Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1443 G1CY Q Agenda Item 5 nt Reviewed: AGENDA REPORT 1:1 `'a, it City Manager / VS11 Finance Director / N/A MEETING DATE: JULY 1, 2014 TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER FROM: ERICA RABE, CITY CLERK SERVICES SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1443 SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 1443 approves DA 2014-002, an amendment #1 to the approved DA 2013-002 to effectuate the disposition of approximately 5 acres of land comprised of two parcels (Sites A and B) from South Orange County Community College District to the City. RECOMMENDATION: Have second reading by title only and adoption of Ordinance No. 1443 (roll call vote). BACKGROUND: On June 17, 2014, the City Council had first reading by title only of the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 1443 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING AMENDMENT #1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2013-002 (DA 2014-002) BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (SOCCCD) TO EFFECTUATE THE DISPOSITION OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE (5) ACRES OF LAND COMPRISED OF TWO (2) PARCELS (SITES A AND B) FROM SOCCCD TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION (MCAS) TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. MORE SPECIFICALLY, SITE A IS LOCATED NORTH OF VALENCIA AVENUE, WEST OF SEVERYNS ROAD, EAST OF LANSDOWNE DRIVE. SITE B IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE VILLAGE OF HOPE, SOUTH OF VALENCIA AVENUE, EAST OF RED HILL AVENUE AND WEST OF HOPE DRIVE. ORDINANCE NO. 1443 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING AMENDMENT #1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2013-002 (DA 2014-002) BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (SOCCCD) TO EFFECTUATE THE DISPOSITION OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE (5) ACRES OF LAND COMPRISED OF TWO (2) PARCELS (SITES A AND B) FROM SOCCCD TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION (MCAS) TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. MORE SPECIFICALLY, SITE A IS LOCATED NORTH OF VALENCIA AVENUE, WEST OF SEVERYNS ROAD, EAST OF LANSDOWNE DRIVE. SITE B IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE VILLAGE OF HOPE, SOUTH OF VALENCIA AVENUE, EAST OF RED HILL AVENUE AND WEST OF HOPE DRIVE. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the City of Tustin (“City”) wishes to acquire additional land (Site A: Planning Area 1-E) to potentially use for park purposes in conjunction with an adjoining potential future park site and a remnant strip of land (Site B: Portion of Planning Area 1-H) to be used for entry monumentation and landscaping for Tustin Legacy and/or other uses permitted under the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. More specifically, Site A is located North of Valencia Avenue, West of Severyns Road, East of Lansdowne Drive. Site B is located North of the Village of Hope, South of Valencia Avenue, East of Red Hill Avenue and West of Hope Drive. B. That the City and the South Orange County Community College District (“SOCCCD”) propose to enter into an agreement to delineate the terms, purchase price and processes associated with the City’s purchase from SOCCCD of the strip parcel and SOCCCD's relinquishment of its rights to acquire ownership of the Valencia Parcel and ultimate City ownership of the two parcels. C. That the application consists of two (2) agreements: The agreement concerning Valencia Parcel and a strip parcel between SOCCCD and the City (“Valencia Agreement”); and, Amendment #1 to Development Agreement 2013-002 and Amended and Restated Agreement between the City and SOCCCD for Conveyance of a Portion of MCAS Tustin and the Establishment of an Advanced Technology Educational Park (ATEP) (“DA 2014-002”). Ordinance No. 1443 DA 2014-002 Page 2 D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on May 27, 2014, by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4258 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1443. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on June 17, 2014, by the City Council. F. That on January 16, 2001, the City Council certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS Tustin. G. That an Environmental Checklist attached hereto as Exhibit A has been prepared and concluded that approval of the Valencia Agreement and DA 2014-002 does 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. H. That the proposed DA 2014-002 will ensure the implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, eliminate uncertainty in planning, provide for the orderly development of the SOCCCD and City properties, allow installation of necessary or desirable improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development and use of the City and SOCCCD properties, secure orderly fiscal benefits for public infrastructure, generally serve the public interest within the City and the surrounding region and otherwise complies Section 9611 of the Tustin City Code as follows: 1. DA 2014-002 is consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan in that the project would further the goals and objectives of the City and the SOCCCD education village by providing orderly development envisioned at the project sites. Ordinance No. 1443 DA 2014-002 Page 3 2. DA 2014-002 is consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Any future uses of properties be acquired under the Valencia Agreement will be further analyzed at time of development proposals for consistency with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 3. DA 2014-002 is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices in that the subject parcels are remnant properties that are physically separated from the primary ATEP campus; and, consolidating the properties for ultimate City ownership would allow for more efficient and rational planning of the properties pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 4. An environmental analysis has been conducted and determined that there will not be any detrimental effect to the health, safety, and welfare with the implementation of DA 2014-002. In addition, the proposed development complies with all applicable Federal, State, and Local rules and regulations. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves DA 2014-002 attached hereto as Exhibit B and authorizes the City Manager to execute, subject to final approval of the City Attorney as to form. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this _______ day of ________, 2014. ___________________________________ ELWYN A. MURRAY Mayor ________________________ JEFFREY C. PARKER City Clerk Ordinance No. 1443 DA 2014-002 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO. 1443 JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1443 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City th Council, held on the 17 day of June, 2014 and was given its second reading, st passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1 day of July, 2014 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: JEFFREY C. PARKER City Clerk Published: _______________________ EXHIBIT A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin — Amendment #1 to Development Agreement 2013 -002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of two agreements, the Agreement Concerning Valencia Parcel and a strip parcel (Agreement) between SOCCCD and the City of Tustin and amendment number. one (Amendment) to the Development Agreement and Amended and Restated Agreement Between the City of Tustin (City) and SOCCCD for Conveyance of a Portion of WAS Tustin and the Establishment of an Advanced Technology Educational Campus (DA). The purpose of the Agreement and Amendment is to effectuate the disposition of approximately 5 acres of land comprised of two parcels (refer to Figure 2, Sites A and B) from SOCCCD to the City. The Agreement delineates the terms, purchase price and processes associated with the City's purchase from SOCCCD of the strip parcel and SOCCCD's relinquishment of its rights to acquire ownership of the Valencia Parcel and ultimate City ownership of the two parcels. Associated with the purchase is the DA Amendment, which would modify the approved DA to identify the City as the ultimate owner of the two parcels. The reasons for the Agreement are: 1) the parcels are remnant properties that are physically separated from the primary ATEP Campus; and, 2) to consolidate the properties under City's ownership to allow for more efficient and rational planning of the properties pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Site A (Valencia Parcel) is a remnant parcel that is surrounded by property to the north, east and west that will ultimately be owned by the City and is separated from the largest portion of the ATEP.Campus by Valencia Avenue, a four -lane road. The acquisition of Site A by the City would consolidate the ownership of the properties north of Valencia Avenue with the City. Site B (strip parcel) is a remnant parcel that is primarily used for entry monumentation and landscaping for Tustin Legacy; however, SOCCCD owns and maintains the parcel. Because Site B serves as a gateway to Tustin Legacy and because a portion thereof could potentially be used ancillary to the adjoining transitional /emergency housing use, the City has expressed interest in owning and maintaining the site. The property disposition would also consolidate the ownership of Site B with City's ownership and maintenance of the streets and landscaping at the intersection of Valencia and Red Hill Avenues. The Project does not include a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment or any proposed physical changes. The Project involves the disposition of Site B from SOCCCD to the City and the relinquishment of SOCCCD's right to acquire Site A. There would also be no change in the allowed land uses on Site A or B as the intended uses of the properties are consistent with the applicable provisions of the WAS Tustin Specific Plan. The City would acquire both properties without any associated development rights (i.e., allowed square footage of buildings or vehicle trips). Upon the sale of Sites A and B to the City, the ATEP Campus area would be reduced from approximately 66.5 acres to 62 acres. The City is currently undertaking feasibility and planning studies for a community park north of Site A. Some of the planning studies include Site A in the community park design. Because these design concepts are feasibility and planning studies, they are subject to Section 15262 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Class 6 (Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines). The disposition of Site A to the City does not include approval or construction of the concept park improvements. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Pave 2 When specific development proposals are produced for the Project sites, the City will analyze the 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 Initial Study to the Project elements that are known at this time is also consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, which discourages discussion of speculative impacts. Site A is currently owned by the Navy. Like other properties owned by the Navy in Tustin Legacy, Site A is currently expected to be transferred to the City 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 covered parcel 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. