HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 1413 (2012)ORDINANCE NO. 1413
i
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That the City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposal involves minor amendments and will
not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
The proposed amendment is intended to: 1) increase the allowable
number of rental units; 2) allow transfer of residential units and non-
residential square footages between planning areas; 3) eliminate a 9-
acre sports park from neighborhood E; 4), require the execution of a
Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any
development project; and, 5) make other minor text amendments of the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment would not
increase the overall development potential or residential capacity
currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
B. That on April 25, 2011, the Tustin City Council approved the "Tustin
Legacy Disposition Strategy for the Former Master Developer
Footprint." The Disposition Strategy recommends refinements and/or
modifications to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to support development
activities anticipated over the next economic cycle. SPA 2011 -04 is in
response to the recommendation contained in the Disposition Strategy
adopted by the City Council.
C. That allowing thirty (30) percent of the total unit count as rental can be
supported based on: economics of future reuse of Tustin Legacy; the
need of affordable workforce housing; the desire to maintain jobs and
housing balance; compliance with Tustin Housing Element by providing
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 1 of 11
affordable units for special needs population (elderly, large families, MEMO
very low income households, female headed households, etc.);
dispersion of affordable units throughout community; promotion of
equal housing opportunities; financial feasibility of projects; Regional
Housing Needs allocation; and provision of a mixture of housing types
for the diverse socio-economic needs of Tustin residents.
D. That the elimination of a 9-acre park site can be supported due to the
fact that: there are over 287 acres of open space planned at Tustin
Legacy, approximately 160 acres are planned within the former master
developer footprint; the park sites will be available to the general public
through public easements; upon implementation of these park sites,
there will be approximately 141 acres park sites above the 3
acres/1,000 persons standard in the City; the 9-acre park site was once
planned for a detention basin where further refinement of Tustin Legacy
infrastructure design has rendered a new detention basin at the corner
of Barranca Parkway and Redhill Avenue; the 9-acre park site is
surrounded by proposed commercial and industrial uses in which a
park site is not conducive to the surrounding non-residential uses.
E. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private
participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk
of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the
"Development Agreement Statute," Section 65864, et seq. of the
Government Code. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes
cities to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or
equitable interest in real property and to provide for development of
such property and to establish certain development rights therein.
Pursuant to the authorization set forth in the Development Agreement
Statute, the City of Tustin is authorized and has enacted procedures for
entering into development agreements that are contained in Tustin City
Code Section 9600 to 9619. Requiring a development agreement for
development of undeveloped property within the Specific Plan area will
ensure the orderly implementation of infrastructure and additional
development in accordance with the General Plan, MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan, and Final Program EIR/EIS for the Reuse and Disposal
of the Former MCAS Tustin and Addendum (the "Final EIS/EIR").
F. All proposed private development projects on undeveloped property at
Tustin Legacy are required under the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and
Final EIS/EIR to install backbone and local infrastructure or make a fair
share contribution to the development of backbone infrastructure (the
"Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program"), and make public
dedications as determined necessary to support proposed land uses
within the project and the specific developments; prior to construction of
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 2 of 11
improvements by private owners, the City has entered into agreements
with each private owner within the Specific Plan area regarding funding
for the infrastructure improvements.
G. The City must be able to ensure that a proposed private development
project is supported by backbone and local infrastructure, meets the
requirements of the Final EIS/EIR, and that it implements Specific Plan
requirements. Without the protections provided by requiring
Development Agreements to establish the timing, sequencing, financing
and development of infrastructure, including the Tustin Legacy
Backbone Infrastructure Program, the City could not assure that the
infrastructure will be developed in an appropriate and timely manner to
serve Tustin Legacy resulting in a waste or excess expenditure of
public resources, escalation in the cost of local infrastructure and Tustin
Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program improvements, and a failure
to complete comprehensive traffic, drainage, and other Tustin Legacy
Backbone Infrastructure Program improvements required by the
Specific Plan, the Final EIS/EIR, and Tustin City Codes
H. The processing and approval of Development Agreements is intended
to augment and further the purposes and intent of the General Plan,
Specific Plan and Final EIS/EIR. The processing and approval of
Development Agreements will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and
securing the orderly development of Tustin Legacy, ensure a desirable
and functional community environment, provide for effective and
efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services
appropriate and necessary for the development of Tustin Legacy,
assure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources
within the City, and provide other significant and required public
benefits to the City and its residents by otherwise achieving the goals
and purposes of the Development Agreement Statute. Further,
Development Agreements will establish a schedule of performance for
future development including obligations and phasing triggering
mechanisms that ensure that adequate local and Tustin Legacy
Backbone Infrastructure Program improvements are in place to support
anticipated development in accordance with the Phasing Plan identified
in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Final EIS/EIR and Addendum,
and any Tustin City Code requirements.
That on June 7, 2011, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance
No. 1401, requiring the execution of a Development Agreement prior to
or concurrent with City approval of any development project. On July 5,
2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1402, extending the
requirement for the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 3 of 11
concurrent with City approval of any development project for a period of
ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days.
J. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said
application on February 14, 2012, and February 28, 2012, by the
Planning Commission. Following the public hearings, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 4190 recommending that the Tustin
City Council approve SPA 2011-04 by adopting Ordinance No. 1413.
K. That on March 20, 2012, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and
held before the City Council concerning SPA 2011-04 (Ordinance No.
1413).
L. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6,
2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a
Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road
between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop
Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43
approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its
Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and
Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated
with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin.
M An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that
concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from
approval of the project (Exhibit A). The Environmental Analysis
Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were
previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that
no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new
mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation
measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible,
and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives
applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the
project that have not been considered and adopted.
N. SPA 2011-04 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use
Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long-term
growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan area.
Achieve balanced development.
101-
111-1
MEN
Bell
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 4 of 11
2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs.
3. Improve city-wide urban design.
4. Promote economic expansion and diversification.
5. Implement a reuse plan for IVICAS Tustin which maximizes the
appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master-planned development.
SECTION 2. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 of the IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan are hereby
deleted and replaced in their entirety with a new Table 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3
in the form attached as Exhibit B.
SECTION 3. Section 3.2.2 of the IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.2.2 Maximum Dwelling Units
The maximum number of dwelling units in each Planning Area may not exceed
the numbers as specified on the Land Use Statistical Analysis (Table 3-1).
The calculation of residential density, as stated in dwelling units per acre, shall
be based on gross acres for each project unless otherwise noted in specific
planning area development standards. Gross acres is defined as total acres less
arterial roadways.
SECTION 4. Section 3.2.3 of the IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.2.3 Transfer of Dwelling Unit Allocations
If a Planning Area is developed with less than the maximum number of units
allowed, then the "unused" residential development potential may be transferred
to another Planning Area - provided that such transfer does not increase the total
units allowable in the overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonuses
granted pursuant to the City Incentives for the Development of Affordable
Housing Ordinance (Density Bonus Ordinance), and subject to review and
approval by the Director of Community Development
SECTION 5. Section 3.2.5 of the IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.2.5 Transfer between Residential and Non-Residential
Residential dwelling units and Non-residential ADTs may be transferred
between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the
total units allowable in overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus
granted pursuant to the City Incentives for the Development of Affordable
Housing (Density Bonus) Ordinance, and that the landowner(s) of the
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 5 of 11
developed or undeveloped parcels within the contributing neighborhood MEMO-&
consent in writing to the transfer. This approval shall be in the form of an
0
agreement to run with the land and subject to review and approval of the City 011
Attorney prior to approval of the transfer.
