Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2016, AND NOS. 4320 - 4324ATTACHMENT D Planning Commission Minutes Of September 27, 2016 And Resolution Nos. 4320 through 4324 1 1 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 7:02 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lumbard ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Commissioners Mason, Kozak, Thompson EXCUSED ABSENCE: Smith Thompson Thompson introduced the Young Leaders Group associates from ULI in attendance. None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 September 93, 2096 Minutes, as RECOMMENDATION: amended. That the Planning Commission approve the Minutes of the September 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Mason, to approve the Minutes of the September 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Adopted Reso. 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2016-01; ZONE CHANGE 2016 - Nos. 4325, 001; SUBDIVISION 2016-03 / TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17993; 4326, 4328, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2016-002; AND DESIGN REVIEW 4327 2016-004 FOR A SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING 6.81 ACRE LOT FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 140 FOR - SALE RESIDENTIAL UNITS APPLICANT: Intracorp So Cal -1, LLC 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PROPERTY OWNER: Van Buren Plaza, LLC PO Box 16562 Beverly Hills, CA 90209 Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 1 of 13 LOCATION: 420 W. Sixth Street & 320-694 S. B Street ENVIRONMENTAL: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Article 6 of California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. REQUEST: 1. General Plan Amendment 2016-01: amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Industrial (1) to Planned Community Residential (PC Residential). 2. Zone Change 2016-001: change the zone from Planned Industrial (PM) to Planned Community (P -C). 3. Subdivision 2016-03/Tentative Tract Map 17993: a subdivision of an existing 6.81 acre lot for condominium purposes to construct 140 for -sale residential units. 4. Development Agreement 2016-002: facilitate the development of the 6.81 acre site and accept public benefits. 5. Design Review 2016-004: site design and aesthetics of the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4325 recommending that the City Council find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for General Plan Amendment 2016-01, Zone Change 2016-001, Subdivision 2016-031Tentative Tract Map 17993 for condominium purposes, Development Agreement 2016-002 and Design Review 2016-004 for the proposed project. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4326 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2016-01 to change the property's General Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial (1) to Planned Community Residential (PC Residential). 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4328 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1472 for Zone Change 2016-001 to change the zoning from Planned Industrial (PM) to Planned Community (P -C). 4. Adopt Resolution No. 4327 recommending that the City Council approve Subdivision 2016-03/Tentative Tract Map 17993 and Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 2 of 13 Design Review 2016-004 to subdivide the existing parcel for condominium purposes to accommodate the construction of 140 for -sale residential dwelling units and adopt Development Agreement 2016-002 to facilitate the development of the 6.81 acre site and accept public benefits. Binsack Binsack reiterated to the Commission of the City's goals and plans for the Downtown area which generally included: this project is one of the more significant private investments in Old Town (with the exception of Ambrose Lane and Prospect Village) in decades; the City received various comments and input from residents and business owners wanting to promote development and businesses in the Old Town area; input was received from the Downtown Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Workshops, as well as the Tustin Center New Beginnings studies; the desire is to stimulate the Downtown area and to get more people into the Downtown area; various capital improvement grant projects; narrowing Main Street; establishing parklets on EI Camino Real and Main Street; the provision of mixed-use;�and the City has worked with this applicant to ensure the compatibility with the historic development across the street as well as workforce housing. Thompson Thompson recused himself from Item #2 since he resides near the project area. Dove Presentation given. Dove informed the Commission of the list of names of telephone calls she received, for the record, as follows: Connie Chic, Grace Flores, Mark McCorder and an unknown caller. The callers expressed concern about parking, traffic, noise, pollution, crime and overall they were not in favor of the project. Several emails and letters were also received, which were provided to the Commission at the dais. 7:45 p.m. Public Comments Opened. Mr. Peter Lauener, applicant, provided a graphic presentation showing the highlights of the project. The following individuals spoke in opposition during the Public Comments portion of the meeting: John Garay, Linda Jennings, Mark Wilken, Libby Pankey, R.J. Schwichtenberg, Madeleine Spencer, Stephen Jones, Nancy Shumar, Jackie Young, Pauline Chu -Collins, William Collins, and Jason Clarke. Concerns generally included the following: the legitimacy of the traffic impact report; parking; proposed two (2) car garages being used for storage versus parking, lack of community outreach; design of development; public notices not received by all who opposed; B Street parking/traffic issue; traffic; businesses being displaced in thirty (30) days; re -zoning; historic building; storing cars on Main Street; health and safety (i.e. pollution, hazardous materials, lead-based paint); increase in occupancy; aesthetics; impacts to parking in the Old Town area; area will Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 3 of 13 be deteriorated; suggested "nose -in" parking on B Street; increase in water usage/water restrictions; tree removal; suggested there be a representative from Old Town on the Commission; increase in noise; development does not fit community; density too high; increase in crime; traffic impact onto Newport Avenue, Main Street and Sycamore Avenue; and proposed project design looks like Irvine. The following individuals spoke in favor during the Public Comments portion of the meeting: Sherri Gust, Lindburgh McPherson, and Tiffany Miller. Comments generally included: much needed development for Old Town; will bring more businesses and customers to Tustin; need more people to frequent Old Town; too many undeveloped and vacant parcels; if not supportive of development, more parcels will remain vacant for years; and tax payers should be able to park on public streets. Mr. Lauener's response. to the comments generally included the following: community outreach was provided to the Chamber of Commerce, local residents, the Historical Society and the Tustin Preservation Conservancy; with regards to the parking, ample parking will be provided in the project; the homeowner's association will enforce garage parking and may not be used for storage; and the applicant is assisting the owner with tenant relocation. Konnie Dobreva, JD, EPD Solutions (environmental consultant) provided a response regarding the alleged potential hazards and historic buildings on site — Phase 1 and Phase 2 soil testing were conducted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed site does not have any hazardous materials remaining. There are no issues with the transport of hazardous materials for this proposed project. There are no impacts to sensitive uses (i.e. residents, schools). A historical study was conducted and the buildings onsite are 45+ years old and historic records were checked (within % of a mile of the project site). There are no associated historic impacts. 8:32 p.m. Public Comments Closed. The Commission discussed the Commission's role, City Council's role, and the Commission's appointment by City Council. Kozak requested comments from staff with respect to parking, specifically the Main Street area and what impact the proposed project would have to Main Street parking and parking in the area. Saldivar Saldivar's response to Kozak's question with regards to parking generally included: Predominantly, parking impacts along Main Street has to do with multi -family units; does not anticipate any parking issue with the proposed project since there will be additional on-site parking; any provisions/CC&R's will enforce the parking and the use of the garages; Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 4 of 13 Lumbard Lumbard addressed the major concern of parking and stated that the City Council is currently working on parking and traffic concerns to ' neighborhoods. Timing is an issue; however, this proposed project does not necessarily impact the traffic in the area. Mason Mason asked staff about speeding (speed bumps) and traffic in the area and who that question should be directed to. Binsack To answer Mason's question, Binsack stated that if the proposed project legally operates the way that it should, then there should not be a negative impact. What residents are experiencing is a code enforcement issue that is spilling over from mainly Tustin Acres, other multi -family developments, or single-family residences where there are non -permitted additional units that have overcrowding conditions which resulted in additional cars that cannot be accommodated onsite. Staff has been working with Tustin Acres to get the residents and guests to park onsite. The City (Public Works) would have to look at parking on more of a master plan perspective ,on public streets and Community Development in private communities. The Police Department is already working on some of the issues on Pacific Street. Lumbard Lumbard stated that this project is part of an overall plan for the community (i.e. traffic and changing roadways) to get more residents into Old Town. There is a broader strategy. There were three (3) associated public workshops. This was a conclusion/solution from the City Council wanting to move forward with similar developments. Lumbard requested clarification on water needs for new development. Kozak Kozak stated that the Draft Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan designates this project area for residential housing. Mason Mason inquired about Old Town and the boundaries and commented on the project's aesthetics. She had favorable comments with the project's aesthetics. Willkom Willkom stated that the Water Department did review the project and that there is available water to accommodate the project. With the Governor's Executive Order related to water, the City has adopted a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. All new developments are equipped with water efficient appliances and with water efficient appliances; there would be less water usage than in older homes. Art Valenzuela, Valenzuela provided a brief description of the Urban Water Management Water Services Plan (prepared every (5) years) and that the Water Department looks at Manager what the uses are, future growth (i.e. population increase) which would be infill, and the project is compatible with the urban water management to serve this development.. Drought and water restrictions (Stage 2) - the proposed project will have less watering. The City is looking long-term with regards to the drought. Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 5 of 13 The Commission further commented on the following in general: they agree with the recommendations from staff; favorable comments regarding moving from an industrial to a residential development; bulb out is traffic calming; they encourage the project be built out expeditiously; staff should consider a traffic plan with the community; sound wall; community park; properties along 6th and B Streets - suggested staff and the applicant work together with respect to some cosmetic additions to increase the architecture's interest; this first project is good for the overall plan of the area; suggested a communication plan with the neighborhood (i.e. traffic and parking) and communicate to the City Council; and the Commission would like a report back with regards to the communication. Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Mason, to adopt Resolution Nos. 4325, 4326, 4328, and 4327, as amended. Motion carried 3-1-1. Binsack Binsack asked the Commission if it would be their desire to receive a summary of the concerns and recommended action as an additional item that the City Council study the matter. Recess Meeting to reconvene at 9:17 p.m. Adopted Reso. 3. THE FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY: GENERAL PLAN Nos. 4320, CONFORMITY, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2016-001, 4329, 4322, CONCEPT PLAN 2016-001, DESIGN REVIEW 2016-001, 4323, 4323, as SUBDIVISION 2016-02 1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP amended. 18003, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-15, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-23, MINOR MODIFICATION (MM) 2016-01 AND MINOR MODIFICATION (MM) 2016-02 TO CONSTRUCT A PHASED COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY THIRTY-EIGHT (38) ACRE SITE WITHIN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREAS 9-12 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (NEIGHBORHOOD E). THE PROJECT WILL BE A CREATIVE OFFICE USE CAMPUS WITH A RETAIL USE (FOOD HALL) AND CONFERENCE CENTER WITH A TOTAL OF 870,000 SQUARE FEET. PHASE 1 WILL CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY. 390,440 SQUARE FEET AND CONTAIN TEN (10) SEPARATE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING GARAGE. PHASE 2 WILL CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 479,560 SQUARE FEET AND CONSIST OF CONSIST OF EIGHT (8) SEPARATE BUILDINGS AND A PARKING GARAGE. APPLICANT: Flight Venture LLC Attn: Matt Howell 114 Pacifica, Suite 370 Irvine, CA 92618 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Tustin Minutes -- Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 6 of 13 LOCATION: NW Corner of Armstrong Avenue and Barranca Parkway ENVIRONMENTAL: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEISIEIR) 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 FEISIEIR 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 FEISIEIR. And, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEISIEIR. The FEISIEIR, along with its Addenda and Supplement, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEISIEIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist has been prepared for the proposed project is consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is determined not to result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEISIEIR and addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEISIEIR and addendum. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Planning Commission: a. Adopt Resolution No. 4320, determining that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximately thirty-eight (38) acre site within a portion of Planning Area 9-12, Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for the development of a commercial mixed use project is in conformance with the approved general plan. b. Adopt Resolution No. 4321 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No, 1471 approving the Development Agreement 2016-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site within the boundaries of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Development Agreement was intended to further the purpose and intent of the General Plan and Specific Plan, and FEISIFEIR and will ensure the orderly implementation of infrastructure and development. The Development Agreement includes a schedule of performance and obligations that ensure adequate local infrastructure Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 -- Page 7 of 13 programs are in place to support the proposed development. c. Adopt Resolution No. 4322 recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18003 to subdivide an approximately thirty-eight (38) acre site into twenty-one (21) numbered lots for the development of an 870,000 square -foot commercial mixed-use project. d. Adopt Resolution 4323 recommending that the City Council approve Concept Plan 2016-001 for the development of an 870,000 square -foot phased commercial mixed-use project 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, Design Review 2016-001 for design and site layout of Phase 1, Conditional Use Permit 2016-02 for joint -use parking for Lots 1-10 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18003, Conditional Use Permit 2016-23 for mechanical equipment to exceed the maximum allowable building height, Minor Modification 2016- 01 for a ten (1,0) percent reduction in parking for Phase 1 and Minor Modification 2016-02 for a ten (10) percent increase in building height for Building Type A. e. Adopt Resolution No. 4324, recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2016-01 for on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages and Conditional Use Permit 2016-15 for live entertainment in conjunction with the operation of the food hall for Building D Demkowicz Presentation given. Thompson Thompson questioned the building height and asked if the buildings that are going to be higher than standard, for staff to comment on John Wayne Airport's (JWA) regulations/requirements. He also asked about the noise mitigation .study, relating to flight patterns and the noise that planes generate onto the buildings, and if that included the air traffic above the buildings as well as the attenuation standards as part of the building. Thompson also asked about Resolution No. 4323 and intersection improvements and the City of Irvine's input that they will continue to monitor collaboration. He inquired if there are off-site intersections improvements within the original CEQA documents that approved the Tustin Legacy or are we increasing "turn pockets". Thompson referred to Page 766 of the staff report — he asked if the intersections are being exasperated or are they within the limits of the original CEQA document and how it would affect the neighborhoods. He also asked about the parking study and why it deviates from City standards. Thompson requested clarification on the ten (10) percent reduction. He inquired about the standard Condition language that states the City can check periodically to ensure the applicant is being consistent Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 8 of 13 with operating with the Conditions of Approval. Thompson asked for additional clarity on how the massing and pedestrian flow on the project site relate to everything around it (i.e. greenbelt park area on the westleast side) and what is expected to occur on the other side of Armstrong and how it compares to the vertical massing on the south side of Barranca. He referred to tying the District to the linkages. Willkom Willkom responded that the off-site intersection improvement with the Specific Plan was considered in the EIRIEIS. The height standards within the vicinity are 180 feet and the request for a ten (10) percent increase will not penetrate the flight path for JWA. Demkowicz To answer Thompson's question on the noise mitigation study, Demkowicz confirmed that the study included vehicular and airport noise. Willkom In response to Thompson's question on the intersection improvements, Willkom stated that majority of street improvements are planned for the Specific Plan and certain -improvements are a result of the project design. In response to Thompson's question on the ten (10) percent reduction, she referred to the MCAS Tustin Specific Pian which allows ten (10) percent deviation with respect to parking. The requested ten (10) percent reduction included the joint -use parking analysis and the Transportation Demand Management strategies: (i.e. carpooling, bike usage, pedestrian, between one planning area to another, etc.). To answer Thompson's question on the Metrolink service, the Conditions do not require the developer to provide shuttle service to the Metrolink Station. When staff looked at the project, they looked at the close proximity of the Metrolink to the project site. Willkom stated that there is opportunity for people to ride the train, walk through the linear park that is proposed within the specific plan, or ride their bikes. The TDM requirements is a plan which will be reviewed by Public Works which will include a bus route, and other alternative transportation, along with carpooling and provision of shower facilities (encouraging bicyclists), along with several other provisions staff can take a look at. Willkom stated that the massing (development across Armstrong to the east) for Planning Area D will allow buildings as high as one -hundred -eighty (180) feet. With the relation to the City of Irvine to the south, there is a new hotel development approval by the City of Irvine and it consists of a five (5) story building. On the west side of Red Hill Avenue, within the City of Santa Ana jurisdiction, adjacent to the Candlewood Suites, the City of Santa Ana has approved a twelve - hundred (1,200) unit housing development and mixed-use and would also be a five (5) story building. Willkom stated that in comparison to the surroundings, the proposed project is well within the massing of the area. As per the linkages, the specific plan has a provision for a Concept Plan which would require the developer to demonstrate linkages to include pedestrian, bicycling within the project site and throughout the Specific Plan. As proposed, the applicant has demonstrated all of the linkages Thompson was asking about and she referred Thompson to a condition (Pedestrian Access easement to the linear park). Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 9 of 13 Saldivar Per Thompson's question there are three (3) access points to Armstrong Avenue and Barranca Parkway and as shown in the Specific Plan. Nothing additional. How many lanes they should have or pocket sizing was not evaluated in the original environmental documentation. This is analyzed at the project level. The Specific Plan looked at the level of service and the intersection of Aston/Barranca Parkway was a minor intersection that was analyzed. Binsack Binsack referred Thompson to the exhibits previously presented by staff and the applicant and mentioned the proposed project being a creative office with high ceilings, which was why additional building height was needed. In addition, the exhibits within the presentation showed linkages (Barranca Parkway and Armstrong 1 Linear Park) within the project site as well. The exhibits showed the pedestrian linkages and the bike path that currently exists on Barranca Parkway. Willkom Willkom referred Thompson to the Specific Plan which includes the linkages concept and a bike path concept which shows connections throughout and within the Specific Plan. In the future when development is going to occur in Planning Area D (east of Armstrong), staff will ensure that the applicant implements what is envisioned within the Concept Plan for linkages. Lumbard Lumbard added that the Concept Plan for linkages would occur in Phase 2 of the project. He also suggested that when Phase 2 occurs, there needs to be a design review. Binsack Binsack's responses generally included: Planning Area D south development; still far off of significant development; requiring the linkages to the District would require legal findings and cannot associate that with the development being proposed; the reason a Concept Plan is required for each development proposal. Thompson Thompson suggested future collaboration on how the linkages would occur. Lumbard Lumbard questioned the amendments provided at the dais, specifically Resolution Nos. 4322 and 4324 (identical changes), Conditions 1.2 and 1.3 and making sure the projects move forward in a timely manner. He also asked why the "one year' review date was no longer required. Willkom In response to Lumbard's concern, Willkom stated the following in general: the Condition related to timing of development is written to match the Development Agreement which the City has negotiated with the applicant and the longer timeframe is related to the conveyance of the property for the development. She also stated that there are some minimum horizontal improvements included within a certain timeframe along with several provisions to ensure that the project moves forward. Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 10 of 13 Binsack Binsack also clarified the off-site and on-site improvements and circulation. An analysis of this project was completed, in relation to the original EISIEIR, the addendum and the supplemental documents, and the determination was not a significant departure from those original approvals and it is consistent with the EISIEIR as long as the project site improvements are made along with the development. 10:20 p.m. Opened Public Comments. Matt Howell (Lincoln Property Company) thanked the Commission for allowing him to present this project, as well as thanked staff for all of the work put into the project. He provided a brief background on Lincoln Property Company and their history of building mixed-use office buildings and campuses throughout the U.S. Mark Montonaga, partner of Rios Clementi Hale Studios, presented a graphic presentation of the proposed project. There were several renderings, including landscaping along Armstrong Avenue and Barranca Parkway, which will include drought tolerant plants. 10:27 p.m. Closed Public Comments. Thompson Thompson's comments generally included: the significant scale of the proposed project; the creative office space; he asked that staff consider amending the parking language in Resolution No. 4322 to include language that states the Community Development Department and/or the Director can revisit and reassess since it is a City project and therefore should exercise the same diligence that the City does when the development is not tied into City property; and future collaboration (i.e. pedestrian linkage, moving sidewalk, bike path, shuttle stops, etc.) to avoid people from getting into their cars once they have parked, so that they can get to the District. Mason Mason agreed with the creative aspect of the design of the project, along with the businesses the project will attract. She made favorable comments regarding the thoughtfulness on the history of the community being incorporated into the project. Mason also concurred with Thompson regarding parking. She � suggested amending the recommendation regarding how the applicant would build paired parking into Phase 2. Kozak Kozak echoed comments previously made by his fellow Commissioners. He also had favorable comments on the modem architectural design and open office space of the project. Kozak also thanked the applicant for investing in the City of Tustin. Lumbard Lumbard thanked staff, the applicant, for incorporating Tustin's legacy and history (MCAS) into the design of the project. Lumbard reiterated the concerns with the parking and linkages and wanted to be sure the dialogue continues with staff and the applicant. Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 11 of 13 Binsack Binsack referred the Commission to Condition 1.8 (Page and 824) of their packets to show that the Conditions do allow the Community Development Department and/or Director to review the CUPS on an annual basis. As per the parking, staff can require the adjustment of hours of operation, provision of additional parking, and the engagement of parking attendants which is the standard condition staff includes on all Conditions of Approval. Binsack also referred to the Concept Plan (Page 741) stating that there will be an additional design review for Phase 2 and staff will be working with a future developer for D South to assure the linkages, as well as bikeways are maintained and/or established. Adopted Reso. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Thompson to adopt Resolution Nos. 4320, Nos. 4320, 4321, 4322, 4323, and 4324, as recommended and amended 4321, 4322, and to also incorporate the last comments made ' with regards to the 4323, and 4324, linkages language. Motion carried 4-0-1. as amended. 10:27 p.m. Closed Public Hearing. None. None. Mason Kozak Thompson Lumbard REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: COMMISSION CONCERNS: None. Kozak thanked staff and the applicants for their hard work on both projects presented. He presented the following: 9121: JOCTA Riverside Transportation Commission Tour of the 91 Project 9122: Planning Officials Forum at the Nixon Library Thompson attended the following events: 9120: OCTA Advisory Committee Meeting on Bicycling/Pedestrian Activities 9121: Cal State Long Beach — Thompson provided a presentation on their Professional Development Series 9122: Planning Officials Forum at the Nixon Library Other seminars attended (recreational use and marijuana in neighboring cities). 9114: Tustin Chamber of Commerce Breakfast — Lumbard thanked staff for the many other projects happening throughout Tustin and their hard work. 9124: ACC -OC trip hosted by the Metropolitan Water District to tour Bay Delta Minutes -- Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 12 of 13 1 1 The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is sched'uled fot Tuesday, Oct�ober 25, 2�016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way, MM= AUSTIN LIJIViBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINISACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes — Planning Commission September 27, 2016 — Page 13 of 13 RESOLUTION NO. 4320 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN DETERMINING THAT THE LOCATION, PURPOSE, AND EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION OF AN APPROXIMATLEY THIRTY-EIGHT (38) ACRE SITE WITHIN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREA 9-12 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (NEIGHBORHOOD E) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AN APPROXIMATELY 870,000 SQUARE FOOT PHASED COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED GENERAL PLAN The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by Flight Venture LLC for the site, which includes a phased commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center consisting of a total of 870,000 square feet to be developed in two (2) phases on an approximately thirty-eight (38) acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin within Planning Areas 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The development contained within each phase is as follows: 1. Phase 1 — nine (9) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 390,440 square feet 2. Phase 2 — eight (8) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 479,560 square feet B. That the City wishes to dispose of an approximately thirty-eight (38) acre site within a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin to accommodate the proposed project. C. That Section 65402(a) of Government Code provides that no real property shall be disposed until the location, purpose, and extent of the project has been reported upon by the local planning agency as to the conformity with the adopted general plan. D. That the proposed disposition supports several General Plan Land Use Element goals, including the following: 1. Land Use Element Goal 1: Provide for a well-balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial, and industrial land, open space and Resolution No. 4320 Page 2 community facilities and services, while maintaining a healthy, diversified economy adequate to provide future City services. 2. Land Use Element Goal 3: ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses in the community, the City's circulation network, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints, and the City's unique characteristics and resources. 3. Land Use Element Goal 4: assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. 4. Land Use Goal 6: improve urban design in Tustin to ensure development that is both architecturally and functionally compatible, and to create uniquely identifiable neighborhoods. 5. Land Use Goal 13: continue to implement the Specific Plan/Reuse for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use and master planned development. E. That Section .65402 (a) of the Government Code. authorizes the Planning Commission to determine whether the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of real property are consistent with the General Plan. F. That the general plan conformity determinations required -by Government Code Section 65402(a) are not "projects" requiring environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the location, purpose, and extent of the disposition of the subject parcel to Flight Venture LLC for the development of an approximate 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use project within a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is in conformance with ,the approved General Plan. 1 1 1 1 Resolution No. 4320 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of September, 2016. WIN ►il:t:lt Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4320 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27th day of September, 2016. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Thompson (4) Smith (1) RESOLUTION NO. 4321 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1471 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2016-001 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATE 870,000 SQUARE FOOT PHASED COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT WITHIN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREA 9-12 OF THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application has been submitted by Flight Venture LLC for the project, which includes a phased commercial mixed-use project with a retail food hall and conference center consisting of a total of 870,000 square feet to be developed in two (2) phases on an approximate thirty- eight (38) acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin within,a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan. The development contained within each phase is as follows: 1. Phase 1 — nine (9) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 390,440 square feet 2. Phase 2 — eight (8) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 479,560 square feet B. That the development application includes the following requests: General Plan Conformity to determine that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximately 38 - acre site within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for the development of 870,000 square feet of a commercial mixed-use project is in conformance with the approved General Plan. - 2. Development Agreement 2016-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 38 -acre site within the boundaries of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 3. Concept Plan 2016-001 to develop an 870,000 square -foot commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center 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. 4. Subdivision 2016-02NestingTentative Tract Map 18003 to subdivide an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site into twenty- one (21) numbered lots for the development of a commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. 5. Design Review 2016-001 for the design and site layout of an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site into a commercial mixed- use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. 6. Conditional Use Permit 2016-001 for the establishment of on-site alcohol consumption in. conjunction with the operation of the Food Hall/Conference Center for Building D (Lot 4, 220 & 250 Flight Way). 7. Conditional Use Permit 2016-002 for the establishment of joint - use parking for Lots 1-10, VTTM 18003 (address range 100- 750 Flight Way). 8. Conditional Use Permit 2016-15 for the establishment of live entertainment in conjunction with the operation of the Food Hall/Conference Center for Building D (Lot 4, 220 & 250 Flight Way). 9. Conditional Use Permit 2016-23 for the allowance of mechanical equipment to exceed the maximum allowable building height for Building Type A (100 and 350 Flight Way). 10. Minor Adjustment 2016-001 for the allowance of a ten (10) percent parking reduction for Phase 1 of the project site. 11. Minor Adjustment 2016-002 for an increase in building height for Building A for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project site. C. That the site is zoned as the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP -1) within Planning Area 9-12 of Neighborhood E; and designated as the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 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 the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 4.2.9 requires all private development at the former MCAS, Tustin to obtain a DA in accordance with Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code and Sections 9600 to 9619 of the Tustin City Code (TCC). In compliance with TCC Section 9611, the Tustin Planning Commission must make �a recommendation on the proposed Development Agreement to the City Council. The Development Agreement can be supported by the findings included in Draft Ordinance No. 1471 (Exhibit A). E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on September 27, 2016, by the Planning Commission. F. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of the former MCAS, Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist attached hereto as Exhibit B 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. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1471 approving Development Agreement 2016-001 for the development for the development of an approximate 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use development within portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. LJ 1 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 27th day of September, 2016. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4321 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27th day of September, 2016. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Thompson (4) PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: smith 1 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4321 Draft Ordinance No. 1471 1 1 1 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1471 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2016-001 BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND LPC WEST LLC. TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 870,000 SQUARE FOOT PHASED COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PORTION OF PLANNING AREA 9-12 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by LPC West LLC. for the project, which includes a phased commercial mixed use development with a retail food hall and conference center consisting of a total of 870,000 square feet to be developed in two phases on approximately 38 acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin within Planning Areas 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The development contained within each phase is as follows: 1. Phase 1 — nine (9) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 390,440 square feet 2. Phase 2 — eight (8) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 479,560 square feet B. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 4.2.9 requires all private development at MCAS Tustin to obtain a Development Agreement in accordance with Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code and Sections 9600 to 9619 of the Tustin City Code. In compliance with Tustin City Code Section 9611, the Tustin Planning Commission must make a recommendation on the proposed Development Agreement to the City Council. C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on September 27, 2016, by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4321 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1471. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on , by the.City Council. E. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Ordinance No. 1471 DA 2016-001 Page 2 (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 (Resolution No. ) has been prepared and concluded that this action does not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. F. That the Development Agreement can be supported by the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan in that office uses and retail commercial are permitted uses within Planning Area- 9-12 of Neighborhood E. 2. The project is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located (Planning Areas 9-12) in that similar and compatible uses are envisioned within the close proximity of the project site. 3. The project is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices in that the project would provide for employment center and commercial development for new and existing Tustin residents thereby providing additional convenience and choices for employment and shopping and dining. 4. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare. The project will comply with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Tustin City Code, and other regulations to ensure that the project will not be detrimental in any way. Ordinance No. 1471 DA 2016-001 Page 3 5. The project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property in that the proposed project is orderly, well designed, and equipped with necessary infrastructure and amenities to support existing and future residents and businesses in Tustin Legacy. 6. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City in that the provisions of the proposed Development Agreement and conditions of approval will ensure that. the project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves Development Agreement 2016-001 attached hereto as Exhibit A and subject to final approval of the City Attorney. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the, decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this day of , 2016. ERICA N. RABE City Clerk 1 JOHN NIELSEN Mayor Ordinance No. 1471 DA 2016-001 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO. 1471' 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 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1471 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the day of , 2016 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2016 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: ERICA N. RABE City Clerk Published: 1 1 EXHIBIT A TO DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1471 1 1 CITY OF TUSTIN OFFICIAL BUSINESS REQUEST DOCUMENT BE RECORDED AND BE EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF A RECORDING FEE PER GOVERNMENT CODE 6103 AND 27383 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Attn: City Clerk Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder's Use Only TUSTIN LEGACY CORNERSTONE I DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS TUSTIN LEGACY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into effective as of the Effective Date (as defined below) by and between the CITY OF TUSTIN, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and FLIGHT VENTURE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (as further defined in Section 1.1.28, "Developer"). The City and Developer are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party." RECITALS A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the "Development Agreement Statute," Section 65864 et seq., of the Government Code. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property and to provide for development of such property and to establish certain development rights therein. In addition, Section 4.2.9 of the Specific Plan (as defined below) for MCAS Tustin states: "prior to issuance of any permits or approval of any entitlements within the Specific Plan area, all private development shall first obtain a Development Agreement in accordance with Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code and Sections 9600 to 9619 of the Tustin City Code." Pursuant to the authorization set forth in the Development Agreement Statute, the City has enacted procedures for. entering into development agreements which are contained in Tustin City Code Sections 9600 to 9619. B. The City and Developer intend, concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, to enter into the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement Cornerstone I (applicable to portions of Neighborhood E, also referred to as Planning Areas 9-12, of the Specific Plan), as the same may be amended from time to time ("DDA") pursuant to which City shall agree to sell, and Developer shall agree to buy and develop, certain real property, all as more specifically set forth in the DDA. Tustin Cornerstone I Development I City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final C. Pursuant to the DDA, Developer has an equitable and/or legal interest in the Property (as defined below) in that it has the contractual right to purchase the Property from the City for development of the Project (as defined below) in two phases, comprising Phase 1 and Phase 2, as further described in the DDA. D. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65864, the State Legislature has found and determined that: "(a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of... development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. (b) Assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development." In accordance with the legislative findings set forth in Government Code Section 65864, the City wishes to attain certain public objectives that will be furthered by this Agreement. This Agreement will provide for the orderly implementation of the General Plan of the City ("General Plan"), and the phased development and completion of the Project in accordance with the DDA and the Specific Plan (as defined below). This Agreement will further a comprehensive planning objective contained within the City's General Plan, which is: "To promote an economically balanced community with complimentary and buffered land uses to include industrial, commercial, professional, multi -family and single- family development." E. The DDA, the Specific Plan and the development under the DDA and the Specific Plan require a substantial early investment of money and planning and design effort by Developer. Without the protection provided by this Agreement, uncertainty that the Project may be completed in its entirety could result in a waste of public resources, escalate the cost of public improvements, and discourage Developer's participation in those certain public improvements specified in the DDA and the Specific Plan. Developer's participation in the implementation of the DDA and the Specific Plan will result in a number of public benefits. These benefits require the cooperation and participation of the City and Developer and could not be secured without mutual cooperation in and commitment to the comprehensive planning effort that has resulted in the DDA and the Specific Plan. F. Developer wishes to avoid certain development risks and uncertainties that would, in the absence of this Agreement, deter and discourage Developer from making a commitment to implement the DDA and the Specific Plan. These are as follows: 1. It is generally the law in California that, absent extraordinary Tustin Cornerstone I Development 2 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final circumstances or the approval of a vesting subdivision map, an owner of the land does not obtain a vested right to improve land until the issuance of a building permit for the improvements and commencement of substantial construction pursuant to that permit. The result is a disincentive for landowners to invest monies in the early completion of major infrastructure and other public improvements as part of any project or in early comprehensive planning and design studies. 2. Development under the DDA and the Specific Plan requires a substantial early investment of money and planning and design effort by Developer. Uncertainty about City's land use policies, rules and regulations could result in a waste of private resources, escalate the cost of certain public improvements, and escalate costs of proposed commercial land uses. G. The following assurances are of vital concern to Developer to offset or remove the disincentives and uncertainties set forth in Paragraph F above: 1. Assurance to Developer that, in return for Developer's commitment to the development of the Property that is contained in the DDA, any approved entitlements, and the Specific Plan, the City will in turn remain committed to the Existing Entitlement Approvals (as defined below); 2. Assurances to Developer that as Developer becomes obligated for the costs of designing and constructing the public and private improvements included in the DDA and the Specific Plan, and makes dedications, Developer will become entitled to rely upon the Vested Rights (as defined below) in the development of the Property; and 3. Assurances to Developer that in the City's administration of the Existing Entitlement Approvals, Developer will be allowed, consistent with the DDA and the Specific Plan,,, to develop the commercial land uses and intensities identified in the DDA and the Specific Plan. These assurances provide for cooperation and participation of the City and Developer and could not be secured without mutual cooperation in and commitment to the comprehensive planning effort that has resulted in the DDA and the Specific Plan. H. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes local agencies to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property. The City wishes to enter into a development agreement with Developer to secure the Public Benefits (as defined below) and additional consideration described in this Agreement, and Developer wishes to enter into a development agreement with the City to avoid the development risks and uncertainties and to obtain the assurances described above. I. This Agreement is intended to be, and shall be construed as, a development agreement within the meaning of the Development Agreement Statute. This Agreement is intended to augment and further the purposes and intent of the Parties in the implementation of the DDA and the Specific Plan. This Agreement, as a device for the implementation of the Existing Entitlement Approvals and the Specific Plan, will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and secure the orderly development of the Project, ensure a desirable and functional community environment, provide effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services appropriate for the development of the Project, assure attainment of the maximum effective Tustin Cornerstone I Development 3 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final utilization of resources within the City, and provide other significant public benefits to the City and its residents by otherwise achieving the goals and purposes of the Development Agreement Statute. In exchange for these benefits to the City, Developer desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with development of the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Applicable Rules, all as more particularly set forth herein. J. The City has determined that this Agreement and the Project are consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan and that this Agreement complies with the findings established by Tustin City Code Section 9611, in that the Agreement: 1. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Specific Plan. 2. Is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located (variously described as Planning Area 9-12 and Neighborhood E of the Specific Plan). Note: the Project (as defined below) complies with the uses authorized by the Specific Plan. 3. Is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices. Note: the Project will enhance community development, provide commercial and retail uses within walking distance of existing and planned housing, support economic development and activity in the vicinity of the Project. 4. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare. Note: compliance with the Specific Plan, Tustin City Code, and other regulations will ensure that the Project will not be detrimental in any way. 5. Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property. Note: the Project is orderly and well designed. 6. Will have a positive fiscal impact on the City. Note: the provisions of the DDA will ensure that the Project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City. K. On September 27, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Agreement, made certain findings and determinations with respect thereto, and recommended to the City Council of the City that this Agreement be approved. On :, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing on this Agreement, -considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and adopted Ordinance No, approving this Agreement and authorizing its execution. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Tustin Cornerstone I Development 4 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 11 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. 1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows: Any capitalized word or term used in this Agreement shall have the definition or meaning ascribed to such word or term as provided in the DDA, unless the word or term is expressly provided in this Section 1.1 of this Agreement or otherwise expressly defined in this Agreement, in which event such word or term shall have the definition or meaning as provided herein. All capitalized terms not specifically defined in the DDA or this Agreement shall be interpreted by the Director of Community Development of the City. 1.1.1 "Action" is defined in Section 9.10. 1.1.2 "AD/CFD" is defined in Section 3.1.1. 1.1.3 "Administrative Amendment" is defined in Section 2.5.2. 1.1.4 "Agreement" is defined in the introductory paragraph. 1. 1.5 "Applicable Rules" means (a) the Existing Land Use Regulations of the City; (b) the Future Rules that are not in conflict (as defined in Section 3.6.2) with the Vested Rights; (c) the Future Rules made applicable to the Project and/or the Property pursuant to Section 3.6.2 or Section 3.10; (d) the Existing Entitlement Approvals, and (e) the Subsequent Entitlement Approvals to which the Project and/or the Property or development and use thereof are made subject to pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 1.1.6 "Applications" is defined in Section 3.11.2. 1.1.7 "Approved Plans" mean, collectively: (a) the Existing Entitlement Approvals which govern development of improvements on the Property, including approval of plans by the City in its Governmental Capacity pursuant to the Concept Plan and Design Review process; (b) the Basic Concept Plans approved by the City in its Proprietary Capacity pursuant to Section 8.4.7 of the DDA; and (c) approval by the City of construction levels drawings as required to obtain the Entitlement Approvals. 1.1.8 "Approved Transfer" is defined in Section 2.4. 1.1.9 "Basic Concept Plan' means the submittals by Developer to the City for purposes of satisfaction of the Concept Plan and Design Review approval and shall include the Phasing and proposed product mix, provided that Basic Concept Plan submittals shall be reviewed by the City in its Proprietary Capacity (as opposed to the Concept Plan and Design Review submittals which are reviewed by the City Development Department under the Governmental Capacity of the City.) 1.1.10 "Building" means each building and structure on the Property. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 5 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 1.1.11 "Building _Pad" means any legally subdivided lot comprising a portion of the Property (other than parcels for roadways to be owned by a property owners' association) and proposed to be owned by a Person (as defined below) other than the City. 1.1.12 "Business Day(s)" means any day on which City Hall is open for business and shall specifically exclude Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday. 1.1.13 "CC&Rs" means a set of covenants, conditions and restrictions required by the Entitlement Approvals to be prepared.by Developer, approved by the City and recorded against the Property. 1.1.14 "Certificate" is defined in Section 4.4. 1.1.15 "Certificate of Compliance" means a certificate to be issued with respect to each Phase upon Completion by Developer of all of the Improvements and satisfaction of all additional Conditions Precedent thereto with respect to the Property or relevant portion of the Property pursuant to the provisions of the DDA. The term Certificate of Compliance shall mean and include a Partial Certificate of Compliance issued as to any Building Pad as further provided by the DDA. 1.1.16 "City" is defined in the introductory paragraph. 1.1.17 "City Manager" means Mr. Jeffrey Parker, or his successor in such capacity, or other designee as identified in writing by the City Manager. 1.1.18 "City Processing Fees" means (a) all fees and charges imposed by the City under the then current regulations for processing applications and requests for permits, approvals, and other actions and monitoring compliance with any permits issued or approvals granted, including all applicable processing and permit fees to cover the reasonable cost to the City of (i) processing and reviewing applications and plans for any Entitlement Approvals, site review and approval, administrative review, and similar fees imposed to recover the City's costs associated with processing, reviewing, and inspecting Project applications, plans and specifications, (ii) inspecting the work constructed or installed by or on behalf of Developer, and (iii) monitoring compliance with any requirements applicable to Development of the Project, and (b) all costs incurred by the City in the performance of necessary studies and reports in connection with the foregoing and its obligations under this Agreement. 1.1.19 "Claiming Party" is defined in Section 9.11.1. 1. 1.20 "Common Area Improvements" mean the driveways, parking lots, internal street lighting, Parcel perimeter landscaping and open space plazas as approved in the Approved Plans, as will be further described in the CC&Rs. 1.1.21 "Complete" and "Completion" mean with respect to the Project or, if the Project is constructed in Phases, with respect to a given Phase, or if a Building Pad is eligible for its own Certificate of Compliance, such Building Pad, the point in time when all of the following shall have occurred with respect to the Project, such Phase or such Building Pad: (a) the Improvements , Tustin Cornerstone I Development 6 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final with respect thereto have been substantially completed in accordance with the DDA; (b) the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for core and shell, exterior staircase and balcony systems and common restrooms by the City or, to the extent a certificate of occupancy is not required by or available from the City for a particular Improvement, the equivalent inspection, signoff or other permit activity with respect to such Improvement, (c) the Recording of a Notice of Completion (California Civil Code Section 3043) by Developer or such Party's contractor; (d) a certification by the Project Architect that such Improvements (with the exception of minor "punch list" items) have been completed in a good and workmanlike manner and substantially in accordance with the Approved Plans and- specifications; and (e) all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, suppliers, Architects, and engineers who performed work on the relevant Improvements either (i) shall have been paid in full and shall have executed final unconditional lien waivers or (ii) any mechanic's and/or materialmen's liens that have been recorded or stop notices that have been delivered have been paid, settled or otherwise extinguished, discharged, released, waived, bonded around or insured against, or (iii) the statutory period for filing liens with respect to such Improvements shall have expired without any liens being filed. 1.1.22 "Concept Plan and Design Review" mean collectively the concept plan review required by the Specific Plan and the site plan and design review approvals required by the City Code, which shall be part of the Entitlement Approvals. 1.1.23 "Costs" is defined in Section 9.10. 1. 1.24 "Damages" is defined in Section 5.3. 1. 1.25 "DDA" is defined in Recital B. 1. 1.26 "Decision" is defined in Section 9.10. 1. 1.27 "Defaulting Party" is defined in Section 5.1. 1. 1.28 "Developer" is defined in the introductory paragraph and includes each and every Successor In Interest of Developer. 1. 1.29 "Development Agreement Statute" is defined in Recital A. 1.1.30 "Development Permits" means all ministerial permits, certificates and approvals which may be required by the City or any other Governmental Authority for the development and construction of the improvements for the Project, including any engineering permits, grading permits, foundation permits, construction permits, encroachment permits, building permits or other permits as may be necessary pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan and/or the City Code and which shall be obtained and maintained in each case in accordance with this Agreement, the DDA, the Applicable Rules and any required environmental mitigation. 1.1.31 "Effective Date" means the date that is thirty (30) days after the date of approval (second reading) by the City Council of the City's ordinance approving this Agreement. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 7 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 1.1.32 `BIR" means the. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Final EIS/EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Final EIS/EIR adopted by the City on January 16, 2001 as subsequently modified. and supplemented, including by one or more supplements and addenda to the Final EIR/EIS approved by the City. 1.1.33 "End User" means a Person operating a business in any Improvement including any Building or leasable space within a Building, whether such Person holds a fee interest in a Building Pad, a ground leasehold interest in a Building Pad, or is leasing office or other space in a Building. 1.1.34 "Entitlement Approvals" means all discretionary land use approvals and entitlements including Specific Plan amendments, tentative and final parcel and tract maps, Conditional Use Permits, preliminary and master sign programs, minor modification for increased building height, the Concept Plans and Design Review approvals as may be applicable for proposed specific uses(s) in connection with development of the Property and all conditions of approval legally required by the City and any other Governmental Authority as a condition to subdivision of the Property, development of the Property, and construction of the improvements in accordance with this Agreement. Entitlement Approvals shall be comprised of the Existing Entitlement Approvals and the Subsequent Entitlement Approvals. 1.1.35 "Existing Entitlement Approvals" means all Entitlement Approvals approved or issued prior to the Effective Date and including the approvals listed on Exhibit "D" to this Agreement, which are a matter,of public record on the Effective Date. 1.1.36 "Existing Land Use Regulations" means the Land Use Regulations in effect on the Effective Date, including the General Plan, the Tustin City Code, the Specific Plan, and all other ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations of the City governing development and use of the Property in effect as of the Effective Date. 1.1.37 "Force Majeure Delay" is defined in Section 9.11.1 as limited by Section 9.11.2. 