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that this Project is within the scope of the Prior Environmental Review and that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), there are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Prior Environmental. Review, or any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Prior Environmental Review was certified showing that: (1) the project will have any new significant effects; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible will now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or altematives considerably different from those previously analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 I. AESTHETICS - Response a —d: N The Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project involves the disposition of two parcels totaling approximately 5 acres from SOCCCD to the City. There would be no change in the allowed land uses or 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. Visual changes to the Project vicinity have already occurred with the development of Phase 1 of the ATEP Campus, the County's Abused Children's Shelter, the Village of Hope, residential neighborhoods north 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. 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 was certified. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin Anril 21, 2014 Page 4 Addendums and Supplemental; and applicable measures would be required to be complied with as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. Mitigation /Monitoring Measures Not Being 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. II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES - Response to a -e: 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 or forestry 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 have already been analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural or forestry 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 or forestry 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 or forestry 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. Mitigation Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related impacts to farmland were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being Implemented: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts will result from the City's or District's approval and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for agricultural or forestry 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. III. AIR QUALITY - Response to a -e: 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- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 5 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. The Project involves the disposition of two parcels totaling approximately 5 acres from SOCCCD to the City. There would be no change in the allowed land uses or maximum permitted development that was analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Therefore, no significant impact beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIS /EIR is anticipated. 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. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: 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. The City would implement.Mitigation Measure AQ -1 by complying with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules to reduce short-term air pollutant emissions on the project sites when development occurs. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation/Monitoring Not Being Implemented: All relevant mitigation measures will be implemented by the City and SOCCCD (AQ -1 through AQ -3) or the City independently (AQ -4). IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Responses to a -f: 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 would 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 (ALOE), 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 waters, the Project would 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 ahematives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable during implementation of the Project have been identified in the City's 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 would implement the relevant mitigation measures of the adopted MMRP and as stated in the 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 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. Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being Implemented: 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. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Responses to a -d: The Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project would result in a change of ownership that would not modify the areas identified for development in the Specific Plan and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project would not cause additional 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. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 7 effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: The City would implement Mitigation Measure Arch -2 by retaining a County - certified archaeologist and conducting the required consultations prior to obtaining grading permits. The City 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 /Monitoring Not Being Implemented: Other mitigation measures for cultural resources in the FEIS/EIR and City's 2013 MMRP are not applicable to the Project site and are the responsibility of others to implement. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Responses to a -e: 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. 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. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS /EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 8 Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being 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. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Responses to a -b: The Project involves the disposition of two parcels totaling approximately 5 acres from SOCCCD to the City. There would be no change in the allowed land uses or maximum permitted development that was analyzed in the FEIS /EIR; therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any substantial increase in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions compared to the Specific Plan analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. 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 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. Mitigation/Monitorine 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 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. Mitipation/Monitorine Not Beine Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for climate change, and no mitigation measures are contained in the City's MMRP for the Specific Plan/Reuse Plan FEIS /EIR with regard to climate change. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Pa¢e 9 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Responses to a -h: 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. Implementation of the Project would 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. 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 altematives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Mitigation/Monitoring Not Being Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous materials, and no mitigation measures are contained in the City's 2013 MMRP for the Specific Plan/Reuse Plan FEIS/EIR with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Paee 10 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Responses to a -j:' The Project would not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. Any future development on the properties would be required to comply with the then - current Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) requirements imposed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 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 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 sites vicinity would remain consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. 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. Additionally, the Project does not include any change to setbacks or other development standards that impact drainage. 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. 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. Mitigation /Monitoring Reaeeired: 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 would implement the relevant mitigation measures of the adopted MMRP. Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 11 measure is the responsibility of others to implement, it does not fall within the responsibility of the Project to implement. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING — response to a -c: Implementation of the Project would 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, nor would there be any change to the maximum development potential on the ATEP Campus identified in the DA. The Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use as no community exists in the area of the Project. Instead, the City's acquisition of the two properties would eliminate remnant SOCCCD ownership of parcels that are physically separated from the ATEP Campus and consolidate property ownership with the City. The Project would not conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Future development of the Project sites would be subject to the use restrictions and development standards contained in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The City is considering incorporating Site A into the future Community Park and has prepared feasibility and conceptual planning studies to assist in this consideration. When the City makes a determination on whether to incorporate Site A into the Community Park and considers approving a park design illustrating as such, the City will prepare the necessary CEQA documentation supporting such a decision. 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/EfR and no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 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. MitiQation/Monitoring 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 City would implement the relevant mitigation measures of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 12 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 XIII — Population and Housing. Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being 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. Per the City's adopted 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 Project because the City is exempt from payment of infrastructure funding for the Community Park. Any future use that requires payment of infrastructure funding would be the responsibility of the constructing party. 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 -26), 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 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. 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. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES — responses a -b: 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 13 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. MitiQationlMonitorine 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. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for mineral resources, and no mitigation measures are contained in the MMRP for the FEIS/EIR with regard to mineral resources. XII. NOISE — response to a -f: Implementation of the Project would not cause any substantial impacts to noise. The Project involves the disposition of two parcels from SOCCCD to the City. No changes in land uses, development standards or MCAS Tustin Specific Plan vehicle trip thresholds are proposed. Future development on the Project sites would be required to comply with the applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local noise regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques relative to construction and operation. 