All transfers of available ADTs shall be documented in the Trip Budget Tracking
System.
SECTION 6. Section 3.4.2A of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows:
A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" occurs or by
conditional use permit where the symbol "C" occurs.
Community care facilities for six or fewer persons
P
• Condominiums and cooperatives
P
• Family care home, foster home or group home, for
P
six or fewer persons
• Large family day care for up to fourteen children on
P
single family detached lots in accordance with the
Tustin City Code
Multiple-family dwelling units (apartments) in
C
accordance with tenure provisions in Section
ON
3.4.2.1
Residential care facility for elderly, for six or fewer
P
persons
Single-family attached dwelling units and duplexes
P
Single-family detached dwelling units
P
Single-family detached carriage way units
P
Small family day care for less than seven children
P
on single family detached lots
SECTION 7. Section 3.4.2.H.4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended
to read as follows:
4. Tenure - Reuse/development in Planning Area 4 shall be preferably
ownership tenure, Development of apartments is a discretionary action
requiring approval of a conditional use permit.
SECTION 8. Section 3.4.3A of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows:
0 1
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 6 of 11
A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" occurs or by
conditional use permit where the symbol "C" occurs.
• Churches and other religious institutions
C
• Community care facilities for six or fewer persons
P
• Condominiums and cooperatives
P
• Convalescent hospital
C
Family care home, foster home or group home, for
P
six or fewer persons
• Large family day care for seven to twelve children
P
on single family detached lots in accordance with
the Tustin City Code
• Multiple-family dwelling units (apartments) in
C
accordance with tenure provisions in Section 3.4.3.1
• Patio homes
P
• Private school
C
• Public or private preschools
C
• Fire Station
P
• Public/private utility building facility
C
• Residential care facility for elderly, for six or fewer
P
persons
• Single-family attached dwelling units and duplexes
P
Single-family detached dwelling units
P
Single-family detached Carriage Way units
P
• Small-family day care for less than seven children
P
on single-family detached lots
SECTION 9. Section 3.4.3.1.3 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended
to read as follows:
3. Tenure - Development in Planning Area 5 of apartments is a
discretionary action requiring approval of a conditional use permit.
SECTION 10. Section 3.6.2.A.5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows:
5. Residential uses:
• Family care home, foster home or group home, for P
six or fewer persons
• Condominiums and cooperatives P
• Multiple family dwellings (apartments) in accordance P
with tenure provisions in Section 3.6.2.1
• Single family attached dwelling units and duplexes P
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 7 of 11
SECTION 11. Section 3.6.2.1.4 and 5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is amended
ISO-
Mims
as follows:
4. Affordability — In the event dwelling units are proposed, the following
minimum affordable housing production objectives are intended to reflect
the intention of the City to create a redevelopment project area
(Community Redevelopment Law, section 33000) and as needed to
meet Regional Housing Allocation needs as identified in the Housing
Element of the General Plan through the provisions of housing for
households at very low, low and moderate income levels. Specific
housing requirements for redevelopment and Housing Element
compliance on a residential housing project will be established at the
time of development project approval to ensure conformity with the
Housing Element of the General Plan and other applicable provisions of
California Law and to achieve the following:
a) The number of affordable housing units in Neighborhood D shall be
196, of which 53 must be at the very low income level, 53 at the low
income level and 90 at the moderate income level. If future
amendments to the plan occur at least 15% of additional units for
initial occupancy by very low income to moderate income households
for redevelopment, with 6% (or 40%) of units affordable to very low
income households.
MEN--
Iii-se
b) Restricted affordable housing units shall be reasonably dispersed and
located and may be accomplished in attached projects only. The
affordable units shall be compatible with the design and use of
market rate units in appearance, use of materials, and finished
quality. Restricted units shall be affordable for at least the minimum
period of time required by state law, or longer if required by a
construction or mortgage financing assistance program.
c) Prior to issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, a developer
shall enter into a legally binding agreement with the City of Tustin or
its Redevelopment Agency, and agree to deed restrictions on
targeted affordable housing units that are binding on property upon
sale or transfer. Said agreements shall address the following:
1) Number of units by type, location, bedroom count
2) Standards for qualifying income and maximum rents
or sales prices
3) Parties responsible for sales prices and incomes
d) (Section Deleted)
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 8 of 11
5. Tenure — Thirty (30) percent of the total number of units authorized within
the City of Tustin portion of the Specific Plan are permitted for
apartments.
SECTION 12. Section 3.9.2.1.4.e) and 3.9.2.1.5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is
hereby amended to read as follows:
e) (Section Deleted)
5. Tenure - Thirty (30) percent of the total number of units authorized within
the City of Tustin portion of the Specific Plan is permitted for apartments.
SECTION 13. Section 3.9.4.J.4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows:
4. Tenure - Reuse/development of Planning Area 21 shall be encouraged
to be ownership tenure. Development of apartments is a discretionary
action requiring approval of a conditional use permit.
SECTION 14. Section 4.2.9 through 4.2.10 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is
hereby amended to read as follows:
4.2.9 Development Agreement
To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the
Legislature of the State of California adopted the "Development Agreement
Statute," Section 65864, et seq. of the Government Code. The Development
Agreement Statute authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with any
person having a legal or equitable interest in real property and to provide for
development of such property and to establish certain development rights
therein. Pursuant to the authorization set forth in the Development Agreement
Statute, the City has enacted procedures for entering into development
agreements which are contained in Tustin City Code Sections 9600 to 9619.
The processing and approval of Development Agreements is intended to
augment and further the purposes and intent of the General Plan, Specific
Plan and Final EIS/EIR and will ensure the orderly implementation of
infrastructure and additional development in accordance with the General
Plan, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and Final Program EIR/EIS for the Reuse
and Disposal of the Former MCAS Tustin and Addendum (the "Final
EIS/EIR"). Further, Development Agreements will establish a schedule of
performance for future development including obligations and phasing
triggering mechanisms that ensure that adequate local and Tustin Legacy
Backbone Infrastructure Program improvements are in place to support
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 9 of 11
anticipated development in accordance with the Phasing Plan identified in the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Final EIS/EIR and Addendum, and any Tustin
City Code requirements.
Accordingly, prior to issuance of any permits or approval of any entitlements
within the Specific Plan area, all private development shall first obtain a
Development Agreement in accordance with Section 65864 et seq. of the
Government Code and Sections 9600 to 9619 of the Tustin City Code.
4.2.10 General Notes
A. Where required, approval from the South Coast Air Quality Management
District or successory agency(ies) shall be obtained for any devices or
processes responding to mandated actions. The City of Tustin or Irvine, as
applicable, will assist in this process to the extent possible.
B. Whenever the regulations contained in this Specific Plan conflict with the
regulations of the Tustin City Code or Irvine's Codes, as applicable, the
provisions of this Specific Plan shall take precedence. The Tustin City Code
or Irvine Codes, as applicable, shall apply regarding any standard or
regulation not covered by this plan.
