measures Hist-1 and Hist-2, below). If financially
feasible for adaptive reuse, both blimp hangars would be preserved. However, if it is determined
that it is not financially feasible to retain either of the hangars, removal of the hangars was
determined to be a significant unavoidable impact pursuant to CEQA.
The FEISfEIR indicated that numerous archaeological surveys were conducted at the former
MCAS Tustin site (refer to page 3-68 of the FEISfEIR for a complete listing of archaeological
surveys conducted on site). In 1988, the SHPO provided written concurrence that all open
spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. One
recorded archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) was identified within the Specific Plan area;
however, as reported in the FEISfEIR, this site was destroyed prior to 1971 (when
archaeological surveys were first conducted at MCAS Tustin) during construction of two large
concrete tanks. The FEISfEIR indicated that CA-ORA-381 was the only recorded archaeological
site within the Specific Plan area. The FEISfEIR also indicated that previously unidentified
buried archaeological or paleontological resources (as indicated by the presence of shell
scatters) within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction
activities. Mitigation measures were identified, which included construction monitoring, to reduce
potential impacts to less than significant.
As discussed in Section 2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, an extensive screening process
was completed to identify interests in the property. Consistent with federal requirements before
1994, the DoN completed U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and federal agency screening
and simultaneously completed screening for State, County, and local agency interests in the
property. No interest was expressed from the approximately 100 Native American Tribes that
were contacted. With adoption of the Redevelopment Act of 1994, a new community-based
reuse and screening process was initiated. Under this process, the local redevelopment agency
(LRA) undertook an outreach program and solicited notices of interest in the base from state
and local governments, representatives of the homeless, and other interested parties. This
solicitation included Native American Tribes. No information was received regarding the
presence of cultural places of significance to California Native Americans within the reuse area.
5.5.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Since certification of the FEISfEIR, and in compliance with the MOA between the DoN, the
California SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (included as
Appendix H of the FEISfEIR), the County of Orange has conducted a marketing study for the
northern hangar (Hangar 28) and has reported to the DoN, SHPO, and National Park Service
(MOA signatory acting as the federal agency sponsoring the proposed public benefit
conveyance of Hangar 28 to the County of Orange) that there is no economically viable reuse
for this structure. Per the MOA, SHPO, in consultation with NPS, have each concurred that they
believe there is no economic viability in retaining Hangar 28. The County of Orange awaits a
final Determination from DoN. It should be noted that Hangar 28 is not within the Master
Developer footprint. To date, the City of Tustin has completed a marketing study for Hanger 29,
and is in the process of assessing the economic viability for this Hangar, which is within the
Master Developer footprint.
Senate Bill (SB) 18, Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation, was signed into law in
September 2004. The principal objective of SB 18 is to preserve and protect "cultural places" of
California Native Americans, as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 and
5097.993. In summary, cultural places include: a Native American sanctified cemetery, place of
worship, religious ceremonial site, or sacred shrine; or a Native American historic, cultural, or
R\Projects\Tu5lin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-41
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specinc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
sacred site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic
Resources. Based on the results of the archaeological surveys conducted within the Specific
Plan area and results of the extensive screening process conducted during the reuse process
with Native American tribes, no cultural places of California Native Americans are believed to
exist on site.
It should also be noted that S8 18 applies to the adoption or amendment of any General Plan or
Specific Plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. The Tustin City Council held a noticed public
meeting regarding the proposed Specific Plan Amendment on November 1, 2004. The City
appropriated funds and resources towards the proposed project, initiated work programs,
commissioned consultant services, and directed staff to begin research on the Specific Plan
Amendment before March 1, 2005. Therefore, SB 18 is not applicable to the proposed project.
In compliance with MM Arch-1, a cultural resources survey was conducted in June 2003 for the
parcel outside the MCAS boundaries (Planning Area 20) that had not been subject to previous
surveys, as reported in the FEIS/EIR. While no resources were identified, it was recommended
that monitoring during construction be conducted. During grading activities conducted in August
2003 there was an isolated find; however, no new sites were discovered. The isolated find was
handled in compliance with standard industry practices and the Archaeological Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan developed for the project. Based on the surveys that have been conducted
within the Specific Plan area as reported in the FEIS/EIR and subsequent review of Planning
Area 20, and the fact that no information regarding the presence of resources on site was
provided during the reuse screening process, there is no reason to believe such resources exist
within the Specific Plan area.
5.5.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As indicated above, the blimp hangars are
designated as historical resources and are located within a designated discontinuous historic
district. Only the southern blimp hangar (Hangar 29) is located within the Master Developer
footprint. If, through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR (Hist-3
through Hist-5), it is determined that there is no economic viability in retaining the hangar and
the hangar is removed, the loss of the hangar would result in a significant and irreversible
impact to historical resources. Implementation of the proposed Development Plan on the
Hanger 29 Parcel would result in the demolition of the southern blimp hangar. This impact was
identified in the FEIS/EIR and mitigation measures were identified that remain applicable to the
proposed project. The proposed project would not result in a substantial change from the impact
to historical resources identified in the FEIS/EIR.
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306_doc
5-42
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Master Developer footprint is located
within the impact area evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. Although several archaeological surveys were
conducted at the MCAS Tustin reuse area, only one archaeological site, CA-ORA-381, was
recorded (along the western property boundary). However. this site was determined to have
been destroyed prior to 1971. No additional significant resources were found during any of the
previous archaeological surveys conducted on the MCAS Tustin reuse area. However, the
FEIS/EIR identified the potential for previously unidentified buried archaeological and
paleontological resources to be discovered during grading and construction activities. The
potential for unknown archaeological, paleontological, and human remains to be present in the
project site is very low; however, there is the potential for unknown resources to be uncovered.
This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of
the mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR. The proposed project would not result in a
substantial change from the archaeological and paleontological resources impacts identified in
the FEIS/EIR, and the current mitigation measures reduce the impact to a level that is less than
significant.
5.5.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
The numbering for the following measures is based on the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the FEIS/EIR.
FEIS/EIR Measures That Have Been Completed
MM Arch-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the four-acre parcel currently outside the
boundaries of the Air Station along Harvard A venue shall be surveyed to
determine the presence/absence of archaeological resources prior to grading.
MM Hist-1 Historic American Building Survey (HABS) - DoN will complete the appropriate
recordation for hangars 28 and 29 and the discontiguous historic district prior to
conveyance of any property within the discontiguous historic district and shall
ensure that copies of the recordation are made available to SHPO, the City of
Tustin, and any local or other archive facilities designated by SHPO.
MM Hist-2 Curation - within 30 days of the execution of the MOA, Department of the Navy
will donate copies of plans and architectural drawings and other archival
materials and records, as available, concerning the layout and the buildings and
structures that made up the original Navy Iighter-than-air blimp facility to a local
curation facility. The City of Tustin or its designee will also be provided with
copies of these materials.
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-43
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
FEIS/EIR Measures Aoolicable to the Prooosed Proiect
MM Arch-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the cities of Tustin and Irvine shall each
require applicants of individual development projects to retain, as appropriate, a
county-certified archaeologist. If buried resources are found during grading within
the reuse plan area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site
significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American
viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or
data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this
process.
MM Hist-3 As specified in the MOA, a substantive effort will be made to determine whether
there is an economically viable adaptive use of Hangar 28 and Hangar 29.
MM Hist-4 If the marketing effort identifies an economically viable adaptive use of either of
the complexes, that complex will be encumbered by a historic preservation
covenant. In the case of the Hangar 28 complex, these measures shall balance
the needs of the adaptive use and the needs for effective operation of the
Federal Lands to Parks or Historic Monument programs.
MM Hist-5 If NPS and/or SHPO determine that, despite a marketing effort that complies with
the terms of the MOA or as agreed to by the City of Tustin/County of Orange,
NPS, and/or SHPO, an economically viable adaptive use of the Hangar 28
complex was not identified, NPS and/or SHPO shall promptly advise the
Department of the Navy and notify the City of Tustin/County of Orange that the
following measures are required.
a. Written History - The City of Tustin/County of Orange shall prepare an
illustrated history report on MCAS Tustin, with emphasis on the initial
construction of the Air Station and its World War II Navy lighter-than-air
operations.
b. Exhibit - The City of Tustin/County of Orange shall prepare a professional-
quality illustrated interpretive exhibit with emphasis on the initial construction
of the air station and its World War II Navy lighter-than-air operations.
c. Interpretive Video - The City of Tustin/County of Orange shall prepare a
professional-quality documentary video and shall undertake a one-time
distribution and outreach program for the documentary video.
MM Paleo-1 The cities of Tustin and Irvine shall each require applicants of individual
development projects to comply with the requirements established in a
Paleontological Resources Management Plan (PRMP) prepared for the site,
which details the methods to be used for surveillance of construction grading,
assessing finds, and actions to be taken in the event that unique paleontological
resources are discovered during construction.
MM Paleo-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, project applicants shall provide written
evidence to each city that a county-certified paleontologist has been retained to
conduct salvage excavation of unique paleontological resources if they are found.
R\Projects\Tustin\JQ04\5 En."iron Analysis-031306doc
5-44
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tusnn Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Refinements to FEIS/EIR Measures
No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required,
FEIS/EIR Measures Not Applicable to the Proposed Project
All of the measures identified above are applicable,
5.5.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record that: (a) The
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting cultural
resources, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no
substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require
major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to cultural resources than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EI R;
and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to cultural resources has been revealed that
would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
There is no new technology or methods available to reduce the identified significant unavoidable
project-specific and cumulative impacts to historical resources associated with the removal of
Hangars 28 and 29 to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, this unavoidable
project-specific and cumulative impacts also occur with implementation of the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan, A Statement of Overriding Considerations for
the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address potential
significant unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from the removal of both blimp
hangars.
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address cultural resource issues:
California Legislature. 2003-2004. "SB 18. Traditional Tribal Cultural Places." Public Resources
Code. October 29, 2004. Official California Legislative Information. February 7, 2006.
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?biILnumber=sb_ 18&sess=PR EV&house=
S&author=burton>.
Hanna, Jr., MS, RPA, David C. (SWCA Environmental Consultants). Letter to Mr. Dana Ogden
(City of Tustin) regarding Tentative Tract #16474, Tustin Planning Area 20, Parcel 33
Project - Cultural Resources Review. June 23, 2003.
Maxon, RPA, Patrick O. (SWCA Environmental Consultants). Letter to Mr. Dana Ogdon (City of
Tustin) regarding Archaeological Discovery During Grading of Tustin Field - PA 20,
Tentative Tract #16474, Planning Area 20, Parcel 33. October 7,2003.
R:\Projects\Tustinl.xJ04\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-45
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
5.6.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EISIEIR
The FEIS/EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the
Specific Plan and the associated Implementing Actions 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) (DoN 2001)." The FEIS/EIR determined that with implementation of then
current engineering techniques, unacceptable risk associated with most of the above-mentioned
hazards would be avoided. Both the Cities of Tustin and Irvine have emergency response plans
in place in the event that dam failure would occur. Assuming that evacuation plans are
implemented correctly, the property could be evacuated to avoid loss of human life; however,
property loss would occur. The FEISlEIR determined that compliance with state and local
regulations and standards and engineering procedures and techniques would avoid risk of
significant impacts related to geology and soils and additional mitigation is not required.
5.6.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
There are no changes to the geology and soils conditions on site as evaluated in the FEISlEIR.
5.6.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
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.
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As indicated in Section 3.9 of the FEIS/EIR,
the proposed project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition,
the FEIS/EIR documented that no active or potentially active faults are known to exist at the
ground surface in or immediately adjacent to the Specific Plan area. The proposed project
would not result in a substantial change to fault rupture as identified in the conclusions of the
FEIS/EIR.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The FEISlEIR indicated that ground shaking
could occur as a result of fault movement. Seismic ground shaking impacts associated with the
proposed project would be similar to the impacts identified in the FEIS/EIR. These impacts
would be reduced through compliance with state and local regulations and standards, and
established engineering procedures. Future buildings and structures (I.e., houses, retaining
walls, etc.) would be designed in accordance with the City of Tustin Building Code and the most
recent Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4 and/or California Building Code (CBC).
R:\ProjectsITustin\J00415 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-46
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
The proposed project would not alter the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR related to seismic ground
shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. It was identified in Section 4.9 of the
FEIS/EIR that the Specific Plan area has a high probability of liquefaction due to the presence of
groundwater near the ground surface and loose soils. The State Geologist has mapped the
entire Specific Plan area within a liquefaction hazard zone. The FEIS/EI R identified specific
engineering techniques that would reduce hazards associated with liquefaction, including:
(1) excavation and removal or recompactioh of potentially liquefiable soils; (2) in-site ground
densification; (3) other types of ground improvement; (4) deep foundations that have been
designed to accommodate liquefaction effects; (5) reinforced shallow foundations; and
(6) design of the proposed structures or facilities to withstand predicted ground softening and/or
predicted vertical and later ground displacements to an acceptable level of risk. The FEIS/EIR
determined that with implementation of these established engineering techniques, potential
impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant. The proposed project would
not result in any substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated in, or
the conclusions of, the FEIS/EIR.
iv) Landslides?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. It was identified in Section 4.9 of the
FEIS/EIR that the Specific Plan area is characterized by a very low propensity for seismic
landslides and no impact would occur from landslides. The project site is relatively flat and the
proposed project would not result in any substantial changes to the environmental impacts
previously evaluated in, or the conclusions of, the FEIS/EIR related to landslides.
B. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. It was identified in Section 4.10 of the
FEIS/EIR that implementation of the Specific Plan and associated Implementing Actions would
result in short-term, construction-related erosion and water quality impacts. However, the
FEIS/EIR determined that these impacts would be temporary and construction operations would
be required to comply with any applicable implementation measures by the RWQCB for the
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Newport Bay Watershed, including the sediment
TMDL, and would be required to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
NPDES and SWPPP include the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the
implementation of a monitoring program to measure the effectiveness of the water quality plan.
Implementation of these requirements would reduce construction-related water quality impacts
to less than significant. Refer to Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional
discussion on construction water quality impacts and water quality controls. The proposed
project would not alter the analyses or the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR.
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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Subsidence occurs when settlement of
underconsolidated soils occurs during an event such as earthquake shaking or groundwater
removal. The FEIS/EIR identified that subsidence as a result of groundwater removal has not
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-47
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Davolopment Plan
Addendum
been documented to affect structures in the project area. Lateral spreading is a function of
ground shaking impacts and may occur during an earthquake. All grading operations and
construction would be conducted in conformance with the applicable City of Tustin Grading
Manual (June 1990), and the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic
Zone 4 and/or CBC reducing potential impacts associated with unstable soils to a level
considered less than significant. As noted above under item A. iii, the project site is subject to
liquefaction and this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with
implementation of appropriate engineering and construction techniques. The project site is not
subject to landslides. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would not alter the analyses or the conclusions of the EIR relative to
unstable soils.
D. Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life and property?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The FEIS/EIR identified that the Specific
Plan area is located within an area of high to very high expansivity. However, it was determined
in the FEIS/EIR that individual developers within the reuse area would be required to evaluate
the expansion potential of on-site soils and implement appropriate remedial measures in
accordance with the local jurisdiction's requirements. The FEIS/EIR identified potential remedial
measures such as removal of clay-rich soils and replacement with a specified thickness of non-
expansive granular soil beneath structures, concrete slabs, and footings. Other methods to
remediate expansive soils include improving the expansive soil with pre-saturation of expansive
materials and/or supplemental reinforcement of the building foundations and slabs as well as
installing post-construction drainage control to minimize the collection of water under or
adjacent to structures. The FEIS/EIR determined that with implementation of these established
engineering techniques and compliance with the local jurisdiction's requirements (e.g., City of
Tustin Grading Manua~, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than
significant. The proposed project would not result in any substantial changes to the
environmental impacts previously evaluated in, or the conclusions of, the FEIS/EIR.
E. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal system where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Neither the project evaluated in the
FEIS/EIR nor the proposed project includes the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems.
5.6.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
No significant geology/soils impacts were identified in the FEIS/EIR based on the requirement to
comply with applicable state and local regulations and standards (e.g., City of Tustin Grading
Manual and the most recent version of the UBC for Seismic Zone 4 and/or CBC), and
established engineering procedures and techniques. Therefore, no mitigation was required. No
new mitigation measures are required for the proposed project because the existing measures
are sufficient to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. In addition, compliance
with the most recent versions of the UBC and/or CBC and the City of Tustin Grading Manual
result in the integration of the most current technologies and methods available to reduce
geology, soils and seismic impacts at the time of construction.
R\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-48
Environmental Anafysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.6.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting geology/soils,
which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no substantial
changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major
revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental
effects related to geology/soils than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new
information of substantial importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the
CEQA Guidelines, related to geology/soils has been revealed that would require major revisions
to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would not result in any significant
unavoidable impacts related to geology/soils. Additionally, the proposed project would not result
in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts related to geology and soils beyond that
identified in the FEIS/EIR.
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address geology/soils issues:
Califomia. Division of Mines and Geology. "Seismic Hazard Zones Map" [Orange 7.5-Minute
Quadrangle]. Sacramento: Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998.
5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
5.7.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
Hazardous Materials
The FEIS/EIR includes a detailed discussion of the historic and then-current hazardous
materials use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The DoN is
responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to
releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. There are two ongoing major
environmental programs which are described in the FEIS/EIR: the Installation Restoration
Program (IRP) and the Compliance Program. The IRP identifies, assesses, characterizes, and
remediates or manages contamination from past hazardous waste disposal operations and
hazardous materials spills. The DoN Compliance Program addresses solid and infectious waste
management, surface water/groundwater discharge, hazardous materials/waste management,
air emissions, storage tanks, oil/water separators, wash areas/grease racks, fuel line closure,
well abandonment/destruction activities, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos-containing
material (ACM), radon, and lead-based paint (LBP). The IRP and DoNs Compliance Program
are discussed below:
IRP Program - All IRP sites at MCAS Tustin were investigated, and comprehensive risk
assessments were conducted. Sixteen IRP sites were originally identified (refer to
Section 3.11 of the FEIS/EIR). Of these, seven sites were identified as requiring a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) under the IRP. Eight sites were identified for
Expanded Site Inspections, and the final site was recommended for, and received, a No
Further Action (NFA) Determination. When the EIS/EIR was distributed for public review,
R:IProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-49
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specmc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
four sites were processing through the RI/FS process and six sites were recommended for
NFA or included in an operable unit (OU) for further action. Because primarily petrOleum
contaminants were detected, two sites were transferred out of the IRP for Petroleum
Corrective Actions overseen by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
remaining three sites (IRP-4, -10, and -14) were transferred out of the IRP and were
assessed and treated as areas of concem (AOCs) under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment Program. Once treated within the RCRA Facility
Assessment Program, the AOCs are granted a NFA.
To eliminate any imminent danger to the public and the environment and to meet the LRA's
need for cleanup of high-priority reuse parcels, investigation areas at MCAS Tustin were
designated as operable units (OUs). An OU is a "discrete portion of remedial response that
manages mitigation, or eliminates or mitigates a release, a threat of release, or a pathway of
exposure." There were initially four OUs identified and described in the FEIS/EIR; however,
subsequent to release of the Draft EIS/EIR for public review, IRPs and AOCs in OUs 2 and
4 were recommended for N FA. It should be noted that subsequent to certification of the
FEIS/EIR, only a portion of OU4 was determined eligible for NFA (refer to discussion below
under "Current Conditions. ")
. DoN Compliance Program - As identified in the FEISlEIR there are numerous DoN
compliance programs in place to ensure that waste management practices are conducted in
a manner to protect human health and the environment. Many of the compliance programs
identified in Section 3.11 of the FEISlEI R allow for the on-going clean-up by DoN after the
property is transferred. The 1999 Federal Facilities Site Remediation Agreement (FFSRA)
provides for coordinated remediation via these compliance programs under CERCLA, RCRA
and other applicable laws under the oversight of the Califomia Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) in coordination with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
The FEIS/EIR addressed construction- and operation-related activities that could pose a hazard.
Construction activities near or at I RPs have the potential to interfere with ongoing DoN
remediation and would be subject to controls identified in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Records of Decision (ROD). The potential
to disturb contaminated soils was identified as a potentially significant impact that would be
mitigated through compliance with applicable regulations and provisions of approved
remediation programs. The FEIS/EI R also concluded that hazards addressed through the
Compliance Program would not significantly impact construction or operation of the Specific
Plan.
The FEIS/EIR identified that the proposed Specific Plan included uses that could use or
generate small amounts of hazardous substances (commercial/business uses and maintenance
activities), and that fertilizers and pesticides would be used at the golf course and for park
maintenance. The presence of these materials would create the potential for accidental spills,
equipment failure, and other unanticipated events. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the use of
BMPs, integrated pest management (I PM) practices, and compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local regulations and NPDES requirements in the handling and use of hazardous
substances would reduce potential impacts to a level considered less than significant.
The FEISlEIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan and associated Implementing
Actions would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes,
substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the DoN would
R:\Projects\TustinlJ004\5 Environ Analysis.031306,doc
5-50
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove,
manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. The FEIS/EIR
identified one location where proposed residential areas would overlay sites that have been
classified as hazardous wastes in the past (the medium density residential area north of
Valencia Avenue included in the Specific Plan). However, the DoN will remediate alllRP sites
overlain by proposed residential uses to residential standards per the Compliance Programs.
Airport Hazards
The FEISlEIR discussed airport-related hazards in Sections 3.1 and 4.1, Land Use. The Airport
Land Use Commission for Orange County has a review policy for buildings of a certain height
(110 to 200 feet within the Specific Plan area) to reduce interference with flight operations. Any
structures within the Specific Plan that exceed the height thresholds would be subject to review
by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airport Land Use Commission. The
FEIS/EIR, in light of these measures, determined there would not be a significant airport
hazards impact.
Because all flight operations at MCAS Tustin ceased before certification of the FEIS/EIR, flight-
related land use restrictions, such as clear zones and Accident Potential Zones (APZs) also
ceased. Flight-related height restrictions and land use restrictions associated with the Browning
Corridor and Ground Controlled Approach (GCA) Corridor easements were also terminated;
however, the applicable zoning ordinances would continue to restrict land use and building
heights, similar to existing surrounding land uses. Therefore, impacts within these easements
were determined to be less than significant.
5.7.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Hazardous Materials
As stated above, the DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration
programs in response to previous releases of hazardous substances into soils and groundwater
at MCAS Tustin. There are two ongoing major environmental programs which are described in
the FEIS/EIR: the IRP and the Compliance Program. Since approval of the FEIS/EIR significant
progress has been made in investigating and cleaning up OUs, IRP sites, and AOCs at MCAS
Tustin. The location of these sites is shown on Exhibit 6.
With exception of OU-1 and the remaining portion of OU-4 that require further remedial action
(described below), the OUs, IRP sites and AOCs identified at the former MCAS Tustin have
been closed. It should be noted that OU-1 was separated into two OUs (OU-1A and OU-1B)
subsequent to certification of the FEIS/EIR.
. OU-1A - IRP-13 South where Trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP)
were found in groundwater and soil. The groundwater treatment systems are currently
being designed and a Draft Groundwater Remedial Design was submitted in June 2005.
A Final Groundwater Remedial Design report is scheduled to be completed in Spring
2006. The groundwater treatment systems are anticipated to be operating in 2007.
. OU-1B - IRP-3 (Paint Stripper Disposal Area) and IRP-12 (Drum Storage Area No.2)
where TCE was found in the groundwater and soil. The groundwater treatment system
enhancements are currently being designed and a Draft Groundwater Remedial Design
was submitted in June 2005. A Final Groundwater Remedial Design report is scheduled
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-51
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
Environmental Conditions Exhibit 6
!�
' C O N S U! t 4 N G
r7 RVieyclpRurvrVWO�Gmpio�Ei EC VN]C6ye!
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
to be completed in Spring 2006. The groundwater treatment systems are anticipated to
be operating in 2007.
. OU-4 - Although the FEIS/EIR identified OU-4 for NFA, a portion of the OU required
further remediation. OU-4 was divided into OU-4A and OU-4B which are made up of
several sites each. OU-4A was given NFA status and authorized for transfer on
January 3, 2005. OU-4B is comprised of sites that were evaluated for further action in a
Draft Feasibility Study issued August 23, 2005. The Final Draft Feasibility Study is
scheduled to be released in Spring 2006.
The DoN is also in the process of remediating MTBE contamination associated with a former
gas station located at Site 222. In August 2001, the Navy implemented an interim Petroleum
Corrective Action Plan (PCAP) which initiated a remediation program involving the removal and
treatment of MTBE soil and installation of a groundwater treatment facility and extraction wells
to contain the existing groundwater contamination. To date, all soil contamination at Site 222
has been completed; however, the DoN has not yet determined a final remediation method to
address the remaining groundwater contamination.
Airport Hazards
In December 2001, the Airport Land Use Commission approved a comprehensive update to the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). Prior to the update, the AELUP addressed all aviation
facilities in Orange County in one volume. As a result of the update, separate documents
addressing each of the facilities individually were prepared. Since a non-aviation plan for MCAS
Tustin had been adopted by the City (January 2001) and the DoN had published its Record of
Decision for the disposal of surplus federal property at MCAS Tustin approving the Specific Plan
(March 2001) at the time the AELUP update was prepared, AELUP provisions for MCAS Tustin
as a military air facility were not carried forward. However, the Specific Plan Area, including the
Master Developer footprint, is within the AELUP Height Restriction Zone for John Wayne
Airport. The height restrictions and other conditions have not changed since the certification of
the FEIS/EIR.
5.7.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan would result in generally the same types of land uses being
developed within the project area, including the Master Developer footprint. As identified in the
FEIS/EIR, these uses would generate and use small amounts of hazardous materials for
operation and maintenance activities. It should be noted that the proposed golf course has been
removed from the Specific Plan and is not included in the proposed Development Plan. The golf
course would have required extensive use of pesticides and fertilizer for maintenance. Although
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-52
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
the proposed Development Plan includes additional parkland (including a central community
park connected to a linear park extending through the site), park uses do not require the same
level of maintenance and associated pesticide/fertilizer use as a golf course. Implementation of
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not change the
conclusion in the FEIS/EIR relative to hazards use, transport, disposal, emission, or release of
hazardous materials. Use of BMPs, integrated pest management (IPM) practices, and
compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and NPDES requirements,
including compliance with Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), RWQCB, and DTSC
regulations as necessary, in the handling and use of hazardous substances would reduce
potential impacts to a level considered less than significant.
As identified in Section 3, the original and proposed Specific Plans include three school sites.
The Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) and Irvine Unified School District (IUSD) would be the
agencies responsible for the development of schools with the Specific Plan area. The school
districts are required to comply with the requirements of Section 15186 of the State CEQA
Guidelines regarding school facilities (address potential health impacts resulting from exposure
to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances) and to complete additional site testing per the
provisions of the State Education Code.
Therefore, as determined necessary by each school district, subsequent environmental
documentation for the proposed schools may be required. As discussed in Section 5.13, the
City of Tustin has entered into agreements with TUSD and IUSD to address impacts from
Specific Plan development. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would not be significant impacts
to proposed land uses related to hazards and hazardous materials based on: compliance with
federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and NPDES permit requirements; and due to the pre-
development remediation by DoN and any school district accepting property, under oversight of
the DTSC and the Regional Board. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan do not change the analysis or conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and no new
mitigation is required.
It should be noted that the discharge of groundwater that may exceed water quality standards
for selenium, nutrients, and other pollutants is discussed in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality.
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. 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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As noted above, the DoN clean-up and
remediation of hazardous materials contamination within the Specific Plan area, including the
Master Developer footprint, is continuing. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, development of the
reuse area would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes,
substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the DoN would
implement various remedial actions that would remove, remediate to safe standards, manage,
or isolate potentially hazardous substances pursuant to the applicable regulatory standards and
under oversight of the DTSC in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
R\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-53
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to
previous contamination from MCAS Tustin operations beyond what was identified in the
FEIS/EIR. As noted in the FEIS/EIR, the DoN remediation within certain areas of the reuse area
is a requirement of the DoN. The property must be deemed suitable for reuse before any reuse
occurs (by lease or deed). AIIIRP sites would be remediated to applicable regulatory standards
of the applicable regulatory agency and will not be issued a FOST until this is accomplished.
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working In the project area?
F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result In a
safety hazard for people residing or working In the project area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, with
termination of operations at MCAS Tustin, people would not be subject to safety hazards from
operations at MCAS Tustin. The project site is within the AELUP for John Wayne Airport and
subject to identified height restrictions. Buildings exceeding 110 to 200 feet (depending on their
location within the site) would be subject to review by the FAA and Airport Land Use
Commission. There were no height restrictions in the original Specific Plan; however, with the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment structures within the area designated Community Core on
the Land Use Plan (refer to Revised Figure 2-1) (Neighborhood D-Planning Areas 8, 13, and 14)
are allowed maximum of heights of 150 feet, with exceptions to this approved by the Community
Development Director allowing up to 180 feet (refer to Chapter 3, Land Use and Development!
Reuse Regulations, Section 3.6, Neighborhood D, of the Specific Plan). Review of structures
that exceed the height restrictions outlined in the AELUP would require on obstruction
evaluation by FAA and the Airport Land Use Commission to determine whether hazards to
airport operations would result. These measures assure that potential safety hazards are
reduced to less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are needed.
The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook identifies
that Section 17215 of the State Education Code requires a school district to notify the
Department of Education before acquiring title to property for a new school site within two miles
of an airport runway. There are no school sites within the Specific Plan area within two miles of
a runway for John Wayne Airport; therefore, this requirement does not apply.
G. Impair Implementation of or physically Interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan do not substantially change the backbone circulation system in the
Specific Plan area substantially or in a way that would interfere with any applicable emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As a result, no significant impacts to emergency
response or evacuation result from the proposed project.
H. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. This issue was not addressed in the
FEIS/EIR as the Specific Plan area is within an urbanized area and not within an area subject to
wildland fires. No significant impacts would result.
R:\ProjeclsITuslin\J00415 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-54
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specmc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.7.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Consistent with the conclusion of the FEIS/EIR, no significant impacts would occur based on:
compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and NPDES requirements; pre-
development remediation by DoN and any school district accepting property, under oversight of
the DTS and RWQCB. Based on this conclusion, no mitigation measures were induded in the
FEIS/EIR related to hazardous wastes, substances, and materials. The proposed Specific Plan
Amendment and Development do not change the analysis conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and no
new mitigation is required.
5.7.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting hazards and
hazardous materials, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been
no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will
require major revisions to the FEISlEIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to hazards and hazardous materials than previously analyzed in
the FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in
subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to hazards and hazardous
materials has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its
conclusions.
The FEISlEIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan and associated Implementing
Actions would not result in significant impacts related to hazardous wastes, substances, and
materials The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR.
Pursuant to the FFSRA, standards, protocols, and procedures available must be used in the
DoN's remediation of property and groundwater, assuring incorporation of the most effective
available means of pollution control and remediation currently available.
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the fOllowing sources were used to address hazards and hazardous materials issues:
Airport Land Use Commission. Orange County Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.
Orange County, California: December 19, 2002.
California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics. California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook. January 2002.
Bechtel Environmental, Inc. and Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Final Amended Site
Management Plan Fiscal Year 2005 Update Former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin.
San Diego: Bechtel, February 2005.
R\ProjectsITustinIJClO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-55
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
5.8.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
Construction Imoacts
The FEIS/EIR concluded that construction of the project evaluated would result in a temporary
increase in the amount of runoff, which would contain construction pollutants, including,
specifically, high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS). This in turn would contribute to local and
regional surface water quality impacts. Construction would not impact groundwater in the deep
regional aquifer ground water zones; however, it would result in a temporary impact to water in
the shallow ground water zones which would be lowered during construction. In addition,
because water is only pumped from the shallow groundwater zones for testing and dewatering,
this temporary impact would not affect Orange County's deep aquifer groundwater supply or
operations.
Additionally, the FEIS/EIR identified that San Diego Creek and Newport Bay are listed as
impaired for several pollutants, including sediment. As a result, construction operations would
be required to comply with applicable requirements and implementation measures of TMDLs of
the Newport Bay watershed, including the sediment TMDL. Sediment was identified as a
primary construction phase pollutant of concern and it was determined that BMPs would have to
be implemented during project construction in order to comply with and implement the then-
current statewide NPDES Permit for Construction Activities (General Construction Permit), the
City's water quality ordinance, the City's then-current General NPDES Permit for its municipal
storm drain system (MS4 Permit), and the then-current Drainage Area Management Plan
(DAMP). Pursuant to those same regulatory requirements, preparation of a SWPPP that
identifies BMPs to be implemented to control construction phase pollutants, including sediment,
would be required prior to start of construction. Those BMPs ensure that water bodies
downstream of project receiving waters would meet TMDLs.
The FEIS/EIR concluded that compliance with applicable City and regulatory agencies
standards and requirements, including compliance with the conditions of the DAMP and NPDES
permits, would reduce construction impacts to a level considered less than significant.
Ooerationallmoacts
The FEIS/EIR discusses the Santa Ana Regional Board's (SARWQCB or Regional Board)
adopted Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (1995), as amended (Basin
Plan), which establishes water quality standards for the primary ground and surface waters in
the Santa Ana watershed pursuant to the California Water Code (~13000 et. seq.) and the
federal Clean Water Act. The Basin Plan also identifies water quality problems in the Newport
Bay Watershed, including water quality impairments, and sets forth standards and TMDLs to
address them.
Groundwater Impacts
The FEIS/EIR identified that there are 16 potential buried well casings on-site; however, these
wells would be properly capped prior to development to protect groundwater resources. The
capping of these wells would be performed pursuant to SARWQCB regulatory requirements and
would not result in significant groundwater impacts.
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 EnVIron Analysis-031306.doc
5-56
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Spec/He Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
The FEIS/EIR incorrectly identified the potential for four non-potable water wells to be
constructed by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) along Barranca Parkway. In fact, the
adopted Specific Plan (Section 3.11.24, Utilities) and an agreement between the City of Tustin
and IRWD identified the potential for up to five wells along Barranca Parkway. The wells would
be used to pump water from the deep groundwater aquifers. Because there is only one well
which exists, three new non-potable water wells could be constructed based on IRWD needs.
Water can also be pumped from other IRWD wells if more non-potable water is needed by the
District. The FEIS/EIR identified that additional groundwater withdrawal from the deep aquifer
for use by IRWD to meet service area-wide demand could potentially result in significant
adverse affects by lowering the groundwater table. However, groundwater pricing controls
regulate groundwater pumping to prevent substantial draw down or overdraft of the deep
aquifer. Therefore, while up to five wells could potentially be constructed, the likelihood that this
will actually occur has yet to be determined. In addition, IRWD must coordinate pumping of
groundwater with the Orange County Water District and SARWQCB. Further, pumping is
subject to the regulatory requirements of the Basin Plan and, it should be noted, the Orange
County Water District Act of 1933, as amended. Therefore, the FEIS/EIR determined that there
would be no significant adverse impacts to groundwater.
The FEIS/EIR identified three contaminated water-bearing zones (WBZs) located underneath
the Specific Plan area. It should be noted that the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) in coordination with the Regional Board will oversee the Department of Navy
remediation activities to ensure that there is no contamination from the WBZs to the aquifer and
to assure full remediation of groundwater. Pursuant to the Federal Facility Site Remediation
Agreement (FFSRA), the DoN agreed in 1999 to remediate all pollutants of concern released to
WBZs and/or groundwater in compliance with the procedures, conditions and standards set
forth in that agreement. DTSC, in coordination with the SARWQCB has the duty under the
FFSRA to supervise the remediation work and to assure remediation is conducted according to
the most stringent standards, requirements and protocols, including residential and school site
remediation standards, prior to transfer of affected property for development. FFSRA ~ 8.1.
Therefore, the FEIS/EIR determined that the project would not result in significant impacts to
groundwater.
Water Quality Impacts
The FEIS/EIR analyzes potential water quality impacts to groundwater and surface water
quality. It was concluded that dewatering for construction and development could result in water
containing pollutants being discharged into impaired water bodies. However, the FEIS/EIR
concluded that all discharges produced as a result of dewatering activities would be treated as
necessary (for example, either via the sanitary sewer system or BMPs) to meet applicable
standards prior to discharge into local and/or regional water bodies. Sewering or other treatment
of dewatering discharges prior to release would assure surface water compliance with Basin
Plan and TMDL requirements. Therefore, the FEIS/EIR determined that impacts associated with
dewatering would be less than significant.
Although the base was developed with substantial impervious improvements, including tarmac,
runways, buildings, parking lots and hangars, the FEIS/EIR concluded that development of the
Specific Plan area would increase the amount of impervious surface. Therefore the amount of
runoff (both volumes and velocities) would be increased. In addition, urban development would
introduce pollutants associated with urban land uses. As a result, the FEIS/EIR identified that
post-construction runoff can be expected to contribute higher levels of urban pollutants to
surface waters. The FEIS/EIR also identified a potential long-term benefit to surface water
R:\Pro]ecIsITuslin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306_doc
5-57
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
quality due to elimination of agricultural operations. By eliminating agricultural operations,
nutrients released into the Peters Canyon Channel or infiltrated into shallow groundwater would
be reduced, which would help to control algae blooms and other nutrient-related water quality
effects. Elimination of agriculture in the developed condition could also lead to reductions in
toxic substances.
The FEIS/EIR discussed that, under the then-current NPDES permit issued to Orange County
and 16 cities, including the City of Tustin (as co-permittees) for their municipal storm drainage
system (MS4 Permit), all development and significant redevelopment must implement BMPs
that will control post-development urban pollutants in accordance with the standards,
requirements and conditions of the City's water quality ordinance, the MS4 Permit, and the
DAMP, in order to comply with applicable TMDLs. The FEIS/EIR concluded that compliance
with these requirements would reduce potential post-construction surface water quality impacts
to less than significant. Based on such compliance, none of the proposed activities would result
in a continual violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements causing
significant water quality impairment.
5.8.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
The analysis and conclusions presented in Section 3.10, Water Resources, of the FEIS/EIR,
related to groundwater and surface water (drainage patterns, runoff volumes and velocities) has
not changed substantially. As discussed in the FEIS/EIR, the project site is located within the
San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed. The site lies at the eastern edge of a broad coastal
plain, known as the Tustin plain, which slopes gently south towards the Pacific Ocean. Local
topography and man-made drainage facilities influence surface drainage in the vicinity of the
Specific Plan area. The Barranca Channel drains a portion of the project site, as well as areas
to the north and northwest of the site, and then discharges into Peters Canyon Channel to the
south. The Santa Ana-Santa Fe Channel drains areas to the north and northeast of the project
site area and flows into Peters Canyon Channel, which ultimately discharges to the Lower San
Diego Creek and ultimately the Upper Newport Bay.
An updated discussion of groundwater quality as it relates to ongoing DoN remediation efforts is
provided in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Information regarding storm drain
facilities, including additional information about the regional channels in the project area is
provided in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems.
Since the FEIS/EIR was completed, new state, federal, and local regulations and updated
versions of the General NPDES permits and the DAMP have been adopted or approved by the
SARWQCB and the co-permittees. Also, additional information relating to surface water and
groundwater quality in the Newport Bay watershed has become available. Specifically,
additional information has become available regarding the presence of various pollutants of
concern in Peters Canyon Channel, San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, and high
groundwater concentrations of selenium and nutrients within the watershed. A summary
discussion of additional water quality information regarding pollutants of concern and current
regulatory requirements in the watershed and a focused discussion of potential project impacts
with respect to nutrients and selenium is provided below. Note that while not all of the following
information is "new," it is provided to give a comprehensive overview of water quality conditions
and regulations.
R:\ProjedsITustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-58
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Pollutants of Concern
The current DAMP requires identification of pollutants of concern associated with projects
considered for discretionary approvals. As identified in the FEI5/EIR, the pollutants of concern
that should be considered for this project are: (a) pollutants associated with construction
activities and urban development uses planned pursuant to the proposed project, and which
have the potential to impair surface waters; and (b) pollutants identified by regulatory guidance
as potentially impairing surface waters in the project vicinity. The following pollutants were
selected as constituents of concern based upon the regulations described below, per the DAM P
and the LIP,. and based upon the pollutants that are anticipated or potentially could be
generated by the project (based upon the proposed land uses):
.
Selenium
Nutrients (Phosphorus and Nitrogen)
Sediment (T5S and Turbidity)
Trace Metals (Copper, Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc)
Pathogens (Bacteria, Viruses, and Protozoa)
Organic Compounds
Hydrocarbons (Oil and Grease, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) Pesticides
Trash and Debris
Pesticides (including organochloride and organophosphate pesticides)
Oxygen Demanding Substances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Both construction phase and post-development potential groundwater quality and surface water
quality impacts with respect to the identified pollutants of concern are evaluated and compared
to conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR in the following analysis.
New information regarding two of these pollutants of concern, selenium and nutrients, is now
available and is summarized below. I nformation regarding the other pollutants of concern is set
forth in the DAMP and is also summarized below.
Selenium
Selenium is a natural trace element in the environment that has chemical and physical
properties that are intermediate between those of metals and non-metals. It is an essential
nutrient for fish, birds, humans, and other animals. One the most important features of selenium
is the very narrow margin between nutritionally optimal and potentially toxic dietary exposures
for vertebrate animals' Excessive amounts of selenium in certain bioavailable forms in surface
waters can indicate the potential for toxicological effects on biota.2 Strong evidence indicates
that the major selenium uptake route in wildlife is not accumulation of dissolved selenium from
water, but rather accumulation from ingestion via the food chain.3 VVhile selenium is in soluble
form in the water column, algae, bacteria, and other benthic organisms can take it up, and
selenium thereby enters the food chain.
Selenium tends to bioaccumulate in bio-tissues, and as predators in the food chain ingest
species that have taken up selenium, the potential for toxicological effects to biota develops'
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, June 14, 2002. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) lor Toxic
Pollutants, San Diego Creek and Newport Bay-Part D-8elenium (Se)." ("Part DO). http://www.epa.gov/region09
lwaterltmdl/nbay Itsdd0602. pdl
'lQ.,!j 1, pp. 1-2
'Id.
'j!j
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-59
Environmental Analysis and
Ex~anahonofCheckHstResponses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Toxicological effects in wildlife include lowered reproduction rates, shortened life spans, and
stunted growthS However, currently pending detailed biological studies are required to
determine whether or not selenium is negatively impacting biota in the San Diego Creek/Upper
Newport Bay watershed and to ascertain the levels of selenium in water that might result in
toxicological effects to watershed wildlife6 Some available data indicate that selenium may be
present in surface waters within the San Diego Creek Watershed at levels that could contribute
to water column toxicity.7 There is no evidence that high concentrations of selenium are present
and contributing to toxicity in Upper Newport Bay or Lower Newport Bay, but further studies of
selenium and its effects in the bay are underway.
There is convincing evidence that the primary source of selenium in surface waters of the San
Diego Creek Watershed is shallow groundwater with high selenium concentrations that enters
surface waters.9 Concentrations of selenium in groundwater in the watershed are not
homogenous. Instead, selenium concentrations in groundwater vary widely from place to place
within the watershed, depending on specific location of the groundwater within the watershed.1O
The highest groundwater concentrations of selenium are found in shallow groundwater in the
area historically characterized by an ephemeral lake and marsh known as the "Swamp of the
Frogs."" The evidence suggests that the high concentrations of selenium in the groundwater of
this area, which encompasses the Specific Plan area, result from oxidation and leaching of
subsurface soils underlying the old lake/marsh.
Selenium-laden groundwater then makes its way to surface waters, primarily in Peters Canyon
Channel and its tributaries.'2 This can occur naturally (through subsurface flow, seeps, springs
and weepholes) via leaching of irrigated agricultural soils and subsequent remobilization in
irrigation water and/or via dewatering of shallow groundwater or remediation activities.'3 Recent
investigations into the sources of selenium in the watershed have found that approximately
62 to 87 percent of the base flows in San Diego Creek result from groundwater inputs to the
creek, either naturally or through groundwater dewatering and remediation operations."
Approximately 96 percent of the selenium found in San Diego Creek and its tributaries results
from these groundwater inputs.'s In addition, data indicate that upstream sources of selenium
also exist in the watershed, primarily associated with naturally occurring selenium found in
bedrock and soils, particularly marine sediments located in hillsides, open spaces, and
agricultural lands within the watershed.
'Id.
'j,;'
7 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, December 15, 2000. Final Problem Statement
for the Total Maximum Daily Load for Toxic Substances in Newport Bay and San Diego Creek ("Problem
Statement."), 91, p. 7, Table 23, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/pdflnbtmdUinal.pdf
'Id.
,-
Part D, p. 14
lOoCalifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, December 20, 2004. General Waste
Discharge Requirements for Short-Term Groundwater-related Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges to
Surface Waters within the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed, Order No. RB-2004-0021, NPDES
No. CAG99B002 ("General Permit"), Fact Sheet, 91, p. 2: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/pdf/04-21.pdf
\General Permit,]
1 Part D, p. 3; See Selenium Contour Map
"Id.
13 Part D, pp.1, 3
14 General Permit, 91, p. 2
15 !Q
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-60
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS TusM Zone Chenge (Specific Plen Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and DeV910pment Plan
Addendum
San Diego Creek contributes the largest load of selenium among all tributaries to Newport Bay
(Lee and Taylor 2001a). Of the load from San Diego Creek, Peters Canyon Channel (which
conveys selenium from shallow groundwater) represents the major source of selenium during
dry weather. Other sources may include runoff from hillsides, open spaces, agricultural lands,
and commercial nursery sites. High concentrations of selenium were found in nursery channels
during rain events, although it remains unclear if the selenium sources are from the commercial
nurseries or from sources existing upstream of the nurseries. During rain events, the selenium
load from the upper reach of San Diego Creek was comparable to that from Peters Canyon
Channel suggesting runoff from open space is a significant source during rain events. Low
concentrations of selenium were found in nursery channels during base flow conditions. 16
Nutrients
The FEIS/EIR discussed the effect of excessive nutrients on surface waters and the TMDL that
the Regional Board adopted in 1998 for nutrients. Nutrients promote algal blooms and
excessive growth of rooted aquatic vegetation, which can create an aesthetic nuisance and
interfere with recreational and navigational activities." In addition, excessive nutrients may
adversely affect and decrease dissolved oxygen (DO), creating odor and an oxygen-depleted
environment for aquatic organisms in surface waters with low DO.'8 However, it is also
recognized that too few nutrients in a waterbody can adversely affect wildlife.'.