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. Mitization/Monitoring 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 would apply to the Project during construction. Mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 14 Measure N -4 would apply to the City in relation to noise studies adjacent to Wainer and Harvard Avenues. Mitigation /Monitoring Not Beine 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. XIII. POPULATION & HOUSING — responses a -c: Implementation of the Project would have no impacts to population and housing. The Project involves the disposition of two parcels from SOCCCD to the City. No new housing or businesses are proposed and no housing exists on the Project sites. The Project us consistent with the FEIS/EM 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 mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: 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 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/Monitoring Not Being Implemented: There are no mitigation measures contained in the City's 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. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES — response to a): Implementation of the Project would not cause any significant impacts to public services. The Project involves the disposition of two parcels from SOCCCD to the City. No development is proposed as part of the project; therefore, the Project would not result in no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to public services and facilities. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR and no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 15 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 as the Project would not create new demand for fire protection services and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Any future development on the Project site would be required to comply 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 would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the 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 demand for police protection services or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed 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 The Project does not include any new park development. PA 2, located north of Valencia Avenue and the ATEP campus, is identified in the Specific Plan as a "Community Park." The City has prepared feasibility and planning studies that evaluate incorporating Site A into the Community Park; however, such plans are conceptual and not being considered for approval with the Project. 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. Mitization/MonitorinQ Required: 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. Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being 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) regarding the 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 16 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. XV. RECREATION — response to a -b: The Project would not result in a change in uses or development 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. Mitipation/Monitorine 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. Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being 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. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC = responses a -f: The Project involves the disposition of two properties from SOCCCD to the City and would not result in a change in uses or development patterns that would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, policy, or program, increased traffic or hazards, or inadequate emergency access. Any development on the project sites would be subject to applicable MCAS Tustin Specific Plan development standards and vehicle trip thresholds. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to transportation and traffic 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 transportation and traffic. 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 transportation and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 17 traffic. 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. 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 transportation and traffic. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's MMRP for the FEIS/EIR with regard to transportation and traffic. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for transportation and traffic, and there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's MMRP for the FEIS/EIR with regard to transportation and traffic. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — response a -g: 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 involves the disposition of two parcels from SOCCCD to the City--no changes to land uses or maximum potential development is proposed; therefore, there are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to utilities and service systems that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to utilities and service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared and no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems. 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. 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 utilities and service systems. In addition, there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's MMRP for the FEIS/EIR with regard to utilities and service systems. No refinements are necessary to the FEIS/EfR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 18 Mitigation /Monitoring Not Being Implemented: There are no new or revised mitigation measures for utilities and service systems, and there are no mitigation measures contained in the City's MMRP for the FEIS /EIR with regard to utilities and service systems. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — responses to a -c: 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 not change the maximum development potential or change the allowed the land uses 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 would be incorporated into subsequent actions that the City commits to fully implementing. Therefore, the Project does not create any impacts that have not previously been addressed by the FEIS/EIR. Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 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. 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 /Monitoring Not Beim,, 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. CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed Project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR for WAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 19 Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. SOURCES City of Tustin, Revised February 2013. 2013 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; 13 -32. City of Tustin, September 6, 2011. Environmental Analysis Checklist for Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 11 -003, Minor Text Amendments. 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). 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 Technologv 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 cis Amended by the Errata dated November 2008 to the Final Environmental Impact Statement /Environment Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of the WAS Tustin and the MCAS 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 Jame 2008 and as Amended by the Errata dated Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 20 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. State of California, California Code of Regulations COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573 -3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified /Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Disposition of two SOCCCD properties to the City of Tustin - Amendment #1 to Development Agreement 2013 -002 Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573 -3115 Project Location: The subject properties are a 4.5 -acre parcel (Planning Area (PA) 1- E) (referred to herein as Site A) and a 0.57 -acre parcel (ParcelI -E- 4) (referred to herein as Site B) in the City of Tustin within the boundaries of the MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan, which is commonly referred to as Tustin Legacy. More specifically, Site A is PA 1 -E in Neighborhood A, north of Valencia Avenue, west of Severyns Road, east of Lansdowne Drive. Site B is a part of PA 1 -H in Neighborhood A, north of the Village of Hope, south of Valencia Avenue, east of Red Hill Avenue and west of Hope Drive. The project sites are illustrated in Figures 1 (Regional Map), 2 (MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Project Location), 3 (Site Vicinity Land Uses and 4 (Current Planning Area Boundaries). Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21. 2014 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin ATTN: Matt West 300 Centennial Way Tustin CA 92780 Ph. (714) 573 -3116 Email: MWest @tustinca.org South Orange County Community College District ATTN: Dr. Debra Fitzsimmons 28000 Marguerite Parkway 3rd Fl. Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Ph. (949) 582 -4663 ssembiazzaAsocccd.edu General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Evaluation of Fnvironmenl,il Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page rr �. Anahelm Bs e w Taft Ar. a� °Villa Park # 2� E Kasalla E 6olpns r. Pond Ave Orange , E Ilnh 61 °Tualln Foal a Santa E&.h In Ana CWT pe 4JEC;T W Edhr Aw a � LOCAT N / EWarnerAve 410 Fountain 7 I Valley 66 Lu.arD► , USTIN i0• LEGACY Baker st Non Dr ! 'ryr C Me L Lake F ° o � � br E n Joaquin i Lspuns Wood t� O ft w fir' j Figure 1 Regional Map Fvaluation of nvironment sl Impact,, Disposition o:- two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin Apr r121, 2014 Pa p 4 CITY OF SANTA r CITY OF IRVINE i� Figure 2 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Project Location ELMi(R Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Yagc c Figure 3 Site Vicinity Land Uses Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Figure 4 Current planning Area Boundaries Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 7 Project Description: Sale of a 0.57 -acre parcel by SOCCCD to the City of Tustin and relinquishment of SOCCCD's rights to acquire a 4.5 acre parcel, totaling approximately 5 acres. The purpose of the Project is to consolidate remnant parcels and otherwise allow for more efficient and rational planning consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. No General Plan Amendment or Specific Plan Amendment is proposed. An amendment to the previously approved Development Agreement and Amended and Restated Agreement between the City of Tustin and SOCCCD is also required to implement the property conveyance. Surrounding Uses: North: Vacant land (future City of Tustin community park) and Heritage Elementary School South: The future Advanced Technology Education Park (ATEP) campus property (vacant) and the Village of Hope East: Vacant land (future City of Tustin community, park), Armstrong Avenue and residential (across Severyns Road) West: Current. ATEP campus parking lot and buildings (across Lansdowne Drive) and Red Hill Avenue Existing Conditions: Site A is vacant, but has some site improvements including paved access roads along the northern and eastern property boundaries and fencing. Site B is improved with landscaping and irrigation, sidewalks, signage and street lighting. Roughly the southern half of the site is unimproved dirt area. 