1.1.38 "Future Rules" is defined in Section 3.6.2. 1.1.39 "GBA" means the gross square footage of buildings calculated in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations. 1. 1.40 "General Plan is defined in Recital D. 1.1.41 "Governmental Authority" mean any and all federal, State, county, municipal and local governmental and quasi -governmental bodies and authorities (including the United States of America, the State of California and any political subdivision, public corporation, district, college and/or school district, joint powers authority or other political or public entity) or departments thereof having or exercising jurisdiction over the Parties, the Project, the Property or other property upon which Developer is obligated to construct Improvements or such portions of the foregoing as the context indicates. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 8 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 1.1.42 "Governmental Capacity" means the exercise by the City of its governmental authority with respect to any matter related to this Agreement which shall include the regulation and entitlement of the Property pursuant to Governmental Requirements, including enacting laws, inspecting structures, reviewing and issuing permits, and all of the other legislative and administrative or enforcement functions of each pursuant to federal, state or local law. 1.1.43 "Governmental Requirements" mean all laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, standards, guidelines and other requirements issued by any Governmental Authority having jurisdiction over, governing, applying to or other affecting the Parties, the Project, the Improvements, the Property and/or other property, upon which Developer is obligated to construct Improvements or any component thereof and including the City Code, the Specific Plan, the Entitlement Approvals, the Development Permits and the Approved Plans, in all events subject to the terms of this Agreement. 1.1.44 "Horizontal Improvements" means (a) the Minimum Horizontal Improvements and (b) all grading work, infrastructure improvements and utilities required to be constructed or installed on or in connection with the development of the Property as further described in the Scope of Development attached as Attachment 8 to the DDA and depicted on Attachment 9 to the DDA comprised of. (i) on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements including roadways, drives, alleyways, sidewalks, curb cuts and landscaping, (ii) development of and/or upgrade to existing utility infrastructure (whether on-site or off-site) required to serve the portion of the Property then under development to the boundary of each Building Pad, (iii) Common Area Improvements on the Parcel then under development and (iv) all dry and wet utility extensions sidewalks and drives, walls, fences and landscaping on a Building Pad, and shall include all improvements required by Parcel Map No. 2015-168 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 18003, each and every Entitlement condition and Development Permit and all other Governmental Requirements as a condition to development of the Project, all as generally depicted on Attachment 3 (including Attachment 3A and Attachment 3B, if applicable) to the DDA. 1. 1.45 "Improvements" means the Horizontal Improvementsand the Vertical Improvements. 1.1.46 "Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement" means that certain agreement pursuant to which Developer agrees to undertake the landscape', and maintenance obligations set forth therein for the benefit of the City. 1.1.47 "Land Use Regulations" means all laws, statutes, ordinances, resolutions, codes, orders, rules, regulations and official policies of the City governing the; development and use of land, including the permitted uses of the Property, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, timing and phasing of development; the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. 1.1.48 "License Agreements" means one or more limited licenses issued to Developer by the City upon City -owned property for purposes of construction, including grading, construction of the Minimum Horizontal Improvements, and installation of utilities on the Phase 2 Parcel, and provision of Phase 1 construction parking on the Phase 2 Parcel. Tustin Cornerstone I Development P 9 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 1. 1.49 "Minimum Horizontal Improvements" means that portion of the Horizontal Improvements comprised of. (a) the rough grading work for Phase 1 and the precise grading work for the Phase 1 Improvements; (b) those certain on-site and off-site above -grade and below -grade infrastructure improvements and utilities and utility systems required to be constructed or installed on or in connection with the development of the Property as further described as the "Minimum Horizontal Improvements" set forth in the Scope of Development attached as Attachment 8 to the DDA (as the same may be further depicted on. Attachment 9 to the DDA) and (c) the Minimum Landscape Improvements. 1.1.50 "Minimum Landscape Improvements" means the landscaping and hardscaping improvements required to be built in connection with Phase 1 pursuant to the Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement in the locations depicted on the exhibit to the Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement depicting such improvements. 1.1.51 "Mortgage" means any indenture of mortgage or deed of trust, hypothecation, pledge, assignment for security purposes, bond, grant of taxable or tax exempt funds from a governmental agency or other security interest affecting the Property or any portion thereof or any documents constituting or relating to a sale-leaseback transaction, together with all loan documents related thereto, but excluding any community facilities districts, assessment districts, landscape and lighting districts or other assessments created or imposed by any Governmental Authority. 1.1.52 "Mortgagee" means any mortgagee, beneficiary (or any agent for one or more lenders acting in such capacity) under any indenture of mortgage, deed of trust, trustee of bonds, governmental agency which is a grantor of funds, and, with respect to the Property or any portion thereof which is the subject of a sale-leaseback transaction, the Person acquiring fee title. 1.1.53 "Non -Defaulting Party" is defined in Section 5.1. 1.1.54 "Option" means the Developer's option to acquire the Phase 2 Property, as further provided by the DDA. 1.1.55 "Option Year" means each successive twelve (12) month period obtained pursuant to the Option provisions of the DDA. 1.1.56 "Other Agreements" mean the Quitclaim Deed(s), the Special Restrictions, the Memorandum of DDA, the Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement, the CC&Rs, and the License Agreements. 1.1.57 "Parcel" means individually, either the Phase 1 Parcel or the Phase 2 Parcel. 1.1.58 "Parcels" means, collectively, the Phase 1 Parcel and the Phase 2 Parcel. 1.1.59 "Party" and "Parties" are defined in the introductory paragraph. 1. 1.60 "Person" means an individual, partnership, limited partnership, trust, estate, association, corporation, limited liability company, joint venture, firm, joint stock company, Tustin Cornerstone I Development 10 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final unincorporated association, Governmental Authority, governmental agency or other entity, domestic or foreign. 1.1.61 "Phase" means Phase 1 or Phase 2, individually. 1.1.62 "Phase 1" means the development authorized and/or required by the Entitlement Approvals in connection with the development of the Improvements upon the Property that will, upon recording thereof, comprise Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 2015-168, including the Phase 1 Horizontal Improvements and the Public Benefits set forth on Exhibit "C". 1.1.63 "Phase 1 Horizontal Improvements" mean the Horizontal Improvements required in connection with development, construction and operation of the Phase 1 Project which shall include the entirety of the Minimum Horizontal Improvements. 1.1.64 "Phase 1 `Parcel" means Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 2015-168, as the same is legally described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit `B". 1.1.65 "Phase 1 Term" is defined in Section 2.3.1(a). 1.1.66 "Phase 2" means the development authorized and/or required by the Entitlement Approvals in connection with the development of the Improvements upon the Property that will, upon recording thereof, comprise Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 2015-168, including the Phase 2 Horizontal Improvements and the Public Benefits set forth on Exhibit "C" to the extent same are not completed as part of Phase 1. 1.1.67 "Phase 2 Horizontal Improvements" mean the Horizontal Improvements required in connection with development, construction and operation of the Phase 2 Project, which shall include the Minimum Horizontal Improvements to the extent the same are not completed by Developer of Phase 1 in accordance with the requirements of the DDA or this Agreement. 1.1.68 "Phase 2 Parcel" means Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 2015-168, as the same is legally described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit `B". 1.1.69 "Phase 2 Term" is defined in Section 2.3.1(b). 1. 1.70 "Phases" means Phase 1 and Phase 2, collectively. 1. 1.71 "Plan Check and Inspection Fees" means the fees and costs incurred by the City with respect to its provision of Plan Check and Inspection Services for the Project, which shall be billed to Developer by City and paid by Developer to City in accordance with Section 3.13.1(b) of this Agreement. 1.1.72 "Plan Check and Inspection Services" means the services performed by City staff and its third party inspectors, engineers and consultants, if any, to carry out and complete plan check, perform inspections, and monitor Developer compliance with the Applicable Rules, as needed for review and issuance of encroachment permits, excavation permits, grading permits, Tustin Cornerstone I Development 11 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits and building permits requested by Developer in connection with the Project. 1.1.73 "Prevailing Party" is defined in Section 9.10. 1.1.74 "Project" means the development of the Property contemplated by the Entitlement Approvals (as such -Entitlement Approvals may be further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement); which provide for a phased commercial development consisting of up to 870,000 GBA of office, retail, conference and/or other commercial development, together with ancillary parking and landscaping amenities, in all cases not exceeding the maximum heights allowed by the Entitlement Approvals. 1.1.75 "Project Fair Share Contribution" means the fair share of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program to be contributed by Developer with respect to the Project, as further described in the DDA. 1. 1.76 "Property" means the real property described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit `B" to this Agreement, which is described and depicted in two Phases --Phase 1 and Phase 2. 1. 1.77 "Proprietary Capacity" means the capacity of the City as owner, lessor, assembler, redeveloper and/or seller of property only. 1.1.78 "Public Benefit Improvements" shall have the meaning set forth in Exhibit "C." 1.1.79 "Public Benefits" means those public benefits to be provided by the Developer and the Project as described in Section 3.1 and 3.20 of this Agreement that comprise enforceable additional consideration to the City for this Agreement. 1.1.80 "Reacquired Property" means all or any portion of the Phase 1 Parcel or Phase 2 Parcel (as applicable), (b) any Improvements thereon, (c) all Entitlement Approvals and other development rights, consents, authorizations, variances, waivers, licenses, permits, certificates and approvals from any governmental or quasi -governmental authority, as applicable and (d) all other appurtenant rights applicable to the respective Property, including the interest in any ground leases encumbering the respective Property that is repurchased by the City pursuant to Section 16.3 of the DDA or that reverts to the City pursuant to Section 16.4 of the DDA. 1.1.81 "Reservation of Authority" means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to Developer under this Agreement and reserved to the City under Section 3.10. 1. 1.82 "Roadway and Utility Easement Agreement" means that certain reciprocal easement agreement executed by the Parties, acknowledged and in Recordable form and in form and substance acceptable to Developer and City, each in its sole discretion, granting reciprocal easements for vehicular ingress and egress, utility access, and construction of uncapped roadway Tustin Cornerstone I Development 12 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final and related landscaping, across that portion of the Property depicted on Attachment 21 of the DDA. 1.1.83 "Scope of Development" means the description of the Project and Improvements attached as Attachment 8 to the DDA. 1.1.84 "Schedule of Performance" means the document attached as Attachment 7 to the DDA, setting forth the dates and time periods for submissions, approvals and actions, including the construction and Completion of the Improvements 1.1.85 "Second Party" is defined in Section 9.11.3. 1.1.86 "Specific Plan" means the City's MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, as amended, and as the same may be further amended from time to time. 1.1.87 "State" means the State of California. 1.1.88 "Subsequent Entitlement Approvals" means Entitlement Approvals, if any, approved by the City subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property or the Project. 1.1.89 "Successor In Interest" means any Person having a legal or equitable interest in the whole of the Property, or any portion thereof. 1.1.90 "Tax A" is defined in Section 3.1.1(a). 1. 1.91 "Tax B" is defined in Section 3.1.1(b). 1. 1.92 "Term" means with respect to Phase 1, the Phase 1 Term, and with respect to Phase 2, the Phase 2 Term. 1. 1.93 "Tustin City Code" means the municipal code of the City of Tustin. 1.1.94 "Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program" means the program adopted by the City to finance and construct Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure located off of the Property, including Tustin Legacy roadway improvements; traffic and circulation mitigation to support the Tustin Legacy project; domestic and reclaimed water; sewer; telemetry; storm drains and flood control channels; utilities backbone (electricity, gas, telephone, cable, telecommunications, etc.) (as such program is in effect as of the Effective Date). 1.1.95 "Vertical Improvements" means all of the Buildings, landscaping and other improvements (including, among other things, parking lots and parking structures), other than the Horizontal Improvements, to be constructed or installed on the Property, consistent with the Specific Plan, the Reuse Plan, the Approved Plans, the Entitlement Approvals, the Design Guidelines and the Development Permits and as further described in the DDA. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 13 City of Tustin/Comerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 1.1.96 "Vested Rights" means the rights granted to Developer pursuant to this Agreement upon its acquisition of each Phase of the Property to develop the Property so acquired in accordance with, and subject to the terms andconditions of this Agreement, the Existing Entitlement Approvals and any Subsequent Entitlement Approvals approved by the City and made applicable to the Property pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement: Exhibit "A" — Legal Description of the Property (Phase 1 and Phase 2) Exhibit `B" — Map Showing Property (Phase 1 and Phase 2) Exhibit "C" — Public Benefit Improvements Exhibit "D" -Existing Entitlement Approvals 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out only in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 2.2 Interests in Property. The City and Developer agree that Developer's right to acquire the Property pursuant to the DDA creates a sufficient legal and/or equitable interest in order to enter into this Agreement. If Developer fails to acquire any portion of the Property, then this Agreement shall automatically no longer be effective as to such portion of the Property concurrently with the date upon which Developer's rights to acquire such portion of the Property expire. 2.3 Term. 2.3.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall extend as to each Phase for the period set forth below, unless otherwise extended by the parties in writing or earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement: (a) with respect to Phase 1, the term (the "Phase 1 Term") shall terminate upon the date that is five (5) years Erom the Effective Date, as such date may be automatically extended during the period of any Force Majeure Delay established pursuant to Section 9.11, provided that in no event, after taking into account any such Force Majeure Delay, shall the Phase 1 Term be extended beyond the eighth (8th) anniversary of the Effective Date; and (b) . with respect to Phase 2, the term (the "Phase 2 Term") shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following dates, provided that in no event, after taking into account any Force Majeure Delay, shall the Phase 2 Term be extended beyond the fifteenth (15th) anniversary of the Effective Date: (i) the date upon which the Option terminates without exercise thereof; Tustin Cornerstone I Development 14 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final or (ii) if the Option is exercised in the first through eighth Option Year, the date that is four (4) years from the date of exercise of the Option, as such date may be automatically extended during the period of any Force Majeure Delay established pursuant to Section 9.11, for a maximum of three (3) additional years; or (iii) if the Option is exercised after the eighth Option Year, the date that is thirteen (13) years from the Effective Date; as such date may be automatically extended during the period of any Force Majeure Delay established pursuant to Section 9.11 for a maximum of two (2) additional years. 2.3.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties in writing, this Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the date that is one hundred and eighty (180) days following the Effective Date if the DDA has not then been executed by the City and Developer. 2.3.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.3.1(b)(i), in the event the Option terminates pursuant to the terms of the DDA prior to exercise thereof by the Developer pursuant to the terms of the DDA, the City shall have the right to unilaterally extend the Phase 2 Term without approval of the Developer and if the City reacquires any portion of the Property the City shall have the right to unilaterally extend the Term with respect to the portion of the Property it has so acquired. 2.4 Assi ment. Any attempt to convey, assign or transfer any right or interest in this Agreement except in strict compliance with this Section 2.4 shall be null and void and of no force and effect. A conveyance, assignment or transfer carried out in accordance with this Section 2.4 and approved by the City as required by this Section 2.4 is referred to herein as an "Approved Transfer". 