HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 07-33RESOLUTION NO. 07-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENTIFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN
("FEIS/FEIR"} AND ITS ADDENDUM IS ADEQUATE TO
SERVE AS THE PROJECT EISIEIR FOR MCAS TUSTIN
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (ZONE CHANGE 07-001 }
AND THAT ALL APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
I, The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
A. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (Zone Change 07-001} is
proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (the developer), a
Delaware limited liability company. Zone Change 07 -001 does not
"substantially amend" the Specific Plan. Instead, Zone Change 07-001
generally would allow tandem parking in residential developments and
compact spaces in non-residential developments and would specify their
required dimensions. Zone Change 07-001 would not increase the overall
development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan;
B. That Zone Change 07-001 is considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms
of the California Environmental Quality Act;
C. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final
Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR}
for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for
the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEISIEIR and its
Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential
environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine
Corps Air Station, Tustin;
D. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for Zone
Change 07-001 for the proposed project, attached as Exhibit 1 hereto.
The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does
not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial
changes or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 1 of 42
identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover,
no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since
certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum;
E. The Planning Commission considered the Environmental Checklist on
March 27, 2007, and adopted Resolution No. 4058 recommending the
City Council to approve the Environmental Checklist;
F. That the City Council has considered the Environmental Checklist along
with the FEIS/EIR and its addendum prior to making a decision on Zone
Change 07-001 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 ~c) and
15162, and approves the Environmental Checklist, attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
II. The City Council finds that the project is within the scope of the previously
approved Program FEISIFEIR and its Addendum and that pursuant to Title 14
California Code of Regulations Sections 15168 ~c} and 15162, no new effects could
occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new
environmental document is required by CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on
the 3rd day of April, 2007.
LOU BONE,
MAYOR
PAMELA STOKE
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 2 of 42
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. 07-33 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of
April, 2007, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Bone , Kawashima. Palmer (5)
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBERABSTAINED: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBERABSENT: None (0)
PAMELA STOKER,
City Clerk
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 3 of 42
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
3Ul) Centennial Way, Tustin, C~~ )?7~~U
(714) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (E[S/EIR)
for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin
This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of
an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation
evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s): Disposition and Development Agreement OS-Ol Amendment, Development
Agreement 06-002, and Specific Plan Amendment 07-001
Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3 l 15
Project Location: Neighborhoods B, D, E, and G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC
26840 Aliso Viejo Parkway, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP-1 Specific Plan), Neighborhoods B, D, E,
and G
Project Description: Proposed amendment of a previously approved Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA OS-Ol -Master Developer), Development
Agreement 06-002, between the City of Tustin and Tustin Legacy
Community Partners, LLC, and Minor Amendment to the MCAS Tustin
Specific P1an/Reuse Plan (See attachment A for further project description).
Surrounding Uses: North: Edinger Avenue and Residential Uses
East: Jamboree Road/Industrial Uses
South: Light Industrial/Business Parks
West: Red Hill Avenue, Business Complexes
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 4 of 42
Previous Environmental DUCUm~ntatlun: Program Final Environmental [mpac;t
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine
Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council
on January l6, 2001 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on April 3, 2006.
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 Sigmiticant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
^C,and Use and Planning
^Population and Housing
^Geology and Soils
^Hydrology and Water Quality
^Air Quality
^Transportation & Circulation
^Biological Resources
^Mineral Resources
^Agricultural Resources
^Hazards and Hazardous Materials
^Noise
^Public Services
^Utilities and Service Systems
^Aesthetics
^Cultural Resources
^Recreation
^Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a sigmitcant 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.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a sigmificant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upun the
proposed project.
^ 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 otentiall si nificant effec~s 9 ~~ ~~"
a e ~ o~
g
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:
Justina Willkom, Senior Planner
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Attachment A attached to this Checklist
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 6 of 42
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista'?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but nut
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway'?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
yuality of the site and its surroundings'?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area's
II. ACR[CULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide [mportance (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's
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations, Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan's
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation`s
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant fur which the project region isnon-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
yuantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)''
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
cuncentrations
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
No Substantiul
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact lmpacts Analysis
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 7 of 42
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
ur other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Nave a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 8 of 42
No Substantial
New More Change From
Signifiant Severe Precincts
Impact Impacts Analysis
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as detined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
riskti to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 6596?,5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles 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''
t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Signifiant Severe Precincts
Impact Impacts Analysis
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 9 of 42
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland tires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards ur waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ot'the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of'pre-
existing nearby wells tivould drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
oroff site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
g) Place housing within a 100-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?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) lnundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow'?
lX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Signifiant Severe Precincts
Impact Impacts Analysis
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 10 of 42
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
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 resident,
of the state?
b) Result in the loss ofavailability of alocally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE--
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
h) Displace substantial numbers of exiting housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Signifiant Severe Precincts
Impact Impacts Analysis
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 11 of 42
No Substantial
New More Change From
Signifiant Severe Precincts
Impact Impacts Analysis
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
insubstantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity'?