Newport Bay has exhibited algal blooms indicating excessive nutrients for over 25 years"O
Although a number of improvements in water quality management measurements have resulted
in substantially decreased nitrate concentration in the Bay, algal blooms are still occurring in
Newport Bay and San Diego Creek.21 Historically, the primary sources of high nutrient input to
surface waters of the watershed have been tailwaters from the irrigation of agricultural crops
and runoff and tailwaters from several commercial nurseries.22 Water quality control measures
implemented in the watershed, including irrigation and nitrogen control measures implemented
by agricultural operators and commercial nurseries, as well as de-nitrification of diverted San
Diego Creek flows implemented by the IRWD in their managed wetland ponds and implemented
by Caltrans, have combined to reduce concentrations of nitrogen compounds and algal biomass
in the Bay.23 Algal blooms are now largely restricted to the Upper Bay and are less extensive
than in prior years.2'
Recent data suggests nitrogen loading within the Upper Newport Bay may still be occurring due
to inputs from rising groundwater, groundwater dewatering and remediation activities,
atmospheric deposition, open space inputs, and in-Bay sediment nitrogen.2. Recent
investigations indicate that as much as 85 percent of the nitrate concentrations found in San
Diego Creek and its tributaries may result from groundwater exfiltration into watershed surface
'6 USEPA, June 2002, Total Maximum Daily Loads For Toxic Pollutants San Diego Creek end Newport Bay,
California
17 Basin Plan Amendment, p. 5-41
18 General Permit, Finding No. 15, p. 5
191d.
20 Basin Plan Amendmen~ p. 5-41
21 General Permit, Finding No. 15, p. 5
22 Basin Plan Amendment, p. 5-41
23 ]!!.; General Permit, Fact Sheet, 9 4, p. 5
24 General Permit, Fact Sheet, 94, p. 5; General Permit, Order, Finding No. 17, p. 6
25 General Permit, Order, Finding No. 15, p. 5
R:\Projects\TustinlJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-61
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
waters.26 These studies indicate that the highest groundwater nitrate concentrations are found in
groundwater beneath the Tustin alluvial plan, which encompasses the Specific Plan area, and in
the vicinity of EI Modena Channel, Peters Canyon Channel, the 1-5 freeway, and the area
tributary to lower San Diego Creek.27
Sediments (TSS and Turbidity)
Excessive erosion, transport, and deposition of sediment in surface waters is a significant form
of pollution resulting in water quality problems. Sediment imbalances impair designated uses.
Excessive sediment can impair aquatic life by filling interstitial spaces of spawning gravels,
impairing fish food sources, filling rearing pools, and reducing beneficial habitat structure in
stream channels. In addition, excessive sediment can cause taste and odor problems in drinking
water supplies and block water intake structures.
Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus)
Nutrients are inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus. There are several sources of
nutrients in urban areas, mainly fertilizers in runoff from lawns, pet wastes, failing septic
systems, and atmospheric deposition from industry and automobile emissions. Nutrient over-
enrichment is especially prevalent in agricultural areas where manure and fertilizer inputs to
crops significantly contribute to nitrogen and phosphorus levels in streams and other receiving
waters. Eutrophication due to excessive nutrient input can lead to changes in periphyton,
benthic, and fish communities; extreme eutrophication, surface algal scum, water discoloration,
and the release of toxins from sediment can occur.
Trace Metals (Copper, Lead, and Zinc)
The primary sources of trace metals in stormwater are typically commercially available metals
used in transportation, buildings, and infrastructure. Metals are also found in fuels, adhesives,
paints, and other coatings. Copper, lead, and zinc are the most prevalent metals typically found
in urban runoff. Other trace metals, such as cadmium, chromium, and mercury, are typically not
detected in urban runoff or are detected at very low levels (LA County, 2000). Metals are of
concern because of toxic effects on aquatic life and the potential for ground water
contamination. High concentrations of certain metals can bioaccumulate in fish and shellfish and
affect beneficial uses of a waterbody.
Pathogens (Bacteria, Viruses, and Protozoa)
Elevated pathogens are typically caused by the transport of animal or human fecal waste from
the watershed. Runoff that flows over land such urban runoff can mobilize pathogens, including
bacteria and viruses. Even runoff from natural areas can contain pathogens (e.g., from wildlife).
Other sources of pathogens in urban areas include pets and leaky sanitary sewer pipes. The
presence of pathogens in runoff can impair receiving waters and contaminate drinking water
sources. Elevated pathogens are typically caused by the transport of animal or human fecal
wastes from the watershed. Historically an indicator organism such as fecal coliform has been
used for pathogens due to the difficulty of monitoring for pathogens directly. More recently, the
scientific community has questioned the use of indicator organisms, as scientific studies have
shown no correlation between indicator and pathogen levels and therefore total and fecal
26 Hibbs, B., March 1, 2000. Nitrate in San Diego Creek Watershed, Department of Geological Sciences, California
State University, Los Angeles.
27 General Permit, Fact Sheet, 91. p. 2; see Nutrient Contour Map.
R\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-62
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Chonge (Specinc Pion Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
coliform may not indicate a significant potential for causing human illness (Paulsen and List,
2003).
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Oil and Grease and PAHs)
The sources of oil, grease, and other petroleum hydrocarbons in urban areas include spillage of
fuels and lubricants, discharge of domestic and industrial wastes, atmospheric deposition, and
runoff. Runoff can be contaminated by leachate from asphalt roads, wearing of tires, and
deposition from automobile exhaust. Some petroleum hydrocarbons, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), can accumulate in aquatic organisms from contaminated water,
sediments, and food and can be toxic to aquatic life at low concentrations. Hydrocarbons can
persist in sediments for long periods of time and can result in adverse impacts on the diversity
and abundance of benthic communities. Hydrocarbons can be measured as total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH), oil and grease, or as individual groups of hydrocarbons, such as PAHs.
Pesticides
Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) are chemical compounds
commonly used to control insects, rodents, plant diseases, and weeds. Pesticide applications
can result in runoff containing toxic levels of active ingredients.
Trash and Debris
Improperly disposed or handled trash (such as paper, plastic, polystyrene packing foam, and
aluminum materials) and biOdegradable organic debris (such as leaves, grass cuttings, and food
waste) can accumulate on the ground surface where it can be entrained in urban runoff. The
presence of trash and debris can have a significant impact on the recreational value of a water
body and aquatic habitat. Excess organic matter such as food wastes in urban trash can create
a high biochemical oxygen demand in a stream and there by lower its water quality. Also, in
areas where stagnant water exists, the presence of excess organic matter can promote septic
conditions resulting in the growth of undesirable organisms and the release of odorous and
hazardous compounds such as hydrogen sulfide.
Organic Compounds and Oxygen-Demanding Compounds
Two additional categories of pollutants of concern that are associated with urban runoff are
organic compounds and oxygen-demanding compounds. The pollutants in these two categories
are largely subsumed by the categories above.
Water Quality ReQulatorv ReQuirements
California Toxics Rule (CTR)
The CTR is a federal regulation providing numeric water quality criteria for certain toxic
constituents applicable to surface waters in the State of Califomia with human health or aquatic
life designated beneficial uses. The Basin Plan beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the
CTR criteria do not apply directly to discharges of runoff, but rather apply within the specified
receiving waters. CTR criteria apply to Peters Canyon Channel based on its REC 1 and WILD
designated beneficial uses (see Basin Plan discussion below), as well as to San Diego Creek
and Upper Newport Bay, downstream of project receiving waters.
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Ana~sls-031306_doc
5-63
Environmental Analysis and
ExpanaoonofChec~istResponses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
MS4 Permit
In January 2002, the Regional Board issued an updated version of the MS4 Permit, known as
the third term MS4 Permit (SARWQCB, 2001 No. CAS618030) for discharges to the municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) in northern Orange County to the County, the Orange
County Flood Control District, and the northern Orange County cities, inclusive of the City of
Tustin, (collectively ''the Co-permittees"). To implement the requirements of the current MS4
Permit, the Co-permittees developed an updated 2003 Drainage Area Master Plan (2003
DAMP) that includes a Model New Development and Redevelopment Program (OCPFRD
2003). This Model Program provides a framework and a process for following the new MS4
Permit requirements, which are more stringent than those of the prior MS4 Permit. The new
MS4 Permit standards are more stringent than those of the prior MS4 Permit, in that the new
requirements mandate higher levels of post-construction stormwater treatment for new
development and significant redevelopment, and incorporate watershed protectionlstormwater
quality management principles into the Co-permittees' General Plan process, environmental
review process, and development permit approval process. The Model Program includes a
Model Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that defines requirements and
provides guidance for compliance with the current more stringent MS4 requirements for project
specific planning, selection, and design of post-construction BMPs in new development or
significant redevelopment projects.
Per the requirements in the DAMP and the current MS4 Permit, the City of Tustin has adopted a
Local Implementation Plan (LIP) containing the policy and implementation documents for
compliance with the DAMP. Section A-7 of the City's LIP contains the new development and
redevelopment component based upon the Orange County Model WQMP contained in the
DAMP. Using the DAMP and LIP as a guide, and in compliance with the current MS4 Permit
requirements, the City of Tustin will approve WQMPs for new development and redevelopment
projects within its jurisdiction as part of the development plan and entitlement approval
process'>8 Satisfaction of requirements for new development as defined in the DAMP/LIP
establishes compliance with water quality regulatory requirements applicable to post-
development project runoff, and protects surface water beneficial uses in the watershed as
required by the Basin Plan.
General Construction Permit
The new NPDES Construction Permit titled California State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit for storm water discharges from construction sites (NPDES No. CAS000002),
as amended April 26, 2001, by SWRCB Resolution No. 2001-046 (General Construction Permit)
also now contains more stringent water quality requirements. The current General Construction
Permit requires all development projects that disturb one or more acres to obtain coverage
under the Permit. The permit also now contains more stringent water quality standards,
including higher standards for erosion control and new monitoring provisions. The current
General Construction Permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP for
construction sites one acre or larger in size. The SWPPP must identify an effective combination
of erosion and sediment control BMPs, as well as construction material management and non-
storm water BMPs that will be used during the construction phase of development. The current
General Construction Permit requires implementation of BMPs consistent with Best Available
28 When discussing regulatory requirements of the Project in the remainder of this document the MS4 permit and
supporting implementation programs (the Model WQMP, DAMP, and LIP) are sometimes referred to as the MS4
permit and implementation plans.
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-64
Environmental AnalysiS and
Explanation of Checklisr Responses
MCAS Tusan Zone Chenge (Specific Plen Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Deva/opment Plan
Addendum
Technology Economically Achievable and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
(BAT/BCT), as does Section a of the DAMP, and Section A-a of the LIP.
Impaired Waters
At the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared, the Regional Board had identified San Diego Creek and
Upper Newport Bay as water quality limited with respect to sediments, nutrients, pathogens, and
unknown toxicity. As a result, these surface water bodies are listed as impaired under
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. Since that time, more information regarding
these pollutants has become available through studies conducted for impaired water bodies and
through TMDLs and TMDL implementation measures that have been prepared to address those
constituents causing impairment in accordance with state and federal law. The TMDLs for
sediment, nutrients, and pathogens are established and are being phased in over a fifteen-year
period.
In 2001, the Regional Board developed draft TMDLs for pesticides and selenium to address
toxicity in the San Diego Creek/Upper Newport Bay watershed (SARWQCB, 2001a and 2001b).
However, prior to adoption of these draft TMDLs, USEPA adopted technical TMDLs for a
number of toxic pollutants pursuant to USEPA consent decree (USEPA, April 2002). These
technical TMDLs were finalized on June 14, 2002 (USEPA, June 2002). The USEPA toxic
pollutant TMDL is divided into five chemical categories: orthophosphate pesticides, selenium,
metals, organochlorine compounds, and mercury and chromium. The mercury and chromium
TMDLs are applicable only to the Rhine Channel area of Lower Newport Bay and are not
applicable to project site receiving waters or downstream waterbodies. The Regional Board is
required to adopt toxics TMDLs and appropriate implementation plans into the Basin Plan. The
adopted TMDLs may differ from those issued by the USEPA, but must be approved by USEPA.
In December 2005, the SWRCB proposed new impaired listings for additional waters within the
watershed pursuant to Clean Water Act ~303(d). If these listings are adopted, additional TMDLs
must be developed for watershed surface waters. The draft pollutant-waterbody combinations
that were recently recommended by the SWRCB staff for listing in the 2006 listing cycle are:
. Peters Canyon Channel - DOT and toxaphene (legacy pesticides comprised of
organochlorine compounds)
. San Diego Creek Reach 1 - fecal coliform, nutrients, sedimentation/siltation, selenium
and zinc
. San Diego Creek Reach 2 - diazinon, nutrients, sedimentation/siltation and unknown
toxicity
. Upper Newport Bay - chlorpyrifos, copper, DOT, diazinon, fecal coliform, nutrients,
polychlorinated biphenyls and sedimentation/siltation
. Lower Newport Bay - chlorpyrifos, copper, DOT, diazinon, fecal coliform, nutrients,
polychlorinated biphenyls and sedimentation/siltation
Although all of the pollutant-waterbody combinations set forth above are recommended for
listing in the 2006 cycle, many of the proposed listings are being placed on the list of "Water
Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed" because regulatory programs are already in place
that are expected to result in attainment of the applicable water quality standard. The pollutant-
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis.031306.doc
5-65
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
water body combinations that are being recommended for placement on the "Water Quality
Limited Segments Being Addressed" category of the 9303(d) are as follows:
. San Diego Creek Reach 1 - fecal coliform, nutrients and sedimentation/siltation
. San Diego Creek Reach 2 - diazinon, nutrients, sedimentation/siltation and unknown
toxicity
. Newport Bay (both Lower and Upper) - chlorpyrifos, diazinon, fecal coliform, nutrients,
sedimentation/siltation
These proposed listings for pollutant impairment will be considered for adoption by the SWRCB
during the same time period in which the City is considering the Addendum. Based on data that
has been collected, presented and analyzed in comments prepared by the County of Orange
and submitted to the SWRCB during the public comment period, it appears that several
proposed listings related to legacy pesticides may not be warranted. It should also be noted
that, as discussed in greater detail below, the RWQCB has already adopted phased sediment
TMDL targets for the Newport Bay Watershed (adopted in 1997), a three-phase nitrogen TMDL
to address nutrient loading, and a phased TMDL criteria for fecal coliform in Newport Bay. In
addition, USEPA has approved TMDLs for metals in Newport Bay and has issued technical
TMDLs for organochlorine compounds, including DDT and taxophene, and for selenium for the
watershed. Finally, the SARWQCB is currently preparing an organochlorines TMDL and related
implementation measures, which they intend to consider and adopt in the Spring of 2006 to
address legacy pesticides, including DDT and taxophene. Finally, as discussed in more detail
below, the SARWQCB has adopted a nutrient and selenium management program (NSMP) for
the watershed to address selenium and nutrients in groundwater. Thus, many of the proposed
303(d) listings pollutant-waterbody combinations are already being addressed by the RWQCB
pursuant to currently existing TMDLs and other regulatory measures. If some or all of the
proposed 303(d) listings are implemented, the project SWPPP and WQMP must contain BMPs
to address the pollutants of concern, including pollutants impairing downstream water bodies,
per the current MS4 Permit, DAMP and General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. In
addition, the project will be required to comply with all applicable TMDL requirements and
implementation measures adopted by the SARWQCB.
The Basin Plan and TMDLs
The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for major surface water bodies of the watershed. In
addition, the Basin Plan sets forth both general and specific water quality objectives necessary
to support designated beneficial uses.
As noted in the FEIS/EIR, the surface receiving waters for the Specific Plan area are Barranca
Channel and Peters Canyon Channel. In turn, these water bodies drain to San Diego Creek,
and then San Diego Creek is tributary to the Upper Newport Bay. The Basin Plan does not
designate beneficial uses for Barranca Channel. Current designated beneficial uses for Peters
Canyon Channel are shown in the following table.
R\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-66
Environmental Analysis and
Explanafjon of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
MUN - Municipal and domestic supply waters used for community, military, municipal or individual water supply systems
AGR - Agricultural supply waters used for farming, horticulture, or ranching
G\NR - Groundwater recharge for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater
REC1 -Water contact recreation involving body contact with water and ingestion is reasonably possible
REC2 _ Non~contact water recreation for activities in proximity to water, but not involving body contact
WARM -warm freshwater habitat to support warm water ecosystems
IMLD - IMldlife habitat waters that support wildlile habitats
Source: SARWQCB Basin Plan
In general, the Basin Plan does not identify specific water quality objectives for Barranca
Channel or Peters Canyon Channel. However, the Basin Plan does contain general narrative
objectives relevant to pollutants that may be present in runoff from the Specific Plan area during
the construction and/or post development phases. Further, the Basin Plan contains specific,
numeric objectives for San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay, located downstream of the
project receiving waters relevant to discharges. An updated summary of Basin Plan water
quality objectives relevant to project receiving waters and downstream water bodies follows.
Sediment (Total Susoended Solids)
The Basin Plan requires that "Inland surface waters shall not contain suspended or settleable
solids in amounts which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses as a result of
controllable water quality factors." This standard applies to project receiving waters.
With respect to downstream waterbodies, as noted in the FEIS/EIR, the Regional Board
adopted phased sediment TMDL targets applicable to San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport
Bay (adopted in October 1997). An initial TMDL target is to reduce the annual average sediment
load from 250,000 tons per year to 125,000 tons per year (tons/yr), and to capture half of the
sediments in sedimentation basins, limiting the total load to Upper Newport Bay to
62,500 tons/year. Currently, the TMDL is not directly applicable to project receiving waters.
It should be noted that the Regional Board is reviewing the sediment TMDL for Newport Bay
and may consider an amendment to the TMDL in late 2006, in which case the project would be
required to comply with any applicable implementation measures set forth in the amended
TMDL implementation plan. In addition, new controls may be included in the 2007 update to the
current MS4 Permit. As previously noted, the City of Tustin is a co-permittee under the MS4
Permit.
Nutrients
The Basin Plan narrative standard for algae states, "Waste discharges shall not contribute to
excessive algal growth in inland surface receiving waters." This standard is applicable to project
receiving waters.
With respect to downstream waterbodies, the Basin Plan identifies specific water quality
objectives as follows: 13 milligrams per liter (mg/L) Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) for Reach 1 of
San Diego Creek and 5 mg/L TIN in Reach 2 (USEPA, 1998b). The nutrient TMDL for the San
Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed is based on the general goal of reducing nutrient loads to
Newport Bay by 50 percent, to levels observed in the early 1970s (USEPA, 1998b). It was
reasoned that this level of reduction would eliminate algal blooms in Newport Bay, which, based
R:IProJectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Ana~sls-031306_doc
5-67
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Spec/fic Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
on qualitative observations, were minor in the early 1970s. The Regional Board adopted an
amendment to the Basin Plan that incorporated a three-phase nitrogen TMDL (Table 5-14). The
winter load is exclusive of storm flows with an average daily flow greater than 50 cubic feet per
second (cfs) in San Diego Creek at Campus Drive.
TABLE 5-14
NUTRIENT TMDL ALLOCA TIONS FOR THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY AND
SAN DIEGO CREEK
Newport Bay Watershed,
TN - Summer load (4/1 to 9130)
Newport Bay Watershed,
TN - Winter load (10/1 to 3/31; non-storm)
Newport Bay Watershed,
Total Phosphorus - Annual Load
San Diego Creek, Reach 2, daily load
200,097 Ibs
153,861 Ibs
144,3641bs
66,912Ibs
62,080 Ibs
14 Ibs/day
It was reasoned that attainment of the 50 percent reduction in nitrogen loads to Newport Bay
would result in compliance with the Basin Plan in-stream water quality standard for Reach 1
(13 mg/L TIN). Therefore, no TMDL was established for the San Diego Creek Reach 1.
However, for Reach 2 it was determined that the average in-stream nitrogen concentrations
would likely remain close to or above the Basin Plan in-stream water quality standard (5 mg/L
TIN), even with attainment of the Newport Bay TMDLs. Therefore a TMDL of 14lbs/day TN was
established for Reach 2 and is applicable for all flows exclusive of storm flows greater than an
average daily flow of 25 cfs in San Diego Creek at Culver Drive. This TMDL was determined on
the basis of meeting the in-stream standard at the 10th percentile flow of approximately 0.5 cfs.
According to the 2004 Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load
Triennial Review (Triennial Review Report), the overall TMDL nitrogen reduction targets for
summer season 2007 have been achieved2. Still, the occurrence of early winter algal blooms in
the Upper Bay suggest that additional information regarding sources and controls for nutrients is
needed.30 For example, insufficient data were available during the development of the nutrient
TMDLs to identify specific load allocations for each of the components of undefined sources
category of nutrient inputs, including groundwater-related inflows to surface waters in the Upper
Newport Bay.31 Because of insufficient data, baseline loading data from groundwater discharges
to surface waters have not yet been established in the TMDL. 32 Further, the nutrient TMDL
implementation plan supports the trading of pollutant allocations, where appropriate, as a
potential cost-effective method to achieve pollutant reduction.33 However, there is no identified
viable nitrogen offset or trading programs currently available to dischargers.34 Currently, there is
no nutrient TMDL directly applicable to project receiving waters.
2S General Permit, Fact Sheet, S IV, p. 4
30 General Permit, Order, Finding No. 17, p. 6
31 J!!., Finding No. 18, p. 6]
32 Id.
33 ji Finding No. 19, p. 8]
34J!!
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-66
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Davalopmant Pian
Addendum
Phosphorus TMDL Allocations
There is no numeric objective for phosphorus in the Basin Plan. Instead, the Basin Plan
narrative algae standard discussed above with respect to nitrogen applies to project receiving
waters.
Downstream of project receiving waters, the nutrient TMDL for San Diego Creek and Upper
Newport Bay does address phosphorus. In adopting the nutrient TMDL, it was determined that
because measured total phosphorous (TP) and sediment loads are correlated, a 50 percent
reduction in TP loads would be achieved through compliance with the sediment TMDL (USEPA
1998a). Accordingly, the TMDL for TP was based on a 50 percent reduction of average annual
load estimated at 124,160 Ibs (USEPA 1998b). The target compliance date was set for
December 31,2007.
Pathoaens
The Basin Plan sets specific water quality objectives for surface waters with Rec-1 or Rec-2
designated beneficial uses. Peters Canyon Channel has Rec-1 and Rec-2 designated beneficial
uses. The Basin Plan standard is as follows:
. For waters designated REC-1: Fecal coliform: log mean < 200 organisms/100 mL based
on 5 or more samples/3D-day period, and not> 10 percent of samples exceed
400 organisms/1 00 mL for any 3D-day period.
. For waters designated REC-2: Fecal coliform: average < 2000 organisms/1oo mL and
not more than 10 percent of samples> 4000 organisms/100 mL for any 3D-day period.
Downstream of project receiving waters, the Regional Board has adopted phased TMDL criteria
for fecal coliform in Newport Bay, with the initial focus on additional monitoring and assessment
to address areas of uncertainty. The goal of the Newport Bay TMDL is compliance with water
contact recreational standards by 2014. An implementation plan for meeting the TMDLs has not
been developed, but is currently being formulated through ongoing cooperative studies by the
Newport Watershed Permittees. The status of these studies is discussed in the 2002 annual
NPDES Progress Report (OCPFRD 2002). Fecal coliform concentration of not less than five
samples per 30 days shall have a geometric mean less than 200 most probable number
(MPN)/100 mL, and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 400 MPN/100 mL for
any 3D-day period. A second TMDL goal is to achieve the shellfish harvesting standards by
2020: The monthly median fecal coliform concentration shall be less than 14 MPN/100 mL, and
not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 43 M PN/1 00 mL.
Selenium
The Regional Board developed draft selenium TMDLs for San Diego Creek and Upper Newport
Bay based on the goal of reducing selenium loads into Newport Bay to levels that reflect the
proposed chronic water quality criterion of 2 ppb (SARWQCB 2001). However, the USEPA
(June 2002) revised these TMDLs to reflect the current CTR criteria at a variety of flow tiers
(Table 5-15). The Regional Board is required to adopt selenium TMDLs into the Regional
Board's Basin Plan, along with TMDL implementation measures. The adopted TMDLs could be
different from those developed by USEPA, but must be approved by the USEPA.
R.\ProjectsITustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5.69
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-15
SELENIUM TMDL ALLOCA TIONS FOR SAN DIEGO CREEK
Water quality target (mglL) 5 5 5 20
Total allocation 77.4 97.6 100.5 526.8 802.3
Margin of safety 8.6 10.8 11.1 58.6 89.1
Total TMDL 86 108.4 111.6 585.4 891.4
The USEPA established TMDLs for four flow tiers by multiplying the average annual flow
volume and the water quality target of the respective flow tiers. The established chronic CTR
standard of 5 ppb was used as the water quality target for all flow tiers except for the large flow
tier, where the acute criterion of 20 ppb was used. The sum of the TMDLs from the four flow
tiers is the total loading capacity for San Diego Creek per year.
In establishing the selenium TMDL, USEPA recognized that quantification of the baseline
loading from dischargers of groundwater was infeasible due to a lack of selenium data.35
Further, the TMDL does not include specific implementation requirements, such as compliance
timeframes or interim numeric targets, since the implementation plans are the responsibility of
the Regional Boards.as In addition, USEPA recognizes that substantial uncertainties remain
concerning selenium sources, biological effects of selenium in the watershed, and the
appropriate numeric objective that should apply to the protection of beneficial uses.37
The Regional Board staff is now working on an implementation plan for the selenium TMDL,
which will be considered for adoption in the 2008 timeframe as a Basin Plan amendment.38 The
Regional Board may also consider revision to the selenium TMDL established by USEPA based
on ongoing and forthcoming studies by USEPA, the Regional Board, and others.
Metals
The CTR criteria for metals are applicable to Peters Canyon Channel, based on the Rec-1,
Rec-2, and VVild beneficial uses designated for that water body. CTR criteria are not directly
applicable to other project receiving waters, but are applicable to downstream waterbodies.
Acute CTR criteria are considered to be the most appropriate criteria for storm flows because
storm flows in the Mediterranean climate type of the Newport Bay watershed exhibit "flashy"
characteristics resulting from watershed precipitation patterns, and Peters Canyon Channel is
primarily an ephemeral water body, with some intermittent reaches. CTR criteria set forth here
were developed using a hardness value of 197 mg/L, which is a conservative estimate of
hardness that corresponds to the value used in the toxics TMDL. CTR acute criteria for
dissolved copper (Cu), dissolved lead (Pb) and dissolved zinc (Zn) are:
Diss. Cu (ug/L) = 26
Diss. Pb (ug/L) = 130
Diss. Zn (ug/L) = 210
35 General Permit, Fact Sheet, !i IV, p. 7
36 Id.
37 General Permit, Fact Sheet, !i IV, p. 8
36!Q
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-70
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Downstream of project receiving waters, the USEPA (2002) determined that TMDLs are
required for dissolved copper, lead, and zinc in San Diego Creek, Upper Newport Bay, and
Lower Newport Bay; and that TMDLs are required for cadmium in San Diego Creek and the
Upper Newport Bay. The State is required to adopt TMDLs and implementation measures for
heavy metals into the Regional Board's Basin Plan. The adopted TMDLs could be different from
those developed by USEPA, but must be approved by the USEPA.
The metal TMDLs for San Diego Creek are expressed as concentration limits, based on the
CTR criteria at different hardness values that are associated with different flow regimes
(Table 5-16). The flow regimes are based on 19 years of flow measurements in San Diego
Creek at Campus Drive. The applicable flow regime at any location in the entire watershed is
determined on the basis of discharge at Campus Drive.
TABLE 5-16
DISSOLVED METAL TMDL ALLOCATIONS FOR SAN DIEGO CREEK
Cadmium 19.1 6.2 15.1 5.3 10.8 4.2 8.9
Copper 50 29.3 40 24.3 30.2 18.7 25.5
Lead 281 10.9 224 8.8 162 6.3 134
Zinc 379 382 316 318 243 244 208
The USEPA also established TMDLs for metals in Newport Bay (see USEPA, 2002). These
TMDLs are expressed in terms of mass-based loads and concentration allocations based on the
CTR criteria.
Oraanoohosohate Pesticides
The CTR sets forth numeric criteria for many pesticides, including organophosphate pesticides.
These criteria are applicable to Peters Canyon Channel and other downstream surface waters
with human health or aquatic life designated beneficial uses.
Downstream of the project, the Regional Board published draft diazinon and chlorpyrifos TMDLs
for San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. USEPA published technical TMDLS for these
pesticides in June 2002. Neither the USEPA nor the SWRCB has formally adopted water quality
criteria for diazinon or chlorpyrifos. However, the CDFG developed acute and chronic criteria for
these pesticides applying the USEPA methodology. The CDFG freshwater and saltwater criteria
were used as the numeric targets for TMDLs issued by the USEPA (June 2002). The final
USEPA technical TMDLs are summarized in Table 5-17. These concentration limits apply at all
times of the year and for all flow conditions in San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. The
Regional Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment to incorporate the San Diego Creek and
Upper Newport Bay TMDLs for diazinon and chlorpyrifos (SARWQCB 2003).
R:\Projecls\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-71
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05~OO2,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-17
DIAZINON AND CHLORPYRIFOS TMDL ALLOCA TIONS
San Diego Creek
Wasteload Allocation 72 45 18 12.6
Load Allocation 72 45 18 12.6
Margin of Safety 8 5 2 1.4
San Diego Creek TMDL 80 50 20 14
Newport Bay
Wasteload Allocation 18 8.1
Load Allocation 18 8.1
Margin of Safety 2 0.9
Newport Bay TMDL 20 9
Oraanochlorine ComDounds ILeaacv Pesticides)
The CTR includes numeric criteria for organochlorine pesticides applicable to Peters Canyon
Channel and water bodies downstream of Peters Canyon Channel with human health or aquatic
life beneficial uses.
Downstream of the project, based largely on the fish tissue monitoring data, the USEPA issued
technical TMDLs for chlordane, dieldrin, total PCBs, and total DDT for San Diego Creek, Upper
and Lower Newport Bay, and the Rhine Channel, with the exception of dieldrin in Upper
Newport Bay. The technical TMDL for toxaphene was limited to San Diego Creek.
The USEPA technical TMDL objectives for organochlorines are expressed in terms of annual
loads (grams per year) and were set to the smaller of the estimated existing load or the
estimated loading capacity of the Creek. The numeric targets used to determine the loading
capacity were the Threshold Effects Limits (TELs) from the NOAA Sediment Screening Quick
Reference Tables (SQuiRTs) (Buchman, 1999). The TMDLs for San Diego Creek are presented
in Table 5-18, and the TMDLs for Newport Bay are presented in the USEPA report (2002). The
Regional Board is required to adopt organochlorine TMDLs into the Regional Board's Basin
Plan, along with TMDL implementation measures, and has proposed to do so by Spring 2006.
The adopted TMDLs could be different from those developed by USEPA, but must be approved
by the USEPA.
TABLE 5-18
ORGANOCHLORINE TMDL ALLOCATIONS FOR SAN DIEGO CREEK
Waste Load Allocation 346.1 251.8 209.6 225.6 7.1
Load Allocation 43.2 31.4 26.2 28.2 0.9
Margin of Safety 43.3 31.5 26.2 28.2 0.9
Total TMDL with 432.6 314.7 262.0 282.0 8.9
margin of safety
R\Projects\TustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-72
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tu.nn Zone Change (Specinc Plan Amandmant) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Hvdrocarbons
A narrative objective for hydrocarbons in the Basin Plan applies to project receiving waters and
downstream water bodies. The applicable Basin Plan objective provides, "Waste discharges
shall not result in deposition of oil, grease, or other materials in concentrations which result in a
visible film or in coating objects in the water, or which cause a nuisance or adversely affects
beneficial uses." There are no numeric standards for hydrocarbons in the Basin Plan.
Trash/Debris
The Basin Plan narrative standard for floatables applies to project receiving waters and
downstream water bodies. This objective provides, "Waste discharges shall not contain floating
materials, including solids, liquids, foam or scum, which cause a nuisance or adversely affect
the beneficial uses." There are no Basin Plan numeric standards for trash/debris.
Oxvaen-demandina Substances
The Basin Plan contains a narrative objective for algae prohibiting discharges that contribute to
excessive algal growth in inland surface receiving waters. This objective applies to project
receiving waters and downstream water bodies.
Oraanic Compounds
Organic compounds includes a wide range of chemicals, including pesticides, hydrocarbons and
solvents. Water quality standards for hydrocarbons, pesticides, and oxygen demanding
substances are applicable to control organic compounds as discussed in those other
subsections above.
Bioaccumulation
The Basin Plan contains a narrative objective for toxicity that states, "Toxic substances shall not
be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful
to human health." This standard applies to project receiving waters and downstream water
bodies. In addition, water quality standards, including CTR criteria and TMDLs for substances
including organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides, selenium and metals, are designed
to preclude bioaccumulation of toxics.
Turbiditv
The Basin Plan requires that inland surface waters be free of changes in turbidity which
adversely affect beneficial uses. The Basin Plan further provides that increases in turbidity that
result from controllable water quality factors must be limited as follows: 20 percent increase or
less where natural turbidity is 0 to 50 NTU; 10 percent or less increase where natural turbidity is
50 to 100 NTU; and 1 percent increase or less where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTU.
These standards are applicable to project receiving waters and downstream water bodies.
Nutrient Selenium Management Program (NSMP)
In December 2004, the Regional Board issued Order No. R8-2004-0021 for short-term
groundwater-related and de minimus wastewater discharges to surfaces waters in the San
Diego Creek Watershed to implement water quality objectives of the Water Quality Control Plan
for the San Diego Creek Watershed and Upper Newport Bay (the "Order"). This Order
R:\PrcjectsITustin\JJ04\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-73
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
constitutes general waste discharge requirements for short-term groundwater discharges to
surface waters in the watershed, taking into account the salient facts and status of information
and compliance with respect to nitrogen and selenium water quality objectives. Order
No. R8-2004-0021 identifies performance-based water quality standards for short-term and
other de minimus groundwater discharges addressed by the Order for up to five years, provided
that:
. Dischargers participate in and support a Working Group of dischargers committed to
completion of a Work Plan that will develop information regarding selenium and nutrient
sources and impacts in the watershed and implement selenium and nutrient
management plans by December 20, 2009, a compliance deadline determined by the
Regional Board; and
. Members of the Working Group identify and apply selenium and nutrient discharge
avoidance or minimization best management practices (BMPs) to projects that they
conduct while the Work Plan is being developed.
The Regional Board has determined that active participation in the Working Group, including
funding of the Work Plan, constitutes compliance with interim performance-based water quality
objectives for selenium and nutrients cited in Order No. R8-2004-0021.
The Work Plan is intended to develop a comprehensive understanding of and management plan
for selenium and nutrients, including nitrogen, that result from groundwater-related inflows to
surface waters.39 This work is expected to assist the Regional Board in refining the selenium
and nutrient TMDLs by 2008, and in developing TMDL implementation plans both for nutrients
and for selenium in several ways, including the followingAO
. The Work Plan will provide information to assist the Regional Board in identifying
appropriate selenium and nutrient wasteload allocations for several categories of
discharge.
. The Work Plan will identify and assess selenium and nutrient treatment technologies and
the interplay between the treatment technologies for the two POGs.
. The Work Plan will provide information that will assist the Regional Board in determining
(a) the potential for localized adverse affects on wildlife and beneficial uses associated
with selenium and nutrients and appropriate numeric objectives to protect wildlife and
beneficial uses; and (b) control strategies for nutrients to protect beneficial uses.
. The Work Plan will assist in the development and implementation of an appropriate
trading, offset, or mitigation program.
Because it is designed to develop a comprehensive understanding of and management plan for
selenium and nutrients, the Work Plan goes well beyond issues related to the short-term
groundwater-related discharges regulated by the Order. It directly addresses long-term
management of nutrients and selenium in the watershed..'
39 General Permit, Fact Sheet, S IV, p. 9; General Permit, Order, Finding No. 32, p. 10
40 Id.
., General Permit, Fact Sheet, S IV, pp. 6, 8; General Permit, Order, Finding No. 32, p. 10
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-74
Environmenta! Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.8.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
F. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
E.2. Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Construction-Related Impacts
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Surface water runoff from the proposed
development site will drain, after treatment, to Barranca Channel and Peters Canyon Channel,
which are both tributary to lower San Diego Creek (approximately in the middle of Reach 1).
San Diego Creek, in tum, is tributary to Upper Newport Bay. There are currently no TMDLs for
Barranca Channel or Peters Canyon Channel, nor are they specifically listed as impaired on the
2002 303(d) list for the Santa Ana Region (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/
2002reg8303dlist.pdf). However, the SWRCB is considering a listing for two legacy pesticides
(DDT and taxophene) that would apply to Peters Canyon Channel if adopted.
A substantial source of storm water pollution common to many construction sites is grading
activities, which can result in the release of sediment. In addition, pollutants that adhere to
sediment, including DDT and taxophene and other legacy pesticides, can create construction
water quality issues. Other non-sediment construction-related pollutants including
hydrocarbons, solvents, paint, cement and stucco materials, landscaping materials and similar
pollutants must also be controlled in construction site runoff to protect water quality in receiving
surface waters
In light of the sediment and pesticide TMDLs applicable to downstream waterbodies, and in light
of the proposed listing of Peters Canyon Channel for DDT and taxophene impairment, releases
of sediment from construction of the planned development could contribute to violations of water
quality standards in receiving waters unless these releases are controlled. In addition, other
construction-related materials can adversely affect water quality in receiving waters unless
controlled. Therefore, as concluded in the FEIS/EIR construction phase adverse affects are
potentially significant.
However, compliance with General Construction Permit (NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended
April 26, 2001, by SWRCB Resolution No. 2001-046), as required by the FEIS/EIR, would
ensure that runoff discharged from the project site is controlled to BA T/BCT (best available
technology economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology)
standards, so that impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant. The
General Construction Permit requires the implementation of BMPs, as outlined in a SWPPP.
Preparation of a SWPPP and proper implementation of an effective combination of erosion and
sediment control construction BMPs would control potential sources of sediment and pollutants
adhered to sediment, including legacy pesticides, to the BAT/BCT standards. In addition, the
SWPPP will contain BMPs to control construction-related organic compounds (pesticides,
hydrocarbons, solvents), hydrocarbons, other non-sediment construction-related pollutants and
trash and debris to BA T/BCT standards. As a result, construction-related surface water impacts
would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
R\Projecls\Tustinl..()()4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-75
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05.002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
With respect to construction-related groundwater impacts, the original EIRlEIS concluded that
the DoN remediation efforts for groundwater and WBZs would be completed under SARWQCB
and DTSC oversight, using the most stringent standards procedures and protocol in accordance
with the FFSRA, prior to transfer of contaminated property for development. As a result, project
dewatering is not anticipated to result in mobilization of pollutants of concern identified for DoN
remediation.
The FEIS/EIR concluded that construction activity could result in the temporary discharge of
"relatively high levels of pollutants" during construction-related dewatering, which could degrade
local and regional surface water quality unless controlled. Current information confirms this
conclusion, and provides additional specific data regarding the types of pollutants that might be
introduced to surface water. Based on current information, construction dewatering could result
in the temporary discharge of nutrients and selenium into local and regional surface water
bodies. Based on the location of the project area within the former "swamp of the frogs" and in
light of past agricultural uses, currently available information regarding selenium and nutrient
levels in the groundwater indicates that short-term construction dewatering discharges of
ground water from the project may contain selenium and nutrients at levels that exceed
receiving water quality objectives in Peters Canyon Channel and downstream waterbodies.
In addition to dewatering, project construction may increase nutrient levels in surface water
. runoff from the project area. Fertilizers containing nutrients will be applied to landscaped areas
within the project site as a part of the landscape installation process. Unless conducted in
accordance with appropriate application and use practices, use of fertilizers in connection with
the installation of landscaping could result in increased nutrient loads discharged from the
project site in surface runoff and may result in significant impacts to receiving water quality.
However, the City and major developers of the Specific Plan area, induding the Master
Developer, are currently active participants in the Working Group that has been established
pursuant to Order No. R8-2004-0021. The Regional Board has determined that active
participation in the Working Group, including funding of the Work Plan, constitutes compliance
with interim performance-based water quality objectives for selenium and nutrients. Further, the
Regional Board has found that, so long as dischargers continue to participate in the Working
Group, removal of nitrogen accomplished by the operation of the San Joaquin Marsh natural
treatment system ponds within the watershed constitutes an offset for the total nitrogen loads
resulting from short-term construction-related discharges during the term of Order
No. R8-2004-002142
Currently, the City and major developers of the Specific Plan area, including the project Master
Developer, are actively participating in the Working Group and are contributing to the
implementation of the Work Plan. As members of the Working Group, they are required to and
will implement feasible volume reduction BMPs in connection with construction activities to
reduce the potential for discharge of selenium and nutrients during construction dewatering.
Volume reduction BMPs for short-term groundwater discharges may include discharging all or
part of the dewatered groundwater into the sanitary sewer system, subject to approval and
acceptance by the sanitary sewer agency, dewatering into lined evaporation ponds, re-injection
of dewatered groundwater into the same groundwater formation, or other potential volume
reduction measures. These volume reduction BMPs will also assure control of other pollutants
of concern that may remain in groundwater despite DoN remediation efforts, if any.
42 General Permit, Fact Sheet, Section IV, p. 6
RIProJects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-76
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Chenge (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Participation in the NSMP Working Group and implementation of the NSMP Work Plan,
combined with compliance with the General Construction Permit as required by the FEISlEIR,
would ensure that construction-related water quality impacts associated with surface water
runoff and dewatering would be sufficiently controlled and less than significant. The project will
comply with all NSMP and General Construction Permit requirements. As a result,
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would
not result in construction-related water impacts that are substantially different than or more
severe than addressed in the FEIS/EIR. Further, compliance with the BAT/BCT standards of the
General Construction Permit and the NSMP technologies developed under the Work Plan
assures implementation of best available technologies to control construction-related discharges
of pollutants in surface and groundwater discharges available at the time that construction
commences. As a result, newly available technologies for controlling construction-related
pollutants will be applied to the project via compliance with the General Construction Activity
Permit and the NSMP program to further reduce construction-related water quality impacts.
Operational Impacts
Groundwater Impacts
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, to carry out
this project, it may be necessary to install subdrains to stabilize soils and to protect foundations
for structural stability. Installation of subdrains will result in long-term, very low-volume
discharges of groundwater to local surface waters. Based on the location of the project area and
available information regarding selenium levels in the groundwater, discharges of groundwater
from the project area may contain selenium at levels that exceed water quality objectives
because reasonable and feasible source control or pollution prevention measures are not
currently available for such discharges that assure a reduction in selenium concentrations.
Similarly, subdrain discharges may also result in the long-term discharge of groundwater that
may exceed nutrient TMDLs because reasonable and feasible source control or pollution
prevention measures are not currently available for such discharges that assure a reduction in
nitrogen concentrations. Subdrain discharges also may result in discharge of groundwater that
may exceed water quality standards for other pollutants in the event that DoN remediation
efforts leave residual pollutants in ground water.
In addition to subdrain discharges, the project proposes the installation of irrigated landscaping
in public, common,and private areas of the project. Increased irrigation within the project site
could increase infiltration, particularly to shallow groundwater zones of perched or semi-perched
groundwater. Increased infiltration to shallow groundwater zones may, in turn, result in
increased exfiltration of groundwater containing selenium and nutrients through natural seeps,
springs, and weepholes to surface waters within the watershed. Increased long-term discharges
of groundwater containing seienium, nutrients or other potential pollutants to surface waters
may result in potentially significant water quality impacts with respect to the pollutants of
concern, unless discharges are controlled appropriately.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a WOMP in compliance with all applicable
regulatory standards, including the standards of the current MS4 Permit, the DAMP, and the
City of Tustin water quality ordinance, combined with compliance with other regulatory water
quality standards would reduce water quality impacts from the proposed project associated with
dewatering to less than significant. The project will be required to comply with all of these
standards, as well as the standards developed pursuant to the NSMP.
R:\Projects\TustinlJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-77
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
With respect to the NSMP, as previously discussed, the City and major developers of the
Specific Plan area, including the Master Developer, are currently participating in the Working
Group, including funding of the Work Plan, to ensure compliance with the interim performance-
based water quality objectives for selenium and nitrogen. In short, the Work Plan is designed to
result in the development of a long-term nutrient and selenium management plan for the San
Diego Creek Watershed and Upper Newport Bay. In addition, under the NSMP, the project will
utilize BMPs to control discharges of selenium and nitrogen via groundwater dewatering as they
are developed under the Work Plan. applicant are required to continue participating in the
Working Group pursuant to the requirements of Order No. R8-2004-0021 until the end of the
term of the Order (2008).
Through this continued participation in the Working Group, measures for control of selenium
and nutrients will be incorporated into the project as they are developed. These measures could
include participation in an offset or trading program, as well as implementation of BMPs that are
developed under the Work Plan during the term of the Order and that can be reasonably
implemented at the time of construction, based on the type of technology, stage of
development, construction schedule, implementation cost, and other pertinent factors.
Participation in the Working Group and reasonable implementation of available and feasible
BMPs will avoid or minimize long-term groundwater discharges to the watershed that contain
elevated selenium and nitrogen concentrations. Therefore, discharges of selenium and nitrogen
associated with the post-development phase of the project, including discharges from subdrains
and increased exfiltration of groundwater to surface waters, are considered to be in compliance
with interim performance-based water quality standards for those pollutants. Compliance with
Order No. R8-2004-0021 and continued participation in the Working Group would ensure that
long term operational impacts from the discharge of selenium and nitrogen would be less than
significant.
In addition, the project must prepare a WQMP with integrated water conservation/surface water
and subdrain discharge water quality management element. As an example, and subject to
approval by the City, integrated water conservation/surface water and subdrain discharge water
quality management element of the WQMP might include BMPs or equivalent practices to
control pollutants in groundwater discharges including, but not limited to:
. dewatered groundwater may be discharged to the sewer system;
. dewatered groundwater may be treated in natural or engineered treatment control BMPs
available under the NSMP at the time of project development that can be feasibly
implemented, or otherwise developed for selenium and nutrient control; and/or
. some groundwater discharges may be retained on site.
In addition, the project must comply with performance-based standards of the NSMP.
Preparation of a WQMP and participation in the NSMP program, combined with compliance with
all existing regulatory and NPDES permit standards, will be sufficient to ensure that long-term,
low-volume groundwater discharges will not result in exceedances of water quality objectives in
surface waters. Therefore groundwater related water quality impacts would remain less than
significant as concluded in the FEIS/EIR.
R:\ProjeclsITuslin\J00415 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-78
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tu.Un Zone Changa (Spacific Plan AmendmanQ 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Surface Water Impacts
The project proposes to physically alter Barranca Channel to increase its capacity consistent
with regional flood control requirements. In the existing condition, Barranca Channel is an open
channel, stabilized on the sides with riprap and/or concrete, with a natural bottom. The channel
is regularly maintained for flood control purposes, and periodically exhibits some riparian
vegetation with minimal habitat value, as described in Section 5.4 of this Addendum. The
channel is primarily ephemeral, carrying storm flows, but may be subject to some groundwater
intrusion from groundwater seeps in the existing channel.
