Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC RES 13-32
1 RESOLUTION NO. 13 -32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN ( "FEIS /EIR ") FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2013 -001, MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2013 -001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2013 -002, AND AN AGREEMENT FOR THE EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the City of Tustin ( "City ") and the South Orange County Community College District ( "SOCCCD ") propose a General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2013 -001 by adding a new local street (Bell Avenue) to service adjacent uses; MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2013 -001 by incorporating text allowing private for - profit non - educational uses and increase allowable building square footages within the education village (Neighborhood A) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and adding a new local street (Bell Avenue); Development Agreement (DA) 2013 -002 to facilitate the development, conveyance, and land exchange within the boundaries of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; and an Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property. B. That collectively, GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002, and the Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property constitute a "project" that is subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.). C. 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 April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. 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. The FEIS /EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR Resolution No. 13 -32 Page 1 of 5 under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. D. An Environmental Checklist has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS /EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS /EIR. However, because some changes and additions were required to the FEIS /EIR, the City has prepared an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. E. That pursuant to Sections 15051 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency for the CEQA compliance associated with the project because it will approve, carry out, and implement the project and will be the first agency to approve the project. SOCCCD will be a responsible agency. F: That an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR for the project is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project because: a. The project does not change the land uses that are currently permitted within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the impacts of which have been previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR; b. The project would not permit an intensification of permitted uses that would lead to increased environmental impacts beyond those that are already identified in the FEIS /EIR; c. The project does not modify previously - analyzed projects in any substantive way; d. No new mitigation measures are required; e. None of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the CEQA Guideless applies; and, f. No new significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas were identified, nor would any project- specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of implementing the Project. G. Based on the initial study analysis and environmental checklist prepared for the Project and pursuant to Section 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City and SOCCCD have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: Resolution No. 13 -32 Page 2 of 5 1 1 a. The Project was examined in light of the FEIS /EIR and has been adequately analyzed in the FEIS /EIR because the Project does not substantively modify the previously - analyzed proposal included in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; b. The Project would not have any effects that were not already examined in the FEIS /EIR, no new mitigation measures are required, and there are no new significant adverse project - specific 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 implementing the Project; c. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR have been incorporated into subsequent actions that the City and SOCCCD commit to fully implement; d. There is no information indicating that a different Alternative should be implemented or is feasible under the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; e. The Project does not propose substantial changes to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which would require major revisions to the FEIS /EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR; f. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the FEIS /EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR; and g. No new information of substantial importance as described in subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS /EIR or its conclusions. H. That on April 23, 2013, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum along with the FEIS /EIR, its Supplemental and Addendum, prior to making recommendation to the City Council on GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, and DA 2013 -002 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, and adopted Resolution No. 4222 recommending that the City Council approve the Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit 1. That the City Council has considered the Addendum along with the FEIS /EIR, its Supplemental and Addendum, prior to taking action on GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002, and Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, and hereby approve the Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Resolution No. 13 -32 Page 3 of 5 J. That GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, and DA 2013 -002 would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts that were identified in the FEIS /EIR and these impacts are overridden for the reasons set forth in the previously adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached to Resolution 00 -90. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 13th day of May, 2013. ATTEST: ELWYN A. d URRAY, Mayor Resolution No. 13 -32 Page 4 of 5 1 Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 13 -32 WAS Tustin Specific Plan EIS /EIR Addendum /Initial Study GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2013 -001, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2013 -001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2013 -002, AND AGREEMENT FOR EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN CITY OF TUSTIN AND SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM /INITIAL STUDY Prepared for: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 South Orange County Community College District 28000 Marguerite Parkway Mission Viejo, California 92692 Prepared by: it RGP PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 8921 Research Drive Irvine, California 92618 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Project Summary .............................................................................................. ..............................1 1.2 Organization of Addendum .............................................................................. ..............................1 1.3 Previous Environmental Documentation ........................................................ ..............................1 1.4 Purpose of this Addendum .............................................................................. ..............................2 1.5 Basis for an EIR Addendum ............................................................................. ..............................3 1.6 Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................................................ ..............................4 1.7 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................ ..............................4 1.8 Intended Use of this Addendum ...................................................................... ..............................4 1.9 Environmental Checklist Form ........................................................................ ..............................5 1.9.1 Project Title ................................................................................................... ..............................5 1.9.2 Lead Agency Name, Address and Contact Person .................................... ..............................5 1.9.3 Responsible Agency Name, Address and Contact Person ........................ ..............................6 1.9.4 Project Location ............................................................................................ ..............................6 1.9.5 Project Sponsors' Names and Addresses .................................................. ..............................6 1.9.6 General Plan Designation - Existing .......................................................... ..............................6 1.9.7 Zoning - Existing ............................................................................................ ..............................6 1.9.8 Other Public Agencies Approvals Required ................................................ ..............................6 1.9.9 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................... ..............................6 1.9.10 Environmental Determination ..................................................................... ..............................8 2. Project Description ............................................................................................ ..............................9 2.1 Project Site Location and Composition .......................................................... ..............................9 Figure 3 Site Vicinity Land Uses .................................................................. ............................... 15 2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................ ............................... 15 2.2.1 Exchange Agreement between City and SOCCCD ................................. ............................... 16 2.2.2 General Plan Amendment ....................................................................... ............................... 17 2.2.3 Specific Plan Amendment ........................................................................ ............................... 17 2.2.4 Development Agreement and Amended and Restated Conveyance Agreement between Cityand SOCCCD .......................................................................................................... ............................... 22 2.2.5 Infrastructure Construction and Payment Agreement for Bell Avenue .. .............................22 2.2.6 Extension of Bell Avenue ......................................................................... ............................... 23 3. Environmental Evaluation and Explanation of Checklist Responses ...... ............................... 23 3.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................... ............................... 24 3.1.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................24 3.1.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 24 3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ............................................................... ............................... 27 3.2.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................27 3.2.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 27 3.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................... ............................... 29 3.3.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................29 3.3.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 29 3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................... ............................... 33 3.4.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................33 3.4.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 33 3.5 Cultural and Paleontological Resources .................................................... ............................... 36 3.5.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................36 3.5.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 36 3.6 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... ............................... 38 3.6.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................38 3.6.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 38 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................... ............................... 41 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Table of Contents 3.7.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................41 3.7.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 41 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................. ............................... 44 3.8.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................44 3.8.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 44 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................... ............................... 48 3.9.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................48 3.9.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 48 3.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................. ............................... 52 3.10.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................52 3.10.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 52 3.11 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................ ............................... 55 3.11.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................55 3.11.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 55 3.12 Noise ................................................................................................................. .............................57 3.12.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................57 3.12.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 57 3.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................... ............................... 61 3.13.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................61 3.13.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 61 3.14 Public Services .............................................................................................. ............................... 63 3.14.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................63 3.14.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 63 3.15 Recreation ..................................................................................................... ............................... 66 3.15.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................66 3.15.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 66 3.16 Transportation/ Traffic .................................................................................... .............................68 3.16.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................68 3.16.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 68 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................... ............................... 74 3.17.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................... .............................74 3.17.2 Project Impact Evaluation ........................................................................ ............................... 74 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................ ............................... 77 4. Summary of Mitigation Measures ............................................................... ............................... 79 5. Sources /Acronyms ....................................................................................... ............................... 96 5.1 Sources ............................................................................................................. .............................96 5.2 Acronyms ....................................................................................................... ............................... 98 6. Report Preparers ............................................................. ............................... ............................100 RGP Planning & Development Services ( RGP) ............................... ............................... ............................100 Austin -Foust Associates (Austin- Foust) ........................................... ............................... ............................100 Giroux& Associates ........................................................................... ............................... ............................100 List of Figures Figure1 Regional Map .......................................................................................................... .............................11 Figure 2 Project Site Boundaries .......................................................................................... .............................12 Figure3 Site Vicinity Land Uses .......................................................................................... ............................... 14 Figure 4 Existing Planning Areas and Current Owners ..................................................... ............................... 15 Figure5 Exchange Parcels .................................................................................................. ............................... 17 Figure 6 Proposed Planning Area Boundaries ................................................................... ............................... 19 List of Tables Table 1. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................ ..............................7 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Table of Contents Table2. Environmental Determination .................................................................................. ..............................8 Table 3. Existing Project Site Planning Areas ........................................................................ ..............................9 Table 4. Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................ ............................... 13 Table 5. Detail of Areas Transferred Between City and SOCCCD .................................... ............................... 16 Table 6. Detail of Existing and Proposed Planning Areas within Neighborhood A ......... ............................... 18 Table 7. Potential Development Scenarios within Trip Cap ............................................. ............................... 22 Table 8. Construction Activity Emissions ........................................................................... ............................... 30 Table 9. Operational Period Emissions .............................................................................. ............................... 30 Table 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................. .............................42 Table 11. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ............................................................................. ............................... 58 Table 12. Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................... ............................... 70 Table 13. 2035 Intersection LOS Summary ...................................................................... ............................... 71 Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS /EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site ......... ............................... 80 Appendices Appendix A Traffic Study (April 2013) Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses (April 2013) Appendix C Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (March 2013) Appendix D 2012 Annual Mitigation Monitoring and Status Report, MCAS Tustin FEIS /EIR iii April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Introduction 1. Introduction 1.1 Project Summary The Project consists of an agreement between the South Orange County Community College District ( SOCCCD or District) and the City of Tustin (City) called the Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property (Exchange Agreement). The Exchange Agreement delineates the terms and processes associated with the exchange of the ultimate ownership of approximately 22 acres of land within the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin, an area now referred to as "Tustin Legacy." The Project also includes an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to modify the permitted land uses and land use intensities in parts of Neighborhood A and to construct an extension of Bell Avenue as a Secondary Arterial; a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to add the Bell Avenue extension to the City's circulation plan and correct preexisting inconsistencies with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; a Development Agreement and Amended Conveyance Agreement between SOCCCD and the City (DA) and associated implementation documents; and an agreement for the funding and construction of Bell Avenue. The objectives of the Project are to rationalize property boundaries to create larger, contiguous land areas for the City and SOCCCD, provide for a broader range of land uses in support of the objectives of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and enhance circulation in the Project area by improving east -west connectivity between the existing Red Hill and Armstrong Avenues. The Project will be approved, carried out, and implemented by the City and SOCCCD. The City and SOCCCD will be taking an action (i.e., approval) on the Project; therefore, pursuant to CEQA, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, known as the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15051(c), both the City and SOCCCD are considered the Lead Agencies. The City and SOCCCD have agreed that since the City will consider the project before SOCCCD, the City will be the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(d), and SOCCCD will be the responsible agency. The City and SOCCCD have agreed to jointly conduct the CEQA analysis. 1.2 Organization of Addendum The organization of this CEQA document is according to the following sections: Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Project Description Section 3: Environmental Evaluation Section 4: Summary of Mitigation Measures Section 5: Sources /Acronyms Section 6: Report Preparers Appendix This Addendum incorporates the Environmental Checklist Form from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as the Initial Study. The environmental issue impact questions contained in Section 3 of this document also conform to the required contents of this Environmental Checklist Form. 1.3 Previous Environmental Documentation A Final Joint Program Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the Navy (Navy) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) dated October 1996, as amended by the Errata dated April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Introduction September 1998. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the City on January 16, 2001 (Resolution 00 -90). On March 3, 2001, a Record of Decision (ROD) was issued bythe Navy approving the FEIS /EIR and the Specific Plan. There have been one supplement and four addenda to the FEIS /EIR. The City of Tustin certified a supplement to the FEIS /EIR on December 4, 2004 and an addendum on April 3, 2006. The District certified an addendum on November 12, 2008 ( SOCCCD Resolution 08 -35) related to the approval of a Long Range Academic & Facilities Plan and a Long Range Academic Plan for the Advanced Technology & Education Park (ATEP) campus; an addendum on March 24, 2009 ( SOCCCD Resolution 09 -05) related to a Concept Plan for Phase 3A of the ATEP campus; and an addendum on December 5, 2011 ( SOCCCD Resolution 11 -38) related to an exchange of land between the District and the County of Orange. The original FEIS /EIR document, the supplement, and the City's and District's addenda are collectively referred to herein as the "FEIS /EIR." In addition, the City has certified multiple CEQA documents associated with prior amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and development projects within Tustin Legacy. Section 1.5.2 of the FEIS /EIR states that the FEIS /EIR is a Program EIR and it is intended to be used as the CEQA compliance document for all public and private actions made in furtherance of, the Specific Plan. The FEIS /EIR analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, including but not limited to the adoption by the City of Tustin of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and adoption of the MCAS Tustin Redevelopment 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 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.1 1.4 Purpose of this Addendum Pursuant to Sections 15051 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency for the CEQA compliance associated with the Project because it will approve, carry out, and implement the Project and will be the first agency to approve the Project. SOCCCD will be a responsible agency. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study and Addendum, the City and SOCCCD determined that the potential impacts of the Project were previously analyzed in or are substantially similar to the impacts analyzed in the FEIS /EIR and that none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the CEQA Guideless applies. The City and SOCCCD determined that they would prepare this Addendum to: (1) evaluate whether the Project's environmental impacts were already analyzed in the FEIS /EIR; (2) document the District's and City's findings with respect to the Project and its environmental determinations; and, (3) evaluate and document that a new, supplemental or subsequent EIR, Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or other CEQA document was not warranted. This Addendum is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project because: 1 MCAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05 -002, DDA and Development Plan Addendum, p. 1 -1. 2 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Introduction • the Project does not change the land uses that are currently permitted within the WAS Tustin Specific Plan, the impacts of which have been previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR; • the Project would not permit an intensification of permitted uses that would lead to increased environmental impacts beyond those that are already identified in the FEIS /EIR; • the Project does not modify previously - analyzed projects in any substantive way; • no new mitigation measures are required; • none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the CEQA Guideless applies; and, • no new significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas were identified, nor would any project- specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of implementing the Project. 1.5 Basis for an EIR Addendum An agency may prepare an addendum to a prior EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 that states, in pertinent part, that: "The lead agency [ ... ] shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." An agency may prepare an addendum to document its decision that a subsequent EIR is not required. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivisions (a) and (e) and Section 15162, subdivision (a)) The Project is consistent with and aids in the implementation of the WAS Tustin Specific Plan. Specifically, the Project would not change the overall intent of the Education Village (PA -1), which is described as a "specialized educational environment with an array of public- serving uses" (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, pg. 2 -10). The uses permitted by the DA further SOCCCD's educational mission as discussed in SOCCCD's Long -Range Academic and Facilities Plan, dated October 2008 and which was the subject of an addendum certified on November 12, 2008 ( SOCCCD Resolution 08 -35). Further, relative to the overall Tustin Legacy development, the Project would not significantly change the intensity or scale of development approved in the Specific Plan, District's Conveyance Agreement, Long -Range Academic and Facilities Plan (LRP), and Concept Plan or analyzed in the previously certified FEIS /EIR. The Project rationalizes parcel configuration to allow for a more efficient use of property by creating contiguous, compact, and conventionally- shaped parcels for future development pursuant to the approved land uses that includes complimentary commercial, offices uses and light industrial uses, joint uses, and other collaborative arrangements to further SOCCCD's education objectives. As such, there are no new significant impacts resulting from the Project, nor is there any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts. In addition, the circumstances under which the Project would be implemented would not result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions to the previously certified 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 to 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. The City and SOCCCD will continue to comply with the adopted applicable MMRPs. 3 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Introduction 1.6 Evaluation of Alternatives CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a Project and alternatives to the Project, including the "No Project" alternative. This Addendum relies on the FEIS /EIR for the evaluation of alternatives. The FEIS /EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the project. The City of Tustin is implementing Alternative 1 of the FEIS /EIR, and there is no information indicating that the City should implement a different alternative or that a different alternative is feasible. Consistent with Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines that identifies which environmental evaluation is required for projects that are consistent with a community plan or zoning, there is no need to address new alternatives in this Addendum. Additionally, there are no circumstances cited in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which require preparation of a subsequent EIR relative to alternatives. 1.7 Summary of Findings Based on the initial study analysis and environmental checklist prepared for the Project and pursuant to Section 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City and SOCCCD have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that: • The Project was examined in light of the FEIS /EIR and has been adequately analyzed in the FEIS /EIR because the Project does not substantively modify the previously - analyzed proposal included in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; • The Project would not have any effects that were not already examined in the FEIS /EIR, no new mitigation measures are required, and there are no new significant adverse project- specific 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 implementing the Project; • All feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR have been incorporated into subsequent actions that the City and SOCCCD commit to fully implement; • There is no information indicating that a different Alternative should be implemented or is feasible under the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; • The Project does not propose substantial changes to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which would require major revisions to the FEIS /EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR; • There have been no substantial changes in circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the FEIS /EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR; and • No new information of substantial importance as described in subsection (a)(3) of Section 15164 has been revealed that would require major revisions to the FEIS /EIR or its conclusions. 1.8 Intended Use of this Addendum This Addendum, which includes the Environmental Checklist/Initial Study for the Project, will serve as the appropriate CEQA documentation for all applicable public agency decision - makers and the public regarding the objectives and components of the Project. The CEQA Guidelines defines an Initial Study as a preliminary analysis prepared by a Lead Agency to determine whether a new, supplemental, or 4 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Introduction subsequent EIR, ND, or MND or other CEQA document must be prepared or to identify the significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR.2 This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the following: • California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 - 21177); • California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15000 - 15387); and, • SOCCCD guidelines for the implementation of CEQA. This Addendum is intended to serve as the CEQA document for any activities by the City, SOCCCD, or any responsible or other agency's actions in implementing, approving, permitting, or carrying out the Project in any other way. 1.9 Environmental Checklist Form This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of environmental documents prepared at an earlier stage in the Project. Therefore, the checklist and analysis evaluate whether the environmental effects of the Project were covered in the FEIS /EIR pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. The FEIS /EIR analyzed a multi -year development period for the Tustin Legacy planned urban reuse project. When individual development activities within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The lead 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 that no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur. Then the lead agency can determine that no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is required. The Project will be approved, carried out, and implemented by the City and SOCCCD. As described in Section 1.1, the City is the lead agency. The City and SOCCCD have agreed to jointly prepare this comprehensive Environmental Checklist to determine if the Project is within the scope of the FEIS /EIR and if new effects would occur as a result of the Project and to document their findings in this Addendum. 1.9.1 Project Title Agreement for Exchange of Real Property between City of Tustin and South Orange County Community College District 1.9.2 Lead Agency Name, Address and Contact Person City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Attention: Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director (714) 573 -3140 2 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (State CEQA Guidelines), Sections 15365 and 15367. 5 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 1.9.3 Responsible Agency Name, Address and Contact Person South Orange County Community College District 28000 Marguerite Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Attention: Dr. Debra Fitzsimons, Vice Chancellor (949) 582 -4664 1.9.4 Project Location Introduction West of Armstrong Avenue, north and south of Valencia Avenue, east of Red Hill Avenue and north of future Warner Avenue within the Tustin Legacy development (former MCAS Tustin). 1.9.5 Project Sponsors' Names and Addresses City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Attention: Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director South Orange County Community College District 28000 Marguerite Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Attention: Dr. Debra Fitzsimons, Vice Chancellor 1.9.6 General Plan Designation - Existing MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 1.9.7 Zoning - Existing MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP -1 Specific Plan). The Specific Plan designation for the Project site is Education Village (PA 1), located within Neighborhood A. 1.9.8 Other Public Agencies Approvals Required Both the Tustin City Council and the SOCCCD Board of Trustees must approve the Exchange Agreement and the Development Agreement and Amended Conveyance Agreement and associated implementation documents. 1.9.9 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Any 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 on the following pages. The following table provides a summary of these environmental issue areas. 6 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Table 1. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Introduction ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hazards /Hazardous ❑ Public Services Materials ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Hydrology /Water ❑ Recreation Quality ❑ Air Quality ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation /Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Population and Housing April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 1.9.10 Environmental Determination Based on this initial evaluation, the following table identifies the environmental determination. Table 2. Environmental Determination Introduction 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 revisions in the ❑ project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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 an effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided, mitigated or overridden pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signatu re Date Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 8 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 2. Project Description 2.1 Project Site Location and Composition The Project site is located in the City of Tustin in the County of Orange within the former MCAS Tustin, now referred to as "Tustin Legacy" (regional map in Figure 1). Although MCAS Tustin's boundary covered an area within the cities of Irvine and Tustin, Tustin Legacy encompasses only the area within the City of Tustin. Tustin Legacy is a 1,511 -acre mixed -use project, which will ultimately include housing, various commercial businesses, a various light industrial uses, schools, and community and regional parks. Portions of Tustin Legacy are developed, including an approximately one - million- square -foot outdoor shopping mall called "The District," single -and multi - family home communities, an elementary school, a homeless /transitional shelter, an abused and neglected children facility, a sheriff academy facility, Phase I of the ATEP campus and focal parks. The city of Santa Ana borders Tustin Legacy to the south and southwest. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to five freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (1 -5), Laguna (SR- 133), Garden Grove (SR -22), and San Diego (1 -405) freeways (see Figure 1). Major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue /Irvine Center Drive on the north, Jamboree Road on the east, and Barranca Parkway on the south. Jamboree Road provides access to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -261 toll road). John Wayne Airport is located approximately 3.5 miles to the south, and the Tustin Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located approximately 11/2 miles to the northeast of the Project site. The Project site is located near the northwestern corner of Tustin Legacy. The Project site consists of 89 acres located within PA 1, which is a 128.3 -acre portion of Neighborhood A (Figure 2). To the west of the Project site is Red Hill Avenue, north is a vacant site that is planned for a public community park, east is Armstrong Avenue, and south is a future extension of Warner Avenue and Rancho Santiago Community College District (RSCCD) Sheriff's Training Academy (Figure 3). Owners of the 89 acres include the City, SOCCCD, and the Navy. The SOCCCD's parcel will ultimately be built out as the Advanced Technology & Education Park (ATEP). Navy land ownership in the project area will decrease over time in favor of the other landowners and the County of Orange, as hazardous materials are removed and lands become available for development. During the clean -up process, Navy lands are controlled by the other three local owners under Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance ( LIFOC) agreements. Table 3 provides a breakdown of land ownership in the project area. Table 3. Existing Project Site Planning Areas Planning Area Owner Fee Ownership Acreage LIFOC Acreage 1 -13 Navy 10.0 1 -D Navy 2.4 1 -E SOCCCD 1.9 1 -G City of Tustin 15.0 1 -H SOCCCD /Navy 29.9 19.8 1 -1 SOCCCD /Navy 6.7 3.3 TOTALS 53.5 35.5 89.0 To date, there has been no demolition of former military facilities or construction of new buildings within City -owned land in Neighborhood A. Within the ATEP site, the District has completed development at the northwest corner of Valencia Avenue and Lansdowne Road (15445 Lansdowne Road), where Phase I of 9 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation the ATEP campus consists of 14,676 square feet of classrooms, laboratories, offices, food services and support space on a one -acre parcel. On the northeast corner of Valencia Avenue and Lansdowne Road, a 104 -space parking lot serves the existing ATEP Campus. The approved ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan permits development of a further 28 acres of the ATEP site with 305,000 square feet of various educational and support uses. Demolition of all former military structures on the ATEP site was completed in 2012. The foundations of prior military buildings and related infrastructure continue to be present south of Valencia Avenue; however, demolition of the foundations has been permitted and demolition is planned in 2013. 10 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist F-enahe-im W Erin9r; Are Environmental Evaluation •i tEge ` �F / w Taft A" a Villa Park 71' E Kat•tta,gre E Col line 1� Bond Avr 86 Orange • E trrtiat 0Tustin Foal is Santa E 41 s in Ana rat /1f TIATIN V, P. ROJE P,.T1 0 Ld-t TI E Warnrr, Ave 40, 4 IN Fountain 1 Valley 56 Q ♦ • w ► Caalito, � >s � TUSTIN + °4w,• h � LEGACY r Baker SI 9� + j+,1,4 jrvine .- CO. O�AO Costa +o 4 �•* Mess \ 01 0 Fi $ Stray c 01 �sr *e' en Lake Fo n � fr Or %ideDr Laguna Woods pf San Joaquin NiTie O It 0 .5�1 r2 Miles Figure 1 Regional Map 11 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Figure 2 Project Site Boundaries 12 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Surrounding uses are listed in Table 4 and mapped in Figure 3. Existing PAs and their respective owners are mapped in Figure 4. Table 4. Surrounding Land Uses 13 April 2013 CURRENT EXISTING DIRECTION LAND USE OWNER CONDITION Sheriff's Training Facility Nav y Existing Military (Neighborhood A, PA 1 -B) Buildings ATEP Campus (Neighborhood A, Multi-phase Planning Areas (PA) 1 -E, 1 -H, 1 -1) SOCCCD /Navy development in Project Site progress Existing Military Educational Village (PA 1 -G) City of Tustin Buildings and Vacant Land Child Care Facility (PA 1 -D) City of Existing Military Tustin /Navy Buildings North Community Park (Neighborhood City of Vacant Land A, PA 2) Tustin /Navy North Elementary School Tustin Unified Developed (Neighborhood A, PA 1 -A) School District Abused Children's Shelter County of Northwest (Neighborhood A, PA 1 -C - Orange Developed partial) Northeast Medium Density Residential Private Under (Neighborhood B, PAs 4 & 5) development West Orange County Rescue Mission Orange County Developed (Neighborhood A, PA 3) Rescue Mission West of Red Hill Commercial and light Private Developed Ave. manufacturing East Urban Regional Park County of Existing Military (Neighborhood C, PA 6) Orange /Navy Buildings South Commercial /Office City /Navy Vacant (Neighborhood D, PA 8) Southeast Mixed Use (Neighborhood E, PAs City /Navy Vacant 9 -12) Southeast Sheriff's Training Academy RSCCD Developed (Neighborhood A, PA 1 -F) 13 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist { Elementary School ' Public Park Abused (future) Children's T A Shelter. •..r Valencia Avenue ;Rescue Mission L t In'' usteia .. Commercial Office .{+ .. T Environmental Evaluation Medium - Density >' Residential / 400 ' a. Urban Regional Park (future) RSCCD Sheriff's oil Training Acadeffi y E � Q f i. Warner Avenue future extension) I. t Commercial /OffiC° ' (future)_ Figure 3 Site Vicinity Land Uses -- ..- ■ Mixed -Use - (future) 14 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist F SA 1 -A TIN UNIFIED ! �w ' SCHOOL M ' DISTRICT i CITY 1-C COUNTY SOCCCD NAVY - ~ PA1 -H II'E PA 4 f PA PA 5 1 1 I I r Figure 4 Existing Planning Areas and Current Owners 2.2 Project Description Environmental Evaluation PA 6 PA B The Project consists of an agreement between the SOCCCD) and the City called the Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property (Exchange Agreement). The Exchange Agreement delineates the terms and processes associated with the exchange of the ultimate ownership of approximately 22 acres of land. 15 April 2013 3i •' •` RESCUE ' 1-D MISSIDN � NAVY�.� .00,. �. PA 1 -H Loop SOCCCD �•' NAVY a I i f socccoll -I �• 1 -G NAVY CITY i i -F I I RSCCD NOT TO SCALE ' - 1 �I �1 Warner Ave. PA 9 PA 10 1 1 I I r Figure 4 Existing Planning Areas and Current Owners 2.2 Project Description Environmental Evaluation PA 6 PA B The Project consists of an agreement between the SOCCCD) and the City called the Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property (Exchange Agreement). The Exchange Agreement delineates the terms and processes associated with the exchange of the ultimate ownership of approximately 22 acres of land. 15 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Associated with the exchange of property are five other main components: 1) a GPA to: a) recognize the SPA described in number 2) below; and, b) add the Bell Avenue extension to the City's circulation plan as a Secondary Arterial; 2) an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to: a) add an extension of Bell Avenue as a Secondary Arterial to the circulation plan; and, b) modify permitted land uses and land use intensities in parts of Neighborhood A; 3) a Development Agreement and Amended Conveyance Agreement (DA) between SOCCCD and the City and related implementation documents that outline the allowed land uses, assignment of vehicle trips and building square footages consistent with the proposed SPA, development impact fee amounts and process for conveying land from the Navy; 4) an Infrastructure Construction and Payment Agreement for Bell Avenue (Bell Avenue Agreement); and, 5) construction of the extension of Bell Avenue. Each of these components are described in more detail below. 2.2.1 Exchange Agreement between City and SOCCCD An Exchange Agreement between the City and SOCCCD is proposed to delineate the terms and processes associated with the exchange of the ultimate ownership of land currently within the respective parties' ownership in fee or in the form of a lease or sublease. The Exchange Agreement provides for an exchange of 6 sites covering 22 acres within Neighborhood A, as shown in Figure 5. Table 5 details the ownership interests and to which party each area is transferred. In addition to rationalizing property boundaries for both the City and SOCCCD, the land exchange will allow for creation of a new public (City- owned) right -of- way for the extension of Bell Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue. Two parcels included in the Exchange Agreement are currently owned by the Navy. Such lands are expected to be transferred to the City and SOCCCD once a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) is issued by the Navy for the lands. Once issued, the FOST will document that the Navy has determined the parcels environmentally suitable for transfer and that either all remediation necessary to protect human health and the environment has been completed or is in place and operating properly and successfully such that development can safely occur on the site. Table 5. Detail of Areas Transferred Between City and SOCCCD 16 April 2013 Acreage Transferred to Each Party City SOCCCD Sublease Fee Sublease Fee Area 1 6.8 Area 2 6 Area 3 Retained by City for Bell Ave Area 4 1.4 Area 5 1.1 Area 6 3 Area 7 3 Area 8 2.4 Area 9 1 Area 10 Retained by SOCCCD Subtotal (w /o Bell) 3 7.8 2.4 9 Total (w /o Bell) 10.8 11.4 Subtotal (w /Bell) 4.1 1 9.2 2.4 9 Total (w/ Bell) 13.3 11.4 16 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 1..6L it I Area 1 6.8 Ac I> � SHERIFFS TRA MM2 FAG L� a 2 FED Ac —ilr I u m"ING or" or TuerrM *" AC PROPOSED CRY OF 15.40 Ac SOCCCD ATEP 1004 Ac ea 3 AM. _ Area 9 Ac----- _— _ - - -_ —_ I PROPOeE� \ SOCCCD A1T� 1 057 Ac OFUIxTE COUNTY RESGJE N.'ISHIdN JOT F. PART Area 6 3.0 Ac MMNO i PNROE`_ FE -41 Basco ° Area 7 PROPOSIED BILL AYE" RM AC INar. N0. 200�0004SS4E6, D.F. CRT OF TUSTN i 1110 AC Is couxry ar owxeE 'tl �BIbE� �IIDW6r8 BMELlEA tAk9O6WNEri0AB— PROPOSED CRY OF 7UHTN 296 Ac rrxrenNaV� FCA em b FVTNRE PRlYATE I - -i - - -. - I NI= UGE DevELOPeaENT Area 6 NPT A PARS ORAMW COUNTY �I © - I1Fl@AN R@alOPU1 PARK NOT A PART Advanced Technology &Education Park Land Exchange Map SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COWUNM CDLLEGE DISTRICT - TUSTIN Figure 5 Exchange Parcels 2.2.2 General Plan Amendment An amendment to the Tustin General Plan is proposed to identify the presence of a new SPA number associated with the WAS Tustin Specific Plan, to note the floor area ratio (FAR) permitted for uses by the SPA, and to add Bell Avenue to the City's circulation plans as a Secondary Arterial with a Class II bicycle lane between Red Hill and Armstrong Avenues. No General Plan land use changes are proposed. The SPA is described below in section 2.2.3 and the extension of Bell Avenue is described in section 2.2.6. 2.2.3 Specific Plan Amendment The SPA is limited to Neighborhood A, Planning Area 1 of the WAS Tustin Specific Plan. 2.2.3.1 Amendment to Sub- Planninal Areas The SPA modifies sub - planning area boundaries within PA 1, and adds three new sub - planning areas (1 -J, 1 -K, and 1 -L). Figure 6 shows Neighborhood A with the new sub - planning areas. Table 6 lists existing and proposed sizes of the Neighborhood A planning areas. 17 April 2013 SOCCCD Y c� CENTER ATEP 10.00 Ac 5158 AC Area 4 Area 10 18000CD A 1.4 A,, 4.53 ac -J PD 4M Ac / �y U A -r,' 8000CD LEh9E ru ' — — - — — — — 23PS PC _ _ _ _ _ — _ - _ PL�OL•.I�. — — socIMD WF 1'F•W Area 5 I e.!®T,P* L1 Ac I crr. GF TusnrU ORILD C,;A � SOCCCD ATEP zar k 10 Ac � I FVTNRE PRlYATE I - -i - - -. - I NI= UGE DevELOPeaENT Area 6 NPT A PARS ORAMW COUNTY �I © - I1Fl@AN R@alOPU1 PARK NOT A PART Advanced Technology &Education Park Land Exchange Map SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COWUNM CDLLEGE DISTRICT - TUSTIN Figure 5 Exchange Parcels 2.2.2 General Plan Amendment An amendment to the Tustin General Plan is proposed to identify the presence of a new SPA number associated with the WAS Tustin Specific Plan, to note the floor area ratio (FAR) permitted for uses by the SPA, and to add Bell Avenue to the City's circulation plans as a Secondary Arterial with a Class II bicycle lane between Red Hill and Armstrong Avenues. No General Plan land use changes are proposed. The SPA is described below in section 2.2.3 and the extension of Bell Avenue is described in section 2.2.6. 2.2.3 Specific Plan Amendment The SPA is limited to Neighborhood A, Planning Area 1 of the WAS Tustin Specific Plan. 2.2.3.1 Amendment to Sub- Planninal Areas The SPA modifies sub - planning area boundaries within PA 1, and adds three new sub - planning areas (1 -J, 1 -K, and 1 -L). Figure 6 shows Neighborhood A with the new sub - planning areas. Table 6 lists existing and proposed sizes of the Neighborhood A planning areas. 