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 CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) dated October 1996, as amended by the Errata dated September 1998. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the FEIS /EIR. On March 3, 2001, a Record of Decision (ROD) was issued by the Navy approving the FEIS /EIR and the Specific Plan. There have been one supplement and five addenda 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. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 8 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. On May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13 -32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS /EIR related to an exchange of land between the District and City of Tustin and a Specific Plan Amendment. The District certified the same addendum on May 20, 2013 (Resolution No. 13 -18). 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. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under CEQA. The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is considered a "New Significant Impact" not covered in or "More Severe Impact" than previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The WAS Tustin Zone Change (Specific Plan Amendment) 05 -002, DDA and Development Plan Addendum, p. 1 -1. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21. 2014 environmental factors summarized in the table below correspond to the checklist and analysis in Section D. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Flazards /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 C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially 1 ""valuation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21. 2014 U significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers Date: 05 -15 -14 na Wily t Director - Planning �(�,�i/� ' y4� Date 05 -15 -14 Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following checklist and 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 relevant information is presented for each.of the topical issues presented in the Initial Study environmental checklist to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the project: Project Impact Evaluation • New Significant Impact —a significant impact that was not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR • More Severe Impact —an impact that was previously identified in the FEIS /EIR that will be worsened as a result of the project • No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis— impacts analyzed in the FEIS /EIR are sufficiently analyzed in the FEIS/EIR • Mitigation Measures • Sources Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect E] El on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and ❑ ❑ historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site ❑ ❑ and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which will adversely 11 El affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as El El by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 12 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- ❑ ❑ forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result El 1:1 in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? 111. AIR QUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing ❑ ❑ or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ❑ ❑ ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to El ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, El El either directly or through habitat 12 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin Anil 21.2014 13 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, El El and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited ❑ ❑ to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ❑ ❑ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological El E] resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 13 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 14 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat ❑ ❑ conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: ❑ ❑ a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a El El historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an El El archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake ❑ ❑ Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on 14 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 15 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, El E] EJ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion ❑ ❑ or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ❑ ❑ creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal ❑ ❑ systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency ❑ ❑ adopted for the purpose of reducing 15 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21. 2014 16 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ ❑ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ ❑ waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ❑ ❑ and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ❑ El use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area? 16 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 17 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Anal is g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are E:1 El adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., ❑ ❑ the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ranted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course ❑ ❑ of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, El El including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 17 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 18 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater El 1:1 systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ El water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ ❑ Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or 11 El X. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established El El community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to ❑ ❑ the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose 18 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 19 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ communities conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would El El be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XII. NOISE Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local ❑ El plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ El vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 19 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 20 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis 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 El El public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? I) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise ❑ ❑ levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes El El businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of . existing housing, necessitating the El El of replacement housing . elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction ❑ ❑ of replacement ho sing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin Aori1 21. 2014 21 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational El El such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of El El facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the.circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including 1:1 E] transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, ❑ El including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand 21 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 22 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ❑ ❑ incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency 1:1 E] access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian El 1:1 facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or ❑ ❑ expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin Aoril 21. 2014 pal No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Analysis which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, ❑ ❑ EJ or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to El El accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related ❑ ❑ to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ❑ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but El ❑ cumulatively considerable? pal Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 Page 24 Environmental Issues New Significant Impact More Severe Im acts No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ human beings, either directly or indirectly? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Disposition of two SOCCCD parcels to the City of Tustin April 21, 2014 25 EXHIBIT B Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement and Amended and Restated 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 RECORDING REQUESTED 13Y: AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Manager The City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Pee Exempt Per Government Code Section 6103 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND AMENDED AND RESTATED 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 >76144062 \R1R703 \1193093.11 5 /I3 /W 1 F 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Subject and Purpose of This Amendment; Applicable Requirements ....................... 1 1.1 Definitions: Anachments ........................................................ ............................... I 1.2 Background for this Amendment ............................................ ............................... 2 Purposes of this Amendment ............................................................ ..............................3 2.1 Pre-F.xistiug Agreement ......................................................... ....................- .......... 3 2.2 Consideration ........................................................................... ..............................3 EffectiveDate ..................................................................:................. ............................... 3 4. Sublease..... ........................ 3 5. Transfer of Subsequent Parcels ....................................................... ............................... 3 5.1 Exclusion of Valencia Parcel .................................................. ............................... 3 5.2 Escrow Instructions ................................................................. ............................... 4 6. Definition of" Socecd Proper() .y ......................................................... ..............................4 6.1 SOCCCD Property on Amendment Effective Date ................. ..............................4 6.2 SOCCCD Property after County- SOCCCD Land Exchange .. ..............................4 7. Revised LUAP ................................................................................... ............................... 4 8. Effect of Valencia Agreement on Pre - Existing Agreement ........... ............................... 4 9. Adequacy of Amendment CEQA Document ................................... ..............................4 10. Representations .................................................................................. ..............................4 10.1 City ........................................................................................... ..............................4 10.2 SOCCCD .................................................................................. ..............................5 It. Effect of Amendment ........................................................................ ........................:...... 5 5764- 44062%RJD403 \1193093.11 5/13/14 EXHIBITS Desit!nation Description Section Reference A Legal Description of Valencia Parcel B Legal Description of Strip Parcel C SOCCCD Property on Amendment Eflccti\,e Date 1) SOCCCD Property after County Exchange E Revised LUAP Section 1.2.1 Section 1.2.1 Section 6.1 Section 6.2 Section 7 5761 - 44062 \RJD403 \1193093.11 5/13!14 AMENDMENT NO. I TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN "r and AMENDED AND RESTATED 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 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND AMENDED AND RESTATED 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 (this "Amendment ") is dated for identification purposes this day of , 2014 (the "Amendment Identification Date "), is entered. into by and between the CITY OF TUSTIN ("City"). a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, acting in its capacity as the Local Redevelopment Authority for the disposition and conveyance of portions of the lormer Marine Corps Air Station Tustin. California, and the SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ( "SOCCCD "), a public agency, and amends that certain Development Agreement and Amended and Restated 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 dated May 22, 2013 (the "Pre- Existing Agreement "). This Amendment shall be recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California immediate[)- following the Amendment Identification Date but shall not become effective until the Amendment Effective Date as set forth in Section 3 below. The City and SOCCCD are sometimes referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." The Parties agree as follows: I. SUBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT; APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS. 1.1 Definitions; Attachments. Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings specified in the Pre - Existing Agreement. Unless otherwise indicated, references in this Amendment to sections, paragraphs, clauses, exhibits, attachments and schedules are those contained in or attached to this .Amendment and all exhibits 5764- 610621R113-003\1193093.11 /13/14 and schedules referenced herein are incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth in this Amendment. 1.2 Background for this Amendment. 1.2.1 After the Effective Date of the Pre - Existing Agreement, the staffs of the City and SOCCCD entered into discussions whereby, in exchange for certain compensation. SOCCCD would relinquish to the City all of SOCCCD's rights to acquire a 4.53 acre parcel of real property located north of Valencia Avenue and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Valencia Parcel ") and for SOCCCD to convey to the City a 0.57 acre parcel of real property located at tine southeast corner of the intersection of Valencia Avenue and Red Hill Avenue and more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Strip Parcel"), The Valencia Parcel and the Strip Parcel are sometimes hereinafter collectively called the "Parcels." 12.2 The agreement between the City and SOCCCD concerning the Valencia Parcel is set forth in a document entitled "Agreement Concerning Valencia Parcel between the City of Tustin and South Orange County Community College District" of even date herewith (the "Valencia Agreement. ") On , 2014, the City Council, by Resolution No. approved the Valencia Agreement and on , 2014, by Resolution No. . the Board of Trustees also approved the Valencia Agreement. The form of this Amendment is attached as Exhibit C to the Valencia Agreement. 1.2.3 On , 2014, City's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this Amendment in accordance with the Development Agreement Ordinance, and determined that consideration of this Amendment complied with CEQA based on the Initial Study Checklist dated , 2014 ( "Amendment CEQA Document ") prepared in connection with City's consideration of this Amendment. In addition, at such meeting the Planning Commission (A) determined that (i) this Amendment was consistent with the Specific Plan: (ii) this Amendment is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice, will not be detrimental to the health safety and general welfare of the community and will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values, and (iii) this Amendment is advantageous to and benefits City; and (B) for these reasons recommended that the City Council approve and enact this Amendment in accordance with Tustin Citv Code Sections 9614 -9615. inclusive. 1.2.4 On , 2014, the City Council introduced and conducted a first reading of proposed Ordinance No. enacting this Amendment, and held a duly noticed public hearing. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the Cite Council determined that this Amendment complies with CEQA, and found it to be consistent with the City s General flan, the Specific Plan and the Development Agreement Ordinance. 1.2.5 On , 2014 (the "Amendment Approval Date "), the City Council conducted a second reading and adopted Ordinance No. _, approving this Amendment. 5764- 44062\RJD403U 193093.11 5!13114 2.6 Sections 65864 through 65369.5 of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Laws ") authorize City to establish procedures to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property located within City for development of the property. 1.2.7 Section 65867 of the California Government Code allows cities to enter into development agreements with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property tinder the Development Agreement Laws. 2. PURPOSES OF THIS AMENDMENT. 2.1 Pre - Existing Agreement. The purpose of this Amendment is (a) to rescind the obligation of the City under the Pre - Existing Agreement to convey the Valencia Parcel to SOCCCD and (b) to remove both. of the Parcels from the coverage of the Pre - Existing Agreement by changing the definition of "SOCCCD Property." 2.2 Consideration. The Parties acknowledge that the consideration to be received by City and SOCCCD pursuant to this Amendment and the Valencia Agreement constitute sufficient consideration to support the covenants and agreements of City and SOCCCD. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. Notwithstanding the dates on which the enacting ordinance becomes effective and this Amendment is recorded, it shall not become effective by its terms until such date (the "Amendment Effective Date ") as the close of escrow for the Valencia Agreement shall occur. Such close of escrow shall be evidenced by the recordation in the Official Records of a Memorandum of Amendment Effective Date, to be recorded upon the close of escrow of the Valencia Agreement. In the event that the Amendment Effective Date shall not have occurred on or before September 30, 2014 (the "Outside Effective Date "), then this Amendment shall terminate and be of no further force or effect. The Parties may, however, extend the Outside Effective Date without processing an amendment to this Amendment or the Pre- Existing Agreement on one or more occasions provided that such extension is reduced to writing and executed by the City's City Manager and SOCCCD's Chancellor. Until the Amendment Effective Date, the Pre - Existing Agreement shall remain unaffected and in full force and effect and shall likewise remain in full force and effect if this Amendment terminates without ever having become effective. 4. SUBLEASE. Upon the closing of the Valencia Agreement, the Original Sublease (as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto) will be amended pursuant to that certain Amendment No. 2 thereto in the form attached as an exhibit to the Valencia Agreement (the "Valencia Sublease Amendment'; the Original Sublease as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto and the Valencia Sublease Amendment shall be referred to herein as the "Updated Sublease"), Pursuant to the Valencia Sublease Amendment, the Initial Sublease Area will be modified to remove the Valencia Parcel. The remaining real property covered by the Updated Sublease is hereinafter called the "Updated Sublease Area." The Updated Sublease Area will be more particularly described in that certain Amendment No. 2 to Short Fornt Notice of Sublease in the form attached as an exhibit to the Valencia Agreement ( "Amendment No. 2 to Notice of Sublease "), which will be recorded in the Official Records upon the closing of the Valencia Agreement. 3 5764 - 44062�.R1D403 \1 193093.11 5/13/14 5. TRANSFER OF SUBSEQUENT PARCELS. 5.1 Exclusion of Valencia Parcel Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Pre - Existing Agreement, the Valencia Parcel shall not be included in the term "Subsequent Parcels' and the City shall have no obligation to convey the Valencia Parcel to SOCCCD. Upon the conveyance of the Valencia Parcel to the City by the Navy, the City shall retain the Valencia Parcel for uses in accordance with the Valencia Agreement. 5.2 Escrow Instructions. This Amendment shall constitute an Amendment to the joint escrow instructions of SOCCCD and City to Escrow Holder (First American Title) contained in the Pre - Existing Agreement. 6. DEFINITION OF " SOCCCD PROPERTY." The real property governed by the Pre - Existing Agreement as amended by this Amendment shall be known as the " SOCCCD Property'." Upon the close of escrow of the Valencia Agreement, the real propert y governed by the Pre- Existing Agreement as amended hereby, and the definition of " SOCCCD Property" as used in the Pre - Existing Agreement as amended hereby, shall be deemed to exclude the both of the Parcels. 6.1 SOCCCD Property on Amendment Effective Date. The term " SOCCCD Property on Amendment Effective Date" describes the property in Tustin Legacy that will be owned or subleased by SOCCCD on the Amendment Effective Date after the consummation of the transfers contemplated by the Valencia Agreement. The SOCCCD Property on Amendment Effective Date is more particularly described in Exhibit C attached hereto, which shall supersede and replace Exhibit D to the Pre- Existing Agreement 6.2 SOCCCD Propertv after Countv - SOCCCD Land Exchange. The term " SOCCCD Property after County Exchange" describes the property in Tustin Legacy that will be owned or subleased by SOCCCD after the close of the County- SOCCCD Land Exchange. The SOCCCD Property after County Exchange is more particularly described in Exhibit D attached hereto, which shall supersede and replace Exhibit E to the Prc- Existing Agreement. Upon the closing of the County - SOCCCD Land Exchange, the real property governed by the Pre - Existing Agreement as amended hereby, and the meaning of the term " SOCCCD Property," shall, automatically and without further action by either Party, be deemed to encompass the SOCCCD Property after County Exchange as described in Exhibit D attached hereto. 7. Revised LUAP. Attached hereto as Exhibit E. is a revised Land Use and Access Plan ( "LUAP ") showing the general features of the development planned for the SOCCCD Property, including access points and land uses. The attached Exhibit E shall supersede and replace Exhibit F to the Pre- Existing Agreement. 