Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 1450 (2014)ORDINANCE NO. 1450 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 2014 -001, AMENDING SECTION 3.3.2 (PLANNING AREA 1) OF THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION (MCAS) TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY ADDING USES SUCH AS BALL FIELDS, COURTS, PLAYGROUNDS AND OTHER RECREATION FACILITIES, PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, PUBLIC PARK, SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING, NATURE CENTER, AND OTHER CIVIC AND COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDINGS AS PERMITTED USES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 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 text amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, but will amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Planning Area 1 is generally located between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. B. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan, which encompasses 31.5 acres. C. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and /or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on October 14, 2014, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4269 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve SPA 2014 -001 by adopting Ordinance No. 1450. Ordinance No. 1450 Page 1 of 4 E. That on November 4, 2014, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held before the City Council concerning SPA 2014 -001 (Ordinance No. 1450). F. 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 and, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13 -32 approving a Second Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. The FEIS /EIR along with its Addendums and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. G. 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, Addendums 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. H. That many of the proposed additional permitted uses for Planning Area 1, such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds, lighted fields and buildings for civic, cultural and community centers are often associated with existing permitted uses in Planning Area 1, including public school, community college, and private school. SPA 2014 -001 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. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city -wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. Ordinance No. 1450 Page 2 of 4 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed -use, master - planned development. SECTION 2. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as provided in Exhibit B. SECTION 3. 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 18"' day of November, 2014. , Ordinance No. 1450 Page 3 of 4 ELWYN Mayor DAVID E. KE City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO. 1450 I, JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1450 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of November, 2014 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of November, 2014 by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: Murray. Puckett, Nielsen, Gomez. Bernstein (5) COUNCILPERSONS NOES: None (0) COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: None (0) COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: None (0) A Z'y x;fE- JEFFREYa PARKER, City Cler,Y Ordinance No. 1450 Page 4 of 4 r. 0 0 � 3;Il- V, TO ORDINANCE NO. 1450 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Wav, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573 -3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2014 -001 (Ordinance No. 1450 — MCAS Tustin Specific Plan) Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573 -3016 Project Location: The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the northeast, Red Hill Avenue to the northwest, Barranca Parway to the southwest and Jamboree Road and Harvard Avenue to the southeast, in Tustin, Orange County, California Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Description: The City of Tustin is proposing a text amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, but will amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, ' playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports filed lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Planning Area i is generally located between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan, which encompasses 31.5 acres. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and/or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Surrounding Uses: Northeast: Residential, Light Industrial, and Commercial. Northwest: Light Industrial and Commercial Southeast: Residential and Industrial Southwest: Light Industrial and Commercial Previous Environmental Documentation: 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. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13 -32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement 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. d Use and Planning iulation and Housing )logy and Soils irology and Water Quality Quality Sation & Circulation :al Resources Resources ural Resources C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: QHazards and Hazardous Materials Noise ❑Public Services QUtilities and Service Systems DAesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation nMandatory Findings of Significance ❑ 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 NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: 1d Cow k a OAA2ti Scott Reekstin, Principal Planner Date 1012-11 Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached 0 No Substantial New Significant More .Severe Change From Previous 1. AESTHETICS —Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? El b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? El c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 � d) Create a nety source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ IL 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 (1999) 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? E 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? (� 11I. AIR OUALiTY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be retied 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 now 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? 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 Calif rmia 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 g 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 SOMS: - 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 hnPact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map i%ucd 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. New More Change t roar Significant Severe Previous Impact lntpacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ .® iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? Cl ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ Cl b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ Cl e) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is mutable, 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 ase of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? • ❑ ❑ VU.[3AZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MAT 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 die release orlazardous 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? ❑ El 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 airpon land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport orpublic use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ 0 For a project within die 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? VIII, HYDROLOGY AND WATER O_ UALITY: — 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 £aiturc of a Ievee or dam? ' j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX LAND USE AND PLANNING —Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New Afore Change Prom Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ to No Substantial Ncnv Significant More Severe Change From Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Impact Impacts Anais 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 a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ XL NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome 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? + ❑ O 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? ❑ ❑ t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? ❑ ❑ XH.POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of marls or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ XID. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result insubstantial 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'? V. 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.'YRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC— Would (lie 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 u 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 bazards 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? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ No Substantial Mew More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ constriction of replacement housing elsewhere? • ❑ ❑ XID. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result insubstantial 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'? V. 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.'YRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC— Would (lie 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 u 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 bazards 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? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 No Substanded New More Change From g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs Significant Severe Previous supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, Impact Impacts Analysis bicycle racks)? XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — ❑ ❑ Would die 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 ❑„ . F-1 . regulations related to solid waste? XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❑ ❑ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a tare 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 effect% of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effect,, of probable future projects)'? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SECTION D EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2014 -001, MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 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 and, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13 -32 approving a Second Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. The FEIS /EIR along with its Addendums and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS /EIR, Supplement, and Addendums analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (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, a multi -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. Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (1 -5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (1 -405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the northwest, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the northeast, Harvard Avenue on the SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 2 southeast, and Barranca Parkway on'the southwest. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the northeast providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. The City of Tustin is proposing a text amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, but will amend Section, 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Planning Area 1 is generally located between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan, which encompasses 31.5 acres. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and /or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that SPA 2014 -001 (Project or Proposed Project) is within the scope of the previously approved FEIS /EIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public LVPIUPIIVI) VI LIIV II VIIIIIGI /lPl 1111PUVVJ SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 3 park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to permit Planning Area 2 uses within Planning Area 1. These uses were previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. If adopted, the Proposed Project would allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan. The amendment 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 - speck 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. The implementation of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses and development. This visual change, as part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development was not a significant impact in the FEIS /EIR. 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 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. SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 4 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or 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, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -58 through 3-67, 4 -81 through 4 -92), Addendum 1 (Page 5-3 through 5- 7), and Addendum 2 (Page 24 through 26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: in determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use In assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert! Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Speck Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan cvaivauuu vi cnvuunmcrnai unNauw SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 5 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 FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. 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 Speck 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 FEIS /EIR 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. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -83 through 3 -87, 4 -109 through 114), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -8 through 5- 9), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan 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: SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 6 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, 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 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 were 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 FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality. The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS /EIR 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 SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 7 which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS /EIR. 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. 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 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, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. However, the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement also concluded that Speck Plan related operational air quality impacts were 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 (Page 3 -143 through 3 -153, 4 -207 through 4 -230, 7 -41 through 7-42), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -10 through 5 -28), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 32) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan 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? SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 8 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? fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to biological resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. 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 waluauun vi "nvnun11crn01 unNa"o SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 9 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 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 (Page 3 -75 through 3 -82, 4 -103 through 4 -108, 7 -26 through 7 -27), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -28 through 5-39), and Addendum 2 (Page 33 through 35) MCAS Tustin Speck Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 10 the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. 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 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 /Moniforing Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -68 through 3 -74, 4 -93 through 4 -102, 7 -24 through 7 -26), Addendum 1 (Page 5.40 through 5-45), and Addendum 2 (Page 36 through 37) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: —Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence LVOIVOIIVII VI "IIVIIV11111G11LO11111�1"VW SPA 2014 -001, WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 11 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment 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. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. 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 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 SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 12 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. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -88 through 3 -97, 4 -115 through 4 -123, 7 -28 through 7 -29), Addendum 1 (Page 5-46 through 5-49), and Addendum 2 (Page 38 through 40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: —Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 13 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 wildiands? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment 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. 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 FEIS /EIR 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. SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 14 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 FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. 