17 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Table 6. Detail of Existing and Proposed Planning Areas within Neighborhood A Planning Area Existing Net Acreage Proposed Net Acreage Change in Net Acreage PA 1 124.7 120.9 - 3.8 1 -A 10.0 10.0 1 -B 10.0 10.0 1-C 4.0 4.0 1-D 2.4 2.4 1-E 1.9 4.5 + 2.6 1 -F 15.0 15.0 1-G 14.9 11.4 - 3.5 1 -H 56.5 36.6 - 19.9 1 -1 10.0 10.0 1 -J New PA 4.0 + 4.0 1 -K New PA 3.0 + 3.0 1 -L New PA 10.0 + 10.0 PA 2 24.1 24.1 -- PA 3 5.1 5.1 -- Total Neighborhood A 153.9 150.1 - 3.8 Right -of -Way (total for all Specific Plan areas) 173.4 177.2 3.8 18 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist )II 1 1 -A Figure 6 Proposed Planning Area Boundaries 2.2.3.2 Bell Avenue Environmental Evaluation `) 1 S 1 1 1 Similar to the GPA, the SPA would add to the circulation plan an extension of Bell Avenue as a Secondary Arterial with a Class II bike lane between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. The Project Traffic Study (Appendix A) determined that with the extension of Bell Avenue, increased roadway capacity is available in the circulation system. The Bell Avenue extension would reduce traffic congestion at the Red Hill Avenue /Warner Avenue intersection and the Red Hill Avenue /Valencia Avenue intersection, and provides an alternative route for motorists accessing Tustin Legacy. These factors permit the increase of the current vehicle trip cap for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The trip cap for Neighborhood A is the maximum number of trips that new development can create without requiring additional environmental review for traffic. The current trip cap was evaluated in the FEIS /EIR. The prior trip cap for the ATEP site 19 April 2013 1 2 1 -C j (Valencia 1 3 % 1 -D 1 -H i �•�. '`�• 1 -B 1 -L � IT i 1 -G I WT TO $CAW 1 ' W&TW A.. 91 • Figure 6 Proposed Planning Area Boundaries 2.2.3.2 Bell Avenue Environmental Evaluation `) 1 S 1 1 1 Similar to the GPA, the SPA would add to the circulation plan an extension of Bell Avenue as a Secondary Arterial with a Class II bike lane between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. The Project Traffic Study (Appendix A) determined that with the extension of Bell Avenue, increased roadway capacity is available in the circulation system. The Bell Avenue extension would reduce traffic congestion at the Red Hill Avenue /Warner Avenue intersection and the Red Hill Avenue /Valencia Avenue intersection, and provides an alternative route for motorists accessing Tustin Legacy. These factors permit the increase of the current vehicle trip cap for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The trip cap for Neighborhood A is the maximum number of trips that new development can create without requiring additional environmental review for traffic. The current trip cap was evaluated in the FEIS /EIR. The prior trip cap for the ATEP site 19 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation was 5,470 ADT and for the City parcels 1,672 ADT. As detailed in section 3.16, with the construction of Bell Avenue, levels of peak -hour traffic congestion would decrease at several locations despite the increased development square footage included in the Project. The Traffic Study determined that, based on the size and configuration of the Bell Avenue extension, average daily trip (ADT) volumes (the measure used in establishing the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan trip cap) may be increased by 10,000 ADT without triggering significant adverse effects on the roadway system. This additional roadway capacity is proposed to be split evenly between properties owned by the City and SOCCCD (that is, each entity would be permitted an additional 5,000 ADT). The City anticipates that only about 25 percent of its allocation of 5,000 ADT (up to 1,250 ADT) would be used within Neighborhood A; the remaining trips (3,750 ADT) would be made available for additional development in other areas of Tustin Legacy. The full amount of these trips will not be needed because the City recently amended the MCAS Specific Plan to include government office uses in Neighborhood A to accommodate an expected relocation of the Army Reserve operations from the southern boundary of Tustin Legacy. A total of 1,250 ADT is sufficient for the Army Reserve operations. The specific location of where the balance of these trips will be assigned has not been determined and the City will determine at that time whether subsequent CEQA and traffic analysis may be needed when the trips are allocated to a specific location within Tustin Legacy. The proposed increase in trips is negligible compared to the overall MCAS Tustin Specific Plan planned trip count of 216,440 ADT. The City and SOCCCD are entering into an agreement for the funding and construction of Bell Avenue to ensure the roadway is timely constructed. Further, there are two other sources of trips that are assigned to Neighborhood A, but are not allocated to a specific parcel: (1) 6,220 trips associated with the "Tustin Facility" and (2) 2,683 trips related to commercial uses in Planning Area 1. The FEIS /EIR analyzed impacts assuming these 8,903 trips will be assigned to Neighborhood A parcels. However, with this project, the City has determined it is unlikely that these 8,903 unallocated trips will be assigned to parcels in Neighborhood A. The 5,000 trips being assigned to SOCCCD's parcel are less than the combined number of 8,903 unallocated trips, and therefore, as is demonstrated in the traffic impact analysis, the impacts are not expected to exceed that amount previously analyzed. The City will determine whether subsequent CEQA and traffic analysis will be needed when these 8,903 trips are assigned to a parcel. Until the City makes this determination, it is speculative to and not reasonable to assume the trips will be assigned to parcels in Neighborhood A. 2.2.3.3 Amended List of Allowed Land Uses in Neighborhood A Referencing the proposed planning areas shown in Figure 6, permitted land uses would be amended on PA 1 -B, 1 -E, 1 -H, I -K, and I -L to explicitly include various types of complimentary commercial, office and light industrial uses, joint uses, and other collaborative arrangements to further SOCCCD's education objectives. The Conveyance Agreement, Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan, and ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan all identify and permit various office and commercial uses, including (as a partial list): office and retail service uses; office facilities used for basic and applied research, testing, and consulting; and industrial /commercial business incubators supporting educational programs. The proposed changes to the list of allowed uses would remove ambiguity related to commercial and light industrial uses on the ATEP site. Such uses would be permitted in these planning areas only if the Exchange Agreement is executed. Additionally, such uses would be permitted in PA 1 -B, but only in the event an exchange of land occurs between the City and SOCCCD and if an agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -1. Such uses would also be permitted in PA 1 -1 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. (This exchange of land was 20 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation analyzed in a prior Addendum to the FEIS /EIR, approved December 5, 2011 by the SOCCCD Board of Trustees, and is not part of this project.) All uses permitted by the SPA would continue to be subject to trip caps established by the Specific Plan, as amended by the analysis provided below in relation to additional development capacity resulting from the Bell Avenue extension. 2.2.3.4 Change in Allowed Sauare Footage on ATEP Site Under the DA all buildings to be constructed on the SOCCCD Property will be designed only for Land Use Category 1 and Land Use Category 2 uses. Uses in Land Use Category 1 consist of uses that are education - oriented, including all facilities normally found on college campuses, such as classrooms; labs; administration facilities; student support; cafeteria and food services; bookstore; photocopy services; dormitory and student housing; workforce center; maintenance /security /storage facilities and structures; security and guard houses, gates and other security facilities and structures; student health services; other uses which include facilities for traditional and non - traditional advanced education (extension and /or advanced degree opportunities), adult education, continuing education, vocational, job and educational training, and other education and training. The educational activities in buildings categorized as Land Use Category 1 may be undertaken by public, non - profit or for - profit educational institutions; provided, however, that a substantial portion of the educational activities in Land Use Category 1 Building Area will be conducted by public or non - profit educational institutions. Building Area devoted to uses in Land Use Category 1 which are not strictly educational (Service Uses), e.g., food services, may be conducted by for - profit entities under contract with educational institutions without affecting the character of such Building Area as Land Use Category 1. In addition, educational institutions regularly agree to permit other entities to use facilities primarily devoted to education from time to time in exchange for a payment or other consideration. Also within Land Use Category 1 are other uses (Supportive Uses) that are accessory and subordinate with the educational uses above. Supportive uses support the educational purpose of the education - oriented uses described above, provided they do not exceed more than ten percent (10 %) of the total Building Area developed under Land Use Category 1 including but not limited to the following: minor support commercial, office and retail service uses; a post office, medical /dental clinics; laboratories and office facilities used for basic and applied research, testing and consulting; industrial /commercial business incubators which support educational programs or provide educational opportunities, or commercial studios (i.e. sound stages and their support facilities, such as mill shops, technical production facilities, and production offices). Uses in Land Use Category 2 consist of non - educational, income producing uses, including private sector uses, provided that such uses do not adversely impact the trip cap under the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan or other environmental impact category thresholds in the CEQA Documentation, or require a Specific Plan Amendment or further environmental documentation. Up to 100 percent of the Building Area on the SOCCCD Property may be dedicated to Land Use Category 1 uses. At build -out, at least 51 percent of the building area on the SOCCCD property must be devoted to Land Use Category 1 Uses. The building area will not exceed that permitted pursuant to allocation of ADT's to the SOCCCD property. As specific development proposals are considered for the Project site, ADT calculations will be required, using the trip generation rates previously identified in the FEIS /EIR, to show that the trip cap is not exceeded. While a specific development proposal is not included in this analysis, two preliminary calculations have been produced to provide examples of typical development amounts that could result from development in two scenarios, described below and summarized in Table 7. 21 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation The first scenario assumes the ATEP site would be developed with approximately 51 percent academic uses (Land Use Category 1) and 49 percent general office uses (Land Use Category 2). Using the FEIS /EIR trip generation rates, a total of 1,087,970 square feet of development (including 554,870 square feet of academic space and 533,100 square feet of office space) would be permitted on the ATEP campus. This is an increase in development capacity of 194,119 square feet from the 893,851 square feet previously permitted on the ATEP site. The second scenario assumes the ATEP site would be developed with 100 percent academic uses (Land Use Category 1). Again using the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan trip generation rates, a total of 1,710,780 square feet (all academic space) would be permitted on the ATEP campus. This is an increase in development capacity of 816,929 square feet from the 893,851 square feet previously permitted on the ATEP site. Table 7. Potential Development Scenarios within Trip Cap No specific development proposal for the project area is currently being considered by the City or SOCCCD. When there are specific development proposals, SOCCCD will analyze the proposed project and determine whether additional CEQA analysis will be needed at that time. This is consistent with the purpose of the FEIS /EIR document, which serves as a program -level document with subsequent activities being examined in greater detail through additional environmental analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168). Limiting the scope of analysis in this Addendum to the Project elements that are known at this time is also consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, which discourages discussion of speculative impacts. 2.2.4 Development Agreement and Amended and Restated Conveyance Agreement between City and SOCCCD The Project includes a Development Agreement clarifying ministerial project review requirements to avoid duplicative reviews between the City and the Division of the State Architect and simplifying development review procedures. The Development Agreement is included within an Amended and Restated Conveyance Agreement and includes related implementation documents. 2.2.5 Infrastructure Construction and Payment Agreement for Bell Avenue Related to the construction of Bell Avenue, the City and SOCCCD have drafted an Infrastructure Construction and Payment Agreement (Bell Avenue Agreement), which delineates the design and construction responsibility, approval process and allocation of costs. The construction of Bell Avenue and this Agreement are part of the project analyzed by this Addendum. 22 April 2013 FEIS /EIR Development Scenario 1(sq. ft.) Increase in Potential Scenario (sq. ft.) Development (sq. ft.) Academic (Land Use 893,851 554,870 Category 1) General Office (Land Use 533,100 Category 2) Total 893,851 1,087,970 194,119 Scenario 2 (sq. ft.) Academic (Land Use 893,851 1,710,780 816,929 Category 1) Total 893,851 1,710,780 816,929 No specific development proposal for the project area is currently being considered by the City or SOCCCD. When there are specific development proposals, SOCCCD will analyze the proposed project and determine whether additional CEQA analysis will be needed at that time. This is consistent with the purpose of the FEIS /EIR document, which serves as a program -level document with subsequent activities being examined in greater detail through additional environmental analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168). Limiting the scope of analysis in this Addendum to the Project elements that are known at this time is also consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, which discourages discussion of speculative impacts. 2.2.4 Development Agreement and Amended and Restated Conveyance Agreement between City and SOCCCD The Project includes a Development Agreement clarifying ministerial project review requirements to avoid duplicative reviews between the City and the Division of the State Architect and simplifying development review procedures. The Development Agreement is included within an Amended and Restated Conveyance Agreement and includes related implementation documents. 2.2.5 Infrastructure Construction and Payment Agreement for Bell Avenue Related to the construction of Bell Avenue, the City and SOCCCD have drafted an Infrastructure Construction and Payment Agreement (Bell Avenue Agreement), which delineates the design and construction responsibility, approval process and allocation of costs. The construction of Bell Avenue and this Agreement are part of the project analyzed by this Addendum. 22 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 2.2.6 Extension of Bell Avenue As part of the Project, a 1/3 -mile extension of Bell Avenue is proposed. This would extend Bell Avenue from its current terminus at Red Hill Avenue to a new intersection at Armstrong Avenue. The extension would be a Secondary Arterial -level roadway with a 92 -foot right -of -way, four travel lanes, a painted median allowing left turns, Class II bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. A signalized intersection may be located approximately at the midpoint along the roadway extension, depending on the future development configuration on either side of Bell Avenue. Construction of Bell Avenue is occur in 2017 would take approximately six to eight months. 3. Environmental Evaluation and Explanation of Checklist Responses This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts take into consideration the preparation of an environmental document (the FEIS /EIR) which fully analyzed the Project. The Project does not involve any changes in development intensity or modification in development standards. The checklist and initial study evaluate whether the conditions identified in Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred and require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, supplemental EIR, ND, or MND. The following information is presented for each of the topical issues presented in the Initial Study environmental checklist: • Existing Conditions • Project Impact Evaluation • Potentially Significant Impact • Less than Significant with Mitigation • Less than Significant Impact • No Impact - a check mark in the No Impact box equates to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis (FEIS /EIR) • Mitigation Measures • Sources 23 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1.1 Existing Conditions Environmental Evaluation The existing ATEP campus buildings and associated parking (located north of Valencia Avenue) were constructed in 2007. Areas south of Valencia Avenue still have remnants of the former MCAS Tustin (constructed between 1943 and 1988), including asphalt -paved streets and parking lots, concrete sidewalks, building foundations, landscaping/groundcover, and underground utilities. All of the former military buildings on the SOCCCD parcels have been demolished. City -owned parcels contain remnants of the former MCAS Tustin. These structures have not been used in over a decade and are in varying stages of decay. 3.1.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project have a Potentially Less than Less than No substantial adverse effect on a Significant Significant Significant Impact scenic vista? Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Would the project Potentially Less than Less than No substantially damage scenic Significant Significant Significant Impact resources, including, but not limited Impact With Impact to, trees, rock outcroppings, and Mitigation historic buildings within a state Incorporation scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ C) Would the project Potentially Less than Less than No substantially degrade the existing Significant Significant Significant Impact visual character or quality of the Site Impact With Impact and its surroundings? Mitigation Incorporation d) Would the project create a Potentially Less than Less than No new source of substantial light or Significant Significant Significant Impact glare, which would adversely affect Impact With Impact day or nighttime views in the area? Mitigation Incorporation Response to a -d: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project proposes to permit uses that are substantially the same as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Even though the Project would allow for increased building area and FAR, the proposed land exchange and 24 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation associated approvals would not change the future development condition that was analyzed in the FEIS /EIR because there would be no change to building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards - the key elements that would affect aesthetics. The FEIS /EIR anticipated that former WAS buildings located on the Project site would be demolished and replaced with new construction. Visual changes to the Project vicinity have already occurred with the development of ATEP Phase I, the RSCCD's Sheriff's Training Academy, the County's Abused Children's Shelter, residential neighborhoods north and south of Valencia Avenue, the construction of the Tustin Unified School District's Heritage Elementary School, as well as the demolition of buildings on the ATEP site. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the 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 visual impacts of planned construction in Neighborhood A were analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, and there would be no new or substantially different aesthetic impacts as a result of the Project. Future construction on the properties would comply with the site development standards in the Specific Plan. Therefore, the overall intensity of the future development and the general character of the Project site would not be substantially altered by the Project. The implementation of the Project would exchange properties between the District and City of Tustin. Future construction of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to an education- and public - services- oriented 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 Project would not affect these hangars. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the approval and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. In addition, there are no applicable mitigation measures contained in the City's 2012 City of Tustin Annual MMRP Report (2012 MMRP) for the FEIS /EIR with regard to 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. 25 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Mitigation/MonitorinO Measures Not BeinO Implemented: Mitigation Measure Vis -1, regarding urban design plan adoption in conjunction with any zoning ordinance amendments, is the responsibility of others to implement, and therefore is not within the Project's responsibility to implement. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas (LRP) ATEP LARP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -84, 4 -109 through 4 -114), Addendum (pp. 5 -3 through 5 -8), and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 26 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources 3.2.1 Existing Conditions Environmental Evaluation There were no agricultural uses on the Site in the recent past. There are currently no agricultural uses on the Site. 3.2.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project convert Potentially Less than Less than No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Significant Significant Significant Impact or Farmland of Statewide Impact With Impact Importance (Farmland), as shown on Mitigation the maps prepared pursuant to the Incorporation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ❑ ❑ ❑ Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Would the project conflict Potentially with existing zoning for agricultural " Significant use, or a Williamson Act contract? Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than No Significant Impact Impact C) Would the project conflict Potentially Less than Less than No with existing zoning for, or cause Significant Significant Significant Impact rezoning of, forest land, timberland, Impact With Impact or timberland zoned Timberland Mitigation Production? Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Result in the loss of forest Potentially Less than Less than No land or conversion of forest land to Significant Significant Significant Impact non - forest use? Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation e) Would the project involve Potentially Less than Less than No other changes in the existing Significant Significant Significant Impact environment, which, due to their Impact With Impact location or nature, could result in Mitigation conversion of Farmland, to non- Incorporation agricultural use? Response to a -e: 27 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would not cause impacts to agriculture and forest resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. There continue to be no agricultural resources on the property. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. The impacts of the development of the properties has already been 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. Therefore, 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 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts will result from the District's and County's approval and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for agricultural resources. In addition, there are no applicable mitigation measures contained in the City's approved MMRP for the FEIS /EIR with regard to agricultural resources. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -84, 4 -109 through 4 -114), Addendum (pp. 5 -8 through 5 -10), and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 28 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 3.3 Air Quality 3.3.1 Existing Conditions Environmental Evaluation The Site is presently not in use. Former military buildings on the ATEP site have been demolished. Remnant structures remain on City -owned lands. 3.3.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project conflict Potentially Less than Less than No with or obstruct implementation of Significant Significant Significant Impact the applicable air quality plan? Impact With Impact emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone Mitigation precursors)? Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Would the project violate Potentially Less than Less than No any air quality standard or contribute :Significant Significant Significant Impact substantially to an existing or Impact With Impact projected air quality violation? Mitigation Incorporation C) Would the project result in a Potentially Less than Less than No cumulatively considerable net Significant Significant Significant Impact increase of any criteria pollutant for Impact With Impact which the project region is non- Mitigation attainment under an applicable Incorporation federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Would the project expose Potentially Less than Less than No sensitive receptors to substantial Significant Significant Significant Impact pollutant concentrations? Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Would the project create Potentially Less than Less than No objectionable odors affecting a Significant Significant Significant Impact substantial number of people? Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Response to a -e: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. 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 (AQ -1, AQ -2, AQ -3, and AQ -4) 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 a part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS /EIR for which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project site were previously addressed in the FEIS /EIR. The Proposed Project modifies the project analyzed in the FEIS /EIR by including an extension to Bell Avenue, construction of between 194,109 and 816,929 square feet of academic and office space beyond the previously - analyzed amounts, and an increase in the trip cap. These modifications to the original MCAS Tustin Specific Plan project are assessed in a technical report titled Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses (AQIA), prepared by Giroux & Associates in April 2013 (Appendix B). As shown in Table 8, construction - period emissions resulting from the development of Bell Avenue and the subsequent construction of buildings on the Project site would be below South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily emissions thresholds for construction, and there would be not be a significant construction - period air quality impact from the Project. Table S. Construction Activity Emissions As shown in Table 9, operational emissions resulting from an increased trip cap of 10,000 ADT would be below SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds for operations, and there would not be a significant operational - period air quality impact from the Project. Table 9. Operational Period Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds /day) ROG NOx CO S02 PM -10 PM -2.5 2014 (Bell Avenue Construction) 6.4 50.8 30.2 0.1 9.8 6.3 2020 (Facilities Construction) 68.1 35.6 42.8 0.1 8.9 5.3 2021 (Facilities Construction) 67.8 26.4 41.3 0.1 8.8 1.3 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Maximum daily emissions assume implementation of all standard SCAQMD requirements. Source: AQIA Table 9 (Appendix B). As shown in Table 9, operational emissions resulting from an increased trip cap of 10,000 ADT would be below SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds for operations, and there would not be a significant operational - period air quality impact from the Project. Table 9. Operational Period Emissions 30 April 2013 Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds /day) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM -10 PM -2.5 Area 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.4 3.5 2.9 0.0 0.3 0.3 Mobile 19.8 35.8 156 0.8 80.6 3.8 Total 41.6 39.3 158.9 0.8 80.9 4.1 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No 30 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Source: AQIA Table 11 (Appendix B) Based on the above analysis (with additional detail, including modeling results, in Appendix B), there would be no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project that was not previously analyzed 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. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR and no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality. Although the Project analyzed in this Addendum would not independently create significant air quality impacts, the broader project on the MCAS Tustin site was found in the FEIS /EIR to result in significant unavoidable air quality impacts. Consistent with these findings, development on the Project site could also result in significant unavoidable long -term and cumulative air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS /EIR for which this finding was made. Mitigation measures included in the FEIS /EIR will be implemented as appropriate by the City and SOCCCD. The City and SOCCCD will implement Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3. The implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -4 is the responsibility of the City and /or the City of Irvine, and is not within the responsibility of the SOCCCD. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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/Monitorino Reauired: Specific air quality mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS /EIR for both operational and construction - related activities for development at Tustin Legacy. The mitigation measures for air quality impacts that are applicable to the Project during the future implementation stages (i.e., construction) include Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2. The City and SOCCCD would implement Mitigation Measure AQ -1 by complying with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules to reduce short -term air pollutant emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would be implemented by requiring the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC) architectural coatings for all interior and exterior painting operations. Mitigation Measure AQ -3 which relates to Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) will be implemented for new non - residential projects with 100 or more employees and expanded projects where additional square footage would result in a total of 100 or more employees. As stated above, the FEIS /EIR also concludes that Specific Plan- related operational air quality impacts are significant and cannot be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short - term, long -term, and cumulative air quality impacts associated with all development of the Specific Plan. No new mitigation measures are required. The Project will implement the relevant mitigation measures of the 2012 MMRP that are applicable to the Project. 31 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Mitigation/MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: All relevant mitigation measures will be implemented by the City and SOCCCD (AQ -1 through AQ -3) or the City independently (AQ -4). Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -143 through 3 -153, pp. 4 -207 through 4 -230, pp. 7 -41 through 7 -42, and Addendum (pp. 5 -10 through 5 -28) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Resolution No. 00 -90 Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 District Conveyance Agreement Stantec - Traffic Study (Appendix A) Giroux & Associates - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses (Appendix B) 32 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4.1 Existing Conditions Environmental Evaluation Underground and surface -level features of former military buildings, asphalt -paved streets and parking lots, concrete sidewalks and pads, and landscaping/groundcover from the former MCAS Tustin facilities are scattered across the Project site. There is no southwestern pond turtle habitat on the Project site. 3.4.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project have a Potentially Less than Less than No substantial adverse effect, either Significant Significant Significant Impact directly or through habitat Impact With Impact modifications, on any species Mitigation identified as a candidate, sensitive, Incorporation or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Would the project have a Potentially Less than Less than No substantial adverse effect on any Significant Significant Significant Impact riparian habitat or other sensitive Impact With Impact natural community identified in local Mitigation or regional plans, policies, Incorporation regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ C) Would the project have a I Potentially Less than substantial adverse effect on ;Significant Significant federally protected wetlands as Impact With defined by Section 404 of the Clean Mitigation Water Act (including, but not limited Incorporation to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Would the project 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? Less than No Significant Impact Impact Potentially Less than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation 33 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation ❑ ❑ M ❑ e) Would the project conflict Potentially Less than Less than No with any local policies or ordinances Significant Significant Significant Impact protecting biological resources, such Impact With Impact as a tree preservation policy or Mitigation ordinance? Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Would the project conflict Potentially Less than Less than No with the provisions of an adopted :Significant Significant Significant Impact Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Impact With Impact Community Conservation Plan, or Mitigation other approved local, regional, or Incorporation state habitat conservation plan? Responses to a -f: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would not cause impacts to biological resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The FEIS /EIR analyzed the future development of the whole of Neighborhood A and the associated biological impacts. No new areas will be developed under the Project. 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. In 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) determined that the ATEP Site does not contain land that is subject to their jurisdiction or that warrants their oversight. There is no other 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 and 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 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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/MonitorinO Required: The mitigation measures applicable during implementation of the Project have been identified in the City's 2012 MMRP. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required for implementation (i.e., construction) of the Project. The Project will implement the relevant mitigation measures of the adopted MMRP and as stated in the 2012 MMRP. The City and SOCCCD would not need to implement Mitigation Bio -1 because the Project would not affect jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. With regard to Mitigation 34 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Bio -2, Bio -3, and Bio -4, which deal with capture and relocation of pond turtles and restoration of pond turtle habitat, these measures do not apply to the Project because no ponds exist on the Project site. Miti -dation /Monitorin-d Not Bein-d Imolemented: As discussed above, an additional survey on the Project site will be conducted prior to obtaining a grading permit as required by the existing mitigation measures. If the Site continues to reveal no presence of southwestern pond turtles, Mitigation Measures Bio -1, Bio - 2, Bio -3, and Bio -4 would not be implemented as part of the Project. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP EIR Addendum as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -75 through 3 -82, pp. 4 -103 through 4 -108, pp. 7 -26 through 7 -27, and Addendum (pp. 5 -28 through 5 -40) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 35 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 3.5 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 3.5.1 Existing Conditions Environmental Evaluation Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin Site. There are no cultural resources identified on the Project site in the FEIS /EIR. 3.5.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project cause a Potentially Less than Less than No substantial adverse change in the Significant Significant Significant Impact significance of a historical resource Impact With Impact as defined in §15064.5? Mitigation Incorporation b) Would the project cause a ' Potentially Less than substantial adverse change in the :Significant Significant significance of an archaeological Impact With resource pursuant to X15064.5? Mitigation Incorporation C) Would the project directly or Potentially Less than indirectly destroy a unique :Significant Significant paleontological resource or Site or Impact With unique geologic feature? Mitigation Incorporation Less than No Significant Impact Impact Less than No Significant Impact Impact d) Would the project disturb Potentially Less than Less than No any human remains, including those :Significant Significant :Significant :Impact interred outside of formal ;Impact With Impact cemeteries? Responses to a -d: Mitigation Incorporation No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources. The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project site, were considered in the FEIS /EIR. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological resources within the Project site could be discovered during grading and other construction activities. With the inclusion of Mitigation Measures Arch -2, Paleo -1 and Paleo -2, which require construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources, potential impacts to these resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance as found in the FEIS /EIR. 36 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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. Miti -dation /Monitorin-d Reouired: The City and SOCCCD would implement Mitigation Measure Arch -2 by retaining a County - certified archaeologist and conducting the required consultations prior to obtaining grading permits. The City and SOCCCD would implement Mitigation Measures Paleo -1 and Paleo -2 by retaining a County - certified paleontologist and complying with the requirements of the established Paleontology Resources Management Plan (PRMP) for Tustin Legacy. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: Other mitigation measures for cultural resources in the FEIS /EIR and City's 2012 MMRP are not applicable to the Project site and are the responsibility of others to implement. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -68 through 3 -74, pp. 4 -93 through 4 -102, pp. 7 -24 through 7 -26, Addendum (pp. 5 -40 through 5 -45) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 37 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 3.6 Geology and Soils 3.6.1 Existing Conditions Environmental Evaluation There are no known geotechnical conditions that would preclude implementation of the Project. Geotechnical conditions on the Project site are similar to geotechnical conditions throughout Tustin Legacy. 3.6.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project expose Potentially Less than Less than No people or structures to potential Significant Significant ' Significant Impact substantial adverse effects, Impact With Impact including the risk of loss, injury, or Mitigation Impact death involving: Incorporation Mitigation i) Rupture of a known death involving: Mitigation earthquake fault, as delineated on death involving: the most recent Alquist - Priolo Incorporation E Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued ii) Strong seismic ground El by the State Geologist for the area or El z based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. a) Would the project expose Potentially Less than Less than No people or structures to potential Significant Significant Significant Impact substantial adverse effects, Impact With Impact Mitigation including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Mitigation Incorporation death involving: E Incorporation E including liquefaction? ii) Strong seismic ground El El El z shaking? a) Would the project expose Potentially Less than Less than No people or structures to potential Significant Significant Significant Impact substantial adverse effects, Impact With Impact including the risk of loss, injury, or Mitigation death involving: Incorporation iii) Seismic - related ground failure, E E E including liquefaction? a) Would the project expose Potentially Less than Less than No people or structures to potential Significant Significant Significant Impact substantial adverse effects, :Impact With Impact including the risk of loss, injury, or Mitigation death involving: Incorporation iv) Landslides? E E I E 38 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation b) Would the project result in Potentially Less than Less than No substantial soil erosion or the loss of Significant Significant Significant Impact topsoil? Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ C) Would the project be located :Potentially Less than Less than No on a geologic unit or soil that is Significant Significant Significant Impact unstable, or that would become :Impact With Impact unstable as a result of the project, Mitigation and potentially result in on -site or Incorporation off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Would the project be located Potentially Less than Less than No on expansive soil, as defined in Significant Significant Significant Impact Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Impact With Impact Code (1994), creating substantial Mitigation risks to life or property? Incorporation e) Would the project have soils Potentially Less than Less than No incapable of adequately supporting Significant Significant Significant Impact the use of septic tanks or alternative Impact With Impact waste water disposal systems where Mitigation sewers are not available for the Incorporation disposal of waste water? Responses to a -e: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. 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. 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 Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR and no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS /EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non - seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high - intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically- induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS /EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS /EIR. 39 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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/Monitorino Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts will result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for geology and soils. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's 2012 MMRP with regard to geology and soils. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for geology and soils. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's 2012 MMRP with regard to geology and soils. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -88 through 3 -97, pp. 4 -115 through 4 -123, pp. 7 -28 through 7 -29, and Addendum (pp. 5 -46 through 5 -49) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 40 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7.1 Existing Conditions Emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere is not itself an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. Due to the complex physical, chemical, and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, it is not possible to predict the specific impact, if any, to global climate change from one project's relatively small incremental increase in emissions. 3.7.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project generate Potentially Less than Less than No greenhouse gas emissions, either Significant Significant Significant Impact directly or indirectly, that may have a I Impact With Impact significant impact on the Mitigation environment? Incorporation b) Would the project conflict Potentially Less than Less than No with an applicable plan, policy, or ' Significant Significant Significant Impact regulation adopted for the purpose " Impact With Impact of reducing the emissions of Mitigation greenhouse gases? Incorporation El ❑ Responses to a -b: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Implementation of the Project would not result in any substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to the Specific Plan analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project modifies the project analyzed in the FEIS /EIR by including an extension to Bell Avenue, construction of academic and office space beyond the previously - analyzed amounts, and an increase in the trip cap. These modifications to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as amended project are assessed in the AQIA (Appendix B). In order to assess the GHG emissions impacts, the AQIA report assumed the construction of an additional 816,929 square feet of academic space beyond that currently permitted. The report also analyzed the impacts associated with 194,109 square feet of academic and office space; however, because the larger amount of square feet would result in greater emissions, the following only references the emissions associated with the greater square footage number. Emissions associated with the lower square footage number can be found in Appendix B. Table 10 shows calculated GHG emissions resulting from Project implementation. The table includes operational emissions as well as construction emissions amortized over 30 years, as required by SCAQMD. On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent per year. The threshold applies primarily to industrial facilities. No threshold for residential or commercial development has been promulgated. In the absence of any adopted thresholds for roadway and commercial facilities projects, the AQIA uses the 10,000 MT /year recommendation as a guideline for this impact analysis. 41 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Table 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source Metric Tons of CO2e (tons /year) Business as Usual Reduction* Residual Energy Utilization 4,055.1 30.2% 2,830.5 Mobile (Transportation) 6,241.8 18.5% 5,087.1 Solid Waste Generation 483.1 0.0% 483.1 Water Consumption 392.1 19.0% 317.6 Annualized Construction 55.1 0.0% 55.1 Total 11,227.2 21.8 % ** 8,773.4 SCAQMD Interim Threshold 10,000 10,000 Exceeds Threshold? Yes No Source: AQIA Tables 15 and 16 (Appendix B). * Reduction based on in -place programs by 2020 ** Weighted average The GHG emissions identified in Table 10 provides two scenarios. The first scenario assumes the continuation of "business as usual" (BAU) practices throughout the Project development timeframe and the second assumes implementation of existing programs that when implemented, will substantially reduce the GHG emissions associated with transportation and energy consumption as the major contributors to operational GHG emissions. These programs include the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards, the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and required electrical energy efficiency increases associated with building construction. Existing mandatory programs will reduce statewide GHG emissions by varying amounts depending on the source of the activity that results in GHG emissions. The reductions listed in Table 10 are exclusive of any additional initiatives undertaken by SOCCCD for GHG reduction, which are likely to include, but not be limited to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification of buildings. With the implementation of the established programs, the projected GHG emissions will be reduced below the adopted SCAQMD interim threshold for GHG emissions, and there would not be a significant operational - period air quality impact from the Project. Therefore, there are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to GHG emissions that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR and, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to GHG emissions. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures with regard to climate change. 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. 42 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Mitioation /Monitorino Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required with regard to climate change. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's 2012 MMRP for the Specific Plan FEIS /EIR with regard to GHG emissions. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for climate change, and no mitigation measures are contained in the City's 2012 MMRP for the Specific Plan /Reuse Plan FEIS /EIR with regard to climate change. Sources: ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP, as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP, as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan District Conveyance Agreement Tustin General Plan Irvine Ranch Water District 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, November 2005 Irvine Ranch Water District 2000 Water Resources Master Plan Stantec - Traffic Study (Appendix A) Giroux & Associates - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses (Appendix B) 43 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8.1 Existing Conditions The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. Portions of the Project site are presently undergoing remediation, and therefore remain under Navy ownership. These areas are available for limited used by the future owners (the City and SOCCCD) under a LIFOC agreement. They will not be conveyed to the future owners until the Navy determines that its remediation of hazards and hazardous materials in these areas have sufficiently progressed to the point that the property can safely be developed. Asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) and lead -based paint (LBP) were identified in previous surveys within the Project site. There are well - established existing laws and procedures for remediating these two conditions. Remediation of these conditions have been addressed as part of a building demolition program on SOCCCD properties, and will also be implemented by the City as demolition proceeds on their properties. The demolition work was previously approved by the SOCCCD and is not a part of the Project. The presence of these two conditions in the military buildings has been thoroughly analyzed in the previously - certified FEIS /EIR, and does not affect the implementation of the Project. 3.8.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project create a 'Potentially ;Less than Less than No significant hazard to the public or Significant Significant Significant Impact the environment through the routine Impact With Impact transport, use, or disposal of Mitigation hazardous materials? Incorporation b) Would the project create a Potentially Less than Less than No significant hazard to the public or Significant Significant Significant Impact the environment through reasonably Impact With Impact foreseeable upset and accident Mitigation conditions involving the release of Incorporation hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ C) Would the project emit Potentially hazardous emissions or handle Significant hazardous or acutely hazardous Impact materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than No Significant Impact Impact 44 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist d) Would the project be located Potentially on a Site, which is included on a list Significant of hazardous materials Sites Impact 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 Potentially an airport land use plan or, where Significant such a plan has not been adopted, Impact within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the Potentially vicinity of a private airstrip, would the _ Significant project result in a safety hazard for Impact people residing or working in the project area? g) Would the project impair Potentially implementation of or physically Significant interfere with an adopted emergency Impact response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Environmental Evaluation Less than Less than No Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ Less than Less than No Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than No Significant Impact Impact Less than No Significant Impact Impact h) Would the project expose Potentially Less than Less than No people or structures to a significant Significant Significant Significant Impact risk of loss, injury or death involving Impact With Impact wildland fires, including where Mitigation wildlands are adjacent to urbanized Incorporation areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ Responses to a -h: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. 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 and no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. 