Page 12 of 42
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
YVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Elave sut~icient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
t) 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?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Signifiant Severe Precincts
Impact Impacts Analysis
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 13 of 42
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OS-01
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-002
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 07-001
NEIGHBORHOODS B, D, E, AND G OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact 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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy (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 PIan/Reuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental
impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City uf' Irvine must take to
implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council on January l6, 2001. The DoN
published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001. On April 3, 200b, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR.
The NiCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed a multi-year
development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the
MCAS Tustin 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 and Addendum. The
agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR
and Addendum. 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 environmental
document is required. For the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA
Amendment, Development Agreement (DA), and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) project, the
City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided below to
determine if the project is within the scope of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and if new effects
would occur as a result of the project.
PROJECT LOCATION
The property subject to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA OS-0l -Master
Developer, hereinafter the "Original DDA"), Proposed DDA Amendment, Development
Agreement (DA) Ob-002, and Specific Plan Amendment 07-001 consists of approximately 820
acres at Tustin Legacy. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station
(MCAS) Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the
Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at
MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs and was officially closed in
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 14 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA US-Ol Amendment, DA Ob-002, SPA 07-001
Page 2
July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City
of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine.
Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of
downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa
Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana (I-S), Laguna (SR-l33) and San Diego (I-405). Tustin Legacy is also
served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways
bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue and [r-vine
Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barranca Parkway un the south.
Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles
to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the north
providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside. and
San Diego counties.
The Property is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. That portion of the Property subject to
the Original DDA, Proposed DDA Amendment, Proposed DA 06-002, and Proposed Specific
Plan Amendment is within an 820 acre footprint. The estimate of Property within this footprint
that might ultimately be conveyed to the Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC' (Developer)
for private development as identified in the Original DDA is approximately 420 acres in :size.
The Property subject to the Original DDA, Proposed DDA Amendment, Proposed DA 06-t~02,
and Proposed Specific Plan Amendment also includes property that will nut be transferred bar the
City to the Developer, including property owned or to be owned by the City of Tustin, the Tustin
Unified School District including but not limited to certain public uses, public utilities, and
public right-of-way areas, and approximately 15 acres of property that could be privately
developed; however, a final disposition of ownership decision could not be made at the time of
execution of the Original DDA (this is the 15 acre "Hangar Parcel").
The majority of the Property subject to the Original DDA, Proposed DDA Amendn.ent,
Proposed DA 06-002, and Proposed Specific Plan Amendment is currently owned by the City of
Tustin. A portion ot'the Property is also cu~ently owned by the Department of the Navy aid 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 the Property for private development to the Developer (unless excluded
pursuant to the Original DDA) in phases.
PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY
Historically, the Property was used as a Marine Corps helicopter training facility. Currently the
actual footprint of the Property is largely undeveloped land that was previously used for intc;rim
agricultural out-leasing by the Marines, and also improved with landing strips and tarmac al eas.
Permits for demolition of abandoned buildings on the Property have been issued and existing
facilities are in the process of being removed, with obsolete infrastructure also programmed for
removal. Tlie City has nearly completed a Phase I roadway project, the Valencia/Armstrong
project, which included some demolition of tarmac areas, landing strips, and demolition of some
obsolete utilities. The Valencia/Armstrong project also included the installation of water and
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 15 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA OS-0l Amendment, DA Oh-002, SPA U7-()01
Page 3
sewer Backbone Infrastructure on a portion of the Property and interim storm drain retention
facilities. [nterim earth work and mass grading of the Property by the Developer is also
proposed to begin shortly.
As required by the Original DDA, the Developer has obtained approval of a Sector .A Map which
encompasses the entire Property and is completing preconditions to the Phase l conveyance.
The Developer has also begun processing the Sector B maps for MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Neighborhoods E and G, and the required accompanying Concept Plans for each Neighborhood
(Neighborhoods D, E, and G). Sector B Map for Neighborhood D is expected to be submitted
shortly. Certain major amendments or ref nements to the DDA and Specific Plan Amendment
are being requested to facilitate submittals and to clarify Original DDA terms and conditions as
described in more detail under the DDA section.
PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project evaluated in this environmental review includes two components described further in
sections below:
• DDA (Master Developer) Amendments
• Development Agreement 06-002
• Specific Plan Amendment 07-001
AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL DDA
Background
The Original DDA was entered into by and between the City of Tustin and Tustin Legacy
Community Partners, LLC (TLCP), a Delaware limited liability company on May 3, 2006. The
original DDA sets forth the parameters of development and conveyance by the City of Tustin
and Tustin Public Financing Authority (hereinafter the "Agency"} of certain property at Tustin
Legacy (the former MCAS Tustin} to TLCP. Members of the TLCP include Centex Homes,
Shea Homes, and Shea Properties (the "Developer").
Under the original DDA, TLCP will serve as the master developer, the land development entity
that will entitle the Property, build out certain defined Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure,
and then sell finished development parcels to residential builders for construction of vertical
improvements (homes) in Neighborhood D and rough graded parcels to builders for construction
of vertical residential and non-residential development in Neighborhoods B, D and E. TLCP
have indicated that they will also act as vertical builders for a large portion of the Property. The
DDA contemplates that certain portions of the Property will be developed by third party
developers.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 16 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental [mpactti
DDA OS-01 Amendment, llA Ub-U02, SPA ()7-UU 1
Page 4
Pursuant to the Original DDA, a scope of development (Attachment 28), schedule of
performance (Attachment 17), and a variety of terms and conditions required of TLCP wc;re
identified. In the Original DDA, the Property was proposed to be developed around four (4)
potential conveyance phases to the Developer: Phase l began in September 2006, Phase 2
begins in September 2009, Phase 3 begins in July 201 1, and Phase 4 to be defined pursuant to the
process defined in the Original DDA. The Original DDA establishes certain key terms,
including but not limited to, the phasing and conditions precedent to the Agency's obligation to
sell and convey each phase of the Property to the Developer, the purchase price of the property,
profit participation payments, obligations of the Developer for deconstruction of the Property,
anti development of the Property under the established schedule of performance including
obligations for construction of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure and Local Infrastructure.
Description of DDA Amendments.
1. Minor amendments to clarify the language in Sections 1.13, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 cf the
Original DDA related to default provisions in the Original DDA and the Attachment 17
Schedule of Performance.
2. Neighborhood E: A modification to the scope of development to relocate the Sports
Park/detention basin originally proposed at Red Hill and Warner Avenue. The detention
basin component would be incorporated into detention facilities within the Linear Park
and constructed with Phase 1 of the Linear Park, whereas the Sports Park comp. anent
would be relocated to Phase 2. Commercial/business uses would replace the original
sports park site in Phase 1. The sports park relocation site would be at the southeast of
the extension of Carnegie and the Linear Park.
This amendment required a financial review to confirm that the amendment has not
created net positive financial impacts on land value when all DDA Amendments are
considered, based on the Final DDA Pro Forma (more specifically, the Business Plan
residual land values) considered in the Original DDA (this is when all DDA changes
requested are taken into consideration). Based on the proposed DDA Amendment
language and conditions including revisions to Attachments 17 and 28, a determination
has been made that the DDA Amendment will have an immaterial impact on the original
value assumptions as contained in the DDA Business Plan cash Clow model and would
not require an adjustment in proposed land payments to the City of Tustin.
3. Neighborhood G: A modification to relocate and defer construction of a Congregate Care
facility at Valencia and Tustin Ranch Road until Phase 2 and to replace the original
Congregate Care site in Phase 1 with residential uses.
The Proposed DDA Amendment also required a financial review to confirm than the
amendment has not created a net positive impact on land values when all DDA
amendments are considered based on the Final DDA Pro Forma (more specifically, the
Business Plan residual land values) considered in the Original DDA (this is when all
DDA changes requested are taken into consideration). Based on the proposed DDA
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 17 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
UDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 5
Amendment including revisions to Attachments 17 and 28, a determination has been
made that the DDA Amendment will have an immaterial impact un the original value
assumptions as contained in the DDA Business Plan cash flow model and would not
require an adjustment in proposed land payments to the City ofTustin.
4. Neighborhood D: The Developer modified the square footage distributions within the
portion of the Community Core located south of Warner Avenue (Planning Areas 13 and
l4) consistent with the Implementation Strategy required by the Original DDA that was
previously considered and approved by the City Council for this area.
