Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-ATTACHMENT G (CITY COUNTY RESO NO. 15-57 - ENVIRONMENTAL) ATTACHMENT G City Council Resolution No. 15-57 Environmental RESOLUTION NO. 15-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE FINAL JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MCAS TUSTIN FEIS/EIR), AS AMENDED BY SUPPLEMENT AND ADDENDUMS, IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-02, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2015-001, CONCEPT PLAN 2015-003, SUBDIVISION 2015-03/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2015-127, DESIGN REVIEW 2015-014, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2015-11 THROUGH 2015-17 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2015-23 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 248,292 SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL CENTER WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF NEIGHBORHOOD B OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by 1C Tustin Legacy LLC (Regency Centers) for the development of a 248,292 square foot commercial center on approximately 22.7-acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin within Planning Area 7 of the MCAS Tustin Specific plan. B. That the development application includes the following requests: 1. Specific Plan Amendment 2015-02, an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, to add acute care/rehabilitation facility and skilled nursing facility as a conditionally permitted use within Planning Area 7 and increase the allowable maximum building height from forty-five (45) feet to fifty-five (55) feet for medical centers and sixty (60) feet for acute care/rehabilitation facilities. 2. Development Agreement 2015-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 22.7-acre site within the boundaries of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 3. Concept Plan 2015-003 to develop a new 248,292 square-foot commercial center with multiple uses including general retail, restaurants, bank, childcare, pharmacy, medical office and acute care/rehabilitation facility and ensure necessary linkages are provided between the development project, the integrity of the specific plan and purpose and intent of the neighborhood is maintained, and applicable city requirements are identified and satisfied. City Council Resolution No. 15-57 Page 2 4. Tentative Parcel Map 2015-127 to subdivide an approximately 22.7- acre site into thirteen (13) numbered lots and four (4) lettered lots for the development of a neighborhood commercial center with multiple uses. 5. Design Review 2015-014 for the design and site layout of a 22.7-acre site into a neighborhood commercial center with multiple uses. 6. Conditional Use Permits 2015-11 through 2015-17 and 2015-23 for acute care/rehabilitation, pharmacy drive-thru, restaurant drive-thru, bank drive-thru, master sign plan, childcare and joint use parking uses. C. That the site is zoned as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP1) within Planning Area 7 of Neighborhood B; and designated as MCAS Tustin by the Tustin General Plan. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on August 25, 2015, by the Planning Commission. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 4285 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on September 15, 2015, by the City Council and that the City Council continued the item to October 20, 2015. F. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin An Environmental Checklist attached hereto as Exhibit A has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. City Council Resolution No. 15-57 Page 3 G. That in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the checklist has been considered and found to be complete and adequate prior to approving the project as proposed. II. The City Council hereby finds that the project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/FEIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15168 (c) and 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 20th day of October, 2015. CHARLES E. PUCKETT MAYOR ATTEST: ERICA N. RABE CITY CLERK City Council Resolution No. 15-57 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 15-57 ERICA N. RABE, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 15-57 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 20th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: ERICA N. RABE, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 15-57 Environmental Checklist COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Alp.0 * 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 SpTaa % (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): The Village at Tustin Legacy Commercial Center. Development Agreement 2015-001, Specific Plan Amendment 2015-02, Concept Plan 2015-003, Design Review 2015-014, and Subdivision 2015-03 / Tentative Parcel Map 2015-127, and Conditional Use Permits 2015-11, 2015-12, 2015-13, 2015-14, 2015-15, 2015-16 and 2015-17. Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Edmelynne Hutter Phone: (714) 573-3174 Project Location: Disposition Parcel IC is an area bounded by Kensington Park Drive to the north, Edinger Avenue to the east, Tustin Ranch Road to the south, and Valencia Avenue to the west, within Planning Area 7 of Neighborhood B, MCAS-Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy). Project Sponsor's Name and Address: IC Tustin Legacy LLC (Regency Centers) c/o Mr. John Mehigan 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District/ Village Services Project Description: Development Agreement 2015-001, Specific Plan Amendment 2015-02, Concept Plan 2015-003, Design Review 2015-014, and Subdivision 2015-03 / Tentative Parcel Map 2015-127, and Conditional Use Permits 2015-11, 2015-12, 2015-13, 2015-14, 2015-15, 2015-16 and 2015-17 are development applications for the purpose of developing a commercial center (The Village at Tustin Legacy). Development of a multiple use commercial center with a total of 248,292 square feet of commercial, office, and acute care/rehabilitation uses. • Surrounding Uses: North: Kensington Park Drive and Columbus Square Residential Development East: Edinger Avenue, railroad track, drainage channel, and existing single family residences beyond South: Tustin Ranch Road and Vacant land in MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Planning Area 15 West: Valencia Avenue and vacant land in MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Planning Area 8 Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ['Hazards and Hazardous Materials nPopulation and Housing ❑Noise ['Geology and Soils ❑Public Services ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Utilities and Service Systems nAir Quality ❑Aesthetics (Transportation & Circulation [Cultural Resources ['Biological Resources ❑Recreation nMineral Resources [Mandatory Findings of ['Agricultural Resources Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have. been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed/� upon the proposed project. �/ Preparer: // !i Pccoen/24/5 Date: 27/24/5 Edmelyn Hutter, Senior Planner /i / ! Date it/gt f e— Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract'? 0 ❑ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? 0 ❑ III. AIR DUALITY: Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation'? 0 ❑ 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)? ❑ 0 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California • Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ 0 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? ❑ 0 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ 0 1) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? 0 ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§ 15064.5? ❑ ❑ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries'? ❑ 0 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving: • No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ El c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? ❑ ❑ d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property'? ❑ ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ VI .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? ❑ ❑ El 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? 0 ❑ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ El d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard"for people residing or working in the project area? 0 ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Impacts Analysis adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: —Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? • ❑ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ❑ ❑ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ❑ t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0 ❑ j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or Impact Impacts Analysis regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan'? ❑ ❑ X. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ XI. NOISE— Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in • excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? ❑ ❑ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? ❑ ❑ t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels'? ❑ ❑ XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING—Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ 0 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ El XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for'new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ El Schools? ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION— a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ El b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ El c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ 0 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ g) Comply with federal,state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? 0 0 • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Village at Tustin Legacy Development Agreement 2015-001, Specific Plan Amendment 2015-02, Concept Plan 2015-003, Design Review 2015-014, Subdivision 2015-03/Tentative Parcel Map 2015-127, and Conditional Use Permits 2015-11, 2015-12, 2015-13, 2015-14, 2015-15, 2015-16 and 2015-17 BACKGROUND On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan/MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR analyzed a multi-year development period for a planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the City of Tustin as lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana (1-5), Laguna (SR-133) and San Diego (I- 405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the northwest, ' Edinger Avenue on the northeast, Harvard Avenue on the southeast, and Barranca Parkway on the southwest. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 2 approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the northeast providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is comprised of approximately 22.7 gross acres located within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy) boundaries affecting only Disposition Parcel 1C. The project site is bounded by Edinger Avenue to the east, Tustin Ranch Road to the south, Valencia Avenue to the west, and Kensington Park Drive to the north within Planning Area 7 of Neighborhood B, MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development Agreement 2015-001, Specific Plan Amendment 2015-02, Concept Plan 2015- 003, Design Review 2015-014, Subdivision 2015-03 / Tentative Parcel Map 2015-127, and Conditional Use Permits 2015-11 through 2015-17 are development applications for the purpose of developing a commercial center(The Village at Tustin Legacy). The project consists of a multiple-use commercial center with a total of 248,292 square feet of commercial/office uses comprised of two major components: a retail center with grocery, daycare, food uses, bank, general retail and drugstore fronting on Valencia Avenue; and a medical office and an acute care/rehabilitation facility fronting on Kensington Park Drive. A number of the uses include a drive-thru element, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, Conditional Use Permits are required for the proposed childcare center, acute care/rehabilitation center, and master sign plan. • The project will take access at the following locations: • Edinger Avenue: Single point of access. Right-in/right-out driveway • Kensington Park Drive: Two points of access. One full movement access point at the existing traffic signal at Georgia Street, and a second full movement driveway into the retail center between Georgia Street and Valencia Avenue; and • Valencia Avenue: Two points of access. One right-in/right-out driveway, and a central driveway with right-in/right-out and left-out movements. Improvements to the public right-of-way are proposed for Valencia Avenue (addition of a right turn lane into the southernmost project driveway) and Kensington Park Drive (median modifications and parkway improvements), and Edinger Avenue (turn lane). Infrastructure, including water, sewer, and storm drain, will be extended into the site from existing utilities in adjacent roads. Structural Best Management Practices (BMPS) are proposed on-site to comply with water quality requirements. As shown on the attached site plan in more detail (Attachment A), the proposed uses are detailed below: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 3 Table 1 Project Summary Use . , .,� 'Building Reference',t' Building GBA(sf.)___._ General Retail/Food Service C, E, F, G, I 28,563* Market B 43,829 Drug Store/Pharmacy w/drive-thru D 14,576 Bank/Financial Institution w/drive-thru H 3,324 Childcare Center/School A 8,000** Subtotal 98,292 Office/Retail J, L 15,000 Medical Office K 60,000 Acute Care/Rehabilitation M 75,000(80 Beds) Subtotal 150,000 TOTAL 248,292 Notes: •Represents maximum square footage. If the alternative for Building I is implemented(with a drive-thru)the total will be reduced by 1,500 sf for a total General Retail/Food Service of 27,063 sf. *Childcare center also includes a 10,968 square foot playground/outdoor play area. Generally the applications can be described as follows: • Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2015-002: Section 3.4.4.A.3 (Office uses) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan does not allow for Acute Care/Rehabilitation facilities, although medical offices are permitted. The proposed project would include an amendment to the Specific Plan to allow Acute Care/Rehabilitation facilities and similar uses as a conditionally permitted medical office use. An amendment to the maximum building height from 45 feet to a proposed height of 60 feet is also proposed for the acute care building (Building M) and to 54 feet for the medical office building (Building K). These buildings are subject to California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) building requirements which include specialized air handling equipment which require additional floor height for these three-story buildings. • • Development Agreement (DA) 2015-001: Pursuant to Section 4.2.9 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, prior to issuance of any permits or approval of any entitlements within the Specific Plan area, all private development shall first obtain a Development Agreement in accordance with the State's Government Code and Tustin City Code. The purpose of the Development Agreement is to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce economic risk of development. Accordingly, Regency Centers has submitted a Development Agreement to further the purpose and intent of the General Plan and Specific Pan, and Final EIS/EIR and will ensure the orderly implementation of infrastructure and development. The Development Agreement also includes obligations that ensure adequate local infrastructure programs are in place to support the proposed development. • Concept Plan (CP) 2015-003: Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, a Concept Plan shall be prepared and submitted concurrent with the submission of a new development proposal. The purpose of a Concept Plan is to ensure: necessary linkages are provided between the development project, the integrity of the Specific Plan and purpose and intent of the neighborhood is maintained, and applicable City requirements are identified Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 4 and satisfied. CP 2015-003 has been prepared and submitted concurrently with the proposal to develop a multiple-use commercial center. The Concept Plan shows necessary linkages, required portal intersection, primary community intersection treatment, and viewscape into the site, along with applicable City requirements which have been demonstrated through submitted plans. • Design Review (DR) 2015-014: Pursuant to Section 4.2.4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, following or concurrently with submittal and approval of a Concept Plan, individual development shall require Site Plan and Design Review in accordance with the Tustin City Code. DR 2015-014 has been proposed for the project site planning and design. The proposed project design and site layout are consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan and complies with design review criteria prescribed in the Tustin City Code. • Subdivision 2015-03 / Tentative Parcel Map 2015-127: This Tentative Parcel Map is a subdivision of the approximately 22 acre site into 13 numbered lots and four lettered lots for the development of a multiple-use commercial center. Reciprocal access easements are identified for shared access among the lots of the commercial center. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-11: A Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a 75,000 square foot/80 bed acute care/rehabilitation facility/rehabilitation/convalescent care facility (Building M) subject to approval of the SPA 2015-002, which adds this use to the list of conditionally permitted office uses. The use is parked to the Municipal Code requirement for hospitals. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-12: A Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a drive-thru associated with a 14,576 square foot drug store/pharmacy(Building D). • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-13: A Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a drive-thru associated with a 3,300 square foot restaurant pad (Building E). • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-14: A Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a drive-thru associated with a 3,324 square foot bank/financial institution (Building H). • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-15: A Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a drive-thru associated with a 4,500 square foot restaurant, as an alternate use for Building • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-16: A Conditional Use Permit related to a master sign plan for the commercial center. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-17: A Conditional Use Permit to allow development of an 8,000 square foot childcare center/school with 10,968 square foot outdoor playground (Building A). The use is consistent with the criteria outlined in Section 9271(aa) of the Tustin Municipal Code. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2015-23: A Conditional Use Permit to allow Joint Use Parking for the Medical Plaza area (Parcels 10, 11, 12 and 13). Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 5 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 alternatives 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. I. AESTHETICS—Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project is for the development of a 248,292 square foot commercial center within the Village Services area (Neighborhood B, Planning Area 7) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The project is consistent with the maximum intensity identified in the Specific Plan as well as the setbacks, height (upon amendment), and design elements identified in the Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan with the approval of a proposed Specific Plan Amendment to allow for the proposed acute care/rehabilitation facility and medical office building with a height of 60 feet and 54 feet respectively, required to accommodate the specialized utilities in this type of specialized use. The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The original FEIR/EIS evaluated aesthetic impacts of redevelopment of the property and the proposed project would result in similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. Visual changes that were not considered significant in the original environmental analysis would result from: changing the agricultural lands, aircraft parking aprons, and open areas to • Commercial/ Business facilities and adding a Medium-density residential development (including single- and multi-family housing, streets, driveways, walls, and landscaping) in Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 6 place of the open areas. The only significant visual impact identified in the FEIS/EIR was the potential loss of both blimp hangars which would change existing foreground, middleground, and background views. The sensitive viewers identified in the FEIS/EIR include the existing residences located approximately 350 feet east of the project area. This resource is still present, however new residences within the Specific Plan have been constructed west of Edinger Avenue and views from the previously identified sensitive viewers along Edinger Avenue into the proposed project area have been altered with introduction of new development uses which were implemented in compliance with the development regulations and design standards of the Specific Plan. Further, these residences do not face the proposed development but have rear yards and elevations facing the proposed project. The development of a retail center within Planning Area 7 was considered within the FEIS/EIR and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site when mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR are incorporated with approval of the project. The proposed specific plan amendment to allow the acute care/rehabilitation facility and medical office building to exceed the 45 foot height limit in this planning area will result in 60 and 54 foot buildings at the base of the 30 foot high slope for Tustin Ranch Road and its overcrossing of Edinger Avenue. The location at the foot of a significant landscaped slope, and 350+ foot distance from the rear yards or residences on the east side of Edinger Avenue will not result in a significant visual impact from adjacent uses; further, all exterior design is required to be in compliance with Section 2.17.3(B) — Urban Design Guidelines for Non-Residential Development of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and the Landscape Concept Section 2.17.2 as it relates to Edinger Avenue, Valencia Avenue, and Kensington Park Drive, all existing public streets. The proposal includes a Design Review and Concept Plan application, which requires that the Planning Commission and City Council review and ensure the design of the project, if approved, is found to be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section 2.17.3(B) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 7 refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplemental documents; and applicable measures will be required to be complied with as conditions of entitlement approvals (including design review associated with landscaping, signage, and compliance with development regulations for setbacks and height) for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans for Design Review and Concept Plan FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-58 through 3- 67) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2-115 though 2-169, Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. As documented in the FEIS/EIR, the project site is part of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that contained 702 acres of farmland, including 682 acres of Prime Farmland and 20 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no viable long-term mitigation to off-set the impact of converting farmland on MCAS Tustin to urban uses. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 8 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. 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. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83 through 3-87, 4-109 through 114)and Addendums (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. As documented in the FEIS/EIR, the project is part of a larger reuse project at Tustin Legacy that was projected to result in air quality impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001,SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 9 Council on January 16, 2001. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of the improvements to Tustin Ranch Road. The project applicant proposes to construct within the maximum allowable intensity of the site which was assumed in the original analysis. 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 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: 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 operational air quality impacts were significant and infeasible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230 and pages 7-41 through 7-42) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014,SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 10 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements and no vegetation or drainage features are present on the site. The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan/MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project) could impact the southwestern pond turtle and/or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. The overall Specific Plan area has been surveyed, and turtles were captured and moved off the site to another location as directed and overseen by the California Department of Fish and Game in 2004. Since that time, all former Marine Corps base drainage channels in the area were removed and graded by the former owner of the property with the required 401, 404 and 1601 permits issued by Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or altematives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. . Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001,SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 11 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27), and Addendum pages 5- 28 to 5-39 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 to 3-58). Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The former MCAS Tustin contained two National Register listed blimp hangars, and several concrete or asphalt blimp landing pads that were considered historically or culturally significant, pursuant to the federal Section 106 process conducted at the site. Through the Section 106 process, these facilities were identified as part of a discontiguous Historic District. The Navy, State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and Advisory Council executed a Memorandum of Agreement(attached as part of the EIS/EIR)with City of Tustin and County of Orange as invited signatories that allowed for the destruction of the blimp pads. The EIS/EIR noted that it may not be financially feasible to retain the blimp hangars and there may be irreversible significant impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City•Council on January 16, 2001. The mitigation program for the hangars was fully implemented by the City. No portion of the previously existing blimp landing pads nor the existing blimp hangars are located within the project site boundary. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. One recorded archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) was identified within the • Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014,SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 12 Specific Plan area; however, as reported in the FEIS/EIR, this site was destroyed prior to 1971 (when archaeological surveys were first conducted at MCAS Tustin) during construction of two large concrete tanks. The FEIS/EIR indicated that CA-ORA-381 was the only recorded archaeological site within the Specific Plan area. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, the project will comply with tribal consultation requirements of SB18. With the inclusion of mitigation measures that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to•significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 to 3-58). Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: —Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 13 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? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The FEIS/EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would "include non- seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure." The FEIS/EIR additionally found that the entire Specific Plan area has a high probability of liquefaction and expansive soils. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin also 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 such hazards. Specific engineering techniques were included to reduce hazards • associated with liquefaction and expansive soils. A project specific geotechnical investigation was prepared for the project by Krazan & Associates dated June 10, 2014 to provide project-specific recommendations for grading and foundation design, incorporating recommendations related to liquefaction and expansive soils. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. • Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information•of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 14 substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. 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. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4-115 through 4-123 and 7-28 through 7-29) and Amendment Pages 5- 46 through 5-49 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Krazan & Associates, June 10, 2014 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 to 3-58). Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: —Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014,SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and-17 Page 15 The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific'Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditional use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. In addition, construction and commercial uses would not emit hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Navy conveyed the property as unrestricted and suitable for residential reuse after completion of a risk assessment and pesticide investigation in 1996. In addition, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four (4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within a flight approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is also not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state and local regulations concerning handling and use of household hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the site by Arcadis, dated February 20, 2015. The Phase I ESA noted that although soil and groundwater remediation in the overall MCAS facility have been ongoing since the early 1990s, the areas of impacted groundwater/soils are located in the western and southern areas of the former base.footprint with the nearest located 0.25 miles southwest and down-gradient of the site and therefore unlikely to represent an environmental concern. The Phase I ESA found no evidence of any recognized environmental conditions associated with the site, supporting the original FEIR/EIS findings. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 16 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. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Tustin Ranch Road and Edinger Avenue, Tustin, CA, Arcadis, February 20, 2015 Finding of Suitability to Transfer(FOST), MCAS Tustin Tustin General Plan. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume • or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 17 acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The project design and construction of facilities to treat drainage from the • site would be required as conditions of approval of the project and the Water Quality Management Plan submitted as part of the entitlement applications. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. The proposed project will also not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The project is not located within a 100-year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). 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 such hazards. Consequently, no substantial change isexpected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. 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. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 18 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map (2011) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Physically divide an established community? a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an ' acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use with an amended height limit of 60 feet for the acute care/rehabilitation facility, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 7, which contemplates the development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses in total. The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Specific Plan for the former base, such as land use designations, zoning categories, recreation and open space areas, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infrastructure systems. On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council approved the Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin that established land use and development standards for development of the site. The proposed project complies with Planning Area 7's development standards for commercial uses as noted in Sections 3.4.4.E and 3.4.4.F of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, as amended by the proposed project entitlement applications. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001,SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 19 measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as identified by the adopted FEIS/EIR. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, . including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 7, which contemplates the development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses in total. Chapter 3.9 of the FEIS/EIR indicates that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014,SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 20 severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Xl. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a.public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? e) 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? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 7, which contemplates the development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses in total. The FEIS/EIR indicates that full build-out of the base will create noise impacts that would be considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors would exceed those considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the Noise Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 21 Elements of the Tustin General Plan. The applicant has submitted a Noise Analysis for the project prepared by Landrum & Brown dated April 27, 2015. The study evaluated the noise from adjacent roads (Valencia, Kensington Park Drive, Tustin Ranch Road, and Edinger Avenue), as well as noise from the SCRRA railroad line to the east of Edinger Avenue. The results of the noise analysis is summarized below and in the following table. • The study notes that a significant noise impact is recognized if a 3 dB or greater increase over existing conditions occurs, but found that traffic-related noise increases due to the project ranged between 0.2 to 2.1 dB, and thus the project will not result in significant noise impacts and no mitigation is needed. • The study also evaluated exterior noise exposure related to the playground associated with the childcare center in Building A, using the city's noise standard for schools of 67 Leq(12). The evaluation shows a noise level at the playground of 60 Leq, meeting the noise standard and thus no mitigation is needed. • In order to meet interior noise standards, some buildings will require more than 20 dB of noise reduction, however detailed engineering calculations are necessary when architectural drawings are available. For interior noise, a future study is recommended to address the interior noise level when architectural drawings are available and prior to issuance of building permits. The noise exposure level at each specific area of the project, the noise level standard, noise reduction needed in order to meet the noise level standard for that use, and a conclusion regarding whether additional study is need is presented in the table below. The required reduction noted for the buildings below is to meet interior noise standards which will be determined at the time of building permit. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 22 SUMMARY OF NOISE EXPOSURES AT PROJECT SITE AND CONCLUSIONS WORST CASE NOISE REQUIRED EXPOSURE LAND NOISE REDUCTION LOCATION (dB) USE STANDARD (dB) CONCLUSION Building A 603 School 45 15.7 No mitigation Building B 61.7 Retail 55 6.7 No mitigation Building C 63.4 Retail 55 8.4 No mitigation Building D 67.4 Retail 55 12.4 No mitigation Building E 63.4 Retail 55 8.4 No mitigation Building F 64.3 Retail 55 9.3 No mitigation Building G 63.1 Retail 55 8.1 No mitigation Building H 61.6 Retail 55 6.6 No mitigation Building I 61.8 Retail 55 6.8 No mitigation Building J 58.9 Office/Retail 50 8.9 No mitigation Building K 71.5 Medical 45 26.5 Future Study Building L 72.6 Office/Retail 50 22.6 Future Study Building M 59.4 Medical 45 14.4 No mitigation Playground 60.4 School.Exterior 67 0.0 No mitigation Building F Patio 66.4 Retail,Exterior -- -- No mitigation Building G Patio(E) 59.6 Retail,Exterior -- -- No mitigation Building G Patio(W) 66.4 Retail.Exterior -- -- No mitigation Building I Patio 62.9 Retail.Exterior -- -- No mitigation This is consistent with Mitigation Measure N-3 identified in the FEIS/EIR that requires plans demonstrating noise regulation conformity be submitted for review and approval prior to building permits being issued. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 23 • Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans Transportation Noise Analysis for Tustin Regency Center dated April 27, 2015 by Landrum & Brown FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3-162, 4-231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 7, which contemplates the development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses in total. No residential uses are proposed. Additionally, the proposed project site is vacant and will not displace people or necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 24 measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The proposed intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 7, which contemplates the development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses in total. The site is currently vacant. Development of the site for its intended uses would require public services such as fire and police protection services. As a commercial center, not public service needs are anticipated for schools, libraries, recreation facilities, or biking/hiking trails. Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations existing and planned in the area surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Fire Station No. 37 is present on Kensington Park Drive, immediately north of the site. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Development of the site would increase the need for police protection services. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 25 Department to ensure that adequate security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access, address signage are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. The proposed project is located within Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). The implementation of the Reuse Plan would provide two 10-acre sites for elementary schools and a 40-acre high school site to serve the growing student population within its district. The TUSD will receive its statutory school impact fees per Senate Bill 50 from the proposed commercial development of the site. As a condition of approval for the project, the developer will be required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of the building permit. As a commercial use no students will be generated by the proposal, and no students are anticipated beyond what was considered in the FEIR/EIS for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS, Tustin, and mitigation is limited by State law to requiring payment of the SB 50 school impact fees. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of 10,000 square feet for a branch library and would not trigger the need for a new facility. Since approval of the original Specific Plan and its FEIS/EIR an upgraded library facility was constructed. General Implementation Requirements: To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with FEIS/EIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to public services. 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001,SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 26 FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. No residential units are included in the proposed project. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 7, which contemplates the development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses in total. The Reuse Plan process included public conveyance of city parks and an Urban Regional Park to meet the park needs of the Specific Plan. In addition, as a commercial use the proposed project does not generate the need for parkland. The project is not anticipated to increase the use of other existing neighborhood or regional parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001,SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 27 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 456 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project is for a multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 7, which contemplates the development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses in total. The FEIS/EIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR identified the trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum to create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) of 216,445 trips. The Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 28 would not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and its Supplemental and Addendums. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers has prepared a Trip Generation Assessment for the proposed project dated April 13, 2015 (Attachment 2) to identify and evaluate how the traffic impacts from the proposed project differ from the original analysis as presented in the FEIS/EIR. According to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, a maximum of 248,300 square feet of "village services", consisting of 103,460 square feet of community commercial land use and 144,840 square feet of General Office land use, is permitted within Planning Area 7 of Neighborhood B, with an established trip budget of 8,974 average daily trips (ADTs). The retail/commercial development totals allocated for the Project site, as documented in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, totals 248,300 SF of floor area that consists of 103,460 SF of retail floor area and 144,840 SF of office space, whereas the proposed Project includes the construction of 248,292 SF of floor area that includes a 98,292 SF retail center and a 150,000 SF of medical/commercial floor area. The proposed tenant mix of the neighborhood retail center is a complementary mix of uses, consisting of the following: • 43,830 SF grocery store • 14,500 SF pharmacy with drive-thru • 8,000 SF of retail/services uses • 16,562 SF of restaurant space/food uses • 4,000 SF of health/fitness club space • 3,400 SF of financial services • 8,000 SF day care center/ pre-school The medical plaza also includes a complimentary mix of uses, consisting of the following: • 15,000 SF of office/medical-related retail • 60,000 SF of medical office space • 75,000 SF acute care/rehabilitation facility with 80 beds Traffic Generation Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in this analysis are based on information found in the 9th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2012] or in Appendix F to the FEIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin — Final Traffic Technical Report, dated November 1999. Project site allocation trip budget within PA 7 of Neighborhood B totals 8,974 daily trips, with 442 trips (343 inbound, 99 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 876 trips (339 inbound, 537 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014,SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 29 The proposed Project is forecast to generate 7,219 daily trips, with 262 trips (187 inbound, 75 outbound) produced during the AM peak hour and 653 trips (270 inbound, 383 outbound) produced during the PM peak hour. A comparison of the proposed Project's daily trip generation potential of 7,219 ADT with that of the Project site trip budget established in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan analysis, as shown in the table below, indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 1,755 fewer trips on a daily basis. TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON ENTITLED LAND USE VS.PROPOSED PROJECT PLANNING AREA 7-NEIGHBORHOOD B OF THE TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Description 2-Way Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Entitled Land Use: • General Office(144,840 SF) L922 239 33 272 44 217 261 • Retail(103460 SF) 7.052 104 66 170 295 320 615 Total Entitled Land Use 8,974 343 99 442 339 537 876 Trip Generation Prooposed Protect: • Retail Shops(98.292 SF) 4.197 58 36 94 175 190 365 • Retail/Office(15.000 SF) 641 9 5 14 27 29 56 • • Medical Office Building(60.000 SF) 2.168 113 30 143 60 154 214 • Skilled Nursing Facility(80 Beds) 213 7 4 11 8 I O 18 Total Proposed Project 7,219 187 75 262 270 383 653 Trip Generation • Net Difference in Trip Generation -1.755 -156 -24 -180 -69 -154 -223 (Proposed minus Entitled) Further, comparison of the Project site trip budget within PA 7 of Neighborhood B with that of the proposed Project shows that the trip generation potential of the Project is well within the mitigated "trip budget" established for the site as evaluated in the EIS/EIR Traffic Study, with 180 fewer trips generated during the AM peak commute hour and 223 fewer trips generated during the critical PM peak commute hour. Given this comparison, the proposed project is well within the trip budget established for the project site. The study has shown that the proposed project does not result in new significant impacts that would require mitigation. Moreover, the proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer also has reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the study. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 30 No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans Trip Generation Assessment for the Village at Tustin Legacy within Planning Area 7 or Neighborhood B of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan dated April 13, 2015 by Linscott Law&Greenspan Engineers FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-118 through 3- 142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-41) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014,SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127,CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 31 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project is for a- multiple-use development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses within the Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area, including a market, childcare center, pharmacy, food uses, medical office uses, and an acute care/rehabilitation facility. The proposed uses are consistent with the approved Specific Plan upon approval of an amendment to allow for an acute care/rehabilitation facility as a conditionally permitted use, and the footprint of the proposed project within Planning Area 7 is substantially the same as in the original FEIS/EIR. The site is presently vacant and has been mass graded as part of Tustin Ranch Road improvements. The intensity proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 7, which contemplates the development of 248,292 square feet of commercial uses in total. The FEIS/EIR analyzed commercial development on the site, which is consistent with the proposed project. Development of the site would require on-site improvements and off-site infrastructure improvements to utilities and roadway systems, including design and construction of improvements on Valencia Avenue and Kensington Park Drive. In addition, certain public infrastructure will be constructed by the applicant which may include storm drain, domestic water, reclaimed water, sanitary sewer, and dry utility service systems necessary to serve the site, and landscape and irrigation in the public right-of-way and on the slope bank of Tustin Ranch Road on the site's southern edge. Also, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of wastewater treatment. The proposed commercial intensity can be supported by the Irvine Ranch Water District for domestic water and sewer services. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02,CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 32 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-54 through 3-58). Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEIS/EIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEIS/EIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2015-001, SPA 2015-02, CP 2015-003, DR 2015-014, SUB 2015-03/TPM 2015-127, CUPs 2015-11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Page 33 Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR • and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154). Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS 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 Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. EXHIBIT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 15-57 Parking Study 'LINSCOT2T T LAW & GR£6NSFAf [en g't{rte p r FINAL PARKING ANALYSIS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Tustin,California August 12,2015 (prior version dated July 17,2015) _ Engineers&Planners. Traffic, Transportation Parking• 'LINSCOTT SLAW & GRREENSPAN '`0 t.engirreers August 12, 2015 EaOiaaesB Planners; Traffic; Transportano l Parking Mr. Luis Gomez, Manager- Investments Regency Centers 13nscoa latiY&:;t , 915 Wilshire Boulevard, suite 2200 GreenspantEngineers Los Angeles, CA 90017 2Fxecurrve Circte`r' suite 250?, LLG Reference: 2.14.3493 hvine; Mr. Luis Gomez „GINS@OT7'� August 12, 2015 LAW &'. Page 2 GREENSPAN ( engineers. Requirement, Section 9264a Joint Use of Parking Areas of the City's Municipal Code. Our method of analysis, findings, and conclusions are described in detail in the following sections of this report. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project site is a 22.7± acre rectangular-shaped vacant parcel of land located on the block bounded by Edinger Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road, Valencia Avenue, and Kensington Park Drive in the City of Tustin, California. The subject property is located in Planning Area (PA) 7 of Neighborhood B of the Tustin Specific Plan / Reuse Plan for Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin. According to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, a maximum of 248,300 square-feet (SF) of"village services” consisting of 103,460 SF of Community Commercial land use and 144,840 SF of General Office land use, is permitted within PA 7 of Neighborhood B. Figure 1 presents an aerial depiction of the existing site. The proposed Project includes the development of 248,292 SF of floor area consisting of a community commercial center with a total floor area of 98,292 SF within nine (9) buildings (identified as Buildings A through I/Parcel No. 1 through 9)), and a medical plaza consisting of two (2) additional buildings totaling 15,000 SF of medical-related retail or commercial office space, a 60,000 SF medical office building and a 75,000 SF skilled nursing facility/rehab hospital with 80 beds (identified as Building J through M/Parcel No. 10 through 13). The proposed on-site parking supply for the Project totals 1,091 spaces, of which 472 spaces will be located within the retail center with the remaining 619 spaces located within the medical plaza. Figure 3 presents the site plan for the proposed Project as prepared by Architects Orange, whereas Figure 4 presents the proposed parcel map as prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Review of Figure 3 indicates that access to the site from Kensington Park Drive will be provided via the Kensington Park Drive/Georgia Street signalized intersection, and a full access signalized driveway located between Georgia Street and Valencia Avenue. A right-turn only driveway on Edinger Avenue is also proposed, whereas two additional driveways are proposed on Valencia Avenue (right-turn in only driveway and a right-tum in/out and left-turn out driveway). N,74001 4.49$-Villaea at'lusIin Liddac,, ( tin.t...i34”1 Vi age at Lectin Lea.tey Filial l Parking A nalcc„S L'- _?I5 doe Mr. Luis Gomez August 12, 2015 LAW R`' .; Page 3 GGREENSPANk'; engineers Table 1 presents the development summary for the proposed Project. As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project includes the construction of 248,292 SF of floor area that includes a 98,292 SF retail center and a 150,000 SF of medical/commercial floor area. Further review of Table 1 indicates that the proposed tenant mix of the neighborhood retail center is a complementary mix of uses, consisting of the following: o 43,829 SF grocery store, ❑ 14,576 SF pharmacy with drive-thru o 8,000 SF of retail/services uses, ❑ 16,563 SF of restaurant space/food uses, ❑ 4,000 SF of health/fitness club space, o 3,324 SF of financial services, and ❑ 8,000 SF day care center/pre-school The medical plaza also includes a complementary mix of uses, consisting of the following: ❑ 15,000 SF of office/medical-related retail, o 60,000 SF of medical office space o 75,000 SF skilled nursing facility/rehab hospital with 80 beds PARKING SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS This parking analysis for the Village at Tustin Legacy involves determining the expected parking needs, based on the size and type of proposed development components, versus the parking supply. Typically, there are two methods that can be used to estimate the site's peak parking needs. These methods have been used in this analysis and include: • Application of City code requirements (which typically treats each tenancy type as a"stand alone" use at maximum demand). • Application of shared parking usage patterns by time-of-day (which recognizes that the parking demand for each tenancy type varies by time of , day, day of week and month of the year). The shared parking analysis starts with a code calculation for each tenancy type. i.;flu_ yI'.F-i'ii .t (tstiu ilisv.�?..!. (i .ut rrca i„n(e�a�, i,ltF,ii irk s; i13 i. c: !LINSCOTT Mr. Luis Gomez August 12, 2015 LAW '$c Page 4 GREENSPAN. eagiaeers , The shared parking methodology is concluded to be applicable to a development such as the Village at Tustin Legacy because the individual land use types (i.e., eating establishments, retail shops, office / dental office, retail, fitness center, etc.) experience peak demands at different times of the day, day of the week and month of the year. CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS The code parking calculation for the Village at Tustin Legacy is based on the City's requirements as outlined in Chapter 3.13: Off-Street Parking of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan specifies the following parking requirements as outlined in Table 3-5 Commercial Shopping Center Off-Street Parking Requirements and Table 3-6 Non-Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements for the various mix of uses that are proposed for the Project: • PA 7 Village Services: 1 space per 225 square feet of gross floor area (SF—GFA) • Health/fitness clubs: 1 space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area (SF — GFA) • Banks and financial services: 1 space for each 250 SF - GFA • Restaurants/cafes (food consumption primarily on premises): 1 space for each 100 SF—GFA, plus 7-car stacking space for drive-through • Restaurants/take-out/delicatessen/donut shops/coffee shops or similar uses (food consumption primarily away from premises): I space for each 250 SF—GFA • Clinics, medical/dental offices: 6 spaces per 1000 SF—GFA • Offices, administrative: I space per 250 SF—GFA • Personal Services, beauty/barber shops, other personal services: 1 space per 200 SF—GFA • Hospital: 2 spaces per bed • Day Care Center, including nurseries and pre-schools: 1 space per employee, plus I space per 5 children. Table 2 presents the code parking requirements for the Village at Tustin Legacy for neighborhood retail center component and the medical plaza components, and then combined for the total Project. As shown, given the retail center component of the Project is located within PA 7 Village Services of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, the application of a parking ratio of 1 space per 225 SF to 98,292 SF -Pflri214349; Vtlla,e.0 Tttttin L egac4,'I u�nn leuers 3193 1 he Vtlee at Ili tin Legg } Final Parking Analysis S-1..- 2Z)15 dot- LtNSCOTT 6 vi Mr. Luis Gomez t AW &. f August 12, 2015 Page5 GREENSPAN;} engineers;": results in a parking requirement of 437 spaces. The direct application of City parking codes to the medical plaza component results in a parking requirement of 610 spaces, which results in an overall parking requirement of 1,047 spaces. The entire site has a proposed parking supply of 1,091 spaces, which translates to a parking surplus of 44 spaces when compared to the City's requirements (a surplus of 35 spaces is calculated for the retail center, while a surplus of 9 spaces is calculated for the medical plaza). To validate the adequacy of a parking supply of 472 spaces within the neighborhood retail center component of the Project with the anticipated mix of uses/tenants summarized in Table I, a shared parking analysis has been prepared based on the utilization profile of each included land use component. In addition, to confirm the adequacy of the medical plaza's parking supply of 619 spaces to satisfy the peak parking demand of the proposed uses, a shared parking assessment was prepared as well. The following section calculates the parking requirements for the Village at Tustin Legacy based on the shared parking methodology approach. SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS Shared Parking Methodology Accumulated experience in parking demand characteristics indicates that a mixing of land uses results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak requirements for each land use. Due to the proposed mixed-use characteristics of the Village at Tustin Legacy neighborhood retail center, as well as the medical plaza which allows for retail uses, opportunities to share parking can be expected with full occupancy and completion of the proposed Project. The objective of this shared parking analysis is to forecast the peak parking requirements for the project based on the combined demand patterns of different tenancy types at the site. For this assessment, separate shared parking analyses have been prepared for the neighborhood retail center component and the medical plaza component. Shared parking calculations recognize that different uses often experience individual peak parking demands at different times of day, days of the week, or months of the year. When uses share common parking footprints, the total number of spaces needed to support the collective whole is determined by adding parking profiles (by time of day for weekdays versus weekend days), rather than individual peak ratios as represented in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan or City of Tustin `v <_ti ' iP (tetl: i . 'Ilan i? � <-5' F1 t lr.yeu„ n,lriot;, i n: P, , ( d::l-C' • Mr. Luis Gomez UNSCOTT August 12, 2015 LAW Page 6 GREENSPAN engineers` Municipal Code. In that way, the shared parking approach starts from the City's own code ratios and results in the "design level" parking supply needs of a site. It should be noted that the "demand" results of the shared parking calculation are intended to be used directly for comparison to site supply. No further adjustments or contingency additions are needed because such contingencies are already built into the peak parking ratios and time of day profiles used in the calculation. There is an important common element between the traditional "code" and the shared parking calculation methodologies; the peak parking ratios or "highpoint" for each land use's parking profile typically equals the "code" parking ratio for that use. The analytical procedures for shared parking analyses are well documented in the Shared Parking, 2"d Edition publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). Shared parking calculations for the analysis utilize hourly parking accumulations developed from field studies of single developments in free-standing settings, where travel by private auto is maximized. These characteristics permit the means for calculating peak parking needs when land use types are combined. Further, the shared parking approach will result, at other than peak parking demand times, in an excess amount of spaces that will service the overall needs of the project. Key inputs in the shared parking analysis for each land use include: • Peak parking demand by land use for visitors and employees. • Adjustments for alternative modes of transportation, if applicable. • Adjustment for internal capture(captive versus non-captive parking demand), if applicable. • Hourly variations of parking demand. • Weekday versus weekend adjustment factors • Monthly adjustment factors to account for variations of parking demand over the year. • Applicable parking ratios published in Chapter 3.13: Off-Street Parking of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan as summarized in Table 3-5 Commercial Shopping Center Off-Street Parking Requirements and Table 3-6 Non-Residential Off-Street Parking Requirement Please note that for this analysis, no monthly adjustment factors to account for variations of parking demand over the year were applied to provide a conservative parking demand forecast. N:3400:2I4349; at Tustin L ac r, [wn i t .tt;[3493 Tat Village at Pusan Legacy t-t d Parking An vsis 5-12- 2015.dec Mr. Luis Gomez Ui :, August 12, 2015LA1 a Page 7 GREENSPA k Shared Parking Ratios and Profiles The hourly parking demand profiles (expressed in percent of peak demand) utilized in this analysis and applied to the Project are based on profiles developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and published in Shared Parking, 2nd Edition. The ULI publication presents hourly parking demand profiles for seven general land uses: office, retail, restaurant, health club, cinema, residential (Central Business District: CBD and non-CBD), hotel (consisting of separate factors for guest rooms, restaurant/lounge, conference room, and convention area). These factors present a profile of parking demand over time and have been used directly, by land use type, in the analysis of this project. The ULI profiles of parking demand have been used directly, by land use type, in the analysis of this site and are applied to the City's applicable parking ratio. The ULI retail use profiles are applied directly. In doing so, there is an intermediate step in expressing ULI profiles as a percentage of the week-long peak, thus arriving at a weekday profile and weekend profile each expressed as a percentage of the baseline parking ratio (ULI actually starts with separate ratios for weekday and weekend day, and develops profiles for each accordingly; we've found it more convenient to translate both profiles to a percent of expected maximum demand, which, for retail, turns out to be on a Saturday). The resulting profiles represent the most likely hourly parking demand profile, and are applied to a retail parking ratio of 1 space per 225 SF of floor area as required for PA 7 Village Services. Peak demand for retail uses occurs between 1:00 PM-2:00 PM on weekdays, and 2:00 PM-4:00 PM on weekends. From Table 2-1, up to 66,405 SF of retail floor area is anticipated. ❑ Building B: 43,829 SF grocery store, D Building C: 4,500 SF of retail/services uses, o Building D: 14,576 SF pharmacy with drive-thru o Building F: 2,000 SF of retail/services uses, ❑ Building I: 1,500 SF of retail/services uses, The ULI Shared Parking publication includes several categories for restaurants. For this analysis, the parking profile for fine/casual dining restaurant, family restaurant and fast-food restaurant were all utilized as each of the categories match the anticipated tenant mix of food uses at the Village at Tustin Legacy. Like the retail profiles, the restaurant profiles are derived exactly from the ULI baseline. The restaurant-parking ratio utilized in this analysis exactly matches the City code rate of 1 space per 100 SF of floor area for those tenants where food consumption is primarily on-site. For those tenants/uses where food consumption is primarily away from the premises (i.e. take-out pizza, donut shop, ice cream shop), a City code rate ,4!i� _. ,ae- ;il a (on i; c.,luso�l ,� �s.t'i IL, jE•i it tt i ��_e.' tiil Prkji ii ^IsS-I_ 30; cr: Mr. Luis Gomez LINSCUTT August 12, 2015 T LAW & . Page 8 • GREENSPAN ng.inee rs of 1 space per 250 SF of floor area would be applicable. For this analysis, it is assumed that none of the food uses would fall under the category of "in-line" food/take out. According to the Shared Parking publication, casual/fining dining restaurant uses are shown to experience peak demand between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM on weekdays, and 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM on weekends, whereas a family restaurant use peak demand occurs between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM on weekdays and weekends. The fast-food restaurant profile, as contained in the ULI Shared Parking publication, was utilized in this analysis to estimate the hourly parking demand of the proposed fast-food restaurant use. To estimate the parking demand for these uses, a parking ratio of 1 space per 100 SF is utilized. For fast-food uses peak demand occurs between 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM on weekdays and weekends. For this analysis, the mix of restaurants at the Project, totaling, 16,563 SF, is assumed to fall into the following categories: o Building E: 3,300 SF Fast-Food Restaurant ❑ Building F: 4,000 SF Family Restaurant space ❑ Building G: 4,763 SF Family Restaurant space o Building I: 4,500 SF of Fine/Casual Dining space. The health club profiles were also directly derived from ULI. For health clubs, the peak demand occurs between 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM on weekdays and 5:00 PM — 6:00 PM on weekends. To estimate the parking demand for a potential 4,000 SF health club/fitness studio, a parking ratio of 1 space per 150 SF (which matches the City's requirement) is utilized. However, please note that the use of the City's parking rate to estimate the peak parking demand for the proposed Project, which translates to 6.67 spaces per 1,000 SF, is considered conservative given the 4th Edition of Parking Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 2010] indicates that the average peak parking demand for ITE Land Use: 492 Health/Fitness Club amounts to 5.27 spaces per 1,000 SF. For bank/financial uses, the parking profile in the ULI publication was used and applied to the City's Parking Code ratio of I space 250 SF of floor area to forecast weekday and weekend hourly demand of a 3,224 SF bank. Peak demand for bank uses occurs between 10:00 AM-1I:00 AM and 5:00 PM-6:00 PM on weekdays, and 11:00 AM-12:00 PM on weekends. The day care center/pre-school parking profile for this project was based on the operational characteristics of this use. The proposed pre-school is expected to operate Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, with extended N.'3440'1 349 .l dl.. : .n k. 9F�s i.