45 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 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 Project does not propose changes to the 100 -foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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. Mitialation /Monitorinal Reauired: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts will result from implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's 2012 MMRP with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous materials, and no mitigation measures are contained in the City's 2012 MMRP for the Specific Plan /Reuse Plan FEIS /EIR with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for ATEP prepared by LandAmerica Assessment Corporation dated November 8, 2007 FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -106 through 3 -117, pp. 4 -130 through 4 -138, pp. 7 -30 through 7 -31, and Addendum (pp. 5 -49 through 5 -55) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Navy's Draft Final Finding of Suitability to Transfer for Parcels 23, 29, 34, 35, and 36, and Portions of 1, 16, 17, 24, 27, 28, 40, and 41 (FOST), dated April 2, 2002, and the Finding of Suitability to Lease for Carve -Out Areas 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (FOSL), dated April 26,2002 46 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Department of Navy correspondence and documents regarding the status of remediation efforts underway Documents related to the ATEP Campus that were reviewed at the report repository located at the former MCAS - El Toro, Building 307 Final Amended Site Management Plan Fiscal Year 2009 Update - former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, Tustin, CA, dated November 2008 and prepared by BRAC PMO West. Federal Conveyance document District Conveyance document Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 47 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9.1 Existing Conditions Environmental Evaluation Surface water runoff from the Project site generally flows east to Armstrong Avenue to existing 72 -inch and 36 -inch diameter drainpipes and south to Warner Avenue to a planned 36 -inch diameter drainpipe. 3.9.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project violate any Potentially Less than Less than No water quality standards or waste Significant Significant Significant Impact discharge requirements? Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Would the project ` Potentially substantially deplete groundwater Significant supplies or interfere substantially Impact 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)? X Less than Less than No Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ C) Would the project Potentially Less than substantially alter the existing Significant Significant drainage pattern of the Site or area, Impact With including through the alteration of Mitigation the course of a stream or river, in a Incorporation manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Would the project Potentially Less than substantially alter the existing Significant Significant drainage pattern of the Site or area, Impact With including through the alteration of Mitigation the course of a stream or river, or Incorporation substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less than No Significant Impact Impact Less than No Significant Impact Impact 48 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation e) Would the project create or Potentially Less than Less than No contribute runoff water, which would Significant Significant Significant Impact exceed the capacity of existing or Impact With Impact planned storm water drainage Mitigation systems or provide substantial Incorporation additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Would the project otherwise :Potentially Less than Less than No substantially degrade water quality? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Would the project place Potentially Less than Less than No housing within a 100 -year flood Significant Significant Significant Impact hazard area as mapped on a federal Impact With Impact Mitigation Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Mitigation Incorporation Insurance Rate Map or other flood �❑ Incorporation ❑ I® hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Would the project place Potentially Less than Less than No within a 100 -year flood hazard area Significant Significant Significant Impact structures that would impede or Impact With Impact red i rect f lood flows? Impact Mitigation Mitigation Incorporation �❑ I❑ ❑ I® i) Would the project expose Potentially Less than Less than I No people or structures to a significant :Significant Significant Significant Impact risk of loss, injury or death involving Impact With Impact flooding, including flooding as a Mitigation result of the failure of a levee or Incorporation dam? j) Would the project inundation Potentially Less than Less than No by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ Responses to a j: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. While the project would permit an increased development square footage, all such development would be required to comply with then - current Water Quality Management Plan 49 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation (WQMP) requirements imposed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, the Project does not include any change to setbacks or other development standards that impact drainage. Any changes in drainage resulting from construction of Bell Avenue will be compliant with the master drainage plan in place for MCAS Tustin, as analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Construction of the roadway will also require preparation of a WQMP. 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 and no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to hydrology /water quality. As concluded in the FEIS /EIR, preparation of a 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. The Specific Plan considered the development of education - oriented and public services land uses on the Project site. Future development would require preparation of a WQMP that limits off -site stormwater flows. The 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 substantially. 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 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of insignificance and no new mitigation is required. The mitigation measures applicable during implementation (i.e., construction) of the Project have been identified in the City's adopted MMRP. Mitigation Measures WQ -1, WQ -2, and WQ -4 establish requirements related to preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, compliance with Waste Discharge Requirements, and preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan, respectively. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required for implementation of the Project. The Project will implement the relevant mitigation measures of the adopted MMRP and as stated in the FEIS /EIR and 2012 MMRP. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: Mitigation Measure WQ -3 requires others to participate in the RWQCB's Nitrogen and Selenium Management Program (NSMP) Working Group and contribute to funding and implementing the Working Plan. Because this mitigation measure is the responsibility of others to implement, it does not fall within the responsibility of the Project to implement. 50 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Sources: Field Observations Consultation with Psomas Engineering Existing Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP, as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -98 through 3 -105, pp. 4 -124 through 4 -129, pp. 7 -29 through 7 -30, and Addendum (pp. 5 -56 through 5 -92) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 51 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 3.10 Land Use and Planning 3.10.1 Existing Conditions The SOCCCD approved the Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan, which pertains to the ATEP portion of the project area, in November 2008. Phase 1, the existing one -acre ATEP campus, is currently offering educational programs. The Phase 3A Concept Plan, a 28 -acre expansion of the ATEP campus, was approved and CEQA review (in the form of an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR) was completed by the District in March 2009. The former military buildings on the SOCCCD parcels have been demolished. No specific development for the County Parcel has been proposed. The County parcel is still under the control of the Navy, and will remain so until the FOST is issued. Remnants of former MCAS Tustin buildings and infrastructure remain on the site, but are vacant and unused. 3.10.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project physically Potentially Less than Less than No divide an established community? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Would the project conflict Potentially Less than Less than No with any applicable land use plan, Significant Significant Significant Impact policy, or regulation of an agency Impact With Impact with jurisdiction over the project Mitigation (including, but not limited to the Incorporation general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ C) Would the project conflict Potentially Less than Less than No with any applicable habitat Significant Significant Significant Impact conservation plan or natural Impact With Impact community conservation plan? Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ Responses to a -c: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to land use and planning. There would be no change to building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. Development intensity (the amount of total square footage and corresponding FAR) would be permitted to increase, but this increase would be negligible compared to the total amount of planned development within Tustin Legacy, and would continue to be subject to trip caps imposed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Project includes an increase in the trip cap as a result of increased roadway capacity provided by the Bell Avenue extension. 52 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 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 and no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. The Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use (no community exists in the area of the Project), conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The project aids in the build -out of Tustin Legacy by rationalizing property ownership boundaries and improving accessibility from Red Hill Avenue. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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/Monitorino Required: The FEIS /EIR concludes that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The Project and its implementation do not result in new or increased land use impacts in comparison to those previously identified in the FEIS /EIR. The mitigation measures applicable to the Project were implemented following adoption of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. The District and County will implement the relevant mitigation measures of the adopted MMRP that are applicable to the Project. Mitigation Measures LU -2(m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), and (s) are addressed in Section 3.13. Mitigation/MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: Mitigation Measures LU -1 and LU -2 required the Cities of Tustin and Irvine respectively to amend their General Plans and zoning ordinances for the Tustin Legacy Project, and therefore are not within the responsibility of the Project. LU -2(a) requires that infrastructure construction be properly phased by the Cities of Tustin and Irvine, and therefore is not within the responsibility of the Project. LU -2(b) is not applicable to the SOCCCD since no recording of subdivision maps is proposed as part of the Project. Per the City's adopted 2012 MMRP, the SOCCCD recorded the necessary easements for the Property and Mitigation Measure LU -2(b) has been fulfilled. Mitigation Measure LU -2(c), regarding funding construction of capital improvements, does not apply to the SOCCCD because the City exempted the SOCCCD's property from fair -share backbone infrastructure fees (per section 4.7.1.2 of the District Conveyance Agreement). The Exchange Agreement provides that the exemption applies to the currently County -owned parcel (proposed PA 1 -B) once it is transferred to the SOCCCD. Measures LU -2(g) and (i) are not applicable because the Project site is not within the 100 - year flood plain (see Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map dated August 9, 2002), and thus these Mitigation Measures are not within the responsibility of the Project. Mitigation Measure LU- 2(h), regarding obtaining regulatory agency approvals prior to construction of regional flood control facilities, is not within the responsibility of the Project because it only applies to the Tustin Legacy developer(s). Mitigation Measure LU -2(j), regarding local drainage systems, is not applicable because no subdivision maps are being recorded as part of the Project. Mitigation Measure LU -2(k), regarding the completion of drainage studies prior to grading for new development, is not applicable because the 53 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Project does not include any grading or construction activities. Mitigation Measure LU -2(1), regarding an agreement with the Orange County Flood Control District for fair -share contributions to flood control facilities, is not applicable because no subdivision maps are being recorded as part of its Project and the Mitigation Measure only applies to the City of Tustin. In addition, the City exempted the SOCCCD's Property from fair -share backbone infrastructure fees per section 4.7.1.2 of the Conveyance Agreement. Mitigation Measure LU -2(t) is not applicable because no school fees are required for the Project. Mitigation Measure LU -2(u) is not applicable because the Project does not require a contribution to park facilities. Mitigation Measure LU -2(v) is not applicable to projects within the City of Tustin, and therefore is not within the Project's responsibility to implement. Measure LU -2(w), regarding the creation of a landscape maintenance district, is applicable to the Tustin Legacy developer, and therefore, is not within the Project's responsibility to implement. Finally, Mitigation Measure LU -2(x) is not applicable to the Project because no subdivision map is proposed as part of the Project, the Project is not adjacent to the Barranca Channel, and the City will provide any necessary bikeways along Red Hill Avenue. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas (LRP) ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -3 through 3 -17, pp. 4 -3 through 4 -13, pp. 7 -16 through 7 -18, and Addendum (pp. 5 -92 through 5 -95) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 FEMA Map Nos. 06059CO279J and 06059CO283J revised December 3, 2009 54 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 3.11 Mineral Resources 3.11.1 Existing Conditions There are no known mineral resources located on the ATEP Site. 3.11.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project result in Potentially Less than Less than No the loss of availability of a known Significant Significant Significant Impact mineral resource that would be of Impact With Impact value to the region and the residents Mitigation of the state? Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Would the project result in :Potentially Less than Less than No the loss of availability of a locally- Significant Significant Significant Impact important mineral resource recovery Impact With Impact Site delineated on a local general Mitigation plan, specific plan or other land use Incorporation plan? Responses to a -b: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project would not cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. 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 and 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 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for mineral resources. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's 2012 MMRP for the FEIS /EIR with regard to mineral resources. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for 55 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation mineral resources, and no mitigation measures are contained in the MMRP for the FEIS /EIR with regard to mineral resources. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (p. 3 -91), and Addendum (pp. 5 -95) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan 56 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 3.12 Noise 3.12.1 Existing Conditions Environmental Evaluation The ambient noise environment on the Project site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, the RSCCD's Sheriff's Training Academy, a rail line located north of Edinger Avenue, and construction and remediation activities on surrounding parcels. 3.12.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project result in Potentially Less than Less than No exposure of persons to or generation Significant Significant Significant Impact of noise levels in excess of standards Impact With Impact established in the local general plan Mitigation or noise ordinance, or applicable Incorporation standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El b) Would the project result in ' Potentially Less than Less than I No exposure of persons to or generation Significant Significant Significant Impact of excessive groundborne vibration Impact With Impact or groundborne noise levels? Mitigation Incorporation C) Would the project result in a ' Potentially Less than Less than No substantial permanent increase in Significant Significant Significant Impact ambient noise levels in the project Impact With Impact vicinity above levels existing without Mitigation the project? Incorporation d) Would the project result in a Potentially Less than Less than No substantial temporary or periodic Significant Significant Significant Impact increase in ambient noise levels in Impact With Impact the project vicinity above levels Mitigation existing without the project? Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than No Significant Impact Impact 57 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation f) For a project within the Potentially Less than Less than No vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Significant Significant Significant Impact project expose people residing or Impact With Impact working in the project area to Mitigation excessive noise levels? Incorporation Responses to a -f: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Implementation of the Project will not cause any substantial impacts to noise. The Project would permit an increased trip cap of 10,000 ADT. Noise associated with this increase in vehicular movements was assessed in the Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (NIA) prepared by Giroux & Associates in March 2013 (Appendix C). Noise impacts are considered significant if they expose persons to levels in excess of standards established in local general plans or noise ordinances or create a substantial noise impact. In most environmental analyses, "substantial" is taken to mean a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice, this is at least a +3 decibel (dB) increase. This threshold of significance was applied to the Project in the NIA. The primary land use in the vicinity of the Project site that would be impacted by any increase in noise is the Orange County Rescue Mission. Table 11 describes projected noise levels 50 feet from roadway centerline post Project construction, assuming the addition of 10,000 ADT. The dB levels shown in the table are adjusted to the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standard, which adds an artificial increment to evening and nighttime noise measurements to account for the greater sensitivity to noise of receptors during these hours. Table 11. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis Road Segment 2035 No Project 2035 + Project Project Impact Increase >_3 dB? Red Hill Avenue/ S of Warner 70.1 70.2 0.1 No S of Bell 69.5 69.9 0.4 No Bell - Valencia 70.4 71.4 1.0 No N of Valencia 69.5 70.2 0.7 No Valencia/ E of Red Hill 67.5 65.6 -1.9 No W of Armstrong 66.9 64.7 -2.2 No Armstrong/ S of Valencia 62.2 64.2 2.0 No N of Warner 62.2 62.2 0.0 No Warner/ W of Red Hill 70.5 70.2 -0.3 No E of Red Hill 70.2 69.0 -1.2 No W of Armstrong 69.8 68.6 -1.2 No E of Armstrong 69.3 68.4 -0.9 No Source: NIA Table 2 (Appendix C). 58 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation As shown in Table 11, many roadways are expected to experience a decrease in traffic noise when the Bell Avenue extension is complete due to a shifting in traffic patterns resulting from the diverted traffic. Both Valencia Avenue and Warner Avenue are anticipated to experience up to a 2 dB reduction in traffic noise levels. Traffic noise along Armstrong Avenue south of Valencia Ave. could experience a noise increase of +2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline, but this is less than the level of human detection and less than the significance threshold. Additionally, the "with project" future traffic noise level is still less than 65 dB CNEL, the noise compatibility threshold adopted by the City of Tustin for exterior residential use. The next highest project- associated traffic noise increase is on Red Hill Avenue between Bell Avenue and Valencia Avenue. This +1.0 dB CNEL increase is similarly less than significance thresholds and would not create a detectable noise increase. Traffic noise associated with the addition of 10,000 trips is therefore not expected to create a significant noise impact. Short -term noise impacts were analyzed in the FEIS /EIR; implementation of the Project would be required to comply with applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short -term construction - related noise impacts. The Project site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not involve the development of any noise - sensitive land uses susceptible to excessive noise related aircraft operations within the 60 CNEL. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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/Monitorino Required: The FEIS /EIR concludes that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no significant impacts related to noise. The Project does not increase the severity of the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS /EIR. Therefore, no refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measure N -3 will apply to the project during construction. Mitigation Measure N -4 will apply to the City in relation to noise studies adjacent to Warner and Harvard Avenues. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: Mitigation Measure N -1 is not applicable to the Project, as no residential buildings are being reused as part of the Project. Mitigation Measure N -2, regarding noise studies on surrounding properties during design of the intersection at Tustin Ranch Road at Edinger Avenue, have been completed by the City of Tustin. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -154 through 3 -162), and Addendum (pp. 5 -96 through 5 -99) and Final Supplement #1 59 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 Giroux & Associates - Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix C) 60 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 3.13 Population and Housing 3.13.1 Existing Conditions There is no housing and associated population on the ATEP Site. 3.13.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project induce Potentially Less than Less than No substantial population growth in an Significant Significant Significant Impact area, either directly (for example, by Impact With Impact proposing new homes and Mitigation businesses) or indirectly (for Incorporation example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Would the project displace Potentially Less than Less than No substantial numbers of existing Significant Significant Significant Impact housing, necessitating the Impact With Impact construction of replacement housing Mitigation elsewhere? Incorporation C) Would the project displace Potentially Less than Less than No substantial numbers of people, Significant Significant Significant Impact necessitating the construction of Impact With Impact replacement housing elsewhere? Mitigation Incorporation Responses to a -c: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Implementation of the Project would have no impacts to population and housing. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to population and housing that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR and 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 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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 61 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Miti -dation /Monitorin-d Reouired: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the District's adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for population and housing. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's 2012 MMRP for the FEIS /EIR with regard to population and housing. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: There are no mitigation measures contained in the City's 2012 MMRP for the FEIS /EIR with regard to population and housing. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -18 through 3 -34, pp. 4 -14 through 4 -29, pp. 7 -18 through 7 -19, Addendum (pp. 5 -101 through 5 -112) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) District Conveyance Agreement Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 62 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 3.14 Public Services Environmental Evaluation 3.14.1 Existing Conditions Fire The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire protection to the Project site and Tustin Legacy. Police Police protection services for the SOCCCD properties is provided by the Irvine Valley College Police Department, and for all other Project site properties by the Tustin Police Department. Schools There are no K -12 school facilities on the Project site. Pa rks There are no existing parks on the Project site. Other The Project site will ultimately be owned entirely by the City and SOCCCD. The City and SOCCCD will develop public service facilities on the Project site. 3.14.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project result in Potentially Less than Less than No substantial adverse physical impacts Significant Significant Significant Impact associated with the provision of new :Impact With Impact or physically altered governmental Mitigation facilities, need for new or physically Incorporation 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? El El El Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? I ❑ ❑ I ❑ Other public facilities? 1 ❑ I ❑ 1 ❑ Response to a: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: Implementation of the Project will not cause any significant impacts to 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 63 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 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 and no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Fire Protection Fire protection for the Project site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Implementation of the Project will require compliance with existing OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Construction of Bell Avenue will enhance OCFA access to the Project site and have a beneficial impact on fire protection. 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. In addition, the city has started construction of an additional fire station at the intersection of Edinger Avenue and Kensington Park Drive, less than one mile east of the Project site. 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. The Irvine Valley College Police Department has a similar level of law enforcement capabilities as Tustin Police Department officers, including the capacity to cite and arrest offenders. They also have access to the emergency radio network that is shared with the Tustin Police Department, Orange County Sheriff's Department, OCFA, and other emergency personnel. The SOCCCD property is patrolled and serviced 24 hours per day by a combination of the Irvine Valley College police and security services that are under the management of the Irvine Valley College police. Tustin Police Department officers would respond to requests for assistance on the County -owned parcel. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS /EIR. Schools The Project does not include any residential development. Therefore, the Project does not generate K -12 students and there is no impact to schools. Neither the City nor the SOCCCD would be required to pay school development fees consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 50 of 1998. Parks Consistent with the Specific Plan, the Project does not include any park development. PA 2, located north of Valencia Avenue and the ATEP campus, is identified in the Specific Plan as a "Community Park." PA 6, located across Armstrong Avenue from the Project site, is identified as an "Urban Regional Park." There is no change to the proposed park uses in PAs 2 and 6 as a result of the Project. 64 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 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 would not increase the demand more than what was already analyzed in the previously certified FEIS /EIR. Mitigation/Monitorino Reauired: The FEIS /EIR concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The Project and its implementation would not result in any new or increased impacts to public services beyond those identified in the FEIS /EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required. Because the Project does not involve any development on the Project site, no mitigation measures related to public services apply to the Project. The City and SOCCCD would implement Mitigation Measure LU -2(m) by ensuring adequate public services are included to serve the Project as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project, as described in the 2012 MMRP. Under Mitigation Measure LU -2, the City is responsible for ensuring that adequate fire protection, police protection, library, and parks and recreational facilities needed to adequately serve the Tustin Legacy Project is provided as necessary. The City will implement Mitigation Measure LU -2(n). The City and SOCCCD will implement Mitigation Measures LU -2(o) by coordinating directly with the OCFA regarding potential fire protection impacts of the Project. SOCCCD's Fire Master Plan has already been reviewed and approved by OCFA as part of Phase 1 of the ATEP Campus. Mitigation Measures LU -2 (p), (q), and (r), related to fire protection, will be implemented as specific developments are proposed for the Project site. Mitigation Measure LU -2(s), regarding police protection, has been implemented by the SOCCCD, and the Tustin Police Department has been consulted regarding the existing ATEP Campus and the development of MCAS Tustin. The City and SOCCCD will continue to coordinate with the Tustin Police Department on issues related to the policing of the Project site. Mitigation/MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: Mitigation Measure LU -2(t) regarding the payment of school fees is not applicable to the Project, and therefore is not within the responsibility of the Project. Mitigation Measures LU -2(u) and (v) regardingthe contribution of park facilities are also not applicable to the Project, and are therefore not within the responsibility of the Project. Mitigation Measure LU -2(w) regarding the creation of a landscape maintenance district is the responsibility of the Tustin Legacy master developer, and therefore is not within the responsibility of the Project. Mitigation Measure LU -2(x) regarding agreements with the County of Orange Harbors and Beaches and the City of Tustin for trail improvements are not applicable to the Project, and are therefore not within the responsibility of the Project. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata Consolations with Irvine Valley College Police Chief FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -47 through 3 -57, pp. 4 -56 through 4 -80, pp. 7 -21 through 7 -22, and Addendum (pp. 5 -112 through 5 -122) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) District Conveyance Agreement Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 65 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 3.15 Recreation 3.15.1 Existing Conditions Consistent with the Specific Plan, there are no public recreational facilities on the ATE Site. 3.15.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project increase Potentially Less than Less than No the use of existing neighborhood and Significant Significant Significant Impact regional parks or other recreational Impact With Impact facilities such that substantial Mitigation physical deterioration of the facility Incorporation would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include Potentially recreational facilities or require the Significant construction, expansion, or Impact recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Responses to a -b: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than No Significant Impact Impact No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities. 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 was prepared and 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 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from the implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for recreation. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's MMRP for the FEIS /EIR with regard to recreation or recreational facilities. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. 66 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for recreation or recreational facilities, and there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's MMRP for the FEIS /EIR with regard to recreation or recreational facilities. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -47 through 3 -57, pp. 4 -56 through 4 -80, pp. 7 -21 through 7 -22, and Addendum (pp. 5 -122 through 5 -127) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 67 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA2O13-001, SPA 2O13-001,DA2O13-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist 3.16 TranSportatio ic 3.16.1 Existing Conditions Major roadways near the Project site include: 0 Warner Avenue, a six-lane major arterial, to the south (planned); Environmental Evaluation • Red Hill Avenue tn the west, currently six lanes and on eight-lane major arterial ot future Uui|Unut; • Valencia Avenue, o four-lane secondary arterial, tn the north; and • Armstrong Avenue, o four-lane secondary arterial, tn the east. Anneaa to the Project site is primarily from Armstrong Avenue. Armstrong Avenue currently terminates at Warner Avenue; as Tustin Legacy builds-out, it will be extended to Barranca Parkway. 3.16.2 Project Impact Evaluation o) Would the project conflict Potentially Less thon Less thon No with on applicable plan, ordinance n/ Significant Significant Significant Impact policy establishing mooaunaa of Impact With Impact effectiveness for the performance of Mitigation the circulation system, taking into |nnn/pn/otinn account all mnUoa of transportation including moaa transit and non - motorized t/ovo| and /o|ovont components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, at/oota, highways and f/oovvoya, poUoat/ion and Uinyn|o paths, and mass transit? U) VVnuN the project conflict Potentially Less thon Less thon No with on opp|inoNo congestion Significant Significant Significant Impact management program, including, but Impact With Impact not limited to, |owa| of aomino Mitigation atonUo/Ua and t/ovo| UomonU |nnn/pn/otinn mooauma, n/ other atonUo/Ua oatoNiahoU by the county congestion management agency for UoaignotoU roads or highways? C) Would the project result in o Potentially Less thon Less thon No change in air traffic patterns, Significant Significant Significant Impact including either on innmoao in traffic Impact With Impact |owa|a or o change in |nnotinn that Mitigation results in substantial safety risks? i i |nnn/pn/otinn i � 68 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation d) Would the project Potentially Less than Less than No substantially increase hazards due to Significant Significant Significant Impact a design feature (e.g., sharp curves Impact With Impact or dangerous intersections) or Mitigation incompatible uses (e.g., farm Incorporation equipment)? e) Would the project result in Potentially Less than Less than No inadequate emergency access? Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Would the project conflict Potentially Less than Less than No with adopted policies, plans, or Significant Significant i Significant Impact programs regarding public transit, Impact With Impact bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or Mitigation otherwise decrease the performance Incorporation or safety of such facilities? Responses to a - f: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project enhances access to Tustin Legacy and increases local roadway capacity through a 1/3 mile extension of Bell Avenue, at a Secondary Arterial design standard. Increasing local roadway capacity allows an increased intensity of development on the Project site without creating new or more significant traffic impacts. A Traffic Study was prepared by Stantec in April 2013 (Appendix A) to determine the impacts the Bell Avenue extension would have on local roadway conditions, and to calculate the number of trips that could be added to the Project site without creating a significant traffic impact. Future traffic conditions were projected using the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model and the Tustin Legacy Traffic Model. The current trip cap for the ATEP site is 5,470 ADT and for the City parcels 1,672 ADT. The overall MCAS Tustin planned trip count is 216,440 ADT. Based on the size and configuration of the Bell Avenue extension, the Traffic Study estimates the increased local roadway capacity could serve an additional 10,000 ADTs. This additional roadway capacity is proposed to be split evenly between properties owned by the City and SOCCCD (that is, each entity would be permitted an additional 5,000 ADT). The City anticipates that only about 25 percent of its allocation of 5,000 ADT (up to 1,250 ADT) would be used within Neighborhood A; the remaining trips (3,750 ADT) would be made available for additional development in other areas of Tustin Legacy. The full amount of these trips will not be needed because the City recently amended the MCAS Specific Plan to include government office uses in Neighborhood A to accommodate an expected relocation of the Army Reserve operations from the southern boundary of Tustin Legacy. A total of 1,250 ADT is sufficient for the Army Reserve operations. The specific location of the remaining trips has not been determined and subsequent traffic analysis may be needed when the trips are allocated to a specific location within Tustin Legacy. No specific development proposal is included in this project scope for the City parcels; for the purposes of traffic impacts analysis, it is assumed the City -owned parcel would be developed with 360,000 square feet of office development and 39,360 square feet of other commercial development, for a total of 399,360 square feet. This results in an increased ADT of 1,240. Regardless of the nature of development the City chooses to implement on its 69 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation parcel, such development must be consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan's approved land uses (as amended by the SPA), and would be subject to the trip cap for Neighborhood A. Table 12 shows calculated project trip generation resulting from two the development scenarios considered. Scenario 1 increases the previously- approved amount of development on the ATEP site by 194,119 square feet, with the total square footage of the development being allocated to 51 percent educational and 49 percent office uses. Scenario 2 increases the previously- approved amount of development on the ATEP site by 816,929 square feet, with the entire development devoted to educational uses. As shown in the table, due to the differing trip generation rates between educational and office uses, the two development scenarios would produce essentially the same number of ADTs. Table 12. Project Trip Generation Land Use Amount Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total ADT NO- PROJECT ATEP Learning Center 893.85 TSF 589 63 652 135 304 439 5,471 City Parcel Tustin Facility TBD SG 332 101 433 227 476 703 6,220 TOTAL NO- PROJECT 921 164 1,085 362 780 1,142 11,691 WITH - PROJECT ATEP Scenario 1 - 51% academic, 49% office Learning Center 554.87 TSF 366 40 406 83 189 272 3,397 General Office 533.10 TSF 880 122 1,002 165 795 960 7,075 TOTAL 1,246 162 1,408 248 984 1,232 10,472 DIFFERENCE (Scenario 1 vs. No Project) 657 99 756 113 680 793 5,001 ATEP Scenario 2 - 100% academic Learning Center 1,710.78 TSF 1,129 120 1,249 257 582 838 10,470 DIFFERENCE (Scenario 2 vs. No Project) 540 57 597 122 278 399 4,999 City Parcel Commercial 39.36 TSF 39 25 64 112 122 234 2,683 General Office 360.00 TSF 594 83 677 112 536 648 4,777 TOTAL 633 108 741 224 658 882 7,460 DIFFERENCE 301 7 308 -3 182 179 1,240 TOTAL WITH - PROJECT - Scenario 1 1,879 270 2,149 472 1,642 2,114 17,932 TOTAL DIFFERENCE - Scenario 1 958 106 1,064 110 862 972 6,241 TOTAL WITH - PROJECT - Scenario 2 1,762 228 1,990 481 1,240 1,720 17,930 TOTAL DIFFERENCE - Scenario 2 841 64 905 119 460 578 6,239 Trip Rates Learning Center TSF .66 .07 .73 .15 .34 .49 6.12 70 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Commercial TSF 1.00 .64 1.64 2.85 3.09 5.94 68.17 General Office TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 13.27 Tustin Facility SG 3.32 1.01 4.33 2.27 4.76 7.03 62.20 Note: No- Project land uses shown here are consistent with the Specific Plan Amendment approved in 2010. .40 SG = Special Generator; TBD = To Be Determined; TSF = Thousand Square Feet Source: Traffic Study Tables 2 -1 and 4-1 (AppendixA). -.05 Using the peak -hour trip generation figures in the table above, Table 13 shows 2035 intersection capacity utilization (ICU) figures and the associated level of service (LOS) conditions at major local intersections. The No Project condition shown below assumes implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as most recently amended, in 2010. The With- Project projections are based on Scenario 1 trip generation figures. As shown in Table 12, above, trip generation from Scenario 1 is higher than Scenario 2 during peak hours, although the count of ADTs is essentially the same. The performance standard for intersections in the Project vicinity is LOS D, which equates to an ICU not exceeding 0.90. As shown in the table below, several intersections would see improvements in peak hour conditions as a result of the increased capacity offered by the Bell Avenue extension. All of the evaluated intersections would continue to operate at above the minimum service standard of LOS D; therefore, there is no significant impact related to a decrease in service levels. Table 13. 2035 Intersection LOS Summary The Traffic Study also evaluated requirements for site access, including lane geometry at the new Bell Avenue intersections. Signal warrants and left -turn storage length requirements were analyzed. The analysis concludes that an appropriate design for the Bell Avenue extension, including the two major intersections at either end of the extension (at Red Hill and Armstrong Avenues), is feasible, and construction of the roadway extension can be accommodated with no adverse traffic conditions on other parts of the circulation system. Proper engineering of the roadway extension would therefore avoid any potential safety hazards due to design features. The Project does not involve any increase in permitted heights on the site, and would not be expected to have any impact on air traffic patterns at John Wayne Airport or any other aviation facility. The Project, by providing an additional access route to the Project site and Tustin Legacy, would have a positive impact on emergency access to existing and future development in the area. 71 April 2013 No- Project With- Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Difference Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM 1. Armstrong & Valencia .52 A .45 A .44 A .40 A -.08 -.05 2. Armstrong & Warner .37 A .45 A .37 A .40 A .00 -.05 3. Red Hill & Warner .67 B .60 A .66 B .61 B -.01 .01 4. Red Hill & Valencia .56 A .73 C .62 B .69 B .06 -.04 5. Red Hill & Bell .56 A .50 A .70 C .75 C .14 .25 6. Armstrong & Bell .59 A .60 A n/a n/a n/a = not applicable Source: Traffic Study Table 3-1 (AppendixA). The Traffic Study also evaluated requirements for site access, including lane geometry at the new Bell Avenue intersections. Signal warrants and left -turn storage length requirements were analyzed. The analysis concludes that an appropriate design for the Bell Avenue extension, including the two major intersections at either end of the extension (at Red Hill and Armstrong Avenues), is feasible, and construction of the roadway extension can be accommodated with no adverse traffic conditions on other parts of the circulation system. Proper engineering of the roadway extension would therefore avoid any potential safety hazards due to design features. The Project does not involve any increase in permitted heights on the site, and would not be expected to have any impact on air traffic patterns at John Wayne Airport or any other aviation facility. The Project, by providing an additional access route to the Project site and Tustin Legacy, would have a positive impact on emergency access to existing and future development in the area. 71 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation The Project includes a Class II bicycle lane and sidewalks along Bell Avenue. No public transit facility is proposed, as no bus route currently exists or is planned for the Bell Avenue extension. The bicycle lane and sidewalk would be beneficial to bicyclists and pedestrians. The GPA and SPA associated with the Project would identify a new Class II bicycle facility along the Bell Avenue extension. With these amendments, the project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. 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 and 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 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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/Monitorino Required: The mitigation measures applicable during implementation of the Project have been identified in the City's adopted MMRP. Mitigation Measure T /C -1 requires that prior to the approval of a site development permit, the City of Tustin must review and approve the proposed traffic control and operations plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. The plans shall address roadway and lane closures, truck hours and routes, and notification procedures for planned short -term or interim changes in traffic patterns. Mitigation Measures T /C -2 through T /C -9, IA -1, IA -2, and IA -5 are implemented by the City of Tustin and /or the City of Irvine. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required for implementation (i.e., construction) of the Project. The Project will implement the relevant mitigation measures of the adopted MMRP and as stated in the 2012 MMRP. No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts will result from the District's adoption and implementation of the Project than originally considered by the previously certified FEIS /EIR. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Mitigation/Monitorino Measures Not BeinO Implemented: Mitigation Measure IA -3 requires that prior to approval of a development permit, the City of Tustin shall review traffic information provided for the project by the project developer. The City is required to evaluate project traffic impacts utilizing the circulation system and capacity assumptions included in the FEIS /EIR. Compliance with this Mitigation Measure has been completed through the Traffic Study prepared by Stantec and included in Appendix A to this Addendum. The project would not exceed traffic capacity thresholds or require the implementation of traffic mitigation measures. With the approval of the Amended and Restated Conveyance Agreement, no further action is required in compliance with Mitigation Measure IA -5. For Mitigation Measures IA -6 and IA -7, the City has determined that no off -site roadway improvements are needed on the Project site. Sources: Field Observations 72 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation ATEP - District and County Land Swap Traffic Evaluation Technical Memorandum by Austin -Foust Associates, May 2011 ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata City of Tustin Traffic Analysis Requirements SOCCCD ATEP Phase 3A Traffic Circulation Analysis prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, February 2009 SOCCCD ATEP Phase 3A Parking Analysis prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, February 2009 "Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Disposal and Reuse Traffic Study" prepared by Austin -Foust Associates (Appendix F to the FEIS /EIR) FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -118 through 3 -142, pp. 4 -139 through 4 -206, pp. 7 -32 through 7 -42, and Addendum (pp. 5 -127 through 5 -147) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) District Conveyance Agreement Tustin General Plan 2012 City of Tustin Annual Mitigation Monitoring Reports City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 Stantec - Traffic Study (Appendix A) 73 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems 3.17.1 Existing Conditions All dry utilities (electricity, cable, telephone, and gas) and wet utilities (water, wastewater and reclaimed water) are located in the streets surrounding the Project site. Existing development on the ATEP campus and the RSCCD Sheriff's Training Academy sites connect to these utilities. 3.17.2 Project Impact Evaluation a) Would the project exceed Potentially Less than Less than No wastewater treatment requirements :Significant Significant Significant Impact of the applicable Regional Water Impact With Impact Quality Control Board? Mitigation Incorporation b) Would the project 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? Potentially Less than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation C) Would the project require or Potentially Less than Less than No result in the construction of new Significant Significant Significant Impact storm water drainage facilities or Impact With Impact expansion of existing facilities, the Mitigation construction of which could cause Incorporation significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Would the project have Potentially Less than Less than No sufficient water supplies available to Significant Significant Significant Impact serve the project from existing Impact With Impact entitlements and resources, or are Mitigation new or expanded entitlements Incorporation needed? 74 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation e) Would the project result in a Potentially determination by the wastewater Significant treatment provider, which serves or Impact may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑■ Less than Less than No Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ f) Would the project be served Potentially Less than Less than I No by a landfill with sufficient permitted Significant Significant Significant :Impact capacity to accommodate the Impact With Impact project's solid waste disposal needs? Impact Mitigation waste? Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Would the project comply Potentially Less than Less than No with federal, state, and local statutes Significant Significant Significant Impact and regulations related to solid Impact With Impact waste? Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ Responses to a -g: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The Project would not result in any changes to the utilities plan presented in the Specific Plan. Any demolition, removal, replacement, and connection with new underground utilities and service systems in the adjoining streets would occur as previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project's increased size of 194,119 square feet (based on the more likely scenario of 51 percent academic space and 49 percent office space) to 816,929 square feet (based on the less likely scenario of 100 percent academic space) would yield only a negligible impact on utilities compared to the full scope of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, which included up to 4,601 residential units and over 11.4 million square feet of commercial, institutional, and recreational buildings. The full scope of this much larger development was evaluated in the FEIS /EIR as Alternative 1; however, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan was ultimately approved with 10.4 million square feet of nonresidential land uses. There is approximately 1 million square feet of nonresidential uses that was fully analyzed in the FEIS /EIR but was not incorporated into the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Project represents fewer square feet than the excess square footage analyzed in the FEIS /EIR and therefore the Project impacts have already been assessed in the FEIS /EIR. As individual buildings are proposed on the Project site, an evaluation of utility needs will occur to ensure the appropriate connections are provided. Project facilities would comply with local and State code requirements related to water efficiency and the minimization of wastewater and solid waste generation. Impacts related to these utilities were evaluated in the FEIS /EIR, and the project would result in only a negligible change in the water use and wastewater and solid waste generation. Relative to stormwater, the Project would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP consistent with then - current standards. This would result in substantial on -site water retention and infiltration, thereby reducing off -site drainage flows and minimizing impacts to the local drainage system. All storm drains would be designed in compliance with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. 