8. EFFECT OF VALENCIA AGREEMENT ON PRE - EXISTING AGREEMENT. The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that neither the square footage of development permitted by the Pre - Existing Agreement nor the ratio of Land Use Category I to Land Use Category 2 development nor the number of trips assigned to the SOCCCD Property shall be 4 i iGl- 4406?M D403\ 1193093.11 5/13/14 affected by SOCCCD's relinquishment of its rights to the Valencia Parcel, the conveyance of the Strip Parcel or by any other provision of the Valencia Agreement. 9. ADEQUACY OF AMENDMENT CFQA DOCUMENT. SOCCCD acknowledges that the Amendment CEQA Document is a legally adequate and sufficient document, prepared and approved in a manner consistent with all applicable provisions of federal and state law. 10. REPRESENTATIONS 10.1 City. 'f he City hereby represents to SOCCCD that on and as of the date of this Amendment and on and as of the Closing, City has fill capacity, right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform this Amendment and all documents to be executed by City pursuant hereto, and all required action and approvals therefor have been duly taken and obtained for the closing of the Valencia Agreement. The individuals signing this Amendment and all other documents executed or to be executed pursuant hereto on behalf of City shall be duly authorized to sign the same on City's behalf and to bind City thereto. This Amendment and all documents to be executed pursuant hereto by City are and shall be binding upon and enforceable against City in accordance with their respective terms. 10.2 SOCCCD. SOCCCD hereby represents to City that on and as of the date of this Amendment and on and as of the Closing, SOCCCD has full capacity, right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform this Amendment and all documents to be executed by SOCCCD pursuant hereto, and all required action and approvals therefore have been duly taken and obtained for the closing of the Valencia Agreement. 'file individuals signing this Amendment and all other documents executed or to be executed pursuant hereto on behalf of SOCCCD shall be duly authorized to sign the same on SOCCCD' s behalf and to bind SOCCCD thereto, This Amendment and all documents to be executed pursuant hereto by SOCCCD are and shall be binding upon and enforceable against SCICCCD in accordance with their respective terms. 11. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT. Except as specifically otherwise set forth in this Amendment, the Pre - Existing Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as set forth therein. /Signatures Included on Following Pagesl 5 5764 - 44062 \RlW03VI 193093.11 5/13/14 The Parties have each executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. CITY OF TUSTIN, a California municipal corporation Name: Jeffrey C. Parker Title: _City Manager Approved as to Form: City Attorney or Special CUURsel By: Davits E. Kendig, City Attorney SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, a California public agency Bv: Name: Gary L. Poertner Title: Chancellor Approved as to Form: SOCCCD Counsel Jackson, DeMarco, TIdnS R Peckenpaugh By: Andrew P. Bernstein, Fsq. G i 761-!4062 \RJD403 \1193093.11 5113114 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On , 3014, before me, (here insert name end title of the officer) personally appeared .leff -ey C. Parker who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same in his /her authorized capacity, and that by his /her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) Signature: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On , 2014, before me (here insert name and title of' the o0icer) personally appeared Gary L. Poertner who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same in his /her authorized capacity, and that by his /her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) Signature: 5761 - 4106 ?1RJD403 \1193093.11 /13/14 Exhibit A Legal Description of The Valencia Parcel (Area 10) ( #1147474) 5761- 440621R1D40311193093.11 113114 �® BRF � April 29, 2013 BKF Nu.'_0122006 -13 Ci® an 1'a e1of2 Fu;iuii:s. 5uevtrows. PIA Zi5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OP AREA NO. 10 'Dustin, CA Portion of APN: 430-282-11 and All of APN: 430- 282 -10 Real properly situated in the City of "fustin, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: Being a pnrtion of PARCF1. 1V -111 and a!I of PARCEL IV -J -5 as said parcels are described in that certain document entitled "SI10RT FORM NOTICE OF LEASE IN FURTHERANCE 01 CONVEYANCE" filed for record on May 14, 2002 in Doc. No. 20020404590, Records of Orange County, more particularly described as follows; BEGINNING at the most northeasterly corner of said PARCEL IV -1-5; Thence along the easterly line of said PARCEL IV -J -5, South 07 °1 P09" Nest, 236.11 feet to the southwesterly line ofsaid PARCEL IV -J -5: Thence along said Soulhtecstcrly line of PARCEL IV-J-3 and PARCEL 1V -J -4 the followingg five (5) courses I. North 73 °31''6" Nest, 47160 feet; 2. South 64 004'33" West, 24.04 feet to die beginning of a tangent curve having a radius of 1038.68 feet; 3. Northwesterly along.said curve, through a central angle of 05 027'40 ", for an are length of 99.00 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, having a radius of 1353.04 feet; 4. Along said curve northwesterly, through a central angle of 16 °07'53" for an arc lenclh oC 380.94 feet; 5. North 49 019'54" West, 183.81 feet; Thence leaving said southwesterly line, North 40 °40'06" East, 32537 feet to the northeasterly line of said PARCEL IV -J -4; Thence along said northeaster!), line of said PARCEL IV -1 -4 and continuing along, the northeasterly line of said PARCEL IV -5, South 49 °10'56" East, 576.11 feet to the POINT OF BLGINNING. Paoe l of 2 Containing an area of 197,272 square feet or 4.529 acres more or loss. Rein, a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 530- 232 -11 and all of Assessor parcel number 430 - 252 -10 As shown on "Schedule I" attached hereto and wade a part hereof. For: lIKF Engineers BY: mvwnf; Davis Thresh, P. . Ko. 6563 `�'f' License expires: 09 -30 -2014 y.' ;,u. em ,,,;..,' Date: KaiuMg2ZO06 U Al A'1and Soap 1'IJIS1fJH'G', \1AIMLEG, \LSLLAND LXCIIANGC I O.dw Page 2 of 2 PROPOSED AREA 7 ( LAND EXCHANGE 9 AREA NO. 10 °m 197,272 sq. ft.± 4.529 acres± z PARCEL IV -J -4 C{ DOC. NO. 20020404590 SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT APN: 430-282-11 R= 1353.04' 6= 16'07'53" L= 350.94' SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT APN: 430- 282 -10 PARCEL IV -J -5 DOC. NO. 20020404590 R= 1038.66' N 19'04'33" E(R) 6=5'27'40" /� — L =gg pp• / S 64'04'33" Y! 24.04' 09 0� SO >> N 73'31' �� 26" V 47.60'' X: \SUR12 \122006- I3PI.ATS \I.AND SWAP 10.DWG J� 600 SOUTH MAIN STREET SUITE 920 ORANGE, CA 92868 714- 415 -0500 714 - 415 -0599 (FAX) O N all LEGEND P.C.B. POINT OF BEGINNING CITY OF TUSTIN APN: 430 - 282 -26 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION SubJ'ect SCHEDULE 1 LAND EXCHANGE ARCA 10 _ Job No. 20102006 -13 By RL _ Date 4/19/13 Chkd.WS SHEET 1 OF 1 Exhibit B Legal Description of The Strip Parcel (Area 16) ( #1199289) 5761- 4406NU D40311 193093.11 5/13/14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to —11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 2U 21 22 23 24 PS OMAS Legal Description Exhibit "A" Parcel I -E -4 (Portion of Reuse Plan Disposition Site 1) In the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of Cali fomia, being that portion of Block 10 of Irvine's Subdivision as shown on the map filed in Book 1, Page 88 of Miscellaneous Record Maps, and as shown on a map filed in Book 165, Pages 31 through 39 inclusive of Records of Survey, both of the records of said County, described as follows: Parcel I.E.4 Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Red Hill Avenue with the centerline of Valencia Avenue as shown on said Record of Survey, the centerline of Red Hill Avenue having a bearing of South 40 "37'39" East between Valencia Avenue and Warner Avenue; thence South 49 °20'07" East 103.05 feet; thence South 40 °39'53" West 52.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 49 920'07" East 3.18 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 1348.04 feet; thence southeasterly along said cu. ve 45.04 feet through a central angle of 1'54'51" to the beginning of a compound curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 42.00 feet, a radial line to said beginning bees North 42'34'44" East; thence southeasterly along said curve 11.95 feet through a central angle of 16 °18'19 "; thence South 31 °06'57" East 31.73 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 58.00 feet; thence southeasterly along said curve 12.87 feet through a central angle of 12'42'56 "; thence South 43 °49'53" East 61.09 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 58.00 feet; thence southeasterly along said curve 14.33 feet through a central angle of 14 °09'14 "; thence South 57'59'07" East 36.66 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 42.00 feet, thence southeasterly along said curve 10.38 feet through a central angle of 14 °09'17 "; thence South 43 °49'50" East 9.46 feet to the beginning of a curve PaSurveys Qus0102004cpmuVcgal- !';�eel_I E-4.da ,1176,12 2:06 P.M Page I of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 l5 16 I 17 I 1s ,I 19 20 21 22 PS OMAS Legal Description Exhibit "A" Parcel I -E -4 (Portion of Reuse Plan Disposition Site 1) concave northeasterly having a radius of 1452.04 feet; thence southeasterly along said curve 64.40 feet through a central angle of 2 °32'29'; thence South 02 °51'08" East 23.41 feet; thence South 47 °19'39" East 11.70 feet; thence South 40 °29'44" West 47.00 feet; thence North 49`19'54" West 351.89 feet to a point on a line parallel with and distant 77.00 feet southeasterly from the centerline of said Red Hill Avenue; thence along said parallel line North 40 °37'39" East 59.07 feet to a point lying South 8538'32" West 36.79 feet from the True Point of Beginning; thence leaving said parallel line North 85 °38'32" East 36.79 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 24,672 square feet or 0.57 acres, more or less. As shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a pan hereof: prepared under my supervision Walter A. Sheek P.L.S. 4838 Revised April 17, 2002 i/ Date F:\SurveysUtQsOi0200trcpom\s egal-Parcel_I.E.4.dnc 426/02 2:06 PM Page 2 of 2 LAA'0 �.� E LS 4838 I* ItPiR_s: 9/]0/04 1 QVEU BY a" - -- - -- ° EXHIBIT B 0, R. RS 97-10-1—j —VALENCIA AVE. o S4079'WW N42-3Y44•E LOT -POE 5/2!.00' PCC (RAD) /`J 1 _a / 5 9'20'0TE ^ f� p 4 Il103.05• -''h .�C. \.C2 /L2 LJ ,U� .._ f,P.0.8. 1 1J Ca La`�C5) t5\ C6 Lo (I\ LI PARCEL 1 —E -4 r - aY—{I -59,07- 47.00•x% I N49')9 54W 35),99 -� ry I I i b, dl i Ir T Lij Q $I Is /� I LI J gl� T I o Q I St -1 uj t5'DtR A S �) NOT A PART ,y N T�,a WI — _ — 1o, y r i _ �N nl L * LS 4la0 k I CURVE TABLE v \$. EMPgTl a /ao /w RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CI 13804 4.04 01`5451 C7 0� '1 }q +`T C j 11.95 161_8.1 R` W GL1fC�. C3__ 11 5 615 C2 t4 10' �4 0 tl� 14C7 6 _.4 R . 2 •5.00 1 4^ t' 8_ /�S,D; bI I /ryy966` �l, �I ! PROVED BY i OATS 5 —c -U L9 r LB i J _ _ _ ti43 2? Exhibit C Legal Description of SOCCCD Property on Amendment Effective Date (Area H2) ( #1202859) 5764 4406N ONO3 1 193093.11 ?