The Proposed DDA Amendment has also required a financial review to confirm that the
DDA Amendment has not created a net positive impact on land values when all DDA
Amendments are considered based on the Final DDA Pro Forma (more specifically, the
Business Plan residual land values} considered in the Original DDA (this is when all
DDA changes requested are taken into consideration). Based on the proposed DDA
Amendment including revisions to Attachments 17 and 28, a determination has been
made that the DDA Amendment will have an immaterial impact on the original value
assumptions as contained in the DDA Business Plan cash flow model and would not
require an adjustment in proposed land payments to the City of Tustin.
5. Minor alterations to the Original DDA Schedule of Performance (Attachment 17 and
Exhibit F of Attachment 28) are proposed.
6. The Developer proposes to delete a grade separated vehicular under-crossing at Tustin
Ranch Road just north of the Community Park that is currently shown as a Developer
required Backbone Infrastructure Improvement in Attachment 10 of the Original DDA
(improvement l29) and replace it with a grade separated pedestrian/bicycle bridge over-
crossing between the Neighborhood and Linear Park proposed along the east side of
Tustin Ranch Road and the north side of'the Community Park located on the west side of
Tustin Ranch Road north of Legacy Crossing. Costs associated with this modification
will need to be considered pursuant to item #7 below.
7. Instead of six (6} arches within the Linear Park as required by the Original DDA's
provisions for Local Infrastructure Improvements, the Developer will be required to
construct an iconic grade separated pedestrian bridge structure with functional purpose
that incorporates arch features for the pedestrian bridge at Warner Avenue/Community
Park, and unique iconic pedestrian bridges over Tustin Ranch Road/Community Park,
and Armstrong/Linear Park, subject to approval of the design by the City.
This proposal requires that the cost of all grade separated crossings have costs associated
with the complete construction of these facilities that are at a minimum equal to the total
costs of the six (b) arches and three (3) bridges as originally identified in the Original
DDA (a total cost of $19,813,005), as will be certified by the Public Works Director and
Assistant City Manager. Any cost escalations necessary to accommodate construction of
the iconic bridge structures will be a Developer obligation.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 18 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 6
8. Modification of Attachment 10 entitled Description of Developer's Backbone
lntrastructure Work and Attachment 11 entitled Description of Local Infrastructure
Work.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive
planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the California Legislature adopted the
Development A~eement Statute of the Government Code. Pursuant to the Statute, the City may
enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property and
to provide for the development of such property and to establish certain development rights
therein.
Development Agreement (DA) Ob-002 is proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC.
Pursuant to Section 1.7 of the Original DDA entered on May 3, 2006, the City agreed to consider
a future application for a Development Agreement by TLCP to assist in the implementation of
the DDA and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Specific Plan).
The general purpose of Development Agreement 06-002 is to give the follov~ing assurances to
Developer:
1. Assurance to Developer that, in return for Developer's commitment to the
comprehensive planning for the Property that is contained in the DDA and the
Specific Plan, the City will in turn remain committed to the DDA and the Specific
Plan;
2. Assurances to Developer that as Developer becomes obligated for the costs of
designing and constructing the public improvements included in the DDA and the
Specific Plan, and makes dedication. Developer will become entitled to complete
the private development portions of the DDA and the Specific Plan that justify
those obligations; and
3. Assurances to Developer that in the City's administration of the DDA and the
Specific Plan, Developer will be allowed the flexibility, consistent with the I)DA
and the Specific Plan, to respond to the marketplace in terms of housing type~- and
intensities, the development of mixed uses, and reconfiguration of land uses, so
long as in so doing overall intensity and density of development, and the ran;e of
uses within sectors identified in the DDA and the Specific Plan are not exceffded.
Then assurances require the cooperation and participation of the City and
Developer and could not be secured without mutual cooperation in and
commitment to the comprehensive planning effort that has resulted in the DDA
and the Specific Plan.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 19 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 7
The DA will include, but not be limited to, the following provisions:
• The term of DA 06-002 which will commence on the effective date and will
continue for a term of twenty (20) years thereafter unless the term is terminated,
modified, or extended by circumstances set forth in DA 06-002.
• The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, maximum
height and size of proposed buildings, the design improvement and construction
standard and specifications applicable to the development of the Property, and
provisions for the reservation and dedication of land for public purposes, as set
forth in the DDA and Existing Land Use Regulations which includes City's
General Plan, Zoning Code, Specific Plan, and all other ordinances, resolutions,
rules, and regulations of the City governing the development and use of the
Property in effect as of the effective date of the DA.
• Vested Right to carry out and develop the Property in accordance with DDA,
Development Plan, Existing Land Use Regulations and the provisions included in
DA 06-002.