4.2.11 Severabillity
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, exhibit, table
or portion of this Specific Plan is found to be invalid or unconstitutional by a
court having jurisdiction, such a decision shall not invalidate the remaining
portions in whole or in part of the Specific Plan.
SECTION 15. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the
City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and
each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City
of Tustin on this 3 rd day of April, 2012.
ME
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 10 of 11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
CITY OF TUSTIN
161.1
PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the
City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No.
1413 was duly and regularly introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City
Council held on the 20 day of March, 2012, and was given its second reading,
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3 day of
April, 2012, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Nielsen, Murray, Amante, Gomez (4)
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Gavello (1)
Yk- t
PAMELA STOKER,�
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 1413
Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT A OF ORDINANCE NO. 1413
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3700
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin
The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an
earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to
Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s): General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2011-01 and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)
2011-04, Minor Text Amendments
Lead Agency: City of Tustin
Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3115
Project Location: The General Plan encompasses the entire City of Tustin and the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan, generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Harvard
Avenue to the east, Red Hill Avenue to the west, and Barranca Parkway to the
south.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780
General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin
Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District
Project Description: The City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the ConservationlOpen
Space/Recreation element of the General Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. General Plan
Amendment 2011-01 involves updates to the recreation plan to reflect existing and future parks and
open spaces. Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 involves minor amendments intended to: 1) increase
the allowable number of rental units; 2) allow transfer of residential units and non-residential square
footages between planning areas; 3) eliminate a 9-acre sports park from neighborhood E; 4), require the
execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development
project; and, 5) make other minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed
Amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently
allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. No change to the General Plan land use or zoning
designation is proposed.
Surrounding Uses: General Plan: Various residential, commercial, and industrial land uses
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan:
North: Residential, Light Industrial, and Commercial
East: Residential
South: Light Industrial and Commercial
West: Light Industrial and Commercial
Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program
Final Environmental Impact StatementfEnvironmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and
disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76
approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut
Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its
Supplemental and Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Supplemental and Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts
associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin.
B.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
^Land 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 significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I :find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
?vrGT 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 unposed upon the
proposed project.
[~ I find that although the proposed project could Have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
N4T be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1}have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
~'~
Preparer:~ ~` ' Date: February 2, 2012
~~j =~3 I
~""A ° ~ - _ _ ]] jj
~ 0 ~ #
+p+
i i~ ~ .-
,.~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'_' Date. Februarv 2.2012
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Attached
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 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?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project;
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
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 which 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
New More Change From
Signifrcant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
o ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance`?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
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:
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42,
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 defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VILHAZARDS Ai~1D 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 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 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?
fj 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
Neiv More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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 wiidland fires, including where
wiidlands 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 or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g, the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in 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-
or off-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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLAi'VNING -Would the project:
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
0 0
^ ^
a ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability 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?
XILPOPULATION Ai'~'D 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?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
No Szzbstantzal
New ~~Iore Change From
Signifzcant Severe Previous
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
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment}?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
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
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-01
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-04
BACKGROUND
On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal
of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76
approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road
between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On
April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum
to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Supplement and Addendum is a program
EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum
and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with
development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin.
The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences
of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse
Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (referred to in this document as
the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of
certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to
implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed, and the FEIS/EIR analyzed, amulti-year
development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When
individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency
is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully
analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the
scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to
Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects
would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the Conservation/Open
Space/Recreation (COR) Element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan. The proposal involves minor amendments and will not "substantially alter" the
current adopted General Plan or the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. General Plan
Amendment 2011-01 involves updates to the recreation plan to reflect existing and
future parks and open spaces. Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 involves minor
amendments intended to: 1) increase the allowable number of rental units; 2) allow
transfer of residential units and non-residential square footages between planning
areas; 3) eliminate a 9-acre sports park from neighborhood E; 4) require the execution
of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 2
development project; and, 5) make other minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment would not increase the overall development
potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. No
change to the General Plan land use or zoning designation is proposed.
ANALYSIS
An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined
that this Project is within the scope of the previously approved FEIS/EIR and that
pursuant to Title 14 California Cade of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no
new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required.
Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA.
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in
the Environmental Analysis Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and would not cause aesthetic impacts that
were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement.
These modifications would not change the future development condition that was
analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and there would be no change to development
intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development
standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or
cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur
as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information
relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not in existence at the time the
FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the proposed project and its implementation
are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. No new mitigation measures are required in
relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual quality.
There are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area; therefore, the Project
would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Project Site
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 3
is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The
Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic
blimp hangars from the FEIS/EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed
Project would not affect these hangars.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts
or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have
not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of
substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEIS/EIR were certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts nor substantially more severe
aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the
Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for
aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary
to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are
required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the
FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended
as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site.
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 Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62,
pages 3-70 through 3-$1, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104
through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
11. AGRICULTURE RESQURCES: 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
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
G PA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 4
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?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
There were no agricultural uses on the Site in the recent past. There are currently
no agricultural uses on the Site. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts
to agriculture and forest resources that were not previously analyzed in the
FEISIEIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There continue to be no agricultural
resources on the property. There are no new or increased significant adverse
project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are
identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The
impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was
not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new
mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there
have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the
previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information
of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEISIEIR was certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council
adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January
16, 2001, concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of
MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 5
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)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
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 far ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to air quality that were not
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There would
be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks,
signage, other development standards or vehicle trips that would lead to increased
air emissions from overall vehicle trips. There are no new or increased significant
adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would
occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that was not
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to air
quality that was not in existence at the time the FEISIEIR was prepared. Therefore,
the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in
the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. Asa result, no new mitigation
measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 6
The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the FEISIEIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant
unavoidable short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air
quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to
reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts.
Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of future development
on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction
air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for
which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project
Site were previously addressed in the FEISIEIR. There is no substantial new
information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air
quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the
FEIS/EIR.
Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, development on the Project Site
could also result in significant unavoidable long-term and cumulative air quality
impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEISIEIR for which this
finding was made. The Proposed Project makes minor refinements to the COR
element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; there would be
no increase in overall development intensity. The Project does not modify the
overall trip budget evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new
information that shows there will be different or more significant long-term and/or
cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in
the FEIS/EIR.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not
been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previaus FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that
was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified
as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future
development of the site. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement
also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 7
significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding
Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January
16, 2001.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143
through153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and
Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 444 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?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor tent amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 8
The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to biological resources that were
not previously analyzed in the FEISIEIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There are
no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with
regard to biological resources that would occur as a result of the adoption and
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological
resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared.
Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As
a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on
biological resources. Based on current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional
waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts
resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in
the FEIS/EIR.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there
have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the
previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information
of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEISIEIR was certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEISIEIR far 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 Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62,
pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-$8, and pages 3-104
through 3-137)
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?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 9
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal
cemeteries?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCRS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not
previously analyzed in the FEISIEIR, Addendum, and Supplement. The Project
would not cause impacts to cultural resources. The impacts of the Specific Plan on
cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were
considered in the FEIS/EIR.
It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological
resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other
construction activities. Consequently, future development is required to perform
construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce
potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the
FEIS/EIR.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural and paleontological resources.
Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major
revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; {2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under
which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous
FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or {3) the
availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect
or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have
been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of
the site.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
G PA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 10
Sources: Field Observations
FEISlEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68
through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum
Pages 5-40 through 5-45)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
• Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and
soils. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or
cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result
of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information
relative to geology and soils that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR as
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 11
prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent
with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation
to impacts to geology and soils.
The FEIS/EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from
implementation of the Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as
local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion,
and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-
intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced
settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS/EIR concluded
that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with
established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable
risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No
substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the
analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS/EIR.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have
not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that
was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified
as complete.
MitigationtMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of
the site.
Sources: Field Observations
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 5-46 through 5-49)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 12
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: -Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport. or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor tent amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start
of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete
remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other
landowners. Portions of the Project Site are presently undergoing remediation,
and therefore remain under Navy ownership.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 13
Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and
hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-
specific or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials
that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project.
There is no new information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was
not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and
its implementation are consistent with the FEISIEIR. As a result, no new mitigation
measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous
materials.
The FEIS/EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then-current
hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan
area. The Navy 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 Navy 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 FEIS/EIR, the Project Site is within
the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to
height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to the 100-
foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in
a wildland fire hazard area.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials.
Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major
revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under
which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the
availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect
or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have
been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106
through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and
Addendum Pages 5-49 through 5-55}
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
G PA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 14
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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)
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
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
a) 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?
f1 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?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 15
Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas
of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials
handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor
work areas?
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial
uses of the receiving waters?
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or
volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding
areas?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
CDR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
The Project will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. There
would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions,
setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or
increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to
hydrology/water quality that are identified as a result of the adoption and
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to
hydrology/water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was
prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the
FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to
impacts to hydrology/water quality.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) for future development projects on the Project sites in compliance with all
applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from
development activities to a level of insignificance. The Project would not result in
new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was
previously identified in the FEIS/EIR. Future development will be required to
comply with Specific Plan development standards and would require preparation of
a WQMP. The Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water
management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The drainage pattern
and water management systems in the Project Site vicinity would remain
consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, the analysis
and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply,
groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially. In addition,
no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed. Therefore, no new or
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 16
more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential
flooding would result from the Project.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically,
there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the
previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information
of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEIS/EIR was certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be
recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR 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)
MCRS Tustin Specific Plan/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
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would increase the number of rental units within the Specific
Plan to not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total overall number of units within the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 17
Specific Plan and would allow the transfer of either residential units or non-
residential square footages among planning areas. These amendments will not
increase the overall development potential or residential units allowed by the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Project would not physically divide any Specific
Plan land use, conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Implementation of
the Project will not cause any direct impacts to land use and planning. There would
be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks,
signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased
significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use
and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of
the Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was
not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and
its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation
measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there
have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the
previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information
of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEIS/EIR were certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be
recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site.
Sources: 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 Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62,
pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-$2 through 3-88, and pages 3-104
through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 18
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
The Project would not cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There are no
new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with
regard to mineral resources that are .identified as a result of the adoption and
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to mineral
resources that was not in existence at the time the FEISIEIR was prepared.
Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As
a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to mineral
resources.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have
not been: {1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2} substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that
was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified
as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: 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 Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62,
pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 19
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?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
There would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation, building
height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or
increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to
noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project.
There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time
the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its
implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation
measures are required in relation to impacts to noise.
The Project would not modify the noise-related land use distribution within the
Project Site or Tustin Legacy. The long-term traffic-related noise impacts
associated with implementation of the Project have been identified and analyzed in
the FEIS/EIR. Short-term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously
certified FEIS/EIR; implementation of the Project would be required to comply with
applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and
standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 20
avoiding significant short-term construction-related noise impacts. There would
be no changes proposed that would modify development intensity, traffic
generation, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, or other development
standards.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1)
changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major
revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of
the site.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154
through 3-162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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
X11. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential or the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 21
total number of residential units allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Although the proposed amendment include an increase in the total number of
apartment units, the overall total number of housing units and associated
population would not increase and be impacted by the proposed project. There are
no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with
regard to population and housing that are identified as a result of the adoption and
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to population
and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared.
Therefore, the proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the
FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to
impacts to population and housing.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there
have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the
previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information
of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEIS/EIR was certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No 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-
101through 5-112}
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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
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:
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
G PA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 22
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to public services.
There would be no change to development intensity, which would lead to an
increased demand for public services. There are no new or increased significant
adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to public services and
facilities that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the
Project. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that
was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the
Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no
new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services
and facilities.
Fire Protection
Fire protection for the Project Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR.
The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or
new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in
the FEIS/EIR.
Implementation of the Project will require compliance with existing 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 will reduce the risk of
uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection
services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS/EIR, the existing fire stations in the
Project vicinity with additional fire fighting personnel and equipment will meet the
demands created by the development within Tustin Legacy. No new or expanded
facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were
identified.
Police Protection
The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident
population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Future
implementation of the project site in compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was
anticipated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. As a condition of approval, future
development projects would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department
to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at
plan check.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 23
Schools
The impacts to schools resulting from future implementation of the proposed
project would be similar to that identified in the FEISIEIR and Addendum.
Consistent with SB 50, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation measures
that require future developer to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD 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 50 provides that a
state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or
development of real property on the basis of a developer's refusal to provide
mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50.
Parks
Future development within Tustin Legacy may include uses such as parks,
recreation facilities, theaters, museums, and various other public and private
recreational uses. The proposed SPA 2011-04 would eliminate a nine (9) acre
neighborhood park originally located within Neighborhood E. This neighborhood
park has been determined under the Disposition Strategy for former Master
Developer Footprint adopted by the City Council to be not necessary to meet
recreational needs for Tustin Legacy or the community given the extent of other
public and private parkland and open space resources designed for Tustin
Legacy.
Other Public Facilities (Libraries)
Since certification of the FEISIEIR, the Orange County Library (OCPI_) entered into
an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of 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 development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan
requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The
FEISIEIR and Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided
according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the site
proceeded.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEISIEIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 24
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-
57, 4-56 to 4-80 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 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104
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?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or
change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational
facilities. The project however would eliminate a nine {9) acre neighborhood park
originally located within Neighborhood E. This neighborhood park has been
determined under the Disposition Strategy for former Master Developer Footprint
adapted by the City Council to be not necessary to meet recreational needs for
Tustin Legacy or the community given the extent of other public and private
parkland and open space resources designed for Tustin Legacy.
There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative
impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the adoption and
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to recreation
that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement
was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to
impacts to recreation.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not
been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 25
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which .the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that
was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified
as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of
the site.
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
5-127
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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 City Code Section 9331d (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 either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 26
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative
impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the
adoption and implementation of the Project that was not previously analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. Since the project does not result in an
increase in trip generation as compared to the expected generation assumed in
the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, the project site remains within the trip
budget assumed by earlier analyses.
Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project-
specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are
identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no
new information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at
the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are
required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not
been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previaus
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that
was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified
as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the
Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement.
However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, also concluded that Specific
Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A
Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and
Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001.
Applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of
the site.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 27
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118
through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and
Addendum (pages 5-127 through 5-147)
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
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment
control Best Management Practice (BMP), {e.g. water quality treatment
basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could
result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and
odors)?
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the
COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 28
The Project would not cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems.