I n the developed condition, the channel would be covered as proposed in the original Specific
Plan and the natural bottom and open nature of the channel would be eliminated in the post-
development condition. Construction of these alterations may result in the loss of certain natural
water quality functions. In addition, the loss of these features is likely to result in a reduction in
natural water quality processes that decrease nutrient loads and concentrations. Finally, to the
extent that the soft bottom is eliminated and the limited, but natural vegetation of Barranca
channel, which promote infiltration of selenium andlor nutrient laden flows and/or uptake of
selenium and nutrients, are replaced with alterations that may convey channel flows to a
discharge point in Peters Canyon Channel may result in additional selenium and nutrient
loadings in a new location within Peters Canyon Channel.
The potential decrease in the ability Barranca Channel to naturally reduce selenium and nutrient
loads and concentrations that may result from altering and undergrounding the channel must be
balanced against the potential benefits of enclosing the channel. For example, project
alterations to the channel which eliminate the current open condition of the channel reduce the
existing potential for exposure of wildlife to selenium toxicity that may result from
bioaccumulation of selenium in the surface drainage, to the extent that the channel is used for
foraging by wildlife species. Given the location of Barranca Channel in proximity to areas
exhibiting high groundwater concentrations of selenium, the potential for bioaccumulation of
selenium in Barranca Channel is high, due to the existing potential for discharges of
groundwater with high selenium concentrations to surface waters in the channel. Therefore,
elimination of Barranca Channel as an open channel available for foraging can help limit wildlife
exposure to adverse toxicological effects of the selenium via the foodweb.
At the same time, alteration of the Barranca Channel may result in the conveyance of
groundwater flows to Peters Canyon Channel. While Peters Canyon Channel is already subject
to groundwater seeps that introduce groundwater nutrients and selenium into that channel, the
proposed alterations to Barranca Channel may introduce some additional flows containing
selenium and nutrients into Peters Canyon Channel, where water quality and wildlife would be
exposed to the affects of those poll utants.
It is difficult to assess whether the potentially adverse affects on natural selenium and nutrient
cleansing and potential conveyance of selenium and nutrients to Peters Canyon Channel that
may be associated with physical alterations to the channel outweigh the benefits associated
with eliminating the potential exposure of wildlife in Barranca Channel to the toxic effects
selenium. Notwithstanding this balancing exercise, the currently appropriate method for
addressing selenium and nutrient water quality impacts is participation in the NSMP program,
including funding of the Work Plan, incorporation of long-term operational BMPs developed
under the NSMP (and available and feasible at the time of construction) into the project WQMP,
and compliance with the other performance-based standards of the NSMP program and Order
R8-2004-0021. In addition, the required preparation of a WQMP that includes an integrated
R:\Projects\TustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-79
Environmental Analysis and
ExpJanatjon of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
water conservation/surface water and subdrain discharge water quality management element
will help to control selenium and nutrient discharges from groundwater to surface waters in the
project area generally replacing some of the naturally occurring selenium and nutrient reduction
processes that may take place in the existing Barranca Channel and preventing the introduction
of new pollutants to Peters Canyon Channel. As a result, compliance by the City and the Master
Developer with the NSMP and preparation of the WQMP required pursuant to WQ-4 will ensure
that potential selenium and nutrient impacts associated with the planned physical alteration of
Barranca Channel would be less than significant.
In addition to potential post-development selenium effects associated with the alteration of
Barranca Channel, post-development urban surface runoff may contribute to nutrient water
quality impacts. There are several sources of nutrients in surface runoff from urban areas,
mainly fertilizers in runoff from lawns, pet wastes, failing septic systems, and atmospheric
deposition from industry and automobile emissions. Urban development, and particularly
increased vehicular emissions and surface runoff from landscaped areas that are maintained
with fertilizers and/or that may contain pet wastes, could increase nitrogen and phosphorous
concentrations in post-development surface runoff, and thereby potentially result in significant
adverse affects on water quality. However, preparation of the WQMP in compliance with the
DAMP and NSMP program will assure that nutrient control BMPs are incorporated into the
project to reduce nutrients in surface water discharges subject to City review and approval. The
type of BMPs that would be included in the WQMP pursuant to the City of Tustin water quality
ordinance, the MS4 Permit, the DAMP, and the NSMP would likely include:
. source control BMPs, such as implementation of an integrated pesticide and fertilizer
management plans, which reduce and prevent runoff of nutrient containing landscaping
materials, and efficient irrigation systems for public park and commonly owned
landscaped areas that achieve volume reductions and thereby decrease nutrients in
surface water runoff;
. treatment control BM Ps, such as swales and biofiltration areas; and
. natural or structural treatment control BMPs available under the NSMP at the time of
construction and determined by the City to be feasible to implement.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, incorporation of these types of BMPs in accordance with
regulatory and NPDES permit standards, combined with compliance with the NSMP program
requirements will effectively control nutrients in post-development surface water runoff, reducing
potential water quality impacts to less than significance.
Also as concluded in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project has the potential to result post-
development surface water quality impacts due to the addition of pollutants typically associated
with urban development to project runoff, combined with the increase in site impervious surface
and resulting increases in the amount of pollutants contained in the project area runoff. Potential
surface water quality impacts from pollutants of concern associated with the new development
are similar to long-term impacts previously analyzed. Pollutants of concern that could be
generated by the operation of the project site include sediment (TSS and turbidity), trace metals,
pathogens, organic compounds, hydrocarbons, pesticides, trash and debris, oxygen demanding
substances, and bioaccumulation.
As required by the FEIS/EIR, to reduce post-construction operational water quality impacts of
the proposed project to less than significant, the City and major developers of the Specific Plan
R:\ProJeclsITustinIJJ04\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-80
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tusan Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
area, induding the Master Developer must comply with relevant regulatory requirements
including the current MS4 Permit, the DAMP, the LIP, and the City water quality ordinance, as
well as the requirements of the NSMP. Consistent with Chapter 9 or Artide 4 of the Tustin City
Code, a project WQMP will be prepared in compliance with the DAMp and the LIP, which will be
submitted to the City of Tustin for approval.
Table 5-19 below summarizes the water quality impacts associated with typical urban pollutants
of concern that are anticipated to increase as a result of project development. The Table further
summarizes the measures prescribed per the LIP, the DAMP, and the MS4 Permit that will be
incorporated into the WQMP to reduce surface water quality impacts related to these pollutants
of concern to a level that is less than significant.
In summary, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendments Specific Plan
Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not result in new or substantially more severe
impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR. The types of land
uses proposed are substantially the same, with the exception of the change of the proposed golf
course to public and private park and open space uses. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR,
compliance with the City's water quality ordinance, the MS4 Permit, the General Construction
Permit, the LIP, the DAMP, and applicable TMDL implementation measures, combined with
continued participation in the NSMP Working Group would ensure that water quality impacts are
less than significant. Implementation measures WQ-1 through WQ-4 address these
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 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)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Orange County groundwater basin is
subject to management pursuant to the Orange County Water District Act (Water Code App.
Chapter 40, adopted 1933, as amended), which functions as a statutorily imposed physical
solution. Under the Act, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the basin, and the
Act empowers OCWD to impose replenishment and basin equity assessments on production, to
require registration of water producing facilities in the basin, and to require filing of certain
reports by basin water uses. While OCWD cannot limit groundwater production or impair
groundwater rights in the basin without producer agreement, OCWD can and does assert
pricing controls to manage groundwater production in a manner that will not impair basin supply.
In addition, OCWD is required to annually investigate the condition of the basin, assess
overdraft and accumulated overdraft, and determine the amount of water necessary for
replenishment.
As identified in the FEIS/EIR, an increase in pumping from the deep aquifer that constitutes the
Orange County groundwater basin could result in a lowering of the groundwater table. However,
consistent with the conclusions of Section 4.10, Water Resources, of the FEIS/EIR, it is not
expected that IRWD would increase groundwater withdrawal in a manner that would impair
groundwater supply due to the pricing controls and other requirements associated with the
physical solution imposed on the basin pursuant to the Act.
R:\ProjectslTustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306_doc
5-81
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
TABLE 5-19
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPICAL URBAN POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Total suspended
solids (sediment)
Receivina Waters: Narrative objective in Basin Plan requires that, "Inland
surface waters shall not contain suspended or settleable solids in amounts
which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses as a result of
controllable water quality factors."
Downstream Waters: Initial TMDL target for the Newport Bay/San Diego
Creek watershed set to reduce annual average sediment load from 250,000
tons/year to 125,000 tons/year (10 -year running average), and to capture half
of remaining sediments in sedimentation basins, thus limiting total load to
Upper Newport Bay to 62,500 tonstyear (10 -year running average).d3
MS4 Permit, DAMP and LIP, and General Construction Permit -
compliant BMPs will be incorporated into the project to address
sediment in both the construction phase and post -development.
Sediment in stormwater will be controlled through implementation of
a Construction SWPPP and will be permanently reduced through
the stabilization of erodible soils with development. On this basis,
the impact of the project on TSS is less than significant.
Nutrients
Receivina Waters: The Basin Plan narrative standard for algae states, 'Waste
To mitigate construction and post -development groundwater
(phosphorous and
discharges shall not contribute to excessive algal growth in inland surface
discharge nutrient impacts, the City and major developers of the
nitrogen)
receiving waters."
Specific Plan area, including the Master Developer will continue to
actively participate in NSMP Working Group and will contribute
funding for implementation of the NSMP Work Plan. Implementation
Downstream Waters: Basin Plan numeric objectives for San Diego Creek are
of feasible volume -control BMPs as required for Work Group
13 mg/L TIN in Reach 1 and 5 mg/L TIN in Reach 2.
members and implementation of feasible nutrient control measures
as they become available will further mitigate for nutrients.
The Basin Plan does not contain numeric or narrative criteria for TP or TKN.
Preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs
will control potential sources of nutrients in construction surface
water runoff per General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit
Nutrient TMDLs for Newport Bay/San Diego Creek Watershed are based on
to BAT/BCT standards. BMPs incorporated into the WQMP in
general goal of reducing loads by 50% for nitrogen and phosphorous. A three-
compliance with DAMP, LIP, and MS4 standards, and the
phase nitrogen TMDL for the Watershed has been adopted with winter loads
integrated water conservation stormwater runoff and subdrain
exclusive of storm flows with average daily flow of>50 cfs in San Diego Creek
discharge water quality management program will control post -
at Campus Drive.40
development nutrients in runoff. The Model WQMP attached as
Exhibit 7.11 to the DAMP provides an extensive list of non-
structural and structural source control BMPs (section 7 11-3.3.2),
site design BMPs (section 7.11-3.3.1) and Treatment Control BMPs
(section 7.11-3.3.4) that could be included in future WQMPS that
are required for individual development projects within the Specific
Plan area. Source control BMPs are designed to prevent the
introduction of pollutants into stormwater that ultimately flows into
receiving water bodies, while site Design and Treatment Control
BMPs rely on infiltration of runoff to reduce the volume and load of
43 For additional discussion of the sediment TMDL, see Attachment 1.
44 For additional discussion of the nutrient TMDLs, see Attachment 1.
RiP ec Uus inV004U Envi,on Analysis031"dw 5-82 Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checldist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5.8-6 (Continued)
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPICAL URBAN POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
4s Acute criteria are used for comparison to storm flows for project areas tributary to Peters Canyon Channel and Barranca Channel. The most conservative trace
metal concentration criteria within the San Diego Greek/Newport Bay Toxics TMDL correspond to a hardness value of 197 mg/L.
46 For additional discussion of metals TMDLs, see Attachment 1.
47 For additional discussion of fecal coliform TMDL, see Attachment 1
Rrs ,.n Anayys031305.da 5$3 Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checidist Responses
Potential Pro)ect Impar Anter M6asurdS td G*' M* with.
Pollutant of Concern
Water Quality Standards
Standards
'
pollutants into receiving waters. The City and major developers of
the Specific Plan area, including the Master Developer will continue
to participate in the Work Group, and integrate new control
measures as they are developed, and to the extent feasible. On this
basis, construction -related and post -development water quality
impacts from nutrients are expected to be less than significant.
Trace metals (copper,
Receiving Waters: The CTR acute criteria for dissolved copper (Cu), lead
Cadmium is not expected in post -development. MS4 Permit,
cadmium, lead, zinc)
(Pb), and zinc (Zn) are as follows 45
General Construction Permit, and DAMP and LIP -compliant BMPs
will be incorporated into the Project to address trace metals in both
Diss. Cu (ug/L) = 26
the construction phase and post -development. On this basis, the
Diss. Pb (ug/L): = 130
projects impacts on trace metals are considered less than
Diss. Zn (ug/L): = 210
significant.
Downstream Waters: TMDLs for dissolved copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc
for San Diego Creek and Newport Bay are expressed as concentration limits,
based on CTR criteria at various hardness values associated with different flow
regimes. Concentration -based TMDLs apply to all freshwater discharges to San
Diego Creek, including discharges from agricultural, urban, and residential
lands, including flows from stormwater systems.48
Pathogens
Receiving Waters: The Basin Plan standard is as follows:
Post -development pathogen sources include both natural and
For waters designated RECA: Fecal coliform: log mean < 200 organisms/100
anthropogenic sources. The natural sources include bird and
mL based on 5 or more samples/30-day period, and not > 10% of samples
mammal excrement. Anthropogenic sources include leaking septic
exceed 400 organisms/100 mL for any 30 -day period.
and sewer systems and pet wastes. The Project will not include
For waters designated REC-2: Fecal coliform: average < 2000 organisms/100
septic systems and the sewer system will be designed to current
mL and not more than 10% of samples > 4000 organisms/100 mL for any 30-
standards, which minimizes the potential for leaks. Thus pet wastes
day period.
are the primary source of concern. The MS4 Permit, and DAMP and
LIP -compliant BMPs in the WQMP will include source controls and
Downstream Waters: The phased TMDL criteria for fecal coliform bacteria in
treatment controls, which in combination should help to reduce
Newport Bay focuses initially on additional monitoring and assessment to
pathogen indicator levels in post -construction stormwater runoff.
address areas of uncertainty. The goals of the Newport Bay fecal coliform
Pathogens are not expected to occur at elevated levels during the
TMOL are twofold: compliance with water contact recreational standards in the
construction -phase of the Project. On this basis, the project impacts
Bay by 2014 and achievement of shellfish harvesting standards by 2020.47
associated with pathogens are expected to be less than significant.
4s Acute criteria are used for comparison to storm flows for project areas tributary to Peters Canyon Channel and Barranca Channel. The most conservative trace
metal concentration criteria within the San Diego Greek/Newport Bay Toxics TMDL correspond to a hardness value of 197 mg/L.
46 For additional discussion of metals TMDLs, see Attachment 1.
47 For additional discussion of fecal coliform TMDL, see Attachment 1
Rrs ,.n Anayys031305.da 5$3 Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checidist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Spedfic Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5.8-6 (Continued)
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPICAL URBAN POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Pollutant ofContern Water4ualltyStandmttt6
R VrgeG \Tus11nU00 Environ Anal sis031"dc 5-84 Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checldist Responses
potential Project toCotnpYywBtt
Organic compounds
Organic compounds include a wide range of chemicals such as pesticides,
Implementation of a Construction SWPPP, and MS4 Permit, DAMP
hydrocarbons, and solvents. Water quality standards for hydrocarbons and
and LIP -compliant BMPs in the WQMP, and compliance with the
pesticides are addressed in their respective categories.
General Construction Permit will control discharge of organic
compounds. On this basis, project impacts associated with organic
compounds are expected to be less than significant. Hydrocarbons
and organochlorine compounds are potential sources of pollution
for the project site and are believed to be the primary types or
organic compounds likely to be present. Hydrocarbons and
pesticides are addressed in their respective categories.
Hydrocarbons (oil,
Receivina and Downstream Waters: Narrative objective in Basin Plan
Hydrocarbon concentrations will likely increase in post -development
grease, PAHs)
provides, "Waste discharges shall not result in deposition of oil, grease, was or
because of vehicular emissions and leaks. In stormwater runoff,
other materials in concentrations which result in a visible film or in coating
hydrocarbons are often associated with soot particles that can
objects in the water, or which cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial
combine with other solids in the runoff. Such materials would be
uses."
controlled by various source control, site design and treatment
BMPs that would be incorporated into the WQMP in compliance
with the MS4 Permit. Examples of such BMPs are listed and
extensively discussed in section 7.11-3.3 of the Model WQMP
attached as Exhibit 7.11 of the DAMP. During the Construction
phase of the Project, General Construction Permit -compliant BMPs
must be included in the SWPPP that address proper handling of
petroleum products on the construction site and effectively prevent
the release of hydrocarbons to runoff per the BAT/BCT standards.
On this basis, project impacts associated with hydrocarbons are
R VrgeG \Tus11nU00 Environ Anal sis031"dc 5-84 Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checldist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5.8-6 (Continued)
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPICAL URBAN POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
4e For additional discussion of organophosphate TMDLs, see Attachment 1.
d9 For additional discussion of organochlorine TMDLs, see Attachment 1.
RTroje \Tu5,nUW4U EnvUon Analysa 1306 aoo 5-85 Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checldist Responses
Potential Project lmpaldwAfter Measut to Comply wtth
Pollutant of concern
Water Oualfty Standards
Standards
expected to be less than significant.
Pesticides, including
Receiving Waters: The CTR includes numeric standards for various
Common area pesticide management practices, and other source
legacy pesticides
pesticides.
control BMPs, removal with sediments in treatment control BMPs,
and effective irrigation systems, in compliance with the
Downstream Waters: TMDLs have been adopted into the Basin Plan for
requirements of the MS4 Permit. MS4 Permit and DAMP and LIP -
diazinon and chlorpyrifos San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay for
compliant BMPs will minimize the presence of pesticides in post -
freshwater are based on CDFG criteria 48
development runoff. During the Construction phase of the Project,
erosion and sediment control BMPs implemented per General
TMDLs are expressed in grams/year for chlordane, total PCBs, total DDT,
Permit requirements will control pesticides associated with
dieldrin, and toxaphene for San Diego Creek, Upper and Lower Newport Bay,
sediment discharge. Final site stabilization as a result of
and Rhine Channel and for dieldrin and toxaphene for San Diego Creek. These
development will limit mobility of pesticides that may be associated
TMDLs may be revised before adoption into the Basin Plan 49
with sediment. On this basis, project impacts associated with
pesticides, including legacy pesticides, are expected to be less than
significant.
Trash and debris
Receiving and Downstream Waters: The Basin Plan narrative standard for
Trash and debris in runoff are likely to increase in post -development
floatables provides, "Waste discharges shall not contain floating materials,
if left unchecked. However, such materials would be controlled by
including solids, liquids, foam or scum, which cause a nuisance or adversely
various source control, site design and treatment BMPs that would
affect beneficial uses."
be incorporated into the WQMP in compliance with the MS4 Permit.
Examples of such BMPs are listed and extensively discussed in
section 7.11-3.3 of the Model WQMP attached as Exhibit 7.11 of
the DAMP. During the Construction phase of the Project, BMPs
would be included in the SWPPP to control trash and debris. On
this basis, project impacts associated with trash and debris are
expected to be less than significant.
Oxygen demanding
Receiving and Downstream Waters: The Basin Plan contains a narrative
Nutrients in fertilizers and food wastes in trash are examples of
substances
objective for algae prohibiting waste discharges from contributing to excessive
likely oxygen demanding compounds to be present on the Project
algal growth in inland surface receiving waters.
site. Other biodegradable organic materials include human and
animal waste and vegetative matter Biodegradable pollutants are
See also nutrients discussion above.
largely subsumed by the nutrients and trash and debris categories.
On this basis, project impacts associated with oxygen demanding
substances are expected to be less than significant.
4e For additional discussion of organophosphate TMDLs, see Attachment 1.
d9 For additional discussion of organochlorine TMDLs, see Attachment 1.
RTroje \Tu5,nUW4U EnvUon Analysa 1306 aoo 5-85 Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checldist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5.8-6 (Continued)
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPICAL URBAN POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Pollutant orconoorn
Water Coalfty Standards
stand at"
Bioaccumulation
Receiving and Downstream -Waters: The Basin Plan contains a narrative
The potential for bioaccumulation impacts will be minimized through
objective for toxicity that states, "Toxic substances shall not be discharged at
preparation of a WQMP incorporating site planning, source controls,
level that will bioaocumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to
and the design and maintenance of treatment controls. Source
human health."
control measures would include an integrated pesticide
management plan and use of efficient irrigation technologies for
See also selenium, hydrocarbons, trace metals, and pesticides discussions.
public and common areas, and public education efforts to inform
residents of use, storage, and disposal of potentially
bioaocumulative pollutants. Treatment controls will be developed as
part of the integrated water conservation/stormwater runoff and
subdrain discharge water quality management program and will be
designed to control discharges of bioaocumulative pollutants.
Treatment control BMPs will be designed to facilitate routine
removal of sediments to minimize the amount of settleable solids
and pollutants associated with those sediments from entering
receiving waters. Mercury is not of concern in this watershed, and
selenium, copper, lead, zinc, PAI -Is, and pesticides are addressed
in their respective categories. On this basis, project impacts
associated with bioaccumulative pollutants are expected to be less
than significant.
Turbidity
Receiving and Downstream Waters: The Basin Plan requires that inland
MS4 Permit, DAMP and LIP, and General Construction Permit -
surface waters be free of changes in turbidity which adversely affect beneficial
compliant BMPs will be incorporated into the Project to address
uses. The Basin Plan further provides that increases in turbidity which result
sediment in both the construction phase and post -development.
from controllable water quality factors are limited as follows 20% increase or
Turbidity in stormwater runoff will be controlled to BAT/BCT
less where natural turbidity is 0 to 50 NTLI; 10 NTU or less increase where
standards though implementation of a Construction SWPPP, and
natural turbidy is 50 to 100 NTIJ; and 10% increase or less where natural
will be permanently reduced through the stabilization of erodible
turbicly is >100 NTIJ.
soils with development. On this basis, project impacts associated
I with turbidity are expected to be less than significant.
R Projec[ TusnV"Envimn Analysi�031306 da 5-86 Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checidist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Pian
Addendum
In addition, the addition of impervious surface associated with the project could lead to some
decrease in groundwater recharge within the Specific Plan area. However, the reduction in
groundwater recharge that may be associated with project development of additional impervious
surface will be offset to the extent that irrigation onsite is increased to support landscaping.
Onsite recharge is not the primary source of recharge for the deep aquifer, as infiltration onsite
typically only affects the shallow aquifer and perched water zones. I nstead, recharge for the
aquifer occurs primarily in the Santa Ana Mountains and its foothills. As a result, the proposed
project is not expected to affect deep aquifer groundwater recharge.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not change the
land uses of the project substantially, or the amount of impervious surface proposed for
construction. As a result, analysis and conclusions in the FEISlEIR relative to impacts related to
groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially.
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-site 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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the Specific
Plan Area, including the Master Developer footprint, is tributary to the Barranca Channel and the
Peters Canyon Channel. Both of these channel facilities are improved channel facilities in the
existing condition that are ultimately tributary to San Diego Creek. Peters Canyon Channel runs
southwest through the eastern portion of the Specific Plan/Specific Plan site, and the Barranca
Cannel flows along the southern border of the Specific Plan border. The Santa Ana-Santa Fe
Channel runs along the northeasterly project boundary but runoff from the site does not enter
this facility.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, development of proposed residential and non-residential uses
within the Specific Plan area would increase the amount of impervious surface resulting in an
increase in the amount (both the volume and velocity) of runoff from the site. A conceptual
storm drain system was developed for analysis in the FEISlEIR with the understanding that
actual engineering design would be reviewed by respective agencies and refined with the
Runoff Management Plan (RMP) prepared for the Tustin Legacy Project (RBF 2004) and
approved by the County of Orange and The City of Tustin. The RMP will be further refined with
completion of more detailed hydrology studies. The backbone drainage system for the Specific
Plan remains substantially the same as proposed in the original Specific Plan with the few
changes noted in Section 5.16, Utilities, regarding storm drainage facilities. Additionally, storm
water control detention facilities would be constructed on-site. While the on-site drainage
system would be modified from existing conditions, as identified in the FEIS/EIR, the new
system would be designed to accommodate the increased runoff from the proposed
development, reducing the potential for flooding to a level considered less than significant.
R.\ProjeclsUustin\J00415 Environ Analysls-031306.doc
5-87
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Under the Specific Plan Amendment and development plan, the Barranca Channel and Peters
Canyon Channel would continue to receive runoff from the project site. Planned improvements
to these Channels have been designed to accommodate the 100-year storm flows, and as
previously discussed in Section 2.3 of this Addendum, the City of Tustin has entered into
respective agreements with OCFCD, the County of Orange, and the City of Irvine for
implementation of required improvements to assure 100-year peak flow capacity in these
facilities, taking into account project development.
Because the types of land uses proposed with the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan have not been substantially changed, the increases in volume and velocities
of surface water runoff with the proposed project would be similar to that addressed in the
FEIS/EIR. Also, as concluded in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of storm drain improvement
plans consistent with the conditions and requirements of the Specific Plan, the RMP, and
Orange County Flood Control Manual, combined with construction of channel improvements for
Barranca and Peters Canyon Channel (as necessary) to assure 100-year peak flow capacity of
those facilities, taking project development into account, mitigate potential drainage and flood
control impacts to a level that is less than significant.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan include compliance with
Implementation Measures for drainage identified in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems.
The proposed project would not result in the implementation of any uses or activities that would
result in substantially more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and
the potential for flooding than addressed in the FEIS/EIR.
Hvdroloaic Conditions of Concern
Pursuant to the DAMP and the LIP, increases in runoff volumes and velocities must be
evaluated to determine if those increases can create hydrologic conditions of concern identified
in DAMP Exhibit 7.1. According to the DAMP/LIP, a change to a site's hydrologic regimen
including increases in volume and velocity of runoff is considered to create hydrologic conditions
of concern if the change would increase erosion or sediment, or if the change would adversely
impact aquatic integrity in downstream natural channels. The extent to which downstream
channels are natural or improved should be assessed along with increases in runoff to
determine if significant impacts might occur.
In addition to increases in runoff velocities, the project will result in increases in volumes of
surface water runoff, as identified in the FEI R/EIS. Urbanization can modify hydrologic and
geomorphic processes of natural drainages by introducing impervious surfaces and drainage
Infrastructure into otherwise natural channels. Potential changes to the natural hydrologic
regime associated with urban development include increased runoff volumes, increased
frequency of runoff events, increased long-term cumulative duration, as well as increased peak
flows. Urbanization may also introduce dry-weather flows where only wet-weather flows existed
prior to development. These changes are referred to as "hydromodification." In addition,
introduction of dry-weather flows where only wet-weather flows existed prior to development has
the potential to convert habitat types and function.
Development envisioned by the Specific Plan and as now proposed under the proposed project
will increase impervious surfaces and runoff volumes, and will increase the frequency of runoff
events and the long-term cumulative duration of runoff. However, the Barranca Channel and
Peters Canyon Channel are improved stabilized flood control channels with minimal channel
slope. The sides of the channels are fully stabilized in the existing condition with concrete and/or
R:\Projects\TustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-88
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
rip rap. While the channel bottoms are natural, the channels are regularly maintained for flood
control purposes and regularly receive some dry weather flow in the existing condition. Currently
these channels exhibit some fairly low habitat value vegetative growth, as described in
Section 5.4 of this Addendum, Biological Resources. Further, as described in Section 5.16,
Barranca Channel will be fully improved as a result of the project.
Existing and planned channel improvements combined with the relatively flat slope of the
channels make the channels more resistant to erosion and scour that can accompany increased
volumes or runoff, increased frequency of runoff events, and long-term cumulative duration of
runoff. In addition, as summarized in Table 5-19, feasible post-construction water quality BMPs
are to be implemented in the WQMP. Many of these water quality BMPs would provide
hydrologic controls via runoff volume reductions. Volume reductions in these types of BMPs can
be conservatively estimated to be about 20 percent of BMP capacity. Reducing the volume of
runoff in these types of BMPs prevents dry weather runoff, and helps to control the increases in
frequency of runoff events and cumulative duration of runoff flow. In light of the existing
condition of the channel, lack of habitat, existing and planned channel improvements that
assure channel stability, and with proper design of the WQMP to incorporate BMPs that reduce
runoff volumes where possible, hydrology impacts, including hydromodification impacts
associated with increases in amount of runoff, are considered to be less than significant,
consistent with the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR.
G. Place housing within a 1aa-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
H. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The FEIS/EIR noted that a portion of the
Medium-High Density residential area between Jamboree Road and Harvard Avenue, north of
Edinger Avenue is within the 100-year flood plain and is identified as an "area of ponding" that
could have flood depths of up to three feet. This area has been developed and structures were
designed to be outside of the 100-year flood plain. There are no other areas within the Specific
Plan area that are subject to 100-year flood hazards (except within the flood control channeis);
therefore, as concluded in the FEIS/EIR, no impacts would occur.
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 mudffow?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The FEIS/EIR did not identify any hazards
related to failure of a levee or dam. Based on review of the City of Tustin General Plan, Pubiic
Safety Element, the Santiago and Villa Park Reservoirs are the only facilities that pose a hazard
in the City related to dam failure. These reservoirs are in a different watershed than the
proposed project (the Santiago Creek/Santa Ana River watershed) five or more miles north of
the project site, and the water from those impoundments would not pose a hazard to the
Specific Plan area. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would not involve any uses that expose people to these types of hazards;
therefore, no impact would occur.
R\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Enlliron Analysis-031306.doc
5-89
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specmc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
A seiche is an oscillation of a landlocked body of water that can cause water damage to
buildings, roads, and infrastructure that surround the body of water. There is no such body of
water located in the City of Tustin. Therefore, impacts associated with seiches would not occur.
Additionally, the project site is approximately nine miles from the Pacific Ocean or any body of
water that could cause tsunami (also known as tidal waves) to the area. There is no risk of
tsunami associated with the project. By definition, mudflows are considered a type of landslide.
The project site has relative flat topography and would not be subject to a landslide.
5.8.4 IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Implementation measures for storm drain facilities are addressed in Section 5.16, Utilities and
Service Systems. \/IIhile no Implementation Measures were specifically identified in the
FEIS/EIR for water quality, the FEIS/EIR concluded that "compliance with all regulations and
NPDES Permit requirements would result in avoidance of significant impacts to water
resources." The purpose of this section is to clearly define the existing regulatory framework and
requirements of future development projects within the Specific Plan area. Consistent with the
conclusions of the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing regulatory requirements will ensure that
the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan will not have significant impacts on
water quality. No mitigation measures beyond compliance with existing regulations are required.
1M 00-1 Prior to the approval of grading plans, the project deveiopers shall provide written
evidence to the Department of Public Works that it has filed a Notice of Intent with
the State Water Resources Control Board in order to obtain coverage under the
latest approved General Construction Permit. Pursuant to the permit requirements,
developers shall develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
incorporates Best Management Practices for reducing or eliminating sediment and
other construction-related pollutants in the site runoff.
1M 00-2 Prior to approval of a grading plans, the Department of Public Works shall confirm
that the contractors specifications require compliance with the latest approved
General Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board to govern discharges from construction dewatering and
water line/sprinkler line testing should they occur during construction. Developers
shall comply with these regulations including provisions requiring notification,
testing and reporting of dewatering and testing-related discharges, which shall
mitigate any impacts of such discharges.
1M 00-3 The City of Tustin and major master plan developers of the former MCAS Tustin
shall participate in the Regional Board's NSMP Working Group and contribute to
funding and implementation of the Work Plan. To mitigate construction-related
selenium and nutrient water quality impacts that may result from construction-
related groundwater discharges, developers shall implement: (a) feasible and
available volume reduction BMPs in accordance with the General NSMP
Permit (R8-2004-0021); (b) selenium and nutrient control BMPs that are developed
under the Work Plan as of the date of project approval; and (c) selenium and
nutrient measures that may be developed under the Work Plan after project
approval which are available and feasible to deploy.
1M 00-4 To mitigate post-construction surface water and long-term groundwater discharge
water quality impacts, prior to issuance of grading permits, developers shall
prepare a project WQMP, which shall be submitted to the City of Tustin or City of
Irvine, as applicable, for approval. The OOMP shall be prepared in compliance
R:\ProjectsITustinlJOO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-90
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
with all MS4 Permit requirements (including DAMP and LIP requirements), and at a
minimum shall contain the following elements:
a) An Integrated Water Conservation/Storm Water Runoff and Subdrain
Discharge Water Quality Management Program. This program shall integrate
into the storm drainage and water quality control system facilities and
systems to capture, recycle and conserve low flows, which may include
irrigation retums and subdrain discharges, to reduce, to the extent feasible,
post-development low flow surface runoff and groundwater discharge
volumes. The program shall also implement one or more treatment control
technologies developed under the NSMP and available at the time of project
approval for nutrient and selenium removal.
b) Site Planning and Design BMPs. The OOMP shall incorporate site design
BMPs described in the Model WQMP attached as Exhibit 7.11 to the DAMP
to the extent feasible and appropriate in light of proposed land uses.
c) Source Control BMPs. The OOMP shall incorporate source control BMPs
described in the Model OOMP attached as Exhibit 7.11 to the DAMP to the
extent feasible and appropriate in light of proposed land use.
d) Treatment Control BMPs. The OOMP shall incorporate treatment control
BMPs described in the Model OOMP attached as Exhibit 7.11 to the DAMP.
1M 00-5 As required by DAMP and the MS4 Permit, as well as the Cooperative Agreement
D02-119 between the City of Tustin, OCFCD, and the County of Orange, a Water
Quality Technical Report (OOTR) shall be prepared prior to the issuance of
grading permits. The OOTR shall quantitatively and qualitatively (as appropriate)
assess planned BMPs to be included in the OOMP to confirm that the treatment
and hydrologic controls included in the SWPPP and OOMP will be sufficient to
assure that project discharges will not cause a violation of applicable water quality
standards.
5.8.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting hydrology and
water quality, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no
substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require
major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to hydrology and water quality than previously analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in
subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to hydrology and water
quality has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
Additionally, in compliance with the MS4 Permit, the DAMP, the LIP, the General Construction
Permit, the NSMP program requirements, and the City's water quality ordinance, updated BMP
technoiogies must be incorporated into the WQMP and the SWPPP at the time they are
prepared reducing water quality impacts.
R\Projects\Tustin\J004\5Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-91
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to
hydrology and water quality and this conclusion has not changed based on the analysis
presented in this section.
SOURCES
In addition to the references listed in the beginning of Section 5, the sources used in preparation
of this section are identified in the text or in footnotes.
5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
5.9.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
land Use Compatibility
The FEIS/EIR concluded that with development of the project evaluated in the FEIS/EIR, a
substantial change in existing land use would occur by replacing military and agricultural uses
with civilian urban uses. Agricultural uses generate dust and noise that could result in land use
conflicts to non-agricultural uses. However, because agricultural uses were identified to be
phased out in coordination with development, this potential land use conflict was determined to
be less than significant.
The FEIS/EIR also identified various potential land impacts associated with the development of
the property. Because many areas within the property were to be transferred from low-intensity
use (i.e., open area) to high intensity use (i.e., residential/commercial), the potential for land use
incompatibility was identified. It was concluded that proposed on-site uses would be comparable
with existing surrounding land uses. Proposed residential development in the northeast portion
of the site would have comparable densities to existing uses and would be buffered by
setbacks, landscaping, noise walls, or recreational uses. Business uses would be compatible
with existing uses across Barranca Parkway and Red Hill Ayenue.
The FEIS/EIR determined that there was a potential for land use incompatibility internally with
adjacent uses if development is not sensitively designed. However, based on the general design
of the project, compliance with local design review requirements, adherence to design
guidelines, individual site-specific compatibility impacts would be addressed during each
development project. Potentially significant land use compatibility impacts would require
mitigation to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant.
land Use Policy
The FEIS/EIR determined that the project would be inconsistent with the current general plan
and zoning designations in the cities of Tustin and Irvine and mitigation in the form of
amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance were required to mitigate the impact to
a level considered less than significant. It was further concluded that the Implementing Actions
(described in Section 7 of the FEIS/EIR) would mitigate this impact by addressing compatibility
through proper land use plans and amendments to pertinent general plans and zoning
ordinances.
5.9.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
As noted in the project description, on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin adopted a General
Plan land use designation, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, for that portion of the former MCAS
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis..031306.doc
5-92
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Davelopment Plan
Addendum
Tustin within the City of Tustin. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council
on February 3, 2003 (Ordinance 1257), which established the zoning designation, development
standards, and entitlement framework for future development of that portion of the MCAS Tustin
within the City, including property within the Master Developer footprint. The project description
also includes discussion of development approved since 2001 in the cities of Tustin and Irvine,
and the status of construction activities.
Note that changes to the County of Orange Airport Environs Land Use Plan were addressed
above under Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
5.9.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVlOUSL Y APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
The land use changes proposed with the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development
Plan are described in detail in Section 3 of this Addendum, Project Description. The proposed
project does not substantially change the types of land uses proposed, rather the distribution of
land uses within the Specific Plan area have been slightly modified and minor adjustments to
Planning Area and Neighborhood boundaries have been made. These changes are illustrated in
the revised Specific Plan Figures 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, and 3-2 provided in Section 3 of this Addendum.
The proposed project does not change the amount of residential development allowed per the
Specific Plan, and reduces the amount of non-residential development.
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Physically divide an established community?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The project being evaluated involves
implementation of amendments to the MCAS Specific Plan and a proposed DDA including a
Development Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 in Section 3, Project Description). The proposed Specific
Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not substantially alter the land uses
proposed for development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the
Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is surrounded by existing development and
development on-site would not physically divide an established community. The proposed
development would result in the continuation of similar uses.
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 of mitigating an environmental effect?
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project involves an
amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; however, as addressed through the analysis
presented in this section, the proposed changes would not result in a change in the
environmental impacts that were evaluated in the FEIS/EIR for the Specific Plan and
Implementing Actions. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan requires design review and compliance
with the Specific Plan design guidelines per the Specific Plan Amendment which mandate
implementation of site design measures such as buffering, landscaping, screening, and
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-93
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Devefopment Plan
Addendum
setbacks to ensure high quality development and compatibility between land uses to ensure that
proposed uses are compatible with on-site and surrounding land uses and are consistent with
the requirements of mitigation measure LU-1.
As noted under the discussion of biological resources, the MCAS Specific Plan area is within
the County of Orange Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP, and would not conflict with this program.
5.9.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
FEIS/EIR Measures That Have Been Completed
MM LU-1
The City of Tustin shall amend its General Plan and zoning ordinance to be
consistent with planned land uses. Any zoning ordinance shall include site design
measures such as buffering, landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to ensure
high quality development and compatibility between land uses. The goal is to
assure that the overall appearance of development on the site is at least similar
in quality to other master planned areas in Tustin and other adjacent cities.
FEIS/EIR Measures Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
Applicable mitigation measures have been implemented.
Refinements to FEISlEIR Measures
No refinements need to be made to the FEISlEIR mitigation and no new mitigation measures
are required because the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Development Plan and
existing mitigation measures reduce potential land use impacts to a level less than significant.
FEIS/EIR Measures Not Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
MM LU-2
The City of Irvine shall amend its General Plan and zoning ordinance to be
consistent with planned land uses. Any zoning ordinance shall include site design
measures such as buffering, landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to ensure
high quality development and compatibility between land uses. The goal is to
assure that the overall appearance of development on the site is at least similar
in quality to other master planned areas in Tustin and other adjacent cities.
5.9.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting land use, which
would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no substantial changes in
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to
land use than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new information of substantial
importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related
to land use has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its
conclusions.
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 EnViron Analysis-031306.doc
5-94
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Spec/fie Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Dav%pmont Plan
Addendum
The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan do not increase the severity
of the land use impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR.
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address land use issues.
Airport Land Use Commission. Orange County Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.
Orange County, California: December 19, 2002.
Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange,
Central and Coastal Subregion. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental
Management Agency and United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department
of Fish and Game. July 17, 1996.
5.10 MINERAL RESOURCES
5.10.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EISlEIR
Section 3.9 of the FEIS/EIR indicates that no mineral resources are known to occur within the
Specific Plan area. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources were identified.
5.10.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
As indicated above, no mineral resources were identified within the Specific Plan area. This
condition has not changed since certification of the FEIS/EI R. The Tustin General Plan does not
identify any mineral resources in the City.
5.10.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the resIdents of the state?
B. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As indicated in the FEIS/EIR, no mineral
resources are located within the Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan apply to area within the Specific Plan so no mineral resources
would be affected. Therefore, there would be no loss of a known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents of the state.
R:\ProjeclsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-95
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.10.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR
related to mineral resources. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development
Plan do not change the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR so no new mitigation is required.
5.10.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting mineral
resources, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no
substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require
major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to mineral resources than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EI R;
and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to mineral resources has been revealed that
would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no impacts to mineral resources. The proposed
Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan do not increase the severity of the
mineral resources impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR.
SOURCES
There were no sources used beyond those listed at the beginning of Section 5 (sources used for
all sections).
5.11 NOISE
5.11.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
Based on the significance criteria used to evaluate noise impacts in the FEISlEIR, noise impacts
were considered significant if noise levels for sensitive receptors exceeded those considered
"normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the "Noise Elements" of the
General Plans for the cities of Tustin, Irvine, and Santa Ana. Sensitive receptors are defined as
schools, residences, libraries, hospitals, and recreational areas. In addition, future development
within the Specific Plan area that includes schools and residences would be considered
sensitive receptors. The FEIS/EIR identified that an increase of 3 dB over existing noise levels
experienced by a sensitive receptor would be a significant impact.
The FEIS/EIR determined that existing roadways which surround the Specific Plan area would
not experience noise levels that exceed established thresholds for the affected land use, and
impacts would be considered less than significant. However, the extension of Tustin Ranch
Road to Von Karman Avenue would expose existing residences to noise levels that exceed the
65 dB CNEL standard. In addition, noise levels at existing residential and park uses adjacent to
Warner Avenue between Harvard and Culver Drive would be exposed to noise levels that
exceed the 65 dB CNEL standard; this would result in a potentially significant impact.
The FEIS/EIR also determined that future noise-sensitive land uses would be developed in
accordance with applicable regulations and would have adequate noise protection. Therefore,
potential noise impacts to future noise-sensitive land uses would be less than significant.
R:\ProjectsITustinlJQ041,5 Environ Al'la~sis-031306doc
5-96
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
However, some existing on-site housing planned for reuse would experience noise levels
greater than the 65 dB CNEL standard; this would result in a potentially significant impact.
The FEIS/EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce the potential noise impacts to sensitive
receptors. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the potential noise impacts to
sensitive noise receptors would be reduced to less than significant.
5.11.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
The noise environment described in Section 3.14.3 of the FEIS/EIR has not changed. The major
noise sources at and near the site are motor vehicles and railroad trains. The project site is not
within a 60 dB CNEL contour over MCAS Tustin from John Wayne Airport.
The land use changes proposed with the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development
Plan are described in detail in Section 3 (Project Description) of this Addendum. The proposed
project does not substantially change the types of land uses proposed, rather the distribution of
land uses within the Specific Plan area have been slightly modified and minor adjustments to
Planning Area and Neighborhood boundaries have been made. These changes are illustrated in
the revised Specific Plan Figures 2-1,2-2,3-1, and 3-2 provided in Section 3 of this Addendum.
The redistribution of land uses and minor adjustments to the backbone circulation network
would result in slight modifications to the traffic distribution on roadways within and immediately
adjacent to the Specific Plan area. Traffic-related issues are addressed in Section 5.15,
Transportation and Traffic.
5.11.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
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?
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Noise Element TeChnical Memorandum
for the City of Tustin General Plan identifies acceptable noise levels for various types of land
uses. Within the City of Tustin long-term noise issues of concern are related to traffic on major
arterials and freeways, flight operations at John Wayne Airport, rail operations, and trucking
operations and mechanical equipment associated with commercial/industrial activities adjacent
to residential uses.
As discussed in the Transportation and Traffic section of this analysis, implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would result in the same
overall ADT generation as addressed in the FEIS/EIR and would not exceed the trip cap
established in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (216,440 ADT).
As noted above, the FEIS/EIR indicates that full build-out of MCAS Tustin would not have noise
impacts on existing uses along existing roadways surrounding the Specific Plan area; however, the
R\ProjectsITustin\JC04\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-97
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
extension of roadways within the Specific Plan area would expose existing residences along
Wamer Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road to noise levels that exceed the 65 dB CNEL standard.
Mitigation measures were identified to reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant
and would remain applicable with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan. It should also be noted that a Supplemental EIR was prepared by the City of
Tustin for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the Future Alignment
of the Valencia North Loop. The Supplemental EIR concluded that short-term construction-related
impacts would not be significant when conducted in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance.
A long-term operational impact to adjacent receptors along Tustin Ranch Road was identified.
The Supplemental EIR included a mitigation measure (MM N-1) to reduce this impact to a level
considered significant. MM N-1 requires installation of a soundwall ranging from 6 to 12 feet in
height prior to opening of the road.
The proposed project would slightly modify the land use distribution within the Specific Plan area,
which would result in a slight redistribution of the traffic generated by the proposed project.
However, the backbone circulation system identified for the proposed Development Plan is
substantially the same as that presented in the original Specific Plan (refer to Exhibit 7 in
Section 5.15, and the deSCription of roadway improvements proposed as part of the Development
Plan in Section 3.2.3). The traffic volumes resulting from implementation of the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would also be the same. Therefore, as concluded
in the FEIS/EIR, there is a potential for proposed residential uses to be exposed to noise levels that
exceed applicable standards. Implementation of the mitigation measures presented in the
FEIS/EIR and Supplemental EIR for Tustin Ranch Road would remain applicable and would
reduce traffic-related noise impacts to on-site uses to a level considered less than significant.
In summary, with respect to long-term traffic-related noise impacts, no new impacts would result
and the mitigation measures included in the FEISlEIR would be applicable to the proposed
project and would ensure that noise levels do not exceed interior or exterior noise standards
established by the City of Irvine and City of Tustin. Further, the noise mitigation measures to be
implemented for noise impacts resulting from the extension of Tustin Ranch Road would ensure
that noise levels from traffic generated by Specific Plan land uses would not exceed the
applicable City noise standards. There is also a potential for on-site land uses to be exposed to
noise from operation/use of adjacent uses. Although the land use distribution has been slightly
modified, the proposed project does not involve the development of any uses that were not
previously considered in the FEIS/EIR and the noise generated from these uses and potential
impacts would not be substantially different than that analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The City's Noise
Ordinance establishes interior and exterior noise limits for various types of uses. Pursuant to
MM N-3 of the FEIS/EIR, the City of Tustin would ensure that interior and exterior noise levels
do not exceed those prescribed by state requirements and local city ordinances and general
plans, including Figure NTM-3 of the Noise Technical Memorandum of the General Plan, Land
Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Compliance with adopted mitigation
measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering
procedures and techniques, would avoid significant short-term construction-related noise
impacts. This conclusion is consistent with that presented in the FEIS/EIR.