/13/14 I: BKF PNOINr EIS SURVEYORS PUNNERS SOCCCD Prouerty on Effective Date w/ ROW Tustin, CA AREA H2 Portion of APN: 430- 283 -16 and 430- 283 -18 And all of 430 -283 -10 and 430 - 283 -09 May 06, 2014 BKF No. 20122006 -13 Page I of 5 Real property situated in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of PARCEL I -E -LI, as said parcel is described in that certain document entitled, "QUITCLAIM DEED AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTION PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 1471 ", filed for record on April 29, 2004 in Document No. 2004000369376, And a portion of PARCEL IV -1 -6 and all of PARCEL W- J -7,.as said parcels are described in that certain document entitled "SHORT FORM NOTICE OF LEASE IN FURTHERANCE OF CONVEYANCE ", filed for record on May 14, 2002 in Document No. 20020404590, And a portion of PARCEL I -E -2 as said parcel is described in that certain document entitled ,,QUITCLAIM DEED E AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTION PURSUANT'r0 CIVIL CODE SECTION 1471 ", filed for record on May 14, 2002 in Document No. 20020404595, Records of Orange County, more particularly described as follows; AREA 112: COMMENCING at the most northwesterly corner of said PARCEL I -E -2; Thence along the northwesterly line of said PARCEL I -E -2, the following live (5) courses: I. North 40 037'39" East, 50.00 feel; 2. South 49 °22'21" East, 12.00 feet; 3. North 40 037'39" East, 180.00 feel; 4. North 49 °22'21" West, 12.00 feet; 5. North 40 037'39" East, 343.98 feet the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said northwesterly the following ter. (10) courses: 1. North 40 037'39" East, 376.02 feet; 2. North 49 °22'21" West, 5.00 feet; 3. North 4003739" East, 797.69 feet; Page 1 of 4. SonLl: 49022'21" East, 13 1.8 1 feet to the beginning of tangent curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 25.00 feet; 5. Along said curve, through a central angle of31 001'38 ", for an arc length of 13.54 feet; 6. South 80 023'59" East, 76.58 feet; 7. South 86 °54'41" East, 259.66 feet the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 1450 feet; 8. Easterly and northerly along said curve, through a central angle of 86 °28'53 ", for an arc length or 21.89 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve, having a radius of 362.00 feet; 9. Northerly and northeasterly along said reverse curve to the right through a central angle of 33 053'17 ", for an urc length of 214.11 feet; Ill. North 40 029'44" East, 282.84 feet to the northeasterly line of said PARCEL 1 -E - L1; Thence continuing along said northeasterly line said PARCEL I- F -1.1, South 47 019'39" East, 44.34 feet; Thence corainuing along last said northeasterly line of said PARCEL I- E -1.1, the fullowing four (4) courses: I. North 85 040'06" East; 24.04 feet; 2. South 49019'54" East, 9.96 feet to the begiruting of a tangent curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 3,108.58 feel; 3. Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 02 °18'05 ", for an arc length of 124.86 Feet to the beginning ofa reverse curve, having a radius of 3,092.58 feet; 4. Southeasterly along said reverse curve through a central angle of 02 °t 8'05 ", for an arc length of 124.22 feet; Thence continuing along said northeasterly line and the northeasterly line ofsaid parcel IV -J-6, the following sixteen (16) courses: I. South 49'19'54" East, 313.83 feet to the beginning of tangent curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 1,447.04 feel; 2. Along said curve, duough a central angle of 01023'53 ", for an arc length of 35.31 feet; 3. South 04 058'49" East, 24.36 feet; 4. South 54 027'57" East, 56.24 feet; 5. North 83 015'15" East, 22.96 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve concave to the northeast, having radius of 1,447.04 feet, to which point a radial line bears South 35 044'30" West; 6. Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 11 053'59 ", for an arc length of 300.54 feet; Page 2 of 5 7. South 66 °09'29" East, 52.51 feel; B. South 21 °09'25" East, 24.04 feet; 9. South 68'1T15 " East, 6236feet; 10. Thence North 64 009'20" East, 23.85 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 1,090.18 feet, to which point a radial line bears South 19°14'54" West; 11. Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 04 056'38 ", for an arc length of 94.07 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, having a radius of 1,464.04 feet; 12. Along said curve, through a central angle of 00 °41'45 ", for an are length of 17.78 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve, having a radius of 142.00 feet; 13. Along said reverse curve through a central angle of 11 °54'29 ", for an arc length of 29.51 feet; 14. South 64029'00" East, 15.88 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 158.00 feet; 15. Along said curve, through a central angle of 14 052'27 ", for an arc length of 41.02 feet; 16. South 79 021'27" East, 218.54 feet to the southeasterly line of said PARCEL, IV -J -6; Thence leaving said line and along said southeasterly line the following eleven (11) courses: I. South 31 020'58" East, 40.12 feet; to the beginning of a non tangent curve, concave to the west, I•i.aving a radius of 1,354.04 feet, to which point a radial line bears South 73`20'33" East; 2. Southerly along said curve, through a central angle of 02 °02'49 ", for an arc length of 48.38 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, having a radius of 42.00 feet; 3. Southwesterly, along said compound curve through a central angle of 16011,24", for an arc length off 1.87 feet; 4. South 34 053'40" West, 33.43 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave the east, having a radius of 58.00 feet; 5. Along said curve, through a central angle of 13`44'05 ", for an arc length or 13.90 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve, having a radius of 1,3420.04 feet; 6. Southerly along said reverse curve to through a central angle of 02'27'21" for an are length of 57.52 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve, having a radius of 58.00 feet; 7. Southerly, along said reverse curve through a central angle of 13 044'05 ", for an arc length of 13.90 fact; 8. South 09 °52'51" West, 33.43 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the northwest, having a radius of 42.00 feet; Page 3 of 5 9. Along said curve, through a central angle of 16'1 1'24 ", for an are length of 11.87 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, having a radius of 1,354.04 feet; 10. Along said compound curve through a central angle of 23027'25 ", for an are length of 55434 feet; I I. North 15 °49'01" West, 382.89 feet to the southeasterly line of said PARCEL IV -J -7; Thence leaving said southeasterly line of said PARCEL IV -3-6 and along the southeasterly line of said PARCEL IV-J-7, South 71'36'25" West, 351.77 feel, Thence continuing along said southeasterly line of said APARCF;L IV -J -7 and continuing along said southeasterly line of PARCEL IV-1-6, North 77038'59" West, 256.30 feet; "(hence along the southeasterly line of said PARCEL IV-J-6, the following four (4) courses: I. South 40 038'46" West, 486.27 feet; 2. South 49 °21'14" East, 459.00 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve concave to the - southeast, having a radius of 1,446.04 feet, to which point a radial line bears North 29 °41'43" West; 3. Southwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 21'07'46", for an arc length of 533.27 feet: 4. South 39'10'31" West, 163.56 feet to the southwesterly line of said PARCEL IV -J -6; Thence along last said southwesterly line, North 33057'12" West, 70.07 feet to the westerly line of said PARCEL IV -J -6; "Thence leaving said southwesterly line and along said westerly tine, North 09 021'06" East, 300.94 feet to the southeasterly line ofsaid PARCEL I- E -1.1; Thence along last said southeasterly line the lollowing four (4) courses: I. Noah 50049'29" West, 398.40 feet; 2. South 409915" West, 88.79 feet; 3. North 50 °0815" West. 157.68 feet 4. South 39 °51'45" West, 231.82 feet; Thence leaving last said line, North 49'20'45" West, 213.37 feet; Thence North 409915" East, 20.88 feet; Thence North 49020'45" West, 718.34 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 4 of 5 Containing a total area of 2,838,194 square feet, 65.156 acres more or less. Being a portion of Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 430 - 283 -16 and 430 - 283 -18. Being all of Assessor Parcel Numbers 430- 283 -09 and 430 - 283 -10. As shown on "Schedule I" attached hereto and made a part hereof. For: BKF Engineers By: Davis I hresh, P.L.S. No. 6868 License expires: 09 -30 -2014 Date: _ K]Sur 121122M61 AATEP Land Swup N. Ls DWCANIAMLAND EXCHANGE. LEGALS +AREA ILdue Page 5 o r 5 RED HELL AVEHUE P.O.C. L1 N 40'37'39' E N 40'37'39" E AREA HI-1, `N 40'3739" E 343.98' 376.02' � _ 180.00' AREA H2 - AREAS B. C, D, Z 3, 4, 5, 11, 12A and 128 J SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 °. FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES N LEGEND APN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT T.P.0.8. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING m 1Q DOC, N0. 2004000396376 a 7� DAMS THRESH No. 6868 Yd N 40'37'39" E 797.89' 200.42' 4'. 1.4 1 T.P.O.B. AREA H1 AREA B PARCEL I -E -2 DOC. NO. 20020404595 APN: 430 - 283 -18 AREA H2 2.838.194 sR.(t.± 65.156 acres± o AREA 12A U PARCEL I -E -1.1 DOC. NO. 2004 - 000369376 f APN: 430- 283 -16 S 39'51'45` W Z 231.82' o - S 40'39'15' W 88.79' AWN �. Z am 9D ka N 33'57'12" W 70.07'_ S 39'10'31" W 163.56' A AREA 12B PARCELIV -J -6 DOC. NO. 20020404590 A F' MMJ'AJ[1 F *Jnd(c A 1L #NjP11F R= 1446.04' A--21'07'45" L- 533.27' Cl) AREA 6 w N W x w w J x r i AREA C 9 CS d d M9 wr © AREA 4 � AREA D Q a� w m O A m \9 9�3., W F:s 12\122M.13 AYU Punbw EC MM PUM\ME +N.0M PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL Subject SCHEDULE i SUIT WILLOW ft0 SUITE 250 AREA H2 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 Job No. 20122006 925- 396 -7700 By MR Date 05 /06/14 Chkd.W§ L -1.sn�+�t��� 925- 396 -7799 (FAX) SHEET 1 OF 3 N 40'37'39° E 797.89' 03 Lu Z w Q J J w W U G a a S 49'22'21" E 131.81' �n N N `f � WO Q IN Lu - o JO U� <Z a 0 0 RED HOdd &VENUE AREA 16 — PARCEL I -E -4 C1 DOC. NO. 2004-000369376 OD N W A f1 Ny d AREA D C9 GS AREA 4 PARCEL IV -J -6 L17 r 9 DOC. NO. 20020404590 APN: 430- 283 -09 1-19 5 35'44'30" W (R) R =1447.04' C= 71'53'59" c 4n•1R'46 "W 486.27 L= 300.54' LAHSOO ME AREA 10 PARCEL IV -J -4 DOC, NO. 20020404590 APN: 430- 282 -11 1 PARCEL IV -J -5 DOC. NO. °s. 1 � 2 sY L20 J W 6, O0, PARCEL IV -J -7 N w z ^ N 40'29'44" E G ,p L w R= 362.00' 282.84' /L w C2 6-33'53'17" R =3108.58' z AREA H2 L =21 -.11 a 216os" ?s• 5 g�A� L24 L= 124.86' C13- _ 2.838,194 sq.ft.t (124.83')(1 �� ?� v r 65.156 -crest R= 3092.58' vVJl 1v/ a L=124.22' Ny AREA C Ct C16 1L 26 PARCEL I -E -1J 0 MI DOC. N0, 2004 - 000369376 QQ' C17 ? L= 554.34' C1 C14 �/ C15 APN: 430 - 283 -10 0 u w Q OD N W A f1 Ny d AREA D C9 GS AREA 4 PARCEL IV -J -6 L17 r 9 DOC. NO. 20020404590 APN: 430- 283 -09 1-19 5 35'44'30" W (R) R =1447.04' C= 71'53'59" c 4n•1R'46 "W 486.27 L= 300.54' LAHSOO ME AREA 10 PARCEL IV -J -4 DOC, NO. 20020404590 APN: 430- 282 -11 1 PARCEL IV -J -5 DOC. NO. Z � L20 L21— W °o O0, PARCEL IV -J -7 N p, 4 DOC. N0. 20020404590 L23 m APN: 430 - 283 -10 10 S• W lR C12 ctt / ,AREA 11 AREA 15 ?s• 5 g�A� L24 PARCEL IV -J -8 C13- � DOC. NO. 20020404590 moo+ �� ?