There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions,
setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or
increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to
utilities/services systems that are identified as a result of the adoption and
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to utilities and
service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared.
Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As
a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities
and service systems. The Project would not result in any changes to the utilities
plan presented in the Specific Plan.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically,
there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the
previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information
of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEIS/EIR was certified as complete.
Proposed GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 will result in no substantial changes to
the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and
Supplement. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of
the site.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35
through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and
Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165}
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 29
XYII. 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?
The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance
associated with the implementation of the Project. There would be no change to
development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other
development standards. The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental
effects that were not already examined in the FEIS/EIR; there are no new mitigation
measures required; and there are no new significant adverse project-specific ar
cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any
project-specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse
as a result of the Project. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR
will be incorporated into subsequent actions that the SOCCCD and County commit
to fully implement. Therefore, the Project does not create any impacts that have not
previously been addressed by the FEIS/EIR.
Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that
would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there
have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the
previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of
substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEIS/EIR was certified as complete.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04
Page 30
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all
environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan.
Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR
and would be included in the project as applicable.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4
through 5-11)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/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) and Addendum
Tustin General Plan
CONCLUSION
The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously
examined in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, that no new effects would occur, that no
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur,
that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation
measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are
no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would
substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A
Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding
Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to
the proposed project, as applicable.
EXHIBIT B OF ORDINANCE NO. 1413
TABLE 3-1
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESIGNATION
Designation/Planning Area
ACREAGE
NON-RESIDENTL4L USES
I RESIDENTL4L USES
Gross 1
Net 2
F.A.R. s
Total Floor
Area (Sq, Fz 4
I Existing Floor
Area S . Ft.5
Potential Floor
Area So.L 6
FL)
DU's
Per Acre 7
Total
DUs 8
RESIDENTUL
Low Density 1-7 du/ac
Planning Area 4
54.21
43.4
N/A
N/A
N/Al
71
304
Planning Area 21 -Tustin
127.11
115.0
N/A
N/A
N/Al
141
793
Medium Density 8-15 du/ac
Plannin2 Area 5
51.7
41.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
621
Planning Area 22
Elementary School K-810
Neighborhood Park 10
73.4
61.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
402
Medium -High Densi 16-25 du/ac
Planning Area 20
29.41
23.5
N/A I
N/A
N/A
251
376
Transitional/EmergencyTransitional/Emergency Housing
Planning Area 3
5.11
5.11
0.61 133,2941
85,2151
48,0791
01
0
Residential Core
Planning Area 15
Low Density 1-7 du/ac
112.6
104.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
533
Medium Density 8-15 du/ac
51.8
47.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
489
Medium High Density (16-25
du/ac
8.3
7.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
25
192
Elementary Schools
10
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Parks and Open Space
61.459
63459
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Subtotal, Residential Core, PA 15
245-.9241.7
232-32 28.8
SUBTOTAL
586,7582.6
52"518.2
N/A 133,294
85,215
48,079
N/A
3,710
COMMERCULBUSINESS
Commercial/Business
Planning Area 9-12
Parks and Open Space
Subtotal, lanning Area 9-12
7S-.988.3
38:629
447.5117.3
64-.5473.4
38:629
443-.4102.4
See
seas
1,267,324
88,344
1,178,980
0
Planning Area 16
31.0
27.9
0.4
486,130
206,640
279,490
0
Planning Area 17
16.3
16.3
0.4
284,011
63,289
220,722
0
TABLE 3-1
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESIGNATION
Designation/Planning Area
ACREAGE
NON-RESIDENTL4L USES
RESIDENTM USES
TTotal
Floor
Existing Floor
Potential Floor
DUs
Total
Gross
Net 2
F.A.R s
Area S . Ft 4
Area S . Ft s
Area S . Ft s
Per Acre'
DU's a
COMMERCULIBUSINESS CONTINUED
Commercial
Planning Area 18
16.71
14.51
0.351
40,8461
40,8461
01
0
Planning Area 19
38.61
38.61
0.41
672,5661
3,9901
668,5761
0
Residential Core
Planning Area 15
29.3
26.8
See
1 466,637
8,106
458,531
N/A
0
standards
1
Village Services
Planning Area 7
20.7
19.0
See
1 248,292
0
248,292
N/A
0
standards
1
Community Core
Planning Area 8
89-591.1
68.5
See
1,975,992
329,032
1,646,960
25
Park
5658.6
5658.6
standards
Planning Area 13
77.5
59.3
See
2,132,417
0
2,132,417
25
891
Park
42-913.4
4-2-.913.4
standards
Planning Area 14
34.2
26.2
See
648,870
700
648,170
25
standards
High School 14
40.0
40.0
N/A
N/A
Subtotal, Community
Core 3-1 "314.81
2434266
4,757,2791
329,7321
4,427,547
891
SUBTOTALI 580,7584.71
5$9.4511.5
N/A 1
8,223,0851
740,9471
7,482,138
N/A
891
TABLE 3-1
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BYLAND USE DESIGNATION
Designation/Planning Area
ACREAGE
NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
RESIDENTUL USES
To Floor
Existing Floor
Potential Floor
DUs
Total
Gross
Nets
F.A.R s
Area S . Ft a
I Area S . Ft s
Area (Sq. Ft.s
Per Acre 7
DU's a
INSTIT UTIONALIRECREA TIONAL
Education Village
Planning Area 1
128.3
124.7
0.3
1,412,651
822,556
590,095
0
0
Planning Area 1-A
Elementary School 15
Planning Area 1-13
Educational
Law Enforcement Training
Animal Care Center20
Planning Area 1-C
Children's Care Shelter
Planning Area 1-D
Child Care Center
Planning Area 1-E
Educational
Planning Area 1-F
Educational
Planning Area 1-G
Other
Planning Area 1-H
Educational
Planning Area 1-I
Educational
Law Enforcement Training
Animal Care Center20
Community Park
Planning Area 2 1 24.11 24.11 0.1 40,5311 40,5311 01 01 0
Urban Regional Park
Planning Area 6 84.51 84.51 0.161 574,9921 496,0681 78,9241 01 0
NST7T-1T4 ., REC,R 4 TTl1 A 4 (CO ATT NLW-711
c� c i� i z x m�rrc�cv�rrrvcoj
Right -of -Way
Arterial Roadways 173.4 173.4 0 0 0 0 0
Drainage (Flood Control, Storm 28.5 28.5 0 0 0 0 0
Drains
SUBTOTAL 438.8 435.2 N/A 2,028,174 1,359,155 669,019 0 0
TOTALS: 1-,606:21606.1 4;466.91464.9 N/A 1 10,384,5531 2,185,317'6 8,199,236 1 0 4,601
Notes:
1. Gross acreage for each Planning Area is an estimated allocation measured from the edge of the adjacent future arterial and secondary roadway, any public roadway shown on tic Land Use Plan, and/or
the boundary of the Planning Area. The amount of land devoted to roadways shown on the Land Use Plan is calculated under the Right -of -Way designation. Actual acreages will be refined during the
site plan and subdivision process.
2. Net acreage is an estimated allocation based on gross acreage reduced for internal circulation (local roads) within a Planning Area Net acreage is estimated approximately for each Planning Area, based
on permitted use, size of the Planning Area, and typical site planning considerations. Actual net acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process.
3. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) is the gross floor area of all buildings within a Planning Area divided by the net acreage of the Planning Area for purposes of this Statistical Analysis unless otherwise
stipulated in development standards for the planning area, except for Planning Area I where F.A.R shall be fixed at 0.3 for all sub -planning areas except for sub -planning areas 1-B and 1-C which shall
be fixed at 0.35. If applicable, the F.A.R. column specifies a floor area ratio derived from an assumed mix of uses within a Planning Area.
4. Total Floor Area is the total square footage of non-residential development derived by multiplying the floor area ratio by the net acreage, if applicable, except for Planning Area 1 where total floor area
shall be derived by multiplying the fixed floor area ratio assigned to Planning Area 1 and any sub -planning area in Planning Area I by gross acreage ofa sub -planning area, provided the total floor area
within Planning Area 1 shall not exceed 1,412,651 square feet
5. Existing Floor Area is the square footage of existing buildings by Planning Area.
6. Potential Floor Area is the potential square footage of new development within each Planning Area.
7. DU's per Acre reflects the maximum density per acre at which dwelling units may be calculated.
8. Total DUs is the maximum number of dwelling units allocated to each Planning Area. Even though actual gross and net acreages may be refined during the site plan and subdivision process, the
maximum number of dwelling units in each Planning Area shall notexceed the number designated on the Statistical Analysis, except as specified in Section 3.2.3.
9. PA 22 (402 units) are located within the City of Irvine. The permitted density range in PA 22 shall not exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre at the high end.
10. PA 22 is within the Irvine jurisdictional limits. It includes a 20 -acre allocation for a K-8 school. The precise acreage and location will be determined wlrn the Navy's Record of Decisionis issued. PA 22
also includes an 8 -acre allocation for a Neighborhood Park site. The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to property transfer to the City of Irvine, however, the total allowable dwelling
units in PA 22 will remain the same.
11. PA 15 includes an allocation for park and open spaces. The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to final subdivision map approval, however, the total allowable dwelling units in PA
15will remain the same.
12. PA 15 includes a 10 -acre allocation for an Elementary School. The precise acreage and location will be determined by the City If the actual acreage varies from 10 acres, then an acreage adjustment will
be made to the parks and open space acreages The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to final subdivision map approval.
13. PA 8 includes a 40 -acre allocation for a High School. The precise acreage and location will be determined by the City.. If the actual acreage varies from 40 acres, then the acreage adjustment will be
made to the Community Core designation, however, the total allowable square feet of non-residential development and maximum dwelling units in PA 8 will remain the same.
14. PA 1 is composed of numerous public conveyance uses as specified in Section 2.3 and 2.4 of the Specific Plan.
15. PA I -A includes a 10 -acre allocation for an Elementary School.
16. The actual amount of existing square footage is 2,183,956. However, adjustments to two Planning Areas have been made. In PA 2, Community Park, 40,531 existing square footage is expected to be
reused. In PA 5, Medium Density Residential, the 39,485 existing square footage is expectedto be replaced by residerrtial uses.
17. The development intensity assigned to the Community Park is .1 FAR; however, the existing 40,531 square feet may be reused.
18. Planning Area 15 is comprised of subplanning areas, which allocates development potential by land use type. The subplanning areas are not site specific on the Land Use Plan in order to allow for
flexibility in future master planning.
19. In Planning Area 20, there is 4.1 gross acres in private ownership (with 3.3 net acres estimated for development potential); Planning Area 18 is proposed to be retained in Federal ownership by the Army
Reserve with 2.2 acres granted by easement to the City of Tustin, after the Army's acceptance of the 16.7 acres from the Navy, for Barranca right-of-way (leaving 14.5 net acres). The total gross acreage
for non-federal disposal is 1,585.4 acres.
20. See Section 3.3.2A for use restriction.
TABLE 3-2
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED B Y NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL
ACREAGE
NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
USES
Total Floor
Existing
Potential Floor
DU's
FAIL
Area (Sq.
Floor Area
Area
Per Acre
Total
Desi nationlPlannin Area
Gross
Net 2
3
Ft.a
(Sq. FLs
(Sq. Ft.6
7
DU's 8
NEIGHBORHOOD A
Planning Area 1
10.0
0.3
1,412,651
822,556
590,095
0
0
Planning Area I-A
10.0
Elementary School 15
Planning Area 1-13
10.0
Law Enforcement Training
10.0
Educational
4.0
Animal Care Center20
Planning Area 1-C
2.4
Children's Care Shelter
4.0
Planning Area 1-1)
1.9
Child Care Center
2.4
Planning Area 1-E
15.0
Educational
1.9
Planning Area 1-F
18.5
Educational
56.5
15.0
Planning Area 1-G
Other
10.0
14.9
Planning Area 1-H
Educational
56.5
Planning Area 1-I
Educational
10.0
Law Enforcement Training
Animal Care Center20
SUBTOTAL PLANNING AREA 1
128.3
124.7
N/A
1,412,651
822,556
590,095
0
0
Planning Area 2
24.1
24.1
0.1
40,531
40,531
0
0
0
Planning Area 3
5.1
5.1
0.6
133,294
85,215
48,079
0
0
SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD A
157.5
153.9
N/A
1,586,476
948,302
638,174
0
0
NEIGHBORHOOD B
Planning Area 4
54.2
43.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
304
Low Density 1-7 du/ac
Planning Area 5
51.7
41.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
621
Medium Density 8-15 du/ac
Planning Area 7
20.7
19.0
See
248,292
0
248,292
0
standard
S
SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD B
126.6
103.8
N/A
248,292
0
248,292
N/A
925
NEIGHBORHOOD C
TABLE 3-2
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BYNEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTL4L
ACREAGE
NON-RESIDENTL4L USES
USES
Total Floor
Existing
Potential Floor
DU's
Designation/PlanningArea Gross t Net 2
F.A.R Area (Sq.
3 F�) 4
Floor Area
(Sq. Ft.) 5
Area
(Sq. FX) B
Per Acre
7
Total
DU's 8
Planning Area 6 84.5 84.5
0.16 574,992
496,068
78,9241
0
0
SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD C 84.51 84.5
N/A 574,992
496,068
78,924
N/A
0
NEIGHBORHOOD D
Planning Area 8
Mixed Use
59491.1
68.5
See
1,975,992
329,032
1,646,960
25
Park
5658.6
X358.6
standard
s
High School 13
40.0
40.0
Planning Area 13
77.677.5
59.3
See
2,132,417
0
2,132,417
25
891
Park
41913.4
4--913.4
standard
Planning Area 14
34:334.2
26.2
s
See
648,870
700
648,170
25
standard
s
SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD D 3t"314.8 261-2-266 N/A 4,757,279 329,7321 4,427,5471 891
NEIGHBORHOOD E
Planning Areas 9-12
75:988.3
64373.4
See
1,267,324
88,344
1,178,980
0
Parks and Open Space
3"29
3"29
standard
s
SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD E
1175`117.3
10 102.4
See
1,267,324
88,344
1,178,980
0
standard
s
NEIGHBORHOOD F
Planning Area 16 31.0 27.9 0.4 486,130 206,640 279,490 0
Planning Area 17 16.3 16.3 0.4 284,011 63,289 220,722 0
Planning Area 18 16.7 14.5 0.35 40,846 40,846 0 0
Planning Area 19 38.6 38.6 0.4 672,566 3,990 668,576 0
SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD F 102.6 97.3 N/A 1,483,553 314,765 1,168,788 N/A 0
NEIGHBORHOOD G
Planning Area 15
112.6
104.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
533
Low Density 1-7 du/ac
Planning Area 15
51.8
47.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
489
Medium Density 8-15 du/ac
Planning Area 15
8.3
7.7
Medium -Hi Density 16-25 du/ac
25
192
Planning Area 15 Schools
10.0
10.0
Planning Area 15 Non Residential
29.3
26.8
See
466,637
8,106
458,531
0
0
standard
s
TABLE 3-2
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED B Y NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL
ACREAGE
NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES
USES
Total Floor
Existing
Potential Floor
DUs
F.A.R
Area(Sq.