R\ProjectsITustinW004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-98
Environmentaf Analysis and
Expfanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tusnn Zone Change (Specine Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise level?
D. A substantial temporary or periodic Increase In ambient noise levels In the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Construction noise represents a short-term
impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks,
graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators, can reach high levels. The
greatest construction noise levels are typically generated by heavy grading equipment. As
discussed previously, existing sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area are
located north of Edinger Avenue and east of Jamboree Road. These uses may be exposed to
increased noise levels during project construction. Construction noise levels experienced north
of Edinger Avenue would be reduced by existing noise barriers in place to attenuate traffic
noise. It is also expected that construction noise levels at residential uses east of Jamboree
Road would be reduced due to distance and the roadway, which is elevated in this area and
would act as a sound barrier.
The City's Noise Ordinance only allows construction activities during the least sensitive daytime
hours when ambient noise levels are generally at their highest: between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays. No construction activity is allowed on Sunday or on City-observed federal holidays.
In accordance with this Ordinance, construction of the project would not occur outside of these
hours nor on Sundays or City-observed federal holidays. Therefore, noise generated by the
construction of the project would comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction of the
project would not result in a significant noise impact.
E. For a project located with an airport land use plan or, where such 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 the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the
elimination of aircraft operations at MCAS Tustin would eliminate the associated aircraft-related
noise and reduce the overall noise levels within the reuse area and surrounding areas. This was
identified as a beneficial impact of the project.
As previously discussed, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of the project site. Based on
review of Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (specifically the Impact Zones
Exhibit), the project site is not within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed
Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not involve the development of
any uses that would expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations. Therefore,
the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR also apply to the proposed project.
R:\ProJeclsITustin\J'J04\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-99
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.11.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
FEIS/EIR Measures That Have Been Completed
MM N-2
During design of the grade-separated intersection of Tustin Ranch Road at
Edinger Avenue, the City of Tustin shall evaluate potential noise impacts on
surrounding properties to the northeast of Edinger Avenue and shall incorporate
into the design of this intersection noise attenuation measures determined
appropriate and feasible by the City of Tustin, in order to ensure that tihese
surrounding properties do not experience noise levels that exceed City of Tustin
noise standards.
FEIS/EIR Measures Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
Mitigation measures related to noise identified below have been completed as development
projects have been proposed within tihe Specific Plan area, and are also applicable to future
development.
MM N-3
MM N-4
For new development witihin the reuse area, the City of Tustin and City of Irvine,
as applicable, shall ensure that interior and exterior noise levels do not exceed
those prescribed by state requirements and local city ordinances and general
plans. Plans demonstrating noise regulation conformity shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to building permits being issued to accommodate
reuse.
Prior to the connection of Warner Avenue to the North Loop Road or the South
Loop Road, the City of Tustin shall conduct an acoustical study to assess reuse
traffic noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors adjacent to Warner Avenue,
between Harvard Avenue and Culver Drive. If mitigation of reuse traffic noise
impacts is required, the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine shall enter into an
agreement that defines required mitigation and which allocates the cost of
mitigation between the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine on a fair share basis.
Tustin Ranch Road SEIR Mitiaation Measure Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
MM N-1
Prior to opening the proposed segment of Tustin Ranch Road to traffic, the City
will install a soundwall that ranges from six feet to 12 feet in height. Following are
the heights of the soundwall in relation to the elevation of the proposed roadway
adjacent to the residential receptors (see Exhibit 5.3-2 of the SEIR for receptor
locations).
. Receptor 1 - Existing 6-foot wall
. Receptors 2 through 4 - Proposed 12-foot wall
. Receptors 5 and 6 - Proposed 10-foot wall
. Receptors 7 and 8 - Proposed 8-foot wall
. Receptors 9 through 15 feet soutih of Receptor 21 - Proposed 6-foot wall
Refinements to FEIS/EIR Measures
No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures are required.
5-100
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysls-031306.doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Ch.ng. (Sp.clfic PI.n Amendm.nO 05-002.
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
FEIS/EIR Measures Not Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
MM N-1
Prior to reuse of any existing residential units within the reuse area for civilian
use, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, and where necessary
and feasible, shall require the installation of noise attenuation barriers, insulation,
or similar devices to ensure that interior and exterior noise levels at these
residential units do not exceed applicable noise standards.
5.11.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting noise, which
would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no substantial changes in
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
FEIS/EI R due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to
noise than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new information of substantial
importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related
to noise has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its
conclusions.
The Final EIS/EIR concluded that with implementation of the identified mitigation measures
there would be no impacts related to noise. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan do not increase the severity of the noise impacts previously identified in the
FEIS/EIR.
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address noise issues:
Airport Land Use Commission. Orange County Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.
Orange County, California: December 2002.
Tustin, City of. Noise Element Technical Memorandum. Prepared by Cotton/BelandIAssociates,
Inc. August 1991.
Tustin, City of. Supplemental EIR for Extension of Tustin Ranch Road. Prepared by Michael
Brandman Associates. December 2004.
5.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
5.12.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
population
As discussed in the FEIS/EIR, population impacts are considered neither adverse nor beneficial
by themselves; however, population impacts may have ramifications on other environmental
parameters. The FEIS/EIR concluded that development of the Specific Plan would increase the
population of the cities of Tustin and Irvine through the provision of new housing. Environmental
impacts associated with this population increase are documented throughout the technical
sections of the FEIS/EIR, as they relate to increases in population.
R\Projects\TustinlJ004\5 Environ Analysis--031306doc
5-101
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
The FEIS/EIR identified that implementation of the Specific Plan resulted in a population
increase of 12,514 individuals with 10,900 in the City of Tustin. Subtracting the military-
dependent population of 3,150 at the time, the net increase was estimated to be 9,350
individuals. The increase in population is a consequence of the beneficial housing impact
identified in the FEIS/EIR. No adverse population impacts were identified in the document.
Housina
The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no displacement of existing housing since existing
military housing would be converted to civilian use or reconstructed in the event that
rehabilitation is not economically feasible. The original Specific Plan proposed 4,601 housing
units, with new housing consisting of 3,064 units. Since the military housing units were not
available to the civilian market, the total gain was 4,601 units. The FEIS/EIR found no adverse
significant housing impact with development of the project evaluated since no existing housing
would be displaced. The FEIS/EIR further .states that "because one purpose and need for reuse
is to generate housing to satisfy an identified shortfall, any increased housing availability would
be beneficial".
Emplovment
The FEIS/EIR assumed that the Specific Plan would allow 11,406,975 square feet of private
non-residential and additional institutional/recreational uses generating 24,500 net new direct
jobs (taking into consideration the elimination of 400 jobs at MCAS Tustin that were held by
civilian personnel) within the Specific Plan area (including both Tustin and Irvine portions). The
increase in employment was determined to be a beneficial impact, as a goal of the LRA was job
generation.
Jobs-Housina Balance
In regional terms, development of the Specific Plan area would add both housing and jobs in
Orange County. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the majority of new employment generated by
development of the Specific Plan would be filled by current residents of Tustin, Irvine, Santa
Ana, and other Orange County communities, and that proposed development within the Specific
Plan area would provide enough housing for new employees that did not already reside in
Orange County. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no significant adverse effects
related to jobs/housing balance.
5.12.2 CURRENT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
At the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared, Orange County Projections-1996 (OCP-96) was the
most recent adopted growth projections for the City of Tustin and the County of Orange.
OCP-96 was succeeded by OCP-2000 and OCP-2004. OCP-2004 reflects the MCAS Tustin
Reuse Plan in its population, housing and employment growth projections, based on the latest
build-out information (as of March 2002). OCP-2004 provides projections in five-year increments
through the year 2030, whereas OCP-96 extended only through the year 2020.
Table 5-20 presents both OCP-96 demographic data for the City of Tustin and Orange County
as a whole.
R:\ProjectsITustln\J00415 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-102
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-20
TABLE OCP-96 PROJECTIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, 2000-2020
Table 5-21 presents OCP-2004 data for the City and County. OCP-2004 projects a slightly
smaller housing stock in 2020 than OCP-96 but a higher population, which indicates a larger
household size. OCP-2004 also expects employment growth to be 9 percent higher than was
projected at the time of the FEIS/EIR was prepared. MCAS Tustin reuse employment is
reflected in OCP-2004.
TABLE 5-21
OCP-2004 PROJECTIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, 2000-2030
1,514,611
Tustin 40,107 42,039 52,534 56,301
Source: OCP-2004, Center for Demographic Research, March 2004.
R\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5.103
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.12.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
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)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Employment Impacts
The FEIS/EIR reported in Table 2-6, Altemative 1 Buildout Potential, that the original Specific
Plan would allow 11,406,975 square feet of non-residential and institutional/recreational uses
generating a net of 24,500 net new direct jobs within the Specific Plan Area (including both
Tustin and Irvine portions). By comparison, the proposed project would allow 10,384,553 square
feet of non-residential and institutional/recreational uses on 1,606 acres (of this amount,
6,739,042 square feet would be located on approximately 234 acres within the Master
Developer footprint). This represents a 1,022,422 square foot reduction in non-residential uses
compared to the project addressed in the FEIS/EIR.
Table 5-22 provides the estimated direct employment generation for the proposed project. It
should be noted that the employment generation is broken down by land use designations
included in the Specific Plan Land Use Plan (refer to revised Figure 2-1 in Section 3, Project
Description). However, employment generation factors have been applied to the specific land
uses included within each land use designation/category. As shown in Table 5-22, the proposed
project would generate an estimated 24,021 employees at build-out. Subtracting the 400 military
jobs eliminated from the site, the proposed project provides 23,621 net new jobs. This
represents a reduction of approximately 879 employees compared to the estimated employment
reported in the FEIS/EIR (24,500 net new employees). The FEIS/EIR also estimated that
15,081 indirect jobs such as support jobs and vendors, as well as induced jobs resulting from
additional spending in the economy would be generated as a result of development of proposed
uses within the Specific Plan area. Since the proposed projects direct job generation potential is
less than the amount analyzed for the Specific Plan in the FEIS/EIR, it is also be expected that
there would be a similar reduction in indirect and induced jobs as a result of the proposed
project,
The FEIS/EIR identified no adverse employment impacts resulting from implementation of the
MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan, Because the amount of employment generated with implementation
of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA and Development Plan would be only slightly
reduced (a reduction of approximately 3 percent) compared to the amount of employment
generated by the originai project, there would no change in the conclusions presented in the
FEIS/EIR. No significant employment impacts would result and no mitigation is required.
R:\ProJects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-104
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tus~n Zone Chenge (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-22
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE EMPLOYMENT GENERATION
Residential 0
TransrtionallEmergency Housing 45
Residential Core 1,094
Commercial Business 4,901
Commercial 976
Village Services 695
Communrty Core 15,648
Education Village 501
Community Park (sports park) 14
Urban Regional Park 147
Total Employment 24,021
Employment generation factors were used from the following sources:
MCAS Tustin EDe, Employment Generation Calculations, Revised
April 8, 1999.
ITAM Land Use to Socioeconomic Data Conversion Factors.
MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR, Table 4.2-2.
Housing Impacts
Consistent with the original Specific Plan, the proposed project Specific Plan Amendment
continues to identify that the maximum number of units permitted by this zoning document
would be 4,601 dwelling units within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan is a planning
document, with the maximum number of dwelling units determined based on an estimate of
available gross acreage. At the subdivision and design review stages of individual development
projects, the actual number of units authorized by entitlements have been refined. The SpecifiC
Plan also does not reflect any density bonuses that have been granted by the City as may be
required by State Law. A density bonus was granted to Marble Mountain Partners for portions of
their projects in Tustin, which results in the development of a total of 4,621 units within the
Specific Plan area. No additional density bonuses will be permitted within the remaining portions
of the Specific Plan within the Master Developer footprint given provisions contained in the
DDA. Table 5-23 compares the amount and type of housing units in the proposed project with
those included in the original Specific Plan.
R\ProjectsITustin\JC04\5 Environ Ana~sis-031306_doc
5-105
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
'~l
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05~OO2,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-23
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE COMPARISON
Low Density
1-7 units per acre
Medium DensITY
8-15 units per acre
Medium High Density
16-25 unITs per acre
Senior Housing" 0 unITS 242 unITs
Total 4,601 units 4,621 units
Senior housing is actually within the medium density land use designation but is presented
separately in this table due to a lower persons per household factor.
1,437 unITS
1,450 unITS
1,685 units
1,470 unITS
1,479 units
1,459 unITS
The amount and type of residential units identified in Table 5-23 for the proposed project are
based on actual entitlements granted within the Specific Plan area by either the City of Tustin or
Irvine, as applicable, as well as maximum authorized dwelling units within the Master Developer
footprint Within the City of Tustin, 2,107 units have already been entitled within the Specific
Plan area. Irvine has approved entitlements on 409 units within their jurisdiction. The
entitlements are based on permitted densities authorized by City of Tustin adopted Specific Plan
development standards and City of Irvine adopted development standards that have been more
accurately calculated since adoption of the Specific Plan in terms of actual gross acreages, and
all maximum dwelling units projected by land use density in the Master Developer footprint In
order to assure that this updated population and housing analysis reflects existing conditions,
and conservatively projects housing and associated population impacts, the unit projections for
this analysis differ slightly from the land use statistics identified in Specific Plan Table 3-1 and in
the Traffic Study. The land use assumptions for the traffic analysis are further discussed in
Section 5.15, Transportation and Traffic.
As shown in Table 5-23, the proposed project provides a similar amount and type of housing as
that included in the original Specific Plan (the senior housing is actually separately identified but
is located within the medium density land use designation). The increase in number of units
from 4,601 to 4,621 is less than one percent. For comparison, OCP-2004 small area projections
allocate 3,592 housing units to the MCAS Tustin reuse site by 2030.
Because the proposed project results in 20 more housing units than the original Specific Plan,
the beneficial impacts identified in the FEIS/EIR related to the provision of housing would be
greater. No adverse housing impacts beyond those analyzed and found to be not significant in
the FEISlEIR would occur.
Population Impacts
The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be 12,514 new residents in the cities of Tustin and
Irvine as a result of 4,601 new dwelling units in the Specific Plan area. Subtracting the
3,150 Marine dependents leaving the base, the FEIS/EIR found that the original Specific Plan
generated approximately 9,350 net new residents.
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5~106
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Table 5-24 estimates the population likely to be generated by the proposed project's housing
unit allocation based on the same population factors for MCAS Tustin adopted in the Tustin
General Plan Land Use Element.
TABLE 5.24
PROPOSED PROJECT'S ESTIMATED POPULATION AT BUILD-OUT
Low Density
Medium Density
Medium High Dens~y
Senior Housing
Trans~ionallEmergency Units
Total
pphh- people per household
1 ,450 un~s
1,470 units
1 ,459 un~s
242 un~s
3.25 pphh
2.73 pphh
2.12 pphh
2.12 pphh
4,713
4,013
3,093
513
192
12,524
4,621 units
As shown in Table 5-24, the proposed project's housing would generate an estimated
12,524 residents using the persons per household factors applicable to each land use
designation. Subtracting the 3,150 baseline military population that existed on the site when the
FEIS/EIR was prepared, the proposed project would result in 9,374 net new residents. By
comparison, OCP-2004 projects 11,185 residents in 2020 in the Specific Plan area. The
2,105 units within the Master Developer footprint (533 Low Density, 489 Medium Density, and
1,083 Medium-high Density) would generate approximately 5,363 residents.
Based on the City of Tustin's General Plan population factors, the proposed project would
generate 24 more net new residents, or 0.2 percent more than identified for the original Specific
Plan in the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR identified no significant population impacts. The small
increase in expected population is the result of a different mix of housing types in the proposed
project, and density bonuses which were required to be granted producing a slightly higher
average density on small portions of the Specific Plan area. The original Specific Plan identified
the increase in housing units as a beneficial impact. The proposed project's increased housing
units produce a slightly higher population than the original Specific Plan. Because the difference
is less than one percent, the proposed project population would not result in any significant
impacts related to increased population, consistent with the conclusions presented in the
FEIS/EIR. No new impacts would result and no mitigation is required.
Jobs/Housing Balance
This discussion provides updated jobs/housing balance information for the proposed project.
Jobs/housing balance is an indicator of a project's effect on growth and quality of life in the
project area, although it is not a criterion of significant impact under CEQA.
The FEIS/EIR stated that the original Specific Plan resulted in 24,500 net new direct jobs within
the Specific Plan area, and that this direct job growth resulted in an estimated 4,000 net indirect
and induced jobs added to the County of Orange. Because the proposed project is consistent
with the magnitude of jobs growth relative to housing growth resulting from implementation of
the original Specific Plan (refer to the discussion of employment and housing above), it would
have similar effect on countywide jobs/housing balance described in the FEIS/EIR, and
therefore remains consistent with the FEIS/EIR conclusions.
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Allalysis-031306.doc
5-107
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Using the current standard methodology for describing a project's job/housing ratio, the
proposed project's ratio is calculated by dividing the net new direct jobs by the net new housing
units associated with a project. This method allows the project's jobs/housing ratio to be
compared with city and county projected jobs/housing ratios based on adopted job and housing
growth projections. The proposed project would result in 23,621 net new direct jobs, and
4,621 net new housing units in the project area. This yields a jobs/housing ratio of 5.11 when
the project is completed in 2020. Applying the current standard methodology for calculating
jobs/housing ratios results in a ratio of 5.32 for the original Specific Plan.
The proposed project is a jobs-rich node within the city and county. This magnitude of job
growth was considered a beneficial outcome of the project in the original FEIS/EIR, and the
proposed project does not change this conclusion. This level of jobs relative to housing growth
is also consistent with the direction of the adopted OCP-2004 growth projections for Orange
County. OCP-2004 projections yield a project area ratio of 4.91, a citywide jobs/housing ratio of
2.11, and a countywide ratio of 1.79 in 2020, Therefore, OCP-2004 anticipates the project area
will be more jobs-rich than the surrounding city and county.
The proposed project exceeds the normal citywide projected jobs/housing ratio indicating that
there are more jobs available with the project for residents of the project. The project's
jobs/housing relationship supports regional growth pOlicies advocated by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG policies encourage development in
activity centers and areas served by transportation corridors, such as RSA E-44. The project
would interface with commercial, residential, and mixed-use areas including the Irvine
Spectrum, Irvine Business Complex activity centers, and future development within the Great
Park. The proposed project is near High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-5; the Foothill and
Eastern Transportation Corridor toll lanes, which are priced to ensure free flow; and a Metrolink
station immediately to the north of the project.
Similar to the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would not have an
adverse effect on the jobs/housing balance experienced within the Specific Plan area. No new
impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required.
Affordable Housing
Like the jobs/housing balance, housing affordability provides an indicator of a project's impact
on growth and quality of life, in addition to the CEQA criteria for significant impacts. This section
compares the proposed project's effect on affordable housing in the City of Tustin with the
findings of the FEIS/EIR.
The Housing Element of the City's General Plan provides a long-term blueprint for housing
within the context of local and regional trends and housing production goals. The Housing
Element addresses new production targets set by California's Department of Housing and
Community Development to encourage each jurisdiction in the state to provide its fair share of
very low, low, moderate, and upper income housing needed during the 2000-2005 time period.
These numerical housing production goals are known as Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) targets. State law requires that the Housing Element of the General Plan identify RHNA
targets and strive to meet them. To this end, the Housing Element: analyzes housing needs
within the City's demographic context; reviews potential market, governmental, and other
constraints to meeting the City's housing needs; evaluates the resources available to meet
housing needs; and finally, establishes policies and objectives to make progress in meeting its
R:\Prcjects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-108
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Speclfjc Plen Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
housing needs during the five-year period, The Department of Housing and Community
Development found the City's Housing Element to be in compliance in 2002.
Tustin's Housing Element contains goals, objectives, and policies designed to meet its 1998-
2005 RHNA targets as well as other housing needs in the City. Table 5-25 presents the City of
Tustin's RHNA targets for each income level, with an overall housing production target of
3,298 fair share housing units.
TABLE 5-25
CITY OF TUSTIN REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT TARGETS,
CONSTRUCTION NEED, 1998-2005
Very Low Income 1 694
Low Income' 489
Moderate Income' 778
Upper Income' 1,337
Total 3,298
o-so percent of Area Median Family Income (MFI)
, 51-80 percent of MFI
3 81-120 percent ofMFI
~ Greater than 120 percent of MFI
Source: City of Tustin Housing Element, November 2002. Table H-13, pg. 39
The FEIS/EIR stated that medium-high density housing is generally more affordable than low
density housing. No specific affordability restrictions were identified. As previously shown in
Table 5-23, the proposed project provides 1,470 medium density, 1,459 medium-high density
units, and 242 medium density senior housing units (a total of 3,171 medium and medium-high
units). This represents a slight increase compared to the original Specific Plan (3,164 units).
Therefore, the proposed project provides generally the same opportunities to meet fair share
housing targets as the original Specific Plan evaluated in the FEIS/EIR
The housing units that would be implemented with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan assist the City of Tustin in meeting state-mandated fair share
housing production targets. The housing component of the proposed project implements the
intent of the following General Plan Housing Element goal and policies:
Goal 1: Provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of
housing types and the diverse socio-economic needs of all community
residents.
Policy 1.1: Promote the construction of additional dwelling units to accommodate
Tustin's share of regional housing needs identified by the Southern California
Association of Govemments (SCAG), in accordance with adopted land uSe
policies.
Policy 1.2: Provide for expanded affordable housing opportunities through acquisition
and rehabilitation, and new residential development in Old Town Tustin, on
other infill sites, and in the MCAS Tustin Specific Area.
R:\ProjectsHustinl..0J4\5 Environ AnaIYsls-031306.doc
5-109
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Policy 1.4: Promote the dispersion and integration of housing for low- and very-low
income families throughout the community as opposed to within any
particular geographic are, neighborhood, or project.
Policy 1.8: Utilize Planned Community Districts and Specific Plans to authorize and
promote a variety of lot sizes and housing types.
Policy 1.14: Promote, assist, and facilitate the development of emergency and transitional
housing at MCAS Tustin as was identified in the MCAS Tustin reuse planning
process and provide continued support for the County Homeless Assistance
Program and other homeless assistance programs within Tustin and in
adjacent cities" (City of Tustin 2001)
Consistent with the original Specific Plan evaluated in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project
includes provisions requiring the inclusion in each development of affordable housing units. As
discussed in Section 3.2.3 of the Project Description, the proposed DDA also mandates that no
fewer than 453 (21.5 percent) of the 2,105 units within the Master Developer footprint be
constructed and available for occupancy by Very Low Income, Low Income and Moderate
Income households below market rate as follows: 126 Very Low Income Units, 94 Low Income
Units and 233 Moderate Income Units. Further, of the 2,105 units in the Development Plan area,
a maximum of 315 units may be rental apartments with the balance to be home ownership units.
The apartment units would be split into two neighborhoods and each apartment project would
include no more than 60 percent of the apartments at the Very Low and Low income levels, with
a maximum of 40 percent of the units at the Very Low income level, 20 percent at the Low
income level, and 20 percent at market rate.
While the 453 Very Low, Low, and Moderate income units in the proposed project may not be
available in the timeframe of the current 2000-2005 RHNA targets, they would be available to
meet housing production targets set in scheduled updates to the Housing Element. The City's
Housing Element is now slated to be updated to reflect the next round of state-approved
housing targets by June 2008.
Workforce Housina
Workforce housing indicators address the availability of local housing opportunities suited for
workers within a City or subregion. Like jobs/housing balance and housing affordability, it is an
additional indicator of growth and quality of life with a community. The proposed project includes
new job-generating land uses, and therefore would generate demand for worker housing. The
FEIS/EIR reported that 24,500 net new direct jobs would be generated in the base reuse area.
By comparison, the proposed project will generate 23,621 net new jobs, a decrease of 879 jobs
and the household demand they represent from the original Specific Plan.
The 2000 Decennial Census reported a countywide average of 1.56 workers per housing unit.
Based on this Census factor, the proposed project's net new jobs would generate worker
demand for households within the county and the region. Based on this factor, the reduction of
879 jobs associated with the proposed project eliminates the demand for an additional
1,371 housing units compared to the original Specific Plan.
The proposed project would provide a net of 4,621 new units to meet the housing demand of
employees within the Specific Plan area, existing Tustin residents, as well as the greater
population of Orange County. The proposed project provides a beneficial contribution toward
R:\PrOJectsITustin\J004\5Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-110
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
improved jobs/housing balance, and maintains the existing Specific Plan's benefits for fair-share
housing (no fewer than 21.5 percent of the homes within the Master Developer footprint would
be restricted to below market rate), workforce housing, and concentrated housing within an area
of abundant employment opportunities.
B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the original
Specific Plan would not displace any existing housing units since military housing would be
converted to civilian use or reconstructed if rehabilitation is not possible. The proposed project is
consistent with this conclusion and replacement housing would not be needed elsewhere.
5.12.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR
related to population/housing. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development
Plan do not change the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and no mitigation is required.
5.12.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting population and
housing, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no
substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require
major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to population and housing than previously analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in
subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to population and housing
has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no significant adverse impacts related to
population and housing. The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the
severity of population, employment and housing impacts beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR.
The proposed project would increase the benefits identified in the FEIS/EIR related to the
provision of additional housing units.
SOURCES
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis. Santa Ana, California: Austin-
Foust. February 2006.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000 Decennial Census. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.
Center for Demographic Research. Orange County Projections-1996. Fullerton, California:
California State University. 1996.
R:\ProjectsITustinl.xJ04\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5.111
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Center for Demographic Research. Orange County Projections-2004. Fullerton, California:
California State University. March 2004.
Tustin, City of. City of Tustin Housing Element. (Table H-13, pg. 39) Tustin, California: the City.
2002.
Tustin, City of. Employment Generation Projections Economic Development Conveyance
Application. Memorandum dated AprilS, 1999.
5.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
5.13.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
The FEIS/EIR indicated that implementation of the Specific Plan and Implementing Actions
would result in the construction of 4,601 housing units and associated population increase of
approximately 12,500 individuals (10,900 within the City of Tustin). The increase in population
would result in increased demands for public services, as discussed below.
Fire Protection/Emeraencv Medical Services
The FEIS/EIR identified that implementation the Specific Plan and Implementing Actions would
increase demand on Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) fire prevention and protection
services, and emergency medical services due to the increase in housing and population. This
increased demand would require additional fire fighting personnel and equipment at existing
facilities. However, the number of existing fire stations in the area was determined to be
adequate to meet the demands created by project development. No new or expanded facilities
were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified.
All development projects would be required to meet OCFA regulations regarding construction
materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler
systems, building setbacks, as well as other relevant requirements which would reduce the risk
of uncontrollable fires and increase OCFA's ability to provide fire protection and emergency
medical services. The FEISlEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to fire
protection/emergency medical services.
Police Protection
The FEIS/EIR identified that Specific Plan and Implementing Actions would increase the
demand for police protection services in both the cities of Tustin and Irvine. Based on the
increased population, the City of Tustin identified the need for two new patrol units and three
new investigative units, and the City of Irvine would need two additional sworn officers, support
personnel and equipment. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the additional personnel and
equipment required could be accommodated within existing facilities in each City. Therefore,
new or expanded facilities would not be required and no physical impacts would result. In the
City of Tustin, police need would be reviewed and accommodated through the annual budget
process as development occurs. Additionally, the police departments would be required to
review development plans for projects within their respective jurisdictions. The FEIS/EIR did not
identify any significant impacts related to police protection services.
R:\ProjeclsITus1in\J004\5 Environ Ana~sis-031306_doc
5-112
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Schools
The FEIS/EIR identified that the increased population associated with implementation of the
Specific Plan and Implementing Actions would increase the demand for schools within the
Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) and Irvine Unified School District (IUSD). Based on the
student generation factors presented in the FEIS/EIR for the TUSD, it was concluded that reuse
development would generate approximately 750 students for grades K-5, 328 students for
grades 6-8, and 395 students for grades 9-12 for a total of 1,473 students (an increase of
1,143 over the baseline conditions at that time. The FEIS/EI R also concluded that 959 students
would be generated in the IUSD (513 elementary, 150 middle school, and 269 'high school
students), an increase of 302 students over the baseline conditions at that time.
The City of Tustin has entered into mitigation agreements with each of these school districts
(refer to Appendix E of the FEIS/EIR). The FEIS/EIR concluded that the provision of school sites
(two 1D-acre elementary school sites and a 40-acre high school in the TUSD and a 20-acre
school site in the I USD) together with statutory development fees and other funding sources
identified in the FEISlEIR, would be adequate to accommodate the increased student
population in TUSD and IUSD. The construction of schools sites within the TUSD and IUSD to
serve the new students generated by the project are within the impact footprint analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR and impacts are described for the respective topical issues.
The Specific Plan mandated that the area within the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD)
would be developed with commercial/business uses and therefore no increased demand on
SAUSD schools would occur. However, the FEISlEIR identified potential financial impacts from
increased student generation on SAUSD resulting from indirect or induced growth as a result of
development. These potential indirect impacts are fully analyzed and discussed in reports
referenced in the FEIS/EIR.
The FEIS/EIR concluded that compliance with the identified Implementation Measures would
reduce impacts to schools to a level considered less than significant.
Libraries
The Specific Plan area is served by the Orange County Public Library system. The FEISlEIR
concluded that although the proposed development would result in an increase in population,
the demand for library space generated (approximately 2,500 square feet) would be less than
the library system's general minimum size of 10,000 square feet for a branch library. In addition,
there are three existing public libraries within a three-mile radius of the Specific Plan area.
Therefore, it was determined that implementation of the Specific Plan and Implementing
Measures would not trigger the need for the construction of new library facilities and no
significant physical impacts would occur.
The Implementing Actions regulate development over 20-plus years, and would require
preparation of an overall plan for providing and financing public services and facilities to support
the Specific Plan development. Per this plan, FEIS/EIR conclusions confirmed that the public
services and facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs
as development of the site proceeded. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the Implementing Actions
would not create any significant impacts related to public services and facilities.
R:\ProJeclsITuslin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-113
Environmental Analysis and
Explanatjon of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.13.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Fire Protection/Emerllencv Medical Services
While the FEIS/EIR concluded that existing fire stations located in the cities of Tustin and Irvine
would meet the fire emergency service demands of the proposed development, subsequent to
the certification of the FEIS/EIR, the OCFA re-examined the need for fire protection facilities
within the reuse area, specifically as it related to emergency response times. As a result, OCFA
determined that it would relocate the existing Fire Station No. 37 within the City of Tustin to a
new fire station at Tustin Legacy. In March 2005, the City of Tustin entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) for a New Fire Station at Tustin Legacy with the Orange County Fire
Authority (OCFA). The purpose of this MOU is, among other items, to identify the terms and
principles for the new fire station and certain related improvements, and for the maintenance,
improvement and construction of the fire station.
In May 2003, the Navy Disposal Plan transferred to the City of Tustin a 1.25-acre site at Edinger
Avenue and the West Connector for construction of the new fire station. The new fire station will
be funded through fair-share contributions from Tustin Legacy developers and developers in the
City of Irvine at the former MCAS Tustin.
It should be noted that firefighter personnel, equipment, and manpower needs will continue to
be addressed under provisions of current agreements. OCFA provides fire protection and
medical aid services at Tustin Legacy in accordance with: (a) a Fire Services Agreement (cash
contract) dated July 13, 1995; (b) a Tustin Fire Services and Emergency Medical Agreement
dated July 27, 2000; and (c) the Joint Powers Agreement creating the OCFA approved by the
Tustin City Council in February 1995, and subsequently amended and approved by the City
Council in February 1995 and September 1999. The Joint Powers Authority has also been
approved by the City of Irvine.
Police Protection
The existing setting for police protection services has not changed since certification of the
FEIS/EIR.
Schools
Individual agreements between the City of Tustin and both TUSD and IUSD discussed
previously remain in effect. Additionally, the TUSD has accepted a 10-acre elementary school
site from the DoN adjacent to Red Hill Avenue.
In May 2002 the City of Tustin and SAUSD entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement
regarding issues associated with impacts originally identified in the FEIS/EIR, with nothing
contained in the Agreement an admission of liability or fact. Pursuant to this agreement, the City
of Tustin offered a school site that SAUSD had a right to decline. In exercising their right to
decline a school site (which they did) SAUSD accepted, in lieu of the school site, a cash
payment to be used by SAUSD for school facilities or land acquisition for school sites outside of
the MCAS Tustin boundaries.
In addition, effective January 10, 2006, the TUSD entered into a School Facilities Funding and
Mitigation Agreement with Moffett Meadows Partners, LLC; William Lyon Homes, Inc.; Ora
Astoria, LLC; MW Housing Partners III, L.P. (Lennar Mitigation Agreement) for their
development within the Specific Plan area within the boundaries of the TUSD. The agreement
R:\ProJects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Arlalysls-031306.doc
5.114
Enwronmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Chenge (Specific Plan Amendment) O~002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
identifies recently modified TUSD student generation rates used to calculate the student
generation resulting from the 1,077 dwelling units within TUSD being developed by these
parties. The Lennar Mitigation Agreement also identifies procedures to finance school facilities
including a variety of funding sources (e.g., use of community facilities district financing and
school impact fees). TUSD has also introduced a concept of relocation of the Tustin High
School site to the Tustin Legacy high school site; however, this is not a project that the TUSD
has yet further developed nor have they identified any proposed replacement land use on the
current high school site. Therefore, analysis of the physical environmental impacts from this
action at this time would be speculative and is not addressed in this document.
The student generation factors presented in the Lennar Mitigation Agreement have been
modified compared to those presented in the FEIS/EIR and are as follows:
Single-family Detached
Single-family Attached
Apartments
0.465
0.219
0.350
0.135
0.077
0.113
In production of this Addendum and subsequent to execution of the Lennar Mitigation
Agreement, the City of Tustin requested updated student generation information from TUSD for
the remaining portion of the Specific Plan area to be developed within TUSD. TUSD Assistant
Superintendent Brock Wagner confirmed in writing on February 21, 2006, that the student
generation rates identified in the Lennar Mitigation Agreement (provided above) would also
apply to the proposed project.
The City of Tustin also requested updated student generation factors from the IUSD. IUSD
responded that district-wide student generation rates for the Specific Plan presented in the
FEIS/EIR will continue to be used until more specific product information is identified.
Li braries
Since certification of the FEIS/EIR the Orange County Public Library (OCPL) entered into an
agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch of the OCPL. This
expansion was evaluated in a mitigated negative declaration (MND) approved by the City in
May 2002 (SCH No. 2002041004). The project was approved in September 2005. The existing
library to be expanded is located in the vicinity of the Tustin Civic Center, not within the Tustin
Legacy site. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that will
directly benefit redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin by ensuring adequate public services
for citizens, businesses, and employees at the former military installation. Developers within the
Specific Plan area are required to make a fair-share contribution to a portion of the development
costs of the library expansion.
5.13.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
R\Projects\TustinUJ04\5 Environ Analysis--031306.doc
5-115
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
iI) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As addressed in the FEIS/EIR, development
of the site would require public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, and
libraries. Recreational facilities, including biking/biking/hiking trails are discussed in
Section 5.14, Recreation. As discussed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the proposed
project would generate 12,524 new residents (within the cities of Irvine and Tustin), compared to
12,514 with the previously approved Specific Plan, this represents an increase of approximately
10 residents. Based on the population generation factors provided in Table 5-18, the 2,105 units
proposed to be developed within the Master Developer footprint would generate
5,363 residents.
Fire Protection. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would result in the development of 4,621 dwelling units. Of these, 2,105 units
would be within the Master Developer footprint. There would also be a decrease in the amount
of non-residential uses on-site. VlJith the proposed development, there would be a similar
demand for fire protection services as addressed for the original project in the FEIS/EIR since
the proposed changes with Specific Plan are not substantial. Based on the MOU between the
City of Tustin and OCFA, a fire station would be provided within the Specific Plan area to meet
the fire protection demand of the proposed land uses and surrounding areas. No new or
expanded off-site fire protection facilities would be required. The fire station is within the impact
area analyzed throughout this document and would not result in new or more severe
environmental impacts beyond those related to urban development in the Specific Plan area as
addressed in the FEIS/EIR and this Addendum.
The proposed project would be required to meet existing OCFA regulations regarding
demolition, construction materials and methods, street widths, street configurations, emergency
access, water mains, fire fiow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other
relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations and compliance with the Implementation
Measures identified in Section 5.3.4 would mitigate potential impacts to fire protection service
level considered less than significant, consistent with the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EI R.
Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident
population estimates and square footage of non-residential uses. Development of the Specific
Plan area, including the Master Developer site, would increase the need for police protection
services compared to existing conditions. Although the number of residential units allowed
would be increased with the proposed project (additional 20 units) there would be a slight
reduction in resident population and the amount of non-residential development would be
slightly reduced. Therefore, the increased demand for police protection services would be
similar to that analyzed in the FEIS/EIR since the proposed changes within the Specific Plan
area are not substantial. As a condition of approval for the project, the developer 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
R\PrOjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-116
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
project at plan check. Based on review of the proposed project, the City of Tustin Police
Department has determined that the proposed changes would not alter the conclusion of the
FEIS/EIR related to the provision of police protection services. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR,
the proposed project would not require the construction of new police facilities and no significant
physical impacts would result.
Schools. Using current student generation factors provided by the TUSD and IUSD, and
assuming a maximum of 2,588 units would be developed in the TUSD, and 1,791 units would
be developed in the IUSD (within Planning Areas 15, 20, 21, and 22), it is estimated that the
proposed project would generate 1,828 students: 976 in the TUSD and 852 students in the
I USD. This represents a reduction of 604 students compared to the student generation reported
in the FEIS/EIR (2,432 students). This reduction is due to updated generation rates, and the
updated number and type of residential units.
Student generation for TUSD and I USD are further discussed below. It should be noted that
proposed Specific Plan development also includes 242 senior housing units in Tustin in
Planning Areas 4 and 5 that would not result in student generation and are not included in this
analysis.
Tustin Unified School District
Based on the 1,077 units entitled by Marble Mountain Partners, LLP within TUSD boundaries,
the TUSD identified the following projected total student generation:
Single-family Detached
Single-family Attached
Apartments
283
552
o
835
131
121
o
252
38
43
o
81
189
164
o
333
a. Subject to school impacts (note that 242 senior housing units are not included in this
calculation.
As previously noted, the TUSD has indicated that the student generation factors identified in the
recent Lennar Mitigation Agreement would apply to development within the remainder of the
Specific Plan area, within the TUSD (B. Wagner, 2006). Based on information provided by the
Master Developer regarding the number and types of residential dwelling units to be provided
within the Master Developer footprint, and applying the updated student generation rates
provided by TUSD, the number of students generated within the TUSD has been recalculated,
as follows: 485 students in K_8'h Grade and 158 students in 9'h_12th grades (total of
643 students).
R:\ProJects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-117
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TUSD STUDENT GENERATION FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE MASTER DEVELOPER FOOTPRINT
Single-family Detached
Mu~i-family Attached
Apartments
Total
410
1,343
o
1,753
191
294
o
485
55
103
o
158
246
397
643
Therefore, development within the Specific Plan area would generate approximately 976 in the
TUSD (737 students in grades K-8 and 239 students in grades 9-12). This represents an
increase of 646 students compared to the 330 students residing at MCAS Tustin as reported in
the baseline analysis for the FEIS/FEIR. However, the total number of students generated in the
TUSD from the implementation of the Specific Plan development is reduced by approximately
497 students compared to the student generation presented in the FEIS/EIR for the original
Specific Plan (estimated to be 1,473 students or 1,143 over the baseline).
Consistent with the project addressed in the FEIS/EIR, the revised Specific Plan continues to
identify three school sites within the TUSD: a 40-acre high school in Neighborhood D, a 10-acre
elementary school in Neighborhood G as identified in the DDA and Development Plan, and a
10-acre elementary school site adjacent to Red Hill Avenue. The proposed location of the
schools within the Master Developer footprint is shown on the proposed Development Plan in
Exhibit 2. It should be noted that the 10-acre elementary school in Neighborhood G could be
expanded by 5 acres to accommodate a combination elementary/middle school, based on
negotiations with the TUSD. The traffic study has taken into account the increase in enrollment
in the event a combination elementary/middle school is developed on the property.
Irvine Unified School District
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment wouid result in the development of 1,791 units in the
IUSD (352 units within the Master Developer footprint and 1,439 units within other development
sites adjacent to Harvard Avenue). Based on input from the IUSD (Ruiz 2006), the following
student generation rates per residential dwelling unit for I USD presented in the FEIS/EI R have
been used to calculate the number of students from the proposed Specific Plan:
'!K.e~ ~lIi;
0.2543
0.0745
""'~~Gr.eD;;
0.1467
Using updated dwelling unit information, and these student generation factors, there would be
852 students generated from development in the Specific Plan area in the in the IUSD
(168 students within the Master Developer footprint and 684 students within remaining Specific
Plan areas), as follows:
R:\ProjeclslTustin\JJ04\5 Enlliron Analysis-031306_doc
5-118
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Spacific Plan Amendmant) 05-002,
DDA and Davetopment ptan
Addendum
IUSD STUDENT GENERATION WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Master Developer Footprint
other Spec>fic Plan Developments
Total
352
1,439
1,791
90
366
456
26
107
133
52
211
263
168
684
852
The generation of 852 students represents an increase of 195 students over the 657 students
residing at the former MCAS Tustin and assumed in the baseline analysis in the FEIS/EIR. The
total student generation in the IUSD is reduced compared to that reported in the FEIS/EIR
(852 students compared to 959 students in the FEIS/EIR).
It should be noted that residential projects in the I USD east of Jamboree Road are completed or
under construction and school impacts from these developments have been mitigated per State
Law, and in compliance with mitigation agreements entered into between IUSD, the City and/or
the respective developers.
Santa Ana Unified School District
Consistent with the analysis presented in the FEIS/EIR, the portion of the Specific Plan area
within the SAUSD would be developed with non-residential uses and there would indirect
student generation from these uses. This area is within the Master Developer footprint
(specifically Planning Areas 9 through 12) and is proposed for development with the same type
of Commercial/Business uses as addressed in the FEIS/EIR, although the total floor area has
been reduced from approximately 2.0 million square feet to 1,267,324 square feet. The
proposed project would not increase the amount of students indirectly generated within the
SAUSD compared to that evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. The projects impacted related to indirect
student generation have been addressed with the SAUSD under the settlement agreement
between the City of Tustin and SAUSD and no additional mitigation is required.
The impacts to schools resulting from implementation of the proposed Specific Pian
Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would be similar as that identified in the FEIS/EIR.
Compliance with Implementation Measure (s) below would reduce impacts to a level considered
less than significant, as concluded in the FEIS/EIR. The Master Developer would be required to
pay applicable school fees to TUSD, IUSD, and SAUSD prior to issuance of building permits.
The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide "full
and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development of real property on school facilities
(Govemment Code 65995). SB 50 provides that a state or local agency may not deny or refuse
to approve the planning, use or development of real property on the basis of a developer's
refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50.
Other Public Facilities (Libraries). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would result in the development of an additional 20 residential units from that
assessed in the FEIS/EIR, but would result in a decrease in population. At the time the
FEIS/EIR was prepared, a complete update/expansion to the Tustin Library was not envisioned.
However, as noted previously, the City of Tustin subsequently entered into an agreement with
the OCPL to expand the Tustin Branch Library to accommodate the demand from the SpeCific
Plan development as well as other demand in the City. The library expansion was addressed in
R:\ProjectsITustin\JJ04\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-119
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Specinc Plan AmendmenO 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
a mitigated negative declaration approved by the City of Tustin in May 2002. This mitigated
negative declaration fully addressed the potential environmental impacts resulting from the
library expansion and determined that with mitigation, the impacts would be less than
significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would not result in significant environmental impacts associated with
implementation of new or altered library facilities that have not been analyzed in previous
environmental documentation. However, as noted above, the developers within the Specific
Plan area are required to make a fair share contribution to a portion of the development costs
forthe library expansion.
5.13.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
To support proposed development in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, public services must
be provided concurrent with demand. Compliance with the following Implementation Measures
would ensure that publiC services and facilities are provided by the project developer when
needed.
For consistency, the lettering system follows what was provided in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the FEIS/EIR. Implementation Measures specific to
recreation are provided in Section 5.14, Recreation.
FEIS/EIR Measures That Have Been Completed
Measures identified below have been implemented for development that has been completed
and/or initiated within the Specific Plan area; however, they remain applicable to the proposed
project.
FEIS/EIR Measures Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
1M (0)
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Services
IM(p)
1M (q)
1M (r)
Prior to the first final map recordation or building permit issuance for development
(except for financing and reconveyances purposes), the project developer could
be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin or City of
Irvine/OCFA, as applicable, to address impacts of the project on fire services.
Such agreement could include participation for fire protection, personnel and
equipment necessary to serve the project and eliminate any negative impacts on
fire protection services.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall work closely with
the OCFA to ensure that adequate fire protection measures are implemented in
the project.
Prior to issuance of building permits for phased projects, the project developer
shall submit a construction phasing plan to the OCFA demonstrating that
emergency vehicle access is adequate.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit a fire
hydrant location plan for the review and approval of the Fire Chief and ensure
that fire hydrants capable of flows in amounts approved by the OCFA are in place
and operational to meet fire flow requirements.
5-120
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
R:\ProjeclsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysls-031306.doc
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Speoific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plsn
Addendum
Police Protection
1M (s) Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall work closely with
the respective Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions
are implemented in the project,
Refinements to FEISIEIR Implementation Measures
The following Implementation Measures have been refined to further describe the requirements,
This does not represent a new or substantially changed mitigation and is consistent with the
intent of the measure as presented in the FEIS/EIR.
General
IM(m)
The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, each within its respective jurisdiction,
shall ensure that adequate fire protection, police protection, libraries, and parks
and recreation facilities (including bikeways/lrails) needed to adequately serve
the reuse plan area shall be provided as necessary, To eliminate any negative
impact the project could have on each community's general fund, financing
mechanisms including but not limited to developer fees, assessment district
financing, and/or tax increment financing (in the event that a redevelopment
project area is created for the site), shall be developed and used as determined
appropriate by each City, Specifically;
(1) Applicants for private development projects shall be required to enter into
an agreement with City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, to
establish a fair-share mechanism to provide needed fire and police
protection services, libraries, and parks and recreation facilities (including
bikeways) through the use of fee schedules, assessment district
financing, Community Facility District financing, or other mechanisms as
determined appropriate by each respective city,
(2) Recipients of property through public conveyance process, or other
convevance procedures, shall be required to mitigate any impacts of their
public uses of properly on public services and facilities,
Schools
1M (t) Prior to the issuance of certificates of 101[8 iii'll:! 9\:\:b1pal'l\:Y buildina permits, tAe 51
project developer shall submit to the respective City proof of payment of
appropriate school fees adopted by the applicable school district pursuant to
Government Code Section 65995, Alternativelv, a proiect developer mav enter
into a mutual acreement with an applicable school district to provide alternative
mitiaation that addresses student aeneration increases,
FEIS/EIR Implementation Measures Not Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
The FEIS/EIR Implementation Measures are applicable to the proposed project.