2.4.1 Assignment and Notification. The rights, interests and obligations conveyed and provided herein to Developer benefit and are appurtenant to the Property. Developer has the right to sell, assign and transfer any and all of its rights and interests and to delegate any and all of its duties and obligations hereunder subject to and in accordance with the following conditions: (a) Prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Compliance for each Phase (or, if applicable, Building Pad), the rights and interests of Developer under this Agreement as to such Phase (or, if applicable, Building Pad) may not be Transferred except in strict compliance with the provisions of Section 2 of the DDA, which are incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth in this Agreement, and, to the extent required thereby, Developer shall secure the written consent of the City to each such Transfer. (b) From and after recordation of the Certificate of Compliance for each Phase (or, if applicable, Building Pad), the rights and interests of Developer under this Tustin Cornerstone I Development 15 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Agreement as to such Phase (or, if applicable, Building Pad) may not be conveyed, assigned, or transferred without the written consent of the City to each such conveyance, assignment or transfer, which consent of the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. (c) The rights and interests of Developer under this Agreement with respect to a Phase may be conveyed, transferred or assigned only as an incident of the conveyance, transfer or assignment of the portion of the Property to which they relate, including any transfer or assignment pursuant to a foreclosure of a Mortgage or a deed in lieu of a foreclosure; (d) Prior to conveyance, assignment or transfer of the rights and interests of Developer under this Agreement.in connection with the conveyance of the Property or a portion thereof, Developer shall notify the City in writing of each conveyance, assignment or transfer of the portions of the Property to which the conveyance, assignment or transfer will be appurtenant, and the name and address (for purposes of notices hereunder) of the transferee or assignee, together with the corresponding Building Pads; (e) The assignee or transferee shall assume all of Developer's obligations under this Agreement and the Entitlement Approvals as they relate to the portion of the Property so assigned and/or transferred, which shall include, for avoidance of doubt: (1) all such obligations expressly applicable to the portion of the Property and the Project acquired by such assignee or transferee; (2) all obligations imposed by this Agreement and the Entitlement Approvals as a condition to construction of the Project, including completion of the Public Benefits, to the extent applicable to or a requirement of development of the portion of the Property and the Project so acquired; (3) the requirement to satisfy all other conditions under this Agreement, the DDA, the Other Agreements and the Entitlement Approvals applicable to the development of the portion of the Property and the Project so acquired; and (4) all obligations imposed on "Developer" under this Agreement and all conditions imposed by the Entitlement Approvals to the extent applicable. to the portion of the Property so acquired or as a requirement thereof, whether or not specifically identified as applicable to the Phase or portion of the Project so acquired (collectively, the "Transferred Obligations"); provided, however, that nothing in this subsection (e) shall require the assignee or transferee of a portion of the Project constituting less than an entire Phase (such as a transferee of one Building Pad) to assume any obligations of Developer that Developer expressly retains pursuant to the terms of the assignment or transfer agreement between the Developer and the assignee/transferee; and (f) The assignee or transferee shall have entered into an Assignment Agreement if required by the DDA. 2.4.2 Subject to Terms of Agreement. Following a conveyance, assignment or transfer of any of the rights and interests of Developer set forth in this Agreement in accordance with Section 2.4.1, the assignee's or transferee's exercise, use, and enjoyment of the Property shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement to the same extent as if the assignee or transferee were Developer. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 16 City of Tustin/Comerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 2.4.3 Release of Developer Upon Transfer. Notwithstanding the conveyance, assignment or transfer of portions or all of the Property or rights or interests under this Agreement, Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement with respect to Developer's obligations and the other duties and obligations of Developer under this Agreement unless and until released or partially released by the City in writing, which release or partial release shall apply only with respect to obligations of Developer following the effective date of the assignment or Transfer and shall be granted by the City only upon the full satisfaction by Developer of each and every one of the following conditions: (a) Developer is not then in default under this Agreement; (b) The City has consented to the assignment or transfer if required under Section 2.4.1 of this Agreement; (c) The assignment or transfer is not a Transfer to an Affiliate or other Transfer or Transfer of Control for which the DDA expressly provides that Developer shall not be released from its obligations under the DDA; (d) The conveyance, assignment or transfer conveys, assigns or transfers all of Developer's interest in the portion of the Property being transferred, the DDA and the Other Agreements (to the extent then applicable to such portion of the Property) and this Agreement, including the Transferred Obligations applicable thereto; (e) The assignee or transferee has assumed in writing all duties and obligations as to which Developer is requesting to be released pursuant to an assignment and assumption agreement approved by the City; and (f) The assignee or transferee is financially able to assume the obligations proposed for assignment and has demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that adequate resources have been committed to the full performance of such obligations. 2.4.4 Effect of Right of Repurchase or Right of Reversion. In the event the City exercises its Right of Reversion or Right of Repurchase, then effective upon the date of acquisition by the City of the Reacquired Property, such reversion shall release the Developer previously owning the Reacquired Property from (a) all prospective liability and obligations of Developer under this Agreement applicable to the Reacquired Property and (b) only as and to the extent set forth in the DDA, including Sections 16.3.4 and 16.4.5 thereof, those obligations and liabilities that predate the date of acquisition by the City of the Reacquired Property. 2.5 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. 2.5.1 Generally. This Agreement may be amended or cancelled in whole or in part only in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65865.1 or 65868 and Tustin City Code Section 9615. This provision shall not limit any remedy of the City or Developer as provided by this Agreement. Any Party may propose an amendment to or cancellation, in whole or in part, of this Agreement. Any amendment or cancellation shall be by mutual consent of the Tustin Cornerstone I Development 17 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Parties except as provided otherwise in this Agreement, in Government Code Section 65865.1, or in the Tustin City Code. 2.5.2 Administrative Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement which does not relate to (a) the Term of this Agreement, (b) permitted uses of the Project, (c) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, (d) the conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements relating to Subsequent Entitlement Approvals of the City, (e) revisions to Public Benefits (other than to the time for performance of such Public Benefits) or ffl monetary exactions of Developer, shall be considered an "Administrative Amendment"; notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, changes to definitions and/or references to Exhibits and/or Attachments necessary or helpful to conform this Agreement to the provisions of the DDA (as the DDA may be amended from time to time) shall be considered Administrative Amendments and may be approved in accordance with this Section 2.5.2. The City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to execute Administrative Amendments on behalf of the City and no action by the City Council (e.g. noticed public hearing) shall be required before the Parties may enter into an Administrative Amendment. The determination of whether a proposed amendment is an Administrative Amendment as defined in this Section 2.5.2 shall be made in the sole judgment of the City Manager, or designee, and the City Manager, or designee, reserves the right to refer any matter to the City Council and/or to require a noticed public hearing on a proposed Administrative Amendment in which event the City's Planning Commission shall conduct a noticed public hearing to consider whether the proposed Administrative Amendment should be approved or denied, and shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the matter. In such event, .the City Council shall conduct a noticed public hearing to consider the request and the Planning Commission's recommendation on the matter. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council may approve, deny, or conditionally approve the amendment. 2.5.3 Consent to Amendments. In the case of amendments affecting portions of the Property, only the consent of the owner 'of such portion of the Property shall be required so long as the amendment does not diminish the rights appurtenant to or increase the burdens upon any other portion of the Property. Any Future Rule applicable pursuant to this Agreement and any amendment of the City Land Use Regulations including to the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan or the City's zoning ordinance, shall not require amendment of this Agreement. Instead, any such amendment shall be deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement at the time that such amendment is approved by the appropriate City decision maker, so long as such amendment is consistent with this Agreement. 2.5.4 Termination. (a) This Agreement, or the portion thereof so affected, shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) As to Phase 1, expiration of the Phase 1 Term as set forth in Section 2.3.1(a); (ii) ' As to Phase 2, expiration of the Phase 2 Term as set forth in Section 2.3.1(b); Tustin Cornerstone I Development 18 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final (iii) As to both Phase 1 and Phase 2, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.3.2; (iv) Prior to the termination in clause (i) or (ii) of this subsection (a), upon entry of a final courtjudgment not subject to further appeal setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the City ordinance approving this Agreement; (v) The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the City ordinance approving this Agreement where such measure is not subject to further appeal; (vi) As to each Phase or other portion of the Property for which a Certificate of Compliance is sought pursuant to the DDA, upon Completion of the entirety of the Project and the Public Benefits required in connection with such Phase in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the DDA, the Entitlement Approvals and the Applicable Rules, including issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance by the City or applicable public agency of all required public improvements and dedications, compliance with all obligations of Developer under this Agreement and City issuance of a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to the DDA, the City Manager shall have the authority in his or her sole discretion to terminate this Agreement as to the Phase or other portion of the Property for which the Certificate of Compliance has been recorded; (vii) Due to termination by the City in accordance with Section 4.3 or Section 5; or (viii) Upon mutual written agreement of the City and Developer. (b) The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to terminate this Agreement as to the portion of the Property re -acquired by it pursuant to the Right of Repurchase, the Right of Reversion or any action in lieu thereof pursuant to the DDA. (c) Termination of this Agreement shall not constitute termination of any other Entitlement Approvals for the Property. Upon the termination of this Agreement as to any portion of the Property, no Party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder with respect to such portion of the Property except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. The City and Developer shall cooperate, at no cost to the City, in executing in recordable form any document that the City has approved to confirm the termination of this Agreement as to any such portion of the Property. 2.6 Notices, Demands and —Communications between the Parties. All notices, demands, consents, requests and other communications required or permitted to be given under Tustin Cornerstone I Development 19 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed conclusively to have been duly given (a) when hand delivered to the other Party; (b) three (3) Business Days after such notice has been sent by United States mail via certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed to the other Party as set forth below; or (c) the next Business Day after such notice has been deposited with a national overnight delivery service reasonably approved by the Parties (Federal Express, United Parcel Service and U.S. Postal Service are deemed approved by the Parties), postage prepaid, addressed to the Party to whom notice is being sent as set forth with next Business Day delivery guaranteed, provided that the sending Party receives a confirmation of delivery from the delivery service provider. Unless otherwise provided in writing, all notices hereunder shall be addressed as follows: If to the City: With a copy to: If to Developer: With a copy to: Jeffrey C. Parker, City Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Fax: (714) 838-1602 Email: jparker@tustinca.org David Kendig Woodruff Spradlin & Smart, APC 555 Anton Boulevard, #1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Fax: (714)415-1183 Email: dkendig@wss-law.com. David Binswanger and Matt Howell Flight Venture LLC c/o Lincoln Property Company Commercial, Inc. 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Fax: (213) 538-0901 Email: dbinswanger@lpc.com and matt.howell@lpc.com Parke Miller Flight Venture LLC c/o Lincoln Property Company Commercial, Inc. 114 Pacifica, Suite 370 Irvine, CA 92618 Fax: (949) 333-2131 Email:pmiller@lpc.com Tustin Cornerstone I Development 20 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 11 i 1 1 1 With a copy to: Gregory S. Courtwright Lincoln Property Company Commercial, Inc. 2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75201 Fax: (214) 740-3460 Email: gcourtwright@lpc.com With a copy to: Mark Potter Alcion Ventures One Post Office Square, Suite 3150 Boston, MA 02109 Fax: (617) 603-1001 Email: mpotter@alcionventures.com With a copy to: Amy Forbes Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - Fax: (213) 229-6151 / (213) 229-6128 Email: aforbes@gibsondunn.com With a copy to: Michael Glazer Goodwin Procter LLP Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Fax: (617) 523-1231 Email: mglazer@goodwinprocter.com Any Party may by written notice to the other Party in the manner specified in this Agreement change the address to which notices to such Party shall be delivered. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 3.1 Public Benefits. This Agreement provides assurances that the Project described by this Agreement will be achieved and developed in accordance with the Applicable Rules and this Agreement, and subject to the City's Reservation of Authority. The Parties believe that such orderly development of the Project will provide the benefits to the City and additional regional public benefits, including: increased tax revenues, installation of on-site 'and off-site improvements, and creation and retention of jobs. In addition Developer will provide the following additional Public Benefits which constitute specific additional consideration for this Agreement for the benefit of the City: Tustin Cornerstone I Development 21 Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final City of Tustin/Cornerstone I 3.1.1 Community Facilities District Formation. The City has previously established a Community Facilities District for Tustin Legacy ("AD/CFD") that includes the Property within its boundaries. - (a) Capital Facilities. Developer acknowledges and agrees that its development plan for the Project will not require use of community facility district proceeds, including proceeds from the AD/CFD and that neither assessment district nor community facilities district proceeds will be used to reimburse Developer for its development costs in connection with the Project, including Project Fair_Share Contribution or Project specific construction or infrastructure costs. Accordingly, Developer waives its right to fund all or any portion of the development of the Project pursuant to a Community Facilities District, including pursuant to any Special Tax for the development of facilities within the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program pursuant to the existing AD/CFD ("Tax A"), and the City agrees that Tax A shall not be applicable to the Property or the Improvements thereon and Developer shall have no obligation or liability on account thereof. The City agrees that neither the Property nor the Improvements shall be subject to or encumbered by Tax A because Developer's obligation to pay the fair share of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program shall be satisfied by payment of the Purchase Price under the DDA and Section 3.1.2 below (which Purchase Price is inclusive of the obligation to pay the Developer's fair share of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program with respect to the Project). (b) Tax B. As part of the AD/CFD the City has previously established Special Tax `B" pursuant to AD/CFD 13-01 ("Tax B"), the proceeds of which shall be used by the City to fund a portion of the City essential services, including police and fire protection, ambulance and paramedic services,_ recreation programs and services, street sweeping, traffic signal maintenance and the maintenance of City -owned. parks, parkways and open spaces, lighting, flood control and storm drain services and other City services and facilities at Tustin Legacy. Tax B is and shall be a tax and lien upon the Property and the Improvements in accordance with the terms of the instruments governing the AD/CFD and Tax B and the term of Tax.B imposed upon the Property and the Improvements is and shall be perpetual and shall not be time limited in any manner unless determined by the City in its sole discretion. Developer and each Successor In Interest of Developer shall pay the Tax B amounts due with respect to the Property when due to the City. Tax B shall be in lieu of any other assessments,.special taxes, fees or charges that may otherwise be charged on account of the types of services covered thereby. Developer acknowledges that the term of Tax B imposed upon the Property and the Improvements thereon does not contain a fixed termination date, and that the City ordinance adopting Tax B provides that it shall continue as long as necessary to meet the Special Tax Requirement for Service set forth in the City ordinance adopting Tax B. . (c) No Further Restrictions. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.1.1(a) and (b), the City shall not be prohibited by the terms of this Agreement from, subjecting the Property and/or the Improvements thereon to any increase in ad valorem real property tax pursuant to a City of Tustin -wide election, provided that nothing herein shall be construed to constitute a waiver by Developer of its right or ability to dispute or oppose passage of Tustin Cornerstone I Development 22 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final a City of Tustin -wide bond or tax, the proposed formation or amendment of any special district or taxing authority, or the imposition of any such tax by such special district or taxing authority, or any amendment to the Rate and Method of Apportionment for Tax B, or its right to dispute the assessed valuation of all or any portion of the Property owned by it. 3.1.2 Project Fair Share Contribution. The Purchase Price for the Property under the DDA is inclusive of the obligation to pay the Project Fair Share Contribution with respect to the Project and accordingly, upon payment in full of the Purchase Price under the DDA, Developer shall be credited in full with payment of its fair share of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program fees comprising the Project Fair Share Contribution and thereafter no further obligation shall be imposed on Developer of the Project in connection with the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program. 3.1.3 Public Benefit Improvements. Developer shall complete the Public Benefit Improvements listed on Exhibit "C" within the time periods set forth therein. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, if any payment under this Section is not made or any obligation requiring performance is not performed by Developer, the City may withhold further issuance of building permits and other approvals, including final maps, for the Project until such time as Developer has made the required payment or undertaken the required performance. 