Floor Area
Area
Per Acre
Total
DesignadonlPlanninz Area
Gross I
Net
Z
3
Ft. 4S.
Ft.)5
S. Ft.) s
7
DU's 8
Plannin Area 15 Parks & Open Space
63-459
63459
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
Planning Area 20
29.4
23.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
25
376
Medium -Hi Density 16-25 du/ac
Planning Area 21 - Tustin
127.1
115.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
14
793
Low Density 1-7 du/ac
SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD G
436427.5 398.-2-394.
11
N/A
466,6371
8,1061
458,531
N/Al
2,383
NEIGHBORHOOD H
Planning Area 22
73.4
61.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
402
Medium Density (8-15 du/ac)
Elementary School K-8 10
Neighborhood Park 10
SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD H
73.4
61.0
N/A
N/A
N/A I
N/A
N/A
402
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Roadways
173.4
173.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
Drainage(Flood Control, Storm Drains
28.5
28.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
201.9
201.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
TOTALS:
131,606.11-,-466:11,464.9
N/A
10,384,553
2,185,317 16
8,199,236
N/A
4,601
Notes:
1. Gross acreage for each Planning Area is an estimated allocation measured from the edge of the adjacent future arterial and secondary roadway, any public roadway shown on the Land Use Plan, and/or
the boundary of the Planning Area. The amount of land devoted to roadways shown on the Land Use Plan is calculated under the Right -of -Way designation. Actual acreages will be refined during the
site plan and subdivision process.
2. Net acreage is an estimated allocation based on gross acreage reduced for internal circulation (local roads) within a Planning Area. Net acreage is estimated approximately for each Planning Area, based
on permitted use, size of the Planning Area, and typical site planning considerations. Actual net acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process.
3. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) is the gross floor area of all buildings within a Planning Area divided by the net acreage of the Planning Area for purposes of this Statistical Analysis unless otherwise
stipulated in development standards for the planning area, except for Planning Area 1 where F.A.R shall be fixed at 0.3 for all sub -planning areas except for sub -planning areas I -B and 1-C which shall
be fixed at 0.35. If applicable, the F.A.R. column specifies a floor area ratio derived from an assumed mix of uses within a Planning Area.
4. Total Floor Area is the total square footage of non-residential development derived by multiplying the floor area ratio by the net acreage, if applicable, except for Planning Area 1 where total floor area
shall be derived by multiplying the fixed floor area ratio assigned to Planning Area 1 and any sub -planning area in Planning Area 1 by the gross acreage of a sub -planning area, provided the total floor
area within Planning Area 1 shall not exceed 1,412,651 square feet.
5. Existing Floor Area is the square footage of existing buildings by Planning Area.
6. Potential Floor Area is the potential square footage of new development within each Planning Area.
7. DU's per Acre reflects the maximum density per acre at which dwelling units may be calculated.
8. Total DU's is the maximum number of dwelling units allocated to each Planning Area. Even though actual gross and net acreages may be refined during the site plan and subdivision process, the
maximum number of dwelling units in each Planning Area shall not exceed the number designated on the Statistical Analysis, except as specified in Section 3.2.3.
9. PA 22 (402 units) are located within the City of Irvine. The permitted density range in PA 22 shall not exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre at the high end.
10. PA 22 is within the Irvine jurisdictional limits. It includes a 20 -acre allocation for a K-8 school. The precise acreage and location will be determined when the Navy's Record of Decision is issued. PA 22
also includes an 8 -acre allocation for a Neighborhood Park site. The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to property transfer to the City of Irvine, however, the total allowable dwelling
units in PA 22 will remain the same.
11. PA 15 includes an allocation for park and open spaces. The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to final subdivision map approval, however, the total allowable dwelling units in PA
15will remain the same.
12. PA 15 includes a 10 -acre allocation for an Elementary School. The precise acreage and location will be determined by the City. If the actual acreage varies from 10 acres, then an acreage adjustment will
be made to the parks and open space acreages The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to final subdivision map approval.
13. PA 8 includes a 40 -acre allocation for a High School. The precise acreage and location will be determined by the City.. If the actual acreage varies from 40 acres, then the acreage adjustment will be
made to the Community Core designation, however, the total allowable square feet of non-residential development and maximum dwelling units in PA 8 will remain the same.
14. PA 1 is composed of numerous public conveyance uses as specified in Section 2.3 and 2.4 of the Specific Plan. 15. PA 1-A includes a 10 -acre allocation for an Elementary School.
16. The actual amount of existing square footage is 2,183,956. However, adjustments to two Planning Areas have been made. In PA 2, Community Park, 40,531 existing square footage is expected to be
reused. In PA 5, Medium Density Residential, the 39,485 existing square footage is expected to be replaced by residential uses.
17. The development intensity assigned to the Community Park is .1 FAR; however, the existing 40,531 square feet may be reused.
18. Planning Area 15 is comprised of subplanning areas, which allocates development potential by land use type. The subplanning areas are not site specific on the Land Use Plan in order to allow for
flexibility in future master planning.
19. In Planning Area 20, there is 4.1 gross acres in private ownership (with 3.3 net acres estimated for development potential); Planning Area 18 is proposed to be retained in Federal ownership by the Army
Reserve with 2.2 acres granted by easement to the City of Tustin, after the Army's acceptance of the 16.7 acres from the Navy, for Barranca right-of-way (leaving 14.5 net acres). The total gross acreage
for non-federal disposal is 1,585.4 acres.