R:\Pro]ectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analy~s-031306,doc
5-121
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.13.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting public services,
which would require major revisions to the FEISlEIR; (b) there have been no substantial
changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major
revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental
effects related to public services than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new
information of substantial importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the
CEQA Guidelines, related to public services has been revealed that would require major
revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to
public services. The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of
impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR.
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address public service issues:
Memorandum of Understanding for a New Fire Station at Tustin Legacy. Agreement between
the City of Tustin and the Orange County Fire Authority. March 7, 2005.
School Facilities Funding and Mitigation Agreement Between Tustin Unified School District and
Moffett Meadows Partners, LLC, et a/. January 10, 2006.
Ruiz, Lorrie. E-mail to Christine Shingleton (City of Tustin, Assistant City Manager) from L. Ruiz
(Irvine Unified School District). March 5, 2006.
Wagner, Brock. Tustin Unified School District, Assistant Superintendent. Provided student
generation factors to the City of Tustin. February 21,2006.
5.14 RECREATION
5.14.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FINAL EIS/EIR
Parks and Recreation
The Specific Plan and Implementing Actions evaluated in the FEIS/EIR included approximately
126 acres of public park land including approximately 118 acres in the City of Tustin (a
84.5-acre regional park; a 24.1-acre community park; and two smaller neighborhood parks
which total ten acres), and an eight-acre neighborhood park in the City of Irvine. In addition, the
Specific Plan included a 159-acre privately-owned golf course available to the public. The
approximate 118 acres of public parkland provided in the City of Tustin was well over the
standard established by the City of Tustin's General Plan (three acres of park per
1,000 inhabitants equals 32.7 acres of park space). The proposed 84.5-acre Urban Regional
Park around the northern blimp hangar (included in the total 126-acre park calculation) was also
determined to off-set 80 percent of the existing parkland deficiency in the City of Tustin. On-site
residents would have had two neighborhood parks and one community park which would
comprise approximately 35 acres, exceeding the City of Tustin's requirement. The eight acres
R:\ProJectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-122
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA end Development Plan
Addendum
provided in the City of Irvine also exceeded the recreation standard for that City. The FEISlEIR
concluded that the provision of the approximate 126 acres of on-site public parkland would
result in a beneficial impact related to the provision of parks.
The park sites evaluated in the FEIS/EIR were within the identified impact area, and the
physical impacts associated with construction of the parks were addressed for each respective
topical issue. Where significant impacts would occur, mitigation measures were identified.
Recreational BikewavlTrails
Within the City of Tustin, the Specific Plan and Implementing Actions included Class I and II
bikeways as well as riding and hiking trails. These trails would connect various parts of the City
and would be a recreational benefit. Physical impacts associated with construction of trails and
bikeways were considered in the analysis of the identified impact area, which encompasses the
proposed trails and bikeway. The FEISlEIR assumed that the County of Orange would construct
a Class I bikeway and riding and hiking trail (Route 40-Peters Canyon Trail) adjacent to Peters
Canyon trail. The FEIS/EIR also described the bikeways and trails in the City of Irvine, including
the Class II bikeway network in the general vicinity of the site. Also, portions of two Class I
bikeways are proposed to run through parts of Irvine's boundaries. These two bikeways would
be completed once improvements are made to the Barranca and Peters Canyon channels. The
FEIS/EIR concluded that the provision of bikeways and trails associated with implementation of
the Specific Plan was a recreational benefit.
The bikeways and trails evaluated in the FEIS/EIR were within the identified impact area, and
the physical impacts associated with construction of these facilities were addressed for each
respective topical issue. Where significant impacts would occur, mitigation measures were
identified.
As with public services discussed in Section 5.13 above, park and recreational facilities would
be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the site
proceeds. The Implementing Actions would not create significant adverse recreational impacts,
physical impacts of the construction and operation of these facilities was analyzed as part of the
analysis of the impact area.
5.14.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
As identified in Section 2.3, Additional Background and Status of Environmental Setting, a
number of individual projects within the Specific Plan area have been approved and are either
completed or under construction. Additional private recreational facilities not originally
envisioned in the Specific Plan have also been completed as part of these projects; however, no
public facilities have been constructed.
Cooperative Agreement 002-119 between the City of Tustin, County of Orange, and Orange
County Flood Control District (March 2003), previously described in Section 2.3 of this
Addendum also included provisions for the construction of a bikeway and riding and hiking trail
along Peters Canyon Channel within the City of Tustin. The City of Tustin and Specific Plan
developers would provide sufficient right-of-way for the construction of the bikeway to be
designed and constructed either by the City or developers. The County of Orange may also
exercise its option under the Cooperative Agreement to construct the riding and hiking trail at its
own cost. The City of Irvine has conditioned Marble Mountain Partners, LLP to construct the
bikeway within the City of Irvine.
R\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Ana~sis-031306_doc
5-123
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Changes to proposed recreational facilities as part of the project are described in the
comparative analysis provided below.
5.14.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan include approximately 296 acres of public and private parkland
within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would have an increase in overall parks and
open space accessible to the general public compared to the original Specific Plan which had a
total of 126 acres. While the original Specific Plan also proposed a 159-acre private golf course,
which has been eliminated with the proposed project, there has been a substantial increase in
both public and private parkland and open space, all of which will be accessible to the general
public.
The parkland provided within the Specific Plan area includes approximately 202 acres of public
parks and recreational areas (including the 84.5 acre Urban Regional Park in Planning Area 6),
representing an increase of approximately 76 acres of public parkland compared to the original
Specific Plan evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. Of the 202 acres of the proposed public parks and
recreational areas, approximately 86 acres would occur within the Master Developer footprint. In
addition to public parkland, approximately 84 acres of privately owned and maintained park and
open space areas occur within the Master Developer footprint. It should be noted that the
previously approved private golf course has been eliminated from the Specific Plan. The golf
course would not have been completely accessible to those not participating in golf (the general
public), and also resulted in environmental impacts that would have been more severe than
typical park uses (e.g., increased use of fertilizers and pesticides). With the proposed Specific
Plan, the park land areas are distributed throughout the site, with a new community park and a
linear park system providing a focal point for the community.
In addition to the private parkland identified with Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan, developments currently under construction or completed within the Specific
Plan area are voluntarily adding approximately 10 acres of publicly accessible private parkland
(8.02 acres provided by Marble Mountain Partners, LLP, and 2 acres provided by John Laing
Homes).
As noted in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the development of 2,105 dwelling units
within the Master Developer footprint would generate approximately 5,363 residents. Based on
the City's requirement to provide three acres of public parkland for each 1,000 residents, the
demand that would have been generated within the Master Developer footprint would have
been only 16.1 acres. Since the Specific Plan process included public conveyance of City parks
and an Urban Regional Park, individual developers were relieved of the requirement to dedicate
land for park purposes. However, pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the developers
R:\PrOjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-124
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Dav./opm.nt PI.n
Add.ndum
are required to provide in-lieu fees or public accessible park space (where approved by the
City). This requirement is included in the conditions of approval for all developments. The public
parkland provided within the Master Developer footprint (approximately 86 acres) exceeds the
demand generated by the proposed project by approximately 70 acres; however, as part of the
City's negotiations with the Master Developer, the DDA requires that the Master Developer
provide and construct all public and private park/recreational facilities within the Master
Developer footprint, including a bikeway within the Peter's Canyon Channel. Additionally, since
sufficient parkland is provided on-site, the proposed project would not generate an increase in
the use of existing off-site parks and recreational facilities. No new or altered facilities would be
required to be constructed off-site.
The Specific Plan includes the construction of bikeways and hiking trails. A Class I bikeway
would be constructed adjacent to the Peters Canyon Channel within the City of Tustin,
consistent with the provisions of the Cooperative Agreement D02-119 between the City,
OCFCD and the County of Orange. This agreement also involves the provision of right-of-way
for a riding and hiking trail to be designed and constructed by the County of Orange, at their
option. The City of Irvine has conditioned approved development to construct the portion of
bikeway adjacent to Peters Canyon Channel within its jurisdiction. Although the specific location
of on-site bikeways and trails would be different due to minor modifications to the circulation
system and park layout, the bikeway and trail system would connect vital links necessary for a
comprehensive regional and improved local system and would be considered a beneficial
impact.
The proposed park and recreational facilities, bikeways and trails within the Specific Plan area
are within the identified impact footprint; therefore, impacts associated with construction of these
facilities have been addressed for each topical issue in this section. The proposed project would
not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services compared
to conclusions of the FEISlEI R.
5.14.4 MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Compliance with the following Implementation Measures would ensure that recreational facilities
are provided by the project developer, as required by the Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan. For consistency, the lettering system follows that provided in the approved
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the FEIS/EIR.
FEIS/EIR Measures That Have Been Completed
Measures identified below have been implemented for development that has been completed
and/or initiated within the Specific Plan area; however, they remain applicable to the proposed
project and Master Developer.
FEIS/EIR Measures Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
Parks and Recreation
1M (n)
The cities of Tustin and Irvine shall jointly consult and coordinate with the
OCPFRD/Harbors, Beaches and Parks, Program Management and Coordination
Division, in preparation of trail designs for the Peters Canyon and Barranca trails
within the reuse plan area. Improvements for each of these trails wouid be
installed upon completion of flood control channel improvements and approval of
their joint use by the OCPFRD.
R\ProjectsITustinWOO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-125
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
1M (u)
IM(w)
1M (x)
Prior to the first final map recordation (except for financing and reconveyance
purposes) or building permit issuance for development within the City of Tustin
portion of the site, the project developer shall be required to provide evidence of
compliance with all requirements and standards of the City of Tustin Park Code.
Prior to the first concept plan for tentative tract map in the City of Tustin, the
project developer shall file a petition for the creation of a landscape maintenance
district for the project area with the City of Tustin. The district shall include public
neighborhood parks, landscape improvements, and specific trails (Barranca only),
the medians in arterials, or other eligible items mutually agreed to by the
petitioner and the City of Tustin. In the event that a district is not established prior
to issuance of the first building permit, maintenance of items mentioned above
shall be the responsibility of a community association.
Prior to approval of any subdivision map (except for financing or conveyance
purposes), an agreement will be executed with the following agencies for the
associated trail improvements:
a. County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks - identification of a
project-specific fair share contribution toward the installation of necessary
regional bikeway trail improvements within Peters Canyon Channel to be
installed in conjunction with the County of Orange's other channel
improvements (this item has been completed through the provisions of
Cooperative Agreement 002-119 between the City, OCFCD, and the
County of Orange, and conditions of approval imposed by the City of Irvine
on development adjacent to Peters Canyon Channel in their jurisdiction)
b. City of Tustin - the identification of a project-specific fair share contribution
toward the installation of Class II bicycle trails through the project site. For
the area of the site northeast of Irvine Center Drive, a separate agreement
would be required to ensure the provision of a bikeway right-of-way
easement and design and construction of a bike trail along the SCRRA!
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) rail tracks from Harvard
Avenue westerly to the Peters Canyon Channel. In addition, project
developers of the areas of the site southeast of the Peters Canyon
Channel would need to accommodate access to both the Peters Canyon
Trail and the trail adjacent to the SCRRA/OCTA tracks in any project site
design including dedication of any necessary recreational trail easements;
c. City of Tustin - the identification of a project-specific fair-share contribution
toward installation of Class I bikeway trail improvements at Barranca
Parkway after completion of the Barranca Channel improvements. For
proposed developments adjacent to Barranca Channel, separate
agreements would be required to ensure the establishment of a bikeway
right-of-way easement between Jamboree Road and Red Hill Avenue.
Refinements to FEISIEIR Measures
No refinements to the FEIS!EIR measures for recreational facilities are required.
5-126
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
R.\PrcjectsITustin\J004\5Environ Analysis-031306.doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Chenge (Specific Plen Amendment) 05-002,
OOA and Development PI.n
Addendum
FEIS/EIR Measures Not Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
1M (v) Prior to the first final map recordation or building penn it issuance within the City
of Irvine portion of the site, the project developer shall be required to provide
evidence of compliance with all requirements and standards of the City of Irvine
Park Code.
5.14.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has detennined on the
basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record that: (a) the amended project does
not propose substantial changes to the project affecting recreation, which would require major
revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no substantial changes in circumstances under
which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new
or substantially more severe significant environmental effects related to recreation than
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as
described in subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to recreation
has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
Consistent with the conclusion of the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would not result in
significant unavoidable impacts related to recreational facilities. Additionally, the proposed
project would not result in substantially more severe impacts related to the construction and use
of recreational facilities.
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address recreational issues:
Barranca Channel (F09)-Armstrong Avenue Crossing and Armstrong Avenue Storm Drain,
Peters Canyon Channel (F06) and Peters Canyon Bikeway Cooperative Agreement
002-119 between City of Tustin and Orange County Flood Control District and The
County of Orange, and Amendment NO.1. Tustin, California. 2003.
Tustin, City of. "Parks." Tustin City Code. Tustin, CA: the City. July 2005 (updated)
<http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11307&sid=5>. January 18,
2006
5.15 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
5.15.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FEIS/EIR
The FEIStEIR identified that buildout of the Specific Plan and Implementing Actions would result
in the generation of approximately 216,440 ADTs (compared to 12,400 ADTs when fully
operational as a military base) by year 2020. The roadway network for the analyzed project and
trip distribution assumptions were identified in the FEIStEIR. The impacts were analyzed for
three scenarios: existing (1997), Year 2005, and Year 2020.
The original traffic study (included in Appendix F to the FEIS/EIR) prepared traffic forecasts
using the Central County Traffic Model (CCTM). The CCTM was derived from the then current
version of the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM 2.8), which included
demographic data assumptions adopted for planning purposes at that time. The traffic
R:\Projects\Tustin\J'J04\5 Environ Analysls-D31306.doc
5-127
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
forecasting and modeling assumptions used are further described in Section 3.12 of the
FEIS/EIR.
Existina Plus Proiect
For the analysis of Existing Plus Project Conditions, no modifications or additions to the existing
(1997) circulation system were assumed outside the reuse plan area. The FEIS/EIR identified
that 29 arterial and freeway-ramp intersections had significant impacts (see Tables 4.12-3 and
4.12-4 of the FEIS/EIR for a complete list) with buildout of the Specific Plan. It was also
concluded that traffic redistribution would improve traffic (compared to baseline conditions) at
the intersection of Jeffrey Road and 1-405 northbound ramps in the City of Irvine from Level of
Service (LOS) E to an acceptable LOS D.
The FEIS/EIR also noted that the "existing plus projecr' conditions are considered to be the
"worst case scenario" and not realistic for the fOllowing reasons: (1) development would not
occur all at once; (2) the circulation system outside the reuse plan area would be improved by
others, in accordance with existing plans; and (3) the proposed action would contribute to off-
site improvements as it was developed over time.
Interim Development - Year 2005
The FEIS/EIR included analysis of an interim year (2005) level of development to determine the
types of transportation improvements needed to support phased development of the site. The
analysis included intemal reuse plan roadways which were anticipated to be developed in
accordance with the approved Phasing Plan, off-site committed improvements, and the
requirements of the City's Growth Management Element and Congestion Management Plan
(CMP). It was concluded that seven arterial and freeway ramp intersections would have
significant impacts under the interim development scenario (see Tables 4.12-5 and 4.12-5a of
the FEIS/EIR for a complete list), and with the redistribution of traffic the LOS at the intersection
of Harvard Avenue and Michelson Drive in Irvine would improve (compared to no-project
conditions). No significant impacts were identified for freeway-ramp intersections or mid-block
lane capacity.
The FEIS/EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce interim year traffic impacts to a level
considered less than significant.
Build-out - Year 2020
The analysis of traffic impacts with buildout of the Specific Plan included the complete internal
reuse plan roadway system and off-site committed improvements. The FEIS/EIR concluded that
there would be significant impacts at 18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/EIR
for a complete list), and the LOS at two intersections would improve compared to no-project
conditions. The analysis of mid-block lane capacity showed that no significant impacts would
occur.
The FEIS/EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts. With the exception of the
intersections of Tustin Ranch RoadlWalnut Avenue and Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway,
impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. Impacts to these
intersections were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5.126
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS TusM Zone Change (Specific Ftan AmendmenQ 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Public Transit Impacts
The FEIS/EIR concluded that proposed development would create additional demand for transit
service; however, new arterial roadways through the reuse plan would provide improved service
for bus routing. The new routes would provide more service to riders not associated with the
Specific Plan area. It was also concluded that the project would not result in changes to the
current rail system.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts
Although no specific significant bicycle impacts were identified in the FEIS/EIR, the planned bike
trails would provide a benefit to the bikeway system.
Construction Impacts
The FEIS/EIR concluded that traffic impacts would occur due to roadway construction, site
development, and other infrastructure development (water, sewer, etc). Potential impacts
include lane closures with short-term disruption to the public. These activities will be monitored
by the City of Tustin administrative procedures and impacts were determined to be less than
significant.
ImplementinQ Actions
The FEIS/EIR identified that adoption of the Implementing Actions (I As) would formalize an
overall plan for providing and financing roadway improvements to support the Specific Plan. The
circulation improvements would be provided according to a "Phasing Plan" to meet circulation
needs as development of the site proceeds. It was also identified that forecasted vehicular trips
would be managed via a "Trip Budgef' that ensured development could be accommodated
within the planned roadway capacity of the on-site and off-site roadway systems.
Implementation Actions IA-1 and IA-2 below address the requirements for the Phasing Plan and
Trip Budget. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the IAs would not result in any traffic impacts beyond
those resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan (described above).
5.15.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Traffic Analysis MethodoloQv
For the analysis of off-site impacts, updated traffic forecast data was prepared to ensure that the
current regional context, including updated demographic data and projections correlating to
updated General Plans for neighboring jurisdictions, for local transportation studies was used.
Current traffic forecasting models follow specific consistency guidelines established by the
aCTA. The CCTM has not been updated to conform to those consistency requirements and has
been replaced by traffic models that now conform to the guidelines. Such models reflect the
most recent countywide demographic data, including the approved Specific Plan land uses for
the project site. Hence, long-range traffic modeling carried out by local jurisdictions in this part of
the County includes the original Specific Plan land uses as part of long-range cumulative
growth. For this reason, the analysis material focuses on how such forecasts would change with
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan. The information thereby
addresses any potential changes in long-range transportation improvements that might arise
from the revised land use plan.
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis"031306.doc
5-129
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
The traffic forecasts used in this analysis are derived from the Irvine Transportation Analysis
Model (ITAM), which was approved by aCTA as meeting all of the County's consistency
guidelines. The version selected for this application was recently used for transportation
planning work in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), which indudes the City of Irvine General
Plan update to the Circulation Element within that area. The model also provides intersection
data in the cities of Tustin and Irvine. While the model includes Santa Ana, it does not provide
intersection performance data in that City. Hence, a special evaluation procedure has been
used to identify impacts in Santa Ana (see performance criteria discussion below). The ITAM
uses a 2025 time frame for traffic forecasting with corresponding assumptions with respect to
local and regional transportation improvements.
To determine the area of impact, the analysis first evaluates comparison data (original Specific
Plan versus Proposed Specific Plan) on the roadways surrounding the project based on ADT.
Differences of 1,000 ADT or more determine the area of impact where intersection performance
is then evaluated as defined in the next section.
Conaestion Manaaement Proaram
As stated in the FEIS/EIR, the CMP is a state program which requires the intersections
throughout Orange County to maintain a specified LOS. Standards for traffic performance at
CMP intersections are different than in other parts of the study area. Locally, the CMP is
administered by the aCTA. The FEIS/EIR identified that the following nine designated
intersections are located within the study area:
. Jamboree Road and Irvine Boulevard
. Jamboree Road and 1-5 Northbound Ramps
. Jamboree Road and 1-5 Southbound Ramps
. SR-55 Northbound Ramps and Edinger Avenue
. SR-55 Southbound Ramps and Edinger Avenue
. Jamboree Road and Edinger Avenue
. Jamboree Road and 1-405 Northbound Ramps
. Jamboree Road and 1-405 Southbound Ramps
. MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road
Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, additional locations have been added to the CMP list:
SR-261 Northbound at Irvine Boulevard, and SR-261 Southbound at Irvine Boulevard.
Implementation of Phase I Roadwav Improvements
Phase I infrastructure improvements for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan have been initiated and
include construction of streets and utilities for: (a) Valencia/North Loop Road from Red Hill to
the West Connector and (b) the West Connector, Landsdowne, and Armstrong from Valencia/
North Loop Road south to Warner Avenue. The Edinger Avenue widening improvements
adjacent to Tustin Legacy were completed in 2002. These improvements comply with the
Specific Plan.
R:IProjects\TustinlJ004\5 Envirol"l Al"lalysis-031306.doc
5-130
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Specific Plan AmendmenQ 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
5.15.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist ResDonses
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)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. prepared the
Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis (February 2006) to identify and evaluate how the traffic impacts
from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan differ from the
original Specific Plan analysis as presented in the FEIS/EIR.
Performance Criteria
The off-site analysis evaluates comparison data (original Specific Plan versus proposed Specific
Plan) for peak hour intersection volumes. For Irvine and Tustin, intersection findings are based
on intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. For Santa Ana, peak hour entering volumes
have been compared at the intersections that are potentially impacted. The findings of the
analysis address the potential effect on the ICUs at those locations that were reported in the
previous traffic study completed for the FEIS/EI R.
Table 5-26 describes the intersection evaluation criteria. The threshold levels established here
reflect levels of significance applicable to the jurisdictions involved. Project impact criteria for
Santa Ana locations is based on recent traffic studies prepared for the City of Santa Ana.
Land Use and Trip Generation
A summary of the land use and trip generation for the original Specific Plan evaluated in the
FEIS/EIR and the proposed project is provided in the technical report available for review at the
,Community Development Department at the City of Tustin City Hall. To assure that traffic
information is updated to reflect existing conditions, the land uses statistics presented in the
traffic study prepared for the proposed project reflect information obtained by the traffic
consultant from individual development projects within the Specific Plan area as they were
presented by individual developers and as reviewed and approved to date by each jurisdiction.
The land use data for the proposed project includes approved development for: Planning Areas
4, 5, 16, 17, and 19 to 22, as approved for the Marble Mountain Partners, LLC (Lennar and
William Lyon Homes) residential development; the Vestar commercial development; and the
John Laing residential development have also been incorporated into the land use database for
each altemative.
R:\ProjeclsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-131
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-26
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS
!1!!;llWlliler .
Performance Standard
Intersections in irvine Planning Area 33 (Spectrum 1) and Planning Area 36 (Irvine Business ComplexllBC) and
CMP intersections: level of Service E (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 1.00).
All other intersections: level of Service "D" (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90).
Mitigation Requirement
For ICU greater than the acceptable level of service, mitigation of the project contribution is required to bring
intersection back to acceptable level of service or to no-project conditions if project contribution is greater than
0.03 at CMP locations (the impact threshold specified In the CMP) or greater than 0.01 for all other intersections in
the study area.
Total peak hour entering volumes are compared, and if the difference (proposed project versus original Specific
Plan) is one percent or greater, then additional evaluation of that intersection is carried out by referring to the ICU
value from the original FEISIEIR
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 2006.
The land uses statistics presented in this analysis also reflect the judgments made by the traffic
consultant as to traffic generation based not only on land use designation, but also on the type
of housing products anticipated. In some cases, to assure that impacts were conservatively
assessed, trip generation may have been overstated when compared with land use
designations alone, in order to assure that traffic impacts were fully assessed. For example, trip
generation assumptions based on anticipated product type for Planning Area 5 are more
consistent with a Medium High Density land use designation, although the units were actually
within the Medium Density land use designation. The actual numbers used in the traffic analysis
may therefore not correspond directly to Specific Plan Table 3-1 (presented previously in
Section 3, Project Description).
A summary of the trip generation resulting from the original Specific Plan and the proposed
project is provided in Table 5-27 below. While there are changes within the Master Developer
Development Plan footprint and the remainder of the MCAS Tustin project area, the overall ADT
trip generation of 216,440 resulting from implementation of the proposed project does not
exceed the trip cap established in the original Specific Plan of 216,440 ADT. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project amendments does not create new or substantially more
severe trip generation impacts compared to the trip generation impacts associated with the
original project.
TABLE 5-27
TUSTIN LEGACY TRIP GENERATION
sJrtqt~
.; AeIillill;t>liuli:
136,864
79,576
216440
137,310
79,130
216440
446
-446
o
R:\ProJects\TustinIJOO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-132
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Speclnc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Trip Budget for Non-Residential Uses
Revised Table 3-3 in Section 3 of the Addendum, Project Description, includes a detailed
breakdown by Neighborhood of the non-residential land uses/trip budget tracking system
established for the original Specific Plan and the proposed project. This information is
summarized in Table 5-28. As shown, the overall trip budget is similar for both, with differences
occurring within individual neighborhoods.
TABLE 5-28
PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET COMPARISON (NON-RESIDENTIAL USES)
A 1-3 1-3 TSF 1,412.651 11,512 1,320.98 17,734 -91.67 6,222
B 4,5,7 4,5,7 TSF 315.592 14,273 248.30 8,974 -67.29 -5,299
C 6 6 TSF 57.50 3,920 57.50 3,920 0 0
0 8 8,13,14 TSF 3,630.73 40,632 4,762.87 74,489 1,132.14 33,857
E 9-14 9-12 TSF 3,53513 54,519 1,267.33 17,273 -2,267.80 -37,246
F 16-19 16-19 TSF 1,483.56 36,192 1,041.45 35,450 -442.11 -742
G 15,20,21 15,20,21 TSF 85.73 12,237 466.63 14,855 380.90 2,618
H 22 22 TSF 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0
TSF - Thousand square feet.
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 2006.
On-site Traffic Impact Analysis
The on-site circulation system proposed as part of the Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 7
and is substantially the same as that included in the original and proposed Specific Plan.
Following is a summary of the refinements to the Specific Plan circulation system that have
been incorporated into the Development Plan and are evaluated in the traffic analysis for the
proposed project:
(a) Carnegie Avenue would be extended to Armstrong Avenue from Red Hill Avenue
as a four-lane secondary arterial (Phase 1);
(b) Aston Street shall be extended from Barranca Parkway to Carnegie Avenue as a
two-lane, local collector street (Phase 2);
(c) Legacy Road would be added as a four-lane secondary arterial to provide a
connection between the residential portion on the northeast side of the proposed
project with the non-residential portion to the southwest (Phase 1);
(d) Loop Road South, a four-lane secondary arterial west of Tustin Ranch Road, is
planned with an offset roadway alignment (as compared to the circulation for the
original Specific Plan) (Phase 1).
R:\ProjectsITustinlJ'J04\5 Environ Analysis.-031306.doc
5-133
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
OYER RD
EDINGER AV
~
~
i
<4
\!
z
II
'i'
MOfFETT
VALENCIA
~
>
<
o
z
g
'"
il
..-
~
~
'E
8
~
WARNER A V
o
~
z
S
~
<
~
~
w
u-
u~
<.
~>
u~
~e:.
~
i5
w
w
~
o
w
~
~
CARNEGIE Av
BARRANCA
PKWY
.
S
..-
;;
o
~'
w
~
~
~
.
~
~
o
~
"
~
~
e-
~
o
Legend
_ Major Arterial
Primary Arterial
Secondary Arterial
Local Collector
Proposed Master Development Plan
On-Site Arterial Circulation System
Exhibit 7
. .
, /
I ,
, .
~/erref
CONSU1TIN(~
Source: Tustin Leg<lcy Community P<lrtners. 2005 and Austin-Foust Associates. 1m .2006
R:\Projects\ T ustinU004\G r<lohicslEx 7_ opes _ 030206 pdf
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
(e) Two connections to Tustin Ranch Road would be provided at Park Avenue and
at a yet to be named street (referred to here as "A" Street) both of which will be
four-lane secondary arterials (Phase 1);
(f) A second westbound left-turn lane at Red Hill AvenueNalencia Avenue will be
added (Phase 1); and
(g) A second westbound right-turn lane at Red Hill Avenue/Warner Avenue
(Phase 1),
Although the roadway network has been refined, the network is consistent at a planning level
with the conceptual Specific Plan network. The following analysis discusses the traffic volumes
generated by the proposed project and how on-site and off-site modifications (land use and
circulation) affect the findings of the original Specific Plan traffic study related to on-site impacts.
It should also be noted that the phasing of implementation of roadway improvements is
addressed in Development Measures and Implementation Action outlined in Section 5.15.4. The
phasing of improvements has been expedited compared to the original Specific Plan. The
provision of improvements earlier would not result in adverse traffic impacts.
On-Site Traffic Volumes
A detailed traffic forecasting model was developed for the proposed project on-site circulation
system. It has been derived from the ITAM, thereby ensuring consistency between the on-site
and off-site traffic forecasts. This model provides a tool for use in transportation planning
applications with the proposed project area. Furthermore, since it is based on the aCTA
certified ITAM, it will be in compliance with aCTA traffic modeling guidelines.
Exhibits 8 and 9 show 2025 ADT traffic volumes for the on-site roadways under the original
Specific Plan and the proposed project. The volumes are generally similar in magnitude, with
some differences around the connection of Warner Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road. Local
roadways featured in the proposed project (not all of which are shown here) redistribute some of
the trips in this area, thereby reducing traffic in the vicinity of Warner Avenue and Tustin Ranch
Road.
On-Site Intersection Analvsis
On-site intersections are shown on Exhibit 10, and the peak hour intersection capacity utilization
(ICU) values for the intersections are listed in Table 5-29. In relation to the performance criteria,
using updated traffic modeling, four intersections that would be deficient under the original
Specific Plan conditions have reduced ICUs under the proposed project and would not be
significantly impacted. These intersections are: Armstrong and Loop Road North; Tustin Ranch
and Loop Road North; Tustin Ranch and Warner North; and Armstrong and Warner. Several
new roadways which provide additional project access (Carnegie Avenue, Aston Street, and
Legacy Road) are included with the proposed project and reduce the ICUs at these
intersections. There are no locations where there would be new significant or substantially more
severe impacts that were not previously identified in the FEIS/EIR.
R\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-134
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
VALENCIA
EDINGER AV
if, ,.,
~
~
>
<
10
z..
!il
'i! 4
~ 5
~OFFETT DR
r
0
0
~
@ '"
~
"
o
w
~
AV
c
~
:::
~
o
m
.
~
..
DYER RD
BARRANCA
PKWY
'w
8
8
N
~,
~
~
~
~
.
~
~
e
~
c;
Legend
10 211 30
~ ADT VoJumes (OOOs)
2025 On-Site ADT Volumes (ODDs) (Original Specific Plan)
Exhibit 8
. ..
~"~4
J-,--<"
, .
~llIerr~
CONSUI'fJNG
Source: Aus'in-Foust Associ~te~,. Inc., 2006
R :\Proj("(;ts\ T ustinU004 \GraDhics \E](8 _ ADTVol_ 020306_pdf
OYER RD
.
~
8
N
0,
~
w
~
~
~
.
"
!
"
s
~
.
.~
g,
"
EDINGER AV
~..
14
"
..
,.
~
7 6
MOffE.T RD
VALENCIA AV
"
"
Z
~V
:I
'i'
fl
'"
.v
Q
'"
CARNEGIE AV
!
~
:::l
Ii
...~
!::l
..
BMRAN<:^
PKWY
Legend
.......... ADTVolume. (000.)
202 SOn-Site ADT Volumes (ODDs) (Proposed Master Development Plan Project)
Exhibit 9
. "
>"~,(
;~","
, ,
1f!.~!J/er/"~
CONSUlTING
Source: AUSlil"l-FoustAssociflles, Inc., 2006
R:\Projecls \ TustinIJOQ4\Graph ics IEx9 _AD T _ 020306.pdf
EDINGER AV
~
~
n
'1
6
o
~
2
~
o
oI"~
..~ "
J.../~
J~
, ,~
.....,./,,1
,
)
I
/
/
/
/
I
I
1
MOFFETT DR
3
AV
I ",'''' e
"..~ ~
I( ~
CARNEGIE 41,1", /. .' ~D "' w
~ S~ w
, "' ~
r, Iv w e
6 / u~ m
I , / U"' ~
/ << ~
I ~>
12 uir
0 ~~
I~
"' "'
1< 15
DYER RD BARRANCA PKWY
..
~
~
~I
W
]
~
~
"
~
~
~
~
~
.
.~
~
0;
";pi
%
~
VALENCIA
~
>
<
"
2
g
~
~
"
"
I
",-~-
/..0""
/~~
/~
I
I
I
"
w
~
5
WARNER AY
Legend
)( )( )(
Master Development Plan Circulation System
Original Specific Plan Circulation System
On-Site Intersection Location Map
. <
",~,(
1>-",
. .
Source: Austin-Foust A.<;sociFltes. Inc .2006
Exhibit 10
~/err~
CONSULTING
RIP,ojects\ Tur.tin\J004\Gm.ph ics',E x 10_ OSI_ 02030o_pdf
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-29
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ICU SUMMARY
(ON-SITE)
ka¢atbn
oryilrtat Sp�iiteei PtapPropped
AM Peak. P P411ak'
NCt1 L k:U . <93
1�roJeor
ANI Pe k,
.l U LiltiS Wit!' ; 1E1t4
AM Peak PM auk
AMP'aki ' i leak
1 Armstrong & Loop Rd. N.
0.91
E
0.78
C
0.84
D
0.70
B
-0.07
-0.08
-8%
-10%
2. Tustin Ranch & Loop Rd. N.
0.76
C
0.95
E
0.79
C
0.76
C
0.03
-0.19
4%
-20%
3. Tustin Ranch & Warner N.
0.68
B
1.00
E
0.67
B
0.80
C
-0.01
-0.20
-1%
-20%
4. Tustin Ranch & Warner S.
0.61
B
0.67
B
0.56
A
0.54
A
-0.05
-0.13
-8%
-19%
5. Armstrong & Warner
0.94
E
1.03
F
0.71
C
0.76
C
-0.23
-0.27
-24%
-26%
6. Armstrong & Loop Rd. S.
0.72
C
0.86
D
0.72
C
0.87
D
0.00
0.01
0%
1%
7. Tustin Ranch & Loop Rd. S.
0.47
A
0.72
1 0.66
B
0.64
B
0.21
-0.08
45%
-11%
8. Loop Rd. & Warner
0.60
A
0.84
D
0.58
A
0.82
D
-0.02
-0.02
-3%
-2%
9. Loop Rd. & Jamboree SB Ramp
0.27
A
0.18
A
0.25
A
0.25
A
-0.02
0.07
-7%
39%
10. N. Loop Rd. & Moffett
0.23
A
0.21
A
0.31
A
0.31
A
0.08
0.10
35%
48%
11 East Connector & Loop Rd.
0.23
A
0.35
A
0.20
A
0.19
A
-0.03
-0.16
-13%
-46%
Abbreviations:
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS - Level of Service
N,S- North, South
SB - Southbound
R:Wmje kTue nU A5 Envimn Analysls031306.tl 5-135 Environmental Analysis and
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checldist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Off.site Traffic Impact Analysis
The off-site impact analysis below compares long-range traffic forecasts with the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan to the corresponding volumes with the
original Specific Plan land uses.
T raffi c Forecasts
Exhibit 11 shows the differences in forecasted year 2025 ADT volumes on the surrounding
roadway network for the original Specific Plan and for the proposed project. As noted in the
discussion of methodology, locations where the ADT volumes are higher by 1,000 or more were
analyzed in more detail using peak hour intersection data. Using this criteria, 13 intersection
locations (see Exhibit 12) were evaluated on a peak hour basis to determine if the ADT
differences translate into actual project impacts. Five of these locations are within the City of
Santa Ana and eight are within the cities of Irvine and Tustin.
Intersection Levels of Service
Table 5-30 provides the results of the intersection analysis. Using the criteria described
previously for Santa Ana intersections, the approach volumes were evaluated and all five
intersections are determined to have increases of one or two percent. By referring to the same
locations reported in the traffic study completed for the FEIS/EIR, these locations were
evaluated further to determine if the one or two percent increase would translate into potentially
new impacts. Table 5-31 summarizes the results of the intersection analysis of the Santa Ana
locations. As Table 5-31 demonstrated, all locations are still forecasted to operate at acceptable
levels (i.e., ICU value is 0.90 or less).
TABLE 5-30
OFF-SITE INTERSECTION IMPACT ANALYSIS
SANTA ANA Intersection A roach Volumes
1. T echnolo Center Dr & D er 4242 4,431 4241 4,461 <1% 1%
2. Hotel Terrace/SR-55 & D er 4,865 4,788 4,789 4,864 -2% 2%
3. Grand & D er 6,517 6,151 6,531 6,187 <1% 1%
4. SR-{;5 NB Ram s & D er 7,508 8,053 7,554 8,085 1% <1%
5. Pullman & D er 5661 5966 5,747 6027 2% 1%
IRVINE AND TUSTIN ICUs
'>'0$
6. Tustin Ranch & Wainut D -0.01
7. Red Hill & Valencia F -0.11
8. Red Hill & Warner E -0.12
9. Red Hill Av. & Barranca P B 0.00
10. Red Hill Av. & A~on P B 0.01
11. Van Karman Av. & Barranca P C -0.02
12. Van Karman Av. & Alton P C 0.00
13. Jamboree Rd. & Barranca P 0.84 D 1.20 F 0.84 D 1.20 F 0.00 0.00
This location is in Irvine Planning Area 36 (PA36)/lrvine Business Complex (IBC) where level of service (LOS) "E" (ICU=1.00) is
acceptable.
ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS Level of Service
R:\ProjectsITustin\J00415 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-136
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Check/ist Responses
Legend
ry Proposed Project Minus Original Specific Plan
------ Master Development Plan Circulation System
-x-x %E Original Specific Plan Circulation System
2025 ADT Volumes (00s) Project Impact Differences Exhibit 11
/ 4
e
Scums- Austn Foust Associates, Inc., 2006
CONSULTING
R:%PrgectsTus1inU00 Graphi.s Ex11_PID020".pd
CAMINO
R~-1l
Q'
I 5
NISSON
<.?
Z
~
o
'"
'"
~
%
~
6
WALNUT
~
>
Z
'"'
~
EDINGER
~.
,,~
7
LOOP
MOFFETT
c
'"
<
>
'"
<
~
~
'"
~
~
~
'"
<
8
WARNER
C.6Flli~a;('
>,
{ -
9 I
BARRANCA
11
13
10 12
ALTON
~
~ z w
" < w
0 ~ '"
w '" 0
'" < '"
~ ~
z ~
0
>
"<0
<1>
t"
"" Vo,t.,IN
,....Ara~ MICHELSON
..
~
g
~I
w
"
~
~
<.?
~
~
;;
~
~
.~
e
~
b
Legend
- - - - Master Development Plan Circulation System
*** Original Specific Plan Circulation System
Intersections Meeting Impact Analysis Criteria
Exhibit 12
. .
"",-,/
';"'-',"
. ,
/!wilerr~
CONSULTING
Source: Austin-Foust Associ;'lles.lnc ,2oofl
R :\Projects\ TtlSli nU004\GraDh ics\Ex 12_1 AC _ 020306.odf
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan AmendmenO 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
TABLE 5-31
SANTA ANA INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
1, Technology Center Dr, & Dyer <1% 1% 0.44 0,65 0.44 0,66
2, Hotel TerracefSR-55 & Dyer -2% 2% 0,69 0,88 0,67 0,90
3, Grand & Dyer <1% 1% 0,72 0,79 0,72 0,80
4, SR-55 NB Ramps & Dyer 1% <1% 0,87 0,87 0,88 0,87
5, Pullman & Dyer 2% 1% 0,54 0,78 0,56 0,79
Source: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 2006.
With the exception of the intersection of Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway, all of the
intersections in the cities of Tustin and Irvine would operate at an acceptable LOS. Although the
level of service at the intersection of Von Karman Avenue and Barranca Parkway would reduce
from LOS C to D during the AM, this is still an acceptable level of service and would not result in
a new significant impact. No mitigation is required.
The FEIS/EIR identified the impact at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway as
a significant unavoidable impact that would also occur with the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan. The impact identified at this intersection is due in
large part to the fact that this is the first intersection after the terminus of the Eastern
Transportation Corridor. The Cities of Tustin and Irvine previously entered into a MOA with the
Transportation Corridor Agencies to address the corridor impacts at the intersection of
Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway. There are no new mitigation measures that can be
implemented by the City of Tustin to reduce this impact to a level considered less than
significant. Additionally, using current modeling, the ICU at this intersection would be the same
with the original Specific Plan land uses as it is with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not trigger new impacts or
substantially more severe impacts at this intersection; therefore, no changes are being
proposed to the MOA.
Under the proposed project, the significant unavoidable impact identified in the FEIS/EIR at the
intersection of Tustin Ranch RoadlWalnut Avenue would be avoided based on the proposed
land uses and circulation system, and no mitigation is required. There would be no additional
impacts at intersections within the City of Irvine.
In summary, the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan concluded that the proposed land use and arterial circulation changes would
avoid a previously identified significant unavoidable impact at the intersection of Tustin Ranch
RoadlWalnut Avenue and would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe
impacts. The significant unavoidable impact at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Barranca
Parkway identified in the FEIS/EIR would still occur with the proposed project, although not as a
direct result of project implementation. The total number of trips generated by the project has
not changed and does not exceed the trip caps established and agreed upon between the City
of Tustin and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine. It should be noted that the Project Phasing Plan
has been revised and is presented as part of revised IA-1. The revised Trip Budget by
Neighborhood is presented in Revised Table 3-3 in Section 3, Project Description.
R\Projects\Tustin\J004\5Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-137
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05.002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As noted under the discussion of current
condition, two new intersections within the previously identified study area have been added to
the Orange County CMP since certification of the FEIS/EIR: SR-261 northbound ramps at Irvine
Boulevard and SR-261 southbound ramps at Irvine Boulevard. Based on the analysis conducted
in the FEIS/EI R, all of the CMP intersections are forecasted to operate at an acceptable
LOS "E" or better, which is within the performance standard for CMP intersections. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not result in any
changes to these conclusions as all CMP intersections within the study area would continue to
operate at an acceptable level of service.
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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan would not include any uses that would change air traffic patterns
or locations and would not increase the amount of air traffic. No mitigation is required.
D. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan involve reuse of the MCAS Tustin site and implementation of a
new internal circulation system. The project does not include any uses or design features that
would increase hazards. It should also be noted that the traffic analysis prepared for the
proposed project included an assessment of access to the proposed high school and
elementary school sites within the Master Developer footprint (Planning Areas 8 and 15,
respectively). School access is anticipated to be via the recommended driveways as shown in
Exhibit 13 and would be designed according to City of Tustin guidelines. Low volumes along the
local roadway fronting the elementary school would not create any traffic problems. There are
two local roadways proposed along the westerly and southerly boundaries of the high school in
addition to access, which may also be available from the North Loop Road and Tustin Ranch
Road. This would provide adequate alternative access for staff and busses to access the high
school. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not
increase hazards.
E. Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Access to the Specific Plan area is provided
from the existing circulation system and new internal roadways on the project site. The new
arterial connection proposed in the Development Plan by the extension of Carnegie from Red
Hill Avenue to the North Loop Road would provide beneficial additional access to the project site
from surrounding arterial highways. All access will conform with requirements outlined in
Section 3.11 of the Specific Plan, General Development Regulations which include, but are not
limited to: all structures would have a permanent means of access to a public street. The
FEIS/EIR also identified that individual development projects with the site would be required to
meet existing OCFA regulations regarding emergency access (page 4-57). Compliance with
OCFA regulations remains applicable to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
R:IProjects\TustinlJ004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-138
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
EDINGER AV
~
~
I
Conceptual
High School Site
j
~
~
QI"~
..0 ~
>
<
DR
VALENCIA
..0
:l
~
"
w
~
WARNER A V
CARNEGIE 'V ~O w
V> w
V> ~
W "
u~ ro
u!" ~
<< <
~> ~
z u01
"'~
8 ~-
V> V>
< 15
DYER RD BARRANCA PKWY
.
~
l<l
Sl
W
~
~
.
o
!
,.
~
~
.
"e
~
"
Legend
-.. Potential School Acce"
* The traffic study has taken into account the increase in
enrollment in the event a middle school is developed on the
site.
School Sites Within Master Development Plan
Exhibit 13
. .
"'~'I'
1-"
" .
~II!V"'~
CONSUlTING
SOLJrce:ALJstin..fOLJst Associ<'ltes. Inc, 2006
R :\Projects\ TlJstinU004\Graphics\Ex13 _ SS _021306. pdf
MCAS Tusan Zone Change (Speclnc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Development Plan, The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan
would provide adequate emergency access so no mitigation is required,
F. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As identified in the FEISlEIR, each project
would be required to provide the necessary off-street parking spaces to support the proposed
uses. The amount of parking provided would be consistent with the requirements of the City of
Tustin or City of Irvine parking regulations, as appropriate. By applying parking regulations
outlined in Section 3.13 of the Specific Plan, off-street parking impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed development would be avoided. In summary, Section 3,13
provides regulations related to: joint use of parking areas, transportation demand management
plans, location of parking spaces, restricting the use of parking spaces, gates which limit access
to parking areas, disabled access parking, maintenance and potential impacts to parking
spaces, parking stall dimensions and parking lot design, and parking requirements for various
land uses.
Within the Master Developer footprint, on-street parking on arterial roadways would be
permitted on Moffett Drive, on North Loop Road between East Connector and the Jamboree
RoadlWamer Avenue southbound ramps, and on the local collector street adjacent to the
proposed elementary school (see Exhibit 14). The East Connector between North Loop Road
and this local street would have on-street parking allowed on the west side only. The low
projected volumes (8,000 daily trips at most) can accommodate on-street parking on these
roadways. Locations where diagonal parking may be permitted would be reviewed during the
development process and would be subject to Specific Plan requirements, current City roadway
standards, and approval of the City Engineer.
Similar to the conclusions in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would provide adequate parking capacity so no significant impacts would
result.
G. Conffict with adopted policies, plan or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan would provide a system of public sidewalks and pathways to
accommodate the recreational and transportation needs of the residents. These facilities would
provide access to nearby recreational facilities, schools, public amenities, commercial centers,
and bus stops, and would also provide for an alternative mode of transportation for the area
residents. Bicycle lanes would be provided along all public arterials in accordance with the City's
standards and the General Plan. In addition to a system of internal pathways within each area,
these facilities would serve the needs of recreational and experienced cyclists. The planned
trails would also provide an alternative mode of transportation for those wishing to ride their
bicycle to work, shopping centers, school, and other destinations.