75 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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. Miti -dation /Monitorin-d Reouired: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from adopting or implementing the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for public utilities. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's MMRP for the FEIS /EIR with regard to public utilities. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation/MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for public utilities, and no mitigation measures are contained in the MMRP with regard to public utilities. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP LRP Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP LRP as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas ATEP LRAP as amended by the October 2008 Errata FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -46, pp. 4 -32 through 4 -55, pp. 7 -20 through 7 -21, and Addendum (pp. 5 -147 through 5 -165) and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) District Conveyance Agreement Integrated Resource Management letter dated October 2008 Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 76 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the Potentially Less than Less than No potential to degrade the quality of Significant Significant Significant Impact the environment, substantially Impact With Impact reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife Mitigation species, cause a fish or wildlife Incorporation 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 Potentially Less than Less than I No impacts that are individually limited, Significant Significant Significant Impact but cumulatively considerable? Impact With Impact ( "Cumulatively considerable" means Mitigation that the incremental effects of a Incorporation 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 Potentially Less than Less than No environmental effects that will cause :Significant Significant Significant 1 Impact substantial adverse effects on Impact With Impact human beings, either directly or Mitigation indirectly? Incorporation Response to a -c: No Impact Due to No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementation of the Project. The Project would not expand the area of development and would not impact any natural habitats or other areas inhabited by sensitive species. The Project would marginally increase development potential compared to the full scope of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan evaluated in the FEIS /EIR. The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS /EIR. There are no new mitigation measures required and there are no new significant adverse project- specific 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 actions that the District and County commit to fully implement. Therefore, the Project does not create any impacts that have not previously been addressed by the FEIS /EIR. 77 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Environmental Evaluation Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures 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: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Mitigation /MonitorinO Not BeinO Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for mandatory findings of significance and no mitigation measures are contained in the MMRP with regard to mandatory findings of significance. Sources: Field Observations ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan Addendum /Initial Study ATEP Long -Range Plan (LRP) Addendum /Initial Study as amended by November 2008 Errata ATEP Long -Range Academic & Facilities Plan, as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas (LRP) ATEP Long -Range Academic Plan, as amended by the October 2008 Errata (LRAP) FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pp. 5 -4 through 5 -11) and Addendum and Final Supplement #1 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (pp. 3 -35 through 3 -62, pp. 3 -70 through 3 -81, pp. 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pp. 3 -104 through 3 -137) City of Tustin Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 Tustin General Plan 78 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist 4. Summary of Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Project impacts and required mitigation (if necessary) are discussed in the environmental issue topical areas in Section 3 above - Environmental Evaluation. Based on the previously certified FEIS /EIR, the environmental evaluation determined that no new mitigation is needed for the Project. The following table (Table 14) lists the Specific Plan FEIS /EIR Mitigation Measures that are applicable to the Project. 79 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility LU -2 Prior to the issuance of permits for any public Prior to the issuance Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): (d) improvements or development project, a of permits for any Department (Tustin and/or All easements for Phase I development applicant shall submit to the City public Irvine, as appropriate) project have been recorded; of Tustin and City of Irvine, as applicable, improvements or however, dedication of information from IRWD which outlines required development easements, right-of-ways, or facilities necessary to provide adequate potable project. other land determined water and reclaimed water service to the necessary to construct development. adequate utility infrastructure and facilities to serve future phases of development as determined by the City, SOCCCD or other utility providers will need to be defined with each phase and recorded. LU -2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Prior to the issuance Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): (e) project developer shall ensure that fire hydrants of the certificates of Department (Tustin and/or OCFA has determined that the capable of flows in amounts approved by the use and occupancy. Irvine, as appropriate); project plans and data show OCFA are in place and operational to meet fire OCFA adequate flows to serve Phase flow requirements. 1 of the project; OCFA will need to determine adequate flows for all future phases. LU -2 Prior to the issuance of permits for any public Prior to the issuance Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): M improvements or development project, a of permits for any Department (Tustin and/or IRWD and OCSD have development applicant shall submit to the City public Irvine, as applicable) determined there will be of Tustin and City of Irvine, as applicable, improvements or adequate facilities to serve the information from IRWD, OCSD, or the City of development Phase 1 project; Tustin which outlines required facilities project. determinations will be made necessary to provide adequate sanitary sewage for all future phases. service to the development. LU -2 Prior to any grading for any new development, Prior to any grading Project developer Tustin Building Division or SOCCCD (ATEP): (k) the following drainage studies shall be for any new Public Works Department Grading and drainage plans 80 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility submitted to and approved by the City of Tustin, development. (Tustin and/or Irvine, as approved by the City and City of Irvine, and/or OCFCD, as applicable: applicable) improvements installed for Phase 1 of project; however, (1) A drainage study including diversions (i.e., Prior to any grading Project developer Tustin Building Division or grading and drainage plans will off -Site areas that drain onto and/or for any new Public Works Department need to be submitted and through the project site), with justification development. (Tustin and/or Irvine, as approved by the City and and appropriate mitigation for any applicable) improvements installed in proposed diversion. conjunction with future phases. (2) A drainage study evidencing that proposed Prior to any grading Project developer Tustin Building Division or drainage patterns would not result in for any new Public Works Department increased 100 -year peak discharges within development. (Tustin and/or Irvine, as and downstream of the project limits, and applicable) would not worsen existing drainage conditions at storm drains, culverts, and other street crossing including regional flood control facilities. The study shall also propose appropriate mitigation for any increased runoff causing a worsening condition of any existing facilities within or downstream of project limits. Implementation of appropriate interim or ultimate flood control infrastructure construction must be included. (3) Detailed drainage studies indicating how, Prior to any grading Project developer Tustin Building Division or in conjunction with the drainage for any new Public Works Department conveyance systems included applicable development. (Tustin and/or Irvine, as swales, channels, street flows, catch applicable) basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding, building pads are made safe from runoff inundation which may be expected from all storms up to and 81 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures 82 April 2013 Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility including the theoretical 100 -year flood. LU -2 General (m) SOCCCD (ATEP): The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, each (1) Pursuant to the Conveyance within its respective jurisdiction, shall ensure Agreement, SOCCCD is that adequate fire protection, police protection, required to construct all on-site and parks and recreation facilities (including improvements; however, the bikeways/trails) needed to adequately serve the City has exempted SOCCCD reuse plan area shall be provided as necessary. from City CFD -funded Tustin To eliminate any negative impact the project Legacy Backbone could have on each community's general fund, Infrastructure costs financing mechanisms including but not limited is educational. Phase 1 of the to developer fees, assessment district financing project has been developed as and/or tax increment financing (in the event an educational use; however, that a redevelopment project area is created for SOCCCD adopted a Long the Site), shall be developed and used as Range Plan on November 3, determined appropriate by each City. 2008 and submitted a Concept Specifically; Plan for Phase 3A that may not clearly identify the primary use (1) Applicants for private development projects Prior to final map Project Developer Tustin Community as educational as the City has shall be required to enter into an recordation or Development Department, informed SOCCCD. As a result agreement with the City of Tustin or the building permit Police Department, or Parks SOCCCD may be subject to a City of Irvine, as applicable, to establish a issuance. Department or the City of required future contribution to fair -share mechanism to provide needed Irvine, and/or OCFA, as Tustin Legacy Backbone fire and police protection services, appropriate. Infrastructure for non - libraries, and parks and recreation facilities educational uses, and is still (including bikeways) through the use of fee subject to assessments from schedules, assessment district financing, outside utility purveyors Community Facility District financing, or regardless of primary use of other mechanisms as determined Property recipients project as well as landscape appropriate by each respective city. maintenance easements. 82 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility (2) Pursuant to the Conveyance (2) Recipients of property through public Agreement, SOCCCD is conveyance process shall be required to required to construct all on-site mitigate any impacts of their public uses of improvements; however, property on public services and facilities. SOCCCD is exempted from Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure costs provided that proposed uses on the project site are educational. Phase 1 of the project has been developed as an educational use and the Phase 3A Concept Plan approved in July 2010 authorized up to 305,000 square feet of uses. In the event non -educational uses are proposed in the future, SOCCCD will be subject to required Fair Share Contributions to Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure for the non -educational uses, and in any event would still be subject to assessments from outside utility purveyors regardless of primary use of the site. LU -2 Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Services Prior to the first final Project developer Tustin Community SOCCCD (ATEP): (o) map recordation or Redevelopment Agency and The SOCCCD received building Prior to the first final map recordation or building permit the City of Irvine permits via the Division of the building permit issuance for development issuance for State Architect for Phase I. No (except for financing and reconveyance development additional Fair Share purposes), the project developer could be (except for financing Contribution toward Tustin 83 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility required to enter into an agreement with the and re -conveyances Legacy Backbone City of Tustin or City of Irvine/OCFA, as purposes). Infrastructure, including fire applicable, to address impacts of the project on facilities required for fire services. Such agreement could include educational uses. SOCCCD will participation for fire protection, personnel and be responsible for any Fair equipment necessary to serve the project and Share Contributions required eliminate any negative impacts on fire for Tustin Legacy Backbone protection services. Infrastructure, includingthe Fire Station in Tustin Legacy for any non -educational uses that occur on the site. LU -2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): (p) developer shall work closely with the OCFA to building permits. Department (Tustin and/or Fire Master Plan for Phase 1 of ensure that adequate fire protection measures Irvine as applicable) project reviewed and approved are implemented in the project. by OCFA- installation complete; however, a complete Fire Master Plan for future phases will need to be reviewed and approved by OCFA. LU -2 Prior to issuance of building permits for phased Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): (q) projects, the project developer shall submit a building permits for Department (Tustin and/or Fire Master Plan for Phase 1 of construction phasing plan to the OCFA phased projects. Irvine, as applicable) project reviewed and approved demonstrating that emergency vehicle access is by OCFA- installation complete; adequate. however, a complete Fire Master Plan for future phases will need to be reviewed and approved by OCFA. LU -2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): (r) project developer shall submit a fire hydrant building permits. Department (Tustin and/or Fire Master Plan for Phase 1 of location plan for the review and approval of the Irvine, as applicable) project reviewed and approved Fire Chief and ensure that fire hydrants capable by OCFA- installation complete; of flows in amounts approved by the OCFA are in however, a complete Fire 84 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility place and operational to meet fire flow Master Plan for future phases requirements. will need to be reviewed and approved by OCFA. LU -2 Police Protection Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): (S) building permits. Department (Tustin and/or The Tustin Police Department Prior to issuance of building permits, the project Irvine, as applicable) has reviewed the Phase 1 developer shall work closely with the respective project; however, the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate Police Department will need to security precautions are implemented in the review all future phases. project. Arch- Prior to issuance of grading permits, the cities of Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): 2 Tustin and Irvine shall each require applicants grading permits. Department (Tustin and/or The SOCCCD retained an of individual development projects to retain, as Irvine, as applicable) archaeologist for project appropriate a country -certified archaeologist. If construction of Phase 1; buried resources are found during grading however, an archaeologist will within the reuse plan area, a qualified also need to be obtained for archaeologist would need to assess the Site construction of any future significance and perform the appropriate phases. mitigation. The Native American view point shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. Paleo- The cities of Tustin and Irvine shall each require Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): 1 applicants of individual development projects to grading permits. Department (Tustin and/or The SOCCCD shall be required comply with the requirements established in a Irvine, as applicable) to retain an archaeologist for PRMP prepared for the Site, which details the all phased ATEP construction. methods to be used for surveillance of construction grading, assessing finds, and actions to be taken in the event that unique paleontological resources are discovered during construction. 85 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility Paleo- Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, project Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): 2 applicants shall provide written evidence to grading permits. Department (Tustin and/or The SOCCCD shall be required each city, that a county -certified paleontologist Irvine, as applicable) to retain a paleontologist for all has been retained to conduct salvage phased ATEP construction. excavation of unique paleontological resources if they are found. Bio -1 The project proponents of any development Prior issuance of Project developer Tustin Community SOCCCD (ATEP): affectingjurisdictional waters of the U.S. or grading permits or Development Department The U.S. Army Corps of vegetated wetlands shall obtain Section 404, any public and/or OCFCD, as Engineers and California Section 1602, and other permits as necessary. improvements within appropriate Department of Fish and A replacement ratio for affected wetland pond turtle habitat. Wildlife have determined that resources shall be determined in consultation the existing drainage ditches with regulatory agencies as part of the are not subject to their permitting process. The actions proposed on jurisdiction. Regional Water Peters Canyon Channel shall be mitigated by the Quality Control Board has OCFCD who is the project proponent for flood determined they will not control improvements. regulate the drainage ditches. Bio -2 Based on calculations with the California Prior to issuance of City of Tustin Tustin Community SOCCCD (ATEP): Department of Fish & Game ("CDFG"), City of grading permits or and/or project Development Department The SOCCCD would be Tustin, or a project proponent as applicable, an any public developer, as responsible for arrangements off -Site relocation Site for southwestern pond improvements within appropriate with CDFG for relocation of any turtles captured on Site shall be identified that pond turtle habitat. found turtles. is as close to the Reuse Plan area as possible and that is sustainable in perpetuity. Bio -3 Permits from the CDFG shall be obtained for Prior to issuance of Project developer Tustin Community SOCCCD (ATEP): live -capture of the turtles and for transporting grading permits or Development Department The SOCCCD would be them to the relocation Site. any public responsible for arrangements improvements within with CDFG for relocation of any pond turtle habitat. turtles found. Bio -4 A project proponent shall negotiate with the Ongoing City of Tustin Tustin Community SOCCCD (ATEP): CDFG or other agency or organization as and/or project Development Department The SOCCCD would be appropriate, for relocation of turtles and/or developer, as responsible for arrangements 86 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility contribution of funds to improve, restore, or appropriate with CDFG for relocation of any create a relocation Site as turtle habitat, in turtles found. conjunction with any regulatory permits necessary. T/C-1 Construction Prior to Site Project developer Public Works Department SOCCCD (ATEP): development permit. (Tustin or Irvine, as Routes provided to and In conjunction with the approval of a Site applicable) approved by Public Works for development permit, the City of Tustin and the Phase 1 of the project; City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of however, all routes for future the reuse plan within Irvine), shall require each phases will need to be developer to provide traffic operations and provided to and approved by control plans that would minimize the traffic Public Works. impacts of proposed construction activity. The plans shall address roadway and lane closures, truck hours and routes, and notification procedures for planned short-term or interim changes in traffic patterns. The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall ensure that the plan would minimize anticipated delays at major intersections. Prior to approval, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable shall review the proposed traffic control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction. T/C - Prior to the approval of (1) a Planning Area Prior to the approval Project developer Tustin Community SOCCCD (ATEP): 1A-3 Concept Plan pursuant to Section 4.2 of the of (1) a Planning Development and Public Phase I of the ATEP Campus is Specific Plan, (2) a Site development permit, or Area Concept Plan Works Departments complete. A Phase 3A Traffic (3) a vesting tentative map for new square pursuant to Section Analysis was completed, which footage (not for financing or conveyance 4.2 of the Specific showed the Phase 3A Concept purposes), a project developer shall provide Plan, (2) a Site Plan is within the trip budget traffic information consistent with the provisions development permit, established for the Learning of the Specific Plan, the FEIS/EIR and the or (3) a vesting Village and density as requirements of the City of Tustin Traffic tentative map for determined by the capacity 87 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility Engineer. The traffic information shall (a) new square footage assumptions of the FEIS/EIR. identify and assign traffic circulation mitigation (not for financing or Similarly, this land exchange is measures required in the REIS/EIR pursuant to conveyance within the trip budget the Phasing Plan described in Table 4.12-10 of purposes). established for the Learning the FEIS/EIR (see Table 5 at the end of the Village and density as Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program); determined by the capacity (b) evaluate the effects of either the delay of any assumptions of the FEIS/EIR. previously committed circulation improvements or the construction of currently unanticipated circulation improvements; and (c) utilize the circulation system and capacity assumptions within the FEIS/EIR and any additional circulation improvements completed by affected jurisdictions for the applicable timeframe of analysis. AQ -1 If determined feasible and appropriate on a Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): project -by -project basis, the City of Tustin and grading or building Department (Tustin and/or Requirements were fulfilled by the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall require permits. Irvine, as applicable) the SOCCCD during individual development projects to implement construction for Phase 1; one or more of the following control measures, if however, future phases will be not already required by the SCAQMD under Rule subject to the AQMD rules 403: which require air pollutant emissions to not create - Apply water twice daily, or chemical soil nuisance off-site. stabilizers accordingto manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces at all actively disturbed Sites. - Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes, but is not limited to, rerouting construction trucks off congested 88 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility streets, consolidating truck deliveries, and providing dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on-site and off-site. - Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators. - Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. - Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles. - Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers accordingto manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for four days or more). - Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. - Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders according to manufacturers' specifications, to exposed piles of gravel, sand, or dirt. - Coverall trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, and maintain at least 89 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and top of the trailer). - Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads (use water sweepers with reclaimed water when feasible). - Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the Site each trip. AQ -2 Unless determined by the City of Tustin and the Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): City of Irvine, as applicable, to be infeasible on a grading or building Department (Tustin and/or Responsibility of SOCCCD but project -by -project basis due to unique project permits. Irvine, as applicable) will be imposed in City characteristics, each city shall require individual conditions of approval on development projects to use low VOC entitlements pursuant to the architectural coatings for all interior and exterior Conveyance Agreement. painting operations. AQ -3 Prior to the issuance of development permits for Prior to issuance of Project developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): new non-residential projects with 100 or more development Department (Tustin and/or SOCCCD will be required to employees, and expanded projects where permits for new non- Irvine, as applicable) implement TDM measures if additional square footage would result in a total of residential projects applicable 100 or more employees, the City of Tustin and the with 100 or more City of Irvine, as applicable, shall impose a mix of employees and TDM measures which, upon estimation, would expanded projects result in an average vehicle ridership of at least where additional 1. 5, for each development with characteristics that square footage would be reasonably conducive to successful would result in a implementation of such TDM measures. These total of 100 or more TDM measures may include one or more of the employees 90 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site Timing and Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring and No. Measure Implementation Compliance Enforcement Responsibility Status Responsibility following, as determined appropriate and feasible by each city on a case-by-case basis: - Establish preferential parking for carpool vehicles. - Provide bicycle parking facilities. - Provide shower and locker facilities. - Provide carpool and vanpool loading areas. - Incorporate bus stop improvements into facility design. - Implement shuttles to shopping, eating, recreation, and/or parking and transit facilities. - Construct remote parking facilities. - Provide pedestrian circulation linkages. - Construct pedestrian grade separations. - Establish carpool and vanpool programs. - Provide cash allowances, passes, and other public transit and purchase incentives. - Establish parking fees for single occupancy vehicles. - Provide parking subsidies for rideshare vehicles. - Institute a computerized commuter rideshare matching system. - Provide a guaranteed ride -home program for ridesharing. - Establish alternative work week, flex -time, and compressed work week schedules. - Establish telecommuting or work -at-home programs. Provide additional vacation and compensatory leave incentives. - Provide on-site lunch rooms/cafeterias and 91 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site Timing and Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring and No. Measure Implementation Compliance Enforcement Responsibility Status Responsibility commercial service such as banks, restaurants, and small retail. - Provide on-site day care facilities. - Establish an employee transportation coordinator(s). N-3 - For new development within the reuse area, Prior to issuance of Project Developer Community Development SOCCCD (ATEP): the City of Tustin and City of Irvine, as building permits. Department (Tustin and/or Phase 1 of the project is applicable, shall ensure that interior and Irvine, as applicable) complete. The project was exterior noise levels do not exceed those required to comply with the prescribed by state requirements and local City's noise standards, and will city ordinances and general plans. Plans be required for all future demonstrating noise regulation conformity phases. shall be submitted for review and approval prior to building permits being issued to accommodate reuse. WQ-1 Prior to the approval of grading plans, the Prior to approval of Project Developer Community Development Notice of Intent is on file with project developers shall provide written grading plans. Department (Tustin and/or Community Development evidence to the Department of Public Works Irvine, as applicable) Department and/or Public that it has filed a Notice of Intent with the State Works Department. Water Resources Control board in order to obtain coverage under the latest approved General Construction Permit. Pursuant to the permit requirements, developers shall develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that incorporates Best Management Practices for reducing or eliminating sediment and other construction -related pollutants in the Site runoff. WQ-2 Prior to approval of a grading plans, the Prior to approval of Project Developer Community Development Projects were reviewed for Department of Public Works shall confirm that grading plans. Department (Tustin and/or compliance with the General 92 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility the contractors specifications require Irvine, as applicable) Waste Discharge compliance with the latest approved General Requirements. Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to govern discharges from construction dewatering and water line/sprinkler line testing should they occur during construction. Developers shall comply with these regulations including provisions requiring notification, testing and reporting of dewatering and testing - related discharges, which shall mitigate any impacts of such discharges. WQ-4 To mitigate post -construction surface water and Prior to issuance of Project Developer Community Development Prior to issuance of grading long-term groundwater discharge water quality grading permits. Department (Tustin and/or permits, each development is impacts, prior to issuance of grading permits, Irvine, as applicable) required to submit a Water developers shall prepare a project WQMP, which Quality Management Plan, shall be submitted to the City of Tustin or City of which identifies applicable best Irvine, as applicable, for approval. The WQMP practices. shall be prepared in compliance with all MS4 Permit requirements (including DAMP and LIP requirements), and at a minimum shall contain the following elements: - a) An Integrated Water Conservation/Storm Water Runoff and Subdrain Discharge Water Quality Management Program. This program shall integrate into the storm drainage and water quality control system facilities and systems to capture, recycle and conserve low flows, which may include irrigation returns and subdrain discharges, to reduce, to the extent 93 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility feasible, post -development low flow surface runoff and groundwater discharge volumes. The program shall also implement one or more treatment control technologies developed under the NSMP and available at the time of project approval for nutrient and selenium removal. - b) Site Planning and Design BMPs. The WQMP shall incorporate Site design BMPs described in the Model WQMP attached as Exhibit 7.11 to the DAMP to the extent feasible and appropriate in light of proposed land uses. - c) Source Control BMPs. The WQMP shall incorporate source control BMPs described in the Model WQMP attached as Exhibit 7.11 to the DAMP to the extent feasible and appropriate in light of proposed land use. - d) Treatment Control BMPs. The WQMP shall incorporate treatment control BMPs described in the Model WQMP attached as Exhibit 7.11 to the DAMP. WQ-5 As required by DAMP and the MS4 Permit, as Prior to issuance of Project Developer Community Development Prior to issuance of grading well as the Cooperative Agreement DO2-119 grading permits. Department (Tustin and/or permits, each development is between the City of Tustin, OCFCD, and County Irvine, as applicable) required to submit a WQMP, of Orange, a Water Quality Technical Report which identifies applicable best ("WQTR") shall be prepared prior to the practices. 94 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002 Addendum/Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures Table 14. Specific Plan FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to Project Site No. Measure Timing and Mitigation Compliance Mitigation Monitoring and Status Implementation Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility issuance of grading permits. The WQTR shall quantitatively and qualitatively (as appropriate) assess planned BMPs to be included in the WQMP to confirm that the treatment and hydrologic controls included in the SWPPP and WQMP will be sufficient to assure that project discharges will not cause a violation of applicable water quality standards. 95 April 2013 Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Sources and Acronyms 5. Sources /Acronyms 5.1 Sources The following sources were consulted in the preparation of this Initial Study. Field Observations Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., May 2011. ATEP - District and County Land Swap Traffic Evaluation Technical Memorandum. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., February 2009. South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) Advanced Technology & Education Park at Tustin Legacy Phase 3A Traffic Circulation Analysis. BRAC PMO West, November 2008. Final Amended Site Management Plan Fiscal Year 2009 Update Former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, Tustin, California. City of Tustin, July 23, 2008. Letter to Raghu Mathur, Ed.D., Chancellor, South Orange County Community College District re: Preliminary Draft Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan (Review and Comment). City of Tustin and Department of the Navy, 1998. FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin and Addendum. City of Tustin, Revised April 2007. 2007 Annual Mitigation Monitoring and Status Report for Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report For the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. City of Tustin, Revised February 2008. 2008 Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Status Report for Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report For the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. City of Tustin, Reuse Plan adopted October 31, 1996, amended September 8, 1998, Specific Plan adopted by City Council Ordinance No. 1257 on February 3, 2003, and Specific Plan Amendment Adopted by City Council Ordinance No. 1311 on April 17, 2006. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan. City of Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Resolutions (including environmental checklists) regarding Tustin Legacy: 00 -90; 04 -32; 04- 73; 04 -74; 04 -76; 04 -77; 05 -28; 05 -35; 05 -37; 05 -38; 05 -40; 05 -71; 05 -75; 05 -76; 05 -77; 05 -78; 06- 42; 06 -43; 07 -92; 08 -09; 08 -18; 08 -38; 08 -39; 08 -42; 08 -53. City of Tustin, September 6, 2011. Environmental Analysis Checklist for Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 11 -003, Minor Text Amendments. Giroux & Associates, March 29, 2013. Air Quality and GHG Impact Analyses: ATEP Bell Avenue Project. Giroux & Associates, March 29, 2013. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis: ATEP Bell Avenue Project. RGP Planning & Development Services, November 2008. South Orange County Community College District ATEP Advanced Technology & Education Park Long -Range Academic Plan and Facilities Plan, as amended by the October and November 2008 Erratas (LRP). 96 April 2013 Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Sources and Acronyms RGP Planning & Development Services, November 2008. South Orange County Community College District ATEP Advanced Technology & Education Park Long -Range Academic Plan, as amended by the October 2008 Errata (LRAP). RGP Planning & Development Services, July 2008. CEQA Addendum /Initial Study for Advanced Technology Education Park (ATEP) Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan (LRP). RGP Planning & Development Services, October 2008. CEQA Addendum /Initial Study and Appendices errata for Advanced Technology Education Park (ATEP) Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan (LRP). South Orange County Community College District, April 22, 2004. "Agreement Between the City of Tustin and The South Orange County Community College District For Conveyance of a Portion of MCAS, Tustin and The Establishment of an Advanced Technology Educational Campus" (the "District Conveyance Agreement "). South Orange County Community College District, November 2008. Resolution 08 -35 Adopting the Addendum as Amended by the Errata dated November 2008 to the Final Environmental Impact StatemenVEnvironment Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of the WAS Tustin and the WAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan dated October 1996, as Amended by the Errata dated September 1998 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, the Long -Range Academic and Facilities Plan dated June 2008 and as Amended by the Errata dated October 2008 and the Errata dated November 2008, and the Long -Range Academic Plan dated June 2008 and as Amended by the Errata dated October 2008. South Orange County Community College District, March 2009. ATEP Phase 3A Concept Plan. Stantec, April, 2013. Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) Traffic Study. State of California, California Code of Regulations 97 April 2013 Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Sources and Acronyms 5.2 Acronyms ACM asbestos- containing materials ADT average daily trips AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan ATEP Advanced Technology & Education Campus BMP best management practices CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Tustin CNEL community noise equivalent level County County of Orange RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan District South Orange County Community College District DSA Division of the State Architect EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EV education village FAR floor area ratio FEIS /EIR Program Final Joint EIS /EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (SCH No. 94071005). FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FOST Finding of Suitability to Transfer GHG greenhouse gas ICU intersection capacity utilization LBP lead -based paint LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LID low- impact development LIFOC Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance LOS Level of Service LRAP Long -Range Academic Plan LRP Long -Range Academic and Facilities Plan MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Navy Department of Navy ND Negative Declaration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NSMP Nitrogen and Selenium Management Program OCFA Orange County Fire Authority OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority PA planning area Reuse Plan MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (previously MCAS Tustin Reuse /Specific Plan) ROD Record of Decision RSCCD Rancho Santiago Community College District SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill 98 April 2013 Agreement for the Exchange of Real Property GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002 Addendum /Environmental Checklist Sources and Acronyms SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCH State Clearinghouse SF square feet SOCCCD South Orange County Community College District SPA Specific Plan Amendment Specific Plan MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (previously MCAS Tustin Reuse /Specific Plan) SR state route SRP Short Range Plan SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TSF thousand square feet Tustin Legacy former MCAS Tustin Site VOC volatile organic compounds WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WQTR Water Quality Technical Report 99 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property Addendum /Environmental Checklist 6. Report Preparers Report Preparers The following professional firms and team members were involved in the preparation of the CEQA documentation for the proposed amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. RGP Planning & Development Services (RGP) • Jeremy Krout, AICP, LEED GA, Principal • Rafik Albert, AICP, LEED AP, Associate Stantec (formerly Austin -Foust Associates) • Krys Saldivar Giroux & Associates • Hans Giroux • Sara Gerrick 100 April 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property Addendum /Environmental Checklist Appendix A Traffic Study (April 2013) Appendices April 2013 f Stantec Appendix A Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) Traffic Study April 2013 Draft Report Prepared For: SOCCCD 2073007510 Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) Traffic Study April 9, 2013 Draft Report Prepared for: South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) 28000 Marguerite Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692 -3625 Submitted by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 19 Technology Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 923 -6000 Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... ............................1.1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... ............................1.1 1.2 ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ........................................... ............................1.4 1.2.1 Study Area ............................................................................... ............................1.4 1.2.2 Traffic Model Background ........................................................ ............................1.4 1.3 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA .................................................................. ............................1.5 1.4 REFERENCES ....................................................................................... ............................1.5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... ............................2.1 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ACCESS ................................................... ............................2.1 2.2 TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................... ............................2.1 2.3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................. ............................2.3 3.0 YEAR 2035 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS ......................................... ............................3.1 3.1 YEAR 2035 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ............................................................ ............................3.1 3.1.1 Average Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................. ............................3.1 3.1.2 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ................................ ............................3.1 3.2 YEAR 2035 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................... ............................3.8 4.0 SPECIAL ISSUES .................................................................................. ............................4.1 4.1 ATEP ACADEMIC ALTERNATIVE ......................................................... ............................4.1 4.2 BELL AVENUE ....................................................................................... ............................4.1 4.2.1 Signalization ............................................................................. ............................4.1 4.2.2 Left -Turn Storage ..................................................................... ............................4.3 5.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... ............................5.1 South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\ 2073\ active \2073007510 \report \rpt.docx S` ntec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY List of Figures Figure 1 -1 Project Location and Surrounding Circulation System ........... ............................... 1.2 Figure 1 -2 Neighborhood A Planning Areas ....................................... ............................... 1.3 Figure 2 -1 Advanced Technology and Education Park ......................... ............................... 2.2 Figure 2 -2 2035 Project Trip Distribution ............................................... ............................2.5 Figure 3 -1 2035 ADT Volumes (000s) ............................................... ............................... 3.2 Figure 3 -2 2035 Peak Hour Volumes — No- Project ............................... ............................... 3.3 Figure 3 -3 2035 Peak Hour Volumes — With- Project ............................ ............................... 3.4 Figure 3 -4 Intersection Lane Configurations ........................................... ............................3.5 Figure 3 -5 Intersection Location Map ................................................. ............................... 3.6 Figure 4 -1 Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Higher Speeds /Rural Areas ........ ............................4.4 Figure 4 -2 Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Lower Speeds /Urban Areas) ....... ............................4.5 Figure A -1 Intersection Location Map .................................................... ............................A -5 South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY List of Tables Table 1 -1 Level of Service Descriptions — Signalized Intersections .......... ............................... 1.6 Table 1 -2 Intersection Level of Service Ranges (ICU Methodology) ........ ............................... 1.7 Table 1 -3 Performance Criteria for Intersections Analyzed Within the Study Area .................. 1.8 Table 2 -1 Project Site Trip Generation Summary ................................. ............................... 2.4 Table 3 -1 2035 Intersection LOS Summary ............................................ ............................3.7 Table 4 -1 ATEP Project Alternative Trip Generation Comparison .............. ............................4.2 Table 4 -2 2035 Peak Hour Signal Warrant Summary ............................. ............................4.6 Table 4 -3 2035 Left -Turn Storage Length Requirements ........................... ............................4.7 South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY April 2013 1.0 Introduction This report presents the findings of a traffic study carried out for the proposed changes to Tustin Legacy Neighborhood A. The purpose of this report is to identify and evaluate how the proposed project differs from the original Specific Plan and any subsequent approved Specific Plan amendments in terms of traffic impacts pursuant to City- adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance. The traffic study is in support of the Specific Plan Amendment and is a Supplemental to the previously approved EIR /EIS carried out for Tustin Legacy. It should be noted that the Specific Plan land uses as well as the circulation system that were assumed in previous Tustin Legacy studies outside the proposed project site as carried out for the 2010 Specific Plan Amendment are included here. 1.1 Project Description The project includes proposed changes to South Orange County Community College District's (SOCCCD) Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) campus and a parcel owned by the City of Tustin. The easterly extension of Bell Avenue from its existing terminus at Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue is also part of the proposed project as the extension provides additional capacity to the surrounding circulation system allowing increases in land use intensity in the ATEP campus and the city -owned parcel south of ATEP. Collectively the land use changes and extension hereinafter will be called the "proposed project." The results of the proposed project will be compared to conditions without the extension and land uses according to the Specific Plan Amendment approved in 2010. The land uses that are part of the proposed project are comprised of a 51/49 mix of learning center and office uses. The land uses in the city's parcel are assumed as community commercial and general office uses whereas previously a special generator was identified for the parcel. Direct project access is provided by Valencia Avenue, Warner Avenue, Armstrong Avenue and the easterly extension of Bell Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue (see Figure 1 -1). Valencia Avenue, Armstrong Avenue and Bell Avenue are four -lane secondary arterials and Warner Avenue and is a six -lane major arterial. No direct project access is assumed to Red Hill Avenue which is a six- to seven -lane major arterial and forms the border to the west. The 1 -5, SR- 55 and 1 -405 Freeways as well as Edinger Avenue are nearby facilities acting as regional conduits to the proposed project site. Figure 1 -2 illustrates the location of the proposed project in Planning Area 1 of Tustin Legacy Neighborhood A. South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec DRAWING: v:\2073\active\2073007510\drawing\rpt_dwg\figurel-1.dwg I—� 6M 7M RED HILL D Z m ER LEGEND XX Existing YY Future m m With -Project Only V m r r 4S ARMSTRONG 1 1 1 1 1 1 c M Major Arterial ® ATEP (Project) S Secondary Arterial L, Local Arterial City Parcel (Project) 6M 7M 1.2 DRAWING: v:\2073\active\2073007510\drawing\basemaps\taz.dwg LEGEND ® ATEP (Project) Planning Area ARMSTRONG 77-77 City Parcel (Project) m m• m With -Project Only PAI , ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY 1.2 Analysis Scope and Methodology As per past Specific Plan Amendment traffic studies, the proposed project will be analyzed under conditions that assume buildout of the entire Tustin Legacy. As previously mentioned, the purpose of this report is to identify and evaluate how the proposed project differs from the original Specific Plan and any subsequent approved Specific Plan amendments in terms of traffic impacts. Therefore existing conditions will not be presented. Average daily traffic (ADT) and peak hour analyses will be used to verify if the proposed land use and internal circulation changes affect the off -site roadway system when compared to the project that was the subject of the approved EIR /EIS. The methodology proposed is to evaluate long - range peak hour capacity utilization at the major off -site intersections near the proposed project. The analysis in this report identifies potential impacts of the proposed project based on long -term 2035 future traffic conditions. Future traffic conditions were prepared using the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) and the Tustin Legacy Traffic Model (TLTM). The project site, which has been the subject of previous analyses, was last approved as part of the Specific Plan Amendment in 2010. The forecasts for the proposed project are based on the newly released ITAM 12 Year 2035 Baseline Version. For purposes of this traffic analysis, the no- project assumes that the project site contains uses according in the Specific Plan. 1.2.1 Study Area Analysis of the peripheral intersections will determine the extent of the study area (i.e., there are no significant impacts with the proposed project). The intent is to show that the overall distribution of the Legacy area traffic is similar to that estimated previously, and therefore the assumptions regarding project mitigation responsibilities remain unchanged. Previous analyses indicated that the study area defined in this traffic study as the area bounded by Valencia Avenue to the north, Armstrong Avenue to the east, Warner Avenue to the south and Red Hill Avenue to the west is sufficient limits to analyze the proposed project impacts. During the course of this study no- project versus with - project traffic forecast data were reviewed and the results were used to determine if significant or adverse project impacts occur beyond the study area boundary based on the circulation system performance criteria applied in the study. Based on the findings of the project traffic impact analysis, no expansion of the study area beyond the limits presented here is warranted. 