�i.. �- . :A 14424 4t luslin 0,at y I in II I mkh s vi I:.i.:S-I. till?.doe �$t Mr. Luis Gomez �LIN5c0T August 12, 2015 LAW &-�, Page 9 GREENSPAN- engineers day care provide from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM and from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM, with class scheduled between 8:00 AM and 3:00 PM. The peak-parking ratio for proposed day care center / pre-school exactly equals the City's Parking Code requirement of 1 space per staff/teacher plus I space per 5 students. o 8,000 SF day care center/pre-school with a staff of 20 and student enrollment capacity of 156 children. The medical/dental office profiles were also directly derived from ULI and applied to the medical office building and the skilled nursing facility/rehabilitation hospital. Peak demand for medical-related uses occurs between 10:00 AM-11:00 AM and 2:00 PM-3:00 PM on weekdays, and 10:00 AM-12:00 PM on weekends. The peak- parking ratio for medical office uses exactly equals the City's Parking Code requirement of 6 spaces per 1000 SF of floor area. This ratio was applied to the proposed 60,000 SF of medical office building, as well as 15,000 SF of medical office/medical-related retail space to provide a conservative assessment. For the skilled nursing facility/rehabilitation hospital, the peak-parking ratio matches the City's Parking Code requirement of 2 spaces per bed for hospital uses. As noted earlier, no monthly adjustment factors were applied to account for variations of parking demand over the year to provide a conservative parking demand forecast. Application of Shared Parking Methodology Retail Center Component Tables 3 and 4 presents the weekday and weekend parking demand profiles for the neighborhood retail center component of the Project based on the shared parking methodology, assuming MI occupancy of the retail center with the anticipated mix of uses as proposed by Regency Centers. Columns (1) through (7) of these tables present the parking accumulation characteristics and parking demand of the retail center component of the Project for the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight. Column (8) presents the expected joint-use parking demand for the proposed neighborhood retail center on an hourly basis, while Column (9) summarizes the hourly parking surplus/deficiency for the proposed project compared to an available shared parking supply of 472 spaces within Parcel No. 1 through No. 9 of the project site plan. The last two columns of these tables identify the hourly parking demand for customers and employees of the retail center. Note that the sizing (floor area) of each • land use/tenant, and recommended parking rates are included in the tabular headings of each type. g 0Ct.21di4)3-Via .tt'L emn L ra v, L u,u t i,!:• (-1.1 ILti 1 Age ut l u ii,t LegaGy I .d l a.k i,,A t;si S 12- 2:11-3:icc Mr. Luis Gomez UNSOF7 August 12, 2015 LAW'&Page 10 - GREENSPAN engineers} Appendix A contains the shared parking analysis calculation worksheets for the weekday and weekend day parking scenario for the neighborhood retail center. Medical Plaza Component Tables 5 and 6 are similar in format to Tables 3 and 4, but these two tables present the weekday and weekend parking demand profiles for the medical plaza component of the Project based on the shared parking methodology. Columns (1) through (3) of these tables present the parking accumulation characteristics and parking demand of the medical plaza for the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight. Column (4) presents the expected joint-use parking demand for the proposed medical- related use (i.e. medical-related retail, rehabilitation hospital, medical office) on an hourly basis, while Column (5) summarizes the hourly parking surplus/deficiency for the proposed medical plaza compared to an available shared parking supply of 619 spaces proposed within Parcel No. 10 through No. 13. The last two columns of these tables identify the hourly parking demand for customers and employees of the medical plaza. Note that the sizing (floor area) of each land use / tenant, and recommended parking rates are included in the tabular headings of each type. Appendix B contains the shared parking analysis calculation worksheets for the medical plaza's weekday and weekend day parking scenarios. Based on our experience, the shared parking approach summarized in Tables 3 through 6 are believed to be the most appropriate in evaluating the parking supply- demand relationships for the proposed Project. The results in these tables are the focus of this parking investigation and recommendations. Shared Parking Analysis Results Retail Center Component Review of Table 3 shows that the peak-parking requirement for the proposed neighborhood retail center component of the Village at Tustin Legacy, assuming full occupancy of the anticipated mix of uses noted in Table 1, during a weekday occurs at 1:00 PM and totals 435 spaces, of which 339 spaces is customer parking demand with the remaining 96 spaces employee parking demand. On a weekend day, the peak parking requirements for the retail center component of the Project occurs at 1:00 PM as well, when a parking demand of 428 spaces is forecast with 338 spaces is customer parking demand with the remaining 90 spaces employee parking demand (see Table 4). N'.''.3SUO21131L -iii_ „f'H H.I fuui1I(.lelsa?4b}lilt,VI iaa`.',Et i.i..l larkiro I?- 11 i.;loc .. -. LIN5COTT Mr. Luis Gomez August 12, 2015 LAW &&a , Page 11 GIEENSPAN , engineers.:. ... yaw- Based on an available shared parking supply of 472 spaces, a surplus of 37 spaces and a surplus of 44 spaces would result during the weekday and weekend peak hours, respectively. Further review of these tables indicate that the neighborhood retail center's shared parking supply of 472 spaces provided within Parcel No. 1 through No. 9 will adequately accommodate the Project's weekday and weekend hourly shared parking demand of all proposed uses, including the employee parking requirements, for all morning, midday, afternoon and evening hours. Consequently, we conclude that there will be adequate parking on Parcel No. 1 through No. 9 of the project site to accommodate full occupancy of the anticipated mix of uses of the neighborhood retail center. Medical Plaza Component Review of Table 5 shows that the peak-parking requirement for the proposed medical plaza component of the Village at Tustin Legacy during a weekday occurs at 2:00 PM and totals 598 spaces, of which 343 spaces is customer/visitor parking demand with the remaining 255 spaces employee parking demand. On a weekend day, the peak parking requirements for the medical plaza component of the Project occurs at 11:00 AM, when a parking demand of 584 spaces is forecast with 327 spaces is customer/visitor parking demand with the remaining 257 spaces employee parking demand (see Table 6). Based on an available shared parking supply of 619 spaces, a surplus of 21 spaces and a surplus of 35 spaces would result during the weekday and weekend peak hours, respectively. Further review of these tables indicate that the medical plaza's shared parking supply of 619 spaces provided within Parcel No. 10 through No. 13 will adequately accommodate the Project's weekday and weekend hourly shared parking demand of all proposed uses, including the employee parking demand, for all morning, midday, afternoon and evening hours. Consequently, we conclude that there will be adequate parking on Parcel No. 10 through No. 13 of the site to accommodate parking demand of the medical plaza. S-?_- LINSCOTT i` Mr. Luis Gomez August 12, 2015 LAW Page 12 : GREENSPAN engineer`s PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN This Parking Management Plan (PMP) outlines the proposed allocation of parking supply on site and key parking management strategies to maximize the availability of parking for customers and employees of the retail center component and medical plaza component of the Village at Tustin Legacy. Retail Center Component As noted above, the results of the shared parking analysis for the retail center component of the Village at Tustin Legacy indicates that the proposed parking supply of 472 spaces provided within Parcel No. 1 through No. 9 will be sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand of a 98,292 SF retail center with the following mix of uses/tenants: ❑ 43,829 SF grocery store, ❑ 14,576 SF pharmacy with drive-thru ❑ 8,000 SF of retail/services uses, o 16,563 SF of restaurant space/food uses, o 4,000 SF of health/fitness club space, ❑ 3,324 SF of financial services, and ❑ 8,000 SF day care center/pre-school The retail center component of The Village at Tustin Legacy is comprised of Buildings A, B, C, D, E, F G, H and I, which are intended for mix of uses noted above. These buildings are located on individual lots in the project's Parcel Map - Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. A sensitivity analysis has been completed to ensure adequate parking is provided upon completion and full occupancy of the Project, it is recommended that the restaurant/food uses be limited to no more than 20,000 SF (20%) of the total floor area and the health club/fitness studio be no larger than 4,000 SF, unless supported by a supplemental parking analysis. PMP measures— Retail Center Component Specific PMP measures relative to the employee parking operation and short-term parking for customers are described below, and were developed based on the following objectives: 34002l4i91 :u'itour't ,acy, ILLr1nk..(. .,Sageat 1uo; legacy} Purkure Ana Iysk;,-I2- 2U15 dor Mr. Luis Gomez rLINSCOfT .Sr August 12, 2015 Page 13 GREENSPAN r engineers ' • The PMP should identify where the employees park within the site. Up to 100 spaces during weekday peak hour will be required to accommodate the parking demand of employees of the retail center. • The PMP should identify where location of short-term parking spaces for service retail uses and/or the day care center/pre-school. In lieu of a drop-off area, short term parking spaces (15 minute time limit) should be allocated in close proximity to the access of the proposed day care center/pre-school. • 1. Regency Center will work with tenants of the retail center to implement an employee parking program, with the goal of providing convenient and accessible shopping experience for the customers of the retail center and to leave the most desirable parking spaces near each storefront for use by customers. The location of designated employee parking spaces will be developed in collaboration between Regency Center and the tenants. The employee parking spaces will be identified with a white or yellow circle. It is noted that these spaces will be open for customer use. 2. Regency Center will work with tenants of the retail center to identify the need for "short term/time restricted spaces" on an as need basis, dependent on the needs of the proposed retail and/or food use. The short-term spaces may be used for "curbside/take out" and/or for service retail-type users (i.e. dry cleaners/laundry, etc.). The number and location of spaces will be determined by Regency Center and the potential tenants. 3. As noted earlier, it is recommended that between six (6) and eight (8) spaces located directly on the north side and adjacent to the entry of Building A be designated for "short-term (15 minute time limit)" parking to facilitate the drop- off and pick-up children at the proposed day care/pre-school The short-term parking should be enforced Monday through Friday and is provided in lieu of a drop-off area for the proposed day care center/pre-school. It is noted that a turnaround area is provided at the end of the drive aisle that directly adjacent to the day care/pre-school to allow for vehicles to circulate. Regency Center will work closely with the tenants to insure that both employees and property management work together to provide the best shopping experience for the customers, as well as allowing the most desirable parking spaces to be accessed by the customers rather than the employees. Medical Plaza Component As noted above, the medical plaza component of the Village at Tustin Legacy indicates that the proposed parking supply of 619 spaces satisfies the City's parking code requirement of 610 spaces. Further yet, the results of the shared parking analysis indicates that the proposed parking supply of 619 spaces provided within Parcel No. 34(;(121434'i Tustin L_ vac,,, tusti i(..t, ; .3; [I he VII a: ttisli)Lee:a;; t i:d Pnrkirp Ana}a,8-12- 2013.do: Mr. Luis Gomez LINS[OTT August 12, 2015 .:LAW Page 14 •GREENSPAN 'en'ginee.is 10 through No. 13 will be sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand of a medical plaza with the following mix of uses/tenants: o 15,000 SF of office/medical-related retail, o 60,000 SF of medical office space o 75,000 SF skilled nursing facility/rehab hospital with 80 beds The medical plaza component of The Village at Tustin Legacy is comprised of Buildings J, K, L, and M which are intended for medical office and Skilled Nursing/Acute Care/Rehabilitation Hospital uses. These buildings are located on individual lots in the project's Parcel Map - Parcels 10, 11, 12, and 13. PMP measures—Medical Plaza Component To ensure adequate parking is provided for each of the four medical buildings and the parking associated with each building is shared among the four uses, the Project would implement the following: 1. CC&Rs specific to the medical plaza component of the Village at Tustin Legacy will include a provision for reciprocal access and parking between the four medical center buildings and provide for the maintenance of the parking areas. 2. A reciprocal parking easement or agreement specific to the Medical Plaza will be recorded which will run with the land. 3. The parking area would include signage indicating that the parking is for medical plaza uses only. 4. If deemed necessary, the operators of the medical plaza will implement an employee parking program, with the goal of providing convenient and accessible experience for the visitors/patients of the medical offices/ rehabilitation hospital as well as customers of the medical-related uses and to leave the most desirable parking spaces adjacent to each building's access for use by visitors/patients and customers. The location of designated employee parking spaces will be developed in collaboration between medical plaza operators and the tenants. The employee parking spaces will be identified with a white or yellow circle. It is noted that these spaces will be open for customer use. 5. If required, the medical plaza operators will collaborate with the tenants of the medical-related retail uses and identify the need and location of short-term parking spaces. 2 N")ti:, - Villa .^,ti'I"unto.,: c‘ rw.tizt t.e.teth;a'?., lhi. irdv e iu, i I .3 i r r Ct_l. i:S-1=- 1. Mr. Luis Gomez CINSCOTT August 12, 2015 • -LAW"& Page 15 , GREENSPAN en ginee rs- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The Village at Tustin Legacy is a proposed mixed-use retail/commercial center with a total floor area of 248,292 SF that will be located on a 22.7± acre rectangular-shaped vacant parcel of land located on the block bounded by Edinger Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road, Valencia Avenue, and Kensington Park Drive in the City of Tustin, California. 2. The proposed Project includes the development of 248,292 SF of floor area consisting of a community commercial center with a total floor area of 98,292 SF within nine (9) buildings, that will consists of the following mix of uses: o 43,829 SF grocery store, o 14,576 SF pharmacy with drive-thru o 8,000 SF of retail/services uses, o 16,563 SF of restaurant space/food uses, o 4,000 SF of health/fitness club space, o 3,324 SF of financial services, and o 8,000 SF day care center/pre-school 3. The medical plaza component of the Project consists of two (2) additional buildings totaling 15,000 SF of medical-related retail or commercial office space, a 60,000 SF medical office building and a 75,000 SF skilled nursing facility/rehab hospital with 80 beds. 4. The proposed on-site parking supply for the Project totals 1,091 spaces, of which 472 spaces will be located within the retail center with the remaining 619 spaces located within the medical plaza. 5. This parking analysis evaluates the adequacy of the proposed parking supply to support the peak parking demands of the Project, inclusive of the proposed mix of tenants for the retail center. 6. Direct application of City parking codes to the proposed tenant mix of the Project • results in a total parking requirement of 1,047 parking spaces, which consists of 437 spaces for the retail center and 610 spaces for the medical plaza. The entire site has a supply of 1,091 spaces, which translates to a surplus of 44 spaces when compared to city code requirements. When assessed separately, the 619-space parking supply of the medical plaza satisfies the City's parking requirement of 610 spaces. Whereas the retail center, with a proposed parking supply of 472 C''J4ilb._'1434iP.vIla < IU;.n1 ._ ,:cy, lus;r ! ;:.i;.._4;'i Ih.:village at lu tin l..�za I n,i iar<W Ana ::i,%-r 2- I S.d:,r Mr. Luis Gomez �LINSCOTT August 12, 2015 LAW & Page 16 GREENSPAN.. rungsneers spaces would have a parking surplus of 35 spaces when compared to City code requirement of 437 spaces. 7. Given the anticipated mix of tenancies within the retail center, a shared parking analysis has been prepared and indicates that the available shared parking supply of 437 spaces will be sufficient to meet the projected peak parking demands of customers and employees of the Project. The weekday scenario results in a minimum surplus of 37 spaces, while the weekend scenario results in a minimum surplus of 44 spaces. 8. For the medical plaza, the results of the shared parking analysis indicates that the available shared parking supply of 619 spaces will be sufficient to meet the • projected peak parking demands of patients/visitors/customers and employees. The weekday scenario results in a minimum surplus of 21 spaces, while the weekend scenario results in a minimum surplus of 35 spaces. 