3.2 Developer Objectives. In accordance with the legislative findings set forth in Government Code Section 65864, the Developer wishes to obtain reasonable assurances that the Project may be developed in accordance with the Applicable Rules and Existing Entitlement Approvals and with the terms of this. Agreement and subject to the City's Reservation of Authority. To the extent of Project deelopment, and as provided by Section 3.5.2, Developer anticipates making capital expenditures or causing capital expenditures to be made in reliance upon the DDA and this Agreement. In the absence of this Agreement, Developer would have no assurance that it can complete the Project for the uses and to the density and intensity of development set forth in this Agreement and the Existing Entitlement Approvals. This Agreement, therefore, is necessary to assure Developer that the Project will not be (1) reduced or otherwise modified in density, intensity or use from what is set forth in the Existing Entitlement Approvals, (2) subjected to new rules, regulations, ordinances or official policies or plans except for Future Rules made applicable pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 3.3 Mutual Objectives. Development of the Project in accordance with this Development Agreement will provide for the orderly development of the Property in accordance with the objectives set forth in the General Plan and the Specific Plan. Moreover, a development agreement for the Project will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and securing orderly development of the Property, assure installation of necessary improvements, assure attainment of maximum efficient resource utilization within the City at the least economic cost to its citizens and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes established by Government Code Section 65864. Additionally, although development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement will restrain the City's land use or other relevant police powers, this Agreement provides the City with sufficient reserved powers during the Term to remain responsible and accountable to its residents. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 23 City of Tustin/Comerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final In exchange for these and other benefits.to the City, the Developer will receive assurance that the Project may be developed during the Term of this Agreement in accordance with the Applicable Rules, Entitlement Approvals and Reservation of Authority, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 3.4 Applicability of the Agreement. This Agreement does not: (a) grant density or intensity in excess of that otherwise, established in the Existing Entitlement Approvals; (b) eliminate future discretionary actions relating to the Project that are either required by the Applicable Rules or requested by Developer pursuant to applications initiated and submitted by Developer after the Effective Date; (c), guarantee that Developer will receive any profits from the Project; (d) amend the DDA, the Other Agreements, the Specific Plan or the General Plan or (e) protect the Developer, the Project or the Property from the applicability of any increases in development fees or City Processing Fees. In addition, except as specifically set forth in Sections 3.6.2 and 3. 10, this Agreement does not protect the Developer, the Project or the Property from the applicability of any Future Rules (i) imposed pursuant to the City's Reservation of Authority or (ii) if not imposed pursuant to the City's Reservation of Authority, adopted by the City and not in conflict (as defined in Section 3.6.2) with Existing Land Use Regulations. 3.5 Agreement and Assurance on the Part of the Developer. In consideration for the City's entering into this Agreement, and as an inducement for City to obligate itself to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, and in order to effectuate the premises, purposes and intentions set forth in this Agreement, Developer hereby agrees as follows: 3.5.1 Project Development. Developer agrees that it will use commercially reasonable efforts, in accordance with its own business judgment and taking into account market conditions and economic considerations, to undertake any development of the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the DDA, this Agreement and the Existing Entitlement Approvals. 3.5.2 Additional Obligations of Developer as Consideration for this Agreement. In addition to the obligations identified in Section 3.1, the development assurances provided by Developer in this Agreement and the resulting construction of the Project will result in the following: (a) Construction of a commercial development of up to 870,000 GBA within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, consistent with this Agreement, the Applicable Rules, the Entitlement Approvals and the DDA, including in accordance with the Schedule of Performance set forth in the DDA. (b) Construction of all Improvements identified in the DDA in accordance with the Schedule of Performance set forth in the DDA. (c) Completion of all Public Benefit Improvements identified on Exhibit "C" in accordance with the Schedule of Performance set forth in the DDA and Exhibit "C". Tustin Cornerstone I Development 24 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9=15-2016 (PC) final (d) Compliance with the DDA, the Applicable Rules and Entitlement Approvals, state and federal law, all mitigation measures, including measures imposed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), all Development Permits and all conditions of approval associated with the foregoing. (e) Payment of all required development and inspection related fees pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the DDA, the Other Agreements and this Agreement; provided, however, that Developer's sole obligation with respect to the Project Fair Share Contribution shall be as set forth in Section 3.1.2. 3.6 Agreement and Assurances on the Part of City. In consideration for Developer entering into this Agreement, as an inducement for Developer to obligate itself to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, and in order to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement, the City hereby agrees as follows: 3.6.1 Applicable Regulations; Vested Right to Develop. To the maximum extent permitted by law, as to each Phase, Developer has the vested right for the Term applicable to such Phase to develop the Project subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Applicable Rules, state and federal law, and the Existing Entitlement Approvals and any Subsequent Entitlement Approvals approved by the City, in each case subject to the City's Reservation of Authority and subject to the additional terms and conditions set forth in the DDA and the Other Agreements. Other than as expressly set forth herein, during the Term applicable to each Phase, the terms and conditions of development applicable to such Phase of the Property, including the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property, including any changes authorized pursuant to Section 3.6.2, the subdivision of land and requirements for infrastructure and public improvements, other terms and conditions of the Project, and the provisions for the reservation and dedication of land as needed for public purposes pursuant to Governmental Requirements, shall be those set forth in the DDA and the Other Agreements, the Applicable Rules, and the Entitlement Approvals. In connection therewith and subject to the terms of this Agreement including the Reservation of Authority, Developer shall have the Vested Right to carry out and develop the Property in accordance with the Applicable Rules and the Entitlement Approvals and the provisions of this Agreement, including Section 3.10.4.. 3.6.2 Changes Authorized by the CitX. To the extent any changes in the Existing Land Use Regulations, or any provisions of future General Plans, Specific Plans, Tustin City Code or other rules, regulations, ordinances or policies of the City (whether adopted by means of ordinance, initiative, referenda, resolution, policy, order, moratorium, or other means, adopted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or any other board, commission, agency, committee, or department of the City, or any officer or employee thereof) following the Effective Date (collectively, "Future Rules") are not in conflict with the Vested Rights, such Future Rules shall be applicable to the Project. For purposes of this Section 3.6.2, the word "conflict" means Future Rules that would (a) frustrate in a more than insignificant way the intent or purpose of the Applicable Rules in relation to the Project; (b) materially increase the cost of performance of, or preclude compliance with, any provision of the Vested Right; (c) delay in a more than insignificant Tustin Cornerstone I Development 25 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final way development of the Project; (d) limit or restrict the availability of public utilities, services, infrastructure of facilities (for example, but not by way of limitation, water rights, water connection or sewage capacity rights, sewer connections, etc.) to the Project; (e) impose limits or controls in the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development of the Project; (f) limit the permitted uses of the Property from those permitted by the Existing Entitlement Approvals, the DDA and the Other Agreements; (g) reduce ' the maximum height or size of any permitted buildings; or (h) impose additional obligations in connection with the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes beyond the requirements identified in the DDA from those permitted by the Entitlement Approvals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Future Rule that conflicts with the Applicable Rules shall nonetheless apply to the Property if, and only if one of the following apply: (i) it is consented to in writing by Developer; (ii) it is determined by the City and evidenced through findings adopted by the City Council that the change or provision is reasonably required in order to prevent a condition dangerous to the public health or safety as set forth in Section 3.10.2; (iii) it is required by changes in State or Federal law as set forth in Section 3.10.1; (iv) it consists of revisions to, or new building regulations permitted by Section 3.10.3; or (v) it is otherwise expressly permitted by this Agreement. 3.6.3 Availability of Public Services. To the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with its authority, the City shall use commercially reasonable efforts to assist Developer in reserving such capacity for sewer and water services as may be necessary to serve the Project, at no cost or expense to the City. 3.6.4 Allocation of Development Rights Under Specific Plan. The City hereby acknowledges that it has allocated to the Property and reserved for development of the Project a total of 870,000 GBA of commercial floor area from the total Specific Plan Planning Area 9-12 authorization of commercial floor area. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 26 City of Tustin/Comerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 3.7 Effect of Agreement on Subsequent Entitlement Approvals. The City shall accept for processing and review and take action on all applications for Subsequent Entitlement Approvals as provided in Section 3.9. In connection with any Subsequent Entitlement Approval, the City shall exercise discretion in the same manner as it exercises its discretion under its police powers, including the Reservation of Authority; provided however, that such discretion shall not prevent development of the Project as set forth in this Agreement. 3.8 Timing of Development. The timing of development will be as set forth in the DDA. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties' agreement, it is the Parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Developer will adhere to the terms of the DDA regarding the timing of development. 3.9 Subsequent Entitlement Approvals; Changes and Amendments. 3.9.1 The Parties acknowledge that refinement and further development of the Project may require Subsequent Entitlement Approvals and may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and desirable in the Existing Entitlement Approvals. Entitlement Approvals (except for this Agreement, the amendment process for which is set forth in Section 2.5) may be amended or modified from time to time, but only at the written request of Developer or with the written consent of Developer (at its sole and absolute discretion). All amendments to the Entitlement Approvals shall automatically become part of the Applicable Rules. 3.9.2 In the event Developer finds that a change in, or addition to, the Existing Entitlement Approvals is necessary or appropriate, Developer shall apply for a Subsequent Entitlement Approval to effectuate such change or addition and the City shall process and act on such application in accordance with the Applicable Rules, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, including the Reservation of Authority. If approved, any such change in, or addition to, the Existing Entitlement Approvals shall thereafter be deemed to be an Existing Entitlement Approval and a Vested Right for all purposes of this Agreement without requiring an amendment to this Agreement and may be further changed, or added to, from time to time as provided in this Section. 3.9.3 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Developer acknowledges that the Concept Plans and Design Review granted with respect to the Project prior to the Effective Date are applicable to Phase 1 only. The Concept Plans and Design Review as to Phase 2 are illustrative in nature; accordingly, Subsequent Entitlement Approval comprised of Design Review approval shall be required as a condition precedent to Phase 2 development. The City Community Development Department shall determine, in its sole discretion, whether consideration of such approvals shall be made by director's determination or by referral to the City Planning Commission. In all cases, such approvals shall be subject to the provisions of the Tustin City Code regarding appeal. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 27 City of Tustin/Comerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 3.10 Reservation of Authority. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Future Rules described in this Section 3.10 shall apply to and govern development of the Property and Project to the extent set forth herein. 3.10.1 Overriding State and Federal Laws. The City shall not be precluded from adopting and applying Future Rules to the Property and the development of the Project to the extent that such Future Rules are required to be applied by State or Federal laws or regulations and which would override Developer's Vested Rights as set forth in this Agreement, provided however, that (a) Developer does not waive its right to challenge or contest the validity of such State or Federal rules or regulations; and (b) such Future Rules, if otherwise in conflict with the Vested Rights (as described in Section 3.6.2) shall only be applied to the Project and development of the Project to the extent necessary to comply with such new State or Federal law or regulation. In the event that such State or Federal law or regulation (or Future Rules undertaken pursuant thereto) prevents or precludes substantial compliance with one or more provisions of the Existing Land Use Regulations or this Agreement, the Parties agree to consider in good faith amending or suspending such provisions of this Agreement as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws (or Future Rules), provided that no Party shall be bound to approve any amendment to this Agreement unless this Agreement is amended in accordance with the procedures applicable to the adoption of development agreements as set forth in the Development Agreement Statute and Tustin City Code and each Party retains full discretion with respect thereto. 3.10.2 Public Health and Safety. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the City Council from adopting and applying Future Rules that the City Council finds are reasonably necessary to protect persons on the Property or in the immediate community, or both, from conditions dangerous to their health or safety notwithstanding that the applications of such Future Rules or other similar limitation would result in the impairment of Developer's Vested Rights under the Agreement or the Existing Land Use Regulations. In determining whether any such Future Rules are reasonably necessary to protect persons as set forth above, the City Council shall make findings, based on evidence presented to and accepted by the City Council that the changes are reasonably necessary to protect the public health or safety. The provisions of this Section 3.10.2 do not apply to any measure adopted by initiative. 3.10.3 Uniform Construction Codes and Regulations. Policies and rules governing engineering and construction standards and specifications applicable to public and private improvements, including all uniform codes adopted by the City and any local amendments to those codes adopted by the City in the future shall apply to the Project and Property. 3.10.4 Police Power. In all respects not provided for in this Agreement, the City shall retain full rights to exercise its police powers to regulate development of the Project and Property. Any uses or development requiring a concept plan, design review, tentative tract map, conditional use permit, variance, or other Entitlement Approvals in accordance with Existing Land Use Regulations shall require a permit or approval pursuant to this Agreement and notwithstanding any other provision set forth herein, this Agreement is not intended to vest Developer's right to issuance of such permit or approval. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 2$ City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 3.11 Processing. 3.11.1 Subdivisions. A subdivision, as defined in Government Code Section 66473.7, shall not be approved unless a tentative map for the subdivision complies with the provisions of said Section 66473.7. This provision is included in this Agreement to comply with Section 65867.5 of the Government Code. 3.11.2 Subsequent Entitlement Approvals. The City shall employ all lawful actions capable of being undertaken by the City to promptly (a) accept all complete applications for Subsequent Entitlement Approvals (collectively, "Applications") and (b) process and take action upon Applications in accordance with the Applicable Rules with a goal of completing the review within time frames identified in the DDA; provided however, that the City shall not be deemed in default under this Agreement should such time frame(s) not be met. To the extent that Developer desires that the City plan check or process an Application on an expedited basis and to the extent that it requires an additional expense beyond the customary expense applicable to the general public, the City shall inform Developer of such additional expense, including the cost of overtime and private consultants and other third parties. If acceptable to Developer, Developer shall pay the additional cost and the City shall use good faith efforts to accelerate the processing time utilizing overtime and the services of private consultants and third parties to the extent available. Upon the written request of Developer, the City shall inform Developer of the necessary application requirements for any requested City approval or requirement relating to the Project. 3.11.3 Filings. Developer shall exercise reasonable efforts to file applications for Development Permits and Entitlement Approvals within the time frames and schedules as generally outlined in the DDA and shall exercise reasonable efforts to attempt to obtain Development Permits and Entitlement Approvals within the time frames identified in the DDA; provided, however, that failure solely to comply with such time frame(s) shall not be deemed to be a default under this Agreement. 3.11.4 Cooperation. The City and Developer shall cooperate in processing all applications for permits and approvals for the Project, provided, however, that such cooperation shall not include any obligation of the City to incur any un -reimbursed expense, and the City shall be entitled, subject to the terms of this Agreement, the DDA and Developer's rights hereunder, to exercise all discretion to which it is entitled by law in processing and issuing any permits and approvals for the Project. 3.11.5 Approvals. Notwithstanding any administrative or judicial proceedings, initiative or referendum concerning any of the Entitlement Approvals, the City shall process applications for permits and approvals as provided herein to the fullest extent allowed by law and Developer may proceed at its sole risk with development of the Project pursuant to the DDA, the Other Agreements, the Applicable Rules and Entitlement Approvals to the fullest extent allowed by law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City reserves its discretion to approve or disapprove all Subsequent Entitlement Approvals with respect to the Project and that nothing in this Agreement will be construed as circumventing or limiting the City's discretion with respect thereto or with respect to the environmental review required by CEQA. Such reservation of discretion will apply to all contemplated legislative and quasi-judicial Tustin Cornerstone I Development 29 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final actions including approval of land use entitlements, CEQA. compliance, code enforcement and the making of findings and determinations, required by law and the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion, elect not to approve, adopt or certify. any requested Subsequent Entitlement Approvals based on CEQA review or other discretionary factors. . 