• The timing of development asset forth in the DDA.
• Construction of infrastructure and public facilities as set forth in the DDA.
• Dedications as set forth in the DDA, Specific Plan, and dedication of certain
right-of-way areas to the applicable agencies as necessary for construction of
required off-site traffic and circulation mitigation as required by the DDA,
Specific Plan, or by Developer pursuant of the Final EISIEIR for MCAS Tustin,
as amended.
• Annual review of Developer's performance.
• Indemnity by the Developer to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City
from any and all actions, suits, claims, liabilities, etc.
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Minor Amendments to the MCAS Specific Plan are proposed to support improvements planned
within the TLCP footprint. The amendments include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Table 3-4 for all residential
housing types that the covered parking requirements can be satisfied with tandem
parking. Up to forty (40) percent ot'the attached units within Neighborhood G can
satisfy their covered parking requirement with tandem parking spaces.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 20 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 8
• Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specitic Plan, Section 3.13.2, to clarify that a
covered tandem garage is a minimum dimension of 10 feet by 40 feet, and an
upon tandem parking condition within a parking structure is a minimum
dimension of 9 feet by 36 feet.
• Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specitic Plan, Section 3.13.1(J), to allow 9 feet
by 18 feet standard parking stall and 24 foot two-way drive aisle. For parking
structure conditions, the column will be held back 2 feet from the drive aisle as
measured from centerline of the column. At an end condition where a parking
stall abuts a solid wall within a parking structure, an additional 1 foot and 6 inches
will be added to the end stall.
• Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Section 3.13.1(J), to allow 3 feet
by 16 feet compact parking stall and 24 toot two-way drive aisle. At one end
condition where a parking stall abuts a solid wall within a parking structure, an
additional 1 foot and 6 inches will be added to the end stall.
• Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Section 3,13.1(J), permitting
(without qualifying) up to twenty (20) percent of the required parking spaces for
non-residential developments may be designated for compact parking.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the
Environmental Analysis Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Dave a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and
Specific Platt Amendment will not directly cause aesthetic impacts. Development activities
proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the
Program F EISi E IR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no
demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the site.
There are no designated scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed DDA
Amendment and Development Agreement would not result in a substantial adverse effect
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 21 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-0l Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 9
on a scenic vista. 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, the loss of only one hangar would be less than
sigmificant. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would
not change the conclusions of the analysis from the FEISIEIR relative to these visual
changes since the status of the hangars would not be affected by the proposed DDA
changes.
The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would nut modify the
land use plan adopted in the Specific Plan but rather modify and refine the Master
Development Plan in the DDA only. No changes in original uses identified or permitted
in the Specific Plan are being requested; therefore, the types of uses to be developed are
consistent and would result in similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. While
the loss of the six (6) proposed arch structures in the Linear Park as outlined in the Original
DDA could pose a visual change, the Master Developer will be required ~to construct an
iconic grade-separated pedestrian bridge that incorporates arch features for the pedestrian
bridge at Warner Avenue/Community Park and unique iconic pedestrian bridges over
Tustin Ranch Road/Community Park and Armstrong/Linear Park.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable to the project have
been implemented with adoption of original Specific Plan. No refinements need to be made
to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4- 109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8)
MCAS Tustin Specific PIanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept, of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 22 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 10
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 proposed DDA Amendment, DA,
and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. Development
activities proposed by the TLCP and City ofTustin have been previously considered within
the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no
new et~ects, .nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project.
The physical impact area for the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan
Amendment is the same as .that identified in the FEISIEIR. [mplementation of the
proposed project would continue to impact areas mapped (though not used} as Prime
Farn~land. 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 NCRS. Implementation
of the proposed project would not change the impact conclusions presented in the
FEISIEIR. 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/I~IR are still infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse
effects associated with the loss of mappedldesignated farmland.
There are nu 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 FEISIEIR determined to be infeasible; are
still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant.
Them; 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 and Addendum;
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.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIF for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEISIEIR, the Tustin City Council
adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that
impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation
is required.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 23 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental [mpacts
DDA 05-0l Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 11
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10)
Resolution No. 00-90
MCAS Tustin Specific PIanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA,
and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause Air Quality impacts. Development
activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within
the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no
new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project.
Consistent with the conclusion reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would result
in significant short-term construction air quality impacts. Because the proposed DDA
Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment only involve redistribution of land uses
within the threshold of the Specific Plan and the previously approved FEIS/EIR and its
Addendum, the project would not substantially increase the type or severity of construction
related air quality impacts from those identified in the FEIS/EIR.