9. The results of the shared parking analysis indicates that adequate parking will be provided on site to accommodate the proposed mix of uses for the retail center component and the medical plaza component of the Village at Tustin Legacy. * * * * * * * We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this analysis for Regency Centers and the City of Tustin. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 825-6175. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Oa te; 0oFESSloyg Richard E. Barretto, P.E. ��: No:hilus �c) .w PrincipalP6/30/17,, # Nlei L. eTRAFFie �e�`�.t cc: file F;"_CAJF� Attachments �934pra.2143491 -Vilt i .,'n'It cm I .:, fi;,u i E, e >I*;? I I ` luirtc uk [uslin[.er,!m;� hir ul Purkin vi I, is -i'- WDI g [oZ-6 [—Zo qZ:gg:L d(]d 5MP'l—Lj5�6-V�\bmp\uijsnj 'Az)c)5ol uilsnj ID a5Dll!A LM ........... ........... ................... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .............. ............... .......... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oa V) LU tm IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w 1% oa V) LU tm _ _ • N moi-- -- -5 I BLDG-G �� IBLDG-JShopstOO = Med cal BLDG-KMOB Shop 5 7J1L * 8,763 SF '1 ee n �I ' fral 6,0005E 0 cee/RetaiI ,• I (60000 SF) I BLDG .� �����c ` a,aza sF �I (APDrox) 8.550 SF .. (Approx) Shops2 °a° , •g (Approx) .• 6,000 SF {p ;; • , II • IMMI,i MI i • nn717 ii: • U Iii • 1 : II • Y: ILD/ G '� �`.i • t,._.... 1 • dli '... .. :.... II_tJ;I - _ .111It Wig si Ili Gg I. T i S BLDG- BLDG-A In �; " BLDG-L • °_ _ _i' Shops School Maio Medical I 1 4,6005E 8,000 SF BLDG-M _ MJI 'I 64605E I Market 1' • • •BLDG-D Drugstore � WI 1 ''0 ill 14,6766E rm _ •n¢• •F. •'e e1£. . . .� a (10,900 SF ' . / I ADProx) 6II I 7 A L } L .. . .. . . .. . _. . .__ ._-. __ l I . . . .. . _ i - - - -RANCH ROAD - _ _ -- I TUSTIN R -- - -- _- �_- -- - ( i cniipCF- ARCWTFCT[ nI ANGF U0UIUA I IUNS .-i— =te \ ����_ -, - : } .s T.or rv�,.ra.., -E•. _-�-... t a5•tY�`5 • ,'.z '"y'� — __- ..- va , -set�NI •, i� _ -tea r _ ,- _ ▪ _ ,�., , 1 0 -y:_: — 1 , 1 is s } —• __ .b►�•- ` - ; - M .gyp ? ;f` - Mrs" _ _ -'� ~ , �p{pw,,yL \ _ g._ ... _- ._ _ .-'_ �+1�}a�°-may-- -- t �'1 Ir 1 ..81 I --_1--1 , -i- '" { 1 , i -1- -, 1 1 a S5 5j.. lDG•G - ( 6`' -- l:a $Ao`' . (No.-) _ 1 `"` . �,� --11 i----- 1 11k. /it— se t ',1r �I =< i CIO 5f $5 I7,71 i `x+,aara.lr, --.4-1.4. w ti —. pit 1 1 �.ini t I i }�,; f 1 _� t_------`-� _.a`- i '�i i ° IInY - at 1••,';mr LINE •.rrt' /=,•-71-1-1"-0:..-4_,J-1„,i1I ••• . - t�1. �Tl Y _ •..•• _ -- 1 - - - '__- _ E- _ - ." !t i_.'yam_ _4 I�i Q E 1 aFt""-� A'j-, q, ,iaO"r--- -^ _ .H.©�.: ' .m1 - •� ._.1iN - f -- I 1 .--`'_. _ } - '� 1. s}�,�[ •r t '1 -.yr, _,.t i,_—, �.,� t'a�- , ---� f'- {i- tirJ�f} _ t ��y-_"T— 1 r c U ilT-' -^"t�`--J L, i ( , r•.- ,` _- -@ • •}`t i f - 1 J r t � I L.� "'J ;L T t,_„` .. _ tl i � ,-_ __ � - _ s ' y �.Y t•� y t�• iii: r r i, } 1` I }u 11 i r l,_ r r � f + --9 - :�.._., 1,-.1.1;:-;., ._-•-� -+ _,3C �"., of _ i._-- • i L-'_ t , ,�wC'_ 3 61Actitcp ,�-,� =Vii____- 1__- '�r 1 1_l ;- ) f 'tom - ' °) r a-- r1 � \\- i08P • \.jil )*a}}> rl} 1)' r-ii 1 21*wl • +. i g}DG \ -\ ( jffClX) 1 `- t3�TORIj 'll },}( l 1? i i _ II rte' 3) II s:. 1 +t t t , ��_. ir{ 45UOSP DIDGVow j d +) CS11�4� 1....__...„---- �' r j�.s,.-..,„‘is, i` �' tAVPI % �,�; 50 _ tt _ v} kit+ ti i i�-0 +" 1 i S :r 1 t ; ❑ r - i 1 `, } >�` s s'� 4 m� s lig .ire 1 I\, L' _ ! __- - '' i 1 1.. ��� - 11 � ' 14,5T 9 {oa' 1 jilt } ��t-' 1 .} a' � �_ �i�4 �� y u�'• a S ly �t -_/ _ 1 1 1.. — -------` Y __ T" �• C - "s-- ,?• r 'czaz'. Ysa_ s" -..• . _�i 7, -- �` �, �---_ _ - A — - J1�64i;7t6l= = — - ^4. € ___:._�= �i. it _� — -- ,, ,:,.,.., .. y -__ r , _ -- `� -..,r„• _c _ - of 1 ii s __ s. % m g s 7 • s i :Y.:AZ.0+46'i. vR _ 1 4^ /, _ -_ '~ --,yas gla .` ��_..._ ..5.,.,+ e • { - yl `, _ 44`. 95�°,�2• 3'; om' _ moo__ - t.▪• - . • i ! �'39e� 'r" , 11 i tt `,` ',, i \ ty #s r ::m}` gam''s✓ r= i 1 Hsa"Sr*!'E 396 BI' .-_ . ... 5 1 t ��,. �. _`+L 'ax r-� Lg: tk�1 , r i { -- —_ T�.. ' • �.�4 ,t , `\ y,• I+. 1. 1 1, •�. `.---•::::-...._-/` Y.-•c I'Sr ..T!['.Y ?c�Tn��-c, .,f _� �_ ='S r .. i :1 1l gem iprr• 1111.11 f=v_I-I()PK] 2, eccrIrI ATcc Inlr LINSCOTT ,GREENSPAN TABLE 1 engtneen ' PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY 1 THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY,TUSTIN Project Parcel Development No.#2 Building/Land Use/Project Description Totals The Village at Tustin Legacy 1. A. Pre-school/Day Care Center with 156 students and 08,000 SF staff of 20, including an Assistant Director and Director 2. B. Grocery/Supermarket 43,829 SF 3. C. Shops 4 (Retail/Service) 4,500 SF 4. D. Pharmacy/Drug with Drive-thru 14,576 SF 5. E. Shops 3 (Fast-Food w/Drive-thru) 3,300 SF 6. F. Shops 2(Retail/Service/Food) 6,000 SF ❑ 2,000 SF of retail ❑ 4,000 SF of restaurant 7. G. Shops 1 (Retail/Service/Fitness/Food) 8,763 SF ❑ 4,763 SF of restaurant ❑ 4,000 SF health club/retail shops 8. H. Bank with Drive-thru 3,324 SF 9. 1. Shops 5 (Retail/Service/Food) 6,000 SF ❑ 1,500 SF of retail ❑ 4,500 SF of restaurant Subtotal: 98,292 SF 10. J. Office/Medical-Related Retail 8,550 SF 11. K. Medical Office Building 60,000 SF 12. • L. Office/Medical-Related Retail 6,450 SF 13. M. Skilled Nursing Facility/Rehab Hospital(80 Beds) 75.000 SF Subtotal: 150,000 SF The Village at Tustin Legacy Total 248,292 SF Parking Supply ❑ Neighborhood Retail Center 472 spaces ❑ Medical Plaza 619 spaces Total Parking Supply 1,091 spaces Source:Regency Centers/Architect Orange. The Village at Tustin Legacy Site Plan dated July 2015 - Source:Regency Cencers/Kimley Horn&Associates,Tentative Parcel i1ap 2015-127. :J.iIra, L1 I':i-Vilimv ut Luso,Iegacy Rsue l.wvs 3491 Il,V'I.ce at TE it I.,,-ac Innl Parking AnalucuuS 12 20,,doc LAYir Sit": TABLE 2 ` CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS 3 i THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY,TUSTIN City of Tustin Spaces Land Use Size Code Parking Ratio4 Required ❑ PA 7 Village Services 98,292 SF 1 space per 225 SF 437 ❑ Hospital/Extended care(elderly, 80 Beds 2 spaces per patient bed(licensed) 160 skilled nursing facilities,etc.) ❑ Office,Medical/Dental Clinics 60,000 SF 6 spaces per 1000 SF of GFA 360 ❑ Office,Medical/Dental/Retail 15,000 SF 6 spaces per 1000 SF of GFA 90 Subtotal 610 A. TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING CODE REQUIREMENT 1,047 B. TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY 1,091 C. PARKING SURPLUS/DEFICIENCY(+/-)(B—A) +44 3 Source:Regency Centers/Architect Orange. 1 Source:MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, Table 3-5 Commercial Shopping Center Off-Street Parking Requirements and Table 3-6 Non- Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements and City of Tustin Municipal Code. 1'+il '14,,;l—Villa .t R,fii l✓:c [WWI C unitr,2191 The,l',gc Twtin I cv H 41Pr4ng lea l,xi,S l T23'-J44 H z z LU OX V) M w co z a Q z �C C W CL LLA z r� z uj 0 W H ^� "" ,-4 rn 14 p t—+ � (,,1 N cf) � CIA v, ae oe ® fl— N d' N 00 C-) cf) (II C, M M M N —4 N N 00 "oM N H•LU F�� K 6 ' `� H_ j 00 M O (-A Y-4 N \C N \�c 1r) B` CT cn �' c� N M U L]L--j N N N N N N °j N �+ � N N N N (-q (`J N N N N gi x LiL— N � ,--a F -1(N cn � M ® Ott '1° 1.0 N } M N N N N � r .. I , 4 r --i G'�. tr) N f� �d @a cr) N N M M '_' � 'I' M M ,b. H s 00 N N N (-4 N N N L �a -,l 7--�o F_, LU Z 0 W H Z ujJ MMLu L� V) V) W J m z Z Q W 0 Y Q 0 Q V) In LLA LLJ C v � C a � A r- 00 � r- `O N � � � 4� ® N r, r 11 00 _® N �_ ®1 � n �' M N N 00 1- 00 N i I� ® � NM 00 � I I N C4� 00 C� C'� ® N "ZT 00 ® 00 � M M M M M M N J v, :..,.......... f"'7 ry 4 V"� FF"J w N (:;N. In ® �+ N N M I Ri v' Vo ® ® 4i M cf) ! N N 1 a% ® �. a�4 A V� 3� nLl Yy C x k� CS 00 O 08 00 ® d- LO ® 00 r-00 � 01 n "o O C, (-,1 N N ,� f 00 � n � � 00 00 � F -o O cam) Q eq 00 n 00 CN 00 1=4N N n M 00 CIN RT I` 110 00 � In N N N � era ! ® ® N M 00N -o O U U a rA N CCS U .....::.: ......... tr _0 N N b b ...... �O n O +r :n, cct o a� _O U N U N � C C ! ::, v � 4.4 cdd O �1, O +r o I � cd N N s, O ..d O � U W � � o o �n 7j M C3 O *� U U U a� 7;05 o 7oct cl o 43 �•-� lu lu •=d N ri Q, Q. Z-+ CA m u u u In kr) In In 4r) I in or) 1r) 44-) 00 oom (�A M 010 00 if) In m WW+1 V C fA 6 00In 00 -7� r- In if) Cj In In In In 6 00 (T) 8<1 00 In woo a-no00 0 ci 00 �,O M C= �lc r-4 "C 110 al� m ® ,,c "D -t CIA m m m -..4 .low 00 C,4 00 -1- C* 00 00 00 44 o-4 4-4 00 C " va P=4 4t, kn 66 z LIJ z 0 CL O LU V) V) LU i Z z LLJ LA -1 ui �e LLJ LLI °<i--1 ;--4 Q Q k-t 4r) 1r) 1r) NIro it 00 00 00 00 00 14r) rfl) rn rn rf) rn <= C:) N00 —4 p==4 —4 CIA r"ll Cn CC) VA Ell t7j CD 00 r- --4 rn or) 1.10 00 VO 00 -t CIA (Iq CIA r1l r4 44 cn 00 00 m ,c om (2--) rn Cd 1% 00 C -A 00 I'D ® F==4 00 00 00 00 oc F==4 re) CA "o rj (f) 00 00 cn � � 00 00 r— "X) Itt, ,tea � � @� � ® � � � � ® � � � � �, � �, � a � � �+ � 4 r-4 APPENDIX A ULI SHARED PARKING CALCULATION WORKSHEETS NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER COMPONENT • Noau✓- hI3493 N 155tin I noc5..r,tu1 en,.`3A5311 VIll ige, rsi +.m;Final Pau l. L 5a17au x_I,_,Js dee r4� , fie b#NSCOTT '' .AW & ,{y Appendix Table A-1 � t y FtEE SPA . SHOPPING CENTER(TYPICAL DAYS) a rt g � i n"e e r s WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Shopping Center(Typical Days) Size 66.405 KSF Pkg Rate[2] 4.44 /KSF Gross 295 Spaces Spaces 238 Guest Spc. I 57 Emp.Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 1% 2 9% 5 7 7:00 AM 5% 12 14% 8 20 8:00 AM 14% 33 36% 21 54 9:00 AM 32% 76 68% 39 115 10:00 AM 59% 140 77% 44 184 11:00 AM 77% 183 86% 49 232 12:00 PM 86% 205 90% 51 256 1:00 PM 90% 214 90% 51 265 2:00 PM 86% 205 90% 51 256 3:00 PM 81% 193 90% 51 244 4:00 PM 81% 193 90% 51 244 5:00 PM 86% 205 86% 49 254 6:00 PM 86% 205 86% 49 254 7:00 PM 86% 205 86% 49 254 8:00 PM 72% 171 81% 46 217 9:00 PM 45% 107 68% 39 146 10:00 PM 27% 64 36% 21 85 11:00 PM 9% 21 14% 8 29 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs.employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking"manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy LINISC TxT c-.; Appendix Table A-2 GREENSPAN .a h. . SHOPPING CENTER(TYPICAL DAYS) n gtrr e e rst WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Shopping Center(Typical Days) Size 66.405 KSF Pkg Rate[2] 4.44 /KSF Gross 295 Spaces ' Spaces 236 Guest Spc. 59 Emp. Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak 131 Spaces Demand 6:00 AM I% 2 10% 6 8 7:00 AM 5% 12 15% 9 21 8:00 AM 10% 24 40% 24 48 9:00 AM 30% 71 75% 44 115 10:00 AM 50% 118 85% 50 168 11:00 AM 65% 153 95% 56 209 12:00 PM 80% 189 100% 59 248 1:00 PM 90% 212 100% 59 271 2:00 PM 100% 236 100% 59 295 3:00 PM 100% 236 100% 59 295 4:00 PM 95% 224 100% 59 283 5:00 PM 90% 212 95% 56 268 6:00 PM 80% 189 85% 50 239 7:00 PM 75% 177 80% 47 224 8:00 PM 65% 153 75% 44 197 9:00 PM 50% 118 65% 38 156 10:00 PM 35% 83 45% 27 110 11:00 PM 15% 35 15% 9 44 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [I] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs.employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy ,kit SGCtFT to • PAW & Appendix Table A-3 LGR,EENSPA1f *A. FINE/CASUAL DINING -Etta"((freers WEEKDAY WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Fine/Casual Dining Size 4.500 KSF Pkg Rate[2] 10.00 /KSF Gross 45 Spaces Spaces 38 Guest Spc. 7 Emp.Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak 131 Spaces Peak 131 Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 18% 1 I 8:00 AM 0% 0 45% 3 3 9:00 AM 0% 0 68% 5 5 10:00 AM 14% 5 81% 6 11 11:00 AM 36% 14 81% 6 20 12:00 PM 68% 26 81% 6 32 1:00 PM 68% 26 81% 6 32 2:00 PM 59% 22 81% 6 28 3:00 PM 36% 14 68% 5 19 4:00 PM 45% 17 68% 5 22 5:00 PM 68% 26 90% 6 32 6:00 PM 86% 33 90% 6 39 7:00 PM 90% 34 90% 6 40 8:00 PM 90% 34 90% 6 40 9:00 PM 90% 34 90% 6 40 10:00 PM 86% 33 90% 6 39 11:00 PM 68% 26 77% 5 31 12:00 AM 23% 9 32% 2 11 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios.Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy LINSCDTT, ' hLAW '& Appendix Table A-4 GREENSPAN,; FINE/CASUAL DINING t e n y i n e'e rs WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 11] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Fine/Casual Dining Size 4.500 KSF Pkg Rate[2] 10.00 /KSF Gross 45 Spaces Spaces 38 Guest Spc. 7 Emp.Spc. Shared Time % Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak 131 Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 20% I 1 8:00 AM 0% 0 30% 2 2 9:00 AM 0% 0 60% 4 4 10:00 AM. 0% 0 75% 5 5 11:00 AM 15% 6 75% 5 11 12:00 PM 50% 19 75% 5 24 1:00 PM 55% 21 75% 5 26 2:00 PM 45% 17 75% 5 22 3:00 PM 45% 17 75% 5 22 4:00 PM 45% 17 75% 5 22 5:00 PM 60% 23 100% 7 30 6:00 PM 90% 34 100% 7 41 7:00 PM 95% 36 100% 7 43 8:00 PM 100% 38 100% 7 45 9:00 PM 90% 34 100% 7 41 10:00 PM 90% 34 100% 7 41 11:00 PM 90% 34 85% 6 40 12:00 AM 50% 19 50% 4 23 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy ' LINSCOTT LAw.& Appendix Table A-5 GR E E N SRA N FAMILY RESTAURANT -,e n,g r n e e r.s WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Family Restaurant Size 8.763 KSF Pkg Ratel21 10.00 /KSF • Gross 88 Spaces Spaces 75 Guest Spc. 13 Emp. Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak 131 Spaces Peak 131 Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 18% 14 35% 5 19 7:00 AM 35% 26 53% 7 33 8:00 AM 42% 32 63% 8 40 9:00 AM 53% 40 63% 8 48 10:00 AM 60% 45 70% 9 54 11:00 AM 63% 47 70% 9 56 12:00 PM 70% 53 70% 9 62 1:00 PM 63% 47 70% 9 56 2:00 PM 35% 26 70% 9 35 3:00 PM 32% 24 53% 7 31 4:00 PM 32% 24 53% 7 31 5:00 PM 53% 40 67% 9 49 6:00 PM 56% 42 67% 9 51 7:00 PM 56% 42 67% 9 51 8:00 PM 56% 42 67% 9 51 9:00 PM 42% 32 56% 7 39 10:00 PM 39% 29 46% 6 35 11:00 PM 35% 26 46% 6 32 12:00 AM 18% 14 25% 3 17 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy LINSCDTT * LAW & Appendix Table A-6 I GREENSPAN iry FAMILY RESTAURANT a n,g r n e e r a.. WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Family Restaurant Size 8.763 KSF Pkg Rate[21 10.00 /KSF Gross 88 Spaces Spaces 75 Guest Spc. 13 Emp.Spc. Shared Time % Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [31 Spaces Peak [3[ Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 10% 8 50% 7 15 7:00 AM 25% 19 75% 10 29 8:00 AM 45% 34 90% 12 46 9:00 AM 70% 53 90% 12 65 10:00 AM 90% 68 100% 13 81 11:00 AM 90% 68 100% 13 81 12:00 PM 100% - 75 100% 13 88 1:00 PM 85% 64 100% 13 77 2:00 PM 65% 49 100% 13 62 3:00 PM 40% 30 75% 10 40 4:00 PM 45% 34 75% 10 44 5:00 PM 60% 45 95% 12 57 6:00 PM 70% 53 95% 12 65 7:00 PM 70% 53 95% 12 65 8:00 PM 65% 49 95% 12 61 9:00 PM 30% 23 80% 10 33 10:00 PM 25% 19 65% 8 27 11:00 PM 15% I I 65% 8 19 12:00 AM 10% 8 35% 5 13 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs.employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy -*LiiUSCOTt LAW-& Appendix Table A-7 GREENSPAN FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT -.'tits i n e:e r s WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 111 " THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant Size 3.300 KSF Pkg Rate[21 10.00 /KSF Gross 33 Spaces Spaces 28 Guest Spc. 5 Emp.Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak 131 Spaces Peak [31 Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 5% 1 15% 1 2 7:00 AM 10% 3 20% 1 4 8:00 AM 20% 6 30% 2 8 9:00 AM 30% 8 40% 2 10 10:00 AM 55% 15 75% 4 19 11:00 AM 85% 24 100% 5 29 12:00 PM 100% 28 100% 5 33 1:00 PM 100% 28 100% 5 33 2:00 PM 90% 25 95% 5 30 3:00 PM 60% 17 70% 4 21 4:00 PM 55% 15 60% 3 18 5:00 PM 60% 17 70% 4 21 6:00 PM 85% 24 90% 5 29 7:00 PM 80% 22 90% 5 27 8:00 PM 50% 14 60% 3 17 9:00 PM 30% 8 40% 2 10 10:00 PM 20% 6 30% 2 8 11:00 PM 10% 3 20% I 4 12:00 AM 5% I 20% 1 2 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy s'LINSCOTT LAW & Appendix Table A-8 x GREENSPAN FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT .1-engineers. WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS]1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Fast-Food Restaurant Size 3.300 KSF Pkg RateI2l 10.00 /KSF Gross 33 Spaces Spaces 28 Guest Spc. 5 Emp. Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak 131 Spaces Peak(31 Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 5% 1 14% 1 2 7:00 AM 9% 3 19% 1 4 8:00 AM 19% 5 28% 1 6 9:00 AM 28% 8 37% 2 10 10:00 AM 51% 14 70% 4 18 11:00 AM 79% 22 93% 5 27 12:00 PM 93% 26 93% 5 31 1:00 PM 93% 26 93% 5 31 2:00 PM 84% 24 89% 4 28 3:00 PM 56% 16 65% 3 19 4:00 PM 51% 14 56% 3 17 5:00 PM 56% 16 65% 3 19 6:00 PM 79% 22 84% 4 26 7:00 PM 75% 21 84% 4 25 8:00 PM 47% 13 56% 3 16 9:00 PM 28% 8 37% 2 10 10:00 PM 19% 5 28% 1 6 11:00 PM 9% 3 19% 1 4 12:00 AM 5% 1 19% 1 2 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy LAW$ Appendix Table A-9 !:G lItE S'PAAI HEALTH CLUB ,v grne e ,s ' WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] ` THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Health Club Size 4.000 KSF Pkg Rate[2] 6.67 /KSF Gross 27 Spaces Spaces 25 Guest Spc. 2 Emp.Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak 131 Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 70% 18 75% 2 20 7:00 AM 40% 10 75% 2 12 8:00 AM 40% 10 75% 2 12 9:00 AM 70% 18 75% 2 20 10:00 AM 70% 18 75% 2 20 11:00 AM 80% 20 75% 2 22 12:00 PM 60% 15 75% 2 17 1:00 PM 70% 18 75% 2 20 2:00 PM 70% 18 75% 2 20 3:00 PM 70% 18 75% 2 20 4:00 PM 80% 20 75% 2 22 5:00 PM 90% 23 100% 2 25 6:00 PM 100% 25 100% 2 27 7:00 PM 90% 23 75% 2 25 8:00 PM 80% 20 50% 1 21 9:00 PM 70% 18 20% 0 18 10:00 PM 35% 9 20% 0 9 11:00 PM 10% 3 20% 0 3 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. • The Village at Tustin Legacy i LINSCOTT .L"AW & . Appendix Table A-10 GR. €NSPAN r HEALTH CLUB e n get n ee rs WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Health Club Size 4.000 KSF Pkg Rate[2] 6.67 /KSF Gross 27 Spaces Spaces 25 Guest Spc. 2 Emp.Spc. Shared Time % Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak 131 Spaces Peak 131 Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 66% 17 41% 1 18 7:00 AM 37% 9 41% 1 10 8:00 AM 29% 7 41% 1 8 9:00 AM 41% 10 41% 1 11 10:00 AM 29% 7 41% 1 8 11:00 AM 41% 10 41% 1 11 12:00 PM 41% 10 41% 1 11 1:00 PM 25% 6 41% 1 7 2:00 PM 21% 5 41% 1 6 3:00 PM 25% 6 41% 1 7 4:00 PM 45% 11 62% 1 12 5:00 PM 82% 21 82% 2 23 6:00 PM 78% 20 82% 2 22 7:00 PM 49% 12 62% 1 13 8:00 PM 25% 6 41% 1 7 9:00 PM 8% 2 16% 0 2 10:00 PM 1% 0 16% 0 0 11:00 PM 1% 0 16% 0 0 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy r by N� C�yT Appendix Table A-11 REENSPAN DAY CARE ye4nff e.rs- WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Day-Care/Pre-School Size 8.000 KSF Pkg Rate[2] Gross 51 Spaces Spaces 31 Visitor Spc._ _ __ 20 Emp.Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 3% 1 1 7:00 AM 35% 11 30% 6 17 8:00 AM 60% 19 75% 15 34 9:00 AM 5% 2 95% 19 21 10:00 AM 5% 2 ' 100% 20 22 11:00 AM 5% 2 100% 20 22 12:00 PM 15% 5 90% 18 23 1:00 PM 5% 2 90% 18 20 2:00 PM 5% 2 100% 20 22 3:00 PM 5% 2 100% 20 22 4:00 PM 20% 6 90% 18 24 5:00 PM 20% 6 50% 10 16 6:00 PM 60% 19 25% 5 24 7:00 PM 5% 2 10% 2 4 8:00 PM 0% 0 7% 1 1 9:00 PM 0% 0 3% 1 1 10:00 PM 0% 0 1% 0 0 11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios.Breakdown of guest vs. employee The Village at Tustin Legacy rLINSCOTT "LAW.& s Appendix Table A-12 , GREENSPAN.' DAY CARE ' en g i.n e e'r s WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[7] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Day-Care/Pre-School Size 8.000 KSF Pkg RateI21 _ Gross 51 Spaces Spaces i 31 Visitor Spc. 20 Emp. Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of % Of #Of Parking of Day Peak 131 Spaces Peak 131 Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 2% 1 2% 0 1 8:00 AM 6% 2 6% I 3 9:00 AM 8% 2 8% 2 4 10:00 AM 9% 3 9% 2 5 11:00 AM 10% 3 10% 2 5 12:00 PM 9% 3 9% 2 5 1:00 PM 8% 2 8% 2 4 2:00 PM 6% 2 6% 1 3 3:00 PM 4% 1 4% 1 2 4:00 PM 2% I 2% 0 1 5:00 PM 1% 0 1% 0 0 6:00 PM 1% 0 1% 0 0 7:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 8:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 9:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 10:00 PM - 0% 0 0% 0 0 _ 11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [I] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee The Village at Tustin Legacy . . PIP: . .,. . ...•,. „: • .. „ • - „ .. , .. . .. , . ' . . . . . . . , , .„.. -•- • . . . • . . . ,., . , . . . ,. . . .. „ . • • , , . .. ... , • APPENDIX B ULI SHARED PARKING CALCULATION WORKSHEETS L- MEDICAL PLAZA COMPONENT 1V,1...' L•'-• ,... . ... . ,•. • ..., ... ,•'; -„ „ ii., -•., . ti. • Vt ti-3-1k1U'113493-ViihIthtin I.e:il41/4:y.'rti.tin I OTC,3-03 Thc.VIlt.ige a,r,aFII)i c...;.cy 1,n il Park all:.knzilysts 8-1,-'.)15 Elcs• rLINSCOTT -, LAW'& Appendix Table B-1 t G REENS PA N SHOPPING CENTER(TYPICAL DAYS) etn g n e ers WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 11] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Medical-Related Retail Size 15.000 KSF Pkg Rate[2[ 6.00 /KSF Gross 90 Spaces Spaces 73 Guest Spc. 17 Emp. Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak [3[ Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 1% 1 9% 2 3 7:00 AM 5% 4 14% 2 6 8:00 AM 14% 10 36% 6 16 9:00 AM 32% 23 68% 12 35 10:00 AM 59% 43 77% 13 56 11:00 AM 77% 56 86% 15 71 12:00 PM 86% 63 90% 15 78 1:00 PM 90% 66 90% 15 81 2:00 PM 86% 63 90% 15 78 3:00 PM 81% 59 90% 15 74 4:00 PM 81% 59 90% 15 74 5:00 PM 86% 63 86% 15 78 6:00 PM 86% 63 86% 15 78 7:00 PM 86% 63 86% 15 78 8:00 PM 72% 53 81% 14 67 9:00 PM 45% 33 68% 12 45 10:00 PM 27% 20 36% 6 26 11:00 PM 9% 7 14% 2 9 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy L] scoTT, s y AAA({$e' }: Appendix Table B-2 8REENSPAN; SHOPPING CENTER(TYPICAL DAYS) ;engineers WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] T.'` c .: THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Medical-Related Retail Size 15.000 KSF Pkg Rate[2] 6.00 /KSF Gross 90 Spaces Spaces 72 Guest Spc. 18 Emp. Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [31 Spaces Peak[3] Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 1% 1 10% 2 3 7:00 AM 5% 4 15% 3 7 8:00 AM 10% 7 40% 7 14 9:00 AM 30% 22 75% 14 36 10:00 AM 50% 36 85% 15 51 11:00 AM 65% 47 95% 17 64 12:00 PM 80% 58 100% 18 76 1:00 PM 90% 65 100% 18 83 2:00 PM 100% 72 100% 18 90 3:00 PM 100% 72 100% 18 90 4:00 PM 95% 68 100% 18 86 5:00 PM 90% 65 95% 17 82 6:00 PM 80% 58 85% 15 73 7:00 PM 75% 54 80% 14 68 8:00 PM 65% 47 ' 75% 14 61 9:00 PM 50% 36 65% 12 48 10:00 PM 35% 25 45% 8 33 11:00 PM 15% 11 15% 3 14 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express ' percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios.Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy UNSCOTT t.AW & s " 1 Appendix Table B-3 GRE Et SP.61 ' Ar ACUTE CARE/REHAB HOSPITAL/MEDICAL OFFICE1t 1 n.ke stQ WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] ' THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Acute Care/Rehab Hospital Size 80 Beds Pkg Rate[2] 2.00 /bed Gross 160 Spaces Spaces 40 Visitor Spc. 120 Emp.Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 15% 18 18 7:00 AM 0% 0 60% 72 72 8:00 AM 90% 36 60% 72 108 9:00 AM 90% 36 100% 120 156 10:00 AM 100% 40 100% 120 160 11:00 AM 100% 40 100% 120 160 12:00 PM 30% 12 100% 120 132 1:00 PM 90% 36 100% 120 156 2:00 PM 100% 40 100% 120 160 3:00 PM 100% 40 100% 120 160 4:00 PM 90% 36 100% 120 156 5:00 PM 80% 32 100% 120 152 6:00 PM 67% 27 67% 80 107 7:00 PM 30% 12 30% 36 48 8:00 PM 15% 6 15% 18 24 9:00 PM 0% 0 15% 18 18 10:00 PM 0% 0 15% 18 18 11:00 PM 0% 0 15% 18 18 12:00 AM 0% 0 15% 18 I 18 Notes: [1] Source: ULI- Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs.employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy P4r r T.T� CAW c Fel, Appendix Table B-4GREET SPAN ACUTE CARE/REHAB HOSPITAUMEDICAL OFFICE td get n e e rs WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Acute Care/Rehab Hospital Size 80 Beds Pkg Rate[2] 2.00 /bed Gross 160 Spaces Spaces 40 Visitor Spc. 120 Emp.Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [31 Spaces Peak 13] Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 15% 18 18 7:00 AM 0% 0 60% 72 72 8:00 AM 90% 36 60% 72 108 9:00 AM 90% 36 100% 120 156 10:00 AM 100% 40 100% 120 160 11:00 AM 100% 40 100% 120 160 12:00 PM 30% 12 100% 120 132 1:00 PM 90% 36 100% 120 156 2:00 PM 100% 40 100% 120 160 3:00 PM 100% 40 100% 120 160 4:00 PM 90% 36 100% 120 156 5:00 PM 80% 32 100% 120 152 6:00 PM 67% 27 67% 80 107 7:00 PM 30% 12 30% 36 48 8:00 PM 15% 6 15% 18 24 9:00 PM 0% 0 15% 18 18 10:00 PM 0% 0 15% 18 18 11:00 PM 0% 0 15% 18 18 12:00 AM 0% 0 15% 18 18 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy bINsco & ' Aw` . Appendix Table B-5 GR EENS AN MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE iengineers. WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 111 THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use Medical/Dental Office Size 60.000 KSF Pkg Rate[2l 6.00 /KSF Gross 360 Spaces Spaces 240 Visitor Spc. 120 Emp.Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day i Peak 131 Spaces Peak 13] Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 8:00 AM 90% 216 60% 72 288 9:00 AM 90% 216 100% 120 336 10:00 AM 100% 240 100% 120 360 11:00 AM 100% 240 100% 120 360 12:00 PM 30% 72 100% 120 192 1:00 PM 90% 216 100% 120 336 2:00 PM 100% 240 100% 120 360 3:00 PM 100% 240 100% 120 360 4:00 PM 90% 216 100% 120 336 5:00 PM 80% 192 100% 120 312 6:00 PM 67% 161 67% 80 241 7:00 PM 30% 72 30% 36 108 8:00 PM 15% 36 15% 18 54 9:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 10:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking"manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy ill 6: ilk' LAWM .W Appendix Table B-6 ,r0 il E g IAN;:g MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE 7 , n 1"rr e ersy;' tk WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS[1] THE VILLAGE AT TUSTIN LEGACY Land Use MedicallDental Office Size 60.000 KSF Pkg Rate[2] 6.00 /KSF Gross 360 Spaces Spaces 240 Visitor Spc. 120 Emp.Spc. Shared Time %Of #Of %Of #Of Parking of Day Peak [3] Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 8:00 AM 90% 216 60% 72 288 9:00 AM 90% 216 100% 120 336 10:00 AM 100% 240 100% 120 360 11:00 AM 100% 240 100% 120 360 12:00 PM 30% 72 100% 120 192 1:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 2:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 3:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 4:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 5:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 6:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 8:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 9:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 10:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI-Urban Land Institute"Shared Parking," Second Edition,2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs.employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios,as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. The Village at Tustin Legacy EXHIBIT C TO RESOLUTION NO. 15-57 Noise Study Transportation Noise Analysis for Tustin Regency Center City of Tustin, California 563701-0100-A April 29, 2015 Prepared For: Regency Centers 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Prepared By: Vince Mestre, P.E. Mike Holritz, INCE Landrum & Brown 19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 230 Tustin, CA 92612 949-349-0671 Tustin Regency Center Landrum & Brown Project#563701-0100-A TRANSPORTATION NOISE ANALYSIS FOR TUSTIN REGENCY CENTER CITY OF TUSTIN 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to determine the noise exposure levels at the planned Tustin Regency Center and determine any effects of project-generated traffic noise on adjacent areas. The project calls for the development of thirteen commercial buildings, including offices, medical facilities,retail stores,and restaurants. The project is located in the City of Tustin, California, as shown in Exhibit 1. The site plan is shown in Exhibit 2. The project will be impacted by traffic noise from Edinger Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road, Valencia Avenue, and Kensington Park Drive. The project is also impacted by railroad noise from the SCRRA rail line on the north side of Edinger Avenue. This report determines the noise exposure levels at each building and specifies which buildings will require a future report in order to determine any building upgrades that may be necessary to meet the interior noise standards. Site plan and grading information was obtained from the "Site Plan for Tustin Legacy" by Architects Orange, April 14, 2015 and the "Tustin Regency Grading Exhibit" by Kimley-Horn, March 11,2015. 2.0 NOISE STANDARDS 2.1 City of Tustin Noise Standards The City of Tustin specifies exterior and indoor noise limits for commercial land uses. The noise standards were obtained from Table N-3 of the City of Tustin Noise Element of the General Plan (June 17, 2008). The standards are based upon the Leq (12) and CNEL metrics. Leq (12) is a 12-hour average noise level based on the hourly noise levels between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour time-weighted annual average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. A-weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain noise-sensitive time periods is given more significance because it occurs at these times. In the calculation of CNEL, noise occurring in the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by 5 dB, while noise occurring in the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) is weighted by 10 dB. These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while sleeping,eating, and relaxing. Page 1of10 %L<9 Exhibit V Vicinity Map peojjle�j Tustin Regency Center Landrum & Brown Project#563701-0100-A The noise standards applicable to this project are shown below in Table 1. Table 1 CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE STANDARDS FOR VARIOUS LAND USES LAND NOISE USE STANDARD School Playground 67 Leq(12) School Buildings 45 CNEL Hospitals and Medical Facilities 45 CNEL Offices 50 CNEL Retail Stores, Restaurants 55 CNEL The City of Tustin does not have any noise standard for exterior dining areas at restaurants. 2.2 Significance Thresholds Long-term off-site impacts from traffic noise are measured against two criteria. Both criteria must be met for a significant impact to be identified. First, project traffic must cause a substantial noise level increase on a roadway segment adjacent to a noise-sensitive land use. Second the resulting future-with-project noise level must exceed the criteria level for the noise- sensitive land use. In community noise assessment,changes in noise levels greater than 3 dB are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dB will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dB, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. Note that there is no scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dB as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dB. However, in a community noise situation, changes in noise levels occur over long periods of time, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dB, and 3 dB appears to be appropriate for most people. Therefore, a significant noise impact is recognized if an increase of 3 dB or greater over existing conditions occurs. Page 2 of 10 Tustin Regency Center LB Landrum & Brown Project#563701-0100-A 3.0 METHODOLOGY The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level". A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the observer. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the noise source and the observer is interrupted by the barrier. As the distance that the noise must travel around the noise barrier increases, the amount of noise reduction increases. The FHWA model was also used here in computerized format to determine the required barrier heights. 4.0 NOISE EXPOSURE 4.1 Traffic Noise Impacting Project Site The future (year 2025) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for Edinger Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road, Valencia Avenue, and Kensington Park Drive were obtained from Mr. Rich Barretto at Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers on April 23, 2015. (We attempted to obtain year 2035 volumes, but they were not available). The speeds used are the posted speed limits obtained during the site visit. The traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and roadway grades used in the CNEL calculations are presented below in Table 2. Table 2 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SPEEDS, AND ROADWAY GRADES TRAFFIC ROADWAY VOLUME SPEED GRADE Edinger Avenue 46,650 55 < 3% Tustin Ranch Road 49,000 55 < 3% Valencia Avenue 19,000 45 < 3% Kensington Park Drive (north of Valencia Avenue) 10,000 40 < 3% Kensington Park Drive (south of Edinger Avenue) 7,000 40 < 3% Page 3 of 10 Meme Landrum & Brown P Project#563701-0100-A The traffic distribution that was used in the CNEL calculations is listed below in Table 3. This arterial traffic distribution estimate was compiled by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and is based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the Orange County area. Arterial traffic distribution estimates can be considered typical for arterials in Southern California. Table 3 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT • VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are listed in Table 4 in terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the centerline of each roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 4 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may affect the roadway noise exposure. Topographic effects are included in the noise barrier analysis section (Section 5.0) of this report. Table 4 DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS DISTANCE TO CONTOUR (FEET) ROADWAY -70 CNEL- -65 CNEL- -60 CNEL- Edinger Avenue 116 251 540 Tustin Ranch Road 120 259 558 Valencia Avenue 45 97 210 Kensington Park Drive (north of Valencia Avenue) 24 52 112 Kensington Park Drive (south of Edinger Avenue) 19 41 89 Page 4 of 10 Tustin Regency Center M Landrum & Brown Project#563701-0100-A The building nearest to Edinger Avenue is located 80 feet from the roadway centerline, and would be exposed to a traffic noise level of 72.4 CNEL. The building nearest to Tustin Ranch Road is located 180 feet from the centerline, and would be exposed to a traffic noise level of 60.4 CNEL. The building nearest to Valencia Avenue is located 108 feet from the centerline, and would be exposed to a traffic noise level of 64.3 CNEL. The building nearest to Kensington Park Drive is located 70 feet from the roadway centerline. At this distance, the building would be exposed to a traffic noise level of 63.1 CNEL. 4.2 Railroad Noise Impacts The SCRRA railroad line passes near the northern boundary of the site across Edinger Avenue. To determine train noise levels, the Wyle Train Model was used ("Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations", Wyle