3.12 CEQA; This Agreement does not modify, alter or change the City's obligations pursuant to CEQA. Developer acknowledges that the City is required by State law to comply with CEQA in the consideration . and, approval of any. Subsequent Entitlement Approval and/or any amendment to this Agreement. The 'EIR, which has been certified by the City as being in compliance with CEQA, addresses the potential environmental impacts of the entire Project as it is described in the Existing Entitlement Approvals. Nothing in this Agreement shall require or be construed to require CEQA review .of ministerial approvals. It is agreed that, in acting on any discretionary Subsequent Entitlement Approvals for the Project, the City shall rely on the EIR to satisfy the requirements of CEQA to the extent permissible by CEQA. In the event that any additional CEQA documentation is legally required for any discretionary Subsequent Entitlement Approval for the Project, then the scope of such " documentation shall be focused, to the extent possible consistent with CEQA, on the specific subject matter of the Subsequent Entitlement Approval and the City shall conduct such CEQA review as expeditiously as possible, at Developer's expense. Nothing herein shall restrictor limit the obligation of Developer to pay for and implement any additional mitigation measures or conditions of approval imposed as a result of such CEQA and any Subsequent Entitlement Approval process. 3.13 Fees. 3.13.1 Processing Fees and Charges. (a) The City shall have the right to charge and Developer shall be required to pay all City Processing Fees which shall, except as otherwise specifically set forth in Section 3.13.1(b), be paid at the generally applicable rates in effect at the time such City Processing Fees are due. (b) With respect to Plan Check and Inspection Services only, the City shall be entitled to charge and Developer shall reimburse the City for its costs to make available City staff, including the City Attorney, "and third party engineers and consultants, if any, as. required to complete, process, and review plans and applications, complete plan check, perform inspections, and monitor Developer compliance with the requirements of this Agreement and the Applicable Rules. Not later than ten (10) business days following approval by the City of this Agreement, and as a condition to the effectiveness of this Agreement, Developer shall deliver to the City in cash or cash equivalent funds, a deposit in an amount reasonably requested by City which shall be based on the City's estimate of staff and third party consultant time required to complete and perform plan check and inspections (the "City Costs Deposit"). The City Costs Deposit shall be deposited by the City in an account in a bank or trust company selected by the City and with no requirement that such account be interest bearing. If any interest is paid on such account, such interest shall accrue to any balances in the account for the benefit of the City. If at any time prior to the latest to occur of (a) issuance of the final Certificate of Compliance for the Property; (b) the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for a Building on the Property; or Tustin Cornerstone I Development 30 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final (c) termination of the DDA (the "Final Date"), the amount of funds in the City Costs Deposit account is depleted below Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), then Developer shall be required to pay to the City each time an additional Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) or such other amount as the City may specify as required in City's estimation to cover the cost of Plan Check and Inspection Fees, which shall be credited to the City Costs Deposit. Each such payment shall be deposited by the City into the City Costs Deposit account and shall be applied to reduce the amount of Plan Check and Inspection Fees incurred by the City. The City Costs Deposit has been established to fund the Plan Check and Inspection Fees incurred. by the City and may be used by the City for such purpose, and shall be depleted accordingly. Immediately upon incurring any Plan Check and Inspection Fees or costs or receipt of an invoice from third parties for same, the City shall have the right to deduct the amounts due it on account thereof from the City Costs Deposit. A monthly accounting of deductions documenting staff time spent to process and review plans and applications, complete plan check, perform inspections, and monitor Developer compliance, along with documentation evidencing any other deductions from the City Costs Deposit shall be provided by City to Developer. The City Costs Deposit shall be retained by the City until the Final Date specified above and the remaining amount of the City Costs Deposit then held by the City, if any, shall be promptly returned by the City to Developer thereafter, provided that the return of such funds shall not. terminate the obligations of Developer to pay all City Processing Fees arising or incurred prior to the Final Date. Developer shall pay any outstanding amounts due with respect to the City Processing Fees to the City within thirty (30) calendar days following receipt of an invoice from the City therefor, provided that the City shall first apply the amount of the City Costs Deposit, if any, then held by it in satisfaction of such invoice, and shall reflect the amount of such credit on the invoice. If at any time prior the Final Date, Developer shall assign or convey the Phase 2 Property and the Phase 2 Project separately from the Phase 1 Property and Phase 1 Project; the Option terminates without exercise thereof; or the City, pursuant to exercise of the Right of Repurchase or Right of Reversion or action in lieu thereof pursuant to the DDA takes or transfers title to the Phase 2 Property and the Phase 2 Project separately from the Phase 1 Property and Phase 1 Project, the City shall establish a separate deposit account for Phase 2 in the amount specified above. In such event, all of the foregoing provisions shall separately apply to Phase 1 and to Phase 2, and the "Final Date" with respect to each such Phase shall be the date upon which both conditions (a) and (b), or condition (c) alone, to achievement of such date have occurred with respect to the applicable Phase. 3.13.2 Development Fees. The City shall have the right to impose, and Developer shall pay, all development fees adopted by the City at the time of issuance of building permits for the Project. 3.13.3 Project Fair Share Contribution. The Project Fair Share Contribution (relating to the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program) to be contributed by Developer with respect to the Project shall be Fourteen Million Three Hundred Seventy -Two Thousand Eight Hundred Forty -Two Dollars ($14,372,842) which amount shall be paid as a component of the Purchase Price for the Property pursuant to the DDA. The Contribution shall be paid at a rate of $8.53 per land square foot, and shall be equal to Six Million Four Hundred Ninety -Nine Thousand Tustin Cornerstone I Development 31 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Three Hundred and Forty -Seven Dollars ($6,499,347) .for Phase 1 and Seven Million Eight Hundred Seventy -Three Thousand Four Hundred Ninety -Five Dollars ($7,873,495) for Phase 2. 3.14 Dedications. Developer acknowledges and agrees that it may be required to make certain dedication to the City and other public agencies as required by (a) the Entitlement Approvals, including the approved tentative parcel map, (b) the Applicable Rules, (c) the DDA and the Other Agreements, (d) the EIR and subsequent CEQA documents, if any, adopted by the City in connection with any Subsequent Entitlement .Approval, and (e) as required pursuant to Developer's assumption of the City's MCAS .Tustin obligations under the "Agreement Between the City of Irvine and the City of Tustin Regarding the Implementation, Timing, Funding of Transportation/Circulation Mitigation for the MCAS Tustin Project" and the "Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Between the City of Santa Ana and the City of Tustin Regarding the Tustin -Santa Ana Transportation Improvement Authority". 3.15 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It. is acknowledged by the Parties that other public agencies not within the control of the City possess authority to regulate aspects of .the Project and development of the Property separately from or .jointly with the City and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. The City agrees to cooperate fully, at no 'out of pocket cost to the City, .with Developer in obtaining any required permits or compliance with the regulations , of other public agencies provided such cooperation is not in conflict with any laws, regulations or policies of the City. 3.16 Tentative Parcel Map and Tract Map Extension. Any subdivision map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection. with development of the Property, shall be eligible for extensions of time as provided in Government Code Section 66452.6, except that any extension shall be consistent with any applicable performance schedule as provided or established in the DDA and shall not be deemed or considered in any way an extension of any Developer rights or obligations under the DDA. 3.17 Recording of Final Map. Development of the Project will require approval by the City of the Final Map. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City will not issue a building permit for any building pads, until such time as (a) a final parcel map has been approved by the City and Recorded and (b) the City and Developer have entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement in form approved by the City in its Governmental Capacity. 3.18 Quimby Fees and Park Fees. All fees required in connection with the Project pursuant to the Quimby Act, California Government Code Section 66477, if any, are included within the Project Fair Share Contribution and Developer shall not have any additional liability on account thereof. 3.19 Compliance with Legal Requirements. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any Building constructed on a Building Pad, Developer shall satisfy all applicable requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code; Specific Plan, and conditions of approval of the Entitlement Approvals relating to or necessary for such Building prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such Building, including compliance with the Americans with Tustin Cornerstone I Development 32City of Tustin/Comerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Disabilities Act and necessary Horizontal Improvements, including Common Area Improvements, to support such Building. 3.20 Required Completion of Horizontal Improvements. (a) Developer shall complete all Phase 1 Horizontal Improvements prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the final Building to be constructed within Phase 1 or the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for Phase 1 (whichever occurs first). (b) Developer shall complete all Phase 2 Horizontal Improvements prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the final Building to be constructed within Phase 2 or the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for Phase 2 (whichever occurs first). (c) Developer shall complete all landscaping and irrigation improvements that had been assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments pursuant to Exhibit "C" of this Agreement prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the final Building to be constructed within Phase 1 (or if it occurs first, the final certificate of occupancy for the final Building to be constructed within Phase 2), or the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for all of Phase 1 (or, if it occurs first, the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for all of Phase 2) (whichever occurs first). 4. ANNUAL REVIEW. 4.1 Timing and Annual Review. The City Council shall review Developer's performance under this Agreement at least every twelve (12) months from the Effective Date until expiration of the Agreement. In connection with such periodic review, both the City and Developer shall have a reasonable opportunity to assert matters which either believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Agreement, to explain the basis for such assertion, and to receive from the other Party a justification of its position on such matters. 4.2 Review Procedure. The City shall provide notice to Developer and deliver to Developer a copy of all public staff reports, documents and related exhibits concerning the City's review of Developer's performance hereunder at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to any date proposed for City Council review of performance under the Agreement. 4.2.1 Good Faith Compliance. Developer shall demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement and shall furnish evidence of good faith compliance, as the City, in its reasonable exercise of its discretion, may require. Evidence of good faith compliance may include the following: (a) and Schedule of Performance; (b) (c) City. Tustin Cornerstone I Development Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final conformance with the DDA, including the Scope of Development conformance with the requirements of the Specific Plan; and conformance with provisions of this Agreement identified by the 33 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I 4.2.2 Response. Developer shall have the opportunity to be heard and respond to the City's evaluation of Developer's . performance; either orally or in a written statement, at Developer's election. 4.2.3 Non -Compliance. If, as a result of its periodic review as described in Section 4.1, the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms or,conditions of this Agreement,.the City Council may commence proceedings, to enforce, modify, or terminate this Agreement. 4.2.4 Referral. The City Council, may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for further proceedings or for a report and recommendation. 4.3 Modification or Termination.' If the City Council determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, the City Council shall give notice to Developer of its intention to do so. The Notice shall contain all information required by Tustin City Code Section 9618. At the time and place set for the hearing -on modification or termination, the City Council may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings or for a report and recommendation. . The City Council may take such action as it deems necessary to protect the interests of the City, including but not limited to, the receipt of additional evidence as to Developer's compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The decision of the City Council shall be final, subject only to judicial. review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5(b). 4.4 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a periodic review, Developer is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, the City shall, upon request of the Developer, issue a Certificate (the "Certificate") to Developer stating that after the most recent periodic review and based uponthe information known or made known to the City Council that: (a) this Agreement remains in effect; and. (b) Developer is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next periodic review. Developer may record the Certificate with the County Recorder. If the City does not find Developer to be in compliance with this Agreement, it shall not be obligated to issue the Certificate. 5. DEFAULT, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION. 5.1 ' Default Procedure. A non -defaulting Party (the "Non -Defaulting. Party") at its discretion may elect to declare a default under this Agreement in accordance with the procedures hereinafter set forth for any failure or breach of any other Party ("Defaulting Party") to perform any material duty or obligation of said Defaulting Party in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. However, the Non -Defaulting Party must provide written notice to the Defaulting Party setting forth the nature of the breach or failure and the actions, if any, required by the Defaulting Party to cure such breach or failure. The Defaulting Party shall be deemed to be in "default" of its obligations set forth in this Agreement if the Defaulting Party has failed to take action and cure the default within fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of such notice (for monetary defaults) or 'within thirty (30) calendar days after the date of such notice (for Tustin Cornerstone I Development 34 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final non -monetary defaults). If, however, a non -monetary default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) calendar day period, as long as the Defaulting Party does each of the following: (a) provides the Non -Defaulting Party in writing a reasonable explanation as to the reasons the asserted default is not curable within the thirty(30) calendar day period; (b) notifies the Non -Defaulting. Party in writing of the Defaulting Party's proposed course of action to cure the default; period; (c) promptly commences to cure the default within the thirty (30) calendar day (d) makes periodic written reports to the Non -Defaulting Party as to the progress of the program of cure; and (e) diligently prosecutes such cure to completion, then the Non -Defaulting Party shall grant in writing the Defaulting Party such additional time as determined by the Non -Defaulting Party as reasonably necessary to cure such default. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained herein, (1) the Developer shall not be declared in default under this Agreement solely because of Developer's default under the DDA and/or Other Agreements. Developer's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the DDA and/or Other Agreements or Developer's failure to complete the Project in accordance with the schedules set forth in the DDA (provided that to the extent.the provisions of this Agreement are the same as those contained in the DDA and/or the Othei• Agreements, then breach of such provisions in this Agreement shall be an independent breach of this Agreement) and (2) subject to Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.4, if Developer has conveyed,, assigned or transferred a portion of the Property pursuant to an Approved Transfer, then from and after the effective date of such conveyance, assignment or transfer, any determination that a Party is in default with respect to matters arising subsequent to such transfer date shall be effective only as to the Party to whom the determination is made and the portions of the Property in which such Party has an interest. 5.2 City's Remedies. In the event of an uncured default by Developer under this Agreement, the City, at its option, may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy such default, enjoining any threatened or attempted violation, enforce the terms of this Agreement by specific performance, or pursue any other legal or equitable remedy. Furthermore, the City, in addition to or as an alternative to exercising the remedies in this Section 5.2, in the event of a material default by Developer, may give notice of its intent to terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to Section 4.3, in which event the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council in the manner set forth in Section 4.3. 5.3 Developer's Remedies. In the event of an uncured default of the City under this Agreement, Developer shall be entitled to any or all of the following remedies: (a) seeking mandamus or special writs, injunctive relief, or specific performance of this Agreement; (b) modification or termination of this Agreement; or (c) seeking any other remedy available at law or in equity, provided, however, except as provided in Section 9.10 below and subject to such further limitations on this provision contained in the DDA and/or the Other Agreements, the Tustin Cornerstone I Development 35 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Developer agrees and covenants on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, not to sue the City for damages or monetary relief for any. breach of this Agreement or arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or .issue, regarding the application or effect of this Agreement, or for general, special, compensatory, expectation, anticipation, indirect, consequential, exemplary, or punitive damages ("Damages') arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy, or issues regarding the application or effect of this Agreement, the DDA, the Other Agreements, the Applicable'Rules; or any Development Permits or Entitlement Approvals sought in connection with development or use of the Property or Project, or any portion thereof. Developer acknowledges that the Ci11 ty would not have entered into this Agreement if the City could be held liable for Damages .for any default or breach arising out of this Agreement and that Developer has adequate remedies other than Damages to secure the City's compliance with its obligations under this' Agreement. Therefore, Developer agrees that the City, its officers, employees and agents shall not be liable for any Damages and that this Section shall apply to all Successors In Interest of Developer. - 5.4 Third Party Legal Challenges. In. the event of any legal action instituted by a third party challenging the validity or enforceability of -any provision of this Agreement, the Applicable Rules, the DDA, or Entitlement Approvals for the Project or the approval of any CEQA document prepared in connection with the foi-egoing, Developer agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to'the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which `seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning the Project. The City agrees to promptly notify Developer of any. such claim or action filed against the City and to cooperate inAhe defense of any such action. Developer shall also indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officials and employees from and against all claims, losses, or liabilities assessed or awarded against the City by way of judgment, settlement, or stipulation. The City may elect to participate in the defense of any such action under this condition. 