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.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 24 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 12
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
MitigationlMonitoring Regccired: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the
Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR for operational and construction activities.
However, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum also concluded that the Reuse Plan related
operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustiry City
Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90). No new mitigation measure is
required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages : i-143
through 153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum
Pages 5-10 through 5-28)
MCAS Tustin Specific PIan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pat~;es 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3- l U4 through 3-137)
Resolution No. 00-90
Tustin General Plan
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califi~-rnia
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) 1-Iave 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 Came 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 migr«tory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 25 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 13
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state
habitat conservation plan
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The physical impacts resulting from
development uses proposed with the DDA amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment
would be similar to those identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Specifically, impacts
to on-site vegetation and loss of habitat for the loggerhead shrike, a CDFG species of special
concern, would be less than significant. It would be noted that project construction activities
would be completed in compliance with federal Minatory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
(MBTA). The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts,
and nests.
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to fedcirally listed threatened or endangered
plant or animal species; however, the FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of the
Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project site) could
impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle, which is identified
as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG),
or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation measures were included in
the MCAS Tustin FEISIEIR to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an
alternative aff site habitat, and to require the applicant to obtain Section 404, Section
1601, and other permits as necessary for areas on the project site affecting jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. Therefore, no substantial change is expected
from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mlitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project.
Sources; Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-
82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28
through 5-40)
MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 26 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental [mpacts
UDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 14
Tustin General Plan
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause d substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb-any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA,
and Specific. Plan Amendment will not directly cause impacts to cultural resources.
Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously
considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Numf:rous
archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 198, the
State Ofi'ice of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open
spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources.
Although one archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan
area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried
archaeological ur paleontologrical resources within the project site could be significantly
impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures
identified in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR that require construction monitoring, potential
impacts to c~rltural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance.
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,
these unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts also occur with implement;~tion
of the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment. A Stateme:-lt of
Overriding (consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Counct l on
January 16, 2001, to address potential significant unavoidable impacts to historical
resources resulting from the removal of both blimp hangars. No substantial change is
expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and
Addendum.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subje a to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIF for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City
Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 27 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 15
for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. No refinements need to be made
to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-
74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-2b, and Addendum Pages 5-40
through 5-45)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-b2, pages 3-
70through 3-8 1, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special. Publication 42.
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
• Landslides?
b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA,
and Specific Plan Amendment will nut cause any direct impact to geology or soil.
Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously
considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been
found to have no demonstrable negative geology or soil effect on the site. The FEIS/EIR
indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan
and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local
settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows)
and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking,
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 28 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental [mpacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 16
ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated vrith
dam failure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that
compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established
engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of
sigmiticant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for
development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
avoid the creation of potential impacts. No new mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Qbservations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-
97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages S-4b
through 5-49)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70through 3-8 1, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 29 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01l Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 17
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of toss, 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. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA,
and Specific Plan Amendment will not involve the creation of a hazard or hazardous
materials. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City. of Tustin have been
previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would result
generally in the same types of land uses being developed within the project area. As
identified in the FEIS/EIR, these uses would generate and use small amounts of hazardous
materials for operation~and maintenance activities.
The FEIS/EIR and its addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and then-
current hazardous material 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. The FEISIEIR
concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan 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
pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially
hazardous substances in soils and groundwater.
As identified in the FEISIEIR and the Addendum, the project site is within the boundaries of
the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The
proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not propose changes to
height limitation included in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose an aircraft-related safety
hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire
danger area.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: [mplementation of activities and development at the
project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be
required by law. No new or modified mitigation is required for the project.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 30 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental lnipacts
DDA US-0l Amendment, DA 06-UU2, SPA 47-UO 1
Pale 18
Svcrrccs: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3-
l 17, 4-130 through 4- l 38, 7-30 through 7-3 1, and Addendum Pages 5-49
through 5-55)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-1.37)
Finding of Suitability to Transfer (POST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14,
and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41
Finding of Suitability to Lease (POSE) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas
1, 2, 3, and 4
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP}
Tustin General Plan
VIl I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for. which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
trough the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage- systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 31 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental [mpa~ts
UDA US-0l Amendment, DA U6-002, SPA 07-U01
Page 19
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and
Specific Plan Amendment will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality.
Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously
considered within the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been
found to have no demonstrable negative hydrology and water quality effect on the site.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a WQMP in compliance with all applicable
regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from the development activities to
a level of insignificance. Implementation of the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and
Specific Plan Amendment 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 minor square footage distribution among
planning areas. The amount of impervious surface proposed for construction would not
change substantially; therefore, analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR relative to
impacts related to groundwater supply, ~oundwater levels, or local recharge have not
changed substantially. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed;
therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patters, drainage facilities, and
potential flooding would result from the implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and
Specific Plan Amendment.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEISIEIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Regquired: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of
insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage
were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS
Tustin; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the projector
as conditions of approval for the project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-
105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56
through 5-92)
MCAS Tustin Specific PIan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan,
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 32 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 20
specific plan; local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The project being evaluated involves an
amendment to the Original DDA, a new Development Agreement, and modifications to
parking standards. The proposed project 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, rather the distribution of land uses has been slightly modified. and
minor adjustments to Planning areas and development phases are proposed. 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.
Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Implementation of activities and development at the project
site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required
by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would
be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA and
Specific Plan Amendment do not increase the severity of the land use impacts previc-usly
identified in the FEISIEIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to
the FE[S/EIR mitigation and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3
to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95)
MCAS Tustin Specific PIan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pag~;s 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
X. MINERAL .RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would the a
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result ir- 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 Subs~tantral Change from Previous analysis: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicated
that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The
proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 33 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA OS-0l Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-00 l
Page 21
identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no
substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/ElR and
Addendum.
MitigationlMonitoring Rege~ired: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and
Addendum (Page 5-95)
MCAS Tustin Specific P1an/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XI. NOISE -Would the project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA,
and Specific Plan Amendment would slightly modify the land use distribution within the
Specific Plan which would result in a slight redistribution of the traffic generated by the
implementation of the project. However, the backbone circulation system identified for the
implementation of the project is substantially the same or less Average Daily Trips as that
presented in the original DDA and Specific Plan. Consequently, the severity of the long-
term tragic related noise impacts would not be increased more than previously identified in
the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 34 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impact.
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 22
With respect to the short-term noise impacts, implementation of the DDA Amendrnent,
DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would be required to comply with adopted mitigation
measure's and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering
procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction-related noise
impacts.
As discussed in the FEIS/E[R and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwe-st of
the project site. Based on review ot'the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the project
site is not located within the b0 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed I)DA
Amendment., DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not involve the developme~~t of
any uses that would expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations.
Mitigation/Nlonitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that with
implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to
noise. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not inc;:~ease
the severity of the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum;
therefore, no refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR. mitigation measures and no new
mitigation measures would be required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3- l 54 through 3-
162}and Addendum (Page 5-9b through 5-99)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through :3-62, pag ~s 3-
70through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3- l : 7)
Tustin General Plan
XII. POPULATION & HOUSING --Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constructiol~ of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA,
and Specific Plan Amendment provide a similar amount and type of housing as that
included in the original DDA and the Specific Plan. The amendment proposes a slight
redistributior of development activities within the project boundary. No additional new
housing, removal of existing housing, or displacement of any people to necessitate
construction of additional housing are proposed with the DDA Amendment, DA, and
Specific Plait Amendment beyond the number of units already analyzed in the Specific
Plan and previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Similar to the conclusions
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 35 of 42
Evaluation ut' Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 23
reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan
Amendment would not have an adverse affect on population and housing.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as. may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously complete in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Because no significant impacts were identified, no
mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum related to population/housing. The
proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not change the
conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and no new mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4-
14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-lOlthrough 5-l 12)
MCAS Tustin Specific PIan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
The FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation
of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation
facilities, and biking/hiking trails; however, new facilities will be provided within the
Master Developer footprint to which the applicant will contribute a fair share.
Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County
Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods,
emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building
setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce
the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection
services to the site. The number of existing fire stations in the areas surrounding the site
and a future fire station proposed at Edinger Avenue and the West Connector Road will
meet the demands created by the proposed project.
Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of
resident population estimates, square footage of'non-residential uses, etc. Implementation of
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 36 of 42
Evaluation ot~ Environmental [mpac;ts
DDA US-0l Amendment, I)A 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 24
the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the need for
police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/E[R and
Addendum. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to
work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are
implemented in the project at plan check.
Schools.
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum previously considered future development of the pc rtion
of the Specific Plan area within the SAUSD as being non-residential uses resulting in an
indirect student generation impact. However, the TLCP is now proposing minor
refinements to their development plan that would result in both non-residential and
residential development uses which would result in both indirect and direct student
generation impacts.