� APN: 430 - 283 -11 N vVJl 1v/ Ct C16 1L 26 R =1354.04' L27 6= 23'27'25" r `� �/ QQ' C17 ? L= 554.34' C1 C14 �/ C15 C19 WILLOW RD Subject SCHEDULE 1 SUIT swrE zsD AREA H2 yc PLEASANTON, CA 94588 Job No. 20122006 - 925- 396 -7700 By MR Date 05/06/14 Chkd.WW_ E�lsmw wlpu� 925- 396 -7799 (FAX) SHEET 2 OF 3 Exhibit D Legal Description of SOCCCD Property after County Exchange (Area 12) (#1202860) 5 7 64-1106 2OZI D440311 193093.11 5/13/14 BKF May 06, 2013 BKF No. 201 ?2006 -I } Page] of 4 EMGIMIL¢S'Sa¢YEVORt POWMEtS SOCCCD Properl% after Countv Exchange w /ROW 'Tustin, CA AREA 12 Portion of APN: 430- 283 -16, 430- 283 -18 and 430- 283 -09 And all of 430- 283 -10 and 430 -283 -11 Real property situated in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of PARCEL I- E -1.1, as said parcel is described in that certain document entitled, "QUITCLAIM DEED AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTION PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 1471", filed for record on April 29, 2004 in Document No. 2004000369376, And a portion of PARCEL IV -J -6 and all of PARCEL IV -1 -7 and PARCEL IV -J -8 as said parcels are described in that certain document entitled "SHORT FORM NOTICE OF LEASE IN FURTHERANCE OF CONVEYANCE ", filed for record on May 14, 2002 in Document No. 20020404590, And a portion of PARCEL I -E -2 as said parcel is described in that certain document entitled "QUITCLAIM DEED E AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTION PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 1471 ", filed for record on May 14, 2002 in Document No. 20020404595, Records of Orange County, more particularly described as follows; AREA 12: COMMENCING at the most northwesterly corner of said PARCEL I -E -2; 'thence along the northwesterly line of said PARCEL I -E -2, the following five (5) courses: 1. North 40037'39" East, 50.00 feet; 2. South 49 °22'21" East, 12.00 feet; 3. North 40 °37'39" East, 180.00 feet; 4. North 49 °2221" West, 12.00 feet; 5. North 40037'39" East, 343.98 feet the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said northwesterly and continuing along the northwesterly liner of said PARCEL. I -E -I.1 line the following ten (10) courses: I. North 40 037'39" East, 376.02 feet; 2. North 49 °22'21" West, 5.00 feet; 3. North 40 °37'39" East, 797.89 feet; 4. South 49 022'21 " East, 131.81 feet to the beginning of 'a tangent curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 25.00 feet; Page 1 of 5. Along said curve, through a cenhaI angle of 31 °01'38 ", for an arc IengtIt of 1354 feet; 6. South 80 023'59" East, 76.58 feet; 7. South 86 °54'41" East, 259.66 feet the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the northwest, having a radius of 14.50 feet; 8. Along said curve, through a central angle of 86 °28'53 ", for an arc length of 21.89 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve, having a radius of 362.00 feet; 9. Along said reverse curve to the right through a central angle of 33 053'17 ", for an arc length of 214.11 feet; 10. North 40°29'44" East, 282.84 feet to the northeasterly corner of PARCEL I- E -1,1; Thence continuing along the northeasterly line of said PARCEL I- E -1.1, South 47 019'39" East, 44.34 feet; Thence continuing along last said northeasterly line of said PARCEL I -E -1.1 the following four (4) courses: 1. North 85 040'06" East, 24.04 feet; 2. South 49019'54" East, 9.96 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 3,108.59 feet; 3. Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 02 °18'05 ", for an arc length of 124.86 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve, having a radius of 3,092.58 feet; 4. Southeasterly along said reverse curve through a central angle of 02 018'05 ", for an arc length of 12422 feet; Thence continuing along said northeasterly line and the northeasterly line of said parcel IV -J -6, the following sixteen (16) courses: I. South 49 019'54" East, 313.83 feet to the beginning of tangent curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 1,447.04 feet; 2. Along said curve, through a central angle of 01 °23'53 ", for an arc length of 35.31 feet-, 3. South 04 058'49" East, 24.36 feet; 4. South 54 027'57" East, 56.24 feet; S. North 83° 15'15" East, 22.96 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve concave to the northeast, having radius of 1,447.04 feet to which point a radial line bears South 35 °44'30" West; 6. Along said curve, through a central angle of 11 °53'59 ", for an arc length of 300.54 feet; 7. South 66°09'29" East, 52.51 feet; Page 2 of 4 8. South 21'09'25" East, 24.04 feet, 9. South 68'11 T15" East, 6236 feet; 10. Thence North 64 00920" East, 23.85 feet to the begiuning of a non tangent curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 1,090.18 feet; 11. Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 04 056'38 ", for an arc length of 94.07 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, having a radius of 1,464.04 feet; 12. Along said curve, through a central angle of 00 °41'45 ", for an arc length of 17.78 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve, having a radius of 142.00 feet; 13. Along said reverse curve through a central angle of 11 054'29 ", for an we length of 29.51 feet; 14. South 64 °29'00" East, 15.88 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the northeast, having a radios of 158.00 feet; 15. Along said curve, through a central angle of 14 052'27 ", for an arc length of 41.02 feet; 16. South 79 °21'27" East, 218.54 feet to the southeasterly line of said PARCEL IV -J -6; Thence leaving said line and along said southeasterly line the following twelve (12) courses: I. South 31020'58" East, 40.12 feet; to the beginning of a non tangent curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 1,354.04 feet, to which point a radial lire bears South 73 020'33" East; 2. Southerly along said curve, through a central angle of 02 002'49 ", for an arc length of 48.38 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, having a radius of 42.00 feet; 3. Southwesterly along said compound curve through a central angle of 16 011'24 ", for an arc length of 11.87 feet; 4. South 34 053'40" West, 33.43 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave the east, having a radius of 58.00 feet; 5. Along said curve, through a central angle of 13 044'05 ", for an are length of 13.90 feet to the beginning of a reverse, having a radius of 1,342.04 feet; 6. Southerly along said reverse curve to through a central angle of 02 °27'21" for an arc length of 57.52 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve, having a radius of 58.00 feet; 7. Southerly, along said reverse curve through a central angle of 13 044'05 ", for an are length of 13.90 feet; 8. South 09 °52'51" West, 33.42 feet to the beginning of a tangent concave to the northwest, having a radius of 42.00 feet; 9.. Southwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 16 °I 1'24 ", for an arc length of 11.87 feet; to the beginning of a compound curve, having a radius of 1,354.04 feet; Page 3 of 4 1 0 . Southwesterly, along a compound curve through a c e ntral angle of 41 °31'35 ", for an arc length of 981.37 feet; _ It. South 67 035'50" West 139.46 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the southeast, having a radius of 1,446.04 feet; 12. Thence along said curve, through a central angle of 14 °13'35 ", for an arc length of 359.05 feet; Thence leaving said southeasterly line, North 090 19'25" East, 37.52 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve, having a radius of 1,354.00 feel, to which point a radial line bears North 55016'36" East; Thence along said curve, through a central angle of 14 03750 ", for an arc length of 345.75 feet; Thence North 49 °21'14" West, 47.55 feel; Thence North 50 °48'31" West, 611.91 feet; Thence South 409915" West, 615.85 feet; Thence North 49 020'45" West, 718.34 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing an area of 2,838,645 square feet, or 65.166 acres more or less. Being a portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers: 430. 283 -16, 430 - 283 -18 and 430. 283 -09 And all of Assessor Parcel Numbers 430 - 283 -10 and 430 -10 -11 As shown on "Schedule I" attached hereto and made a part hereof. For: BKF Engineers By: Davis Thresh, P.L.S. No. 6868 License expires: 09- 30.2014 Date: K9S.,1212006 13 Al UP land Swap PUe 'D WGV IAIN%L.Vdn E.XCHA VGE LLG.NI.SV\REA I doe Page 4 of 4 RIED MOLL pW12HUE P.O.C. Ll N 40'37'39" E N 40'37'39" E N 40 AREA It�, N 40'37'39" E 343.98' 376.02' 200.42' 1 180.00' — L2 L3 L4 E 797.89' TOTAL AREA 1 3,060,594 sq.fl.t 70.262 ocres3 DAVIS THRESH No. 6868 L28 LO R =1354.00' Q 6= 14'37'50' LU L= 345.75' Q >ARA 126 ��ll PARCEL IV -J -6 DOC. NO. 20020404590 N 55'16'36" E 6=14'13'35' &OI SMON® AVENUIE L =359.05* N SUP13�13]OOB.1J Aire P n\DW \[1U a R M \AREA LOWL PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL 4670 WILLOW RD Subject SCHEDULE 1 SUITE 250 AREA 12 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 Job No. 20122006 5....' 925- 398 -7700 By MR Date 05/06/14 Chkd.g- — u�ls�ve�l�u� 925- 396 -7799 (FAX) SHEET 1 OF 3 �T.P.0.8. AREA 11 I AREA B Q AREA 6 Z PARCEL I —E -2 W AREA 12 = AREAS B. C. D, 3, 4, it AND 15 DOC. NO. 20020404595 y APN: 430- 283 -18 � SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 0 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLES > w LEGEND AREA 12 APN ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 2,838,644 sq.ft.t w y P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING 65.166 OCresi P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT w T.P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING 1O DOC. NO. 2004000369376 a x a AREA C a S 40'39'15" W 615.85' ml AREA 12A Q M1 PARCEL 1 —E -1.1 z DOC. NO. 2004 - 000369376 u, A APN: 430- 283 -16 Q i m ® AREA 4 s � O1 tp A. AREA D TOTAL AREA 1 3,060,594 sq.fl.t 70.262 ocres3 DAVIS THRESH No. 6868 L28 LO R =1354.00' Q 6= 14'37'50' LU L= 345.75' Q >ARA 126 ��ll PARCEL IV -J -6 DOC. NO. 20020404590 N 55'16'36" E 6=14'13'35' &OI SMON® AVENUIE L =359.05* N SUP13�13]OOB.1J Aire P n\DW \[1U a R M \AREA LOWL PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL 4670 WILLOW RD Subject SCHEDULE 1 SUITE 250 AREA 12 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 Job No. 20122006 5....' 925- 398 -7700 By MR Date 05/06/14 Chkd.g- — u�ls�ve�l�u� 925- 396 -7799 (FAX) SHEET 1 OF 3 N 40'37'39" E 797.89' m W NL9 a d d Q W S 49'2221- E 131.81' N N N < (Q I O Q w W I N F —O W JD W U N h <z w a m Ci W O p J U C AREA 16 PARCEL I -E -4 Cl DOC. NO. CO, 2004- 000369376 0, APN: 430 - 283 -05 mss. 2s SY. 6 Yla N R= 362.00' C2 6= 33'53'17" AREA 12 L= 214.11' 2,838,645 sq.fl.t 65.166 ocresi AREA C PARCEL I -E -1.1 DOC. NO. 2004- 000369376 APN: 430 - 283 -10 6= 2.18'05" L =124.86' (124.83') i0- R= 3092.58' 6=2'18'05" L =124.22' -29 AREA D 9 "1 AREA 10 AREA 4 PARCEL IV -J -6 L16 r PARCEL IV -J-4 DOC. N0. 20020404590 DOC. N0. APN: 430 - 283 -09 L18 20020404590 APN: 430 - 282 -it S 3_5.44'30 W (R) PARCEL IV -J -5 DOC. NO. R =1447.04' 20020404590 6=11.53'59 APN: 430- 282 -10 L =300.54' BKF 8®lftwq lr� PARCEL IV -J -7 DOC, NO. 200204045 � APN: 430 - 283 -10 R= 1354.04' 6= 41'31'35" L= 981.37' 4670 WILLOW RD SUITE 250 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925- 396 -7700 925- 396 -7799 (FAX) N iR C3 Cllr C13 C1 I 'c. Q� .h Subject SCHEDULE 1 AREA 12 Job No. 20122006 By IAR— Date 05/05/114 Chkd.WS SHEET 2 OF 3 11 AREA 15 rAREA PARCEL IV -J -8 DOC. NO. 200204D4590 S 6� APN: 430- 283 -11 R =1446.04' 36.0 73946` a 14'13'35" %Y L= 359.05' l8]Ivike q®'V'Q W /1r��, pn BKF 8®lftwq lr� PARCEL IV -J -7 DOC, NO. 200204045 � APN: 430 - 283 -10 R= 1354.04' 6= 41'31'35" L= 981.37' 4670 WILLOW RD SUITE 250 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925- 396 -7700 925- 396 -7799 (FAX) N iR C3 Cllr C13 C1 I 'c. Q� .h Subject SCHEDULE 1 AREA 12 Job No. 20122006 By IAR— Date 05/05/114 Chkd.WS SHEET 2 OF 3 Exhibit E Revised LUAP ( #1202880) 5764 -04062 \121D403 \1193093.11 5113/14 x J WQ Q M1139 r ~~ i +rasr�lrK�,. 0 N w G 0 OEW 3u I I 1 /I 7fi1d7AY �IMY�V{ AIAlR! g d f� 0 R 3 °d J N H m a � � •I N a U. .� to ..1 w fil W} 9 I W 0 a, a 1 3m -6 a 6 -:6 fr o Z x J WQ Q M1139 r ~~ i +rasr�lrK�,. 0 N w G 0 OEW 3u I I 1 /I 7fi1d7AY �IMY�V{ AIAlR! g d f� 0 R 3