The various walk and trail systems in the project area would mostly consist of eight-foot Class II,
on-street bike lanes (where there is no on-street parking allowed) and five-ta-eight foot Class I,
off-street meandering trails which could be shared by pedestrians and bikes on roads where on-
street parking would be allowed. According to City standards, sidewalks are generally either five
or eight feet where Class II, on-street bike lanes are assumed; intersection locations are also
configured according to the guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan. Eight-to-twelve foot
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-Q31306.doc
5-139
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
.
'"
g
~
0,
~
w
~
~
~
.
~
~
"
~
~
.~
e
~
o
VALENCIA
EDINGER AV
~
~
Ii
0<''''
~O ·
>
<
:J ~O
.
,"
8 '"
. v
WARNER AV
CARNEGIE A V
DYER RD
-.-
......
~
-
<
Sf
8ARR.4.NCA
Legend
On-street parking allowed on both
sides of street.
On-street parking allowed on
west side of street only.
Planned On-Street Parking
. .
, /
/ ,
'" .
Source: Austin.Foust Associates.lnc , 2006
-
-
w
u~
u~
<<
~>
u.
~e..
-
25
w
W
.
o
.
,
~
PK",
OR
Exhibit 14
~ertYf
R :\Projects\ T Llsti n\J004 \G'flphics lEx 14 _POSP _ 030206_pdf
CONSUlTING
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specfflc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
parkway-separated sidewalks would be provided throughout the community arterial roadways,
and access trails which connect the open space points of interest and trails with the community
would also be provided throughout the site.
Similar to the conclusions in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and
Development Plan would support alternative transportation modes.
5.15.4 MITIGATION MEASURES/IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measuresllmplementation Actions That Have Been Completed
The City of Tustin and the City of Santa Ana have entered into an Amendment to Joint Exercise
of Powers Agreement regarding the Tustin-Santa Ana Transportation System Improvement
Authority in February 2001. Additionally, the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine entered into an
agreement regarding the Implementation, Timing and Funding of Transportation/Circulation
Mitigation for the MCAS Tustin project in February 2001. The mitigation improvement at the
Caltrans SR-55 ramp at Edinger Avenue is currently under construction. Therefore, the
following have been completed.
MM T/C-2
MM T/C-3
MM T/C-8
MM T/C-9
The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the
reuse plan area within Irvine), shall ensure that the arterial intersection
improvements required in 2005 and 2020 and as indicated in Tables 4.12-7 and
4.12-9 of the FEISlEIR are implemented for their respective jurisdictions
according to the cumulative ADT thresholds identified in each table and
according to the fair share basis noted. The ADT threshold represents the traffic
volume which would result in an impact and the fair share percentage reflects the
percent of the traffic impact resulting from the reuse generated traffic. In some
cases, reuse traffic would generate 100 percent of the impact, thereby assuming
full financial responsibility for the identified improvements. In other cases, reuse
traffic would generate only a fraction of the traffic impacting the intersection and
financial responsibility would correspond.
The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the
reuse plan area within Irvine), shall contribute, on a fair share basis, to
improvements to freeway ramp intersections as listed in Table 4.12-8 of the
FEIS/EIR. The method of implementing improvements (e.g., restriping, ramp
widening) shall be based on special design studies, in association with Caltrans.
Alternative improvements that provide an equivalent level of mitigation in 2005 or
2020 to what is identified in Tables 4.12-7 and 4.12-9 of the FEIS/EIR may be
identified in consultation between the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as
applicable, and the impacted jurisdiction.
The City of Tustin shall enter into agreements with Caltrans and the cities of
Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed
to mitigate the effects of the proposed alternative are constructed pursuant to
improvement programs established by the respective jurisdiction.
In order to properly coordinate the timing and improvements in the adjacent
jurisdictions, the City of Tustin shall hold a scoping-Iike meeting with the
respective jurisdictions. The purpose of said scoping-like meeting shall be to
identify the concerns of the respective jurisdictions prior to the initiation of the fair
5-140
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
R\Projects\Tustin\JOO4\5Environ Analysis-031306.doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
share study. The purpose of the study would be to fully identify, with each
jurisdiction, the scope and costs of feasible improvements (as determined by the
respective jurisdiction). The improvements would be acceptable to each
jurisdiction toward fulfilling the timing and cost of the transportation improvement
obligations as required to mitigate transportation impacts in each jurisdiction. The
funding for the improvements to be incorporated into the agreement would be
utilized by the respective agency to improve the capacity of the impacted
intersections/links or be used for substituted improvements, as determined by
mutual agreement.
Prior to execution of the agreement, each jurisdiction would be allowed ten (10)
working days to review the technical report prior to being provided with a copy of
the proposed agreement. Each jurisdiction would then have ten (10) working
days to review and comment as to its concurrence with the improvement
programs contained in the agreement. The comments of each jurisdiction would
be considered to ensure that the City of Tustin's responsibility for fair share
funding of the improvements in each jurisdiction as stated above is fully
addressed.
IA-6 The City of Tustin will enter into agreements with Caltrans and the cities of Santa
Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to
mitigate the effects of the Specific Plan are constructed pursuant to improvement
programs established by the respective jurisdiction.
In order to properly coordinate the timing and funding of fair share obligation of
Specific Plan improvements in the adjacent jurisdictions, the City of Tustin shall
hold a scoping-like meeting with the respective jurisdictions. The purpose of said
scoping-like meeting shall be to identify the concerns of the respective
jurisdictions prior to the initiation of the fair share study. The purpose of the study
would be to fully identify, with each jurisdiction, the scope and costs of
obligations of the Specific Plan as required to mitigate transportation impacts in
feasible improvements (as determined by the respective jurisdiction). The
improvements would be acceptable to each jurisdiction toward fulfilling the timing
and cost of the transportation improvement each jurisdiction, as listed above. The
funding for the improvements to be incorporated into the agreement would be
utilized by the respective agency to improve the capacity of the impacted
intersections/links or be used for substituted improvements, as determined by
mutual agreement.
Prior to execution of the agreement, each jurisdiction would be allowed ten
working days to review the technical report prior to being provided with a copy of
the proposed agreement. Each jurisdiction would then have ten working days to
review and comment as to its concurrence with the improvement programs
contained in the agreement. The comments of each jurisdiction would be
considered to ensure that the City of Tustin's responsibility for fair share funding
of the improvements in each jurisdiction as stated above is fully addressed.
R:\ProJectsITustin\J004\5 Errviron Anall'sis-031306.doc
5-141
Enllironmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
FEIS/EIR Mitillation Measuresllmplementation Actions Applicable to the Proposed
Proiect
MM T/C-1
Construction Mitigation Measures
In conjunction with the approval of a site development permit, the City of Tustin
and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan within
Irvine), shall require each developer to provide traffic operations and control
plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity.
The plans shall address roadway and lane closures, truck hours and routes, and
notification procedures for planned short-term or interim changes in traffic
patterns. The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall ensure that
the plan would minimize anticipated delays at major intersections. Prior to
approval, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable shall review the
proposed traffic control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction.
Implementation Actions
IA-7 Each Specific Plan project would contain, to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin
and/or City of Irvine, as applicable, a pedestrian circulation component showing
pedestrian access to regional hiking trails, parks, schools, shopping areas, bus
stops, and/or other public facilities.
Refinements to FEIS/EIR Mitillation Measuresllmplementation Actions
The following Development Mitigation Measures and Implementation Actions have been revised
to include the updated Phasing Plan and Trip Budget consistent with the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment.
MM T/C-4
Development Mitigation Measures
MM T/C-5
The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the
reuse plan area within Irvine), shall ensure that all on-site circulation system
improvements for the reuse plan area assumed in the 2005 and 2020 traffic
analysis and as shown in Table 4.12 10 4-4 of the FIiIS/IiIR revised Specific
Plan Phasina Plan (attached) are implemented according to the cumulative ADT
thresholds identified in the table. Under this Phasing Plan, the City of Tustin shall
monitor all new development within the site, accounting for the cumulative ADT
generated by development projects. As each ADT threshold is reached, the
roadway improvements listed in 4.12 10 Table 4-4 of the FeIS!EIR revised
Specific Plan Phasing Plan shall be constructed before any additional projects
within the reuse plan area would be approved.
Prior to approval of a site development permit or vesting tract, except for
financing or conveyance purposes, for all land use designation areas in
Alternative 1 with the exception of the Learning Village, Community Park, and
Regional Park, a project developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Tustin and City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan area
within Irvine) which assigns improvements required in the FEIS/EIR to the
development site and which requires participation in a fair share mechanism to
design and construct required on-site and arterial improvements consistent with
5-142
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
R\ProjectsITustin\J00415 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
the ADT generation thresholds shown in TaBles 4.127, 4.12 Ii, 4.12 Q, aRg
4.12 19 Table 4-4 of the revised SDecific Plan Phasina Plan.
MM T/C-6
The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the
reuse plan area in Irvine), will monitor new development within the reuse plan
area, accounting for the cumulative ADTs generated by development projects
within the reuse plan area. As each cumulative ADT threshold shown in Table
4.12 19 4-4 of the revised SDecific Plan Phasino Plan is reached, the roadway
improvements listed shall be constructed before any additional projects within the
reuse plan area are approved.
REVISED TABLE 4-3
ON-SITE ARTERIAL CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
Barranca Parkway Red Hill Avenue Jamboree Road Major Arterial
Edinger Avenue East of Red Hill Avenue West of Jamboree Road Major Arterial
Red Hill Avenue Barranca Parkway North of Valencia Avenue Major Arterial
Tustin Ranch Road Edinger Avenue Barranca Parkway Major Arterial
(including interchange)
Warner Avenue Red Hill Avenue North Loop Road Major Arterial
Harvard Avenue Barranca Parkway Edinger Avenue Primary Arterial
Warner Avenue North Loop Road Jamboree Road Primary Arterial
A Street' South Loop Road Tustin Ranch Road Secondary Arterial
Armstrong Avenue North Loop Road Barranca Parkway Secondary Arterial
Carnegie Avenue 1 Red Hill Avenue Armstrong Avenue Secondary Arterial
East Connector Edinger Avenue North Loop Road Secondary Arterial
Harvard Avenue South of OCT A1SCRRA Edinger Avenue Secondary Arterial
Railroad
Legacy Road' Warner Avenue North Loop Road Secondary Arterial
North Loop Road Valencia Avenue Warner Avenue Secondary Arterial
Park Avenue' South Loop Road Tustin Ranch Road Secondary Arterial
South Loop Road Tustin Ranch Road Warner Avenue Secondary Arterial
South Loop Road Park Avenue Armstrong Avenue Secondary Arterial
West Connector Edinger Avenue North Loop Road Secondary Arterial
Aston Street' Carnegie Avenue Barranca Parkway Local Collector Street
Moffett Drive North Loop Road Harvard Avenue Local Collector Street
Sweet Shade Harvard Avenue Local Collector Street
Landsdowne Road North Loop Road Local Street
Severyns Road North Loop Road Local Street
1 New Improvement
R:\ProjectsITustin\J00415 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-143
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Armstrong Avenue North Loop Road to
Barranca Parkway - Tustin Ranch Road to Jamboree Road
Edinger Avenue - along project frontage between Red Hill Avenue and Jamboree
Road (completed)
Harvard Avenue - Barranca Parkway to just south of aCTA/SCRRA railroad
Landsdowne Road
Marble Mountain Road (completed as 'Sweet Shade")
North Loop Road - Red Hill Avenue to West Connector
Severyns Road'
West Connector
East Connector
Barranca Parkway - Tustin Ranch Road to Red Hill Avenue
Moffett Drive
North Loop Road - West Connector to Moffett Drive
Red Hill Avenue/Carnegie Avenue intersection (East Leg to Linear Park)
Red Hill Avenue - Barranca Parkway to just north of Valencia Avenue
South Loop Road - Warner Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road'
Tustin Ranch Road - Edinger Avenue to Barranca Parkway'
Warner Avenue - Red Hill Avenue to Jamboree Road2
A street - South Loop Road to Tustin Ranch Road'
Armstrong Avenue - Warner Avenue to Barranca Parkway
Carnegie Avenue - Linear Park to Armstrong Avenue becoming South Loop Road'
Legacy Road - North Loop Road to Tustin Ranch Road'
North Loop Road - Moffett Drive to Wamer Avenue
Park Avenue - South Loop Road to Tustin Ranch Road'
South Loop Road - Armstrong Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road via Park Avenue'
39,500 (176,200) Legacy Road - Warner Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road'
40,200 (216,400) Aston street - Carnegie Avenue to Barranca Parkway'
1 Roadway shall be constructed prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for this phase.
IQlJ!i!d~r;
27,000
(27,000)
82,800
(109,800)
26,900
(136,700)
2 Changes to original FEIS/EJR.
REVISED TABLE 4-4
ON-SITE ADT DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS
R:\Pro]ectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
5-144
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
MM T/C-7
The City of Tustin shall adopt a trip budget for individual portions of the reuse
plan area to assist in the monitoring of cumulative ADTs and the amount and
intensity of permitted non-residential uses as evaluated in the EIS/EIR.
Implementation Actions
IA-1 Table 4.12-10 of the FEISlEIR, as revised and presented in Table 4-4 of the
revised Specific Plan Phasina Plan. presents the Phasing Plan for the on-site
circulation system. The Phasing Plan is based upon traffic circulation impact and
mitigation analyses contained in the Tustin Leaacv Traffic Analvsis (Austin-Foust
Associates. Inc.. February 2006) Tr:affis ReJ'lsr-t (~ e FI5IS/I5IR). Under this
Specific Plan Phasing Plan, the City of Tustin shall monitor all new development
within the Specific Plan, accounting for the cumulative ADT generated by
development projects. As each ADT threshold is reached, the roadway
improvements listed in 4.12 19 gf Il:1e FI5IS.'EiIR Tables 4-3 (attached) and 4-4 of
the revised Specific Plan Phasina Plan (attached) ar-ld pFElser-l19d ir-l Tagle 4 gf
tl:1e TI,lSBR Legasy Phasir-lg Plar-l shall be constructed before any additional
projects within the Specific Plan would be approved.
IA-2 Table 3-3. as revised and presented in Section 3 of this Addendum. presents the
Trip Budget which summarizes the square footage of non-residential uses
allocated to each neighborhood by Planning Area and the Associated ADT.
(Residential uses are shown for information only; they are not part of the budget.)
Pursuant to Section 3.2.4 of the Specific Plan, the City of Tustin shall implement
the trip budget by neighborhood to control the amount and intensity of non-
residential uses. Trip Budget transfers between neighborhoods shall also be
implemented as directed in subsection 3.2.4 of the Specific Plan.
IA-3 Prior to the approval of (1) a Planning Area Concept Plan pursuant to Section 4.2
of the Specific Plan, (2) a site development permit, or (3) a vesting tentative map
for new square footage (not for financing or conveyance purposes). a project
developer shall provide traffic information consistent with the provisions of the
Specific Plan, tRi&the EEIS/EIR, and this Addendum and the requirements of the
City of Tustin Traffic Engineer. The traffic information shall (a) identify and assign
traffic circulation mitigation measures required in the EIS/EIR pursuant to the
Phasing Plan described in 4.1210 gf tRe F15IS/15IR Table 4-4 of the revised
Specific Plan Phasina Plan; (b) evaluate the effects of either the delay of any
previously committed circulation improvements or the construction of currently
unanticipated circulation improvements; and (c) utilize the circulation system and
capacity assumptions within the EIS/EIR and any additional circulation
improvements completed by affected jurisdictions for the applicable timeframe of
analysis.
IA-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development within planning
areas requiring a concept plan, a project developer shall enter into an agreement
with the City of Tustin to (a) design and construct roadway improvements
consistent with the ADT generation Phasing Plan described in 4.1219 gf tRe
FI5IS/I5IR Table 4-4 of the revised Specific Plan Phasina Plan and (b) address
the impact of and specify the responsibility for any previously committed
circulation improvements assumed in the EIS/EIR which have not been
constructed.
R:\ProJectsITuslin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-145
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Speciflc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
IA-5 If a subsequent traffic Phasing Plan demonstrates that certain circulation
improvements should be included in a different phase of Specific Plan
development (accelerated or delayed) or that a circulation improvement can be
substituted, the mitigation Phasing Plan in 4.12 1Q gf \he fel\O(elR Table 4-4 of
the revised Specific Plan Phasina Plan may be amended, subject to approval of
the City of Tustin and any other affected jurisdictions, provided that the same
level of traffic mitigation and traffic capacity would be provided.
FEISlEIR Mitiaation Measures/Implementation Actions Not Applicable to the Proposed
Project
The FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and Implementation Actions are applicable to the proposed
project.
5.15.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting traffic and
circulation, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no
substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require
major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to traffic and circulation than previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR;
and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in subsection (a)(3) of
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to traffic and circulation has been revealed that
would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its conclusions.
The FEIS/EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts (project and cumulative) at the
intersections of Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road/Walnut Avenue.
The impact at the intersection of Tustin Ranch Road/Walnut Avenue is reduced with the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan; however, the impacts at the
intersection of Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway remain significant and unavoidable. There
are no new mitigation measures available that the City of Tustin could implement to reduce this
impact (project and cumulative) to a level considered less than significant. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, for this
unavoidable impact. The proposed project would not substantially Increase the severity of this
significant and unavoidable impact (project and cumulative) beyond that identified in the
FEIS/EIR.
SOURCES
In addition to the sources used in preparation of this Addendum identified at the beginning of
Section 5, the following sources were used to address traffic/circulation issues:
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis. February 2006.
Tustin, City of. Agreement Between the City of INine and the City of Tustin Regarding the
Implementation, Timing and Funding of Transportation/Circulation Mitigation for the
MCAS Tustin Project. February 22, 2001.
R\Projects\Tustin\JOO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-146
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Tustin, City of. Memorandum from Public Works Department, City of Tustin, to William A.
Huston, City Manager, City of Irvine. Memorandum of Agreement with the Transportation
Conidor Agencies and the City of INine. Tustin, California: May 4, 1998.
5.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
5.16.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM FEIS/EIR
The FEIS/EIR identified that construction impacts associated with implementation of utilities
were addressed for each respective topical issue throughout the document since utilities
occurred within the impact footprint, which included a portion of Peters Canyon Channel. It was
identified that existing utilities would be replaced and would be sized to accommodate proposed
uses. The utilities and service systems section addressed operational impacts associated with
domestic/potable water, reclaimed water, sanitary sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas,
telephone, cable television, and solid waste disposal. The analysis presented in the FEIS/EIR
was based on conceptual utility plans available at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared.
Potable Water
The FEIS/EIR identified that IRWD provides potable water service to. the project area. The
FEIS/EIR identified that after build-out, the domestic water demand would be 2.8 million gallons
per day (GPD). The FEIS/EIR concluded that IRWD had adequate existing capacity to supply
water to the reuse plan area through its existing supplies or through acquisition of more water
from the Orange County groundwater basin (wells), back up supply from Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (MWD) , and from well water to satisfy future demand from the
Specific Plan area. The FEIS/EIR concluded that IRWD would be able to provide water service
to the project area and the impact would be less than significant.
Reclaimed Water
The FEIS/EIR identified that IRWD provides reclaimed water service to the project area and the
estimated reclaimed water needs after build-out would be 1.8 million GPD. The FEISlEIR noted
that IRWD would prepare a Sub-area Master Plan to determine pipe sizes (based on demand),
water-pressure requirements, and flow velocity. As indicated in the FEIS/EIR, development of
the proposed project would include a reclaimed water system designed to adequately
accommodate development and IRWD would have adequate capacity in the district to supply
the Specific Plan area with redaimed water. No significant impacts were identified.
Sanitary Sewer
The FEIS/EIR identified that IRWD provides sanitary sewer service to the project area, with
regional service provided by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The FEIS/EIR
identified that 2.5 million GPD would be generated by the project, with a peak flow of 7.7 million
GPD. Since IRWD and OCSD indicated that they have adequate capacity to serve the reuse
development area, and the sewer system would be designed to adequately accommodate
development, the FEIS/EIR concluded that no significant impacts would result from
implementation of the project.
Drainaae
The FEIS/EIR identified that development of the Specific Plan area would replace existing built
facilities, runways and tarmac with other types of impervious surface. In addition, it would
R:\Projects\Tustin\..Xl04\5 Environ Anaiysis-D313D6.doc
5-147
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05.002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
replace agricultural fields, operationally constrained undeveloped areas, and other undeveloped
parcels with urban uses. The development plan in the FEIS/EIR provided a golf course and
parks which provided some pervious surfaces; however, the overall impervious surface area
were determined to increase. This section focuses on drainage facilities. Refer to the discussion
provided in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, regarding specific drainage impacts
(e.g., increase in surface water runoff and potential for flooding).
A conceptual storm drain plan was prepared for the project in coordination with the OCFCD and
was addressed in the FEIS/EIR. It was determined that the existing storm drain system within
the project site could not be used because most of the pipes and channels are undersized. The
proposed storm drain plan included five major drainage areas with mainline facilities and
improvements to the OCFCD Barranca Channel. The backbone system followed the alignments
of the major arterial roadways. The use of retention basins in the golf village area was also
proposed.
The FEIS/EIR identified that future on-site facilities would discharge into the County's regional
facilities (Peters Canyon Channel and Barranca Channel), but not the Santa Ana/Santa Fe
Channel. At the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared, the OCFCD had included improvements to
the Peters Canyon Channel in its five- year plan for design and construction. These
improvements were not a feature of the SpeCific Plan. The Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel and
Barranca Channel were identified as being undersized. The proposed project evaluated in the
FEIS/EIR included a public benefit conveyance to provide right-of-way to reflect the existing
Barranca and Santa Ana/Santa Fe easements. For Peters Canyon, the public benefit
conveyance was proposed to include the existing easement (180-feet) plus an additional 40 feet
from the Metrolink rail line south to Warner Avenue.
The FEIS/EIR concluded that development of the Specific Plan area would require an improved
storm drain system to adequately accommodate proposed development. Because the required
system could be provided by the cities of Tustin and Irvine and OCFCD funded in part by fair-
share contributions of Specific Plan developers, the impacts to storm drain facilities were
determined to be less than significant. The storm drain system would be constructed within the
impact area identified for the project.
Electricitv
The FEIS/EIR identified that the proposed project would increase electricity usage compared to
the established baseline usage. However, Southern California Edison (SCE) indicated that the
existing substations could handle the increased demand and no new substations would be
needed.
Existing overhead distribution lines and transformers would be phased out and replaced by an
underground electrical system in new development areas. The systems previously used by
military family housing would remain with no conversion necessary.
The FEIS/EIR concluded that the preliminary electrical system developed for the proposed
project provided adequate capacity to meet the reuse demand; therefore, the impact to electrical
service was considered less than significant.
Natural Gas
The FEIS/EIR identified that the proposed project would increase natural gas consumption
compared to the established baseline condition. The natural gas provider at the time the
R:\ProJectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-148
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Chenge (SpecmC Plen AmendmenO 05-002,
DDA end Development Plen
Addendum
FEIS/EIR was prepared, Southern California Gas Company (SCGS), indicated that it could
provide service with the increased demand; however, a new distribution and delivery system
would need to be created. The FEISlEIR concluded that a natural gas system would be
constructed to adequately address the needs of proposed developed and SCGC indicated that it
had sufficient capacity to provide service; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Telephone
At the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared Pacific Bell provided telephone service in the project
area. The telephone service used on the MCAS property was owned and maintained by the
military and did not meet industry standards; therefore. it would not be used to serve the
Specific Plan area. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the proposed project would include
implementation of a telephone system designed to adequately address the needs of the
proposed project. It also indicated that Pacific Bell had sufficient capacity to provide service;
therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Cable Television
At the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared, it was identified that Cox Communications (Cox) would
provide cable television to the development area. Cox indicated that it had the capacity to
adequately provide service to the area. Therefore, the FEIS/EIR concluded that impacts related
to cable television are less than significant.
Solid Waste Disposal
The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department provides solid waste services
to the project area. The FEIS/EIR identified that the proposed project would generate
approximately 37,000 tons of solid waste per year, which would be an increase of about
32,300 tons per year. Solid waste disposal would occur at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill,
which is not scheduled to close until 2024. At the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared, the landfill
had only used 20.6 million cubic yards (mcy) of its 117 mcy capacity. Both the Cities of Tustin
and Irvine have adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), which were fully
implemented in the year 2000 and was proposed to achieve a 50 percent reduction of solid
waste. All new development would be required to comply with these SRRE standards. The
FEIS/EIR concluded that no new solid waste facilities would be required to serve the proposed
project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
5.16.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Telephone service is now provided by SBC, and natural gas is now provided by Sempra
EnergylThe Gas Company. While the project site is within the OCSD service boundaries, based
on an agreement between IRWD and OCSD, IRWD no longer directly serves the project site.
Federal Disposal Service provides solid waste hauling and recycling services to Tustin residents
and businesses. It should also be noted that the City maintains area non-exclusive cable
franchise policy and cable television franchises are granted on a city-wide basis.
The City of Tustin has already completed a number of actions to ensure implementation
(funding and construction) of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program. Cost
estimates for the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program have been developed and the
City has entered into agreements with each of the developers within the Specific Plan area
regarding the required fair-share funding and phasing for the infrastructure improvements.
Additionally, the City of Tustin has entered into agreements with adjacent jurisdictions regarding
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-149
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
funding for infrastructure improvements that are not within the City of Tustin. It should be noted
that the Master Developer DDA being considered with the proposed project is the last
agreement to be executed for the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program. The
proposed DDA, together with agreements that the City of Tustin has already entered into with
other Specific Plan developers and adjacent jurisdictions, assures implementation of the entire
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program.
The following addresses updated studies, agreements and regulations that have been
completed or implemented since preparation of the FEIS/EIR.
Potable Water. Non-Potable Water and Sewer
IRWD prepared a Marine Corps Air Facility Tustin Redevelopment Sub-Area Master Plan in
December 1999. The Sub-Area Master Plan sets forth the necessary potable water, non-potable
water, and sewer infrastructure required to fully provide service to the proposed Specific Plan
area. The proposed phasing required for implementation of the facilities is also identified. The
City of Tustin and IRWD have formed an improvement district for the purpose of financing water
and sewer facilities at Tustin Legacy.
For domestic water and wastewater collection, IRWD has prepared separate Plan of Works for
two improvement districts. The Plan of Works is the means by which fiscal requirements of the
improvement district are identified, including bond authorization, in order to provide for
construction, planning and design of facilities as well as imposing a tax rate for water and sewer
facilities. General obligation bonds have been issued to fund installation of improvements at
Tustin Legacy. As previously discussed, such utilities are within the scope of the Specific Plan.
In 1999, OCSD prepared a comprehensive strategic plan that identified near term and long term
capital improvement projects to the collections system, treatment plants, discharge facilities,
and biosolids management to accommodate future wastewater flows due to population
increases within its service area boundaries. OCSD adopted an interim update of the 1999
Strategic Plan in 2002. Many of the near term capital improvement projects identified in the
1999 and 2002 Update to expand the capacity of OCSD current treatment plants in Huntington
Beach and Fountain Valley and collection facilities are currently underway as documented on
the OCSD website and will continue to accommodate future demand.
In July 2003, the OCSD and IRWD entered into an agreement that transferred the service area
for the Tustin Legacy site to IRWD and identified that OCSD would receive project-generated
wastewater from IRWD. To accommodate future sewer capacity to serve the entire Tustin
Legacy project, IRWD and OCSD, with assistance from the City of Tustin completed
construction of a new trunk sewer line from Armstrong Avenue just north of Barranca Parkway
within the project site, southerly down Armstrong Avenue to Main Street in the City of Irvine.
This new line connects with an existing trunk sewer in Main Street. This was the only new sewer
main needed to serve the proposed project.
Reaional Storm Drain Svstem
In March 2003, the City of Tustin entered into a Cooperative Agreement (002-119) with the
OCFCD and the County of Orange (hereinafter referred to as the "County") for the improvement
of regional drainage facilities throughout the Tustin Legacy site (within the City of Tustin). The
Cooperative Agreement identified conditions for the development of certain portions of Tustin
Legacy, including largely improvements to a portion of Peters Canyon Channel within the City of
Tustin. Specifically, the agreement establishes the terms and conditions under which the
R:\Projects\TustinUJ04\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-150
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tus~n Zone Change (Specific Plen Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plen
Addendum
channel improvements will be scheduled, engineered, financed, constructed, operated, and
maintained. It should be noted that the responsibility to construct the channel improvements can
be passed from the City of Tustin to developers within the Specific Plan area. This agreement
includes a requirement for the development of a Runoff Management Plan/Engineering Study
for the Tustin Legacy site. The RMP was completed in December 2004 (RBF, 2004). The City
and the County subsequently approved Amendment NO.1 to Agreement D02-119 which
includes provisions for the construction of additional regional improvements to the Peters
Canyon Channel within the City of Tustin, and milestones for implementation of these
improvements.
The City of Irvine required improvements for the portion of Peters Canyon Channel in its
jurisdiction (from the City of Tustin limits to Barranca Parkway) to be completed by Marble
Mountain Partners, LLP. The City of Tustin has entered into an agreement with the City of Irvine
for funding of channel improvements in the City of Irvine by Marble Mountain Partners, LLP. The
City of Irvine will use Community Facilities District fees for funding. As part of this agreement,
these improvements have been incorporated into the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure
Program.
The RMP identifies the recommended backbone infrastructure to intercept and convey both
regional and local storm water runoff from the Tustin Legacy site. With the exception of the
segments of Peters Canyon Channel covered under the agreement between the City of Irvine
and the City of Tustin, the area of impact associated with implementation of regional and local
drainage facility improvements is the same as addressed in the FEIS/EIR.
It should also be noted that Phase I Tustin Legacy infrastructure improvements were initiated in
May 2005 and are underway and include construction of streets and utilities for Valencia
Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to the West Connector; and the West Connector, Landsdowne,
and Armstrong from Valencia south to Warner Avenue (with water and sewer utilities to be also
installed south to Barranca Parkway). These improvements comply with the Specific Plan.
5.16.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
IMPACTS
Environmental Checklist Responses
Would the project:
A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Wastewater originating from the project site
would be generated by residential, commercial/business, institutional, recreational, and open
space uses and would ultimately be treated by facilities owned and operated by IRWD and/or
OCSD. The wastewater treatment requirements of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Act, the federal Clean Water Act and regulations issued by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board for the treatment facilities were developed to ensure that adequate levels
of treatment would be provided for the wastewater flows emanating from all land uses within its
service area. Therefore, the wastewater from the project site would not cause the treatment
plant to exceed these treatment requirements. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation in
addition to planned construction of the sanitary sewer facilities is required.
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 En"iron Analysis-031306.doc
5-151
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specinc Plen AmendmenV 05.002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
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 impacts?
E. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which services 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?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. IRWD provides water and wastewater
service to the project area, The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development
Plan would not substantially change the types or amount of land uses assumed in the Land Use
Plan addressed in the FEIS/EIR. The number of residential units remains the same and the
amount of non-residential development has been reduced, Based on the changes in the amount
and type of proposed land uses, and using the demand factors presented in the Appendix E of
the FEIS/EIR, it has been determined that the proposed project would have a reduced domestic
water demand compared with the previously approved project (estimated at 2,7 million gallons
per day [gpd] vs, 2,8 million gpd), and non-potable water demand (estimated at 1,35 million gpd
vs, 1,79 million gpd), The reduction in demand for non-potable water is primarily due to the
elimination of the 159-acre golf course which would have been irrigated with non-potable water.
The amount of wastewater generated under the proposed project would also be reduced (an
average daily flow estimated at 2.15 million gpd vs. 2.55 million gpd with the previously
approved project).
Based on an agreement between IRWD and OCSD executed in 2003, IRWD provides
wastewater service to the project area and OCSD has agreed to accept the wastewater from
IRWD. As discussed above, a new sewer main was constructed to accommodate wastewater
flows for the project site and additional infrastructure for regional service is required to serve the
proposed project,
As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, development within the Master Developer
footprint, and the remainder of Tustin Legacy would result in the need for Tustin Legacy
backbone infrastructure located within and outside the Master Developer footprint, including
domestic and reclaimed water and sewer. The Master Developer would have a responsibility to
make a fair share contribution to implementation of the backbone infrastructure for the Specific
Plan area, and would also be responsible for design and construction of a portion of the
infrastructure program consistent with the provisions of the DDA. The phasing of backbone
infrastructure and performance completion of phased infrastructure would be a precondition to
the subsequent Land Conveyance phase,
The construction of new facilities was addressed in the FEIS/EIR and no new impacts would
result with the proposed project since the required infrastructure has not substantially changed
and is within the impact area addressed in the FEIS/EIR and this Addendum. Development of
the site would still occur in phases, and the Master Developer is required to pay its fair share for
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure on behalf of the project. Section 3.2.3 of this Addendum
provides a discussion of the complete funding and construction of the Tustin Legacy Backbone
Infrastructure. In addition, the Master Developer would be responsible for design and
construction of a portion of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program consistent with
the Specific Plan, and as required by the DDA. New water and sewer facilities would be
constructed on-site in compliance with IRWD requirements. The environmental impacts
associated with these construction activities have been evaluated for each topical issue
addressed in the FEIS/EIR and in this Addendum. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR no
R:\ProjeclsITustin\J004\5Environ Analysis.031306_doc
5-152
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specinc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
unavoidable significant impacts would result. The proposed project would not result in new or
substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR.
C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
Figure 2-10 of the Specific Plan sets forth the original conceptual storm drain improvement plan.
This plan conceptual, and the Specific Plan and FEISlEIR require preparation of refined storm
drain improvement plans for review and approval by the City of Tustin during the design of the
project.
Since the preparation of the original Specific Plan, and in compliance with the requirements of
the Cooperative Agreement D02-119, a RMP has been completed for the Tustin Legacy project
to identify required local and regional storm drain facilities. Consistent with the conclusion
reached in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of the storm drain improvements identified in the RMP
can accommodate local and regional storm water flows, eliminating the potential for flooding on-
and off-site.
Further, the Cooperative Agreement and the RMP call for design of a storm drain system that is
consistent with the Specific Plan conceptual storm drain plan, but which will result in a
engineering refinement and which may alter the alignments, sizes and extent of the certain
storm drain improvements. Some additional facilities and minor changes to the storm drain
system will be incorporated into the storm drain facilities plans pursuant to the RMP and the
referenced agreements. For example, a detention basin is proposed to be incorporated into the
Master Development project to control stormwater releases to Barranca Channel.
Implementation Measure (a) presented in the FEIS/EIR and restated below is still applicable to
the proposed project. Development of the site would still occur in phases, and as noted above
the Master Developer is required to pay its fair share for Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure
on behalf of the project. In addition, the Master Developer would be responsible for design and
construction of a portion of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program consistent with
the Specific Plan.
With the exception of a portion of the Peters Canyon Channel, the storm drain improvements
required for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan are within the
impact area for the project addressed in the FEIS/EIR, and have been evaluated for each
topical issue in this section. Improvements to the Barranca Channel and Peters Canyon
Channel (between Barranca Parkway and the Metrolink rail crossing) would impact areas under
the jurisdiction of the CDFG and USACE. These impacts have been updated and addressed in
Section 5.4, Biological Resources, and would be mitigated to a level considered less than
significant.
No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the
proposed project's storm drain facilities. Compliance with the Implementation Measures
identified below would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant
D. Have sufficient water supplies available to seNe the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The potable and non-potable water demand for the proposed project would be reduced from
that evaluated in the FEIS/EIR due to the proposed reduction in development intensity for non-
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Anillysis-031306.doc
5-153
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of CheckJist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
residential uses. Specifically, the amount of non-residential uses has been reduced by
approximately 1,022,422 square feet compared to the project evaluated in the FEISlEIR.
Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan, DDA and Development Plan would not change the
conclusion reached in the FEIS/EIR that there is sufficient water supply to accommodate the
proposed development.
IRIND's ability to meet long the term water demand of customers within its service area
boundary, including future land uses contemplated by the proposed project, is primarily
documented in two service area wide planning documents. IRIND's principal planning document
is the Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP). The WRMP is a comprehensive document
compiling data and analyses that IRIND considers necessary for its planning needs, including
water supply planning. IRIND has also prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), a
document required by statute. The UWMP is based on the WRMP, but contains defined
elements as listed in the statute (Water Code Section 10631, et. seq.). The UWMP is required
to be updated in years ending with "five" and "zero," and IRIND's next update of that document
is anticipated in 2010.
Both the WRMP and the most recent 2005 UWMP include future build-out of the Specific Plan
area for purposes of assessing supply and demand. The 2005 UWMP specifically
acknowledges future build-out of MCAS Tustin in Section II, which describes current and
projected population and other demographic factors affecting IRIND's water management
planning. (See p. 11-8,2005 UWMP). As documented in Section VII of the 2005 UWMP, which
addresses ''water service reliability", IRWD has sufficient water supplies to meet customer
demand needs, including the demand needs for future land uses within the Specific Plan area,
through 2030 under the "normal water supply and demand," "single dry year supply and
demand," and multiple dry year supply and demand" scenarios.
In addition, IRWD has already prepared and/or approved plans for the Specific Plan area and
has taken other steps to facilitate the delivery and supply of water service to the project. For
example, IRIND has approved a Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP). IRIND also has adopted a Plan
of Work that corresponds to implementation activities related to the (SAMP) including adopting
two separate improvement districts which cover the Specific Plan area and imposing a tax rate
for water and sewer facilities. IRIND has issued general obligation bonds to fund installation of
improvements at Specific Plan area.
IRIND has also signed and approved water and sewer plans for Phase I -ArmstrongNalencia
and West Connector improvements that the City is currently constructing, and approved a
reimbursement agreement with the City for such improvements. Finally, IRWD has signed and
approved water and sewer plans for projects within the Specific Plan area, including the Vestar
project and Tustin Ranch Road/Warner Avenue. Collectively, these planning and
implementation actions have been taken consistently with, and reflect the provisions of the
WRMP.
R:\Projec1s\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306doc
5-154
Environmenta! Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS TusM Zone Change (Spec,"c Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
F. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The OCIVII1\IID operates the Orange County
landfill system which would serve proposed development. The proposed Specific Plan
Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would result in the same amount of residential
development and reduced non-residential development intensity compared to that evaluated in
the FEISlEIR. Based on the changes in the amount and type of proposed land uses, and using
the demand factors presented in the Appendix E of the FEIS/EIR, it has been determined that
the proposed project would generate slightly more solid waste compared to the previously
approved project (37,518 tons per year vs. 37,379 tons per year). This represents an increase
of less than one percent.
The County's landfill system has sufficient capaCity to accommodate the increase in solid waste.
OCIVII1\IID plans to expand the capacity of the Frank R. Bowerman landfill allowing for an
increase from 8,500 tons per day to 11,500 tons per day, and extending landfill operations from
2022 until 2053. IWMD has prepared a Draft EIR for the proposed expansion which is currently
out for public review (J. Amau, pers. comm., January 17, 2006). In addition to the Frank R.
Bowerman Landfill, the County operates the Olinda Alpha and the Prima Deshecha Landfills
which could also receive solid waste generated from the proposed project. Implementation of
the proposed project would not change the conclusion reached in the FEIS/EI R that there is
adequate capacity for the proposed project available within the Orange County landfill system,
which includes three active landfills. Therefore, no significant impacts related to landfill capacity
would result.
In September of 1989, in response to a state-wide problem of rapidly increasing solid waste and
a limited amount of landfill sites to dispose of increasing waste volumes, the California
Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) was signed into law. This Act required every
California County and incorporated city to plan and implement programs designed to reduce the
amount of solid waste disposed of at landfills by 50 percent by the year 2000. In compliance
with guidelines set forth by AB 939, both the Cities of Irvine and Tustin adopted a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to define goals and objectives for waste reduction,
recycling and diversion. The SRRE defines guidelines to implement these goals and objectives
through eight main programs, consisting of Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, Special
Waste, Public Education Information, Disposal Facility Capacity, Funding, and Integration.
OCIWMD also is obligated to obtain a Solid Waste Facilities Permit, a Stormwater Discharge
Permit, and permits to construct and operate gas management systems and meet Waste
Discharge Requirements. The local enforcement agency (LEA), SCAQMD and RWQCB enforce
landfill regulations related to health, air quality, and water quality, respectively. Proposed
development within the Specific Plan area would not inhibit OCIVII1\IID's compliance with the
requirements of each of these governing bodies.
It should also be noted that the cities of Tustin and Irvine comply with all State and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste including the California Public Resources Code, Section
40000 et al. Federal Disposal Service is responsible for implementing and managing several
citywide recycling programs and assisting the City to achieve the state-mandated recycling of 50
percent as required under AS 939. When last reported (2002) the City of Tustin had received a
R\Projects\Tustin\JOO4\5 Environ AnaIYsls-031306.doc
5-155
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tusfjn Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
46 percent recycling rate and had received an extension from the California Integrated Waste
Management Board for meeting the 50 percent solid waste reduction requirement. In 2003, the
City adopted Municipal Code Section 4327, Waste Disposal Diversion Requirements for
Construction Demolition and Renovation Projects in the City, to increase the recycling rate to
50 percent. In 2002, the City of Irvine successfully diverted 50 percent of its solid waste stream,
(California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2006), The proposed project would be in
compliance with AB 939, The compliance standard for AB 929 is "good faith effort." The cities of
Irvine and Tustin have been deemed to be in good faith compliance with AB939. Development
of the proposed project would not adversely effect the City's ability to attain the waste reduction
requirements of AB 939.
H. Require or result in the construction of new electric, natural gas, or cable facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Electricity
SCE provides electrical service to the project area. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment,
DDA, and Development Plan would not substantially change the types or amount of land uses
assumed in the Land Use Plan addressed in the FEIS/EIR. The number of residential units
remains relatively the same (with an increase of only 20 units) and the amount of non-residential
development has been reduced. Ralph E. Hitchcock & Associates conducted the following
analyses for the proposed project: comparison of annual and peak electric demand between the
original Specific Plan and proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA and Development Plan;
and an analysis of electrical energy impacts, including impact on peak demand and electrical
supply, as well as anticipated conservation measures in compliance with Appendix F of the
State CEQA Guidelines. To conduct this analysis, peak and annual demand was estimated
based on anticipated project end uses, and the current energy supply was assessed. The
technical analyses are available for review at the City of Tustin and summarized in this section.
Based on the application of current electric demand information to the land uses proposed in the
original Specific Plan and for the currently proposed project, a comparison of the electricity
demand has been generated. Using current demand generation factors available from SCE, the
original Specific Plan would create the need for 213,263,595 kWh annually and a coincident
peak electric demand of 44,375 kW at project buildout. Coincident peak is what the electrical
delivery system and generation actually experience on the one hour in a year when the most
electricity is use. The proposed project would consume 221,210,258 kWh or an increase of
7,946,663 kWh or 3.73 percent. The proposed project peak demand is 34,434 kW reduced by
9,941 kW or 22.4 percent from the original project.
The reduction in peak demand is significant in that it helps reduce the State's overall generation
needs. While the State is not in catastrophic need of reduced electric peak demand to conserve
generation resources (baring unseasonable heat storms) it is helpful to keep demand needs to a
minimum as the California Energy Commission tries to implement policies that will secure long
term generation stability within the state. The increase in annual estimated electrical demand
associated with the proposed project is not substantial in light of the State's overall electricity
supply capabilities, and when demographics associated with the proposed project are taken into
account. Therefore, the proposed project would not have substantially more severe impacts
than the original project related to electrical demand.
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-156
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
Below is a summary of the recommended energy analysis described in Appendix F of the State
CEQA Guidelines.
Energy Impac:t and Potential Conservation Measures to Reduce Peak Energy Demand
The residential portion of the proposed project includes 4,621 new residential units, which would
add 36 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of annual energy usage and 8.2 megawatts (mW) of peak
demand. This represents an average of 7,800 kWh per unit per year. Compared to Southern
California Edison's average annual residential consumption of 6,100 kWh this is a 28 percent
increase or 1,700 kWh. This is not an unreasonable or significant increase given demographics
of SCE's 3.6 million residential customers compared to those of the 4,621 units within the
project area. This average dwelling usage of 7,800 kWh is consistent with 2003 SCE
Residential Appliance End Use Study. The overall impact of the non-residential portion of the
project over the buildout period is 185 mWh annually in energy consumption and a peak
demand of 26.9 mW.
SCE will not, as a matter of corporate policy, provide any of the type of information provided
above. However, in preparation of the FEIS/EIR the City of Tustin consulted with SCE. SCE
indicated that they would be able to serve the project and this is demonstrated by their
subsequent approval of construction plans for Phase I improvements as well as the Vestar
Phase I improvements.
Potential conservation measures have been identified that would reduce energy demand from
that presented above. The proposed project would comply with applicable local and state
requirements for energy conservation. This includes compliance with all State Energy Insulation
Standards and City of Tustin codes in effect at the time of application for building permits,
including Title 24/Department of Energy (DOE)-2 design criteria (Commonly referred to as
Title 24, these standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the use of
energy efficient building standard, including ventilation, insulation and construction and the use
of energy saving appliances, conditioning systems, water heating, and lighting.) Other energy
conservation measures that would be reviewed during subsequent project design stages that
could be incorporated into proposed development include, but are not limited to:
. Use of landscaping that takes into consideration orientation and shade to improve
energy consumption.
. Use of the most efficient energy consuming devices based on practicality and
economics.
. Thermal energy storage would be considered based on the specific application, location
of the complex and overall economics.
. Use of sophisticated lighting controls for thermal reduction would be considered based
on application.
. Use of facility energy management systems and controls would be considered based on
application and overall economics.
. Use of communication conduit to accommodate voice, video and data services would be
considered based on application and overall economics.
Energy Use and Supplies
The project would have an annual requirement of 221,210 mWh and need 34.4 mWof demand
support. This need would be accommodated by using SCE's purchased energy considering the
R:IProjectsHu5tin\J004\5 Environ AnalYsls-031306doc
5-157
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
best mix of environmentally sensitive and economic dispatch. The proposed project would be
planned and designed with energy efficient usage at the forefront, both for environmental as
well as economic needs.
Based on coordination between the City and SCE, it is reasonable that SCE's long range load
flow studies, future distribution substation size, and location and distribution circuit plans would
accommodate the project's energy needs in the normal course of SCE's regional planning. It
should also be noted that the impact of the planned conservation/energy management actions
for reducing kWh and kW demand are not yet defined for the project; therefore, there would
likely be a substantial reduction from the amount noted in this analysis. Additionally, SCE and
the City of Tustin have an existing Franchise Agreement for the provision of electric service in
the City, including the Specific Plan area.