20. See Section 3.3.2A for use restriction.
I TABLE 3-3'
PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET
Planning ResidentiaUParks Non-Residential
Area No, Land Use Cate o Units Amount ADTs Amount ADTs
NEIGHBORHOOD A
1-.t Element /Middle School STU ~e 56-
I -.-1, l-E Learr:ing Center(rl TEl') T.SF 893.85- 5 -/ "-
l-L3 Learrtzng Center (Lnw 'I'SI~ 152.-J6 ;°
Enforcement/flnitnaf Care
Center)
l-C !.earning Center (Child Care 7Sh' 60.98 3
Sl:eltet)
/-D /ern•rtitrg Center % C/u/d Care! 'l,Sh 3/.36 /9,'
1-F /.earning Center(RSCCCD) 'l'S!' 196.02 /,20O
Nei hborhood Commercial TSF ?7-1-3.2d. g5 ~ '~2 ?8 /
/-~~ Tustin Facili SG I6D'' 6,220
PA 1 Trip Budget Total ' .'~/, d 17,734
12. bSh
2 Sorts Park ACRE 24.1 1,297
3 Transitional Housin ROOM 192 941
Neighborhood A Square Footage Total TSF :,2~I,q
12.65
Nei hborhood A Tri Bud et Total 17,734
NEIGHBORHOOD B
LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) DU 145 1,388
4 MDR (8-15 DU/Acre DU 120 960
Senior Housin Attached DU 72 250
MDR 8-15 DU/Acre DU 132 1,056
5 MHDR 16-25 DU/Acre DU 438 2,903
Senior housin Attached DU 170 590
Communi Commercial TSF 103.46 7,052
7 General Office TSF 144.84 1,922
PA 7 Tri Bud et Total 248.3 8,974
Nei hborhood B S uare Foota a Total TSF 248.3
Nei hborhood B Tri Bud et Total 8,974
NEIGHBORHOOD C
Communi Commercial TSF 57.5 3,920
6 Re Tonal Park ACRE 84.5 423
PA 6 Tri Bud et Total 3,920
Nei hborhood C S uare Foota a Total TSF 57.5
Nei hborhood C Tri Bud et Total 3,920
NEIGHBORHOOD D
Hi School STU 1,850 3,312
Nei borhood Commercial TSF 65.69 7,345
General Office TSF 207 2,747
8 Office Pazk TSF 1,383.8 11,280
Industrial Park TSF 319.51 3,803
Park ACRE 10.3 52
Sorts Park ACRE 46 2,475
PA 8 Tri Bud et Total 1,976 28,4$7
MHDR 16-25 DU/Acre) DU 891 5,907
Hotel 380 TSF ROOM 500 4,115
13 Nei borhood Commercial TSF 9.76 1,091
Communi Commercial TSF 117.1 7,984
General Office TSF 1,512 20,065
Park ACRE 12.9 65
TABLE 3-3
PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET
Planning Residen tiaUParks Non-Residential
Area No. Land Use Cate o Units Amount ADTs Amount ADTs
Health Club TSF 30 988
Hi -Turnover Restaurant TSF 12 1,526
PA 13 Tri Bud et Total 2,060.86 35,769
Communi Commercial TSF 11.11 757
General Office TSF 136.9 1,818
14 Office Park TSF 547 5,645
Theatre 25 TSF SEAT 1,000 1,250
Hi -Turnover Restaurant TSF 6 763
PA 14 Tri Bud et Total 726.01 10,233
Nei hborhood D S uare Foota a Total TSF 4,762.87
Nei hborhood D Tri Bud et Total 74,489
NEIGHBORHOOD E
Industrial Park TSF 44.61 ~F1,0~!?
9 Park ACRE 1.1 6
~erFs 1'ai°It ~I~k Frl 3?d
PA 9 Tri Bud et Total 44.61 71 d1.0-12
General Office TSF 156.82 ?;9~1~?,3-12
Industrial Park TSF 124.41 1,569
10 Park ACRE 1.4 7
~}~erts-l'~}rl< flE:1~4 =1.3 ?3-1
PA 10 Tri Bud et Total 281.23 3;65413.81
Nei borhood Commercial TSF 18.13 2,028
General Office T'SF 371.89 '4,935
I 1 Office Park TSF 278.78 2,663
Industrial Park TSF 138.52 2,002
P~'k ACRE 25.7 130
PA 11 Tri Bud et Total 807.32 11,628
12 Office Park TSF 134.17 1,281
PA 12 Tri Bud et Total 134.17 1,281
Nei hborhood E S uare Foota a Total TSF 1,267.33
Neighborhood E Trip Budget Total X27317 g
32
NEIGHBORHOOD F
16 Sho in Center TSF 448 13,772
PA 16 Tri Bud et Total 448 13,772
17 Sho in Center TSF 47 1,445
PA 17 Tri Bud et Total 47 1,445
18 Milita Office TSF 40.85 542
PA 18 Tri Bud et Total 40.85 542
Sho in Center TSF 435.6 13,391 435.6 13,391
19 Multi lex Theater 70 TSF SEAT 3,500 6,300
PA 19 Tri Bud et Total TSF 505.6 19,691
Nei hb orhood F S uare Foota a Total TSF 1,041.45
Nei hborhood F Tri Bud et Total 35,450
TABLE 3-3
PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET
Planning ResidentiaUParks Non-Residential
Area No. Land Use Cate o Units Amount ADTs Amount ADTs
NEIGHBORHOOD G ~
LDR (1-7 DiJ/Acre) DU 533 5,102
MDR 8-15 DU/Acre DU 489 3,912
MHDR 16-25 DiJ/Acre DU 192 1,273
Element /Middle School STU 1,200 1,224
Nei borhood Commercial TSF 26.68 2,983
15 Communi Commercial TSF 130.68 8,908
General Office TSF 150.28 1,994
Park ACRE 49 249
Senior Con a ate TSF 158.99 970
S arts Park ACRE 14.1 758
PA 15 Tri Bud et Total 466.63 14,855
20 MHDR 16-25 DU/Acre DU 376 2,493
21 LDR 1-7 DU/Acre DU 189 1,809
Iv1DR 8-15 DIJ/Acre DU 465 3,720
Nei hborhood G S ware Foota a Total TSF 466.63
Nei hborhood G Tri Bud et Total 14,855
NEIGHBORHOOD H
LDR 1-7 DU/Acre DU 166 1,589
22 MDR (8-15 DU/Acre DU 243 1,944
Elemen /Middle School STU 650 663
Nei hborhood 11 S uare Foota a Total TSF p
Nei hborhood H Tri Bud et Total p
t Residential and park uses are shown for informational purposes only and are not part of the non-residential trip
budget.
` As a result of the 2010 Specific Plan Amendment, the amount of square footage and allowable ADT's within the
SOCCCD site went up.
s To accommodate the increase in the SOCCCD site, as a result of the 2010 Specific Plan Amendment, a portion of
the ADT's located within the Neighborhood Commercial Category have been transferred from the Neighborhood
Commercial land use category to the SOCCCD site (250 ADT'sJ. Pursuant to Section 3.2.4 the Public Works
Department and Community Development Department shall maintain the Trip Budget Form contained in Table
3-3 of the Specific Plan and amount of ADT's available for development or for transfer. This will result in a
portion of the allowable 27,120 square feet originally shown for Neighborhood Commercial uses being reduced
by the amount of ADT's transferred from the Neighborhood Commercial land use category to the SOCCCD site.
No separate land use acreage is shown in that it is assumed to be within the Tustin Facility.
.
The ADT bud et will be su icient or a varlet o
9 ff f y f potential land uses on the Tustin Facility particularly when
viewed in the combination with the square footages and ADT's assigned to the Neighborhood Commercial land
use category.
s See Section 3.3.2A for use restrictions
e Note the individual sites noted above total a maximum square footage of 1,359,535 which does not include
development on the Tustin Facility which can accommodate development supported by up to 6,220 ADT's.
However, Table 3-2 in the Specific Plan and the EIS/EIR would permit a total of 1,412,651 within Planning Area
1, provided such square footage is also supported by available ADT's in the Table 3-3, as administratively
adjusted as it relates to Planning Area 1 as noted above. Depending upon any uses proposed on the Tustin
Facility, Table 3-3 may need to be adjusted with a Specific Plan Amendment and a modification.