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 (Page 3 -106 through 3 -117, 4 -130 through 4 -138, 7 -30 through 7 -31), Addendum 1 (Page 5-49 through 5 -55), and Addendum 2 (Page 44 through 47) MCA$ Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) 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 (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level c V0JUCuvn vi t-nvuunrtto1uai unPO�LD SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 15 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Q 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? Q 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? 1) 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 33.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 16 buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts 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. No increase in development intensity is proposed as part of the Project. Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, including FAR and landscaping and would require preparation of a WQMP. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of impervious surface area from the amount that was previously analyzed in the Specific Plan. 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. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed. Therefore, no new or 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 SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 17 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, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -98 through 3- 105, 4 -124 through 4 -129, 7 -29 through 7 -30), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -58 through 5-91), and Addendum 2 (Page 48 through 51) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Speck Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause 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. 0 SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 18 The SPA does not substantively change the Specific Plan and does not increase development intensities or introduce incompatible uses. Implementation of 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. 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, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -3 through 3 -17, 4 -3 through 4 -13, 7 -16 through 7 -18), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -92 through 5 -94), and Addendum 2 (Page 52 through 54) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific LVoluaUVII Vl �11VIIVI MweltM nnNavto SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 19 Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There are no known mineral resources located at the site. The Project would not cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, 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 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 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. Mitigaffor Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -91), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -95), and Addendum 2 (Page 55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 20 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The ambient noise environment on the site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, existing uses, a rail line located north of Edinger Avenue, and construction and remediation activities on surrounding parcels. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise. 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 Tustin Legacy site. All proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan. Consequently, long -term traffic- related noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project have previously been identified and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Short -term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified FEIS /EIR; implementation of any future 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 avoiding significant short-term construction- related noise impacts. SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 21 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, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -154 through 3 -162 and 4 -231 through 4 -243), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -96 through 5 -101), and Addendum 2 (Page 57 through 60) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 22 The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to housing and any associated population. 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 (Page 3 -18 through 3 -34, 4 -14 through 4 -29, and 7 -18 through 7 -19), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -101 through 5 -111), and Addendum 2 (Page 61 through 62) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific vNIVY \IVII VI VIIY II VIII IIVII \NI 1111'IGVtJ SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 23 Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the WAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause 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 Tustin Legacy 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 FEWEIR. Implementation of any future 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 Project and other development within Tustin Legacy. No new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified. Police Protection Police 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 would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was previously anticipated in the FEIS /EIR. Schools The Project will not directly result in any residential development. Therefore, the Project does not generate K -12 students and there is no impact to K -12 schools. Future developers would be required to pay school fees for public uses on the Tustin Legacy site consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 50 of 1998. SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 24 Parks SPA 2014 -001 would add park related as a permitted use in Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and would have potentially beneficial impacts by providing additional opportunities for parkland. Parks for the project site were 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. Other Public Facilities The FEIS/EIR concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the Specific Plan proceeded, The Project is administrative only and would not modify conditions or proposed development which was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS /EIR; therefore, no substantial change is expected. The FEIS /EIR does identify that the City will require certain conditions for individual future development projects (identified as Implementation Measures on pages 4- 67 through 4 -70) to be complied with as appropriate. Proposed SPA 2014 -001 will result in no changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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 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, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. "vawauvu vi uwnvunicuiai unNa"o SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 25 Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -47 through 3 -57, 4 -56 through 4 -80 and 7 -21 through 7 -22), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -112 through 5 -122), and Addendum 2 (Page 63 through 65) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require . the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and 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. 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, Addendums, 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 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 SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 26 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, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 through 3-57, 4 -56 through 4 -80, 7 -21 through 7 -22), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -122 through 5 -127), and Addendum 2 (Page 66 through 67) MCAS Tustin Speck Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Q Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting . alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis, SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 27 Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential he by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no net changes to the land use intensity or density" and resulting trip generation. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - speck or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement The future development of an additional 7.5 acres of parkland within Planning Area 1 that would be facilitated by the Proposed Project is expected to generate a maximum of 242 average daily trips (ADT) which is considered negligible and would not have any impacts to traffic and transportation. 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 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. Speck mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. However, the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, also concluded that Speck Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Future projects will be evaluated to ensure SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 28 consistency with this EIS /EIR and subsequent studies to ensure there are no new impacts. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -118 through 3 -142, 4 -139 through 4 -206 and 7 -32 through 7-42), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -127 through 5 -146), and Addendum 2 (Page 68 through 73) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Page 3 -35 through 3 -62, Page 3 -70 through 3 -81, Page 3 -82 through 3 -88, and Page 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? d) 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? e) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? f) 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? g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? h) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? I) 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)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 29 Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems. 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 FEIS /EIR identifies that the City will require certain conditions for future individual development projects identified as "Mitigation" or "Implementation Measures" (pages 4-43 through 4-46) to be complied with as appropriate. Proposed SPA 2014 -001 will result in no substantial changes to the. environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1, SPA 2014 -001, WAS Tustin Speck Plan Page 30 Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -35 through 3-46; 4 -32 through 4 -55 and 7 -20 through 7 -21), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -147 through 5 -165), and Addendum 2 (Page 74 through 76) WAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Page 3 -35 through 3 -62, Page 3 -70 through 3 -81, Page 3 -82 through 3 -88, and Page 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental 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 Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the WAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Speck Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementation of the Project. The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS /EIR; there are no new mitigation measures LVOIYO11411 VI "IIVIIVIIIIIG111=I ....F.V.. SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 31 required; and there are no new significant adverse project - speck or 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 development project approvals. 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. 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 future development within Planning Area 1, as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 5-4 through 5 -11) MCAS Tustin Speck Plan /Reuse Plan (Page 3 -35 through 3 -62, Page 3 -70 through 3 -81, Page 3 -82 through 3 -88, and Page 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed projects effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR, Supplement, and Addendums, 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 future development projects, as applicable. a 99UNIwi, TO ORDINANCE NO. 1450 SPA 2014 -001 0 Chapter 3 e Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations 5.8.2 Planning Areas 1- A,1- B,1- c,1- D,1- E,1- F,1-G, 1- H9 149 1 -J,1 -K and 1 -1. (Education Village) The purpose and intent of the Education Village designation is as described in Section 2.2.1. Land Use Designations. A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right when: the symbol "P" occurs, or by conditional use permit where the symbol • "C" occurs. • Animal care center (in PA I -B or in PA 1 -I as shown in P Figure 3 -1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -1) • Ballfigids, courts. plaverounds and other recreation P fcilities • Children's intermediate care shelter (only in PA i -C as P shown in Figure 3 -1) • Churches or other religious institutions C • QXLq, cultural and community center buildings P • Government Facilities P • Law enforcement training facility (m PA 1 -B or in PA i- P ' I as shown in Figure 3 -1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -1) • Nature center with live animals P • Nursery school or child care center P • Private recreational facilities P • Public„pr M rk P • Public school, community college, educational campus P or other educationally oriented uses • Private school P • Sports field liebting _ here lighting is designed to P confine direct rays and glare to the premises The following non - education - related uses are permitted or conditionally permitted only in Planning Areas l -D, I -E, 1-0, 1 -H, 1 -K, and 1 -L. Such uses would be permitted in these planning areas only in the event an exchange of land occurs between the City of Tustin and SOCCCD. Such uses would be permitted in Planning Area 1 -B only in the event an exchange of land occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an agreement is reached r . It The following non - educational related uses are prohibited in Planning Areas 1 -B, I -D, 1 -E, 1 -H, 1 -1,1 -1c 1 -L • Residential/commercial mixed uses, livetwork (loft/mezzanine) uses, unless associated with or support educational uses • Residential dwellings (except dormitory and student housing) • Shopping centers or commercial strip centers and retail uses over 15,000 square feet in size _ Chapter 3 • Land Use and DevelopmenVReuse Regulations between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -1. Such uses would also be permitted in PA i -I in the event an exchange of land does not occur between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an agreement is not reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -1. • Automobile research, design, and development P • Communications businesses P • Corporate headquarterstoffice P • Data storage, retrieval, send - receive operations P • Electronic equipment testing P • Experimental/prototype assembly and testing facilities P • General offices P • Industrial/commercial "incubator (flexible) buildings P • Instructional/vocational school P • Live performance facility %amphitheater P • Medicaltdeatal clinics P • Medical oflicesihealthcare centers P .. Motion picture and recording studios P • Pharmaceutical products manufacturing/distribution P • Precision machine shop P • Professional offices P • Research and development facilities (including P laboratories, biotechnology, product development, and P manufacturing) • Science laboratories • Simulation development uses P • Software design uses P • Technology exchange/transfer service P • Other non -tisted uses that further the purpose and intent P/C of the Education Village as determined by the Community Development Director B. Prohibited Uses The following non - educational related uses are prohibited in Planning Areas 1 -B, I -D, 1 -E, 1 -H, 1 -1,1 -1c 1 -L • Residential/commercial mixed uses, livetwork (loft/mezzanine) uses, unless associated with or support educational uses • Residential dwellings (except dormitory and student housing) • Shopping centers or commercial strip centers and retail uses over 15,000 square feet in size Chapter 3 • Land Use and DevelopmenUReuse Regulations Director . Congregate care facilities • Health club (except for use by students, faculty and campus employees) . Live Entertainment/Entertainment uses, such as commercial motion picture theaters, unless associated with educational uses Bingo parlors, bingo halls, casinos, or other gaming establishments conducting games of chance • Drive - through uses • Auto sales, leasing or repairs, and recreational vehicle (RV) sales, rentals or repairs • Second hand stores, thrift stores, pawn shops, or indoor or outdoor flea markets or fanner's markets, unless approved by the Community Development Department • Sexually oriented businesses as defined in Section 3911 of the Tustin City Code and subject to applicable law • Traveling carnivals or fairs, except as may be approved for promotional events under the Specific Plan or Tustin City Code • Uses listed in Tustin City Code Section 9270b • Jail Facilities C. Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures are pertitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted use on the same site and would include: • Guard houses, gates and other security facility structures • Maintenance facilities, structures, outdoor storage • Post office • Support commercial, office, retail service uses • Support commercial concessions D. Unlisted Uses Those uses not specifically listed are subject to a determination by the Community Development Director as either permitted, permitted subject to a conditional use permit or prohibited consistent with the purpose of the land use designation of this Planning Area and the Specific Plan, Decisions of the Director are appealable to the Planning Commission. E. Site Development Standards 1. Minimum lot area -no minimum requirement 2. Maximum building height - 100 feet (six stories) ( City ofTus& MCAS Tus& Specifc P1aNReuse Plan Page 820