Statewide Energy Supply/Demand
It is estimated that the State's electric peak demand would increase to approximately 61.4 GW
in 2012. Assuming there is no additional generation capacity added between 2005 and 2012,
there would be an 11 percent spinning reserve and no surplus capacity. The minimum spinning
reserve is 7 percent. This scenario, assuming no further capacity additions, leaves the State
with 4 percent, or 2.5GW, above the minimum requirements for spinning reserve.
The proposed project's peak demand of 34,434kW (0.034 GW), represents approximately six
hundredths of one percent (0.06 percent) of the anticipated California peak demand in 2012.
The project's energy consumption in 2013 of 221,210,258 kWh for the area compared to the
State's energy consumption of 310 billion kWh represents seven hundredths of one percent
(0.07 percent) of the State's total energy needs.
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is working on establishing resource adequacy
requirements for all suppliers of retail electricity in an effort to maintain reliable supplies and
reduce prices for energy in California. This process should assess the supply and demand for
electricity, as well as the most prominent risks to the reliability of the system and electricity
consumers in terms of electricity costs, and establish benchmarks to ensure that adequate
planning reserves are maintained. Supporting this process, the CEC is addressing the issues of:
(a) ensuring that electricity is used as efficiently as possible, (b) generation capacity is available
through construction within the State and addressing surplus purchasable energy within the
western states, (c) reducing the State's dependency on natural gas for generation of electricity
by aggressively developing energy resources required under California's Renewables Portfolio
Standard (RPS), (d) the State's bulk transmission system which needs major upgrades and new
additions, and (e) offering consumers energy choices.
It has been concluded that there is sufficient energy available to the State for the proposed
project, and the proposed project would not substantially impact the ability of SCE's system to
serve the new and existing loads. This conclusion is based on the following:
. The regional power markets in general have reacted properly to the recent crisis, in that
new sources of supply have come on-line and more are planned and under construction
but construction is lagging the forecast. The incentives are there to provide the needed
capacity .
R\ProjectsHustinIJ004\5 Environ Analysls-031306.doc
5-158
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
. Statewide transmission constraints are being dealt with in ongoing proceedings at the
CEC, and within the utility/transmission community. The transmission constraints are not
resolved and would remain an ongoing issue.
. Within the time frame that the proposed project would take to build out, the amount of
load added by this development is not material in the context of the swings in power
movement from north to south or from east to west during any given day's power trading,
and would be lost in the Califomia ISO's rounding errors in determining available
capacity .
. SCE is aware of its system constraints and their system would be able to handle the
additional load presented by the proposed project.
Therefore, the additional load created by the project would not have any significant impact on
the generation or transmission of electricity in the area. Given the anticipated energy and
demand created by the proposed project at buildout, there would be sufficient transmission
capacity to serve the area load. During construction and at buildout, the distribution
infrastructure would also be adequate to deliver the load to the project site. SCE continually
updates a regional Distribution Substation Plan that forecasts load increases such as Tustin
Legacy, in a generic sense, to assure there would be proper infrastructure in place when
projects are implemented.
Electric facilities would be constructed on-site in compliance with the provisions of the Tustin
Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program, conditions of entitlements within the Specific Plan
Area, and within the Master Developer footprint as required by the DDA. The environmental
impacts associated with these construction activities have been evaluated for each topical issue
addressed in the FEIS/EIR and in this Addendum. As conduded in the FEIS/EIR no significant
impacts would result. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe
impacts than what was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation measures identified in the
FEIS/EIR reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Natural Gas
Sempra EnergylThe Gas Company (Sempra) provides natural gas service to the project area.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, DDA, and Development Plan would not substantially
change the types or amount of land uses assumed in the Land Use Plan addressed in the
FEIS/EIR. The number of residentiai units has increased by only 20 units and the amount of
non-residential development has been reduced. Based on the changes in the amount and type
of proposed land uses, and using the most current adopted demand factors as presented in
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, it has been determined that the proposed project would
have a reduced natural gas demand compared to the previously approved project (589.65
million cubic feet/year vs. 659.76 million cubic feet/year).
Natural gas distribution facilities would be constructed on-site in compliance with the
requirements of Sempra, the provisions of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program,
and conditions of entitlements within the Specific Plan Area, and within the Master Developer
footprint as required by the DDA. The environmental impacts associated with these construction
activities have been evaluated for each topical issue addressed in the FEIS/EIR and in this
Addendum.
R:\ProjectsITustin\JOO4\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-159
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Spec/fic Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
It should also be noted that the Sempra and the City of Tustin have an existing Franchise
Agreement. for the provision of natural gas in the City, including the Specific Plan area.
Sempra's forecasts for additional demands such as the proposed project and continues to
provide the necessary energy resources for existing demands. Necessary distribution facilities,
such as the extension of natural gas lines described above, will be perfonned according to the
specific requirements of Sempra. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially
more severe impacts related to natural gas service than what was evaluated in the FEISlEIR
and no new mitigation measures are required because impacts are reduced to a level that is
less than significant.
Cable
As noted above, the City of Tustin maintains an open service area policy and cable television
franchises are granted on a citywide basis. Cable facilities would be constructed on-site in
compliance with the provisions of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program,
conditions of entitlements within the Specific Plan Area, and within the Master Developer
footprint as required by the DDA. The environmental impacts associated with these construction
activities have been evaluated for each topical issue addressed in the FEIS/EIR and in this
Addendum. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts
than what was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR.
5.16.4 IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
To support proposed development in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, utilities and
associated infrastructure must be provided concurrent with demand. Compliance with the
following Implementation Measures would ensure that utilities are provided by the project
developer when needed. For consistency, the lettering system follows that provided in the
approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the FEIS/EI R.
FEIS/EIR Measures That Have Been Completed
No measures related to utilities have been completed.
FEIS/EIR Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project
Implementation Measures for Utilities
1M (b)
Prior to a final map recordation (except for financing and reconveyance
purposes), the development applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City
of Tustin and City of Irvine and any appropriate regional utility agencies, districts,
and providers, as applicable, to dedicate all easement, rights-of-way, or other
land detennined necessary to construct adequate utility infrastructure and
facilities to serve the project as determined by the city, agency, district, or other
providers.
1M (c)
Prior to any final map recordation (except for financing and conveyance
purposes), the development applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with
the cities of Tustin and/or Irvine, as applicable, to participate on a pro-rated basis
in construction of capital improvements necessary to provide adequate utility
facilities.
R:\ProJects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-160
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tusa. Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
1M (d)
1M (g)
1M (i)
1M 0)
1M (k)
Prior to the issuance of permits for any public improvements or development
project, a development applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin and City of
Irvine, as applicable, information from IRWD which outlines required facilities
necessary to provide adequate potable water and reclaimed water service to the
development.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of any subdivision map
(except for financing and reconveyance purposes), whichever occurs first, for
development within the 10o-year flood plain, grading and drainage systems shall
be designed by the project developer such that all building pads would be safe
from inundation from runoff from all storms up to and including the theoretical
1Oo-year storm, to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin Building Division or the
Irvine Public Works Department, as applicable. Grading permits or subdivision
maps generated for financing and reconveyance purposes are exempt.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit or approval of any subdivision map
(except for financing and conveyance purposes), for any development that is
either partially or completely located within the 100-year flood plain of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map, the development applicant shall submit all required
documentation to the FEMA and demonstrate that the application for a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision for changes to the 100-year flood plain is
satisfied in a manner meeting the approval of each respective city, as applicable.
Prior to the approval of any applicable subdivision map (except for financing and
conveyance purposes), the developer-applicant shall design and construct local
drainage systems for conveyance of the 10-year runoff. If the facility is in a local
sump, it shall be designed to convey the 25-year runoff.
Prior to any grading for any new development, the following drainage studies
shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Tustin, City of Irvine, and/or
OCFCD, as applicable:
(1) A drainage study including diversions (Le., off-site areas that drain onto
and/or through the project site) with justification and appropriate
mitigation for any proposed diversion.
(2) A drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage pattems would not
result in increased 100-year peak discharges within and downstream of
the project limits, and would not worsen existing drainage conditions at
storm drains, culverts, and other street crossings including regional flood
control facilities. The study shall also propose appropriate mitigation for
any increased runoff causing a worsening condition of any existing
facilities within or downstream of project limits. Implementation of
appropriate interim or ultimate flood control infrastructure construction
must be included.
(3) Detailed drainage studies indicating how, in conjunction with the drainage
conveyance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flows,
catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding, building pads are
made safe from runoff inundation which may be expected from all storms
up to and including the theoretical10o-year flood.
5-161
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
R\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
1M (I) Prior to approval of any subdivision map (except for financing or conveyance
purposes), an agreement will be executed with the OCFCD that provides for the
identification and contribution of a project-specific fair share contribution toward
the construction of ultimate flood control faculties needed to accommodate build-
out of the affected project. I nterim flood control facilities may be considered for
approval provided such facilities meet OCFCD requirements. Nothing shall
preclude the City of Tustin from transferring the obligation onto other project
developers within the project area.
1M (a)
Refinements to FEIS/EIR Implementation Measures/New Implementation Measures
1M (e)
IM(f)
1M (h)
The City of Tustin or City of I rvine, as appropriate, shall ensure that infrastructure
is constructed in phases as triggered by identified thresholds in 4,.34 Table 4-2
of the revised Specific Plan PhasinQ Plan. PhasinQ Plan ReQuirements (attached)
of the FEISiEIR (see Tagle 1 at tRe eFlg of the MitiQatioFl MeFlilgriFlQ aFlg
RepoFliFlQ PFeQFaR'l). The Phasing Plan provides an organizational framework to
facilitate development of the reuse plan area in tandem with infrastructure
necessary to support the planned development.
This framework reflects the fact that each component of the infrastructure has its
own threshold for accommodating additional development toward build-out of the
reuse plan area. The triggering mechanisms that identify timing of key
infrastructure provisions are summarized in Table 4-2 of the revised Specific Plan
PhasinQ Plan. PhasinQ Plan ReQuirements. Tagle 4.~ 1.
Prior to the issuance of buildinQ permits the certifiGates ef ~se ang eCG~l'laFlGY,
the project developer shall ensure that fire hydrants capable of flows in amounts
approved by the OCFA are in place and operational to meet fire flow
requirements. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR Implementation
Measures and no new Implementation Measures are required.
Prior to the issuance of permits for any public improvements or development
project, a development applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin and City of
Irvine, as applicable, information from IRWD, OCSD, or the City of Tustin which
outlines required facilities necessary to provide adequate sanitary sewage
service to the development.
Prior to construction of regional flood control facilities, appropriate state and
federal approvals, including agreements and permits, shall be obtained. These
include but are not limited to Regional Water Quality Control Board permits,
including NPDES permits; Section 401 water Qualitv certifications; Section 404
, permits from the USACE, and Section 1601 or 1603 agreements from the CDFG
in a manner meeting the approval of the City of Tustin and the Irvine Public
Works Department, as applicable.
5-162
R:\ProjectsITustin\J004\5 Environ Analysls-031306.doc
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS TusUn Zone Chenge (Speclfjc Plen Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plen
Addendum
REVISED TABLE 4-2
PHASING PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Circulation 1) On-site arterial highways, intersections
and Tustin Ranch Road/Edinger Avenue
interchange;
2) Off-site arterial highway, intersection
improvements;
3) Selected advanced transportation
management system (ATMs) facilities.
BikewaysfTrails 1) Class 1 Bikeway along Peters Canyon
Channel;
2) On-site Class II Bikeway System.
Domestic 1) Existing housing water distribution lines;
(Potable) Water 2) New backbone water mains;
3) Abandoned/relocated wells
Reclaimed 1) New backbone water lines;
(Non-Potable) 2) Existing and new well sites.
Water
Sanitary Sewer 1) Existing housing sewer conveyance
lines;
2) New backbone sewer mains.
storm Drain 1) Backbone storm drain systems;
2) Regional ftood control channel
improvements;
3) Retention basins;
4) Flood plain mitigation.
Electricity
Backbone electric distribution lines.
Natural Gas
Backbone gas distribution lines.
Telephone
Backbone telephone lines.
Cable
Television
Backbone cable television distribution lines;
fiber optic cables.
When cumulative development and associated
average daily trips reach ADT development
thresholds based on the land usellriD budoet
Dresented in the FEISIEIR or as modified bv the
FEISlEIR Addendum or anv subseauent
amendment. ~er the joiRt EISJl;;IR oasea OR the
IBREI YS8A:ri~ tn:u:~g8t iR Ct-lapter J.
1) When Peters Canyon Channel is improved
oy CeuRIy;
2) When backbone arterial highways are
constructed.
1) Upon determination by IRWD regarding
acceptability of the lines.
2) When backbone arterial highways are
constructed;
3) Upon determination by the City and
consuilatian with IRWD.
1) When backbone arterials highways are
constructed;
2) Upon completion of negotiations by C~y
IRWD or develaper(s) regarding exchange
of well sites.
1) Upon determination by the IRWDaAd
GGS9 regarding acceptability of the lines;
2) When backbone arterial highways are
constructed.
1) Generally in conjunction with arterial
highway construction. Armstrang/Barranca
channel improvements upon determination
of acceptabil~y as part of deveiopment
plans.
2) Any project generated Barranca Channel
impravements in conjunction with P~ase II
development as needed or determined bv
the aoolicable iurisdiction and in
cansultation with the OCFCD; any
necessary praject generated Peters
Canyon Channel and Santa Ana/Santa Fe
channel improvements in conjunction with
Phaso III development as needed ar
determined bv the aDDlicable iurisdiction
and in consuilation w~h the OCFCD.
3) As necessary as interim or permanent
design in review of development plans.
4) Filing of ftood zone map w~h FEMA prior to
any Ph.se II construction.
When backbone arterial highways are
constructed.
When backbone arterial highways are
constructed.
When backbone arterial highways are
canstructed.
When backbone arterial highways are
constructed.
R:\Projects\Tustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-163
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Speclnc Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
REVISED TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
PHASING PLAN REQUIREMENTS
1) Site can be used upon transfer to County;
improvements will occur per agreement
with C~y of Tustin;
2) S~e can be used upon transfer to C~y;
upgrading will occur upon receipt of
adequate funding including park
development fees;
3) When adequate park development fees
are received subiect to develooment
conditions, develooment aareements and
fundina availabilitv as applicable:
4) When adequate funding has been secured
from assessment district funding; tax-
increment or developer-negotiation.
Note: In addition to applicable sections of this Phasing Plan, the provisions of the joint Final EIS/EIR wilt apply.
Parks
1) Regional park;
2) Commun~y park (24 acrel;
3) Commun~v Dark (46 acres\.
neiahborhood Darks. Drivate Darks; and
~JeigR~8FI=I88Et flarlts iR T6IstiR
(Ge"'m"A~ aAd ether ~rivate ~aFl(G);
4) Neighborhood park in Irvine.
FEIS/EIR Measures Not Applicable to the Proposed Proiect
All measures identified in the FEIS/EIR related to utilities are applicable to the proposed project.
5.16.5 CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin has
determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: (a) the
amended project does not propose substantial changes to the project affecting utilities and
service systems, which would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR; (b) there have been no
substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require
major revisions to the FEIS/EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects related to utilities and service systems than previously analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR; and (c) no new information of substantial importance, as described in
subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, related to utilities and service
systems has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS/EIR or its
conclusions.
The FEISlEIR concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to
utilities and service systems. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in a substantial
increase in the severity of impacts to utilities and service systems beyond that identified in the
FEIS/EIR.
SOURCES
Arnau, John. Telephone conversation between J. Arnau (OCI\Mv1D) and Diane Barrett
(BonTerra Consulting). January 17, 2005.
Barranca Channel (F09)-Armstrong Avenue Crossing and Armstrong Avenue Storm Drain,
Peters Canyon Channel (F06) and Peters Canyon Bikeway Cooperative Agreement
002-119 between City of Tustin and Orange County Flood Control District and The
County of Orange. Tustin, California. 2003.
R:\ProjectsITustin\JQ04\5Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-164
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05-002,
DDA and Development Plan
Addendum
California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Jurisdiction Diversion Rate Summary
(Results)" February 7, 2006. <www.ciwmb.ca.gov/lgtools/marsJdrmcmain.asp?ju
+546&VW=ln>.
California Legislature. 1991-1992. Public Resources Code, Sections 40000, et. al. 2002. Official
California Legislative Information. February 14, 2006. <http:www.leginfo.ca.gov/c9i-
binlcalawquery?codesection=prc&codebody=&hits=20> .
City of Tustin. 1992. Municipal Code, Section 4347. June 6,2005. municode.com. February 14,
2006. http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11307&sid=5.
Daniel Boyle Engineering, Inc. and Irvine Ranch Water District. Marine Corps Air Facility Tustin
Redevelopment Sub Area Master Plan. Laguna Hills, California: December 1999.
Daniel Boyle Engineering, Inc. and Irvine Ranch Water District. Plan of Works: Providing for
Domestic Water Supply, Storage, Transmission and Distribution Facilities for Irvine
Ranch Water District, Improvement District No. 113. Laguna Hills, California: January
2004.
Daniel Boyle Engineering, Inc. and Irvine Ranch Water District. Plan of Works: Providing for
Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Water Recycling for Irvine Ranch Water District,
Improvement District No. 213. Laguna Hills, Califomia: January 2004. Orange, County
of. Resources & Development Management Department. "Amendment No. 1 to
Cooperative Agreement 002-119 for the Barranca Channel-Armstrong Avenue
Crossing and Armstrong Avenue Storm Drain, Peters Canyon Channel and Peters
Canyon Bikeway. Santa Ana: the County of Orange, June 8, 2004.
Ralph E. Hitchcock Associates. Energy Conservation Analysis. March 2006.
RBF Consulting. Runoff Management Plan for Tustin Legacy. Irvine, California: December 22,
2004.
R:\ProjectsHustin\J004\5 Environ Analysis-031306.doc
5-165
Environmental Analysis and
Explanation of Checklist Responses
Errata to the Addendum to the
FEIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin
Subsequent to completion of the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (FEISlEIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of
MCAS Tustin, it was detennined that implementation of the Master Developer
Development Plan would require the import of soil. The import of soil is required to
ensure that the finished grade of the project site is compatible with adjacent
development currently being completed by Vestar.
Based on infonnation provided by the Master Developer it is estimated that a maximum
of 1,000,000 cubic yards of soils material would be imported over a period of 24 months.
Only soils deemed suitable for onsite development would be used. Assuming 14 cubic
yards per truck load, it is estimated that there would be 99 truck loads per day over the
24 month period. Three existing entries to the site would be used by haul trucks
(Edinger Avenue, Warner Avenue and Barranca Parkway); therefore, approximately 33
truck trips would access the site at each entry on a daily basis.
The potential impacts associated with the import of soil to 'the project site have been
assessed and require minor modifications to the Addendum's discussion of short term
construction impacts relating to Air Quality, Traffic and Noise, which are discussed
below. It is important to note that despite this change in the project's construction
requirements, the FEIS/EIR's ultimate conclusions relating to short-term construction
impacts on these environmental resources would be the same.
Section 5.3. Air Quality
Page 5-19 - The construction analysis is revised as follows:
Construction
In recognition that actual construction schedules would be determined at a later date, the
construction analysis presented in the FEIS/EIR was based on assumptions for the peak
construction year. This information was then used to estimate construction activity during
the peak construction quarter and peak construction day. Based on current phasing
assumptions of the DDA (see Section 3.2.3 of this Addendum), construction activities
associated with the proposed project would be similar to the assumptions for peak
construction activities outlined in the FEIS/EIR. Even with the import of the soil, the
grading activity assumptions on the peak day would not substantially change.
However, it should be noted that during grading activities for the Master Developer
footprint it would be necessary to import an estimated one million cubic yards of soil over
a two year period. A source site has not been identified and would be dependent on the
availability of suitable soils at the time of construction. The imported soil would be used
during grading activities for Phase I and Phase II. The soil would be brought to the site
by haul trucks (approximately 99 loads per day). The haul trucks would primarily
generate NO. emissions, which would be in addition to what was previously assumed in
the FEIS/EIR. As noted above, the FEIS/EIR concluded that NO. emissions would
exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for these pOllutants even with implementation
of the mitigation measures. While NO. emissions would increase from the additional
1
haul truck trips, the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR would not change. Moreover, since the
NO. would be distributed along the haul route path it would not cause local impacts but
would contribute to regional ozone fonnation.
Because the proposed project would not substantially change the maximum daily
construction efforts required to implement the project, it would not result in substantially
different or more severe air pollutant emissions during construction. As noted in Section
5.13, PM1D. ROC and NO. emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The
conclusions of the FEISIEIR related to construction emissions would not change.
Section 5.3.4 below includes measures carried forward from the FEIS/EIR as well as an
updated MM AQ-1 for reducing construction-related air quality impacts. The intent of MM
AQ-1 remains the same, but as modified incorporates additional strategies for controlling
fugitive dust (also known as PM'D or particulate matter) emissions, and reflects
provisions of SCAQMD's updated fugitive dust control rules (Le., Rule 402 and Rule
403), which became effective in January 2005, after certification of the FEIS/EIR.
Compliance with refined MM AQ-1 would yield greater PM'D reduction benefits than the
original mitigation measures included in the FEIS/EIR.
Consistent with the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would
result in significant short-term construction air quality impacts. Because the maximum
daily construction activities are similar, the proposed project would not substantially
increase the type or severity of construction-related air quality impacts from those
identified in the FEISIEIR. Because MM AQ-1 is modified to require compliance with the
updated dust controls now mandated by Rules 402 and 403, new control technologies
available to reduce construction air quality impacts would be implemented during project
construction.
Section 5.11. Noise
Page 5-99 - The following is hereby added under the discussion of Thresholds Band D.
The 99 daily trucks trips associated with importing soils would not cause a discernable
increase in the CNEL noise level along a roadway due to the current traffic volumes on
roadways that would be used (e.g., Jamboree Road, Red Hill Avenue, Edinger Avenue.
Barranca Parkway). A roadway would have to have an average daily traffic (ADT)
volume of less than 1,215 vehicles for there to be a discernable increaSe (I.e., more than
3 dB). It should also be noted that the truck traffic would occur during daytime hours
(7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.).
A significant impact only occurs if the traffic due to the project causes a discernable
increase and the resulting noise level exceeds the City's 65 CNEL noise standard. This
would not occur along any roadways with sensitive receptors and therefore the haul
trucks importing soils would not result in a significant noise impact. There would be no
change to the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR related to construction noise.
2
Section 5.15. TransDOrtation and Traffic
Page 5-131 - The following subsection is hereby added following the discussion of
Performance Criteria:
Construction Traffic
As identified in the FEIS/EIR, one of the primary activities generating construction traffic
is site development. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the magnitude of the impacts would
depend on the type and location of such activities, and would be monitored by City of
Tustin administrative procedures for such activities. Possible significant impacts could
include lane closures with short-term disruption to the public. Measures to
minimize conflicts could include designated routes and times for heavy
trucks (Le., major roadways only and avoiding peak hours). The procedures
should be coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions that would be affected.
The proposed project would not change these conclusions; however, it should be noted
that additional construction traffic would be associated with the import of soil to the
project site. It is estimated that approximately 99 haul trucks would access the site on a
daily basis using three entries (33 trucks per entry). This volume of construction traffic
would not cause significant traffic impacts to the operation of the roadways. Additionally,
Mitigation Measure T1C-1, which requires that each developer provide traffic operations
and control plans for construction activities, would also apply to haul truck traffic to
confirm sufficient flow of traffic at the existing entries. The proposed project would not
result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts related to construction
traffic beyond that previously identified in the FEIS/EIR.
3
Exhibit 2 to Attachment A (MMRP)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WAS TUSTIN DISPOSAL AND REUSE
Revised March 21, 2006
MeasureTiming
and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
Mitigation Measures for Laud Use
LU -1.
The City of Tustin shall amend its General Plan and
Prior to a final map recordation
City of Tustin -
Community Development
zoning ordinance to be consistent with planned land uses.
(except for financing and
Department (Tustin)
Any zoning ordinance shall include site design measures
reconveyance purposes) within
such as buffering, landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to
the Reuse Plan Area within the
ensure high quality development and compatibility
City of Tustin.
between land uses. The goal is to assure that the overall
appearance of development on the site is at least similar in
quality to other master planned areas in Tustin and other
adjacent cities.
LU -2.
The City of Irvine shall amend its General Plan and
Prior to a final map recordation
City of Irvine
Community Development
zoning ordinance to be consistent with planned land uses.
(except for financing and
Department (Irvine)
Any zoning ordinance shall include site design measures
reconveyance purposes) within
such as buffering, landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to
the Reuse Plan Area within the
ensure high quality development and compatibility
City of Irvine.
between land uses. The goal is to assure that the overall
appearance of development on the site is at least similar in
quality to other master planned areas in Tustin and other
adjacent cities.
EINEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
Implementation Measures for Utilities
(a)
The City of Tustin or City of Irvine, as appropriate, shall
See Table 4.3-1 of the Final
EIS/EIR Table 1 at the end of
City of Tustin and/or City of
Irvine, as applicable
Community Development
Department (Tustin and/or
ensure that infrastructure is constructed in phases as
triggered by identified thresholds in Table 4.3 1 eft a
or
this Mitigation Monitoring and
Irvine, as applicable)
Final EISFEIR 4-2 of the revised Specific Plan Phasing
Reporting Program for each
plan phasing Plan Requirements (see Table 44=2 at the end
specific triggering mechanism.
of this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).
The Phasing Plan provides an organizational framework
to facilitate development of the reuse plan area in tandem
with infrastructure necessary to support the planned
development.
This framework reflects the fact that each component of
the infrastructure has its own threshold for
accommodating additional development toward build-out
of the reuse plan area. The triggering mechanisms that
identify timing of key infrastructure provisions are
summarized in Table 43-4 4-2 of the revised Soeciftc
Plan Phasing Plan Phasing Plan Requirements (see Table
4-2 at the end of this Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program).
(b)
Prior to a final map recordation (except for financing and
Prior to final map recordation
Project developer
Communitynt
Department D(Tustiin and/or
P
reconveyance purposes), the development applicant shall
with the City of Tustin and City
(except for financing and
reconveyance purposes).
Irvine, as applicable)
enter into an agreement
of Irvine and any appropriate regional utility agencies,
districts, and providers, as applicable, to dedicate all
easement, rights-of-way, or other land determined
necessary to construct adequate utility infrastructure and
facilities to serve the project as determined by the city,
agency, district, or other providers.
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of WAS Dutin 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
(c)
Prior to any final map recordation (except for financing
Prior to final map recordation
Project developer
Community Development
and conveyance purposes), the development applicant
(except for financing and
Department (Tustin and/or
shall enter into a secured agreement with the cities of
reconveyance purposes).
Irvine, as applicable)
Tustin and/or Irvine, as applicable, to participate on a
pro -rated basis in construction of capital improvements
necessary to provide adequate utility facilities.
(d)
Prior to the issuance of permits for any public
Prior to the issuance of permits
Project developer
Community Development
improvements or development project, a development
for any public improvements or
Department (Tustin and/or
applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin and City of
development project.
Irvine, as appropriate)
Irvine, as applicable, information from IRWD which
outlines required facilities necessary to provide adequate
potable water and reclaimed water service to the
development.
(e)
Prior to the issuance of building permits the seRifsates ei
Prior to the issuance of the
Project developer
Community Development
use and essupaasy, the project developer shall ensure that
certificates of use and occupancy.
Department (Tustin and/or
fire hydrants capable of flows in amounts approved by the
Irvine, as appropriate);
OCFA are in place and operational to meet fire flow
OCFA
requirements.
(f)
Prior to the issuance of permits for any public
Prior to the issuance of permits
Project developer
Community Development
improvements or development project, a development
for any public improvements or
Department (Tustin and/or
applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin and City of
development project.
Irvine, as applicable)
Irvine, as applicable, information from IRWD, QGSB, or
the City of Tustin which outlines required facilities
necessary to provide adequate sanitary sewage service to
the development.
Jur are . mpwa' uaa Rome OJ mf -Aa t ustm 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
(g)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of any
Prior to the issuance of grading
Project developer
Tustin Building Division or
subdivision map (except for financing and reconveyance
permits or approval of any
the Irvine Public Works
purposes), whichever occurs first, for development within
subdivision map (except for
Department, as applicable
the 100 -year flood plain, grading and drainage systems
financing and reconveyance
shall be designed by the project developer such that all
purposes), whichever occurs first.
building pads would be safe from inundation from runoff
from all storms up to and including the theoretical
100 -year storm, to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin
Building Division or the Irvine Public Works Department,
as applicable. Grading permits or subdivision maps
generated for financing and reconveyance purposes are
exempt.
(h)
Prior to construction of regional flood control facilities,
Prior to construction of regional
Project developer
Public Works Department
appropriate state and federal approvals, including
flood control facilities.
(Tustin and/or Irvine, as
agreements and permits, shall be obtained. These include
applicable)
but are not limited to Regional Water Quality Control
Board permits, including NPDES permits; Section 401
water quality certifications: Section 404 permits from the
USACOE, and Section 1601 or 1603 agreements from the
CDFG in a manner meeting the approval of the City of
Tustin and the Irvine Public Works Department, as
applicable.
(i)
Prior to issuance of any grading permit or approval of any
Prior to issuance of any grading
Project developer
Tustin Building Division or
subdivision map (except for financing and conveyance
permit or approval of any
the Irvine Public Works
purposes), for any development that is either partially or
subdivision map (except for
Department, as applicable
completely located within the I00 -year flood plain of the
financing and conveyance
Flood Insurance Rate Map, the development applicant
purposes).
shall submit all required documentation to the FEMA and
demonstrate that the application for a Conditional Letter
of Map Revision for changes to the 100 -year flood plain
is satisfied in a manner meeting the approval of each
E/S/E/R for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
respective city, as applicable.
(j)
Prior to the approval of any applicable subdivision map
Prior to the approval of any
Project developer
Public Works Department
(except for financing and conveyance purposes), the
applicable subdivision map
(Tustin and/or Irvine, as
developer -applicant shall design and construct local
(except for financing and
applicable)
drainage systems for conveyance of the 10 -year runoff. If
conveyance purposes).
the facility is in a local sump, it shall be designed to
convey the 25 -year runoff.
(k)
Prior to any grading for any new development, the
Prior to any grading for any new
Project developer
Tustin Building Division or
following drainage studies shall be submitted to and
development.
Public Works Department
approved by the City of Tustin, City of Irvine, and/or
(Tustin and/or Irvine, as
OCFCD, as applicable:
applicable)
(1) A drainage study including diversions (i.e.,
Prior to any grading for any new
Project developer
off-site areas that drain onto and/or through the
development.
project site), with justification and appropriate
mitigation for any proposed diversion.
(2) A drainage study evidencing that proposed
drainage patterns would not result in increased
100 -year peak discharges within and downstream
of the project limits, and would not worsen
existing drainage conditions at storm drains,
culverts, and other street crossings including
regional flood control facilities. The study shall
also propose appropriate mitigation for any
increased runoff causing a worsening condition
of any existing facilities within or downstream of
project limits. Implementation of appropriate
interim or ultimate flood control infrastructure
construction must be included.
ERVEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
(k)
(3) Detailed drainage studies indicating how, in
Tustin Building Division or
(cont.)
conjunction with the drainage conveyance
Public Works Department
systems including applicable swales, channels,
(Tustin and/or Irvine, as
street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood
applicable)
water retarding, building pads are made safe
from runoff inundation which may be expected
from all storms up to and including the
theoretical 100 -year flood.
(1)
Prior to approval of any subdivision map (except for
Prior to approval of any
City of Tustin
Tustin Public Works
financing or conveyance purposes), an agreement will be
subdivision map (except for
Department, Tustin
executed with the OCFCD that provides for the
financing or conveyance
Community Redevelopment
identification and contribution of a project -specific fair
purposes).
Agency
share contribution toward the construction of ultimate
flood control facilities needed to accommodate build -out
of the affected project. Interim flood control facilities
may be considered for approval provided such facilities
meet OCFCD requirements. Nothing shall preclude the
City of Tustin from transferring the obligation onto other
project developers within the project area.
EISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MeasureTTiming
and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
Implementation Measures for Public Services and Facilities
(m)
General
Tustin Community
Development Department,
The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, each within its
Prior to final map recordation or
Police Department, or Parks
respective jurisdiction, shall ensure that adequate fire
building permit issuance.
Department or the City of
protection, police protection, librariesand parks and
Irvine, and/or OCFA, as
recreation facilities (including bikeways/traiIs) needed to
appropriate
adequately serve the reuse plan area shall be provided as
necessary. To eliminate any negative impact the project
could have on each community's general fund, financing
mechanisms including but not limited to developer fees,
assessment district financing, and/or tax increment
financing (in the event that a redevelopment project area
is created for the site), shall be developed and used as
determined appropriate by each City. Specifically;
(1) Applicants for private development projects shall
Project developer
be required to enter into an agreement with City
of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, to
establish a fair -share mechanism to provide
needed fire and police protection services,
libraries and parks and recreation facilities
(including bikeways) through the use of fee
schedules, assessment district financing,
Community Facility District financing, or other
mechanisms as determined appropriate by each
respective city.
(2) Recipients of property through public
Property recipients
conveyance process, or other conveyance
procedures, shall be required to mitigate any
impacts of their public uses of property on public
services and facilities.
EISIEIR Jor the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
(n)
The cities of Tustin and Irvine shall jointly consult and
Ongoing prior to implementation
City of Tustin and City of
Community Development
coordinate with the OCPFRD/Aarbors, Beaches and
of Peters Canyon and Barranca
Irvine
Department (Tustin and/or
Parks, Program Management and Coordination Division,
trails.
Irvine, as applicable)
in preparation of trail designs for the Peters Canyon and
Barranca trails within the reuse plan area. Improvements
for each of these trails would be installed upon
completion of flood control channel improvements and
approval of theirjoint use by the OCPFRD.
(o)
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Services
Prior to the first final map
Project developer
Tustin Community
recordation or building permit
Redevelopment Agency and
Prior to the first final map recordation or building permit
issuance for development (except
the City of Irvine
issuance for development (except for financing and
for financing and reconveyances
reconveyances purposes), the project developer could be
purposes).
required to enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin
or City of Irvine/OCFA, as applicable, to address impacts
of the project on fire services. Such agreement could
include participation for fire protection, personnel and
equipment necessary to serve the project and eliminate
any negative impacts on fire protection services.
IN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the project
Prior to issuance of building
Project developer
Community Development
developer shall work closely with the OCFA to ensure
permits.
Department (Tustin and/or
that adequate fire protection measures are implemented in
Irvine, as applicable)
the project.
(q)
Prior to issuance of building permits for phased projects,
Prior to issuance of building
Project developer
Community Development
the project developer shall submit a construction phasing
permits for phased projects.
Department (Tustin and/or
plan to the OCFA demonstrating that emergency vehicle
Irvine, as applicable)
access is adequate.
EIS/ELR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
(r)
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project
Prior to issuance of building
Project developer
Community Development
developer shall submit a fire hydrant location plan for the
permits.
Department (Tustin and/or
review and approval of the Fire Chief and ensure that fire
Irvine, as applicable)
hydrants capable of flows in amounts approved by the
OCFA are in place and operational to meet fire flow
requirements.
(s)
Police Protection
Prior to issuance of building
Project developer
Community Development
Prior to issuance of building permits, the project
permits.
Department (Tustin and/or
developer shall work closely with the respective Police
Irvine, as applicable)
Department to ensure that adequate security precautions
are implemented in the project.
(t)
Schools
Prior to the issuance of building
Project developer
Community Development
Prior to the issuance of building permits
ecsnpaxcy.
Department (Tustin and/or
and aseupaasy, the project developer shall submit to the
Irvine, as applicable)
respective City proof of payment of appropriate school
fees adopted by the applicable school district pursuant to
Government Code Section 65995. Alternatively, a proiect
developer may enter into a mutual agreement with an
applicable school district to Provide alternative mitigation
that addresses student generation increases
(u)
Parks and Recreation
Prior to the first final map
Project developer
Tustin Community
recordation (except for financing
Development Department
Prior to the first final map recordation (except for
and reconveyance purposes) or
and Parks and Recreation
financing and reconveyance purposes) or building permit
building permit issuance.
Department
issuance for development within the City of Tustin
portion of the site, the project developer shall be required
to provide evidence of compliance with all requirements
and standards of the City of Tustin Park Code.
cruicrreJor Me ursposa ana rcease at mc,nO t asap 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
(v)
Prior to the first final map recordation or building permit
Prior to the first final map
Project developer
Irvine Community
issuance within the City of Irvine portion of the site, the
recordation (except for financing
Development Department
project developer shall be required to provide evidence of
and reconveyance purposes) or
compliance with all requirements and standards of the
building permit issuance.
City of Irvine Park Code.
(w)
Prior to the first concept plan for tentative tract map in the
Prior to the first concept plan for
Project developer
Tustin Public Works
City of Tustin, the project developer shall file a petition
tentative tract map.
Department; Tustin
for the creation of a landscape maintenance district for the
Community Redevelopment
project area with the City of Tustin. The district shall
Agency
include public neighborhood parks, landscape
improvements, and specific trails (Barranca only), the
medians in arterials, or other eligible items mutually
agreed to by the petitioner and the City of Tustin. In the
event that a district is not established prior to issuance of
the first building permit, maintenance of items mentioned
above shall be the responsibility of a community
_
association.
(x)
Prior to approval of any subdivision map (except for
Prior to approval of any
Project developer
Community Development
financing or conveyance purposes), an agreement will be
subdivision map (except for
Department (Tustin and/or
executed with the fallowing agencies for the associated
financing or conveyance
Irvine, as applicable)
trail improvements:
purposes).
a. County of Orange Harbors, Beaches —
identification of a project -specific fair share
contribution toward the installation of necessary
regional bikeway trail improvements within
Peters Canyon Channel, to be installed in
conjunction with the County of Orange's other
channel improvements;
EISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(cont.)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
11
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin
Implementation Mitigation Compliance
Imp
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
Timing and Responsibility
Measure
to the first map project developer
Tustin Community
Development Department
b. City ofTustin —11te identification of a
wniribution toward
Prior
except
recordation (except for financing
or
OCTA, as
and/or SCR"OCTA,
project -specific fair share
installation of Class II bicycle trails through
reconveyance purposes)
Pe issuance.
buildingp
appropriate
the
the project site. For the area of the site northeast
agreement
of Irvine Center (hive, a separate
the provision of a
be required to enment
would and design and
bikeway right -of --way
construction of a bike trial along the
tail tracks from Harvard Avenue
SCRRVOCTA
westerly to the Peters Canyon Channel. In
of the areas of the
addition, project developers
southeast of the Peters Canyon Channel
site
would need to accommodate access to both the
to the
Peters Canyon Trail and the trailo ad s tetdestgn
SCRRAJOCTA tracks in any p j
including dedication of anY necessary
recreational trail easements;
Project developer
Tustin Community
Department
C. City of Tustin — the identification of a
toward
Prior to the first final map
recordation (except for financing
Development
project -specific fair -share contribution
installation of Class l bikeway trail
and reconveyance purposes) or
building permit issuance.
improvements northerly ofBarnmea Parkway
the Barran
after completion of
improvements. For proposed developments
adjacent to Barrucea Channel, separate
to ensure the
agreements would be required
of a bikeway right -of --way
establishment
between Jamboree Road and Red Hill
easement
Avenue.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
11
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin
MeasureTiming
and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
Mitigation Measures for Aesthetics
Vis -1
In conjunction with any zoning ordinance amendments to
Prior to the first final map
City of Tustin and City of
Community Development
implement the reuse plan in Tustin or Irvine, an urban
recordation (except for financing
Irvine
Department (Tustin and/or
design plan shall be adopted to provide for distinct and
and reconveyance purposes) or
Irvine, as applicable)
cohesive architectural and landscape design, features and
building permit issuance.
treatments, as well as harmony with adjacent landscaping.
The urban design plan shall have the following elements:
landscaping concept and master signage plan;
• design review and approval process;
• limits on development intensity for each specific
land use;
limits on height of structures and lot coverage;
• minimum site building setbacks;
• minimum on-site landscaping requirements;
• buffering requirements, including berms,
masonry walls, and landscaping;
• lighting regulations, including regulations
ensuring that exterior lighting does not
negatively impact surrounding property;
screening regulations for mechanical equipment
and outside storage; and
site signage requirements, including sign permit
approval.
EISIEIR jor the Disposal and Reuse ofWAS Tustin 72 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MeasureTTiming
and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
Mitigation Measures for Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Hist -I
Historic American Building Survey (HABS) - DON will
Prior to conveyance to City of
Department of the Navy
Department of the Navy
complete the appropriate recordation for hangars 28 and
Tustin
29 and the discontiguous historic district prior to
conveyance of any property within the discontiguous
historic district and shall ensure that copies of the
recordation are made available to SHPO, the City of
Tustin, and any local or other archive facilities designated
by SHPO.
Hist -2
Curation - within 30 days of the execution of the MOA,
Within 30 days of the execution
Department of the Navy
Department of the Navy
Department of the Navy will Department of the Navyate
of the MOA
copies of plans and architectural drawings and other
archival materials and records, as available, concerning
the layout and the buildings and structures that made up
the original Navy lighter -than -air blimp facility to a local
curation facility. The City of Tustin or its designee will
also be provided with copies of these materials.
Arch -1
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the four -acre parcel
Prior to issuance of grading
Project developer
Tustin Community
currently outside the boundaries of the Air Station along
permits.
Development Department
Harvard Avenue shall be surveyed to determine the
presence/absence of archaeological resources prior to
grading.
EIS/E1R for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporiing Prograin
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
Arch -2
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the cities of Tustin
Prior to issuance of grading
Project developer
Community Development
and Irvine shall each require applicants of individual
permits.
Department (Tustin and/or
development projects to retain, as appropriate, a county-
Irvine, as applicable)
certified archaeologist. If buried resources are found
during grading within the reuse plan area, a qualified
archaeologist would need to assess the site significance
and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native
American view point shall be considered during this
process. This could include testing or data recovery_
Native American consultation shall also be initiated
during this process.
Hist -3
As specified in the MOA, a substantive effort will be
Ongoing, prior to making
Department of the Navy and
Tustin Community
made to determine whether there is an economically
substantial changes to Hangar 28
County of (range
Redevelopment Agency
viable adaptive use of Hangar 28 and Hangar 29.
or Hangar 29.
Hist -4
If the marketing effort identifies an economically viable
Prior to making substantial
Department of the Navy
Tustin Community
adaptive use of either of the complexes, that complex will
changes to Hangar 28 or Hangar
Development Department
be encumbered by a historic preservation covenant. In the
29.
case of the Hangar 28 complex, these measures shall
balance the needs of the adaptive use and the needs for
effective operation of the Federal lands to Parks or
Historic Monument programs.
Hist -5
If NPS and/or SHPO determine that, despite a marketing
Prior to making substantial
Department of the Navy
NPS, SHPO, and Department
effort that complies with the terms of the MOA or as
changes to Hangar 28.
of the Navy
agreed to by the City of Tustin/County of Orange, NPS,
and/or SHPO, an economically viable adaptive use of the
Hangar 28 complex was not identified, NPS and/or SHPO
shall promptly advise Department of the Nary and notify
the City of Tustin/County of (range that the following
measures are required.
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
Hist -5
a. Written History - The City of Tustin/County of
Prior to making substantial
Department of the Navy
NPS, SHPO, and Department
(cont.)
Orange shall prepare an illustrated history report
changes to Hangar 28.
of the Navy
on MCAS TUSTIN, with emphasis on the initial
construction of the Air Station and its World War
Il Navy lighter -than -air operations.
b. Exhibit - The City of Tustin/County of Orange
shall prepare a professional -quality illustrated
interpretive exhibit with emphasis on the initial
construction of the air station and its World War 11
Navy lighter -than -air operations.
c. Interpretive Video - The City of Tustin/County of
Orange shall prepare a professional -quality
documentary video and shall undertake a one-time
distribution and outreach program for the
documentary video.
Paleo-1
The cities of Tustin and Irvine shall each require
Prior to issuance of grading
Project developer
Community Development
applicants of individual development projects to comply
permits.
Department (Tustin and/or
with the requirements established in a PRMP prepared for
Irvine, as applicable)
the site, which details the methods to be used for
surveillance of construction grading, assessing finds, and
actions to be taken in the event that unique
paleontological resources are discovered during
construction.
Paleo-2
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, project
Prior to issuance of grading
Project developer
Community Development
applicants shall provide written evidence to each city, that
permits.
Department (Tustin and/or
a county -certified paleontologist has been retained to
Irvine, as applicable)
conduct salvage excavation of unique paleontological
resources if they are found.
EINEIRjor the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MeasureTiming
and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources
Bio-1
The project proponents of any development affecting
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands
shall obtain Section 401. Section 404, Section 46441602
and other certifications, approvals and permits as
necessary. Copies of the necessary state and federal
Prior to issuance of grading
permits or any public
improvements within pond turtle
habitat.
Project developer
Tustin Community
Development Department
and/or OCFCD, as
appropriate
permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance
of mass or grading vermits for grading activities
impacting jurisdictional areas. A replacement ratio for
affected wetland resources shall be determined in
consultation with regulatory agencies as part of the
permitting process and shall be no less than 1:1
replacement of function and value. Additional criteria and
requirements will be as follows: :Me aefiens pmPesed on
impreN,effients.
• Create (establish), restore, or enhance wetland/rioarian
habitats on-site to the maximum extent practicable to
minimize and reolace the on-site loss of USACE and
CDFG jurisdictional acreage and function. or off-site as
may be permitted by the USACE and CDFG.
• To return iurisdictional habitats that are temporarily
disturbed during construction to pre-construction
conditions.
• To provide for maintenance, management and
monitoring of the mitigation site or sites for a
minimum of three years as determined through the
permitting process.
E191EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
Bio -2
Based on consultations with CDFG, City of Tustin, or a
project proponent as applicable, an off-site relocation site
for southwestern pond turtles captured on site shall be
identified that is as close to the Reuse Plan area as
Prior to issuance of grading
permits or any public
improvements within pond turtle
habitat.
City of Tustin and/or
project developer, as
appropriate
Tustin Community
Development Department
possible and that is sustainable in perpetuity. (No
appropriate habitat in the City of Tustin is available for
relocation.) Potential relocation sites include but are not
limited to a turtle pond and relocation site a old pend
located in upper Shady Canyon
within the Orange County Nature Preserve that seuld be
or the
San Joaquin Marsh, which is managed by UC Irvine,
Irvine Ranch, and the Orange County Water District.
Some property owners and public agencies may be
adverse to the relocation of species of special concern
onto their property or jurisdiction, and it would be
speculative to identify actual sites prior to completion of
consultation with CDFG and with potential property
owners and/or appropriate public agencies. A relocation
and mitieation plan shall be prepared by a qualified
biologist for approval by the CDFG. The relocation and
mitigation plan shall include the following:
• Requirement for focused surveys for southwestern pond
turtles prior to construction activities and submittal of
survey report to the CDFG.