The impacts to schools resulting from the implementation of the proposed k)DA
Amendment, DA and Specific Plan Amendment would be similar to that identified inn the
FEIS/E1R. Consistent with SB 50, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation
measures that require the Master Developer to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD,
IUSD, and SAUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the
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 (Government Code 65995). SB SO provides that a state or local agency
may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real properly on
the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that
established try SB 50.
Other Public Facilities (Libraries. Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange Cc: unty
Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion a t' the
Tustin Branch library, The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public
facility that will directly benefit .development activities within the Specific Plan area.
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.
To support dwelopment in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires p~~~blic
services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR and
Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to
meet projected needs as development of the site proceeded. The proposed DDA
Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the demand more than
what was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore,
no substantial change is expected.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 37 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01l Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 25
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would
be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed DDA
Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a substantial increase
in the severity of impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-
56 to 4-SO and 7-21 to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-112 through 5-122)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3- l 04 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would include a
modification to relocate and defer construction of'the sports park originally proposed at Red
Hill and Edinger Avenue until Phase 2 and to replace the original sports park site in Phase 1
with commercial/business uses. The new sports park relocation site would be at the
southeast of the extension of Carnegie and the linear park. Since the proposed DDA
Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment only involves a relocation of a sports park,
impacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEIS/EIR
and Addendum. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment
would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services
compared to conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEISIEIR and Addendum concluded that there would
be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the
proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a
substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in
the FEISIEIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 38 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 26
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56
to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5- l 27
MCAS Tustin Specific PIan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70through 3-8 1, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3- l 04 through 3-137)
Tustin City Code Section 9331 d (1) (b)
Tustin General Plan
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in eitl~er
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results insubstantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that trat~fic impacts could occur as a result of build
out ot'the Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at
18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/EIR for a complete list) and the levels
of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no-project condition.
The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and
Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips.
The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each
neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential
development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity
exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed DDA
Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would result in a redistribution of trips that
would not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
No Significant changes to on-site circulation would occur with the proposed project. Austin
Foust Associates, Inc. has prepared the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis -
March 2007 (Exhibit A) to identify and evaluate how the trat~ c impacts from the proposed
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 39 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental impacts
DDA US-01 Amendment, llA Ub-OU2, SPA 07-UU
Page 27
project differ from the original analysis as presented in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The
study has shown that the proposed Legacy Park land use and arterial circulation changes
within the TLCP footprint have not resulted in new sigmitcant impacts that would require
mitigation. Therefore, there are no changes to the previous traffic findings included in the
original FEISi EIR and Addendum. Moreover, the proposed on-site circulation system is
found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied to
the project. The City's Tratlic Engineer also has reviewed the analysis and concurs with the
conclusion the revised analysis.
Mitigativn/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts
would result t'rom implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan
Amendments than were originally considered by the FEIS/.EIR and Addendum. Therefore,
no new or revised mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-
142, 4-139 through 4-20b and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5-
127through 5-147)
MCAS Tustin Specific PIan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust
Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional 'Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 40 of 42
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
DDA US-Ol Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001
Page 28
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause
impacts to utilities and service systems. Development activities proposed by the TLCI' and
City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for N~CAS
Tustin and Addendum. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed new ot~=site and o~i-site
backbone utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the
proposed development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, teh;p~One,
cable television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEIS/E[R and
Addendum, the applicant is required to pay a fair share towards ot~ site infrastructure; and
installation of on-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is requirt~d to meet
federal, state, and local standards for desigm of waste water treatment, drainage system for
on-site and off-site, and water availability. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum,
no unavoidable significant impacts would result. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and
Specific Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than
what was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts
would result from implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan
Amendment; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 throuyfh 3-
46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages ~-147
through 5-165)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-1~7)
Tustin General Plan
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental eftiects
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.)
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 41 of 42
Cvaluation of Environmental Impacts
UDA OS-01 Amendment, DA U6-U02, SPA U7-UU l
Page 29
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
and the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment. With the
enforcement of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation and implementation measures
approved by the Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
project or as conditions of approval, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated
environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly
or indirectly nor degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats
or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc.
To address cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the
FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No.
00-90) for issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources,
agricultural resources, and traffic/circulation. The project does not create any impacts
that have not been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Sources: Field Observations
FE [S/E [R for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages ~5-4 through 5-11)
MCAS Tustin Specific PIan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-8 1, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
and Addendum
Resolution No. 00-90
Tustin General Plan
CONCLUSION
The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS
Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be
required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project
that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Resolution No. 07-33
Page 42 of 42