1.2.2 Traffic Model Background As previously mentioned, the traffic forecast data for the proposed project was prepared using the ITAM 12 Year 2035 Baseline version and the Tustin Legacy Traffic Model (TLTM). The ITAM traffic forecasting model is a focused sub -area model derived from the Orange County Transportation South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Analysis Model ( OCTAM 3.4 with modified OCP -2010 socioeconomic data assumed). The OCTAM is maintained by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and ITAM 12 has been developed according to the Orange County sub -area traffic modeling guidelines adopted by the OCTA. The OCTA has certified the ITAM traffic model as being consistent with the OCTAM regional model. The ITAM uses a 2035 time frame for traffic forecasting with corresponding assumptions with respect to local and regional transportation improvements. The TLTM is used for local access and is based on ITAM. Nearby major cumulative projects such as the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) Vision Plan and Pacific Center East project (near Edinger Avenue and Del Arno Avenue) are assumed in the background conditions as well as socioeconomic data growth projections according to the OCP- 2010 that are inherent in ITAM and derived from OCTAM. The Tustin Legacy is assumed built out per the Specific Plan outside of the project site. 1.3 Performance Criteria In this report, a set of performance criteria is utilized to identify future level of service (LOS) deficiencies on the study area circulation system and also to define impacts and peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values of significance. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) summarized in Table 1 -1, traffic LOS is designated "A" through "F" with LOS "A" representing free flow conditions and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. The intersection criteria involve the use of peak hour ICU values. The ICU ranges that correspond to LOS "A" through "F" are presented in Table 1 -2. By practice, the ICU methodology assumes that intersections are signalized. LOS "D" (ICU not to exceed .90) is the performance standard for the intersections in the study area. The performance criteria presented in Table 1 -3 are based on LOS calculation methodology and performance standard that have been used by the City of Tustin and by the OCTA as part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP). The performance criteria applied here is the same as used in previous traffic analyses for the area. When the project causes the intersection to exceed the performance standard (LOS "D "), mitigation is required to bring the intersection back to an acceptable level of service. If the intersection is already deficient (i.e., exceeds the performance standard) under no- project conditions and the project contributes further to the deficiency by increasing the ICU by .02 or more, mitigation is required to bring the location back to no- project level of service conditions. 1.4 References 1 . "Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., February 22, 2006. 2. "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04" Prepared for City of Tustin, the Local Redevelopment Authority, April 3, 2012. South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Table 1 -1 Level of Service Descriptions — Signalized Intersections Levels of service (LOS) for signalized intersections are defined in terms of control delay as follows: LOS Description LOS A describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This A LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. LOS B describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per B vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS A, causing higher levels of delay. LOS C describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, C or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays D may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per E vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. LOS F describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, F when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Table 1 -2 Intersection Level of Service Ranges (ICU Methodology) Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Table 1 -3 Performance Criteria for Intersections Analyzed Within the Study Area VIC Calculation Methodology Level of service based on peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values calculated using the following assumptions: Saturation Flow Rate: 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane Clearance Interval: .05 Right- Turn -On -Red Utilization Factor*: .75 * "De facto" right -turn lane is assumed in the ICU calculation if 19 feet from edge to outside of through -lane exists and parking is prohibited during peak periods. Performance Standard All study area intersections: Level of Service D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to .90). Mitigation Requirement For ICU greater than the acceptable level of service, mitigation of the project contribution is required to bring intersection back to acceptable level of service where the deficiency is caused by the project or to no- project conditions or better where the project adds to a an already deficient condition and the project contribution is .02 or greater (i.e., more than 1.0 percent). South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY April 2013 2.0 Project Description The proposed project is comprised of changes to land uses in the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) campus and city parcel south of ATEP along with the Bell Avenue connection. The proposed project is located in Planning Area 1 in Tustin Legacy Neighborhood A. This chapter describes the traffic characteristics of the proposed project including the project access points. The trip generation estimates and traffic distribution patterns associated with the proposed project are then presented. This project description information is applied in the traffic impact analysis section of this report to analyze the project under year 2035 conditions. 2.1 Project Location and Access The proposed project illustrated in Figure 2 -1 is bounded by Valencia Avenue to the north, Armstrong Avenue to the east, existing Sheriff's Academy on County -owned land and Rancho Santiago Community College to the southeast, city parcel to the south /southwest and Red Hill Avenue to the west. The connection of Bell Avenue as a four -lane secondary arterial between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue is also part of the project. Figure 2 -1 also shows the preliminary ATEP access points on Bell Avenue and Valencia Avenue, all of which are full access. The primary access to the ATEP campus is assumed to be located on Valencia Avenue and Warner Avenue is the primary access for the city parcel south of ATEP. According to the 2010 Specific Plan Amendment (also referred to in this report as the "No- Project"), Bell Avenue is not extended and access to the northern uses within Neighborhood A is via Valencia Avenue and via Warner Avenue for the southern uses. Bell Avenue when extended from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue will provide additional access to these uses. For purposes of the analysis, it is assumed that the city parcel has full access only on Warner Avenue. The district's access is dependent on the anticipated location of parking on Bell Avenue and Valencia Avenue. This analysis assumes that around 60 percent of the district's uses north of Bell Avenue access Valencia Avenue compared to 40 percent on Bell Avenue. Existing uses such as the Sheriff's Academy and Rancho Santiago Community College District will continue to operate and have access to Armstrong Avenue. 2.2 Trip Generation As previously mentioned, the project site, which has been the subject of previous traffic analyses, was last approved in 2010 as part of the Specific Plan Amendment carried out at that time. For this traffic analysis, the no- project conditions assumed for the future (year 2035) include the currently approved learning center of 893,850 square feet in ATEP and Tustin facility (essentially a bank of trips of undetermined land uses) in the city's parcel south of ATEP. The land uses that are part of the proposed project are comprised of a 51 /49 mix of learning center and office South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec DRAWING: v:\2073\active\2073007510\drawing\rpt_dwg\concept_a.dwg ----I NUILDING ZONE 1 Site Area: 436,471 SF Office: 166,970 SF 10.02 ac.` (0.38 FAR) i I (Including Parking) — — — — — J ' --- I RED HILL AVENUE .57 -----I---- ACRL ti' CITY OF UE MIS TUSTIN 11 ACRID 1.00 ACRE SERVICE ACCESS CITY TUSTIN I 15ACRES SECONDARY ACRES ACCESS (UNSIGNALIZED) 7_,I City OF TUSTIN .� I 2 Al1192 ACRES I �I . MAIN —�/j I BUILDING ZONE31 ISiteArea:199,940SF l 4.59 ac.* ACCESS BUILDING ZONE 2 I (Including Parking) (SIGNALIZED) ' � Academic: 64,800 SF I ' Site Area: 2,232,450 SF -�; (0.32 FAR) 51.82 ac. w_ (Including Parking) COUNTY OF I Office: 366,130 SF , ORANGE ' Academic: 490,070 SF I RANCHO SANTIAGO 10 AC (0.38 FAR) COMMUNITY COLLEGE■\ 15ACRES 'J11 SECONDARY ` MAIN ' I ACCESS — (UNSIGNALIZED) ACCESS I -1 ,SECONDARY ACCESS SECONDARY , �♦ ACCESS (UNSIGNALIZED) DEVELOPMENT ZONE ® 0 200 400ft. RGP ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY uses. The land uses in the city's parcel are assumed as community commercial and general office uses whereas previously a special generator was identified for the parcel. The land uses and trip generation on the project site for year 2035 under no- project and with - project conditions are summarized in Table 2 -1. As indicated in Table 2 -1 and according to the trip generation estimates, the proposed project at buildout will generate around 2,149 AM and 2,114 PM peak hour trips and 17,932 daily trips. The with - project traffic forecasts, which includes the entire buildout of the project, results in increased trip generation differences of1,064 AM peak hour trips, 972 PM peak hour trips and 6,241 daily trips when compared to no- project conditions. As previously mentioned, the Bell Avenue extension, which is also part of the proposed project, provides additional capacity to the surrounding circulation system allowing increases in land use intensity in the ATEP campus and the city -owned parcel south of ATEP that result in an additional 10,000 daily trips. This daily trip increase is divided equally between the city and ATEP, and although not shown in the previous table, the city's remaining trips are assumed in other parts of the Tustin Legacy. The land uses will be placed in neighborhoods that would not result in significant impacts, i.e., Neighborhood G or Planning Area 7 in Neighborhood B. 2.3 Trip Distribution Trip distribution patterns for the project site were developed using the ITAM traffic model and are presented in Figure 2 -2 for year 2035. The trip distribution patterns are based on the model's distribution of daily project traffic. These percentages differ slightly in the peak hours, and the traffic model uses the individual peak hour distribution patterns to assign peak hour trips. South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Table 2 -1 Project Site Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount Unit In Out .. Out .. AD NO- PROJECT ATEP Learning Center 893.85 TSF 589 63 652 135 304 439 5,471 City's Parcel Tustin Facility TBD SG 332 101 433 227 476 703 6,220 TOTAL NO- PROJECT 921 164 1,085 362 780 1 142 11,691 WITH- PROJECT ATEP Learning Center 554.87 TSF 366 40 406 83 189 272 3,397 General Office 533.10 TSF 880 122 1,002 165 795 960 7,075 TOTAL 1,246 162 1,408 248 984 1,232 10,472 DIFFERENCE 657 99 756 113 680 793 5,001 City's Parcel Commercial 39.36 TSF 39 25 64 112 122 234 2,683 General Office 360 TSF 594 83 677 112 536 648 4,777 TOTAL 633 108 741 224 658 882 7,460 DIFFERENCE 301 7 308 -3 182 179 1240 TOTAL WITH- PROJECT 1 1,879 270 1 2,149 1 472 1 1,642 1 2,114 17,932 TOTAL DIFFERENCE 958 106 1 1,064 110 862 972 6,241 Trip Rates Learning Center TSF .66 .07 .73 .15 .34 .49 6.12 Commercial TSF 1.00 .64 1.64 2.85 3.09 5.94 68.17 General Office TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 13.27 Tustin Facility SG 3.32 1.01 4.33 2.27 4.76 7.03 62.20 Note: No- Project land uses shown here are consistent with the Specific Plan Amendment approved in 2010. Abbreviations: ADT - Average Daily Trips ATEP - Advanced Technology and Education Park SG - Special Generator TBD - To Be Determined TSF - Thousand Square Feet South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec DRAWING: v:\2073\active\2073007510\drawing\basemaps\figures.dwg u, 13% 10% RED ILL D Z m 6% 6% ARMSTRONG LEGEND With -Project Only xx Percent of project Adds to 100 %O trip distribution 27% J 50/0 ��0 Q f1 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY April 2013 3.0 Year 2035 Project Impact Analysis This chapter analyzes the impacts of the proposed project on year 2035 traffic conditions in the traffic analysis study area. The potential traffic impacts of the project are assessed based on a comparison of 2035 no- project and with - project conditions. 3.1 Year 2035 Traffic Impacts As discussed in Chapter 1.0, the recent release of the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model Version 12 (ITAM 12) and the Tustin Legacy Traffic Model (TLTM) were used to prepare the year 2035 no- project and with - project traffic forecasts that are applied in the analysis. The following sub - sections summarize the resulting 2035 no- project and with - project traffic conditions for arterial roads and intersections. 3.1.1 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Year 2035 no- project and with - project average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are illustrated in Figure 3 -1. The introduction of Bell Avenue as a four -lane secondary is beneficial to the circulation system surrounding the project site. It provides additional east -west capacity parallel to Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue thereby relieving traffic along these roadways. The additional capacity allows increased intensity in the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) campus as well as in the city's parcel south of ATEP. The highest volume increase with the project is 9,000 ADT on Red Hill Avenue just north of Bell Avenue which increases from 33,000 to 42,000 ADT well within the capacity of a six -lane major arterial. The highest volume decrease with the project occurs on Warner Avenue just east of Red Hill Avenue which decreases from 32,000 to 24,000 ADT. 3.1.2 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Figures 3 -2 and 3 -3 illustrate the year 2035 no- project and with - project AM and PM peak hour volumes at the intersections analyzed in the study area. The 2035 peak hour volumes along with the corresponding future lane configurations for the intersections analyzed (see Figures 3 -4 and 3- 5) result in the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values summarized in Table 3 -1 (ICU calculation worksheets are included in Appendix A). Based on the intersection LOS performance criteria and impact thresholds outlined in Chapter 1.0, no intersection location analyzed in the study area is adversely impacted by the proposed project in the year 2035 ICU analysis (i.e., all intersections with the project are forecast to operate at level of service "D" (LOS D) or better). South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec W 31 27 RED HILL w N 1A 5 5 ARMSTRONG N NO-PROJECT w 32 N 30 N -f, D Z f+l A r N O N M r O " 6 U O n o N 0 WITH- PROJECT �/A RED HILL 5 m m r r `'' 33 `'' 42 A D r m z n D 27 s Y� J I � 32 d�a r-- r-- Q v �� 3.3 3.4 0 z a 0 EXISTING D m A WITH- PROJECT RED HILL ARMSTRONG RED HILL F aj D r m Z (7 D 4 LEGEND OIntersection Location LEGEND 4 Future lane Improvement De -facto Right Turn - -- With - Project Only OIntersection Location 3.5 DRAWING: v:\2073\active\2073007510\drawing\basemaps\figures.dwg 3 15 RED HILL I D CO z FT, m F- 2 2 16 ARMSTRONG LEGEND x 40 Intersection Location Number With -Project Only Stanbec D F_ M z 01 Fill 1 0 3.6 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Table 3 -1 2035 Intersection LOS Summary South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec Intersection • • • • -.08 -.05 1. Armstrong & Valencia .52 A .45 A .44 A .40 A 2. Armstrong & Warner .37 A .45 A .37 A .40 A .00 -.05 3. Red Hill & Warner .67 B .60 A .66 B .61 B -.01 .01 4. Red Hill & Valencia .56 A .73 C .62 B .69 B .06 -.04 5. Red Hill & Bell .56 A .50 A .70 C .75 C .14 .25 6. Armstrong & Bell -- -- -- -- .59 A .60 A .59 1 .60 Notes: 'See Intersection Location Map in Figure 3 -5. 2See Table 1 -2 for LOS ranges based on ICU. Abbreviations: ICU - intersection capacity utilization LOS - level of service South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY 3.2 Year 2035 Findings and Conclusions The results of the project impact analysis for year 2035 did not indicate any new significant impacts with the project. Full development of the proposed project including the easterly extension of Bell Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and improvements associated with the current Specific Plan were assumed. South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY April 2013 4.0 Special Issues This chapter presents special issues in two subject areas. The first subject covers the qualitative analysis of an all- academic alternative to the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) campus instead of a mix of academic and office. The second subject covers the potential impacts of the two intersections changed or formed by the extension of Bell Avenue from its existing terminus at Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue. The evaluation of the two intersections includes determining the need for signalization and left -turn storage length requirements. 4.1 ATEP Academic Alternative In the event that South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) builds the ATEP site as all- academic rather than a mix of academic /general office, the square footage of the learning center would be higher assuming that the trip generation is equivalent to the ATEP academic /general office project mix. In addition to different square footage, the peak hour volumes also differ (see Table 4 -1). However the difference is opposite. The peak hour volumes are lower for an all- academic use at ATEP compared to a project with academic /general office mix. It can be concluded, that the findings presented in the previous chapter would still apply if the uses at ATEP change from academic and general office to all- academic. 4.2 Bell Avenue Two intersections change or form when Bell Avenue is extended from its existing terminus at Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue. An evaluation is carried out at these two intersections which includes determining the need for signalization and left -turn storage length requirements. 4.2.1 Signalization Traffic signal warrants based on peak hour volumes as adopted by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans were used here to determine the need for signalization. In applying this warrant, the volumes of both the major and minor street must meet or exceed those shown on the curves in Figures 4 -1 and 4 -2 for rural and urban conditions, respectively. Determining the major street approach for the signal warrant involves calculating the number of vehicles approaching the intersection on both major street legs. The highest total volume for either the continuous east and west approach or the north and south approach during either AM and PM is determined to be the major street approach for both peak hours. The minor street peak hour signal warrant volume is the number of peak hour vehicles approaching the intersection on only the highest volume leg. The highest volume for either the AM or PM determines the minor approach for both peak hours. South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Table 4 -1 ATEP Project Alternative Trip Generation Comparison I AM Land Use Amount Unit In WITH- PROJECT Peak Hour Out .. PM Peak Hour Out .. AD ATEP Proposed Learning Center 554.87 TSF 366 40 406 83 189 272 3,397 General Office 533.10 TSF 880 122 1,002 165 795 960 7,075 TOTAL 1,246 162 1,408 248 984 1,232 10,472 ATEP Alternative Learning Center 1,710.78 TSF 1,129 120 1,249 257 582 838 10,470 DIFFERENCE -117 -42 -159 9 -402 -394 -2 Trip Rates Learning Center TSF .66 .07 .73 .15 .34 .49 6.12 General Office TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 13.27 Note: No- Project land uses shown here are consistent with the Specific Plan Amendment approved in 2010. Abbreviations: ADT — Average Daily Trips ATEP — Advanced Technology and Education Park TSF — Thousand Square Feet South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec DRAWING: v:\2073\active\2073007510\drawing\rpt—dwg\figure4—i.dwg 4.3 DRAWING: v:\2073\active\2073007510\drawing\rpt_dwg\figure4-2.dwg Sul ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Rural or urban classifications are determined by the posted speed on the major street. Warrants are based on rural when the speed on the major street is 40 miles per hour (mph) or higher. For urban areas, the speed on the major street is 35 mph or lower. The two Bell Avenue intersections in the study area are analyzed here for year 2035 conditions. The warrants at the Red Hill Avenue and Bell Avenue intersection are based on rural due to the higher speeds along Red Hill Avenue. Lower speeds are expected on Armstrong Avenue therefore the signal warrant analysis at the Armstrong Avenue and Bell Avenue intersection is based on urban. The signal warrant analysis for 2035 with project conditions is summarized in Table 4 -2, and based on the application of the warrant, both intersections require traffic signals. Typically, signals are not installed until signal warrants are met. 4.2.2 Left -Turn Storage Left -turn pocket lengths at the two Bell Avenue intersections for new left -turn movements were estimated based on the highest peak hour volume under year 2035 conditions previously presented in Figure 3 -3. Where pocket lengths exceed the standard 150 feet for public roadways, the length is based on one foot per peak hour left -turn volume (highest of AM and PM) and rounded into increments of 10. The worst -case estimated left -turn storage length requirements for the intersections analyzed are summarized in Table 4 -3. It should be noted that the storage length requirement could be minimized with special signal treatments such as two left -turn phases (i.e., both at the beginning and end of the signal cycle). South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Table 4 -2 2035 Peak Hour Signal Warrant Summary Intersection (North/South Rd & East/West Rd) 111111191103TRe �i mrak 02-7. NEW RO= 5. Red Hill Avenue (Major) & Bell Avenue & Auto Center Drive (Minor) Major Approach Northbound 1,105 2,229 Southbound 2,783 1,283 Total 3,888 3,512 Minor Approach Westbound 422 960 Satisfies Warrant (Higher Speeds /Rural Areas)? Yes Yes 6. Armstrong Avenue (Major) & Bell Avenue Major Approach Northbound 261 938 Southbound 531 332 Total 792 1,270 Minor Approach Eastbound 729 543 Satisfies Warrant (Lower Speeds /Urban Areas)? Yes Yes South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Table 4 -3 2035 Left -Turn Storage Length Requirements South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec 5. Red Hill & Bell SBL AM 589 1 589 590' WBL PM 351 1 396* 400' 6. Armstrong & Bell NBL PM 518 1 518 520' EBL PM 250 1 250 250' * Lane is shared with ET volumes so ET volume is included in the volume /lane calculation. Abbreviations: ET — Eastbound Through N,S,E,W— North, South, East, West South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY April 2013 5.0 Findings and Conclusions This report presents the findings of a traffic study carried out for the proposed changes to Tustin Legacy Neighborhood A. The purpose of this report was to identify and evaluate how the proposed project differs from the original Specific Plan and any subsequent approved Specific Plan amendments in terms of traffic impacts pursuant to City- adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance. The traffic study is in support of the Specific Plan Amendment and is a Supplemental to the previously approved EIR /EIS carried out for Tustin Legacy. The Specific Plan land uses and the circulation system that were assumed in previous Tustin Legacy studies outside the proposed project site as carried out for the 2010 Specific Plan Amendment are included here. The traffic impacts of the proposed project in Neighborhood A in Tustin Legacy were identified by analyzing the traffic conditions for the study area circulation system based on year 2035 time frame. In each case, traffic conditions under no- project and with - project were compared to identify the potential traffic impacts of the project. The project site assumes the current approval (from the 2010 Specific Plan Amendment) for the site under year 2035 no- project conditions, and the proposed project changes are assumed to be fully developed under year 2035 with - project conditions including the extension of Bell Avenue to Armstrong Avenue. The circulation system performance criteria applied in the analysis are based on level of service (LOS) calculation methodologies and performance standards for intersections that have been used by previous reports in the Tustin Legacy. The results of the year 2035 project impact analysis, which are presented in detail in Chapter 3.0 of this report, indicate that the proposed project is not forecast to significantly impact any intersections in the study area (see Table 3 -1). Therefore no project mitigation measures are required The intersection LOS summaries presented in Chapter 3.0 indicated that enough capacity is available to accommodate the proposed project with all intersections operating at LOS "D" or better in the study area. The results of the analysis presented in Chapter 4.0 indicate that the proposed project meets the requirements for site access including the lane geometry at the new Bell Avenue intersections. Adequate design of these two intersections and the Bell Avenue extension itself will accommodate the proposed project with no adverse traffic conditions on other parts of the circulation system. South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Appendix A Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx S` ntec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY Appendix A Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets This appendix summarizes information pertaining to the intersection analysis portion of the traffic study for the proposed project. Intersection location reference map is provided in Figure A -1 for the project study area. The AM and PM peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) worksheets for year 2035 no- project and with - project conditions future traffic analysis scenarios analyzed in the study area are presented in the following order by intersection: ICU Calculation Methodology The ICU calculation procedure is based on a critical movement methodology that shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical movement at an intersection. A capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane is assumed together with a .05 clearance interval. A "de facto" right - turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and right -turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet or more from curb to outside of through -lane with parking prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped right -turn lanes during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in place of a numerical entry for right -turn lanes. The methodology also incorporates a check for right -turn capacity utilization. Both right- turn -on- green (RTOG) and right- turn -on -red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the total right -turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made. Example for Northbound Right 1. Right- Turn -On -Green (RTOG) If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG = V/C (NBT) Otherwise, RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL) 2. Right- Turn -On -Red (RTOR� If WBL is critical move, then: RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT) South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx S` ntec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY 3. Right -Turn Overlap Adjustment If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows: RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL) RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL) 4. Total Right -Turn Capacity (RTC) Availability For NBR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (75 %) Right -turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) — RTC A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately accommodate the right -turn V /C, therefore the right -turn is essentially considered to be a critical movement. In such cases, the right -turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that a right -turn adjustment is required for more than one right -turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right -turn movement reference, and the right -turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right -turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right -turn adjustment credit should be applied. Shared Lane V/C Methodology For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn movement (e.g., left /through, through /right, left /through /right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: Example for Shared Left /Through Lane 1. Average Lane Volume (ALV) AN = Left -Turn Volume + Through Volume Total Left + Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane) 2. ALV for Each Approach AN (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx S` ntec ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY ALV (Through) = Through Volume Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane) 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left -turn approach is warranted. Left -turn and through V/C ratios for this case are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane) V/C (Through) = Through Volume Through Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) Similarly, if ALV (Through) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the through approach is warranted, and left -turn and through V/C ratios are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) V/C (Through) = Through Volume Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane) 4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted If ALV (Left) and ALV (Through) are both less than ALV, the left /through lane is assumed to be truly shared and each left, left /through or through approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left /through V/C ratio is calculated as follows: V/C (Left /Through) = Left -Turn Volume + Through Volume Total Left + Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane) This V/C (Left /Through) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Through) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU summary listing. If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Through) that is attributed to the left -turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left -turn (including shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = V/C (Through) If approach has only one left -turn lane (shared lane), then: South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx S` nt@C ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP) TRAFFIC STUDY V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity If this left -turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. These same steps are carried out for shared through /right lanes. If full dedication of a shared through /right lane to the right -turn movement is warranted, the right -turn V/C value calculated in step three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity. When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., left /through and through /right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for either of the shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved in the other shared lane. South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) KS v:\2073\active\207300751 0 \report \rpt.docx Stantec DRAWING: v:\2073\active\2073007510\drawing\basemaps\figures.dwg 3 15 RED HILL I D CO z FT, m F- 2 2 16 ARMSTRONG LEGEND x 40 Intersection Location Number With -Project Only Stanbec D F_ M z 01 Fill 1 0 1. Armstrong & Valencia No- Project WBL 2 3400 92 .03 45 .01 WBT 2 3400 422 .13* 391 .13* WBR 0 0 18 36 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .52 .45 2. Armstrong & Warner No- Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 83 .02* 304 .09* NBT 1 1700 31 .02 256 .15 NBR d 1700 15 .01 114 .07 SBL 1 1700 29 .02 36 .02 SBT 1 1700 296 .27* 101 .12* SBR 0 0 155 .06 95 .06 EBL 1 1700 61 .04* 108 .06* EBT 2 3400 256 .08 440 .13 EBR 1 1700 292 .17 134 .08 WBL 2 3400 92 .03 45 .01 WBT 2 3400 422 .13* 391 .13* WBR 0 0 18 36 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .52 .45 2. Armstrong & Warner No- Project Clearance Interval .05* .05* With - Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 54 .02* 176 .05 NBT 2 3400 18 .01 90 .05* NBR 0 0 28 .02 65 .12 SBL 1 1700 47 .03 35 .02* SBT 2 3400 59 .02* 39 .01 SBR 1 1700 95 .06 96 .06 EBL 1 1700 85 .05 154 .09* EBT 3 5100 1244 .24* 1099 .22 EBR 1 1700 159 .09 142 .08 WBL 1 1700 63 .04* 59 .03 WBT 3 5100 979 .19 1218 .24* WBR 1 1700 38 .02 66 .04 Clearance Interval .05* .05* With - Project Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .40 With - Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 36 .01* 138 .04 NBT 1 1700 39 .02 276 .16* NBR d 1700 36 .02 206 .12 SBL 1 1700 94 .06 72 .04* SBT 1 1700 296 .23* 110 .09 SBR 0 0 94 .04 48 .05 EBL 1 1700 21 .01* 50 .03* EBT 2 3400 180 .05 342 .10 EBR 1 1700 61 .04 58 .03 WBL 2 3400 143 .04 82 .02 WBT 2 3400 420 .14* 334 .12* WBR 0 0 51 .03 73 .05 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .44 .40 With - Project Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .45 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .40 A -6 2073007510 ATEP 3/13 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 63 .02 167 .05 NBT 2 3400 32 .02* 120 .07* NBR 0 0 55 .03 125 .07 SBL 1 1700 60 .04* 59 .03* SBT 2 3400 70 .02 51 .02 SBR 1 1700 70 .04 81 .05 EBL 1 1700 71 .04 102 .06* EBT 3 5100 1045 .20* 996 .20 EBR 1 1700 137 .08 91 .05 WBL 1 1700 102 .06* 69 .04 WBT 3 5100 887 .17 992 .19* WBR 1 1700 47 .03 78 .05 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .45 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .40 A -6 2073007510 ATEP 3/13 3. Red Hill & Warner No- Project Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .60 4. Red Hill & Valencia No- Project 3400 154 .05* AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 257 .08 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 289 .09* 499 .15 NBT 4 6800 449 .07 1347 .20* NBR 1 1700 241 .14 423 .25 SBL 2 3400 314 .09 167 .05* SBT 3 5100 1176 .23* 433 .08 SBR 1 1700 390 .23 200 .12 EBL 2 3400 238 .07 316 .09* EBT 3 5100 1106 .22* 930 .18 EBR 1 1700 466 .27 263 .15 WBL 2 3400 270 .08* 273 .08 WBT 3 5100 783 .15 1091 .21* WBR 1 1700 127 .07 328 .19 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .60 4. Red Hill & Valencia No- Project WBL 2 3400 154 .05* AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 257 .08 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 167 .05* 214 .06 NBT 3 5100 356 .07 1750 .34* NBR 1 1700 227 .13 275 .16 SBL 2 3400 154 .05 100 .03* SBT 3 5100 1657 .32* 465 .09 SBR 1 1700 340 .20 96 .06 EBL 1 1700 108 .06 295 .17* EBT 2 3400 303 .09* 171 .05 EBR 1 1700 220 .13 165 .10 WBL 2 3400 154 .05* 107 .03 WBT 2 3400 257 .08 417 .12* WBR 1 1700 59 .03 266 .16 Right Turn Adjustment 313 WBR .02* Clearance Interval .05* 6800 .05* With - Project WBL 2 3400 213 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 674 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 313 .09* 542 .16* NBT 4 6800 527 .08 1343 .20 NBR 1 1700 221 .13 302 .18 SBL 2 3400 295 .09 174 .05 SBT 3 5100 1174 .23* 566 .11* SBR 1 1700 411 .24 303 .18 EBL 2 3400 292 .09 387 .11* EBT 3 5100 1100 .22* 793 .16 EBR 1 1700 507 .30 284 .17 WBL 2 3400 213 .06* 200 .06 WBT 3 5100 674 .13 925 .18* WBR 1 1700 123 .07 260 .15 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01* 351 Clearance Interval 3 .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .61 With - Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .73 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .69 A -7 2073007510 ATEP 3/13 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 243 .07* 351 .10 NBT 3 5100 399 .08 1982 .39* NBR 1 1700 168 .10 219 .13 SBL 2 3400 72 .02 45 .01* SBT 3 5100 1772 .35* 591 .12 SBR 1 1700 314 .18 89 .05 EBL 1 1700 87 .05* 233 .14* EBT 2 3400 160 .05 95 .03 EBR 1 1700 264 .16 254 .15 WBL 2 3400 133 .04 115 .03 WBT 2 3400 193 .06* 330 .10* WBR 1 1700 34 .02 146 .09 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .04* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .73 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .69 A -7 2073007510 ATEP 3/13 5. Red Hill & Bell No- Project Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .50 6. Armstrong & Bell With - Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 165 .10* 55 .03 NBT 4 6800 745 .11 2181 .32* NBR 0 0 0 .17 0 .17 SBL 0 0 0 .35 0 .16* SBT 3 5100 1843 .39* 716 .14 SBR 0 0 134 .08 21 .01 EBL 0 0 5 .08* 58 .15* EBT 1 1700 0 .02* 0 .13* EBR 0 0 37 .35 169 .17 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 .15* 0 .23* WBR 0 0 0 .05 0 .17 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .50 6. Armstrong & Bell With - Project WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .19* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .60 With - Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 180 .11* 518 .30* NBT 2 3400 81 .02 420 .12 NBR 0 0 0 .17 0 .17 SBL 0 0 0 .35 0 .16* SBT 2 3400 319 .16* 170 .10* SBR 0 0 212 .08 162 .01 EBL 1 1700 130 .08* 250 .15* EBT 0 0 0 .02 0 .03 EBR 1 1700 599 .35 293 .17 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .19* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .60 With - Project Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .75 A -8 2073007510 ATEP 3/13 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 165 .10* 55 .03 NBT 4 6800 659 .10 1877 .28* NBR 1 1700 281 .17 297 .17 SBL 1 1700 589 .35 272 .16* SBT 3 5100 2060 .40* 990 .19 SBR 1 1700 134 .08 21 .01 EBL 1 1700 5 .00 58 .03* EBT 1 1700 30 .02 51 .03 EBR 1 1700 37 .02 169 .10 WBL 0 0 215 351 WBT 1 1700 41 .15* 45 .23* WBR 2 3400 166 .05 564 .17 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .75 A -8 2073007510 ATEP 3/13 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property Addendum /Environmental Checklist Appendices Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analyses (April 2013) April 2013 AIR QUALITY and GHG IMPACT ANALYSES ATEP BELL AVENUE PROJECT CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Appendix 6 Prepared by: Giroux & Associates 1820 E Garry St., 9211 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Prepared for: RGP Planning & Development Services Attn: Jeremy Krout 8921 Research Drive Irvine, Calif 92618 Date: April 3, 2013 Proj ect No.: P 13 -013 AQ CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY The project site's climate, as with all Southern California, is dominated by the strength and position of the semi - permanent high pressure pattern over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall. It drives the cool daytime sea breeze, and it maintains comfortable humidity levels and ample sunshine after the frequent morning clouds dissipate. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric processes that create the desirable living climate combine to restrict the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population attracted in part by the desirable climate. Portions of the Los Angeles Basin therefore experience some of the worst air quality in the nation for certain pollutants. The City of Tustin has an annual average temperature high of 76 degrees and a low of 60 degrees. Daily and seasonal oscillations of temperature are small because of the moderating effects of the nearby oceanic thermal reservoir. In contrast to the steady temperature regime, rainfall is highly variable. Measurable precipitation occurs mainly from early November to mid - April, but total amounts are generally small. Tustin averages 13 inches of rain annually with January as the wettest month. Winds in the project vicinity display several characteristic regimes. During the day, especially in summer, winds are from the south in the morning and from the west in the afternoon. Daytime wind speeds are 7 — 9 miles per hour on average. At night, especially in winter, the land becomes cooler than the ocean, and an offshore wind of 3 -5 miles per hour develops. Early morning winds are briefly from the southeast parallel to the coastline before the daytime on- shore flow becomes well established again. One other important wind regime occurs when high pressure occurs over the western United States that creates hot, dry and gusty Santa Ana winds from the north and northeast across Tustin. The net effect of the wind pattern on air pollution is that any locally generated emissions will be carried offshore at night and toward inland Orange County by day. Daytime ventilation is much more vigorous. Unless daytime winds rotate far into the north and bring air pollution from developed areas of the air basin into Tustin, warm season air quality is much better in the project vicinity than in inland valleys of the air basin. Both summer and winter air quality in the project area is generally good. In addition to winds that control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal, Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine /subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is relatively clean, but becomes progressively more polluted as sources continue to add pollution from below without any dilution from above. Because of Tustin's location relative to the ocean, the incoming marine air during warm season onshore flow contains little air pollution. Local air quality is not substantially affected by the regional subsidence inversions. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -2- A second inversion type forms on clear, winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the surface while the air aloft remains warm. This process forms radiation inversions. These inversions, in conjunction with very light winds, trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. During the long nocturnal drainage flow from land to sea, the exhaust pollutants continually accumulate within the shallow, cool layer of air near the ground. Some areas of Orange County thus may experience elevated levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides because of this winter radiation inversion condition. However, the coastal areas of Orange County have not substantially been affected by limited nocturnal mixing effects (no elevated levels of CO) in approximately 10 years. Both types of inversions occur throughout the year to some extent, but the marine inversions are very dominant during the day in summer, and radiation inversions are much stronger on winter nights when nights are long and air is cool. The governing role of these inversions in atmospheric dispersion leads to a substantially different air quality environment in summer in the South Coast Air Basin than in winter. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -3- AIR QUALITY SETTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS) In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed ATEP Bell Avenue project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects. EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate. EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM- 2.5 "). New national AAQS were adopted in 1997 for these pollutants. Planning and enforcement of the federal standards for PM -2.5 and for ozone (8 -hour) were challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health -based standards did not require preparation of a cost - benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their required attainment schedules. Such attainment- planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8 -hour ozone standard. EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of communities to "non- attainment" for the 8 -hour ozone standard. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -4- Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Averaging California Standards 1 National Standards 2 Pollutant Concentration 3 Method Primary''" Secondary'3' Method' Time 1 Hour 0.09 PPM (180 1 — Ozone (03) Ultraviolet Same as Ultraviolet 8 Hour 0 fa 3 .070 ppm (137 glm) 3 ppm 0.075 (147 faglm } Photometry Primary Standard Photometry Respirable 24 Hour 50 fag /m3 150 pglm3 Inertial Separation Particulate Gravimetric or Same as and Gravimetric Annual 20 faglm3 — Matter (PM10) Beta Attenuation Primary Standard Analysis Arithmetic Mean Fine 24 Hour — — 35 fag /m3 Inertial Separation Particulate Same as and Gravimetric Annual 12 faglm3 Gravimetric or 15 fag /m3 Matter (PM2.5) Primary Standard Analysis Arithmetic Mean Beta Attenuation 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 rni 35 ppm (40 tri — Carbon Non - Dispersive Non - Dispersive Monoxide 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg /m3) Infrared Photometry 9 ppm (10 mglm3) — Infrared Photometry (CO) (NDIR) (NDIR) 8 Hour fi ppm (7 mglm3} — — (Lake Tahoe) Nitrogen 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 pglm3) 100 ppb (188 Pg1ri 9 Gas Phase Gas Phase Dioxide (NOZ }a Annual Chem! luminescence Same as Chemiluminescence Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 faglm3) 3 53 ppb (100 faglm } Primary Standard 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 faglm3) 75 ppb (196 fag /m3} — Ultraviolet 0.5 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 3 Hour — Ultraviolet — 1300 /m3) ( pg Flourescence; ( SO 9 Fluorescence Spectrophotometry 0.14 PP m 2) 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 fag /ri 9 — (Pararosaniline (for certain areas} Method) Annual 0.030 ppm Arithmetic Mean (for certain areas)s 30 Day Average 1.5 1 m3 — — High Volume 1.5 faglm3 Lead' 0'11 Calendar Quarter — Atomic Absorption as (for certain areas) Same as Sampler and Atomic Absorption Rolling 3 -Month 3 Primary Standard Average — O.iS faglm Visibility Beta Attenuation and Reducing 8 Hour See footnote 12 Transmittance No PallCIOS12 through Filter Tape National Sulfates 24 Hour 25 fag /m3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 fag/m3} Ultraviolet Sulfide Fluorescence Standards Vinyl 10 Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 fag/m3} Gas Chromatography See footnotes on next page ... For more information please call ARB -P10 at (916) 322 -2990 California Air Resources Board (2/7112) Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG 5- Table 1 (continued) 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8 -11om Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM 10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM 10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 -hour average concentration above 150 pg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for father clarification and current national policies. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25 °C and a reference pressure of 760 ton-. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25 °C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5- National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the U.S. EPA. 8. To attain the 1 -hour national standard, the 3 -year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively. 9. On June 2, 2010, a new 1 -hour SOZ standard was established and the existing 24 -hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1 -hour national standard, the 3 -year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SOZ national standards (24 -horn and annual) remain in effect until one year after all area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1 -hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1 -hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 10. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 11. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3 -month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 pgim3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 12. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10 -mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30 -mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. For more information please call ARB P10 at (916) 322 -2990 California Air Resources Board (2/7112) Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -6- Table 2 Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Carbon Monoxide • Incomplete combustion of fuels and other • Reduced tolerance for exercise. (CO) carbon - containing substances, such as motor • Impairment of mental function. exhaust. • Impairment of fetal development. • Natural events, such as decomposition of . Death at high levels of exposure. organic matter. • Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina). Nitrogen Dioxide • Motor vehicle exhaust. • Aggravation of respiratory illness. (NO2) • High temperature stationary combustion. • Reduced visibility. • Atmospheric reactions. • Reduced plant growth. • Formation of acid rain. Ozone • Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with • Aggravation of respiratory and (Os) nitrogen oxides in sunlight. cardiovascular diseases. • Irritation of eyes. • Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. • Plant leaf injury. Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve construction. • Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Fine Particulate Matter • Stationary combustion of solid fuels. • Reduced lung function. (PM -10) • Construction activities. • Aggravation of the effects of gaseous • Industrial processes. pollutants. • Atmospheric chemical reactions. • Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory diseases. • Increased cough and chest discomfort. • Soiling. • Reduced visibility. Fine Particulate Matter • Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, • Increases respiratory disease. (PM -2.5) equipment, and industrial sources. • Lung damage. • Residential and agricultural burning. • Cancer and premature death • Industrial processes. • Reduces visibility and results in surface • Also, formed from photochemical reactions soiling. of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Sulfur Dioxide • Combustion of sulfur- containing fossil fuels. • Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, (SO2) • Smelting of sulfur- bearing metal ores. emphysema). • Industrial processes. • Reduced lung function. • Irritation of eyes. • Reduced visibility. • Plant injury. • Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -7- Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM -2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in 2002. The State PM -2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only requires continued progress towards attainment. Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard for an 8 -hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for the federal 8 -hour standard. The California 8 -hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than the federal 8 -hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of non - attainment. During the same re- evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that is more stringent than the corresponding federal standard, and strengthened the state one -hour NO2 standard. As part of EPA's 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial modification of federal clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM -2.5 were strengthened, a new class of PM in the 2.5 to 10 micron size was created, some PM -10 standards were revoked, and a distinction between rural and urban air quality was adopted. In December, 2012, the federal annual standard for PM -2.5 was reduced from 15 µg/m3 to 12 µg/m3 which matches the California AAQS. The severity of the basin's non - attainment status for PM -2.5 may be increased by this action and thus require accelerated planning for future PM -2.5 attainment. In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8 -hour standard. Draft standards were published. The proposed future 8 -hour standard was 0.065 ppm. Environmental organizations generally praised this proposal. Most manufacturing, transportation or power generation groups opposed the new standard as economically unwise in an uncertain fiscal climate. In response to these concerns, the revision to the 8 -hour federal ozone standard was placed on indefinite hold. A new federal one -hour standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) has also recently been adopted which is more stringent than the existing state standard. Despite the additional stringency of the federal NO2 standard, air quality monitoring data in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) suggests that this standard is met in the region. The federal primary standard for sulfur dioxide(S02)were similarly modified in 2010. Because California requires use of lower sulfur fuel and burns negligible amounts of sulfur- bearing coal, SO2 is not a problem pollutant in the State. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -8- BASELINE AIR QUALITY Existing and probable future levels of air quality in the project area can be best inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the SCAQMD at its Costa Mesa monitoring station on Verde Drive. This station monitors most pollutants such as smog, as well as primary vehicular pollutants such as carbon monoxide. Respirable particulate air pollution is not monitored at Costa Mesa. The nearest representative station monitoring station for particulates is at the Mission Viejo monitoring station at 26081 Via Para. Table 3 summarizes the last six years of published data from these resources. The following conclusions can be drawn from this data: a. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels infrequently exceeds standards. The 1 -hour state ozone standard has been exceeded only once in all days in the past six years near Costa Mesa while the 8 -hour state standard has been violated an on less than one percent of all days. b. Measurements of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide indicate low baseline levels in comparison to the most stringent standards. Respirable dust (PM -10) levels only rarely exceed the state standard, while the less stringent federal PM -10 standard has not been violated since PM -10 measurements began at Mission Viejo. d. The federal ultra -fine particulate (PM -2.5) standard of 35 µg /m3 has been exceeded less than one percent of measurement days (four times in the last six years). Although complete attainment of every clean air standard is not yet imminent, extrapolation of the steady improvement trend suggests that such attainment could occur within the reasonably near future. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -9- Table 3 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary - 2006 -2011 (Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maximum Observed Levels) Pollutant/ Standard 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Ozone 1 -Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 -Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 0 2 5 3 2 2 8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 0 0 3 0 1 1 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.074 0.082 0.094 0.087 0.097 0.093 Max. 8 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.062 0.073 0.080 0.072 0.076 0.077 Carbon Monoxide 1 -Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -Hour > 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 3.5 4.5 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.9 Max 8 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 3.0 3.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2 Nitrogen Dioxide 1 -Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.101 0.074 0.081 0.065 0.070 0.061 Inhalable Particulates (PM -10) 24 -Hour > 50 µg /m3 (S) 1150 3/57 0155 1/60 0/58 0/61 24 -Hour > 150 µg /m3 (F) 0150 0/57 0155 0/60 0/58 0/61 Max. 24 -Hr. Conc. (µg /m3) 56. 74. 41. 55. 34. 47. Ultra -Fine Particulates (PM -2.5) 24 -Hour > 35 µg /m3 (F) 1/106 2/98 0/120 1/116 0/116 0 /110 Max. 24 -Hr. Conc. (µg /m3) 46.9 46.8 32.6 39.2 19.9 33.4 S =State Standard F= Federal Standard Source: South Coast AQMD: Costa Mesa -Mesa Verde Drive SCAQMD Air Monitoring Station (Ozone, CO, NOx) Mission Viejo SCAQMD Air Monitoring Station (PM -10, PM -2.5) DATA: www.arb.ca.gov /adam/ Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -10- AIR QUALITY PLANNING The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM -10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air -sheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 4. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM -10 and PM -2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint" in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health -based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM -10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal one -hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8- hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated. With re- designation of the air basin as non - attainment for the 8 -hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the one -hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8 -hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to "slip" from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM -2.5 standard. Because projected attainment by 2021 requires control technologies that do not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary "bump -up" from a "severe non - attainment" area to an "extreme non - attainment" designation for ozone. The extreme designation will allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on "black -box" measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump -up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non - attainment designation from "severe -17" to "extreme." This reclassification sets a later attainment deadline, but also requires the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -11- Table 4 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in tons /day) Pollutant 2008a 2010b 2015b 2020b NOx 917 836 667 561 ROG 632 596 545 525 CO 3,344 3,039 2,556 2,281 PM -10 308 314 328 340 PM -2.5 110 110 111 113 '2008 Base Year. With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. Source: California Air Resources Board, California Emissions Projection Analysis Model, 2009 In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA has disapproved part of the SCAB PM -2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA has stated that the current attainment plan relies on PM -2.5 control regulations that have not yet been approved or implemented. It is expected that a number of rules that are pending approval will remove the identified deficiencies. If these issues are not resolved within the next several years, federal funding sanctions for transportation projects could result. The 2012 AQMP update that was recently adopted by the SCAQMD focuses heavily on PM -2.5 control and is expected to remedy identified PM -2.5 planning deficiencies. Projects such as the proposed ATEP Bell Avenue do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing general development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth- accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less -than- significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project - specific basis. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -12- AIR QUALITY IMPACT STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Air quality impacts are considered "significant" if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they "substantially" contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact. Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: a. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). d. Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Primary Pollutants Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non - attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM -10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction. Secondary Pollutants Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -13- upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact. Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Table 5 Dailv Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 PM -2.5 55 55 Sox 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. Additional Indicators In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows: • Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project's build -out year. • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook also identifies various secondary significance criteria related to toxic, hazardous or odorous air contaminants. Except for the small diameter particulate matter ( "PM -2.5 ") fraction of diesel exhaust generated by heavy construction equipment, there are no secondary impact indicators associated with project construction and operational roadway use. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -14- For PM -2.5 exhaust emissions, recently adopted policies require the gradual conversion of delivery fleets to diesel alternatives, or the use of "clean" diesel if their emissions are demonstrated to be as low as those from alternative fuels. Because health risks from toxic air contaminants (TAC's) are cumulative over an assumed 70 -year lifespan, measurable off -site public health risk from diesel TAC exposure would occur for only a brief portion of a project lifetime, and only in dilute quantity. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called "sensitive receptors." Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio - respiratory disease). Residential areas adjacent to a proposed site are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. The Orange County Rescue Mission, which contain religious based temporary transitional housing units for the homeless, as well as public and private transitional housing units northeast of the ATEP campus, are considered the closest sensitive receptors. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTS Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new buildings. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions." Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to project development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural. Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal "default" factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into midrange average values. This assumption may or may not be totally applicable to site - specific conditions on the proposed project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for project - specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a considerable degree of imprecision. Average daily PM -10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are shown estimated to be about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures (RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities. Current research in particulate- exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra -small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM -2.5 ") was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -15- construction activity particulate matter is in the PM -2.5 range. PM -2.5 emissions are estimated to comprise 10 -20 percent of PM -10. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi - indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non - reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than any adverse health hazard. CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model by which to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a variety of land use projects. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although exhaust emissions will result from on and off -site heavy equipment, the exact types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. Estimated construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod20ll.l.1 to identify maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during project construction. Construction emissions include all emissions associated with the construction equipment, worker trips, and on -road diesel trucks. The Bell Avenue roadway extension was modeled separately from the proposed structural facilities. The Bell Avenue extension was modeled as an "asphalt surface" to ensure off- gasing emissions are accounted for. The project proposes a total of 194,109 square feet of construction (modeled in this study as a 2- year college and office use) over the project lifetime. Although build -out is not anticipated to occur all at once, modeling as such provides a worst case estimate as all emissions are condensed into a single intense period of activity. If daily construction emissions thresholds are not exceeded for this condensed scenario, then more piecemeal construction activity, spread out over a possible 20 year time frame will not exceed emissions thresholds. The modeled prototype construction equipment fleet and schedule is indicated in Table 6 and based on CalEEMod defaults for a project of this size. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -16- Table 6 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet Roadway Construction (194,109 sf) Phase Name and Duration Equipment Site Preparation ( 5 days) 3 Dozers 4 Loader /Backhoes Grading (8 days) 1 Excavator 1 Grader 3 Loader /Backhoes 1 Dozer Paving (6 months) 2 Mixers 1 Paver 2 Paving Equipment 2 Rollers 1 Loader /Backhoe Construction Activity Equipment Fleet Facilities Construction Phase Name and Duration Equipment Site Preparation ( 5 days) 3 Dozers 4 Loader /Backhoes Grading (8 days) 1 Excavator 1 Grader 3 Loader /Backhoes 1 Dozer Construction (230 days) 1 Crane 3 Forklifts 1 Generator Set 3 Loader /Backhoes 1 Welder Paving (20 days) 2 Mixers 1 Paver 2 Paving Equipment 2 Rollers 1 Loader /Backhoe Utilizing this indicated equipment fleet shown in Tables 6 the following worst case daily construction emissions are calculated by CaIEEMod and are listed in Table 7. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -17- Table 7 Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds /day) Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SOZ PM -10 PM -2.5 CO2 (e) 2014 (Roadway) Unmitigated 6.4 50.8 30.2 0.1 20.8 12.4 5,640.5 Mitigated 6.4 50.8 30.2 0.1 9.8 6.3 5,640.5 2018 (Facilities) Unmitigated 5.1 38.0 25.0 0.1 20.0 11.6 5,618.7 Mitigated 2019 (Facilities) 5.1 38.0 25.0 0.1 9.0 5.6 5,618.7 Unmitigated 60.3 12.3 12.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 1,867.7 Mitigated 60.3 12.3 12.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 1,867.7 IF SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 - Peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for added mitigation. The only model -based mitigation measured applied for this project was watering exposed dirt surfaces at least three times per day as required per SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize the generation of fugitive dust Also analyzed was full build -out of 816,929 square feet for a 2 -year college use. Table 8 details the default CalEEMod equipment fleet and default activity durations. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -18- Table 8 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet Facilities Construction (816,929 sf) Phase Name and Duration Equipment Site Preparation ( 10 days) 3 Dozers 4 Loader /Backhoes Grading (30 days) 1 Excavator 1 Grader 3 Loader /Backhoes 2 Scrapers 1 Dozer Construction (300 days) 1 Crane 3 Forklifts 1 Generator Set 3 Loader /Backhoes 1 Welder Paving (20 days) 2 Pavers 2 Paving Equipment 2 Rollers Utilizing this equipment fleet and activity durations the following worst case daily construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are listed in Table 9. Table 9 Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds /day) Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SOZ PM -10 PM -2.5 CO2 (e) 2020 (2 -year college) Unmitigated 68.1 35.6 42.8 0.1 19.7 11.3 11,261.3 Mitigated 68.1 35.6 42.8 0.1 8.9 5.3 11,261.3 2021(2 -year college) Unmitigated 67.8 26.4 41.3 0.1 8.8 1.3 11,203.7 Mitigated 67.8 26.4 41.3 0.1 8.8 1.3 11,203.7 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 - Again, emissions are less than their respective SCAQMD thresholds. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -19- Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24 -hour per day, 365 days per year, 70 -year lifetime exposure. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of construction- related diesel emissions relative to health risk due to the short period for which the majority of diesel exhaust would occur. Health risk analyses are typically assessed over a 9 -, 30 -, or 70 -year timeframe and not over a relatively brief period due to the lack of health risk associated with such a brief exposure. Activity over a large area as proposed by this project will operate for only a small number of days near any possible sensitive receptor. Because diesel exhaust exposure health risk is a cumulative lifetime effect, the few days of concentrated exposure has minimal impact when diluted over a full lifetime. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The proposed project, including both SOCCCD and City development, would produce up to 10,000 average daily trips (ADT) from full occupancy and vehicular travel, in excess of the vehicle trips previously analyzed by other environmental documents. Commercial uses also generate small quantities of area source emissions derived from organic compounds from cleaning products, landscape maintenance, etc. The contribution of these sources is incorporated into the analysis below. Operational emissions for proposed uses were calculated using CalEEMod 2011.1.1. for an assumed project build -out year of 2020 for the and are shown in Table 10. Average trip lengths were provided by the project traffic consultant to over -ride the model default values. Table 10 Proposed Commercial Daily Operational Impacts (194,109 sf, 10,000 daily trips) Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix Project operational emissions will be at a less - than - significant level. Table 11 provides the operational impacts associated with the construction of 816,929 square feet of construction for a 2 -year college plus 10,000 average daily trips. Operational emissions for proposed uses were calculated using CalEEMod 2011.1.1. for an assumed project build -out year of 2030 as shown in Table 11. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -20- Operational Emissions (lbs /da ) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM -10 PM -2.5 CO2 Area 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 801.1 Mobile 29.9 47.6 256.5 0.7 75.6 3.7 53,297.5 Total 35.1 48.2 256.1 0.7 75.6 3.7 54,098.6 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 - Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No NA Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix Project operational emissions will be at a less - than - significant level. Table 11 provides the operational impacts associated with the construction of 816,929 square feet of construction for a 2 -year college plus 10,000 average daily trips. Operational emissions for proposed uses were calculated using CalEEMod 2011.1.1. for an assumed project build -out year of 2030 as shown in Table 11. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -20- Table 11 Proposed Commercial Daily Operational Impacts (816,929 sf, 10,000 daily trips) Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix For this development scenario, operational emissions are similarly less than significant. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -21- Operational Emissions (lbs /day) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM -10 PM -2.5 CO2 Area 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.4 3.5 2.9 0.0 0.3 0.3 4201.6 Mobile 19.8 35.8 156.0 0.8 80.6 3.8 52,878.4 Total 41.6 39.3 158.9 0.8 80.9 4.1 57,080.0 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 - Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No NA Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix For this development scenario, operational emissions are similarly less than significant. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -21- CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MITIGATION Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Nevertheless, mitigation through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the non - attainment status of the air basin and because of the proximity of existing homes. Recommended mitigation includes: Fugitive Dust Control • Suspend the use of all construction equipment during first -stage smog alerts. • Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas. • Prepare and implement a high wind dust control plan. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. • Apply water three times daily, or non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. • Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in -out traffic from construction zone • Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the non - attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. Combustion emissions control includes: Exhaust Emissions Control • Utilize well -tuned off -road construction equipment. • Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equipment. • Enforce 5- minute idling limits for both on -road trucks and off -road equipment. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -22- GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S- 03 -05, EO S -20 -06 and EO S- 01 -07. AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California's reputation as a "national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship." It will have wide - ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide - ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Major components of the AB 32 include: • Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions. • Requires immediate "early action" control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources. • Mandates that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. • Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25 -40 %, from business as usual, to be achieved by 2020. • Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants. Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry - specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -23- developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on -and off -road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off -site electricity generation and non - company owned mobile sources. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Thresholds In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: • Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or, • Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project - related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility. Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to "select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate." The most common practice for transportation /combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis. The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise. On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO2 equivalent/year. The threshold applies primarily to industrial facilities. No threshold for residential or commercial development has been promulgated. In the absence of any adopted thresholds for roadway and commercial facilities projects, this 10,000 MT /year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -24- Construction Activity GHG Emissions In the unlikely event that the entire project were build out at once, CalEEMod predicts that the construction activities will generate the CO2(e) emissions identified in Table 12. Because the SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30 -year lifetime, the amortized annual total is also presented. Table 12 Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) (194,109 sf) Year Metric Tons CO2(e) 2014 (Roadway Construction) 128.8 2018 (Facilities Construction) 522.0 2019 (Facilities Construction) 16.1 Total Construction 666.9 30 Year Annual Amortized Rate 22.2 *CaIEEMod Output provided in appendix GHG impacts from construction are considered less- than - significant. Project Operational GHG Emissions The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion from consumption to annual regional CO2(e) emissions are summarized in the CalEEMod output files found in the appendix of this report. Table 10 provides operational emissions estimates associated with planned 2 -year college and commercial uses totaling 194,109 square feet of new development with an associated 10,000 daily VMT. GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are less than the adopted 10,000 CO2(e) threshold. Project operational GHG emissions impacts are, therefore, considered to be less - than - significant. Table 13 GHG Operational Emissions (194,109 sf, 10,000 daily trips) Consumption Source MT CO2(e) tons /year Energy Utilization 975.5 Mobile Source 6,241.8 Solid Waste Generation 98.5 Water Consumption 162.0 Annualized Construction 22.2 Total 7,500.0 GHG emissions for the 816,929 sf, 10,000 daily trips development scenario were also analyzed and are shown in Tables 14 through 16. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG Table 14 Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) (816,929 sf ) Year Metric Tons CO2(e) 2020 (Facilities Construction) 1,240.5 2021 (Facilities Construction) 411.3 Total Construction 1,651.8 30 Year Annual Amortized Rate 55.1 *CalEEMod Output provided in appendix Table 15 GHG Operational Emissions (816.929 sL 10.000 dailv trios) Consumption Source MT CO2(e) tons /year Energy Utilization 4,055.1 Mobile Source 6,241.8 Solid Waste Generation 483.1 Water Consumption 392.1 Annualized Construction 55.1 Total 11,227.2 The calculated GHG burden in Table 15 is based upon a continuation of "business as usual" (BAU) throughout the project development timeframe. There are, however, already a number of programs in place that will substantially reduce the GHG emissions associated with transportation and energy consumption as the major contributors to operational GHG emissions. These programs include: • Vehicle Efficiency (Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493) • Low Carbon Fuel Standard • Tire Pressure Indicators • Low Rolling Resistance Tires • Low Friction Oils • Goods Movement Efficiency • Aerodynamic Efficiency • Medium/Heavy Duty Hybrids • Sustainable Community Initiatives (SB -375) • 33% Renewables by 2020 • Lighting Efficiency • Electrical Energy Efficiency • Natural Gas Energy Efficiency • Increased Combined Heat & Power • Industrial Efficiency • 33% Renewables by 2020 for Pumping Plants Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -26- Conservatively, existing mandatory programs will reduce statewide GHG emissions by at least 20 percent independent of any local initiatives for GHG reduction. For the proposed project, application of projected GHG "savings" from established programs to the project GHG burden produces the following emissions residual (MT /year): Table 16 GHG Reductions through Statewide Programs (816.929 sE 10.000 daily trins) Source BAU Reduction* Residual Energy Utilization 4,055.1 30.2% 2,830.5 Transportation 6,241.8 18.5% 5,087.1 Solid Waste 483.1 0.0% 483.1 Water Use 392.1 19.0% 317.6 Construction 55.1 0.0% 55.1 Total 11,227.2 21.8% 8,773.4 *from in -place programs by 2020 Reduction calculations from Riverside County Climate Action Plan, Section 5. 1, "Reductions from Statewide Measures," Table 5.1 "Statewide Measures and Associated Emissions from the 2020 Inventory." Whereas the project GHG impact under the BAU assumption would exceed the SCAQMD advisory significance threshold in terms of the annual emissions burden, sufficient mandatory measures are in place to reduce the total GHG emissions below the 10,000 CO2(e) threshold. Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG -27- APPENDIX CALEEMOD2011.1.1 COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUT ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS • Daily Emissions (Ibs per day) • Annual Emissions (tons per year) FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 194,109 SF • Daily Emissions (Ibs per day) • Annual Emissions (tons per year) FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS 816,929 SF • Daily Emissions (Ibs per day) • Annual Emissions (tons per year) Bell Ave, Tustin AQ /GHG _fig_ Bell Ave Construction Tustin Orange County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Other Asphalt Surfaces 3.8 Acre 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics - Land Use - Roadway Construction Construction Phase - Site Prep: 5 days, Grading 8 days, Paving 120 days Off-road Equipment - Grading: 1 excavator, 1 grader, 1 dozer, 3 loader/backhoes Off-road Equipment - Paving: 2 mixers, 1 paver, 2 paving equipment, 2 rollers, 1 loader/backhoe Off-road Equipment - Prep: 3 dozers, 4 loader/backhoes Vehicle Trips - Date: 4/3/2013 1 of 14 Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year Ib/day Ib/day 2014 6.44 50.79 30.24 0.05 18.34 2.45 20.79 9.94 2.45 12.39 • 0.00 : 5,628.33 : 0.00 0.58 0.00 : 5,640.49 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA NA Mitigated Construction 2of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year Ib/day Ib/day 2014 6.44 50.79 30.24 0.05 7.32 2.45 9.77 3.88 2.45 6.33 0.00 5,628.33 0.00 0.58 0.00 5,640.49 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2of14 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------------- *------ *----- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I------------- *------ *------ --- --- Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail 3of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -------------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------�------r------*------*---- --- - - - Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail 3of14 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust 18.07 0.00 18.07 9.93 0.00 9.93 0.00 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- ----- --- --- --- ------ Off-Road 6.34 50.69 29.13 0.05 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 : 5,413.51 0.57 5,425.43 Total 6.34 j 50.69 j 29.13 j 0.05 j 18.07 j 2.44 j 20.51 j 9.93 j 2.44 j 12.37 j j 5,413.51 j j 0.57 j j 5,425.43 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 4of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•-------------*------*---- --- --- Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------ T------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I -------r ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.10 0.10 1.11 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.02 214.82 0.01 215.06 Total 0.10 j 0.10 j 1.11 j 0.00 j 0.28 j 0.01 j 0.29 j 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.02 j j 214.82 j j 0.01 j j 215.06 4of14 3.2 Site Preparation - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust 7.05 0.00 7.05 3.87 0.00 3.87 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------ ------ Off-Road 6.34 50.69 29.13 0.05 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 0.00 5,413.51 0.57 5,425.43 Total 6.34 50.69 29.13 0.05 7.05 2.44 9.49 3.87 2.44 6.31 0.00 5,413.51 Category 0.57 Ib/day 5,425.43 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 5of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.10 0.10 1.11 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.02 214.82 0.01 215.06 Total 0.10 j 0.10 j 1.11 j 0.00 j 0.28 j 0.01 j 0.29 j 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.02 j j 214.82 j j 0.01 j j 215.06 5of14 3.3 Grading - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust 6.55 0.00 6.55 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------ ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Off-Road 4.03 30.78 20.33 0.03 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 3,530.19 0.36 3,537.76 Total 4.03 30.78 20.33 0.03 6.55 1.67 8.22 3.31 1.67 4.98 3,530.19 Category 0.36 Ib/day 3,537.76 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 6of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.08 0.08 0.92 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.02 179.02 0.01 179.22 Total 0.08 j 0.08 j 0.92 j 0.00 j 0.23 j 0.01 j 0.24 j 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.02 j j 179.02 j j 0.01 j j 179.22 6of14 3.3 Grading - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust 2.56 0.00 2.56 1.29 0.00 1.29 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------ ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Off-Road 4.03 30.78 20.33 0.03 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 0.00 3,530.19 0.36 3,537.76 Total 4.03 30.78 20.33 0.03 2.56 1.67 4.23 1.29 1.67 2.96 0.00 3,530.19 Category 0.36 Ib/day 3,537.76 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 7of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.08 0.08 0.92 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.02 179.02 0.01 179.22 Total 0.08 j 0.08 j 0.92 j 0.00 j 0.23 j 0.01 j 0.24 j 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.02 j j 179.02 j j 0.01 j j 179.22 7of14 3.4 Paving - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 2.72 17.02 : 11.52 0.02 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 : 1,650.79 0.24 1,655.93 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Paving 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.80 17.02 11.52 0.02 PM2.5 1.41 1.41 CO2 I 1.41 1.41 1,650.79 Category 0.24 Ib/day 1,655.93 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 8of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.11 0.11 1.23 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.02 238.69 0.01 238.96 Total 0.11 j 0.11 j 1.23 j 0.00 j 0.31 j 0.01 j 0.32 j 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.02 j j 238.69 j j 0.01 j j 238.96 8of14 3.4 Paving - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 2.72 17.02 : 11.52 0.02 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 0.00 : 1,650.79 0.24 1,655.93 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Paving 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.80 17.02 11.52 0.02 PM2.5 1.41 1.41 CO2 I 1.41 1.41 0.00 1,650.79 Category 0.24 Ib/day 1,655.93 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Orel mLI ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.11 0.11 1.23 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.02 238.69 0.01 238.96 Total 0.11 j 0.11 j 1.23 j 0.00 j 0.31 j 0.01 j 0.32 j 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.02 j j 238.69 j j 0.01 j j 238.96 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Orel mLI 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category b/day b/day Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Other Asphalt Surfaces 8.90 13.30 7.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.0 Energy Detail 1181 SME 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 0.00 CO2 I I 0.00 0.00 Category Ib/day Ib/day NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated --- ------- •------ r------ *------------- *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ *------ NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated 11 of 14 NaturalGas Use 77771 CO I SO2 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBo- COPM10 2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day Other Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 of 14 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGas Use ROG NOx 1 CO I SO2 I Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 I PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day Other Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total j NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 j NA 0.00 0.00 j NA 0.00 0.00 j NA 0.00 j NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 12 of 14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- --- --- --- --- - - - Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA 12 of 14 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Su bCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating --- ------- ------r------* ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Consumer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products ---------------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- �------ *------ *------ * Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 13 of 14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Su bCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating --- ------- -------r------* ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Consumer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products -- -------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- --- --- --- --- - - - Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.0 Water Detail 13 of 14 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Vegetation 14 of 14 Bell Ave Construction Tustin Orange County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Other Asphalt Surfaces 3.8 Acre 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics - Land Use - Roadway Construction Construction Phase - Site Prep: 5 days, Grading 8 days, Paving 120 days Off-road Equipment - Grading: 1 excavator, 1 grader, 1 dozer, 3 loader/backhoes Off-road Equipment - Paving: 2 mixers, 1 paver, 2 paving equipment, 2 rollers, 1 loader/backhoe Off-road Equipment - Prep: 3 dozers, 4 loader/backhoes Vehicle Trips - Date: 4/3/2013 IMISIQ Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2014 0.21 1.28 0.92 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.19 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.00 128.41 : 128.41 : 0.02 0.00 : 128.76 Total 0.21 1.28 0.92 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.19 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.00 128.41 128.41 j 0.02 j 0.00 128.76 Mitigated Construction no MIQ ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2014 0.21 1.28 0.92 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.02 0.10 0.11 0.00 128.41 128.41 0.02 0.00 128.76 Total 0.21 1.28 0.92 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.02 0.10 0.11 0.00 128.41 128.41 0.02 0.00 128.76 no MIQ 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Kne a[:] ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------------- *------ *----- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I------------- *------ * --- --- --- Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*------*------* - - - Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------+------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------* Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kne a[:] 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area :AIon M Q ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------------- *------ *----- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I------------- *------ * --- --- --- Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*------*------* - - - Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------+------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------* Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area :AIon M Q 3.2 Site Preparation - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ * --- --- Off-Road 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 12.27 12.27 0.00 0.00 12.30 Total 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 12.27 12.27 0.00 0.00 12.30 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 61no MIQ ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.47 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.47 j 0.47 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.47 61no MIQ 3.2 Site Preparation - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ * --- --- Off-Road 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 12.27 12.27 0.00 0.00 12.30 Total 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 12.27 12.27 0.00 0.00 12.30 Mitigated Construction Off -Site . no MIQ ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.47 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.47 j 0.47 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.47 . no MIQ 3.3 Grading - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ * --- --- Off-Road 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 12.81 12.81 0.00 0.00 12.83 Total 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 12.81 12.81 0.00 0.00 12.83 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site iMSIQ ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.62 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.62 j 0.62 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.62 iMSIQ 3.3 Grading - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ * --- --- Off-Road 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 12.81 12.81 0.00 0.00 12.83 Total 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 12.81 12.81 0.00 0.00 12.83 Mitigated Construction Off -Site %]no MIj ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.62 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.62 j 0.62 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.62 %]no MIj 3.4 Paving - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.16 1.02 0.69 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 : 89.83 : 89.83 0.01 0.00 : 90.11 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.16 1.02 0.69 0.00 PM2.5 0.08 0.08 CO2 I 0.08 0.08 0.00 89.83 89.83 0.01 0.00 90.11 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Ano MIj ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------*---- --- --- Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.42 12.42 0.00 0.00 12.43 Total 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.07 j 0.00 j 0.02 j 0.00 j 0.02 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 12.42 j 12.42 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 12.43 Ano MIj 3.4 Paving - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.16 1.02 0.69 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 : 89.83 : 89.83 0.01 0.00 : 90.11 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.16 1.02 0.69 0.00 PM2.5 0.08 0.08 CO2 I 0.08 0.08 0.00 89.83 89.83 0.01 0.00 90.11 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------*---- --- --- Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.42 12.42 0.00 0.00 12.43 Total 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.07 j 0.00 j 0.02 j 0.00 j 0.02 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 12.42 j 12.42 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 12.43 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *---- --- --- --- --- --- --- Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Other Asphalt Surfaces 8.90 13.30 7.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.0 Energy Detail Iffilne MR] 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2e Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 0.00 CO2 I I 0.00 0.00 Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated ---------- •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ ------- r------ --- --- --- --- Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated ---------------- r------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ .------ r------ *------ *------ --- --- NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated ----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------�------*------*---- --- --- - NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated fiNne ffiE:3 NaturalGas Use ROG NOx 1 CO I SO2 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBo- COPM10 2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 fiNne ffiE:3 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated NaturalGas Use ROG NOx 1 CO I SO2 I Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 I PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use 1 77771 CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Electricity Use 1 77771 CO CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area iMneffi j ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- --- --- --- --- - - - Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA iMneffi j 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Su bCategory tons/yr M T/yr Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating --- ------- ------r------* ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ --- Consumer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products ---------------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- �------ *------ *------ * Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail fib'Y MIM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Su bCategory tons/yr M T/yr Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating ---------- -------r------* ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ --- Consumer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products -- -------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- --- --- --- --- - - - Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.0 Water Detail fib'Y MIM 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------------T------*------*------*------*------*----------- - Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Outdoor Use ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0/0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CategoryNear Indoor/Outdoor Use ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0/0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CategoryNear `irc ER] ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r *------*------*------*------*----------- - Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA NA `irc ER] 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Mitigated Waste Disposed 1 77-71 CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated 9.0 Vegetation fR]no MR] Waste Disposed 1 77-71 CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.0 Vegetation fR]no MR] ATEP Bell Ave Full Construction, Tustin Orange County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Junior College (2Yr) 816.93 1000sgft 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics - Land Use - Junior College Construction Phase - Site Prep: 10 days, Grading: 30 days, Construction 300 days, Paving: 20 days Off-road Equipment - Construction: 1 crane, 3 forklifts, 1 gen set, 3 load er/backhoes, 1 welder Off-road Equipment - Grading: 1 excavator, 1 grader, 1 dozer, 2 scrapers, 2 loader/backhoes Off-road Equipment - Paving: 2 pavers, 2 paving equipment, 2 rollers Off-road Equipment - Site Prep: 3 doxers, 4 backhoes Date: 4/8/2013 MUM Vehicle Trips - Per Traffic Consultant -12.24 trips/tsf 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 I Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year Ib/day Ib/day 2020 • 68.14 35.60 ' 42.77 0.12 18.34 1.50 19.72 9.93 1.50 ' 11.31 • 0.00 :11,251.31 ' 0.00 0.48 0.00 :11,261.31 ----------- ------------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *---- --- ------ * --- --- --- ----- 2021 67.81 26.40 41.26 0.12 7.57 1.20 8.77 0.12 1.16 1.28 0.00 ' 11,195.10' 0.00 0.41 0.00 :11,203.67 Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA Mitigated Construction Me WN ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Year Ib/day Ib/day 2020 68.14 35.60 ' 42.77 0.12 7.57 1.50 8.92 3.88 1.50 5.25 0.00 ' 11,251.31 ' 0.00 0.48 0.00 :11,261.31 ------------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I-------4-------*------*------* --- ----- 2021 67.81 26.40 41.26 0.12 7.57 1.20 8.77 0.12 1.16 1.28 0.00 11,195.10' 0.00 0.41 0.00 '11,203.67 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA NA Me WN 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I CO2 I I I Category lb/day lb/day Area 21.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ --- --- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Energy 0.38 3.48 2.92 0.02 : 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 : : 4,176.15 0.08 0.08 4,201.57 I ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Mobile 19.80 35.85 155.96 0.70 77.46 : 3.14 80.61 1.08 2.73 3.82 : : 52,848.95: 1.40 52,878.35 Total 1 1 41.54 j 39.33 j 158.88 j 0.72 j 77.46 j 3.14 j 80.87 j 1.08 j 2.73 j 4.08 j j 57,025.10 j j 1.48 j 0.08 j 57,079.92 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Nno WN ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust I PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category lb/day lb/day Area : 21.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 : 0.00 0.00 ----------- - ------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ I ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ Energy 0.38 3.48 2.92 0.02 : 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 : 4,176.15 0.08 0.08 4,201.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -•- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ -----Mobile 19.80 : 35.85 155.96 0.70 77.46 3.14 80.61 1.08 2.73 3.82 52,848.95: 1.40 52,878.35 Mobile Total 1 41.54 j 39.33 j 158.88 j 0.72 j 77.46 j 3.14 j 80.87 j 1.08 j 2.73 j 4.08 j j 57,025.10 j j 1.48 j 0.08 j 57,079.92_ 3.0 Construction Detail Nno WN 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust 18.07 0.00 18.07 9.93 0.00 9.93 0.00 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- ----- --- --- --- ------ Off-Road 4.50 32.69 22.37 0.05 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 : 5,413.51 0.40 5,421.98 Total 4.50 j 32.69 j 22.37 j 0.05 j 18.07 j 1.37 j 19.44 j 9.93 j 1.37 j 11.30 j j 5,413.51 j j 0.40 j j 5,421.98 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Hne wA ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•-------------*------*---- --- --- Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------ T------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I -------r ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.07 0.06 0.71 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.01 188.12 0.01 188.28 Total 0.07 j 0.06 j 0.71 j 0.00 j 0.28 j 0.01 j 0.29 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.01 j j 188.12 j j 0.01 j j 188.28 Hne wA 3.2 Site Preparation - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust 7.05 0.00 7.05 3.87 0.00 3.87 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------ ------ Off-Road 4.50 32.69 22.37 0.05 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 0.00 5,413.51 0.40 5,421.98 Total 4.50 32.69 22.37 0.05 7.05 1.37 8.42 3.87 1.37 5.24 0.00 5,413.51 Category 0.40 Ib/day 5,421.98 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 6�wN ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.07 0.06 0.71 0.00 0.28 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.01 188.12 0.01 188.28 Total 0.07 j 0.06 j 0.71 j 0.00 j 0.28 j 0.01 j 0.29 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.01 j j 188.12 j j 0.01 j j 188.28 6�wN 3.3 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust 8.67 0.00 8.67 3.31 0.00 3.31 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------ ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Off-Road 5.22 35.54 28.65 0.07 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 7,272.08 0.47 7,281.90 Total 5.22 35.54 28.65 0.07 8.67 1.49 10.16 3.31 1.49 4.80 7,272.08 Category 0.47 Ib/day 7,281.90 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site . no wN ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.08 0.06 0.79 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.32 0.00 0.01 0.01 209.02 0.01 209.20 Total 0.08 j 0.06 j 0.79 j 0.00 j 0.31 j 0.01 j 0.32 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.01 j j 209.02 j j 0.01 j j 209.20 . no wN 3.3 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Fugitive Dust 3.38 0.00 3.38 1.29 0.00 1.29 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------ ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Off-Road 5.22 35.54 28.65 0.07 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 0.00 7,272.08 0.47 7,281.90 Total 5.22 35.54 28.65 0.07 3.38 1.49 4.87 1.29 1.49 2.78 0.00 7,272.08 Category 0.47 Ib/day 7,281.90 Mitigated Construction Off -Site M no wN ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.08 0.06 0.79 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.32 0.00 0.01 0.01 209.02 0.01 209.20 Total 0.08 j 0.06 j 0.79 j 0.00 j 0.31 j 0.01 j 0.32 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.01 j j 209.02 j j 0.01 j j 209.20 M no wN 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 2.12 13.66 16.71 0.03 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 2,982.97 0.19 2,986.94 Total 2.12 13.66 16.71 0.03 PM2.5 0.68 0.68 CO2 I 0.68 0.68 2,982.97 Category 0.19 Ib/day 2,986.94 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site [Qno wN ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *---- --- ------ * --- --- --- ------ Vendor 1.11 11.94 8.00 0.04 1.25 0.35 1.60 0.03 0.32 0.35 : 3,681.32 0.05 3,682.46 ---------- ------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I-------r------*------*------*------*------ Worker 1.35 1.09 13.52 0.04 5.26 0.17 5.44 0.07 0.16 0.23 3,584.70 0.14 3,587.74 Total 2.46 13.03 21.52 0.08 6.51 0.52 7.04 0.10 0.48 0.58 7,266.02 0.19 7,270.20 [Qno wN 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 2.12 13.66 16.71 0.03 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.00 2,982.97 0.19 2,986.94 Total 2.12 13.66 16.71 0.03 PM2.5 0.68 0.68 CO2 I 0.68 0.68 0.00 2,982.97 Category 0.19 Ib/day 2,986.94 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Ano wN ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *---- --- ------ * --- --- --- ------ Vendor 1.11 11.94 8.00 0.04 1.25 0.35 1.60 0.03 0.32 0.35 : 3,681.32 0.05 3,682.46 ---------- ------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I-------r------*------*------*------*------ Worker 1.35 1.09 13.52 0.04 5.26 0.17 5.44 0.07 0.16 0.23 3,584.70 0.14 3,587.74 Total 2.46 13.03 21.52 0.08 6.51 0.52 7.04 0.10 0.48 0.58 7,266.02 0.19 7,270.20 Ano wN 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 1.93 12.33 16.59 0.03 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 2,982.97 0.17 2,986.58 Total 1.93 12.33 16.59 0.03 PM2.5 0.57 0.57 CO2 I 0.57 0.57 2,982.97 Category 0.17 Ib/day 2,986.58 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site IM no PA ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *---- --- ------ * --- --- --- ------ Vendor 1.05 11.33 7.53 0.04 1.25 0.33 1.58 0.03 0.30 0.33 : 3,689.80 0.05 3,690.86 ---------- ------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I-------r------*------*------*------*------ Worker 1.30 1.01 12.75 0.04 5.26 0.17 5.44 0.07 0.16 0.23 3,530.86 0.14 3,533.76 Total 2.35 12.34 20.28 0.08 6.51 0.50 7.02 0.10 0.46 0.56 7,220.66 0.19 7,224.62 IM no PA 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 1.93 12.33 16.59 0.03 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.00 2,982.97 0.17 2,986.58 Total 1.93 12.33 16.59 0.03 PM2.5 0.57 0.57 CO2 I 0.57 0.57 0.00 2,982.97 Category 0.17 Ib/day 2,986.58 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Iffilne PA ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *---- --- ------ * --- --- --- ------ Vendor 1.05 11.33 7.53 0.04 1.25 0.33 1.58 0.03 0.30 0.33 : 3,689.80 0.05 3,690.86 ---------- ------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I-------r------*------*------*------*------ Worker 1.30 1.01 12.75 0.04 5.26 0.17 5.44 0.07 0.16 0.23 3,530.86 0.14 3,533.76 Total 2.35 12.34 20.28 0.08 6.51 0.50 7.02 0.10 0.46 0.56 7,220.66 0.19 7,224.62 Iffilne PA 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating 63.