• Identification of specific relocation site within the
Newport Bay watershed.
• Methodology for trapping. capture, recordation and
release of southwestern pond turtles.
• Requirement of biological monitoring during
EISIEIR.for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
Bio-2
construction and requirement for capture and
relocation by a qualified biologist of any additional
(cont.)
southwestern pond turtles observed during
construction.
Bio-3
Permits from the CDFG shall be obtained for live-capture
Prior to issuance of grading
Project developer
Tustin Community
of the turtles and for transporting them to the relocation
permits or any public
Development Department
site.
improvements within pond turtle
habitat.
Bio-4
A_ project proponent shall negotiate agmemetit shall be
negotiated with the CDFG
Ongoing
City of Tustin and/or
Tustin Community
prepenei* or other agency or organization as appropriate,
project developer, as
Development Department
for relocation of turtles and/or contribution of funds to
appropriate
improve, restore, or create the a relocation site as turtle
habitat, in conjunction with any regulatory permits
necessary.
Mitigation Measures for Traffre/Circula/ion
T/C-I
Construction
Prior to site development permit.
Project developer
Public Works Department
In conjunction with the approval of a site development
(Tustin or Irvine, as
permit, the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as
applicable)
applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan within
Irvine), shall require each developer to provide traffic
operations and control plans that would minimize the
traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. The
plans shall address roadway and lane closures, truck hours
and routes, and notification procedures for planned
short-term or interim changes in traffic patterns. The City
of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall
ensure that the plan would minimize anticipated delays at
major intersections. Prior to approval, the City of Tustin
or the City of Irvine, as applicable shall review the
proposed traffic control and operations plans with any
affected jurisdiction.
EIS/E!R for the Disposal and Reuse ojMCAS Tustin 18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
T/C-2
Development
Prior to issuance of certificates of
Project developer
Public Works Department
occupancy.
(Tustin or Irvine, as
The City of Tustin and the City of hvine, as applicable
applicable)
(for that portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine), shall
ensure that the arterial intersection improvements required
in 2005 and 2020 and as indicated in Tables 4.12-7 and
4.12-9 of the Final EIS/EIR (see Tables 2 and 4 and at the
end of this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program) are implemented for their respective
jurisdictions according to the cumulative ADT thresholds
identified in each table and according to the fair share
basis noted. The ADT threshold represents the traffic
volume which would result in an impact and the fair share
percentage reflects the percent of the traffic impact
resulting from the reuse generated traffic. In some cases,
reuse traffic would generate 100 percent of the impact,
thereby assuming full financial responsibility for the
identified improvements. In other cases, reuse traffic
would generate only a fraction of the traffic impacting the
intersection and financial responsibility would
correspond.
T/C-3
The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable
See Table 4.12-8 of the Final
Project developer
Public Works Department
(for that portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine), shall
EIS/EIR or Table 3 at the end of
(Tustin or Irvine, as
contribute, on a fair share basis, to improvements to
the Mitigation Monitoring and
applicable)
freeway ramp intersections as listed in Table 4.12-8 of the
Reporting Program for each
Final EIS/EIR (see Table 3 at the end of the Mitigation
specific triggering mechanism.
Monitoring and Reporting Program). The method of
implementing improvements, e.g., restriping, ramp
widening, shall be based on special design studies, in
association with Caltrans.
EINE1R for the Disposal and Reuse of hICAS 1'arstin 19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
T/C4
The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable
Ongoing (see Table 4.12-10 of
Project developer
Public Works Department
(for that portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine), shall
the Final EIS/EIR or Table 5 at
(Tustin or Irvine, as
ensure that all on-site circulation system improvements
the end of the Mitigation
applicable)
for the reuse plan area assumed in the 2005 and 2020
Monitoring and Reporting
traffic analysis and as shown in Table 4:12 10 4A of the
Program for each specific
revised Specific Plan Phasing Plan Final-�(see
triggering mechanism.
Table 4=4 at the end of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program) are implemented according to the
cumulative ADT thresholds identified in the table. Under
this Phasing Plan, the City of Tustin shall monitor all new
development within the site, accounting for the
cumulative ADT generated by development projects. As
each ADT threshold is reached, the roadway
improvements listed in Table 4-4 442-14 of the revised
Specific Plan Phasing Plan Final Rl"iR (see Table 4=4
at the end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program) shall be constructed before any additional
projects within the reuse plan area would be approved.
T/C-5 1
Prior to approval of a site development permit or vesting
Ongoing, prior to approval of a
Project developer
Public Works/Community
tract, except for financing or conveyance purposes, for all
site development permit or
Development Departments
land use designation areas in Alternative l with the
vesting tract, except for financing
(Tustin and/or Irvine, as
exception of the Learning Village, Community Park, and
or conveyance purposes, based on
applicable)
Regional Park, a project developer shall enter into an
the ADT generation thresholds
agreement with the City of Tustin and City of Irvine, as
shown in Tables 4.12-7,4,12-8,
applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan area within
4.12-9, and 4.12-10 of the Final
Irvine) which assigns improvements required in the
EIS/EIR (see Tables 2 through 5
EIS/EIR to the development site and which requires
at the end of the Mitigation
participation in a fair share mechanism to design and
Monitoring and Reporting
construct required on-site and arterial improvements
Program for each specific
Table references in the mitigation measures have been changed from Final FEIS/EIR to match the correct table numbers in the FEIS/EIR.
E/SiEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of A4CAS Tustin 20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
T/C -5
consistent with the ADT generation thresholds shown in
triggering mechanism).
(cont.)
Table. 4.12 7 4.12 v 4.12 0 and 4.12 19 Table 4-4 of
the revised Specific Plan Phasing Plan (see Tables 4-4 at
the end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program).
T/C-61
The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable
Ongoing, based on the ADT
Project developer
Public Works and
(for that portion of the reuse plan area in Irvine), will
generation thresholds shown in
Community Development
monitor new development within the reuse plan area,
Table 4.12-10 of the Final
Departments (Tustin and/or
accounting for the cumulative ADTs generated by
EIS/EIR (see Table 5 at the end
Irvine, as applicable)
development projects within the reuse plan area. As each
of the Mitigation Monitoring and
cumulative ADT threshold shown in Table 44 of the
Reporting Program for each
revised Specific Plan Phasing Plit "�. ; o (see Table 44
specific triggering mechanism).
at the end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program) is reached, the roadway improvements listed
shall be constructed before any additional projects within
the reuse plan area are approved.
T/C-7
The City of Tustin shall adopt a trip budget for individual
Within one (t) year of project
City of Tustin
Tustin Public Works and
portions of the reuse plan area to assist in the monitoring
approval, and ongoing thereafter.
Community Development
of cumulative ADTs and the amount and intensity of
Departments
permitted non-residential uses as evaluated in the
EIS/EIR.
T/C-8
Alternative improvements that provide an equivalent level
Ongoing
City of Tustin and/or City of
Public Works and
of mitigation in 2005 or 2020 to what is identified in
Irvine
Community Development
Tables 4.12-7, 4.12-8, and 4.12-9 of the Final EIS/EIR
Departments (Tustin and/or
(see Tables 2 through 4) at the end of the Mitigation
Irvine, as applicable)
Monitoring and Reporting Program) may be identified in
consultation between the City of Tustin and the City of
Irvine, as applicable, and the impacted jurisdiction.
EI,S/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
T/C-9
The City of Tustin shall enter into agreements with
Within one (1) year of project
City of Tustin, City of
Public Works and
Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure
approval.
Irvine
Community Development
that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate
Departments (Tustin and/or
the effects of the proposed alternative are constructed
Irvine, as applicable)
pursuant to improvement programs established by the
respective jurisdiction.
In order to properly coordinate the timing and
improvements in the adjacent jurisdictions, the City of
Tustin shall hold a scoping -like meeting with the
respective jurisdictions. The purpose of said scoping -like
meeting shall be to identify the concerns of the respective
jurisdictions prior to the initiation of the fair share study.
The purpose of the study would be to fully identify, with
each jurisdiction, the scope and costs of feasible
improvements (as determined by the respective
jurisdiction). The improvements
ERVEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 22 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
T/C-9
would be acceptable to each jurisdiction toward fulfilling
Within one (1) year of project
City of Tustin, City of
Community Development
(cont.)
the timing and cost of the transportation improvement
approval.
Irvine
and Public Works
obligations as required to mitigate transportation impacts
Departments of the City of
in each jurisdiction. The funding for the improvements to
Tustin and the City of Irvine
be incorporated into the agreement would be utilized by
the respective agency to improve the capacity of the
impacted intersections/links or be used for substituted
improvements, as determined by mutual agreement.
Prior to execution of the agreement, each jurisdiction
would be allowed ten (10) working days to review the
technical report prior to being provided with a copy of the
proposed agreement. Each jurisdiction would then have
ten (10) working days to review and comment as to its
concurrence with the improvement programs contained in
the agreement. The comments of each jurisdiction would
be considered to ensure that the City of Tustin's
responsibility for fair share funding of the improvements
in each jurisdiction as stated above is fully addressed.
EINEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
IA-1
Table 4.12-10 of the Final EIS/EIR, as revised and
See Table 4.12-10 of the Final
City of Tustin
Community Development
presented in Table 4-4 of the revised Specific Plan
EIS/EIR or Table 5 at the end of
and Public Works
Phasine Plan (see Table 4444 at the end of the Mitigation
the Mitigation Monitoring and
Departments (Tustin and/or
Monitoring and Reporting Program) presents the Phasing
Reporting Program for each
Irvine, as applicable)
Plan for the on-site circulation system. The Phasing Plan
specific triggering mechanism.
is based upon traffic circulation impact and mitigation
analyses contained in the Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis
(Austin-Foust Associates. Inc.. February 2006)T+affts
Under
this Specific Plan Phasing Plan, the City of Tustin shall
monitor all new development within the Specific Plan,
accounting for the cumulative ADT generated by
development projects. As each ADT threshold is reached,
the roadway improvements listed in Table 443 10 of the
Final RiS/EIR Tables 4-3 and 4-4 of the revised Specific
Plan Phasing Plan (see Tables 4-3 and 4.4 at the end of
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) shall
be constructed before any additional projects within the
Specific Plan would be approved.
IA-2
Table 7-3 of the Final EIS/EIR (see Table 3 at the end of
See Table 7-3 of the Final
City of Tustin
Tustin Community
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)
EIS/EIR or Table 6 at the end of
Development and Public
presents the Trip Budget which summarizes the square
the Mitigation Monitoring and
Works Departments
footage of non-residential uses allocated to each
Reporting Program for each
neighborhood by Planning Area and the associated ADT.
specific triggering mechanism.
(Residential uses are shown for information only, they are
not part of the budget.) Pursuant to Section 3.2.4 of the
Specific Plan, the City of Tustin shall implement the trip
budget by neighborhood to control the amount and
intensity of non-residentiat uses. Trip Budget transfers
between neighborhoods shall also be implemented as
directed in subsection 3.2.4 of the Specific Plan.
E/S'EN for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
IA -3
Prior to the approval of (1) a Planning Area Concept
Prior to the approval of (1) a
Project developer
Tustin Community
Plan pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Specific Plan, (2) a
Planning Area Concept Plan
Development and Public
site development permit, or (3) a vesting tentative map
pursuant to Section 4.2 of the
Works Departments
for new square footage (not for financing or conveyance
Specific Plan, (2) a site
purposes), a project developer shall provide traffic
development permit, or (3) a
information consistent with the provisions of the Specific
vesting tentative map for new
Plan, this the FEIS/EIR and this Addendum. and the
square footage (not for financing
requirements of the City of Tustin Traffic Engineer. The
or conveyance purposes).
tragic information shall (a) identify and assign traffic
circulation mitigation measures required in the EIS/EIR
pursuant to the Phasing Plan described in Table 4 12 19
X 4-4 of the revised Soecific Plan
Phasing Plan (see Table 4=4 at the end of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program); (b) evaluate the
effects of either the delay of any previously committed
circulation improvements or the construction of currently
unanticipated circulation improvements; and (c) utilize
the circulation system and capacity assumptions within
the EIS/EIR and any additional circulation improvements
completed by affected jurisdictions for the applicable
timeframe of analysis.
[A-4
Prior to the issuance of building permits for new
Prior to the issuance of building
Project developer
Tustin Community
development within planning areas requiring a concept
permits.
Development and Public
plan, a project developer shall enter into an agreement
Works Departments
with the City of Tustin to (a) design and construct
roadway improvements consistent with the ADT
generation Phasing Plan described in Table 4.12 ref
the Anal RM441E 4-4 of the revised Specific Plan
Phasing Plan (see Table 4=4 at the end of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program) and (b) address the
impact of and specify the responsibility for any
previously committed circulation improvements assumed
EINEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
IA4
in the EIS/EIR which have not been constructed.
(cont.)
IA -5
If a subsequent traffic Phasing Plan demonstrates that
Ongoing
City of Tustin
tustin Public Works and
certain circulation improvements should be included in a
Community Development
different phase of Specific Plan development
Departments
(accelerated or delayed) or that a circulation
improvement can be substituted, the mitigation Phasing
Plan in Table 44 of the
revised Specific Plan Phasing Plan (see Table 4=4 at the
end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program) may be amended subject to approval of the
City of Tustin and any other affected jurisdictions,
provided that the same level of traffic mitigation and
traffic capacity would be provided.
IA -6
The City of Tustin will enter into agreements with
Within one (1) year of approval of
City of Tustin
Tustin Public Works and
Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure
reuse and disposal of MCAS
Community Development
that the off-site roadway improvements needed to
Tustin
Departments
mitigate the effects of the Specific Plan are constructed
pursuant to improvement programs established by the
respective jurisdiction.
EISIEIRJor the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 26 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
IA -6
In order to properly coordinate the timing and funding of
Within one (1) year of approval
City of Tustin
Public Works and
(cont.)
fair share obligation of Specific Plan improvements in the
of reuse and disposal of MCAS
Community Development
adjacent jurisdictions, the City of Tustin shall hold a
Tustin
Departments (Tustin, Irvine,
scoping -like meeting with the respective jurisdictions.
and Santa Ana), and Caltrans
The purpose of said scoping -like meeting shall be to
identify the concerns of the respective jurisdictions prior
to the initiation of the fair share study. The purpose of the
study would be to fully identify, with each jurisdiction,
the scope and costs of obligations of the Specific Plan as
required to mitigate transportation impacts in feasible
improvements (as determined by the respective
jurisdiction). The improvements would be acceptable to
each jurisdiction toward fulfilling the timing and cost of
the transportation improvement each jurisdiction, as listed
above. The funding for the improvements to be
incorporated into the agreement would be utilized by the
respective agency to improve the capacity of the impacted
intersections/links or be used for substituted
improvements, as determined by mutual agreement.
Prior to execution of the agreement, each jurisdiction
would be allowed ten working days to review the
technical report prior to being provided with a copy of the
proposed agreement. Each jurisdiction would then have
ten working days to review and comment as to its
concurrence with the improvement programs contained in
the agreement. The comments of each jurisdiction would
be considered to ensure that the City of Tustin's
responsibility for fair share funding of the improvements
in each jurisdiction as stated above is fully addressed.
EISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 27 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
IA -7 Each Specific Plan project would contain, to the Prior to issuance of grading Project developer Community Development
satisfaction of the City of Tustin and/or City of Irvine, as permits Department (Tustin and/or
applicable, a pedestrian circulation component showing Irvine, as applicable)
pedestrian access to regional hiking trails, pazks, schools,
shopping areas, bus stops, and/or other public facilities.
Mitigation Measures for Air Quality
and/or developer and its contractors shall he required to
comply with reeional rules, which would assist in
reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAOMD
Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions should not
create a nuisance off-site SCAOMD Rule 403 requires
that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available
control measures so the presence of such dust does not
remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line
of the emission source. The City and its contractors shall
use the measures presented in SCAOMD Rule 403 Tables
1.2 and 3 (presented in Tables 5-1.5-2 and 5-3 of the
FEIS/EIR Addendum). This comoliance measure shall be
included in the contractor's specifications and verified on
City proiects by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to issuance of grading or
building permits.
Project developer
Community Development
Department (Tustin and/or
Irvine, as applicable)
ERVEIR Jnr the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
AQ -2 Unless determined by the City of Tustin and the City of
Prior to issuance of grading or
Project developer
Community Development
Irvine, as applicable, to be infeasible on a
building permits.
Department (Tustin and/or
project -by -project basis due to unique project
Irvine, as applicable)
characteristics, each city shall require individual
development projects to use low VOC architectural
coatings for all interior and exterior painting operations.
AQ -3
Prior to the issuance of development permits for new non-
Prior to issuance of development
Project developer
Community Development
residential projects with 100 or more employees, and
permits for new non-residential
Department (Tustin and/or
expanded projects where additional square footage would
projects with 100 or more
Irvine, as applicable)
result in a total of 100 or more employees, the City of
employees and expanded projects
Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall impose a
where additional square footage
mix of TDM measures which, upon estimation, would
would result in a total of 100 or
result in an average vehicle ridership of at least 1.5, for
more employees
each development with characteristics that would be
reasonably conducive to successful implementation of
such TDM measures. These TDM measures may include
one or more of the following, as determined appropriate
and feasible by each city on a case-by-case basis:
EISIEIRJor the Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin 29 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
AQ -3
- Establish preferential parking for carpool vehicles.
Prior to issuance of development
Project developer
Community Development
(cont.)
- Provide bicycle parking facilities.
permits for new non-residential
Department (Tustin and/or
- Provide shower and locker facilities.
projects with 100 or more
Irvine, as applicable)
- Provide carpool and vanpool loading areas.
employees and expanded projects
- Incorporate bus stop improvements into facility
where additional square footage
design.
would result in a total of 100 or
- Implement shuttles to shopping, eating, recreation,
more employees
and/or parking and transit facilities.
- Construct remote parking facilities.
- Provide pedestrian circulation linkages.
- Construct pedestrian grade separations.
- Establish carpool and vanpool programs.
- Provide cash allowances, passes, and other public
transit and purchase incentives.
- Establish parking fees for single occupancy vehicles.
- Provide parking subsidies for rideshare vehicles.
- Institute a computerized commuter rideshare
matching system.
- Provide a guaranteed ride -home program for
ridesharing.
- Establish alternative work week, flex -time, and
compressed work week schedules.
Establish telecommuting or work -at-home programs.
- Provide additional vacation and compensatory leave
incentives.
- Provide on-site lunch rooms/cafeterias and
commercial service such as banks, restaurants, and
small retail.
Provide on-site day care facilities.
- Establish an employee transportation coordinator(s).
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of AICAS Tastin 30 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
AQ -4
If not required under each individual development's TDM
Ongoing
Project developer
Community Development
plan, the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as
Department (Tustin and/or
applicable, shall implement the following measures, as
Irvine, as applicable)
determined appropriate or feasible by each city on a
case-by-case basis:
- Reschedule truck deliveries and pickups for off-peak
hours.
- Implement lunch shuttle service from a worksite(s) to
food establishments.
- Implement compressed work week schedules where
weekly work hours are compressed into fewer than
five days, such as 9/80, 4/40, or 3/36.
- Provide on-site child care and after-school facilities
or contribute to off-site developments within walking
distance.
- Provide on-site employee services such as cafeterias,
banks, etc.
- Implement a pricing structure for single -occupancy
employee parking, and/or provide discounts to
ridesharers.
- Construct off-site pedestrian facility improvements
such as overpasses and wider sidewalks.
Include retail services within or adjacent to
residential subdivisions.
- Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers or
multi -modal stations.
- Contribute to regional transit systems (e.g.,
right-of-way, capital improvements, etc.).
- Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by
development.
EIS/E/R for the Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin 31 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
AQ -4
- Construct, contribute, or dedicate land for the
Ongoing
Project developer
Community Development
(cont.)
provision of off-site bicycle trails linking the facility
Department (Tustin and/or
to designated bicycle commuting routes.
Irvine, as applicable)
- Include residential units within a commercial
development.
- Provide off-site bicycle facility improvements, such
as bicycle trails linking the facility to designated
bicycle commuting routes, or on-site improvements,
such as bicycle paths.
- Include bicycle parking facilities such as bicycle
lockers.
- Include showers for bicycling and pedestrian
employees' use.
- Construct on-site pedestrian facility improvements,
such as building access which is physically separated
from street and parking lot traffic, and walk paths.
Mitigation Measures for Noise
N -I
Prior to reuse of any existing residential units within the
Prior to reuse of any existing
Project developer
Community Development
reuse area for civilian use, the City of Tustin or the City
residential units.
Department (Tustin and/or
of Irvine, as applicable, and where necessary and feasible,
Irvine, as applicable)
shall require the installation of noise attenuation barriers,
insulation, or similar devices to ensure that interior and
exterior noise levels at these residential units do not
exceed applicable noise standards.
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 32 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Mitigation Monitoring and
Responsibility
Enforcement Responsibility
N-2
During design of the grade -separated intersection of
Prior to approval of final design
Project developer
Tustin Public Works
Tustin Ranch Road at Edinger Avenue, the City of Tustin
plans.
Department
shall evaluate potential noise impacts on surrounding
properties to the northeast of Edinger Avenue and shall
incorporate into the design of this intersection noise
attenuation measures determined appropriate and feasible
by the City of Tustin, in order to ensure that these
surrounding properties do not experience noise levels that
exceed City of Tustin noise standards.
N-3
For new development within the reuse area, the City of
Prior to issuance of building
Project developer
Community Development
Tustin and City of Irvine, as applicable, shall ensure that
permits.
Department (Tustin and/or
interior and exterior noise levels do not exceed those
Irvine, as applicable)
prescribed by state requirements and local city ordinances
and general plans. Plans demonstrating noise regulation
conformity shall be submitted for review and approval
prior to building permits being issued to accommodate
reuse.
N4
Prior to the connection of Wainer Avenue to the North
Prior to approval of final design
City of Tustin and City of
Tustin Community
Loop Road or the South Loop Road, the City of Tustin
plans.
Irvine
Development and Public
shall conduct an acoustical study to assess reuse traffic
Works Departments
noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors adjacent to
Warner Avenue, between Harvard Avenue and Culver
Drive. If mitigation of reuse traffic noise impacts is
required, the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine shall
enter into an agreement that defines required mitigation
and which allocates the cost of mitigation between the
City of Tustin and the City of Irvine on a fair share basis.
CISIEIRJor the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 33 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MeasureTTiming
and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
Implementation Measures for Water Quality
WQ-1
Prior to the auoroval of grading plans, the project
Prior to approval of grading
plans.
Proiect Developer
Community Development
developers shall provide written evidence to the
Department (Tustin and/or
Department of public Works.that it has filed a Notice of
Irvine, as applicable)
Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board in
order to obtain coverage under the latest approved
General Construction Permit. Pursuant to the permit
requirements, develocers shall develop a Stotmwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incomorates Best
Management Practices for reducing or eliminating
sediment and other construction -related pollutants in the
site runoff.
WO -2
Prior to avoroval of a grading plans, the Department of
Prior to auoroval of grading
plans.
Project Developer
Community Development
Public Works shall confirm that the contractors
specifications reauire compliance with the latest approved
Department (Tustin and/or
Irvine. as applicable)
General Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the
Santa Ana Regional Water Ouality Control Board to
eovem discharges from construction dewatering and
water line/swinkler line testing should thcv occur during
construction. Developers shall comply with these
regulations including provisions requiring notification,
testing and reporting of dewatering and testing -related
discharges, which shall mitigate any impacts of such
discharges.
WO -3
The City of Tustin and major master plan develocersof
Ongoing
Project Developer
Community Development
the former MCAS Tustin shall participate in the Regional
Department (Tustin and/or
Board's NSMP Working Group and contribute to funding
Irvine. as applicable)
and implementation of the Work Plan. To mitigate
construction -related selenium and nutrient water quality
impacts that may result from construction -related
o mdwater discharges, developers shall implement: (a)
feasible and available volume reduction BMPs jn
EISIUR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 34 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MeasureTiming
and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
Implementation Measures for Water Quality
WO -3
cont
accordance with the General NSMP Permit (118 -2004 -
00211; (b) selenium and nutrient control BMPs that are
developed under the Work Plan as of the date of proiect
apt)roval: and (c) selenium and nutrient measures that may
be developed under the Work Plan after proiect approval
which are available and feasible to deploy,
W04
To mitigate Post -construction surface water and lone -term
Prior to issuance ofgrading
permits.
Project Developer
Community Development
Department (Tustin and/or
groundwater discharge water quality impacts prior to
issuance of Brading permits. developers shall Prepare a
Irvine, as applicable)
proiect WOMP, which shall be submitted to the City of
Tustin or City of Irvine as applicable for approval The
WOMP shall be prepared in compliance with all MS4
Permit reguirements (including DAMP and LIP
requirements), and at a minimum shall contain the
following elements:
a) An Integrated Water conservation/Storm Water
Runoff and Subdrain Discharge Water Ouality
Management Program. This orouan shall
integrate into the storm drainage and water quality
control system facilities and systems to capture
recycle and conserve low flows_ which may include
irrigation returns and subdrain discharges to
reduce, to the extent feasible post -development
low flow surface runoff and groundwater discharge
volumes. The Program shall also implement one or
more treatment control technologies developed
under the NSMP and available at the time of
proiect approval for nutrient and selenium removal
b) Site Planning and Design RMPs The WOMP
shall incorporate site design BMPs described in the
Model WOMP attached as Exhibit 7 ll to the
cra; ciA jor me uuposai ana «euse of MCAD tusttn 35 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measure
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation Monitoring and
Enforcement Responsibility
Implementation Measures for Water Quality
WOA
L2911
DAMP to the extent feasible and appropriate in
light of proposed land uses.
C) Source Control BMPs The WOMP shall
incorporate source control BMPs described in the
Model WOMP attached as Exhibit 7.11 to the
DAMP to the extent feasible and appropriate in
light of Proposed land use.
d) Treatment Control BMPs The WOMP shall
incorporate treatment control BMPs described in
the Model WOMP attached as Exhibit 7.11 to the
DAMP.
WO -5
As required by DAMP and the MS4 Permit as well as the
Prior to issuance of grading
ep_rmits,
Project Developer
Community Development
Department (Tustin and/or
Cooperative Agreement D02-119 between the City of
Tustin, OCFCD, and the County of Orange a Water
Irvine. as applicable)
Quality Technical Report (WOTR) shall be prepared prior
to the issuance of grading permits The WOTR shall
quantitatively and qualitatively (as appronriate) assess
Planned BMPs to be included in the WOMP to confirm
that the treatment and hydrologic controls included in the
SWPPP and WOMP will be sufficient to assure that
project discharges will not cause a violation of applicable
water quality standards.
-•�v�• 1— ung ".WV q/ g.i.No r asrrn 36 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-3
PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET1
':~J~~~,,: ~."<<,,,. ..., ,-; :';:i~~~tIIIl/l!.r~.j"' .. ;'l'i~.~Idl.;;ti.li:
"
'i ","":,' ,: 11~'t,f: "' 'A<~~t"',V".',";"A'PT' '.'.':1. ""mou~tl,i< Am ,,',
,_. ~."" .. ' .- . ,
NEIGHBORHOOD A
ElemenlarylMiddle School STU 550 561
Leaming Center TSF 1,293.86 7,920
I Neighborhood Commercial TSF 27.12 3,033
Tustin Facility SG 6,220
PA 1 Trip Budget Total 1,320.98 17,734
2 Sports Park ACRE 24.10 1,297
3 Transitional Housing ROOM 192 941
Neigbborhood A Square Footage Total TSF 1,320.98
Neighborhood A Trip Budget Total 17,734
NEIGHBORHOOD B
LDR(I-7 DUlAcre) DU 145 1,388
4 MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) DU 120 960
Senior Housing Attached DU 72 250
MDR (8-15 DUlAc..) DU 132 1,056
5 MHDR (16-25 DUIAcre) DU 438 2,903
Senior Housing Attached DU 170 590
Community Commercial TSF 103.46 7.052
7 General Office TSF 144.84 1,922
PA 7 Trip Budget Total 248.30 8,974
Neighborhood B Square Footage Total TSF 248.30
Neighborbood B Trip Budget Tolal 8,974
NEIGHBORHOOD C
Community Commercial TSF 5750 3,920
6 Regional Park ACRE 84.50 423
PA 6 Trip Budget Total 3,920
Neighborhood C Square Footage Total TSF 57.50
Neighborbood C Trip Budget Total 3,920
NEIGHBORHOOD D
High School STU 1,850 3,312
Neighhorhood Commercial TSF 65.69 7,345
General Office TSF 207 2,747
8 Office Park TSF 1.383.80 11,280
Industrial Park TSF 31951 3,803
Park ACRE 10.30 52
Sports Park ACRE 46 2,475
PA 8 Trip Budget Total 1,976 28,487
EISlEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin
37
Mitigation Moniloring and Reporting Program
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-3
PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET
(Continued)
,'~~i~i , ;~"~,:." :':.i<i' ,'.li~~~:~,'.,!,;" ;.i',i!lQP~liii.~~\i4i;. '
"'i,,:iilli i).:,t:i'; :'~",\i,.~t";X~~i';;
MHDR (16-25 DUlAcre) DU 891 5,907
Hotel (380 TSF) ROOM 500 4,115
Neighborhood Commercial TSF 9.76 1,091
Community Commercial TSF 117.10 7.984
13 General Office TSF 1,512 20,065
Park ACRE 12.90 65
Health Club TSF 30 988
High.Tumovcr Restaurant TSF 12 1.526
PA 13 Trip Budget Total 2,060.86 35,769
Community Commercial TSF 11.11 757
General Office TSF \36.90 1,818
Office Park TSF 547 5.645
14
Theatre (25 TSF) SEAT 1,000 1,250
High-Turnover Restaurant TSF 6 763
PA 14 Trip Budget Total 726.01 10,233
Neighborhood D Square Footage Total TSF 4,762.87
Neighhorhood D Trip Budget Total 74,489
NEIGHBORHOOD E
Industrial Park TSF 44.61 714
9 Park ACRE 1.10 6
Spons Park ACRE 6.10 328
P A 9 Trip Budget Total 44.61 714
General Office TSF 156.82 2,081
Industri81 Park TSF 124.41 1,569
10 Park ACRE 1.40 7
Sports Park ACRE 4.30 231
PA 10 Trip Budget Total 281.23 3,650
Neighborhood Commercial TSF 18.\3 2,028
General Office TSF 371.89 4,935
11 Office Park TSF 278.78 2,663
Industrial Park TSF \38.52 2,002
Park ACRE 25.70 \30
PA 11 Trip Budget Total 807.32 11,628
12 Officc Park TSF \34.17 1,281
PA 12 Trip Budget Total \34.17 1,281
Neighborhood E Square Footage Total TSF 1,267.33
Neighborhood E Trip Budget Total 17,273
EIS/EIRfor the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin
38
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-3
PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET
(Continued)
i.Pliiiaiiili.........,_ ..',.;., ~. '.' RlWkltnll*l4'i1,kS "i,:: ;;i:.::ffi!~~!~~~i.i.;!......
.::.~~i~';...... ...... ':';~~w.rt:.; .....!.J\jj,~ijlifi~..
."".., .".. no"~ ,..""I.
NEIGHBORHOOD F
16 Shopping Center TSF 448 13,772
PA 16 Trip Budee! Total 448 13,772
17 Shopping Center TSF 47 1,445
PA 17 Trip Budget Total 47 1,445
18 Military (Office) TSF 40.85 542
PA 18 Trip Budget Total 40.85 542
Shopping Center TSF 435.60 13,391 435.60 13,391
19 Multiplex Theater (70 TSF) SEAT 3,500 6,300
PA 19 Trip Budget Total TSF 505.60 19,691
Neighborhood F Square Footage Total TSF 1,041.45
Neighborhood F Trip Budget Total 35,450
NEIGHBORHOOD G
LOR (1-7 DUlAcrc) DU 533 5,102
MDR (8-15 DUlAcre) DU 489 3.912
MOOR (16-25 DUIAcre) DU 192 1,273
E1ementarylMiddle School STU 1,200 1,224
Neighborhood Commercial TSF 26.68 2,983
IS Community Commercial TSF 130.68 8.908
General Office TSF 150.28 1,994
Park ACRE 49 249
Senior Congregate TSf 158.99 970
Sports Park ACRE 14.10 758
PA IS Trip Budget Total 466.63 14,855
20 MHDR(I6-25 DUIAcre) DU 376 2,493
21 LOR (1-7DUlAcre) DU 189 1,809
MDR (8-15 DU/Acr.) DU 465 3,720
Neiehborhood G Squ.re Footage Total TSF 466.63
Neighborhood G Trip Budget Total 14,855
NEIGHBORHOOD H
LDR (1-7 DUIAcr.) DU 166 1,589
22 MDR(8-15 DUlAcre) DU 243 1,944
ElementarylMiddl. School STU 650 663
Neiehborbood H Squ.re Footage Total TSF 0
Neighborbood H Trip BUdget Total 0
, Residential and pwk uses are shown for informational purpales only and are not part of the non.residential trip bud!J:l
EISlEIRlor the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin
39
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
REVISED TABLE 4-2
PHASING PLAN REQUIREMENTS
, :;~i~; "'i."j' ~,:.:c ; ~~~;f~:.!i\::'i':'~!:~'J~ii:Ei:,,:1"~lleM:~\:tj:,!;;:~:.~'::'::l~:!:,i;'::!r': >! ':':'!:'i::;!,;~Atliriif; i"'" "~''''''~ii''m:':;:'i,:'
~., . :::",.-."
Circulation 1) On-site arteriel highways, intersections When cumulative developmant and associated
and Tustin Ranch RoadlEdinger Avenue average daily trips reach ADT development
interchange; thresholds based on the land "sellria budoet
2) Off-sile arterial highway, intersection oresented in the FEISlEIR or as modified bv
improvements; the FEISIEIR Addendum or anv subseouent
3) Selected advanced transportation amendment. BertRs jeiAt &:It'K1R Basset SR tl::18
management system (ATMs) facllili... laRa ws8ltFira IitwBBBt iR CJ:lapter :t
BikewayslTralls 1) Class 1 Bikeway along Peters Canyon 1) When Peters Canyon Channei is improved
Channel; by CewRty:
2) On-site Class II Bikeway System. 2) When backbone arterial highways are
constructed.
Domestic 1) Existing housing water distrtbution lines, 1) Upon determination by IRWD regarding
(Potable) Water 2) New backbone water mains; acceptability of the lines.
3) Abandoned/relocated wells 2) When backbone arterial highways are
constructed;
3) Upon determination by the City and
consultation with IRWD,
Reclaimed 1) New backbone waler lines; 1) When backbone arterials highways are
(Non-Potable) 2) Existing and new well sites. constructed;
Water 2) Upon completion of negotiations by City
IRWD or developer(s) regarding exchange
of well sites,
Sanitary Sewer 1) Existing housing sewer conveyance 1) Upon determination by the IRWDaR&
lines; OGSB regarding acceptability of the lines;
2) New backbone sewer mains. 2) When backbone arterial highways are
constructed,
Storm Drain 1) Backbone storm drain systems; 1) Generally in conjunction with arterial'
2) Regional flood control channel highway construction. Armstrong/Barranca
improvements; channel improvements upon detemination
3) Retention basins; of acceptability as part of development
4) Flood plain mitigation. plans.
2) Any project generated Barranca Channel
improvements in conjunction with P~asa II
development as needed or determined bv
the aDolicable iurisdiction and in
consultation with the OCFCO: any
necessary project generated Peters
Canyon Channel and Santa Ana/Santa Fe
channel improvements in conjunction with
Pt:lase 111 development as needed or
determined bv the aoolicable iurisdiction
and in consultation with the OCF CD.
3) As necessary as interim or permanent
design in review of development plans,
4) Filing of flood zone map with FEMA prior to
any Pt:las9 II construdion.
Electrtcity Backbone electric distribution lines. When backbone arterial highways are
constructed,
Natural Gas Backbone gas distribution lines. When backbone arterial highways are
constructed,
Telephone Backbone telephone lines, When backbone arterial highways are
constructed.
ElS/EIRfor the Disposal and Reuse of MC'AS Tustin
40
Mitigation Moniloring and Reporting Program
REVISED TABLE 4-2
PHASING PLAN REQUIREMENTS
(Continued)
",'~'~:q!i!'i~ri!,. """'iili;M.~.~m
When backbone arterial highways are
constructed.
1) Site can be used upon transfer to County;
improvements will occur per agreement
with City of Tustin;
2) Site can be used upon transfer to City;
upgrading will occur upon receipt of
adequate funding Including park
development fees;
3) When adequate park development fees
are received. subiect to develooment
conditions. develooment acreements and
fundina availability as 8oolicable'
4) When adequate funding has been secured
from assessment district funding; tax-
increment or developer-negotiation.
Note: In addition to applicable sections of this Phasing Plan, the proviSions of the Joint Final EISlEIR will apply.
,,'j:1'.:,:;ir ,'iii;';~~l~j,j':i:",.",:.!;'r.,,];,
Backbone cable television distribution iines;
fiber optic cables.
1) Regional park;
2) Community park C24 acre):
3) CommunitY oark (48 acres)
neiahborhood oarks. Drivate oarks; and
~JBigRbB,*,eeE:J ,.ame iR T-YstiR
(SSfRFRlcIRity BAd 9tRsr pFi"ate Iiams);
4) Neighborhood park In irvine.
E/SlE/Rfor the Disposal and Reme of MCAS Tustin
4/
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
REVISED TABLE 4-3
ON-SITE ARTERIAL CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
~
~,:;,
Barranca Parkway
Edinger Avenue
Red Hill Avenue
Tustin Rench Road
(including interchange)
Warner Avenue
Harvard Avenue
Warner Avenue
A Street'
Armstrong Avenue
Carnegie Avenue;
East Connector
Harvard Avenue
Legacy Road'
North Loop Road
Park Avenue 1
South Loop Road
South Loop Road
West Connector
Aston Street 1
Moffett Drive
Sweet Shade
Landsdowne Road
Severyns Road
1 New Improvement
"--
Red Hill Avenue Jamboree Road
East of Red Hill Avenue West of Jemboree Road
Barranca Parkway North of Valencia Avenue
""",..,:::,,:.(:iii:'i~~lM~;'
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Major Arterial
Edinger Avenue Barranca Parkway Major Arterial
Red Hill Avenue North Loop Road Major Arterial
Barranca Parkway Edinger Avenue Primary Arterial
North Loop Road Jamboree Road Primary Arterial
South Loop Road Tustin Ranch Road Secondary Arterial
North Loop Road Barranca Parkway Secondary Arterial
Red Hill Avenue Armstrong Avenue Secondary Arterial
Edinger Avenue North Loop Road Secondary Arterial
South of OCT A1SCRRA Edinger Avenue Secondary Arterial
Railroad
Warner Avenue North Loop Road Secondary Arterial
Valencia Avenue Warner Avenue Secondary Arterial
South Loop Road Tustin Ranch Road Secondary Arterial
Tustin Ranch Road Warner Avenue Secondary Arterial
Park Avenue Armstrong Avenue Secondary Arterial
Edinger Avenue North Loop Road Secondary Arterial
Carnegie Avenue Barranca Parkway Local Collector
Street
North Loop Road Harvard Avenue Local Collector
Street
Harvard Avenue Local Collector
- Street
North Loop Road - , Local Street
North Loop Road - Local Street
ElS/EJRfor the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin
42
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
REVISED TABLE 4-4
ON-SITE ADT DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS
,Apt~",'
Armstrong Avenue - North Loop Road to Warner Avenue
Barranca Parkway - Tustin Ranch Road to Jamboree Road
Edinger Avenue - along project frontage betwean Red Hnl Avenue and Jamboree
Road (completed)
Harvard Avenue - Barranca Parkway to just south of OCTAlSCRRA railroad
Landsdowne Road
Marble Mountain Road (completed as "Sweet Shade")
North Loop Road - Red Hill Avenue to West Connector
Severyns Road'
West Connector
East Connector
Barranca Parkway - Tustin Ranch Road to Red Hill Avenue
Moffett Drive
North Loop Road - West Connector to Moffett Drive
Red HIli Avenue/Carnegie Avenue Intersection (East Leg to Linear Park)
Red Hill Avenue - Barranca Parkway to just north of Valencia Avenue
South Loop Road - Warner Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road
Tus~n Ranch Road - Edinger Avenue to Barranca Parkway'
Warner Avenue - Red Hill Avenue to Jamboree Road
A Street - South Loop Road to Tus~n Ranch Roact
Armstrong Avenue - Warner Avenue to Barranca Parkway
Carnegie Avenue - Linear Park to Armstrong Avenue becoming South Loop Road'
Legacy Road - North Loop Road to Tustin Ranch Roa
North Loop Road - Moffett Drive to Warner Avenue
Park Avenue - South Loop Road to Tustin Ranch Road'
South Loop Road - Armstrong Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road via Park Avenue'
39,500 (176,200) Legacy Road - Warner Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road
40,200 (216,400) Aston Street - CamegieAvenue to Barranca Parkwa
1 Roadway shall be constructed prior to the iss~ance of certificates of occupancy for this phase.
27,000
(27,000)
82,800
(109,800)
26,900
(136,700)
2 Changes to onginal FEISIEIR.
EISlEIRfor the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin
43
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
ES/E/R far the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 44 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4,eeet+en
fG
�g
PIBr4hheeeA
end
}M�!€
42esa!€
4p1�Ielllee#atlep
���
it
16
4:
R
b
1 :F
R
nn4 PM
,ua
itxt
PeFMHt
9& 418x -K
Rase
-
-
-
a
3
-
a
-
+
-
3
4
& SZOW rat"
Mik
-
-
-
3
-
a
-
2
-
3
4
-
g
-
ma
482.088
388
383, junbereeA
Rase
a
4
€
2
3
#
a
4
€
2,3
23
}
Mit-
a
4
#
a
3
€
a
4
€
24
2.4
}
_
w
Seats As�
47- Main es Rase a
3
-
}
a
_
a
3
-
4
a
+
a
3
-
+
S
-
a
3
-
4
a
4
-
e
-
aageg
33
48- Main -& DyeF +
3
-
+
a
_
4
a
}
+
a
+
a
3
-
3
a
-
4
a
+
}
a
4
-
e
-
ff)P
78,eeg
4-7
43 -Coad -8E Baw+
3
-
4
3
_
}
3
_
}
3
_
4
3
-
4
3
-
a
3
-
4-
3
-
-
p
-
nie
32,008
480
726 RgQhay Be-Bdiegee
1.
4
-
+
3
-
+
3
-
+
3
-
+
2
-
}
3
-
-
$
-
nia
30SB{Ig
480
W�
W
wOnly, Ret ABOOSSM. fer 2030
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 45 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mom e� owe
4 I} I I I I q& SFC 65 Sli Raffills -I- JI
144 44 13 I E I+ I I£ I I e - X998 2S
Ea1�-iflMss�eNep
EINEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 46 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progran+
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 47 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
see€apednft
r�.�arfeaffsti
€�..�
Raoul#
4mglefnenfaI"
��w
x
it
I.
T-
it
I.
T-
1R
1-
14
AM
us n
M
«
+3 v�
a
24
+4
+
3
€
a
3
a
a
3
+
MW
a
24
43
+
3
€
a
3
s
a
3
+
-
P
-
ffm
34.
a
3
+
a
3
+
a
3
+
a
3
+
42- & "AIR.-I"M
a
a
3
3
4
4
a
4
3
a
+
+
a
a
3
3
+
d
a
+
3
a
4
+
-
R
-
rfae
4;14,098
4g0
mit-a
3
A
a
a
+
a
3
4
a
a
4
¢
mx
ffrn
+2}089
400
a,:Re4-}SillBrrWame�
a
4
+
a
3
+
a
4
+
a
3
+
a
4
4
a
3
a
a
4
4
a
3
4
200:000
+pB
493-€ara4eree-BfBeff e%"
a
4
€
a
3
1 €
a
4
€
a.3
a3
+
a
4
€
a
3
€
1 a
4
€
23
24
+
-
e
fan
444-,"
33,1laHes Genim A PAkso
a
4
a
a
3
4
.}
3
44
a
3
4
a
4
a
a
4
-
4
3
43
a
3
4
6
ffaf
20
a
3
+
a
3
+
a
3
+
a
3
+
a
3
4
a
4
-
a
4
-
a
3
4
6
0
fne
+weep
400
ma+44)
a
a
+
a
3
+
a
3
4.
a
3
+
a
3
4
a
3
+
a
4
-
a
3
+
-
-
me
+43,888
Ogg
66. Fnaravi•& By01
a
-
4
-
3
4
4.5
-
44
-
3
4
-
-
-
a
3
-
-
e
-
fm
43+,000
24
a0-byen-& Minge
+
+
+
+
3
+
+
+
a
+
3
-
49-
44
-6
+
+
3
+
4
+
a
4
3
-
-
e
-
fnp
.132,009
4-3
apt-StmdaFd & Eji ftff ime
4
a
-
4
3
4
a
4
3
44-
+
a
-
+
3
+
+
a
-
+
3
-
-
e
-
fne
481;900
4
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 47 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
nminfnjor the utsposat ana /teuSe of MCAS l ustin 48 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
southbound
w Bead
Namh4exxd
rest4ared
tz..Ytt
„e", "ft
t;
it
I-
►
AM
99►�affid
..�
3
d
2
3
d
a
3
t
+
3
d
+
3
{
a
3
d
a
3
L
+
3
d
-
-
the
+AO
44& 1AWhOFO- & 4 kwn
+
2
a
4
d
d
+
a
a
3
r
d
+
+
a
a
a
4
+
+
+
+
s
2
a
a
3
it
d
d
-
s
-
fps
141,00
as
a-IIFF�werd, ,MtaR
a
+
4
a
d
+
a
a
3
3
d
d
a
4
S
a
+
d
a
a
3
3
d
+
-
-
F"
494
+
2
+
a
3
d
a
a
d
a
3
+
-
pl&
-
1g1,ppg
4w
+4&Q*.AF-8r le of
3
3
d
+
a
d
+
3
+
4
3
d
nminfnjor the utsposat ana /teuSe of MCAS l ustin 48 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
E/S/8/R for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 49 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
EISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin 50 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
EMT :.: •:.
EISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin 50 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
DOO
ALL DAI '"Mau Z=bl MA
A�
EISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 51 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
E!S/E/R for the Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin 52 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program
00
E!S/E/R for the Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin 52 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program
44
rteote,GelfcAUFSO
0
SAO --
E FM
o
Sa4im,. ADT -s feF Innd -450 4�'PiS dOFi%'Od 40M MC -49 Asiin Spesiffe Xon4Reeme Plam T�qffk Sluf4, (Avoin Foust Assesiates, ine. 1999) ia kppen&j jz, bound sepp—%tabc.
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tuslin 53 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program