Laboratories Report WCR-73-5, July, 1973). The noise generated by train operations can be divided into two components; noise generated by the engine or locomotive, and noise generated the railroad cars. The characteristic frequency of the engine is different than the characteristic frequency of the cars. The noise generated by the engine is the result of the mechanical movements of the engine parts, and to a lesser extent, the exhaust system. The noise generated by the cars is a result of the interaction between the wheels and the railroad track. A zero foot high source height is used for the car noise, and a source height of 10 feet is utilized for the locomotive. The railroad line is used for freight and passenger train operations. Freight train operations were estimated based on our previous experience with operations on this line. Passenger train operations were obtained from the published timetables for Amtrak and Metrolink. It should be noted that railroads are free to change operations at their discretion. The total number of operations and the times at which they occur are therefore subject to change. The projected railroad operations are shown in Table 5. Table 5 RAILROAD OPERATIONS MODELED OPERATION AMTRAK METROLINK FREIGHT Day 18 35 2 Evening 2 3 Night 2 6 4 Number of Engines 1 I 4 Number of Cars 6 5 70 Speed 60 50 40 Page 5 of 10 Tustin Regency Center Mug Landrum & Brown Project#563701-0100-A The projected operational data presented in Table 5 was utilized in conjunction with the Wyle Model to project train noise levels on the project site. The results of the train noise projections are displayed in Table 6 terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the railroad line to the contour value shown. These projections do not include topography or barriers that may reduce the noise levels. Table 6 RAILROAD NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVEL -70 CNEL- -65 CNEL- -60 CNEL- Distance to Contour (feet) 14 49 161 The building nearest to the railroad tracks is located approximately 185 feet from the centerline between the rails. At this distance, the railroad noise level was estimated to be 58.8 CNEL. 4.3 Total Noise Exposure The north boundary of the project will be exposed to traffic noise and railroad noise. Projecting the noise levels from two noise sources and combining them logarithmically results in the total noise levels impacting the project site. Calculations have established that the railroad noise level at 185 feet from the railroad tracks is 58.8 CNEL. The traffic noise level from Edinger Avenue is 72.4 CNEL. Summing these noise levels results in a combined traffic/railroad noise level of 72.6 CNEL impacting the nearest building at the north edge of the project. 5.0 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC IMPACTS Increased traffic volumes caused by the development of the project will result in increased traffic noise levels along the roadways in the'vicinity of the project. This section examines noise level increases and potential impacts from the proposed project on the surrounding land uses. Specifically, traffic noise increases due to the project are examined. The traffic data utilized was provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan. A significant noise impact is recognized if a 3.0 dB or greater increase over existing conditions occurs. Page 6 of 10 � I , Tustin Regency Center 6. Landrum & Brown Project#563701-0100-A Table 7 shows the traffic noise level changes due to project-related increases in traffic. Year 2015 traffic volumes were not available, so the project-opening year 2018 volumes were used as the baseline for assessing the traffic noise level increases. Five roadway segments are examined. The first three data columns of Table 7 show the opening year (2018) ADT volume, the project ADT, and the total ADT with the project. The fourth column shows the noise level increase due to the project. The noise level increases are due to the increases in traffic due to the project. Table 7 SUMMARY OF NOISE INCREASES EXISTING INCREASE (YEAR 2018) PROJECT TOTAL DUE TO ROADWAY ADT ADT ADT PROJECT (dB) EDINGER AVENUE West of Tustin Ranch Road 17,407 1,444 28,851 0.2 TUSTIN RANCH ROAD North of Valencia Avenue 20,580 2,403 22,983 0.5 VALENCIA AVENUE West of Tustin Ranch Road 6,722 3,610 10,332 1.9 KENSINGTON PARK DRIVE North of Valencia Avenue 4,533 2,784 7,317 2.1 South of Edinger Avenue 4,533 2,165 6,698 1.7 The data in Table 7 indicates that there would be no increases in traffic noise level greater than 3 dB due to the project. Therefore, the project will not result in significant traffic,noise impacts. Page 7 of 10 _alioTustin Regency Center Landrum & Brown Project#563701-0100-A 6.0 EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE 6.1 Exterior Areas The school playground located on the southeast side of the project must meet the City's 67 Leq (12) exterior noise standard. The playground is exposed primarily to noise from traffic on Tustin Ranch Road. Since this road is elevated in this area of the project, it receives substantial shielding from traffic noise from the edge of the roadway. Calculations were performed for a number of locations at the playground area. The results indicate that the worst-case noise level at the playground is less than 60 Leq (12). This meets the exterior noise standard, and no additional mitigation is needed. The City of Tustin does not have any noise standard for exterior dining areas at restaurants. Therefore,no mitigation is required for these areas. 6.2 Buildings The project will need to comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standards listed previously in this report. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. The critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, and insulation. The noise exposure level at each specific area of the project, the noise level standard, the noise reduction needed in order to meet the noise level standard for that use, and a conclusion regarding whether additional studies are needed for that area, are presented in Table 8. • Page 8 of 10 Ma Tustin Regency Center Landrum & Brown Project#563701-0100-A Table 8 SUMMARY OF NOISE EXPOSURES AT PROJECT SITE AND CONCLUSIONS WORST CASE NOISE REQUIRED EXPOSURE LAND NOISE REDUCTION LOCATION (dB) USE STANDARD (dB) CONCLUSION Building A 60.7 School 45 15.7 • No mitigation Building B 61.7 Retail 55 6.7 No mitigation Building C 63.4 Retail 55 8.4 No mitigation Building D 67.4 Retail 55 12.4 No mitigation Building E 63.4 Retail 55 8.4 No mitigation Building F 64.3 Retail 55 9.3 No mitigation Building G 63.1 Retail 55 8.1 No mitigation Building H 61.6 Retail 55 6.6 No mitigation Building I 61.8 Retail 55 6.8 No mitigation Building J 58.9 Office/Retail 50 8.9 No mitigation Building K 71.5 Medical 45 26.5 Future Study Building L 72.6 Office/Retail 50 22.6 Future Study Building M 59.4 Medical 45 14.4 No mitigation Playground 60.4 School, Exterior 67 0.0 No mitigation Building F Patio 66.4 Retail, Exterior -- -- No mitigation Building G Patio (E) 59.6 Retail, Exterior -- -- No mitigation Building G Patio (W) 66.4 Retail, Exterior -- -- No mitigation Building I Patio 62.9 Retail, Exterior -- -- No mitigation The data in Table 8 shows that in order to meet the interior noise standards, some buildings will require more than 20 dB of noise reduction. Detailed engineering calculations are necessary for building attenuation requirements greater than 20 dB. A future study will be needed to address the interior noise levels for these buildings when architectural drawings are available, and prior to the issuance of building permits. • Page 9of10 pfra Tustin Regency Center Landrum & Brown Project#563701-0100-A APPENDIX CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS DATA USED TO DETERMINE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS Page 10 of 10 Tustin Legacy Regency Center,Tustin Regency Centers - Luis Gomez PROJECT#563701-0100 VINCE/ MIKE;April 2015 EDINGER CASE RAILROAD AVENUE TOTAL Bldg K (no mit) 58.2 713 71.5 no mit Bldg L(no mit) 58.8 72.4 72.6 no mit Tustin Legacy Regency Center,Tustin Regency Centers-Luis Gomez PROJECT#563701-0100 VINCE/MIKE;April 2015 AMTRAK METRO TRAIN TYPE : SURF LINK FREIGHT COASTER TOTAL Day Operations 18 35 2 0 55 (7 a.m. -7 p.m.) Evening Operations 2 3 1 0 6 (7 p.m. - 10 p.m.) Night Operations 2 6 4 0 12 (10 p.m. -7 a.m.) Average Length (1) 560 480 5920 0 f x Number of Engines(2) 1 1 4 0 Engine : 250 0.442477876 Number of Cars (3) 6 5 70 0 Cars : 1000 1.769911504 Speed 60 50 40 55 TOTAL Car SEL @ 100' 93.0 91.5 101.3 0.0 102.3 Engine SEL @ 100' 98.7 99.5 _ 100.3 0.0 104.3 TOTAL(Modeled) 99.8 100.1 103.8 3.0 Measured (4) 95.0 Adjustment -99.8 -100.1 -8.8 -3.0 Desired ITERATED DISTANCE ++++++++++++ CNEL LEVEL++++++++++++ TOTAL Contour DISTANCE 14' -25.1 -21.3 70.0 0.0 70.0 70 14' 49' -30.1 -26.4 65.0 0.0 65.0 65 49' 161' -35.1 -31.3 60.0 0.0 60.0 60 161' 230' -37.8 -34.1 57.0 0.0 57.0 57 230' Rail Distance Base Of Dist.To Pad Observer Wall Barrier Reduction DX Attenuation CNEL LOT Elevation To Wall Wall Observer Elevation Height Height Car Engine Car Engine Building K no mit 65 175 65.0 200 65.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 _. 4.2 3.7 58.2 Building L no mit 64 165 64.0 185 64.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.1 58.8 • Tustin Legacy Regency Center,Tustin Regency Centers-Luis Gomez PROJECT#563701-0100 VINCE/MIKE;April 2015 Year-2025 Date 4-23-15 Roadway Name Edinger Avenue Day Eve Night Equiv Vehicles Per Day 46,650 Auto 75.51% 12.57% 9.34% 208.6% Speed(mph) 55 MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 3.7% Grade Adj.(dB) 0.00 dB HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% 15% Vehicle Noise Red(dB) 0 dB Roadway Grade 0.0% To get other noise levels(CNEL), To get other distances(ft), This is the CNEL at 15m put in other distances(ft) put in other noise levels Soft Hard Dist. Soft Hard CNEL Soft Hard Auto 74.9 76.1 40 77.0 774 57 856 4,705 Medium Truck 64.5 65.7 50 75.5 76.7 58 734 3,738 Heavy Truck 64.565.7 75 72.9 730 59 630 2,969 Total 75.6 76.8 100 71.0 73.7 60 540 2358 125 69.5 72.8 61 463 4473 150 68.3 7220 62 397 1,198 175 67.3 71.3 63 341 1,182 180 67.2 713 64 292 939 200 66.5 703 65 251 746 240 653 69:9 66 215 592 250 65.0 69.7 67 184 43-1- 295 63.9 690 68 158 374 350 62.8 683 69 136 297 2180 50.9 603 70 116 236 Road Distance Base Of Distance Pad Observer Wall Barrier Reduction Traffic Noise CASE Elevation To Wall Wall To Observer Elevation Height Height Auto MT HT Soft Hard • Building K no mit 65 70 65.0 95 65.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.3 no mit 73.3 • - Building L no mit 64 60 64.0 80 64.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 714 no mit 747 Tustin Legacy Regency Center,Tustin Regency Centers-Luis Gomez PROJECT#563701-0100 VINCE 1 MIKE;April 2015 Year-2025 Date 4-23-15 Roadway Name .Tawin Ranch Road . Day Eve Night Equiv Vehicles Per Day 49.000 Auto 7551% 12.57% 9.34% 208.6% Speed(mph) 55 MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 3.7% Grade Adj.(dB) 0.00 dB HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% 1.5% Vehicle Noise Red(dB) 0 dB Roadway Grade 2.7% (93.5591400 To get other noise levels(CNEL), To get other distances(ft), This is the CNEL at 15m put in other distances(ft) put in other noise levels Soft Ilard Dist. Soft Hard CNEL Soft Bard Auto 75.1 76.3 40 77.2 77,9 57 884 4942 Medium Truck 64.7 65.9 50 75.7 769 58 759 7:926 Heavy Truck 64.7 65.9 75 73.1 75-2 59 651 7}I8 Total 75.8 • 77.0 IW 71.2 739 60 558 2477 125 69.7 lag 61 479 4,958 . 150 68.6 72,2 . 62 411 4363 175 67.6 713 63 352 4344 near 180 674 7444 64 302 986 200 66.7 70,9 65 259 783 mid 240 65.5 70.4 66 222 622 250 65.2 70, 67 191 494 rm 295 64.2 692 68 163 797 350 63.0 684 69 140 742 2180 51.1 60.6 70 120 248 Road Distance Base Of Distance Pad Observer Wall Barrier Reduction Trane Noise CASE Elevation To Wall Wall To Observer Elevation Height Height Auto MT I IT Soft I lard Building L • no mit 93 65 93.0 265 64.0 5 0.0 7.6 6.5 0.0 58.7 no mit 674 • Building A4 no mit 85 70 85.0 190 63.0 5 0.0 8.1 7.1 d.9 59.4 no mit 633 playground(near) no mit 78 74 78.0 180 61.0 5 0.0 7.2 6.3 5.0 60.4 no mit 444 playground(mid) no mit 78 74 78.0 240 61.0 5 0.0 62 53 0.0 60.3 no mit 6341 playground(far) no mit 78 74 78.0 295 61.0 5 0.0 5.7 4.8 0.0 59.3 no mit 544 Building A no'nit 78 74 78.0 230 62.5 5 0.0 6.0 5.1 0.0 60.7 no mit6c7 Building B no mit 72 80 72.0 215 61.5 5 0.0 5.3 5.0 0.0 61.7 no mit 664 Building C no reit 65 90 65.0 330 605 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.4 no mit Esu • Building D no mit 59 95 59.0 180 59.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.4 no mit art Tustin Legacy Regency Center,Tustin Regency Centers-Luis Gomez PROJECT#563701-0100 VINCE/MIKE:April 2015 Year-2025 Date 4-23-15 Roadway Name 14dencia Avenue Day Eve Night Equiv Vehicles Per Day 19,0W Auto 75 51% 12.57% 9.34% 208.6% Speed(mph) 45 MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 3.7% Grade Adj.(dB) 0.00 dB HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% 1.5% Vehicle Noise Red(dB) 0 dB • Roadway Grade 0.0% To get other noise levels(CNEL), To get other distances(ft), This is the CNEL at 15m put in other distances(ft) put in other noise levels Soli Hard Dist. Soil Hard CNEL Soft Hard Auto 68.5 69.7 40 70.8 71;6 57 333 1441- Medium Truck 59.3 60.5 50 69.3 70.6 58 285 906 Heavy Truck 59.8 61.0 75 66.7 68.8 59 245 720 Total 69.5 70.7 100 64.8 67,6 60 210 573 125 63.4 66.6 61 180 434 150 62.2 63.8 62 154 3454 175 61.2 654 63 133 287 180 61.0 65.0 64 114 228 200 60.3 646 65 97 141 240 59.1 636 66 84 +-14 250 58.9 63.6 67 72 414 295 57.8 62.9 68 62 41- 350 4350 56.7 624 69 53 72 2180 44.8 544 70 45 57 Road Distance Base Of Distance Pad Observer Wall Barrier Reduction Traffic Noise CASE Elevation To Wall Wall To Observer Elevation Height Height Auto MT HT Soft Hard Building U no out 59 75 59.0 200 59.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.3 no mit 676 • Building E no mit 61 78 61.0 125 61.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.4 no mit 56.6 Building F no nail 61.5 78 615 108 61.5 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.3 no mit 67,2 Building F-Patio no mit 61.5 108 615 113 61.5 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.0 no mit 630 Tustin Legacy Regency Center.Tustin Regency Centers-Luis Gomez PROJECT#563701-0100 VINCE/MIKE:April2015 ' Year-2025 Date 4-23-15 Roadway Name Kensington Park Dr. (north of Valenicia Ave.) Day Eve Night Equiv Vehicles Per Day /0.000 Auto 75.51% 12.57% 9.34% 208.6% Speed(mph) 40 MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 3.7% Grade Adj.(dB) 0.00 dB HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% 1.5% Vehicle Noise Red(dB) 0 dB Roadway Grade 0.0% • To get other noise levels(CNEL), To get other distances(ft), This is the CNEL at 15m put in other distances(ft) put in other noise levels Soft Hard Dist. Soft Hard CNEL Soft Hard Auto 642 65.4 40 66.7 67.5 57 178 417 Medium Truck 55.7 56.9 50 65.3 664 58 153 355 Heavy Truck 56.6 57.8 75 62.6 648 59 131 282 Total 65.4 66.6 100 60.8 63:5 60 112 224 125 59.3 62-5 61 96 4-78 150 58.1 61,7. 62 83 1-1-1- 175 -1+175 57.1 61-163 71 1-12 • 180 56.9 60.9 64 61 89 200 56.2 604 65 52 71 240 55.1 59..-7 66 45 56 250 54.8 59.5 67 38 45 295 53.7 58.8 68 33 35 350 52.6 58-1 69 28 28 2180 40.7 5071 70 24 32 Road Distance Base Of Distance Pad Observer Wall Barrier Reduction Traffic Noise CASE Elevation To Wall Wall To Observer Elevation Height Height Auto MT FIT Soft Hard Building G-Patio no mit 615 70 615 75 615 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.6 no mit 618 Building G no mit 61.5 50 61.5 70 61.5 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.1 no mit 65.+ Building H no'nit 62 62 62.0 88 67.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.6 no mit 644 Building I-Patio no mit 6/ 67 63.0 72 63.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 629 no mit 619 Building I no mit 61 40 63.0 85 63.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.8 no mit 642 Tustin Legacy Regency Center,Tustin Regency Centers-Luis Gomez PROJECT#563701-0100 VINCE/MIKE;April 2015 Year-2025 Date 4-23-15 Roadway Name Kensington Park Dr. (south of Edinger Ave.) Day Eve Night Equiv Vehicles Per Day 7,000 Auto 75.51% 12.57% 9.34% 208.6% Speed(mph) 40 MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 3.7% Grade Adj.(dB) 0.00 dB HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% 1.5% Vehicle Noise Red(dB) 0 dB Roadway Grade 0.0% To get other noise levels(CNEL), To get other distances(ft), This is the CNEL at 15m put in other distances(ft) put in other noise levels Soft Hard Dist. Soft Hard CNEL Soft Hard Auto 62.6 63.8 40 65.2 65,9 57 140 343 Medium Truck 54.1 55.3 50 63.7 659 58 120 248 Heavy Truck 55.0 562 75 61.1 634 59 103 444 Total 63.8 65.0 100 59.2 639 60 89 457 125 57.8 640 61 76 +25 • 150 56.6 604 62 65 99 175 55.6 525 63 56 99 180 55.4 59,4 64 48 63 200 54.7 54,9 65 41 50 240 53.5 583 66 35 39 250 53.2 58.0 67 30 44 295 52.2 57-3 68 26 25 350 51.1 56.5 69 22 20 • 2180 39.1 446 70 19 16 Road Distance Base Of Distance Pad Observer Wall Barrier Reduction Traffic Noise CASE Elevation To Wall Wall To Observer Elevation Height Height Auto MT HT Soft Hard Building,J no snit 63 63 63.0 105 63.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.9 no mit 647 Building K no mit 65 65 65.0 95 65.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.5 no mit 424