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------ ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Off-Road 0.24 1.68 1.83 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 281.19 0.02 281.65 Total 63.29 1.68 1.83 0.00 PM2.5 0.11 0.11 CO2 I 0.11 0.11 281.19 Category 0.02 Ib/day 281.65 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site I F4 no PA ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.27 0.22 2.72 0.01 1.06 0.03 1.09 0.01 0.03 0.05 721.12 0.03 721.73 Total 0.27 j 0.22 j 2.72 j 0.01 j 1.06 j 0.03 j 1.09 j 0.01 j 0.03 j 0.05 j j 721.12 j j 0.03 j j 721.73 I F4 no PA 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating 63.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------ --- Off-Road 0.24 1.68 1.83 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 281.19 0.02 281.65 Total 63.29 1.68 1.83 0.00 PM2.5 0.11 0.11 CO2 I 0.11 0.11 0.00 281.19 Category 0.02 Ib/day 281.65 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 1191 no P ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.27 0.22 2.72 0.01 1.06 0.03 1.09 0.01 0.03 0.05 721.12 0.03 721.73 Total 0.27 j 0.22 j 2.72 j 0.01 j 1.06 j 0.03 j 1.09 j 0.01 j 0.03 j 0.05 j j 721.12 j j 0.03 j j 721.73 1191 no P 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating 63.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------ ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Off-Road 0.22 1.53 1.82 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 281.19 0.02 281.60 Total 63.27 1.53 1.82 0.00 PM2.5 0.09 0.09 CO2 I 0.09 0.09 281.19 Category 0.02 Ib/day 281.60 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site iIMM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.26 0.20 2.57 0.01 1.06 0.03 1.09 0.01 0.03 0.05 710.29 0.03 710.87 Total 0.26 j 0.20 j 2.57 j 0.01 j 1.06 j 0.03 j 1.09 j 0.01 j 0.03 j 0.05 j j 710.29 j j 0.03 j j 710.87 iIMM 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Archit. Coating 63.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------ --- Off-Road 0.22 1.53 1.82 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00 281.19 0.02 281.60 Total 63.27 1.53 1.82 0.00 PM2.5 0.09 0.09 CO2 I 0.09 0.09 0.00 281.19 Category 0.02 Ib/day 281.60 Mitigated Construction Off -Site IleiSPA ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.26 0.20 2.57 0.01 1.06 0.03 1.09 0.01 0.03 0.05 710.29 0.03 710.87 Total 0.26 j 0.20 j 2.57 j 0.01 j 1.06 j 0.03 j 1.09 j 0.01 j 0.03 j 0.05 j j 710.29 j j 0.03 j j 710.87 IleiSPA 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 2.49 15.54 : 15.38 0.02 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 : 2,281.96 0.22 2,286.63 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.49 15.54 15.38 0.02 PM2.5 1.13 1.13 CO2 I 1.13 1.13 2,281.96 Category 0.22 Ib/day 2,286.63 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site fi[:Ye W ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.06 0.04 0.56 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 154.41 0.01 154.54 Total 0.06 j 0.04 j 0.56 j 0.00 j 0.23 j 0.01 j 0.24 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.01 j j 154.41 j j 0.01 j j 154.54 fi[:Ye W 3.6 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Off -Road 2.49 15.54 : 15.38 0.02 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.00 : 2,281.96 0.22 2,286.63 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.49 15.54 15.38 0.02 PM2.5 1.13 1.13 CO2 I 1.13 1.13 0.00 2,281.96 Category 0.22 Ib/day 2,286.63 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 11FAne WA ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*---- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------- ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ I------- ------- *------ *------ *------ *------ Worker 0.06 0.04 0.56 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 154.41 0.01 154.54 Total 0.06 j 0.04 j 0.56 j 0.00 j 0.23 j 0.01 j 0.24 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.01 j j 154.41 j j 0.01 j j 154.54 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 11FAne WA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 To Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Mitigated 19.80 35.85 : 155.96 : 0.70 77.46 3.14 80.61 1.08 2.73 3.82 52,848.95: 1.40 52,878.35 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- ------ * --- --- --- ------ Unmitigated 19.80 35.85 155.96 0.70 77.46 3.14 80.61 1.08 2.73 3.82 :52,848.95: 1.40 52,878.35 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Junior College (2Yr) 9,999.22 9,999.22 988.49 20,397,687 20,397,687 Total 9,999.22 9,999.22 988.49 20,397,687 20,397,687 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Junior College (2Yr) 6.86 6.86 6.86 6.40 88.60 5.00 5.0 Energy Detail f Qno WA 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To 0.02 CO2 0.00 0.26 0.00 Category Ib/day Ib/day NaturalGas 0.38 3.48 2.92 0.02 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 4,176.15 0.08 0.08 : 4,201.57 Mitigated --------- •------ r------ *------------- *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ ------ * --- --- --- ------ NaturalGas 0.38 3.48 2.92 0.02 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 4,176.15 0.08 0.08 4,201.57 Unmitigated Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated I N no WA NaturalGas Use 77771 CO I SO2 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBo- COPM10 2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day Junior College 35497.3 0.38 3.48 2.92 0.02 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 4,176.15 0.08 0.08 4,201.57 (2Yr) Total 0.38 3.48 2.92 0.02 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 4,176.15 0.08 0.08 4,201.57 I N no WA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGas Use ROG NOx 1 CO I SO2 I Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 I PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day Junior College 35.4973 0.38 3.48 2.92 0.02 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 4,176.15 0.08 0.08 4,201.57 (2Yr) Total j NA 0.38 3.48 2.92 0.02 j NA 0.00 0.26 j NA 0.00 0.26 j NA 4,176.15 j NA 0.08 0.08 4,201.57 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 021111 no M, ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Mitigated : 21.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- --- --- --- --- - - - Unmitigated 21.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA 021111 no M, 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Su bCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 5.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating --- ------- ------r------* ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Consumer 16.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products ---------------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- �------ *------ *------ * Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 21.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail PAs. V ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Su bCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 5.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating --- ------- -------r------* ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ *------ Consumer 16.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products -- -------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- --- --- --- --- - - - Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 21.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.0 Water Detail PAs. V 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Vegetation Nn ATEP Bell Ave Full Construction, Tustin Orange County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Junior College (2Yr) 816.93 1000sgft 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics - Land Use - Junior College Construction Phase - Site Prep: 10 days, Grading: 30 days, Construction 300 days, Paving: 20 days Off-road Equipment - Construction: 1 crane, 3 forklifts, 1 gen set, 3 load er/backhoes, 1 welder Off-road Equipment - Grading: 1 excavator, 1 grader, 1 dozer, 2 scrapers, 2 loader/backhoes Off-road Equipment - Paving: 2 pavers, 2 paving equipment, 2 rollers Off-road Equipment - Site Prep: 3 doxers, 4 backhoes Date: 4/8/2013 IMM -11 Vehicle Trips - Per Traffic Consultant -12.24 trips/tsf 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 7.67 3.86 5.34 0.01 0.99 0.18 1.17 0.12 0.17 0.29 0.00 ' 1,239.41 1,239.41 0.05 0.00 ' 1,240.51 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I------------- *------ *------ *------ --- 2021 2.67 1.18 1.78 0.00 0.27 0.06 0.33 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 410.97 410.97 0.02 0.00 ' 411.32 Total 10.34 j 5.04 j 7.12 j 0.01 j 1.26 j 0.24 j 1.50 j 0.12 j 0.23 j 0.35 j 0.00 j 1,650.38 j 1,650.38 j 0.07 j 0.00 j 1,651.83 Mitigated Construction 4 no WZ-Ij ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 7.67 3.86 5.34 0.01 0.85 0.18 1.03 0.05 0.17 0.23 0.00 1,239.41 1,239.41 0.05 0.00 : 1,240.51 ------------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------*------*---- --- 2021 2.67 1.18 1.78 0.00 0.27 0.06 0.33 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 410.97 410.97 0.02 0.00 411.32 Total 10.34 5.04 7.12 0.01 1.12 0.24 1.36 0.05 0.23 0.29 0.00 1,650.38 1,650.38 0.07 0.00 1,651.83 4 no WZ-Ij 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational («wZ-Ij ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------+------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- ------ *------ * --- --- ------ Energy 0.07 0.64 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 4,029.98 4,029.98 0.16 0.07 4,055.11 ---------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------• --- ------ ----- --- --- ------ Mobile 3.14 5.64 24.74 0.11 11.11 0.50 11.61 0.17 0.43 0.61 0.00 7,326.31 7,326.31 0.20 0.00 7,330.49 ---------- ------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*------*------*------ Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 215.58 0.00 215.58 12.74 0.00 483.13 -----------+------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------ ------*------*------*------*------ Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 354.74 354.74 1.24 0.04 392.05 Total 7.11 6.28 25.27 0.11 11.11 0.50 11.66 0.17 0.43 1 0.66 1 215.58 11,711.03 11,926.61 1 14.34 1 0.11 12,260.78 («wZ-Ij 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area HonwZ:] ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------+------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- ------ *------ * --- --- ------ Energy 0.07 0.64 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 4,029.98 4,029.98 0.16 0.07 4,055.11 ---------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------• --- ------ ----- --- --- ------ Mobile 3.14 5.64 24.74 0.11 11.11 0.50 11.61 0.17 0.43 0.61 0.00 7,326.31 7,326.31 0.20 0.00 7,330.49 ---------- ------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------*------*------*------ Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 215.58 0.00 215.58 12.74 0.00 483.13 -----------+------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------ ------*------*------*------*------ Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 354.74 354.74 1.24 0.04 392.05 Total 7.11 6.28 25.27 0.11 11.11 0.50 11.66 0.17 0.43 1 0.66 1 215.58 11,711.03 11,926.61 1 14.34 1 0.11 12,260.78 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area HonwZ:] 3.2 Site Preparation - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ --- --- Off-Road 0.02 0.16 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 24.55 24.55 0.00 0.00 24.59 Total 0.02 0.16 0.11 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.00 24.55 24.55 0.00 0.00 24.59 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 6�wZ.Ij ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.82 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.82 j 0.82 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.82 6�wZ.Ij 3.2 Site Preparation - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ --- --- Off-Road 0.02 0.16 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 24.55 24.55 0.00 0.00 24.59 Total 0.02 0.16 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 24.55 24.55 0.00 0.00 24.59 Mitigated Construction Off -Site �no wZ.Ij ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.82 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.82 j 0.82 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.82 �no wZ.Ij 3.3 Grading - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ --- --- Off-Road 0.08 0.53 0.43 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 98.93 98.93 0.01 0.00 99.06 Total 0.08 0.53 0.43 0.00 0.13 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.00 98.93 98.93 0.01 0.00 99.06 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site M no wZ.Ij ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.72 2.72 0.00 0.00 2.72 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 2.72 j 2.72 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 2.72 M no wZ.Ij 3.3 Grading - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ --- --- Off-Road 0.08 0.53 0.43 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 98.93 98.93 0.01 0.00 99.06 Total 0.08 0.53 0.43 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 98.93 98.93 0.01 0.00 99.06 Mitigated Construction Off -Site [Qno wZ.Ij ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.72 2.72 0.00 0.00 2.72 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 2.72 j 2.72 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 2.72 [Qno wZ.Ij 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.24 1.52 1.85 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 300.30 300.30 0.02 0.00 300.70 Total 0.24 1.52 1.85 0.00 PM2.5 0.08 0.08 CO2 I 0.08 0.08 0.00 300.30 300.30 0.02 0.00 300.70 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site A'owZ.Ij ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------ --- Vendor 0.13 1.30 0.99 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 369.56 369.56 0.01 0.00 369.68 ----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------------r------*------*------*---- - - - Worker 0.15 0.12 1.44 0.00 0.53 0.02 0.55 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 344.86 344.86 0.01 0.00 345.16 Total 0.28 1.42 2.43 0.00 0.66 0.06 0.72 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 714.42 714.42 j 0.02 j 0.00 714.84 A'owZ.Ij 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.24 1.52 1.85 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 300.30 300.30 0.02 0.00 300.70 Total 0.24 1.52 1.85 0.00 PM2.5 0.08 0.08 CO2 I 0.08 0.08 0.00 300.30 300.30 0.02 0.00 300.70 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Its] no M-1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------ --- Vendor 0.13 1.30 0.99 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 369.56 369.56 0.01 0.00 369.68 ----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------------r------*------*------*---- - - - Worker 0.15 0.12 1.44 0.00 0.53 0.02 0.55 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 344.86 344.86 0.01 0.00 345.16 Total 0.28 1.42 2.43 0.00 0.66 0.06 0.72 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 714.42 714.42 j 0.02 j 0.00 714.84 Its] no M-1 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.08 0.48 0.65 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 105.51 105.51 0.01 0.00 105.64 Total 0.08 0.48 0.65 0.00 PM2.5 0.02 0.02 CO2 I 0.02 0.02 0.00 105.51 105.51 0.01 0.00 105.64 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site Iffilne M-1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------ --- Vendor 0.04 0.43 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 130.13 130.13 0.00 0.00 130.17 ----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------------r------*------*------*---- - - - Worker 0.05 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.19 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 119.34 119.34 0.00 0.00 119.44 Total 0.09 0.47 0.81 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 249.47 249.47 j 0.00 j 0.00 249.61 Iffilne M-1 3.4 Building Construction - 2021 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.08 0.48 0.65 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 105.51 105.51 0.01 0.00 105.64 Total 0.08 0.48 0.65 0.00 PM2.5 0.02 0.02 CO2 I 0.02 0.02 0.00 105.51 105.51 0.01 0.00 105.64 Mitigated Construction Off -Site INne M:1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------ --- Vendor 0.04 0.43 0.33 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 130.13 130.13 0.00 0.00 130.17 ----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------------r------*------*------*---- - - - Worker 0.05 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.19 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 119.34 119.34 0.00 0.00 119.44 Total 0.09 0.47 0.81 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 249.47 249.47 j 0.00 j 0.00 249.61 INne M:1 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ --- --- Off-Road 0.03 0.19 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 28.31 28.31 0.00 0.00 28.35 Total 7.03 0.19 0.20 0.00 PM2.5 0.01 0.01 CO2 I 0.01 0.01 0.00 28.31 28.31 0.00 0.00 28.35 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site iIK1ne M:1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 69.37 69.37 0.00 0.00 69.43 Total 0.03 j 0.03 j 0.29 j 0.00 j 0.11 j 0.00 j 0.11 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.00 j 69.37 j 69.37 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 69.43 iIK1ne M:1 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ --- --- Off-Road 0.03 0.19 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 28.31 28.31 0.00 0.00 28.35 Total 7.03 0.19 0.20 0.00 PM2.5 0.01 0.01 CO2 I 0.01 0.01 0.00 28.31 28.31 0.00 0.00 28.35 Mitigated Construction Off -Site iILMR1:1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 69.37 69.37 0.00 0.00 69.43 Total 0.03 j 0.03 j 0.29 j 0.00 j 0.11 j 0.00 j 0.11 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.00 j 69.37 j 69.37 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 69.43 iILMR1:1 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ --- --- Off-Road 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.95 9.95 0.00 0.00 9.96 Total 2.47 0.06 0.07 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 CO2 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.95 9.95 0.00 0.00 9.96 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 1191ne-1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.01 24.01 0.00 0.00 24.03 Total 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.10 j 0.00 j 0.04 j 0.00 j 0.04 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 24.01 j 24.01 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 24.03 1191ne-1 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ --- --- Off-Road 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.95 9.95 0.00 0.00 9.96 Total 2.47 0.06 0.07 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 CO2 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.95 9.95 0.00 0.00 9.96 Mitigated Construction Off -Site G[:Z. M-1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.01 24.01 0.00 0.00 24.03 Total 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.10 j 0.00 j 0.04 j 0.00 j 0.04 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 24.01 j 24.01 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 24.03 G[:Z. M-1 3.6 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 : 20.70 : 20.70 0.00 0.00 : 20.74 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.00 PM2.5 0.01 0.01 CO2 I 0.01 0.01 0.00 20.70 20.70 0.00 0.00 20.74 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site IMMM-1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.34 1.34 0.00 0.00 1.34 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 1.34 j 1.34 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 1.34 IMMM-1 3.6 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 : 20.70 : 20.70 0.00 0.00 : 20.74 -----------+------ ------ *------ *------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.02 0.16 0.15 0.00 PM2.5 0.01 0.01 CO2 I 0.01 0.01 0.00 20.70 20.70 0.00 0.00 20.74 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 11001K.1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------r------*------* --- --- - - - Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -----------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------I--------------*------* --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.34 1.34 0.00 0.00 1.34 Total 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 1.34 j 1.34 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 1.34 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 11001K.1 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 3.14 5.64 24.74 0.11 11.11 0.50 11.61 0.17 0.43 0.61 0.00 7,326.31 7,326.31 : 0.20 0.00 7,330.49 ----------- ------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------• --- ------ ----- --- --- ------ Unmitigated 3.14 5.64 24.74 0.11 11.11 0.50 11.61 0.17 0.43 0.61 0.00 7,326.31 7,326.31 0.20 0.00 7,330.49 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Junior College (2Yr) 9,999.22 9,999.22 988.49 20,397,687 20,397,687 Total 9,999.22 9,999.22 988.49 20,397,687 20,397,687 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Junior College (2Yr) 6.86 6.86 6.86 6.40 88.60 5.00 5.0 Energy Detail ` onW-1 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2e Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 0.00 CO2 I I 0.05 0.00 Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,338.57 3,338.57 0.15 0.06 3,359.50 Mitigated ---------- •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ ------- r------ *------ *------ --- ------ Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,338.57 3,338.57 0.15 0.06 3,359.50 Unmitigated ---------------- r------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------•------r------* ------ *-------------* --- NaturalGas 0.07 0.64 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 691.41 691.41 0.01 0.01 695.62 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.07 0.64 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 691.41 691.41 0.01 0.01 695.62 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated Wine 01.1 NaturalGas Use ROG NOx 1 CO I SO2 I Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr Junior College 1.29565e+007: 0.07 0.64 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 691.41 691.41 0.01 0.01 695.62 (2Yr) Total 0.07 0.64 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 691.41 691.41 0.01 0.01 695.62 Wine 01.1 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated NaturalGas Use ROG NOx 1 CO I SO2 I Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 I PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr Junior College 1.29565e+007 0.07 0.64 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 691.41 691.41 0.01 0.01 695.62 (2Yr) Total 0.07 0.64 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 691.41 691.41 0.01 0.01 695.62 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated 041no K-1 Electricity Use 1 77771 CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr Junior College 1.14779e+007 3,338.57 0.15 0.06 3,359.50 (2Yr) Total 3,338.57 0.15 0.06 3,359.50 041no K-1 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Electricity Use 1 77771 CO CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr Junior College 1.14779e+007 3,338.57 0.15 0.06 3,359.50 (2Yr) Total CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr 3,338.57 0.15 0.06 3,359.50 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2 I Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- --- --- --- --- - - - Unmitigated 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Su bCategory tons/yr M T/yr Architectural 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating --- ------- ------r------* ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ --- Consumer 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products ---------------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- �------ *------ *------ * Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail Mine K-1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I Su bCategory tons/yr M T/yr Architectural 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating ---------- -------r------* ------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ *------ •------ r------ *------ *------ *------ --- Consumer 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products -- -------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•---- --- --- --- --- - - - Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.0 Water Detail Mine K-1 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 354.74 : 1.24 0.04 392.05 ----------------T------*------*------*------*------*----------- - Unmitigated 354.74 1.24 0.04 392.05 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Outdoor Use ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr Junior College 40.0696/ 354.74 1.24 0.04 392.05 (2Yr) 62.673 Total 354.74 1.24 0.04 392.05 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CategoryNear Indoor/Outdoor Use ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr Junior College 40.0696/ 354.74 1.24 0.04 392.05 (2Yr) 62.673 Total j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA 354.74 1.24 0.04 392.05 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CategoryNear p�K-1 ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 215.58 ; 12.74 0.00 483.13 r *------*------*------*------*------------- Unmitigated 215.58 12.74 0.00 483.13 Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA NA p�K-1 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Mitigated Waste Disposed 1 77-71 CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr Junior College 1062.01 215.58 12.74 0.00 483.13 (2Yr) Total 215.58 12.74 0.00 483.13 Mitigated 9.0 Vegetation OUR K-1 Waste Disposed 1 77-71 CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O I CO2e Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr Junior College 1062.01 215.58 12.74 0.00 483.13 (2Yr) Total 215.58 12.74 0.00 483.13 9.0 Vegetation OUR K-1 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property Addendum /Environmental Checklist Appendix C Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (March 2013) Appendices April 2013 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS ATEP BELL AVENUE PROJECT CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Appendix C Prepared by: Giroux & Associates 1820 E Garry St., 9211 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Prepared for: RGP Planning & Development Services Attn: Jeremy Krout 8921 Research Drive Irvine, Calif 92618 Date: March 29, 2013 Proj ect No.: P 13 -013 N NOISE SETTING Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally considered to be unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound pressure levels. Although decibels are most commonly associated with sound, "M' is a generic descriptor that is equal to ten times the logarithmic ratio of any physical parameter versus some reference quantity. For sound, the reference level is the faintest sound detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range of maximum human sensitivity more heavily in a process called "A- weighting" written as dB(A). Any further reference in this discussion to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be A- weighted. Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady -state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL -based standards are generally applied to transportation- related sources because local jurisdictions are pre - empted from exercising direct noise control over vehicles on public streets, aircraft, trains, etc. The City of Tustin therefore regulates the traffic noise exposure of the receiving property through land use controls. Noise/land use compatibility standards for various classes of land uses are generally expressed in the Noise Element of the General Plan to insure that noise exposure is considered in any development decisions. The City of Tustin has guidelines for noise exposure standards which are shown in Table 1. For the most sensitive residential use, the City recommends an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL for usable outdoor space and an interior CNEL of 45 dB. For various land uses that are not occupied for 24 hours, the Noise Element of the General Plan contains standards based upon a 12 -hour equivalent sound level expressed as Leq(12). ATEP Bell Ave Noise 2 Table I City of Tustin Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Noise Standard Interior Exterior Residential - Single family, multifamily, duplex, mobile home 45 dB CNEL 65 dB CNEL 4 Residential - Transient lodging, hotels, motels hospitals 45 dB CNEL 65 dB CNEL Private offices, church sanctuaries, libraries 45 dB Leq (12) - Schools 45 dB Leq (12) 67 dB Leq (12) General offices, reception, clerical, etc. 50 dB Leq (12) - Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant. 55 dB Leq (12) - Manufacturing, warehousing 65 dB Leq (12) - 1 Community Noise Eqivalent Level Leq (12): the A- weighted equilvalent sound level averaged over a 12 -hour period (usually the hours of operation) 2 Noise standard with windows closed, Mechanical ventilation provided ' Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets and corridors 4 Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single family homes, multi - family patios, and balconies (with a depth of 6 -feet or more) and common recreational areas. 5 Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic areas, and other areas of human use Source Table N -3 City of Tustin Noise Element, June 2008 ATEP Bell Ave Noise BACKGROUND NOISE LEVELS The project traffic noise resulting from an additional 10,000 daily trips could impact levels on area roadways. In order to determine ambient noise levels in the project area short -term noise measurements were conducted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 in the mid - afternoon (2:30 -3:30 p.m.). These measurements serve as a baseline in determining the impact of the project acting upon area. Meter 1 was located on Lansdowne Rd, south of Valencia Ave., in the satellite ATEP parking lot across from the Orange County Rescue Mission play yard. Meter 2 was along Red Hill Avenue at the Bell Road intersection. The locations are shown in Figure 1 and monitoring results are summarized below: Measured Noise Levels (dBA) Site No. Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 1 55.4 73.0 46.5 58.0 53.0 51.0 48.0 2 67.9 80.0 52.0 71.5 67.5 65.5 59.0 Monitoring experience shows CNELs to be 2 -3 dB higher than mid afternoon Leqs which would equate to a CNEL along Valencia of 57 -58 dB and 70 -71 dB along Red Hill. Land uses along Red Hill are predominately commercial. The Orange County Rescue Mission, located on Hope Drive and backing up to Lansdown has a residential component. Existing CNELs of 55 -56 dB adjacent to the Rescue Mission are well within the City's residential noise standard of 65 dB CNEL. Since a doubling of traffic volumes would create a +3 dB noise increase in the logarithmic decibel scale if traffic were uniformly distributed, it would take a very large traffic increase (300 %) to create a noise level that would reach 65 dB CNEL along Valencia. ATEP Bell Ave Noise 4 Figure 1 Noise Meter Locations Meter 1: Lansdowne Rd, in ATEP satellite parking lot, across from Orange County Rescue Mission Meter 2: SW corner of Bell Avenue and Red Hill, 75 feet to roadway centerline ATEP Bell Ave Noise NOISE IMPACTS Noise impacts are considered significant if they expose persons to levels in excess of standards established in local general plans or noise ordinances or create a substantial noise impact. The definition of a "substantial" noise impact is not defined in any guidelines. In most environmental analyses, "substantial" is taken to mean a level that is clearly perceptible to humans. In practice, this is at least a +3 dB increase. Most people cannot distinguish a change in the noise environment that differs by less than 3 dB. Some agencies, such as Caltrans, require substantial increases to be +5 dB or more. For this analysis, the more conservative traffic noise increase of more than +3 dB would be considered significant. PROJECT- RELATED VEHICULAR NOISE IMPACTS Long -term noise concerns from project development center primarily on mobile source emissions on project area roadways. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA -RD -77 -108). The model calculates the Leq noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site - specific traffic volumes, distances, roadway speeds, or noise barriers. The typical Orange County day -night travel percentages and auto -truck vehicle mixes is then applied to convert one -hour Leq levels to a weighted 24 -hour CNEL. The impact of an additional 10,000 daily trips resulting from the Bell Avenue extension was evaluated using traffic volume data provided in the ATEP traffic report prepared by Stantec in March 2013. The report provides both "no project" and "with project" traffic volumes for project build -out in 2035. Table 2 summarizes the calculated 24 -hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along area roadway segments surrounding the project. As shown in Table 2, many roadways are expected to experience a decrease in traffic noise when the Bell Avenue extension is complete due to a shifting in traffic patterns resulting from the diverted traffic. Both Valencia Avenue and Warner Avenue are anticipated to experience up to a 2dB reduction in traffic noise levels. Traffic noise along Armstrong Avenue south of Valencia Ave. could experience a noise increase of +2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline, but this is less than the level of human detection and less than the significance threshold. Additionally, the "with project" future traffic noise level is still less than 65dB CNEL, the noise compatibility threshold adopted by the City of Tustin for exterior residential use. The next highest project associated traffic noise increase is on Red Hill Avenue between Bell Avenue and Valencia Avenue. This +1.0 dB CNEL increase is similarly less than significance thresholds and would not create a detectable noise increase. Traffic noise associated with the addition of 10,000 trips is not expected to create a significant noise impact. ATEP Bell Ave Noise 6 Table 2 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (CNEL in dB at 50 feet from Centerline) Road Segment 2035 No Project 2035 + Project Project Impact Red Hill Avenue/ S of Warner 70.1 70.2 0.1 S of Bell 69.5 69.9 0.4 Bell - Valencia 70.4 71.4 1.0 N of Valencia 69.5 70.2 0.7 Valencia/ E of Red Hill 67.5 65.6 -1.9 W of Armstrong 66.9 64.7 -2.2 Armstrong/ S of Valencia 62.2 64.2 2.0 N of Warner 62.2 62.2 0.0 Warner/ W of Red Hill 70.5 70.2 -0.3 E of Red Hill 70.2 69.0 -1.2 W of Armstrong 69.8 68.6 -1.2 E of Armstrong 69.3 68.4 -0.9 ATEP Bell Ave Noise Agreement for Exchange of Real Property Addendum /Environmental Checklist Appendices Appendix D 2012 Annual Mitigation Monitoring and Status Report, MCAS Tustin FEIS /EIR April 2013 Appendix D 2012 Annual Mitigation Monitoring and Status Report for Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report (As modified by Final Supplement #1 and Addendum to FEIS /EIR) For the Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin SCH No. 94071005 City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Activities that took place in 2012 and /or are currently in progress are identified in Italic. Introduction: Pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, an annual review and a brief progress memorandum based on that review shall be prepared by each applicable city (City of Tustin or City or Irvine). The City of Tustin's annual review and progress memorandum provides the following: A general description of the project's status, including actual or projected completion dates, if known. 2. The current status for each mitigation measure. Background: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS /EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the reuse and disposal of MCAS- Tustin, which included the adoption of a Specific Plan and other implementing actions. On December 6, 2004, the City of Tustin adopted Resolution No. 04 -76 certifying a Supplement (Final Supplement 91) and Resolution No. 04 -77 adopting the revised Mitigation Monitoring Report Program to the FEIS /EIR. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. Included in Resolution Nos. 00 -90, 04 -77, and 06 -43 was a requirement for a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The purpose of the MMRP is to report accomplishment of mitigation measures required by the FEIS /EIR. Mitigation measures and implementation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR, Final Supplement 91, and Addendum for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin have been incorporated into a table. Each mitigation measure and implementation measure is listed separately on the table with appropriate space for monitoring the progress of the implementation of each measure. Implementation measures were also required where environmental impacts were less than significant, but supported the proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand. Implementation measures and mitigation measures are both discussed in this MMRP, and are equally enforceable. The following information is identified in the table: • The measures listed by environmental impact area in the same order as they are listed in the Final EIS /EIR, Final Supplement 91, and Addendum; • The timing of implementation of the mitigation or implementation measure; • The agency responsible for compliance; • The appropriate agency to enforce the mitigation measure or implementation measure; and • Status of the mitigation or implementation measure. The mitigation measures and implementation measures in the table are listed by environmental impact area in the same order as they are listed in the Final EIS /EIR, Final Supplement 41, and Addendum. WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 2 2012 Annual Report MMRP Construction Activities: Residential /Commercial /Institutional Activities: • John Laing Homes — Tustin Field I (Harvard Avenue and Edinger Avenue): All 376 units are completed. • John Laing Homes — Tustin Field II (Harvard Avenue and Edinger Avenue): All 189 homes are completed. • Columbus Square /Columbus Grove: Approximately 1,540 permits have been issued between the two communities. 1,528 homes (units) have been approved for occupancy. The remaining community (Augusta) is currently in its last phase of construction. • South Orange County Community College District ( SOCCCD): Phase I of the SOCCCD Advanced Technology Education Park (ATEP) has been completed and is currently offering classes. The Concept Plan for Phase 3A was approved by the City on July 26, 2010 authorizing up to 305,000 square feet of educational uses. Demolition of the majority of the former military structures is nearing completion; demolition of the balance of the site is anticipated to commence by Spring 2013. Development plans for future phases of the site have yet to be identified or submitted to the City. • Rancho Santiago Community College District: The Sheriff's training facility is complete; however, a portion of the property remains undeveloped. RSCCD has not identified any plans for development the remaining portion of the site. • Orange County Rescue Mission's Village of Hope (Lansdowne /Valencia): A 192 -bed transitional home for the homeless at Tustin Legacy to be operated by the Orange County Rescue Mission. Certificate of Occupancy for the transitional home has been issued. In November 2007, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Village of Hope Conditional Use Permit to allow for a medical /dental clinic to operate in conjunction with the transitional home. The construction for this medical /dental clinic is complete. • The District at Tustin Legacy/Vestar (Barranca Parkway and Jamboree Road): Construction of the 1 million square -foot Class A retail center is complete with the exception of certain adjacent infrastructure improvements. On October 21, 2010 the City and Vestar entered into a Fifth DDA amendment and Fifth Amendment to the Infrastructure and Payment Agreement deferring the construction of certain storm drain related infrastructure improvements within Barranca Parkway and Warner Avenue from June 15, 2010 until grading activities adjacent to the site occur, but in any event no later than June 15, 2012. Warner Avenue storm drain improvements were started in 2012 and are near final completion. • County of Orange Tustin Family Campus (15405 Lansdowne Road): The project involves a multi - treatment campus which includes four (4) stand -alone residential homes at 4,733 square feet each; three (3) two -story residential buildings, each 8,430 square feet; a 12,224 square foot, two -story campus service center; and a 1,000 square foot maintenance building for a total of 57,446 square feet of building area with a serving capacity of 90 beds for abused and neglected children and their parents and emancipated youth to be operated by the Orange County Social Services Agency. Construction was completed in 2009. WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 3 2012 Annual Report MMRP • Master Development Site: The City and the former Master Developer, Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC (TLCP), entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) in April 2006 which was subsequently amended in March 2007 and in June 2007. The DDA identified the terms of development of an approximate 820 acre footprint at Tustin Legacy and the City's sale of the property to TLCP, which resulted in conveyance of the first of four phases of property from the City to TLCP in 2007; however, TLCP defaulted on its obligations per the DDA, and the DDA was terminated on July 6, 2010. As a consequence, title to the Phase I property was transferred back to the City on August 5, 2010. Prior to termination of the DDA, TLCP completed a majority of the site preparation activities, including building and runway removals, and a large amount of the mass grading activities. The City subsequently completed an updated development plan: the "Tustin Legacy Disposition Strategy for the Former Master Developer Footprint" as confirmed by the City Council on April 25, 2011. The Disposition strategy provides a framework for moving forward with completing the Tustin Legacy project pursuant to the Specific Plan with the city assuming a more limited Master Developer role by marketing smaller segment "Disposition Packages "(DPs) or parcel groupings based on market and infrastructure needs. Ten Disposition Packages (IA, IB, IC and 2 through 8) were originally created with the City reserving the ability to consolidate or otherwise refine over time as market needs evolve. In 2012 the City executed Disposition and Development Agreements for the first two Disposition Parcels IA -North and 2A with St. Anton Partners and the Irvine Company, respectively. Grading activities for both sites are anticipated to commence by summer 2013 resulting in the construction of 225 apartments on IA North and 533 apartments on 2A. The Irvine Company will also be responsible for constructing certain backbone infrastructure improvements, including the balance of Barranca Parkway from Tustin Ranch Road to west of Aston Street, and portions of Warner Avenue and Park Avenue west of Tustin Ranch Road. The City Council has entered into an Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate with Standard Pacific on Disposition Parcels IB and 6A for the development of approximately 375 homes. The City Council also approved an Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate with the Regency for a commercial development at site I C located at the southeast corner of Kensington and Edinger Avenue. The timeframe for the disposition of the remaining Disposition Parcels is currently unknown as the City continues discussions with potential developers on various areas of the Master Development Footprint. Infrastructure Activities Major Backbone Infrastructure includes roads and may also include street lighting, traffic control, dry and wet utilities, and other work required in accordance with Governmental Requirements and EIR/EIS requirements. • Armstrong Avenue (From Valencia to Warner) /Severyns Road: This project has been completed. WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 4 2012 Annual Report MMRP • Barranca Parkway — Tustin Ranch Road to Jamboree Road: Completion of Phase 1 is complete; however, construction of Phase 2 (roadway, channel, and storm drain improvements) have been deferred to no later than June 15, 2015 by execution of the 5th Amendments to the Infrastructure and Payment Agreement and the DDA between the City and Vestar to address the completion of Barranca Parkway improvements. The City of Irvine completed the Barranca Parkway segment from Red Hill Avenue to approximately 1, 000 feet west of Aston Street in 2012. • Edinger Avenue —Red Hill Avenue to Kensington Park Drive: This project has been completed. • Harvard Avenue — Barranca Parkway to just south of OCTA /SCRRA railroad: This project has been completed. • Lansdowne Road: This project has been completed. • Marble Mountain Road (renamed as "Sweet Shade" in the City of Irvine): This project has been completed. • Valencia Avenue —Red Hill Avenue to Kensington Park Drive: This project has been completed. • Kensington Park Drive: This project has been completed. • Park Avenue — Tustin Ranch Road to Jamboree Road Southbound Off -ramp: This project has been completed. The Irvine Company will be commencing with construction of Park Avenue from Tustin Ranch Road west to Legacy Road (local road to be completed by the Irvine Company) in conjunction with completion of the Disposition Parcel 2A project. • Warner Avenue — Tustin Ranch Road to east of Park Avenue: This project has been completed. The Irvine Company will be commencing with construction of Warner Avenue from Tustin Ranch Road west to Legacy Road (local road to be completed by the Irvine Company) in conjunction with completion of the Disposition Parcel 2A project. • Tustin Field I Bike -Trail on North side of Project: This project has been completed. • Tustin Ranch Road extension form Warner Avenue to Walnut Avenue: The City commenced with the two phased project in 2011; construction is anticipated to be completed as projected by fall 2013, including the Edinger Avenue bridge, Valencia Avenue (Kensington Park Drive to Tustin Ranch Road), Legacy Road (Tustin Ranch Road to Park Avenue), and Park Avenue (Warner Avenue to Legacy Road). • Tustin Ranch Road — Barranca Parkway to Warner Avenue: This project has been completed. Status of Mitigation: Attached to this report is a table which shows the status of implementation and mitigation measures listed in the MMRP. WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 5 2012 Annual Report MMRP MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WAS TUSTIN DISPOSAL AND REUSE Revised March 2013 The following are measures included in the Final EIS/EIR, Final Supplement #1, and Addendum for the disposal and reuse of WAS Tustin that identifies both mitigation and implementation measures. Implementation measures are to be required where environmental impacts are less than significant, but supported the proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand. Both implementation and mitigation measures are identified in the adopted Mitigation and Monitoring Report Program, Final Supplement 41, and Addendum (Resolution Nos. 00-90, 04-77, and 06-43) and are equally enforceable. Measure Timing and Mitigation Mitigation Status Implementation Compliance Monitoring and Responsibility Enforcement Responsibility Mitigation Measures for Land Use LU -1. The City of Tustin shall amend its Prior to a final map City of Tustin Community Completed through adoption of Resolution No. 00 - General Plan and zoning ordinance to be recordation (except Development 91 on January 16, 2001, for General Plan consistent with planned land uses. Any for financing and Department Amendment 00-001 and through adoption of the zoning ordinance shall include site re -conveyance (Tustin) WAS Tustin Specific Plan through Ordinance No. design measures such as buffering, purposes) within 1257 on February 3, 2003. landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to the Reuse Plan ensure high quality development and Area within the On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted compatibility between land uses. The City of Tustin. Resolution No. 06-43 approving an addendum to the goal is to assure that the overall Final Environmental Impact Statement/ appearance of development on the site is Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and at least similar in quality to other master Reuse of WAS Tustin and Zone Change 05-002 planned areas in Tustin and other through Ordinance No. 1311. adjacent cities. LU -2. The City of Irvine shall amend its Prior to a final map City of Irvine Community Complete General Plan and zoning ordinance to be recordation (except Development WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 6 2012 Annual Report NIlVIRP Measure Timing and Implementation Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility Status consistent with planned land uses. Any for financing and Department zoning ordinance shall include site re -conveyance (Irvine) design measures such as buffering, purposes) within landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to the Reuse Plan ensure high quality development and Area within the compatibility between land uses. The City of Irvine. goal is to assure that the overall appearance of development on the site is at least similar in quality to other master planned areas in Tustin and other adjacent cities. (a) The City of Tustin or City of Irvine, as See Table 4.3-1 of City of Tustin Community • The District appropriate, shall ensure that the Final EIS/EIR and/or City of Development The project complies with phasing requirement; infrastructure is constructed in phases as or Table 4-2 at the Irvine, as Department/ all infrastructure improvements were included in triggered by identified thresholds in end of this applicable Public Works DDA 04-02, or as conditioned by Resolution Table 4-2 of the revised Specific Plan Mitigation (Tustin and/or Nos. 04-73, 04-74, 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and Phasing Plan, Phasing Plan Monitoring and Irvine, as 3924 Requirements (see Table 4-2 at the end Reporting applicable) of this Mitigation Monitoring and Program for each • Columbus Grove (Tract 16582) Reporting Program). The Phasing Plan specific triggering The project complies with phasing requirements; provides an organizational framework to mechanism. all subdivision infrastructures will be provided or facilitate development of the reuse plan paid for by the applicant as conditioned by area in tandem with infrastructure Resolution Nos. 3946 and 3947. Public necessary to support the planned improvements are complete. As required by the development. (As amended by EIS/EIR, the City entered into a Cooperative Addendum) Agreement with the Marble Mountain Partners to This framework reflects the fact that ensure the developer's responsibility for payment each component of the infrastructure has or construction of Tustin Legacy Backbone its own threshold for accommodating Infrastructure and subsequently entered into an additional development toward Acquisition and Funding Agreement as part of Assessment District No. 06-01 (Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 7 2012 Annual Report MMRP Measure Timing and Implementation Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility Status build -out of the reuse plan area. The Legacy/Columbus Villages) for funding and triggering mechanisms that identify construction obligations of developer for required timing of key infrastructure provisions Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure. are summarized in Table 4-2 of the revised Specific Plan Phasing Plan, • Columbus Square (Tract 16581) Phasing Plan Requirements (see Table The project complies with the phasing 4-2 at the end of this Mitigation requirement; all subdivision infrastructures will Monitoring and Reporting Program). be provided by the applicant as conditioned by Resolution Nos. 3952 and 3953. Public improvements are complete. As required by the EIS/EIR, the City entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the Marble Mountain Partners to ensure the developer's responsibility for payment or construction of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure and subsequently entered into an Acquisition and Funding Agreement as part of Assessment District No. 06-01 (Tustin Legacy/Columbus Villages) for funding and construction obligations of developer for required Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure. • RSCCD (Sheriff) The infrastructure to support the project was constructed concurrently with the project. • Village of Hope The project complies with infrastructure phasing requirements in the EIS/EIR. • Tustin Family Campus The project complies with phasing infrastructure requirements in the EIS/EIR. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 8 2012 Annual Report MMRP Measure Timing and Implementation Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility Status • SOCCCD The infrastructure to support Phase 1 of the on- site project was constructed concurrently with the project; additional infrastructure to support future phases will be required to be constructed prior to or concurrently with future phases. • Master Developer Footprint: Pursuant to the Tustin Legacy Disposition Strategy, infrastructure and phasing obligations have been assigned to each Disposition Package based upon respective site needs and anticipated development sequencing to comply with the FEIS/EIR The applicable infrastructure and phasing obligations will be met upon completion of the first two Disposition Packages (IA -North and 2A) pursuant to the executed DDAs. (b) Prior to a final map recordation (except Prior to final map Project Community • The District for financing and re -conveyance recordation developer Development All dedication required by DDA 04-02, or as purposes), the development applicant (except for Department conditioned by Resolution Nos. 04-73, 04-74, shall enter into an agreement with the financing and re- (Tustin and/or 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924 was included City of Tustin and City of Irvine and conveyance Irvine, as and recorded with the final map. any appropriate regional utility agencies, purposes). applicable) districts, and providers, as applicable, to • Tustin Field I (Tract 16474) dedicate all easement, right-of-ways, or All dedication required by Condition 6.1 of other land determined necessary to Resolution No. 3863 was included and recorded construct adequate utility infrastructure with the final map. and facilities to serve the project as determined by the City, Agency, • Tustin Field II (Tract 16507) District, or other providers. All required easements by Condition 11.1 of WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 9 2012 Annual Report NUVIRP Measure Timing and Implementation Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility Status Resolution No. 3885 were dedicated with recordation of Final Map 16507 • Columbus Grove (Tract 16582) Required dedication by Condition 3.3 of Resolution No. 3946 was included in the recorded final map • Columbus Square (Tract 16581) Required dedications as per Resolution No. 3952 were included in the final map and was recorded in March, 2006 • SOCCCD (ATEP) All easements for Phase I project have been recorded; however, dedication of easements, right-of-ways, or other land determined necessary to construct adequate utility infrastructure and facilities to serve future phases of development as determined by the City, SOCCCD or other utility providers will need to be defined with each phase and recorded. • RSCCD (Regional Law Enforcement Training Facility) All easements have been recorded for the Sheriff's Training Facility; however, dedication of easements, right-of-ways, or other land determined necessary to construct adequate utility infrastructure and facilities to serve future phases of development as determined by the City, RSCCCD or other utility providers will need to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 10 2012 Annual Report MMRP Measure Timing and Implementation Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility Status be defined with any future phase and recorded. • Village of Hope All easements have been recorded. Requirement fulfilled. • Master Development Footprint: The Final Sector B Map for Neighborhood E (Final Map 17144) and Neighborhoods B, D, and G (Final Map 17404) for Conveyance Purposes Only have been approved. Dedication of easements, right-of-ways, or other land determined necessary to construct adequate utility infrastructure and facilities to serve future phases of development as determined by the City or other utility providers, will also need to be defined with each future phase and recorded as may be deemed necessary upon completion for each Disposition Parcel pursuant to the Disposition Strategy. (c) Prior to any final map recordation Prior to final map Project Community • The District (except for financing and conveyance recordation developer Development DDA capital improvement obligations have been purposes), the development applicant (except for Department satisfied per CFD 07-01, per DDA 04-02, and the shall enter into a secured agreement financing and re- (Tustin and/or Infrastructure and Construction Payment with the cities of Tustin and/or Irvine, as conveyance Irvine, as Agreement and Amendments. applicable, to participate on a pro -rated purposes). applicable) basis in construction of capital • Tustin Field I (Tract 16474) improvements necessary to provide DDA capital improvement obligations have been adequate utility facilities. satisfied per CFD 04-1. WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 11 2012 Annual Report NUVIRP Measure Timing and Implementation Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility Status • Tustin Field 11(Tract 16507) DDA capital improvement obligations have been satisfied per CFD 04-1. • Columbus Square (16581) and Columbus Grove (Tract 16582) Per the Cooperative Agreement and CFD 06-01, developer has met their current obligation to fund necessary capital improvements. • SOCCCD (ATEP) Pursuant to the Conveyance Agreement, SOCCCD is required to construct all on-site improvements; however, the City has exempted SOCCCD from City CFD funded Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure costs on the presumption the primary use of the project is educational. Phase 1 of the project has been developed as an educational use and the Phase 3A Concept Plan approved in July 2010 authorized up to 305,000 square feet of uses. In the event non -educational uses are proposed, SOCCCD will be subject to required Fair Share Contributions to Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure for non- educational uses, and is still subject to assessments from outside utility purveyors regardless of primary use of project and would be responsible for any costs that are necessary if SOCCCD proposes to modify or alter existing Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure. WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 12 2012 Annual Report NUVIRP Measure Timing and Implementation Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility Status • RSCCD (Sheriff) The initial Sheriffs Training Facility project is complete, including all on-site improvements by RSCCD. RSCCD capital improvement costs for public uses are exempt from Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure obligation; however, RSCCD is still subject to assessments from outside utility purveyors. A portion of the site remains undeveloped and could involve a subsequent future phase. In such case, RSCCD will be responsible for any necessary on-site infrastructure. • Village of Hope Project is complete, including all on-site improvements by Village of Hope. An agreement was executed and provided the necessary dedications to ensure emergency access and construction of required utility infrastructure from an adjacent property owner (SOCCCD). • Master Development Footprint: Pursuant to the DDAs with St. Anton Partners and the Irvine Company for Disposition Parcels IA -North and 2A, respectively, the Developers are required to participate on a pro -rated basis in funding and construction (construction required for 2A only) of their fair -share contribution of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure obligations. Future developers will be required to participate on a pro -rated basis in funding and/or construction of capital improvements WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 13 2012 Annual Report NUVIRP Measure Timing and Implementation Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility Status necessary to provide adequate utility facilities, as determined by the City in conjunction with any subsequent developer agreements entered into between the City and developers. (d) Prior to the issuance of permits for any Prior to the Project Community . The District public improvements or development issuance of permits developer Development Will serve letter is on—file. All utilities are project, a development applicant shall for any public Department provided. submit to the City of Tustin and City of improvements or (Tustin and/or Irvine, as applicable, information from development Irvine, as • Tustin Field I (Tract 16474) IRWD which outlines required facilities project. appropriate) Will serve letter is on —file. All utilities are necessary to provide adequate potable provided water and reclaimed water service to the development. • Tustin Field 11(Tract 16507) Will serve letter is on —file. All utilities are provided • Columbus Grove (Tract 16582) Will serve letter is on —file. All utilities are provided. • Columbus Square (Tract 16581) Will serve letter is on —file. All utilities are provided. • SOCCCD (ATEP) IRWD has determined there will be adequate facilities to serve Phase 1 of the project; a will - serve letter will need to be submitted for all future phases of development. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 14 2012 Annual Report MMRP Measure Timing and Implementation Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility Status • Tustin Family Campus IRWD has determined there will be adequate facilities to serve the project. All utilities are provided. • RSCCD IRWD has determined there will be adequate facilities to serve the Sheriff's Training Facility project; however, IRWD will need to determinate if adequate facilities will be available for any future phases. • Village of Hope Will serve letter is on—file. All utilities are provided. • Master Development Footprint: An Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Sub Area Master Plan (SAMP) is currently in place. Future developer(s) will be required to provide a will serve letter in conjunction with any future entitlement applications, including by St. Anton Partners and the Irvine Company for Disposition Parcels IA -North and 2A, respectively. (e) Prior to the issuance of building permits, Prior to the Project Community . The District the project developer shall ensure that issuance of the developer Development Fire Master plan approved and all fire hydrants fire hydrants capable of flows in amounts certificates of use Department were installed and inspected by OCFA. approved by the OCFA are in place and and occupancy. (Tustin and/or operational to meet fire flow Irvine, as . Tustin Field I (Tract 16474) requirements. (As amended by appropriate); Fire Master plan approved and all fire hydrants Addendum) OCFA were installed and inspected by OCFA. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 15 2012 Annual Report MMRP 0 d N_ O N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N � ~ CZ CZ 0 cz o ¢" N d0 U U U U "C U O cz U p U U cz �, 3 C7 ti t U .� ro p o F- °' x °3 cz F� cz CZ U o A a y cz E-w Uy Uw0 NO-o �O-o a. a0 -ov�02 o � O W a V � i." .O �I S. IX IX 0 d N_ O N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N Q i H Q i H Q i Q � sue, Q cz cz a� �.-o � y0., �'� �.�'� ��i`a•� o`er �� fd °ry A A o o cz o cz cz iCy W �L ��• d j U U s� •�" G� O � � � 0 U CA •� OO C'n, U U O z L6�i U N V U Qy CC a" U O O O °"' cz O � U U 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 N 0 N oc K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I ji �w u cz U �'�''i U N y U '"U U Q Cd p p "�' . cz >>y Q�0 U � 'C ct cz U cz u A a U a O rA o cp E� cz cz U O O cz � U cz U �. p � U bA 0 N 0 N oc K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I ji 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �• �• o� o� o� o� o� U o... U �... U �•.. � U U U U ct cC ct t U U CZ eC U c� H U ��. U �C�. U Cam. U C� U Cam. U C ct cz cz ct C.4 ct 00 _N ct x SQ czQ CZQ w w a¢ w �rW ¢p.,rw v �w ct ct a. 0 a. ct Z cz cz S: U U ,� O O " R •0 Q � O ct U ct Fi F � >-r Fr ° �G C9. 11 � toU 4O t� U '}s"J' '}s"' cz O O ,� c N O p N N U sU v~ bUA O Q Q u O cC ccz to C� U y •, ,r—I ,� ,.� O O N �! CZ �. ,� U cC °� O ¢, tip D O U� �� O U •U ..�. sU- U 'O �' • � v O O O �' ¢., � 'C �� 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 N_ O N O N cz 9 WE U U H 7I, IN N o ° U p U to 1p- cn U `� U O U p U U _ O O Fz rA IQI p U O ' O O O O V • O `p' N p U cct +„ •�' S: U O 44 U i." O � bA P-i U iUi �U O CZ��., c� N C) cc U L: ,.,� CZ :��- cz '� cz ct CZ y • W U� u �� U �Q cz 0 N_ O N O N cz 9 WE U U H 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N N K cz 9 �7 U U U Li 7I, I N o M o M o Q Q :+:, N O U N N `"� O � O O O O fd U OM O M N O M U O' N O M � �, 'L" O CO'' N UN �U cz ct Otero °�` o U o U U v� U c cz cz U i5 y� U V 0'C a ct 9� ��oct • ct 00 'o O N 4. O 5 �'.". cp "" cz E� O .�. � iNi � Li � �. Li • U pA cC �. _ cz O CZ U O U c� cz u y v U O O cn Fi, �. P-I 9 W W ,riy 9 U ,�-� O U •� �. cam/] r r 0 N_ O N N K cz 9 �7 U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N O N N N cz 9 a U U Li 7I, I N o �') z o N cz to o cz cn _ o ti o cn o ZI, ct 00 D zt o ti ti cz o 5 44 I•�I a Q i." O c ct F". C) to 0 cC O cct u ' 'C cz +� Cd 0 W cn) O U S cz CC ¢ cz U l ct U � N cz p N cz ~ c 0 d N O N N N cz 9 a U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N M N cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N Ln cz ° ° 4 r-I Ln b o cz cz ro ro ro ro ° ro' ° o ro cz cz ' P cz aP cz P cz P P cz u P o° cz aP cz x cz O � O W a U W CC � 00 00 S.i CC 0 d N 0 N M N cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N N cz 9 a U U Li 7I, I N cz cz U U U N p � b "� is � � a � � � •.. •� •� � � � � ..U. F+I a Q a Q Ocz cz cz U •�"r cz N •�"r CZ N O ti cz O U 0 bA 0 O U yam., CC p CC U _ ct "c::� SU, cz U �" cd N 'C •� p U ° U 'o o ¢ cz T;i 0 d N 0 N N cz 9 a U U Li 7I, I N O � o W a U V � i." .O �I S. i 0 d N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N cz 0 CZ cz cz U N U cz U cC e,C O O U O Ste. � � �' �. • �, cy,.,C ,ryl �. c� "O �. • N O ¢ � O � `+'� t ,r..� �.' U O CZ W U cz c� cz C.4 G O � Cu —0 x � sOsy� cz ib. ,r—I cz = � bA N � O UE ro 0 d N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N ti O cz cz cz cz O cz cz U O O � O O b O O Ste, ct = g U bq� U O U N � � � ..� Cl � :G' .� a � r••' p � "O 0 .p �./ O V1 O��., O cz It 75 45 U ti H H H H cz H H U H U H p H H � ii � y "��"'" U �i � i•r I•�I a Q pcz bA O ,}o 0 O O O to O 'C p v s�-i O p U cz U O c brp O -Ep D .� U p tt 5� C) U O - R� "t U U p-' N �'' O>> CZ� 0 w O ¢ U bOA G C) N O U 'p O O U S". O p sO �. P. . ct N 0 O � p r-- � � ^'p • c� � U U O � p> • U O � � p Li "p cz W cz V W OU N 0 N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N O N N cz 9 '27 U U 7I, I N cz ro ro cog • � ¢^ cz cz cz "O U O U "~•J' O U y U G C O to ¢ ¢ ^U U U cc U • i ? U 'U cz .O .i Po cQ �L 7C cC U � r'Oz _ s1, c� s . �. _ bA ' h U bA � � ,�—� O U .,, p �.' ° o o w " o 0 cn o 5 °' - CZ cz � U U I•�I a Q pcz P W �. U' ct � V U O c cz U H bA • ,Q9., � U cz M 0 d N O N N cz 9 '27 U U 7I, I N 0 N_ O N oc N cz 9 '27 U U U H 7I, I N CZ cz cz V V cz V U U ccz U �--' �--' �--' •'U—+ U U cz � •� W 0 .� 0 N • 0 C -- �. �. �. 05 �. C i-i Fr U d0 Fr U �. � O • �, CZ 5 = ¢r O �. U U U U U .--I �--� � U CZ s– s. U s. it 44 cz '—' O ct r ¢ 'C ,C^C '� 6% '� S�.i �"r CC " ,Cd~ -�-' W ,�~-i P. �••�'' PLO SO"' eC �.� C" .O U V W cz C U S" N ..'�'' �r sy sy �' sy �' sy eC cd O A cd 0 �••� U cd E- E cz O bA w U V � i." �I Ij cz �"i o 1 O .� O � � ct U¢, U O `U O —cn 0 N_ O N oc N cz 9 '27 U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N ,� z z cz on cC s o 0 lk�l cn ti cz w° o U U cz �� .eo�� o Ln a o o cn� U cn a o •� om o cn Ln o A 4 �� °Q [HQ End° Eye° CC i�•r FA is U� .^". O O r.' V a O 0 " � U cz 0 s." N � U 4-i •�". O SC i"i U bA U � 'C •� U •� � a� Ln v O � c ° c O OU O u ccz u ct o° -o z U u S4; N : :o U Q cz cC C� cz cz Ln U Ln U t;4 O U 0 d N 0 N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N_ O N O M cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N •-E t o O � � U U U O U cz U U U O O Ste. W U SO..�'. =44 s•. p �+ U U S, y A CJ C/1 U cz .� O '� N Cd N cz •.Ui A .2 O •.s•.. " Z ;E ' V U N cz ON U U V O � H U i5 N O V FBI � O cC O O 00 a �I .O O � U O � O � � S. � N � U � U O � 0 0 d N_ O N O M cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 N_ O N M cz 9 '27 U U U H 7I, I N U •� U � U V, U N C CZ C O ro cn U U U cz O W cz W W c O ,,�� -y� cry i••� Sri U U U c O W N O Ij O� ¢" U Q Q a Q a O� U i—i V U 'C i." � s� O `+Oy cC N O cz cp ct > C N " s- cz —Cl N N 0 .� cz U U CC cot U Ste" U u U �-r cn • ot� U W O U ..-i cn C N cv "C �, Uri CC a O ,s." N W U bA U -0 cz cn 0 U N U �"+ ¢" "�" N �" U u � cz lu U �. CC U s- cz cz U ,sUr' O W O ,4.i .. cz U uO C `�uj O CSC u. u ^ O �. fir' '4.'i '� U .'�. ' �' "C r"' • �' O U ' "~" ryU U yOy W U cz cz U) i. 0 N_ O N M cz 9 '27 U U U H 7I, I N OTi � o W a W CC � I� w� cz U .0 o � Q DC w ° U � CZ' 0 4 � 'A cz cz C CSC cC U O o c U O � o�w cz U C 0 U — �Z �Q 0 cz b U co� on H .U. E'� iU•i W 'V] cz �Q0CZ cz o •� 4, cn C W b � � U 'C , Li cn Go cz cz ,sue up ��QoCZ ° •� w H a cn rower cn cz U N cz O cn CZ U CZ cz cz O C 0 � � o � o cz W U O cz � � o A O U 0 � � 0 w N_ O N N M cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N M M cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N E U U U 0 - U u 9 — U- U Q W a o 'A � U -� �° U U U to -z -Z o o ct x Q cz U o U o rA °'�' Z'-,z r" Q o a. -0 c`z 0 o �, U o ,�,' '� on O U cd °�' °�' U ¢, U G' z .Z y0 p �. W .� OU U b4 G 'C Q cC cn cn b ro p U rC ro v a o o O f OO U ° cn chi W y 0 Q M f) u^ ^ Cl) I--I U cz U cn W cz .� U yU.� U 0 „may 0 U "�' "O U y,,y ��y yU,i O '� N 0 a to • O � O W a U W CC � r•+ 00 I••I S.i CC 0 d N 0 N M M cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N 0 N_ O N M bA cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N cz O CZ O rte, � a O a O D u U Q U U U U En " ,�-� 0 U U� �� Q' p U" O U U U U � �. N O ' o '�' U O �' cut 4ti 4-i cz �L H U ro w H o `s �O cz 0O� ro o °�' � ° UQ ��� V � Q U U c�i 0 Co c0i U °�' �. � °�' C_ U �U � a, �a•�� U-1'� �'CU �OU� �z �E�-� U-1��� � c�w �.� P� c�w • o � O W a FBI U 00 00 O ° `ct �. CO) ' ~ CC U Li 0 N_ O N M bA cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N M cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N ti) U cz � cz U ccz U C cz �' U CZ U ,��' O ..�. •� U N Cd cz cUC U 0 e+C cczw° °' �U ° w e�C ° N oc s, NO a cz O F ro to ro O o oc 0.4 u cz � o i � � • 00 cz � ° cz to0 °� ° mo=o EEO a.° E�d� UdO. Ud0 cz W° d j U 5 C�Cy •� O is U '�" •�L ii o U man W c O O O bA y ¢ c cz cz �.. u i cz W j U 0 O O cz 0 ~ O Ell cz U O c= cz �. 'C C j cd cz cA cz cz cz cz � U cz U .O O � •� � �.� � N 0 U U CZ U U �' W u :"i cz i•r � 0 N_ O N M cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N_ O N M bA cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N o ro ro o U cz cz .y � 44 U -0 cz q O U k A " C cz U g U to tb. N C 0 cz w }� H Q s, .. r " b Q � s -z o cz cut �t w o Up A U� u op :o�'ro cn cn a s o o cz o � O W a U W CC � 00 00 S.i CC 0 d N_ O N M bA cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N M cz 9 a U U U H 7I, `` N cz chi o U U U �-g -C� cz aC*0 cz ro. •� U U . 4y cz ,rte w W 4-ti � bz W �, [� p U U U � �; •fin 'C") � �; •fin o Q cz cz 42 Cl U cz CMZ � 00 N • � � N • � SO, � � • O H s0.' a'.' � • ��' �-' � cOC � E• Q cz E• Q cz wIjt VU�•. O ° • �. cz W a E -�U�dU y0 c+Cl i-i -0 c N cC O p U U "'�" '� cz . "�" •• V " b�A bA V O N ¢ c O O cz cz o O 0 d N 0 N M cz 9 a U U U H 7I, `` N 0 N O N oc M cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N iti U cz cz ,r-I CZ U a U cz Ct O O U H pp a O ti;zi cn Q 91. U C U O O ti _U cz C-z Cnz A�•o �� ��• •� ��� � eon � o � 'r�"� ° �cz'� � ,� � •� o '� .� .,o � � � � � � o � � � tea' � � � � � � �HQH�� � ���pa ° �NUq � [��., °� [mow °� [��.,•� " U � 4-y O CC cz cz � U � cz U cz •�, O U O U 0 N O N oc M cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 N 0 N M cz Py 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N cz OU 4O. �, O •'—' �+ cz cz N 60 cz cl p cz CZ n o o o U �.� cz a � �w U ti �� �� cz u cn cz cz��� o y Ct U cn 5 P� o 4. o ro CZ cz U U rA A cn UAL U� E�fi v�fi cC �O �fi °. �4 -C >R Ov �Q w o � O W a W CC � 00 00 S.i CC 0 N 0 N M cz Py 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N O cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N N w w w c U cz CZ cz U O U O Ct U U cn cn 00 ii ��. N '� '� CC A rA N�. .0 cz p +U—' �y cz cz a,�a,q � [��., �, [mow °� [�w•� U�%.� U�,•, [mow �w cz ,4 U U CZ Lw" Ln Ln O y O U � bti) CR Ln pA v Ln CC .� O Ln U U U U U 6) Li U CC U U U 0 d N 0 N O cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N 0 N 0 N K cz a U U U H 7I, I N cz O U p� CZ o a� w cz cn O O cz 0 U ' • C� i. ti Cn U U 4, P. cz cz cz AU" O cz cz Q �w O U A y0 y0 ro �. 9 'C 0 fi w fi ° cz ro U U � 4-y O CC cz cz Ln cz U U CZ 44 u 4. / O U U cz s�—y' O p Z U . 0 N 0 N K cz a U U U H 7I, I N 0 N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N SZ, 0 py O O O O cz z cz 4-i � 'C l, �. cC N O pq c� c� O ct N cz CZ cz cz cz w cn ° w cz U a. 5 cz C-Z cz cz ; U U ° C, o � O W a U U � i." .O �I 0 S. 0 N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N M cz 9 '27 U U U Li 17I. I N o cn — o 0 0 cz ro _ U ro cn U ro It w _ U a a cz q �Q CZ � �U o'� �Q �Q o ro ro U U � 4-y O cz CC cz U O $z bA co) 0 i-i 0 d N 0 N M cz 9 '27 U U U Li 17I. I N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, IN N CZ O O O U U . P. *Q .p z 0 cz —. U ar �t, 4�n~ ;�:, cn cn V V N a �. U �! i, k, O U + U U U i." O O ICI Py 4. p 4 cC O O U cz U �y t R C 0 d N 0 N cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N cz 9 �7 U U U Li 7I, IN ji cz U O cz cz ¢r U z U U N ° i +„ cz u 44 0 N cz cz �.°, � O cz O cz z r--� .� U z -,z . p E, U cz � °: a. � � � � [�' � � � •� ems, � '� � `� � � � � w � � ai A cz 04 ° 0 cz � N E•� � � V � O V � v1 H � � � H � Q `�Q' ° E•� � U W a E�UQ U � U O O 4.1 ¢ U 00 cz U cz U cz � � O bA G' Q, •+� �, 41. U U c 0 d 0 N_ O N cz 9 �7 U U U Li 7I, IN ji 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N u 'A ° ' ro `~ cz o cz cz cz cz ro ¢• o on o O U z u Q cz U U P" p ro cz 0 ro ° ° O. cz o cz o Q o O cz ° ro O. cz cz cz �C �C ' O C v � cz 5 cC C v sue, 0 . � O �" bA cz ' -0 bA H to ' ,7 Q cz O � 9 � P. cz O cz o o 0 00 a .. o ° Q 0 o ro o o cz a � ct o o a. o O •�, ;; o o u •�, O cz o � cz CZ U V � O U O � � i—i cl IX �0. 'C O ' ' CC cC En N om. � cz O 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N rA U y0 CZ •.y no b s-� cz U U cC cz U CZ ti) ',� �' O `n y cz U U — C a Q _ N O r--� U O � O O +-' A O � S. �. � � •.. �, a 1 aC�"i' cd U CZ CZ U •�'i N U 0 4. O cn H W V� P� E'� W 0 o � O W a U V U i." �I 0 U S. U 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N oc cz 9 WE U U U H 7I, IN N cz ° ° ro 'c'z 'cz 0 U u p roo ` cz o u ct ° cUi � ° cz c, ° o Z �a ro U C cz U ro ro N cz U 00 cz ° U ro _ cct U 'O cz �"" O .. cz u cz cl �zl ct N H U cz c�� H '� °U U W U cz • O O U CZ N cz cz U U U U U �. a O cUi cz 'cz 4 U cz U " U O u •'" cd U U y�••� U � ' U cz 0 p p u cz U 0 , O •� 7.1 •� N 0 ,r0•I U c C, + .U. U U cz cz 0 d N 0 N oc cz 9 WE U U U H 7I, IN N O � o W a V � i." .O �I S. i U U ct cz w ~ Py � •U cC U �Uw �. 4. cz U u O • �, U �. 0 U �. �. cz CC O U U U U ct cz u ct U � • � 'C O O ,r"., U �p a c. p •� Z N cz cz U CZ U cz Q U w � � � yU•, a � � cyd � � U coil 7� ct E� 'C � ° U wp R. ru cz O U U ct O U c ' cz ? Z cz u Q CZ — U U O cj U �U U ,U S. ct ct 0 •.U. cz U Cd U 0 cz U 'C � 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U 7I, I N O � o W a V � i." .O �I S. i o � o cz ct cz � 'C u cz , Ln 'C m : 'cz O Q ` H U w clS ct CA O CZ UFO -1'O ' ¢ 0u4. R.� ct � U O W U O U p„ CZ cz n � � "C .�". U P••i 0 'O o ro cz =1 U U ct cz 4. � � •O '7 � � N U � U u U O O co) H-0 O _ro C � e �' � z 0 a.. U O O P. u 0 d N 0 N O cz 9 a U U U 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U 7I, I 0i o o j '0 a -z -Z q .� o z .z o zl '" cn cn cz " rA cz cz N CZ 00 con cn U• CA o � u.� w z �.� o o� ti u w -0 cct ti En pq Q a ro L x u �. s, Ln ' U Cn �L o o U U o cn C Pa P U q U cn U 0. w cl cz cn U • O � O W a U U � i." .O �I S. 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U 7I, I 0i o � U V � i." .O 2 cz U � on O cz 'C w cz cz o Q O u ° U � � o EAU cz CIA 0U) ro ° N O O � �r O cz °c U � on b O cz 'C w C) cz , o CZ oA o Q O +O ' 0 0 O � U � cc��y � J2 EAU cz CIA 0U) ro 0 o � a ° u � cz C� � o � *" o 4.1 4y S—'• O � cC � N U' V O U cz U U ou Q ro U 04, '° a CZ cz on E� °c cz � on 0 cz 7 cz S.. cz w U U cz CIA o� ro Q O U U s, CZ O � N UU 0 ° d N 0 N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N o � o W a U W CC � I� S.i CC i 'C cz bA U O U c U U bA b cz 'n cz u O x o cz CIA o U) 0. ro cz 4' o � U c a s �� •^ cz �� O •s..i U U U O u ° ¢ cz o c � O a c O A ro � � o w O ° o 0 0 d N �o N M cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N cz Py 9 a U U U P� H 7I, IN N — -Z = o ° CZ cz t cz � o Pew U cz cz PL, wo U� U ° o Q o o o ° H ti c � ti O O N . sy ° Q° O a pA '� x 9 '-C O v " ro° o o Q ' x °�,' cv U ¢ Q ° U cz CZ cz cn ° o `a O ro o o ro o ti� cz u ro ° p� 00 E cz '~ L U U b a o° o o Ln U cz u cz cz j cz o cn U E� U E-UQQ cz P� 'C O CC .O bA 6) 1 G O O N pU _ ? ' O c� O U ;��•: � 00 ' �.," �•' N N O cz ro on o o On 0 chi cz cz ° cz o ° cz Ocz N O P� "C st- N cz IX ro " cz ' o U ro O ' Ln -o cz U A cz N ' �." cz cz 0 d N 0 N cz Py 9 a U U U P� H 7I, IN N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I 0i o ° on ° ro o - °' o -Z � z � .o o ° ° a � 'C a � = A cz x o'0 Ln cz cz o 0 tj) •cz ` ° o aP�wo U 0 cz o U U ° ti s on ° °�' cz ° U y sy o � � oo•t u.u" o u "n ' °�' P s. C� CZ ° U E� U ro o H cz 0 ca d cz U) cz one ti n o o o o w ° cn cz 0 cz cz cz ruA 'o o ti) u o � O W a V � i." .O �I 0 S. 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I 0i 0 d N 0 N Ic cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N `a o ro ro U w a H H cz cz ro cz o H or) ro o y ro o cz �•� cz ' nn un Ln � o ti s, IF, u x 2 Q q Qo�a o o w A U � w � 0. 0 U o~ o °? ro° C�c 0 U o o ° U w i cz pw chi chi ro ro v on,� 91 °' pw � ro � to o � O W a U V � i." .O �I 0 S. 0 d N 0 N Ic cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N O N cz P1 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, IN N cz -0 oll� �; q ro Q o o cz a � � � � O �' O cd Q' 0.•i � cd Q � "O � 'C U p � Q •�. cmz � +„ O acz , cn O O U .� O m U O O U O Cn U U cC OU 4. O O O O ��cz '4 "O cn O cn •c� O � O -,z � A c� O 'C � � � O � �' O 'fib„ s••� �� cn 0 E-�UQQ U O cz O U b U 4.1 ^ �. bA ~ 0.1 t+: t+: OU �. •.�. cz u cz O O O U U O cz u w U U •O � � � bU.i O CZ U U CZ Ln U cC 4'. U cC �--� U U N U CC O O UC�'t, U U p N �c � fU•'i � U fU�•' cz N u> cz �N�•.•� N i� U O UU."��' OU cz u�c - F�••I W U 0 d N O N cz P1 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 d N 0 N oc cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N o ao cz = cz cz cz cz u w ° °Q °a °w U U 0 " o cz U a 0 0 o U U C cz C cz o °. u o chi o CZ �. Ln U fd �. o O CZ P-i �j r--� ro w CZ U U on U U o o cz �cz d� 0 °,�'Q'" 05 cz Ct U u U ro W o °' •� ct 0 :: 0 U o a. U U w° o U .o o cz ro O q U o¢� � o cz � U Q cz � E- P l cz V1 P� w �l �l O DO F, � P J� O � O W a i." .O �I 0 U S. U 0 d N 0 N oc cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U 7I, I 0i cz 0 CZ o° ti o o U CZ ¢ o o o> Q o Q U o IZ w �. cz U a q Iz c CZ cz ti ti ti -z q IZ UQ UQ. �� Cn o �� q cn cC p O cd U cd p U s— U ° `'� p� Q —R, cn own cz ti o U ° IZ Iz O w • O � O W a U � V i." .O �I 0 C, Qn Qn CC � CC 0 CC ..w 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U 7I, I 0i 0 d N_ O N O cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 0 o �s 0 0 o o ro ro c cz ro 7s U Ln Ln Ln CZ cz N O N ,r�•I pp �; cz cz cz In cz 0 p� N CC y 4.1 ICI A~ c u 4. U _N A � �. U _N +.., � �. � � ¢" •� � � � ¢" �+ � �. � �A .�. ,� �A V CSC O is U�• r c cz U 6) _ bA ❑ O U O cz O U O O cz U U cct U Uj U U rA U �� cz 0 O G cC i C cz O U U S"•r U U cz Ste. CZ O 'C = 2 ti) b�OA CC O O cd — O +^ N = 'C U y �" O O C � b-0 .�i�"= cz i." .. � 0 Cd 0 d N_ O N O cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N cz � O �i � •� ti pq �' � � bq [� CIZ �� z U OU O E ti O O U U � 'S. U •�Lw" U U 5 W a Q Z Q � •�. is �. �j' �. O rA ~ O a O CC �I oc N N CC cz cz u OM � ^ct . cz 0 �. n 40. � • � 0 p U O r--� �" > CC � � N 0 N_ O N K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N ro o �+ U • �." O "O � O O ¢ 131 O'C U'bn l O CC cz U cz cz cz cz O 'C O cz 44 cz U" U bA Li O pp CL�i Q U U cz ^� u CZ U cz O O N CC N U O r.' ct N �O N N yy. O O O U U Li O c O 00 U Cl O ,� "C U �' U U U U O cz U u U ct cz U CZ En bA + ~ O u O bA U 0 O U U U bA cz O ¢ :O to -p y U U �. + = CZ v O .� U bA 4'"_ ,rte. O ,..0 '+'� 4.1 •.U. cz cz ctl ,sue ,C� CZ 0 cz cz � U cz cz U cd yi.�y cC c� O W U ¢.i p yUi.y.� P-i W "C cC U RUC P-i U 'C yUi�y p cz O>> ct cC W v bA cp U fir" fir" N 0 N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N M cz 9 '27 U U U H 7I, I N °' ti ILI U cz r" ti IZ cz P� ° cz u acz U o � O W a U W CC � 00 00 U :z O � U � O U O O bA S.i CZ U Li 0 d N 0 N M cz 9 '27 U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 WE U U U Li 7I, IN N o �L) o o o f �Zj IJ o U U � 2- R) •:". w � N CC � � iUti" � N CC 0 cz Q O' ", O •O p c�C Cl l ct cz E' cC U bA CO u cz cz U --i 19. cz U N U U cz 0 CZ cz cz 0 U 44 44 O �U— cz � U � p � � � � r � � N 0 � CZ O U cz ,s cz "C U- R cd ,�. 0 U p U U 'C cyC U cd U O' •� U . � � � $"' � O � ,r—I U � M � El W W 0 d N 0 N cz 9 WE U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N o o cz U O cz N cz cz cz C O' o a ! cz F cz ti O rA U � U ^ a u c O � � CC ,s U N C y0 - cz O 00 O 4 cz cz ct v � • � � � • ^' � O' bA '-C � �i��' ~ � U U t �' O c+-d �. C.1 i-�i �, ° U O 0 ,� � � O L: U x p 0 OU O �. N p CZ V] .�' cz Cj cC c � N° bA a� O O N O . N M� W 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N Ic cz 9 a U U U Li H 7I, I N CZ cz �• a a ct O o o o U cz CZ Ct CZ o Q fd U � 4-y O cz O ~ }Z W ct ��•� 4-y U �•r cz U b sU•� cz p cz p . 0 O D U cz U .. I cz Cjz R •O• u �• ct cz �•r' yU.i U 0 U O U cz 0 d N 0 N Ic cz 9 a U U U Li H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N r- cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I 0i cz Q U cz U cz s- cz C � � � • � G' +-' m O .tip �' � � � p � � `� U cz C.4 ��. U H cz o C) o o -,z z A o E�Hw�L O � O W a U V i." "O �I 0 U S. U 0 d N 0 N r- cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I 0i 0 N_ O N oc cz 9 a U U Li H 7I, I N U U cz U U O � Nu' c� cz 0 O cz p N O 60 O & P 18, U O OU m cz cz cz cz U 00 U 0 cz cz U O O D U Q 4.1 O O • � 4-y O cz O ~ cz W U cz U cz ct O rt c ct � •O U U O U � � � O cz UU O O cz cz U 0 � O � U L: UUyyy � Li P N U W O U cz N 0 N_ O N oc cz 9 a U U Li H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 WE U U Li 7I, IN 0i ro ro 0 0 cz cj _ _ U cn �- Z O O O SZ, O Z Z O C.O U O 4ti U �Z iy �H U a, iy `� `� .� O cn x O U� •a� bq sy Q bq b4 O O p N p E W '�i �Y ' U �Y �i Q' �Y '�i �Y ✓� S� Q' O is U� .^". O O r.' V a i." O y U ro ~ Q Cd CUC 0S—'•i U cz ,>> U U cz .. cz O .O O 0 O O cz O O 4. y � ct rA cz ,ctk U 0 d N 0 N cz 9 WE U U Li 7I, IN 0i 0 N_ O N O cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N O ti O U O O cz _O cz p O .� +�„ QR- .`� O R U O O O ,� C 'C ct cn cz 's cn +,; O U cn � s••i �i U p O s••i Cl ' p� O VS"„ v U C i. ;zi �, A �. W a ro o UQQ E UQQ cz In cz is 4-y � O p U cz i••i i•r N O cz cz C0 i. 4. cz i j Ct U w U "s +4 N 'C a� O U cz p O N N O .vi U cz 'C cz r-- u C O ' UU bA O ch u O cn C cz cz �- 8)= V] U c U U "C U U i. U. "��" b 8 N O i-� -� oU C A cz cn � � � C U � � O +'�„ � � `' � � ii U ,S' N a� •� N C N s� � � O � O U •�". U � cC � U �n N NOff". ^� n••I U i••i .� ,� "C V] C/] ¢�, cC U ,Q.i ,Q.i ,Q.i p •,� W "C �j i.-i ,Q.i CC 0 N_ O N O cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N ti CZ ^, U O cn IZI 0 E-UQQ C." U •� U cz Ot". U cz U U cz rC 4-y � �•� •�" U O N bA � � �; ~ CZ . C C U O OC-t C bA O U cz U c cz Q ¢-' •.. O U 'C cz O • O U �. O U O • • • p U ;� "C cz u .O �-' �+ bA ° ° IT o y v cz o ° °�' U cz ro W ° � °_'. � •� N � � � O ° en c° .� • � � _ � �" i '� ° � � � � chi ro � H cz • • H u 'u cz m U cz W O U Tiol 0 d N 0 N K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N ro O � O O cyd O cyd _ �. Cl �. U 4y U •�" 'C O Q cz O cd" 7�5 2 p NCj ro cz cz u 4° 2 o � O W a U � V i." .O �I O ro cz s 0 s o CZ o a ¢ o w �. Q b r- U o 91, U 'U 9 U C7 � o c0i cz ro u 0 cz U Q 0 q c� U �. CZ -0 � O U Z cz w O O cz `� o 7 ro U o cz 5 o cz c o o 0 i � a cz � y , � 4o o w Ct 'c U o cz o ct chi Q p o o cc O4'. 5 5 o o boo ct o ct In U °�' c°'i o o U .� U �; u O o 0 C4 U 0 d N_ O N N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 N_ O N M cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N '� � •O � c0 U c0 � •O � cC i-i O >� O� r3 is p'C y U U i•r 12 "O ++ 2 U U C, Q Q O ct ro o o A Q rg U Q ro OED ro;z a ro� E-U� wE O E-�UQQ U O 4-y � U � U Li ~ 'C O 0 im, p � C'j, o� o•�co �,� on o ' � � • o � .� � _,On z ,S •� � •� U � U � W U V] W �i i•r i-i W �cn � �- � Cd M O 0 N_ O N M cz 9 '27 U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N_ O N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I 0i cz _ U cz cz U ,� U o CZ U CZ U cz ++ �, U C, Q Q O cz 0 ^O U r� � • U �..i "C 7 •.. U O, 2 cz ' ° o ro $ c o o .0 a. � o 6 cz U i." O O O C�C�U. . r p S— O p O C.0 cz 0 ° � O cct 0 4: 2 O. Ct U cj B O O c U cC U cd O U� ¢.� U iU. �••� dj i•. U cz 7 U N cz 4w O /�'� �. U � i■ _ `rte pU O O CC i 0 d N_ O N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I 0i 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N cz U C U 0 U 0 9 NO cz cz U b 4 r" '" on ss a o ~ cCU"C cz ti O O �"" ` `�'� �•, U cz 0 "' 0 0 .. ct 0 .� 00 ., U r- eC., O V C W C+ a CVO O o ~U. cz ccz ¢r U N .� � � � +� � U O r•• '� � U �.��•, � cam.", U O yam„ 'C � cam.", O p am191- ¢• �, � V p..i sU-i 0 � N � � H H cz 9 2 2 E OTi � O W a U V i." "p �I f CZ U U 0 0 cz b cz 0 CZ 0 �. U U , U N ..y = = � Q. O . ,te � C�C • "�" s�y U O sU.' cz cz �"„ ct �. �" �O U U U cz cz N V u cz O U ;0, �. cC 7C ¢ U �, 'C O cz U r- U " Li • O cz•.. 9w 9 N 9P cUC O•^ 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N 0 N 0 N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N cz cz +� cz Ln p C cz O c cd w- cd oo � � '�' '� � � °� � � o td p, � � row •� �' � � � ro � E� U o cz N +; a =p cz to u . o a3 �° y cz y 5 U Rlcz Ct w .U. U r.' 4-y O O �O U cz c Py O O oN °� cz bUA CZ U 0 'C C� cz CZ cz O,r"., �rc�• r.l a"' 'un U yam., U cz � 4y O U O y cz w � cn °�' � o on o Z5 nt P U a� CZ °' c o �i U o cz ro Cl o i o o cz :5 � U � U s-i O cz cz i—i U N 0 N 0 N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N OTi � o W a U V � i." .O �I S. i U CZ N U N ro o 'C � cz cC cz z • 4 4 ,ti) U cz W U U) P 00 ¢" N CJ U CF q� `z 4 U V] U i-i > P-i U C Li U � U cz cz ° o A U U U U ��w 5w•5 c ct cn cz a > U [� ct A •� -o ��' � o� �=o1E 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 0 d N 0 N oc r— K cz 9 a U U 7I, IN N cz cz v cad o o v U c� v o CZ CZ 0 c o ° o u U u b cz o oP+�4�x o tn° p o ° i A+ i U °' o o P+ U U 6 ° ° qCZ cz u o cz "b o Ln cz L on ° o ° o a° � Io •� cz Q ct �++a cz p•�, s, w fd `� ' +, ^� `� '� w O ? �'q ¢ o E�E�v�0. cz E- �E�v�0. E�E�v�0. UE� ro �. � a, •op� U� U U °� cz U i5 r1l cz U O O pj) u o N O U z 5 O U U y� cz a O w° cz cz U Cnt cz ° CZ O bA y U5w�' M 0 0 d N 0 N oc r— K cz 9 a U U 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N N N 0 0 0 N 0 Ct °acz N U N 5 c 0 Fr cz s, b 0 o o ' '� ° o cz ?- cd ,�' 'C ° cd N cd O G' U ro ° o U .� a o y o o CA o � U cz °�' o u vi U ro ro o U U UH O �. OP•� �°E� �'CU ���E� �w �w �.cz �czU O � O W a U V � i." .O �I 0 S. 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 d N 0 N O oc K cz 9 a U U 7I, IN N 'C Cn 0 � u � = iO a � � - o o 'F� ;zi o oCZ u o o O o ;3 0 Uo o°n cz ct a! U o rA U o i g.- c°v rA o o f a. 9 0 U °off cut 0 ct Ln Ln Ln It Ln U O w .U. Ln Ln Ln cz U i." U � c O N W ti) O N L Ln bA ~ O Ln O •O ,u 9 O c p c u 00 u 0� � Jl� u ,rU-I 1 N cz U U u u .O U u ,� O ,r"., U cd "o. O O O 4.1 U �N O O U O, U ti) cz U CZ C'q U 4.1.' �.' H 4-i O U cz U pp ..i"'. O bA cz Cd Li �." i. , U U • 0 ' cz F. 4 O "'U. cz .U. .--� O cz ��' U c 'o N � N u N N y, Cot U 'C cz W iU. E'� E'� 0 d N 0 N O oc K cz 9 a U U 7I, IN N o � o W a U V � i." .O �I H ct CZ cz b i. 3. O U U .�. U C U cz 0 00 u Q iz ° t• U O '7 �S—. Ha c a ro �Uct U O Q N cd C CZ f.d q oaH.�� u cz cj a; ib. U O •� sU.i U V P••i �� U 0� N O Q y u =�F� O U 60 cd +J cz g U CZ ib. U O � � •� sU.i U V P••i �� U 0� N O cz cz U U� C� 0 w N 0 N oc K cz 9 U U U 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N N oc K cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N q q ` `� `� z cz 7= C) o U czr" U U, a r:p+ OU ° ro ° ° =o q CZ t ti) 6j) � ? �C ro o o cz ct o Q Z ° ° U CZ a cz ct ct o U> lz u Z U cz U U' p eVC �L) -,z " °' ` '� 34 �Wa aUQQ�' � ro U i." 2 cz cz cz 0 N .0 �, O O �• U ¢�., N U �+ C, U 0 cC 'C U +: OU �. K O N U U o U `-' C O U cz U i•r iU cz r � CZ cz U W p CZ cz m ca �i ct U C� cz >i�i r3 U U � = '� � •� �. �. O D U O' 0 U�.� ct y..i � fir' .y U• O cz O O cz V� 0 d N 0 N N oc K cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 N_ O N M oc K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N cz o o o o o S. 0 ° O w ° 8 0 0 O � ' O O 0 p U �+ P••i O Q o C U C) CZ bA °Q ° � o S cz °' ao U °�' cz SOU N °' Ole, ° o ' '� o w •� U U Q o W C j o Act ° s°, o o E� ° " U .o P" Zn) a 4, ° cz Ln Cut ° 91 Ln o 0 Z 8 Ln E u U a o o °�' o U v-, + U 0 t Q � u U� ° d U U � Oa E� —Cl Cl En 5w �. o � O W a U W p ct O N u N Cd cz � U � cz b�A cz'� U cn 0 N_ O N M oc K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N oc K cz 9 a U U 7I, I N Q chi -0 = o = 2 •- = o � ° o ccz ' �° o `Z U oILI o p cz ct o cn Cn ro ` on w o� a P� °' U o cz CC UYr y� v U °�' -d U U U o s Cc, p� w o o �Q o o U cn Cn x Ln Ln U U b4 cz �bA O cC 'C ` CSC' W +O—' �." ��I O U O U YL ✓� .U. • Cc) U U C� C� cz 4. c N cz O U cz z 0 O N . cC bOA U R. O 'C L U C E'� CC iU•i �". CC 0 d N 0 N oc K cz 9 a U U 7I, I N CC O � o W a U V � ro u ro ro C) ro oA ro U on cz ,s' �•' O U p ro ro 5 ro G 6 o °' o 0 oA ro C) on 5 oA oA cz cz U C U .ti CZ cz -cot v 0 �rw5 aC� c� 2 U • U S. z N CZ d u U �cz U z CZ 7� ro u .� u � 4.1 .. o ° � cz o � � ro 5 ro 6 CZ u o ro on 9 on 5 oA oA cz ro 0 ro 6 5 oA oA cz � i•r U Ey i—i 0 d N 0 N oc K cz 9 U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N Ic oc K cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N ' Q PL, -o ro cz U o4�,o a��a on U ro Q U�wa U ro 5 O- w O w ors o cz U cn cz yU,i U CZ ct u U Q NCnt CA 7 cz -C� cz bA U 0 !-'-� U !-'-� 0 0i U `+-� ct ct H cz cz O � O W a U � U i." �I 0 S. 0 d N 0 N Ic oc K cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N r- oc K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N N O — ,z C) O "C 'A O cn cz cz O O O+ cz ct cz 0 0 U O ° °�' o -o cz cz "C 4 ° ° cz Hs i C0 70 cz cz cz cz cz u F ° o U cz = O ro • O G' cd cd �-, N N '45 cz CZ V� cz zt p .� ti U O O a� v '� O ' v o . fd O r.' c O bA y N p cC 00 C O O � 41. :O cd U U "o W N N � N cz cz U � N cz H 44 oe _N O '� c bA 6 O N � i 0 d N 0 N r- oc K cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N oc oc K 0 9 a U U U 0 H 7I, I N o o ro o o N cz cz cz ti U Cl o 0 o u a N U U O by b�A O O U O cct O S_. i." O ~ ct� ' cz r0 .�-0 . "��' V 0 to .O O 0� •� E - u '0 4 50 u 0 O U .0 0 bA r bA =, cz O, 0 0 O N O U c° O �O 4-i O D U U � �"" U cz V i--i E'i -0 N U U .0 ,:�' O U Li U i" U O ' cz U U U Fr U U U U 'u rq�� C V cz N Pa H O O .,� 0 .,� w N w U •� 0 d N 0 N oc oc K 0 9 a U U U 0 H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N oc K cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N o � � a U � Q � O O r.' V a i." O O cz U O U cz ^ �C O cC ,r"., R O-. U U UU C u N O Po c � + U U U U bA cz U U U . ''S � cz �" cz �+ - �" 4 ct U CZ U ¢� t O U to ,r-I U I., O U U , ,r-I "C �, O ct t. U U U U sU-i �{• �, �; ,sU.' p O ��•" O bA U U U U ch U 0 d N 0 N oc K cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N O cz 9 WE U U U Li 7I, IN N CZ ro o CZ o ro oA 0 ro 4 o o � CC r3cz In cz cz O r.' Ncz O 'C •.. z O ,� bA � � � O •� bA ¢, �. ro w ro 4, o Cu NV]� �.yy H w ro o O C 0" O p v� oW �'���w °O•� ppO � OH v���•• o � o U O cz cz P� cz � c� U +- O U 5 "r O bOA Py" a N G N cz +� O CUC U �_ O 4-i O ro° O ° = ° U 2 cz o o CZ ° u 8 ° ° Ln ` ° o w CZ ct '� ,r�- � �S-" '� p O o "r"" � � ,�. O � � 'C � •'� � Py 0 bA '�9"' P-i � cn M �". N HH � cz u HH 0 a� TH H 0 d N 0 N O cz 9 WE U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U 7I, IN N H z Z a� o cz 7:$ 0 o-0 c ro ro ro U In Ln L ~ Ln eC G O i-i cz cz cz cz cz CC cz F 4 O � U . U U bA "" cz U U cz � c� ❑ N � cd O � � •� cn ,r-I N O 0 N cz cz u cz O N Ln ~ W W �i n••I n••I U ,Q.i n••I 'C ,Q-i �i SUi OU 0 '� c �.' 0-0 O O U cz �.' ,� .� cC" O •- = ,� •O ct O 4-i N N O P-i O N cz N 0 cz ¢, 00 "C O cO" N N O c uu U+--' cz Li U O U U cam. 'C cC �". •�Uy O cz O p"' � O N N u O O py 0 U sue-. i� rr�� � �. P U C.� O 0 •.1 O O O U bA y r 4 O CZ �O O ^O" bA •� Li Cd y O C O cd .. '^ ^�� O E� CA bA U O N cz cz + ¢ cC 4 O O O O 0 bA cC O p�..i u Ell p • o o p w 00 b�A O � �O�yy N � a�=ACC _" �+ � ,� G' Li cz ¢, M H G' �' s� c� �"" N N �I P..i Q; "C �--� �..� H .0�•��., U cd M i H 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U 7I, IN N 0 d N 0 N N cz 9 a U U Li 7I, I ji cz 0 cz U cz ° ro U o ro w o o cz a� w ° °� cn ° t W o. i E -0 cn ,- ¢ ° o o cz — W E� o cz o w u ro a c .� cz a d " O �'C ° s, y� �.o� U y� cz A o o ¢ CZ y .� rR cz zt ° U H C w U O cz o H p ° zt Q on U o Id a E�UQP�.,Q U i." O O ICI Py cz c ct cz U O cz p , N, "~�' U O U �. ,� �A U .UN. .i . bA cz U cz CZ U CZ U CZ cz � � O' � • � . v � �?, � U bA ,� O ct cn i H 0 d N 0 N N cz 9 a U U Li 7I, I ji 0 N 0 N M cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N ao a o Ln ° V) O O cz U cz .y U �, •mow •mow � � � '� �H � cz tj) Z ' • o E� o cz "C 0 N CC O N o y ,� :� ^ t,A E 4 bA 00 U 44 0 0 V C U U cz U U cz V1 d Q O O � O W a U W CC � I� bA U U cz U F P O �•i J z c �--' � � � � �j�'•i � ems. ct cz ct 'cz U cz u d a ^ U O cz U 44 cz 8 u a u 'Cot � s.. g � U � Ln U O O 'G�y O ,� >. 0 N 0 N M cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N •� o U U U o � p U U U • � � � � � � U yU•� U � U CZ uu 'C i OO p ? �p eC cUC cn p CZ O •� •� oU•U U U '� %) ct ccz t QQ QQ QQ zt U • u O � O W a U V � i." "O �I 0 S. 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 N_ O N cz Py 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N ? O Q' cz cz cz U cz . cz U U U � � U bA U U v+ W 4 5~ 74 U CC U CC is 4-y O O Wit. O' U c� cz U sU.' � cd C ' bA v U9 v U cz U O U U �. 5 U U �y � c� U U U cz s0-i '1 '�—' cz N U Cl u O U O yam., U c� cz cz cz U H + ct O U O D U + O U 0 R U U O N U O CZ �' E-� 'C �, ¢• ,� �' • p U U O a cC 'C U U cz s�� • v U P� pip �. U ct O cN cz O O� U , cd" O °� E� cd O O P.. H H 0 N_ O N cz Py 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N o � O W a V � i." "O �I O 0 cz r- r--� O "'C C --5 N 0 U C 0 [� O u O p 0 ��„ 0 W 0 CZ 0 0 u U U U cz W G' ,^' U O u r--� O U U O " "U U U�- �". �' N i"i O U U N p ,�. N U' c U U U cz 75 O U U U O cz cj 41 *Ccz � U 75 cz O U cz 0 cz � U W O N CZ U 0 0 O ,��. O u I 0 d N 0 N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N ro cz o Ln ro U z U O O R AI OU a' ,ryl cz _p � U O CZ O cc�GOyy U 0 U U W U ct 4Oy cz U to Ct 00 U cz 75 U cz � U U U ii i- 05 .w cz ct cn ~ cz u ct cz s-. O D U cz �. �. U �. O "�. cz 75 C5 p .cz y� ¢" cz �"" U p ^' U O „r, U U O 'Inn O yU ' cclC cUC cz U cz 7�' cF-i cn U cz 0 In pp r/� �'" cz En U N ` G' U 1 cz 7-� O U O sU-� cn "C O , O "C � '� N bA U cn U lun p �, � � U rip U r-- � � �. �.' � •� '_ O ¢, ,� U � �., � `� r-- O O ' p �. U •,—,'� U �. E-� � E-� t� --..,� cC W U U , U U CC � � a H 0 N_ O N cz 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 N_ O N oc cz 9 '27 U U U H 7I, I N ro O u O CC CC N = = Q OU y 0 O U U U p c U S-. p ~ Z � O U .� • U � .� • U `J� P••i o N ,� � "C OD ti r�.� cn U �� U bq C.4 O •� �i O ,�•, cz ti cn u cz � E'� Py U U �--� U U i--i U C/] � "C �. iU•i ,ri �I � 0 � � "C ci � ^O O � O W a U V � i." .O �I 0 d� O U 0 •� � d � � � � a O cH ct g.. CZ U U OU cz . .�� N " c cUi� ,� 0 cn '� Q CC sU- cz U Ln Ln cz rC z U ? N "p Ln f"•r U "; •rj M N 'n iUr '"' V� U CC N ULn CC U cC O U N -� p �_ U �, U 'C 'C �" O O O cn U P� P� E � �. 0 N_ O N oc cz 9 '27 U U U H 7I, I N 0 N_ O N cz 9 WE U U U Li 7I, IN N cz cz cz � O � cz U O b .. A 'C fi i..•" i..•" O"" 'C U p V p N N .s .." � � � � U � U � E'� Py C/1 Py � � U � U • U 4-y O ~ W �. cz p cz U U ct U O cz 0 U �i W • W ,rU.'I cz U i- Cut 0 U O U 0 U U b U cz �U.� U cz 'C U cC N a 0 N_ O N cz 9 WE U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N O O bOA a U U Li 7I, I N W � U O •� � .0 O z �L) r.a U cz 0 W 4.1 � "• �y CZ ? ro CZ CA .. U i.• WO � 00 � � sU- U ^� WO sU- O U cz cz �+ any N C° U CC U U N N cz 0 � • �." N 00' U P-i 'C p. G' p. O 9 "�C O N O p. cC W 2 � U O U O Q o CZ E. O p U � � u CZ U O U WO cd "C U cz U ,Oj ,-O •,��. U ct U O s0. U O 0—;5 cl� cz ct cz U O . �". v'� �' Q Ct c) O CZ cz ~ O U W � U s.. O •�, cUC -8 cz Oa H ¢ U +cd O " N = CZ 2 b 0 U M a 0 N_ O N O O bOA a U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N_ O N O bUA 9 a U U U F-, 7I, IN N � •o � � o � o Q •o � o � U � Lam. � � U C bUA e�C c N cz U U p 0 U cz U O Sy U p¢'., +�� �� U W cC U w¢ cz U _O A �" U O �"' 2 e�� Z ti ti pi U OU r--� S V 00 V U N U 'a�j �zt 0 RU .w U i.• O 00 It) U 75 O sU- z bA y U 4� N V . N C uu U cz Cl S""�' -. O 'O O ff~• bA +U-' U U U CZ cz ici�C��� cz U U cz u cz U � . O U 'C O U O y O cz N 2 U p 'C c� U _O C U z cC Ln U " ,, Ln ti) P N U O 0 CZ , L'i ^U' O N'n • 0 O U ¢-, cz O U ct .�U. U 0 CC U u U u 0 sO- ccz +U �' V CZ 7 cOO C s." 'C cz vi 'n �A ruA 0 d N_ O N O bUA 9 a U U U F-, 7I, IN N 0 d N_ O N N O bUA C 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N ro U U o o C) 'Z� o ro 0 U cC • .�i U ' cn W cC U U cz y U �� ¢ 07- 0� O~c U .� ~ U cz P CUC ct C C cC A N cC eC O U bA 0 . U A N 0 H O 'C v E E� cz ccz W O i d j U 5 C�Cy U 0' .0 bA y 0 C C p pp U O cC 0 O v 'C „�„ O �. U C O bA U ,� +� „�„ U ct U ��� +fin �„'� N O C O �CU.=-=-r." C � C �• � U � � a U cz O � � U O •� O O cn r- ct C U .0 0 O C "C O � U U U 0 t U cn "C U ch 0 =� DUI U 0 C 00 U 0 0 U U O / 0 . C c ~ O cd s••i � iy U s••i p •�, _ (� C -0 c P••i cC O P••i W � � • n••I Ca i-i Q•I W U 17� �I U CC a 0 d N_ O N N O bUA C 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N M O_ U 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N .�. ti U CC U U U U O U U U •� � O O U zt m cli, •l" � O pOi y U cz C'Z ? A U � O O O W a U V � i." .O �I 0 u u O to cz �' • m '"C N O 0 "- 0 L: U ct �Q cz Ln �. bA ¢. u cz U U 0 N N U� O x cz U s. N 6 CZ � � `gyp" p � � � SUi � � 0 � � U � OU ^�-' � � 0 �. C) a� ,� N c� 'C s0- c� O O' O 7 'C N :O v _N F��p O N O bA a? C cz 70 O ¢ 'C v 0 N_ O N M O_ U 9 a U U U Li 7I, IN N 0 d N_ O N O bUA 9 a U U U H 7I, I N o � U � O � � � O O O � O V a U CZ O y O z cn c 00 cz U � 'i ¢ lc$ O O 0 O o .° U c O cn O O U N cd S N O U U U O Pa U rd cn r--" cd U cz O i a � 0 d N_ O N O bUA 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 N_ O N V� O bOA 9 WE U U U H 7I, IN N Ln cz ¢. Off• .. CZ .� bA 0 � cC �. 'C U cz u O O U 00 ct U r.' 4-. O U 0 ~ cC O p.., a0. P••i 7�5. P••i cz w a� C cC O . N a. s. C Q w N N C O N z O O N O O U O 0 O U 4.1 N U ct C CA cut yO•, �O N � N G' �' O � � �'' O ,rV-I � N N s�i O O � ,.O G N � O p CZ U U cz ,ry' F. U �' ,ri U 0 y ch U� N O- U 4: O •4: N s. O ct O O O r0- N e�C -C:: + CZ �+ bA O �" ¢ C u N �" U cz - 8 ct •N U O O O N U 0 N_ O N V� O bOA 9 WE U U U H 7I, IN N 0 N_ O N O_ U 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N c .�i U Ln V] C� U � U U U c= U U CZ N•+U-(- bA N •+U� '"' � • � by � � O Q4'i� cz bA -� b�A +--' O CO) 0 O 0 •� cz �" � U • U Q O U � .U�. �O cz H U ro U C CC U C s, cz P� V u H u ' • -o � o 0 E" 7s ro U� 0 cs 0 44 cz.� o � O W a U U � i." .O �I 0 � 0 O C �. C p c a O � 0 N_ O N O_ U 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 N_ O N O bUA 9 a U U U H 7I, I N cz cz Ocn C.4 0 E cn N 'n 'n �_ 0 cC It 17 . U � U . � O � O c O O ~ cz N N O •i'J u U cz to U O cz c O L U ct .1 O, U y� U U • In 4U U. 4 0 0 U� ,� p a dj cz U U a cj U cz cj U Q O cj O cz N U• CA cz cz ,,-•,, O �' ^i O •z .y cz U p O 0 yU.i Ln @ O O" • C a U C z Ln P••i V] n cz N O H 0 N_ O N O bUA 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N_ O N O bOA 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 O � O • O r.' O bA U r�+•C[� 4 U cC g CZ o�w Cl z ° w° CZ o o kn 4; G q c u oo O� O ' U ro ° tj) ' i cC N o p N O o a on U cz o° o W o° 0 0 0 0 0 s- 0 cz °. o° a N u N u N u N u N N cz U � N 0 d N_ O N O bOA 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N O bUA 9 a U U U 7I, IN N U U � O � ? U • O r.' O cz cz r--' �• is +-- �+' is O U cz U U O cz U O p 'C ,pct .y "C � U �". -!t u 0 ;� N cC cz .. . �bA O 7 H ti bA 'C 'C U p cz ti r3 U u.. 0 N O M cz cz ^� bA �- O iNi cUi] O O r ? 0 � bA O ' cut U H U. � O +-' �•" ��" c° ' � yam„ 4O p c� ,� � � O � � .�U. � � ' � • �' M � 0 d N 0 N O bUA 9 a U U U 7I, IN N 0 d N_ O N O_ U 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N O O O O O O O y e e -,z e W a � Q Q � Q P•. Q � Q Q P.. O r.' V IX i." �+ bA �".. bA 4".. bA 0 U C O C O O ~ O 0 [� U 0 [� U 0 [� P•. O �. O (� P•. O �. O (� P•. O �. O (� P•. U O rA CZ U O ct 4. -0 CZ • p � �, O N � ¢�, ^� O (� c� � N ,� ^� �" �+ � UN—i U � AL'S —'. y N • �% 7C T cn cvC cn p cn �' O P �"•. O U �" p �"•. H O N cC O 0 d N_ O N O_ U 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N 0 O N_ O N U 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N U U Q � U r� O cz Z Q Q bA• 44 rO+ w . 0 . cz U I•�I a Q i." O O � � O � to Ij �". cz O U y+UU U U s—i U O ' U �Y Q CZ :C c��C 'U U O O �"• eC O U" U cd bA O cz 4 v N U U S, c� �" � � N cz O 11 U U C O � �' � �'' • O s—i , O O U U U � U cz O C cO C bA U c � 0 O „ O O 'N ^ ' O U O U I U U U U U 0 O N_ O N U 9 a U U U H 7I, IN N 0 d N O N N_ U 9 WE U U U 7I, IN N Z U CZ O O � O U � Q � CZ cz � � C7 N N O r.' F+I a Q a Q i." O O � �• bA 0 a O O cz � ". y� cz . ct cz cz O O .Ui"'. O Ct U U cd 0 a� bA ¢ bA s. O u O O U �- N cn y U N O O U U O N M a a 0 d N O N N_ U 9 WE U U U 7I, IN N 0 d N 0 N M_ U 9 a U U U H 7I, I N ro ro �. ro U ro ro ro 0 cz .w cz W � O i d j U �' 5 C�Cy U I•�I a Q r.' 4-y O L pc cC Cr cUi 0 U +U O O 4? O � a [� U Ln U b a C ¢'' 0 O �, ,� 4 N O ~ cz ¢'' N s-� cz cz CO U cz cz O c� Ct, � cz OU 0 cz Ln W E O a 0 d N 0 N M_ U 9 a U U U H 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N U 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N o � O W a V � i." "O �I U ,�-� � U U '—' U�'_. � � U bUA � ,�~• � � O . ,sU.' U ,sU.' ,�~• O U O U i-I CC CC P••i cn U U cz U ,� 4 U 1, "� a- U ct i..i U OO O O U "C U cz 5 �" y C ,7 -p cz ¢ �. ao U P••i +� cz U ,�. O O O U C) ct cz ¢r c'tii O "C O U "C O ct U_ bA c 'T c c U CZ U 0 0 cC so U U cC "�•' p c� O "C O O U _ U O U cz ¢r 0 �+ ,bA = c" "C i Q ct "C tj) O u cz CZ "C •••� U "C "C U O ��.'+ ,�-I "C OU U ,�, c� O 'C O V] OU C O Cd O E 6 Cd Cd 'C •.� V] E� l w � w �, � U 0 d N 0 N U 9 a U U U Li 7I, I N 0 d N 0 N V� U 9 . U U U Li 7I, IN N ro U U -0 ro ro oA i C .� O U i5 I•�I a Q r.' 4-y O 00 � W Icnt 00, U O�0' U �' , ct c u 'C cry p� cz U ¢ bA +� O O c .y U a Cd � U Cyd V 4-i O Cd C1 cd 6' Cd N n c O'er �QU d U Cam, ro p `z a; 0. 0 ro cz ro cn In cn En CC U Ln V� a 0 d N 0 N V� U 9 . U U U Li 7I, IN N Exhibit 2 of Resolution No. 13 -32 MCAS Tustin FEIS /EIR web link Due to the voluminous size of FEIS /EIR, please use the following link to access via the City's website http: / /www.tustinca.orq/ departments / commdev /index.html #planningZoninq The complete FEIS /EIR documents along with its Supplemental and Addendum are organized under Planning and Zoning Documents and Tustin Legacy Environmental Documents STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN I, Jeffrey C. Parker, City Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 13 -32 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 13`" day of May, 2013, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Murray, Puckett, Nielsen, Gomez, Bernstein (5) COUNCILMEMBER NOES; None (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT None (0) JE "I' C. PARKER, Ci Cle Resolution No. 13 -32 Page 5 of 5