6. INDEMNITY BY DEVELOPER. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, the City's designees, and their respective elected and appointed officials, boards, commissions, agents, contractors, and employees from and against any and all actions, suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, obligations and expenses (including attorney's fees and costs) which may arise, directly or indirectly, from the acts, omissions, or operations of Developer or Developer's agents, contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees pursuant to this Agreement, but excluding any loss resulting from the intentional or active negligence of the City, the City's designee, or each of their respective elected and appointed officials, boards, commissions, officers, agents, contractors, and employees. Developer shall select and retain counsel reasonably acceptable to the City to defend any action or actions and Developer shall pay the cost thereof. The indemnity provisions' set forth in this Agreement shall survive termination of the Agreement. Tustin Cornerstone I Development 36 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 1 7. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any Mortgage securing financing with respect to the Property; provided that nothing herein shall . modify or amend the restrictions set forth in the DDA with respect to Mortgages. Any Mortgagee holding a Mortgage that is not prohibited by the DDA shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (a) This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date of recording of this Agreement, including the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law, and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect to the Property or any portion thereof by a Mortgagee (whether pursuant to foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, lease termination or otherwise) shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any such Mortgagee who takes title to the Property or any portion thereof shall be entitled to benefits arising under this Agreement. (b) Each Mortgagee of any Mortgage encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, and which is not securing the interest of an End User shall upon written request in writing to the City, be entitled to receive written notice from the City of results of the Annual Review and of any default by Developer in the performance of Developer's obligations under this Agreement concurrently with delivery of same to Developer and shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such Party under this Agreement (including any extended cure period necessary in order to allow the Mortgagee to obtain title to the Property and cure the default). Notwithstanding the foregoing; the failure of the City to deliver a concurrent copy of such notice of default to a Mortgagee shall.not affect in any way the validity of the notice of default as it relates to the Developer, and provided, further, the giving of any notice of default or the failure to deliver a copy to any Permitted Mortgagee shall in no event create any liability on the part of the Person so declaring a defau It. . (c) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the Mortgage or deed in I ieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of Developer's obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; except that (i) the Mortgagee shall have no right to develop the Property without fully complying with the terms of this Agreement, the DDA, the Applicable Rules and Entitlement Approvals and (ii) to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Developer is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by the City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to the City's performance hereunder. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained above in this Section, any Mortgagee Tustin Cornerstone I Development 37 City of Tustin/Comerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final shall be subject to all of the terms of the DDA, to -the extent applicable pursuant to the DDA to such Mortgagee. 8. INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 9.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder by the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days after the City executes- this .Agreement, as required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. If the Parties to this Agreement, amend or cancel this Agreement as provided for herein and in Government Code Section 65868, or if the City terminates or modifies this Agreement as provided for herein. and .in Government Code Section 65865.1 for failure of Developer to comply in good faith with the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the City Clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 9.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement,, the DDA and the Other Agreements set forth and contain the entire understanding and agreeinent of the Parties with respect to the matters set forth herein, and there are no oralor. written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are- not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 9.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. 9.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California without reference to choice of law or conflicts of law provisions. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the Parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all Parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. The decision of the City Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5(b). 9.5 Section Headings. All Section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 9.6 Construction. 9.6.1 References to Sections, Clauses and Exhibits. Unless otherwise indicated, references in this Agreement to secti'ons, clauses and exhibits are to the same contained in or Tustin Cornerstone I Development 38 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final '-., attached to this Agreement and all exhibits referenced in this Agreement are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as though fully set forth in this Section. 9.6.2 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural and vice versa. 9.6.3 Includes and Including. As used in this Agreement the words "include" and "including" mean, respectively, "include, without limitation" and "including, without limitation". 9.7 Time of Essence. Subject to the following sentence, time is of the essence in the performance of each provision of this Agreement. Whenever action must be taken (including the giving of notice or the delivery of documents) under this Agreement during a certain period of time or by a particular date that ends or occurs on a non -Business Day, then such period or date shall be extended until the immediately following Business Day. 9.8 Waiver. Failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, or the failure by a Party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other Party, shall not constitute a waiver of such Party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other Party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 9.9 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 9.10 Attorneys' Fees. If any Party to this Agreement institutes any action, suit, counterclaim or other proceeding for any relief against another Party, declaratory or otherwise (collectively an "Action"), to enforce the terms hereof or to declare rights hereunder or with respect to any inaccuracies or material omissions in connection with any of the covenants, representations, warranties or obligations on the part of the other Party to this Agreement, then the Prevailing Party in such Action shall be entitled to have and recover of and from the other Party all costs and expenses of the Action, including (a) the Prevailing Party's reasonable attorneys' fees (which, if the Prevailing Party is the City, shall be payable at the actual contractual hourly rate for the City's litigation counsel at the time the fees were incurred, and which with respect to both the City and the Developer shall in no event be more than $200 per hour) and (b) costs actually incurred in bringing and prosecuting such Action and/or enforcing any judgment, order, ruling or award (collectively, a "Decision") granted therein, all of which shall be deemed to have accrued on the commencement of such Action and shall be paid whether or not such Action is prosecuted to a Decision. Any Decision entered in any final judgment shall contain a specific provision providing for the recovery of all costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees and costs (collectively "Costs") incurred in enforcing, perfecting and executing such judgment. For the purposes of this paragraph, Costs.shall include in addition to Costs incurred in prosecution or defense of the underlying action, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and expert fees and costs incurred in the following: (a) post judgment motions and collection actions; (b) contempt proceedings; (c) garnishment, levy, debtor and third party examinations; (d) discovery; (e) bankruptcy litigation; and (f) appeals of any order or judgment. "Prevailing Party" within the meaning of this Section 9.10 includes a Party who agrees to dismiss an Action in Tustin Cornerstone I Development 39 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final consideration for the other Party's payment of the amounts allegedly due or performance of the covenants allegedly breached, or obtains substantially the relief sought by such Party. 9.11 Force Majeure. 9.11.1 "Force Majeure Delay" means the occurrence of any of the following events when such event is beyond, the control of. the Party claiming Force Majeure Delay ("Claiming Party") and such. Party's officers, directors, employees, contractors, consultants, agents and representatives and is not due to an act or omission of Claiming Party or its officers, directors, employees, contractors, consultants, agents or representatives, which directly, materially and adversely affects (a) the ability. of the Claiming Party to meet its non -monetary obligations under this Agreement, including the deadlines imposed by_the Schedule of Performance, or (b) the ability of Developer to Complete the Project, and which events (or the effect of which events) reasonably could not have been avoided by due diligence and use of commercially reasonable efforts by the Claiming Party: (a) Civil Unrest. An epidemic, blockade, quarantine, rebellion, war, insurrection, act of terrorism, strike or lock -out, riot, act of sabotage, civil commotion, act of a public enemy, freight embargo, or lack of transportation; (b) Unforeseeable Conditions. Reasonably unforeseeable physical condition of the Property including the presence of Hazardous Materials; (c) Casualty. _. Fire; earthquake, or other casualty, in each case only if causing material physical destruction"or damage on the Property; (d) Liti ag tion. Any lawsuit seeking to restrain, enjoin, challenge or delay any issuance of any Entitlement Approval or seeking to restrain, enjoin, challenge, or delay construction of the Project which is defended by the Claiming Party; (e) Weather. Unusually severe weather conditions not reasonably anticipatable for the City of Tustin, based upon U.S.. Weather Bureau climatological reports for the months included plus a report indicating average precipitation, temperature, etc. for the last ten (10) years from the nearest reporting station; and 9.11.2 Limitation. The term "Force Majeure Delay" shall be limited to the matters listed in Section 9.11.1 above and specifically excludes from its definition the following matters which might otherwise be considered Force Majeure Delay: (a) Entitlements. The suspension, termination, interruption, denial or failure to obtain or nonrenewal of any Entitlement Approval or Development Permit, license, consent, authorization or other permit,or approval which is necessary for the development of the Project; except for any such matter resulting from -a lawsuit as described in Section 9.11.1(d); (b) Foreseeable Changes in Governmental Requirements. Any change in Government Requirements which was proposed prior to the Effective Date; Tustin Cornerstone I Development 40 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final (c) Failure to Perform Obligations. Failure of Developer to perform any obligation to be performed by Developer as the result of adverse changes in the financial condition of Developer or any other Person.; (d) Failure to Provide Financial Security. Failure of Developer to provide financial security required by this Agreement when due or to submit evidence of financing of the Project or to perform any obligation to be performed by Developer hereunder as the result of adverse changes in market conditions; (e) Failure to Submit Required Documentation. Failure to submit documentation as and when required by this Agreement; (f) Failure to Submit Entitlement Applications. Failure to timely submit applications for any Entitlement Approval or Development Permit required for construction of the Improvements or development of the Project on the Property when required pursuant to the Schedule of Performance; and (g) Failure to Execute. Documents. Failure of the Claiming Party to execute documents; and (h) Other Matters. All other matters not caused by the Second Party and not listed in Section 9.11:1. 9.11.3 If the Claiming Party believes that an' extension of time is due to Force Majeure Delay, it shall notify the other Party (the "Second Party") in writing within thirty (30) calendar days from the date upon which the Claiming Party becomes aware of such Force Majeure Delay, generally describing the Force Majeure Delay,.,and its date of commencement. Upon written request from the Second Party, the Claiming Party shall promptly provide the following information with respect to such Force Majeure Delay: a more detailed description of the Force Majeure Delay, when and how the Claiming Party obtained knowledge thereof, the steps the Claiming Party anticipates taking to respond to such Force Majeure Delay, and the estimated delay resulting from such Force Majeure Delay and response and such other information as the Second Party may reasonable request. The extension for Force Majeure Delay shall be granted or denied in the Second Party's reasonable discretion. If the Claiming Party fails to notify the Second Party in writing of its request for a given Force Majeure Delay within the thirty (30) calendar days specified above, any such extension for such Force Majeure Delay shall be at the sole discretion of the Second Party. 9.11.4 Time periods for performance of any obligations under this Agreement may be extended for Force Majeure Delay, except that in no event shall the Term of this Agreement be extended by an event of Force Majeure Delay beyond the time period set forth in the applicable subsection of Section 2.3.1. 9.12 Successors and Assigns. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to the City=and its successors and assigns and Developer and its successors and assigns. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from Tustin Cornerstone I Development 41 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof, and (c) is binding upon Developer and each Successor In Interest of Developer during its period of ownership of the Property or any portion thereof and for such longer period as such Party may have liability hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon acquisition of the Property or any portion thereof by the City pursuant -to exercise of the Right of Repurchase or Right of Reversion or action in lieu thereof pursuant to the DDA; the City shall have -the right in its sole discretion to terminate this Agreement as to the portion of the Property so acquired._ 9.13 Counterparts. This Agreement. may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the Parties had executed the same instrument. 9.14 Jurisdiction and Venue: Ajay, action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by a Party,hereto-for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreementshall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California,.or the Anited States District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana Division, and the Parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue. to any, other court. 9.15 Project as a Private Undertakirt�. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither Party is acting as the agent of the ,other in any respect hereunder, and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or. other association of any kind is formed by this . Agreement. The only relationship beth-veen the,City and Developer with respect to this Agreement is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the developer of such property.. 9.16 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the Parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to.the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either Party at 'any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required; and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 9.17 Estoppel Certificate. Any Party hereunder, may at any time, deliver a written notice to the other Party requesting such first Party to certify in writing that, to the best knowledge of the certifying Party: (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Party; (b) this Agreement has not been. amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the date and. nature of the amendments to this Agreement, and, in each case, that the Agreement remains in hill .force and effect. (including as amended or modified if applicable), and a continuing binding, obligation of the.Party; and (c) the requesting Party is not in default in performance of its obligations set -forth in the Agreement, or if the Party is in default, Tustin Cornerstone I Development 42 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final 1 1 . 'i=.,li. provide a description of the nature of such default(s). A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) calendar days following receipt thereof. The party to whom such certificate is addressed, including any third party or Mortgagee, shall be entitled to rely on the certificate. Developer shall pay to the City all costs incurred by the City in connection with the issuance of estoppel certificates. 9.18 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of each Party warrants and represents that he or she/they have the authority to.execute this Agreement on behalf of such Party and warrants and represents that he or she/they has/have the authority to bind such Party to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 9.19 Non-liabili of City Officials and City Employees. No elected or appointed official, representative, employee, agent, consultant, legal counsel or employee of the City shall be personally liable to Developer for any amount which may become due to Developer under the terms of this Agreement._ 9.20 No Merger. As of the Effective Date, the Property is owned in fee by the City, and portions of the Property may continue to be owned in fee by the City during the Term or may be conveyed by the City to one or more Developers and subsequently reconveyed to the City during the Term. Except as expressly set forth below, there shall be no merger of any rights, interests or estates created by this Agreement as a result of the ownership by the City of all or any portion of the Property and no merger shall occur with respect to any portion of the Property unless and until the City and all persons and entities at the time having a legal and/or equitable ownership interest in such portion of the Property shall join in a written instrument affecting such merger and shall duly record the same. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City repurchases or revests any portion of the Property as a result of its exercise of the Right of Repurchase or Right of Reversion under the DDA, the City shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to merge its interests under this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement as to the Property so repurchased or revested, to modify the provisions of this Agreement related to the Property so repurchased or revested or to take other actions affecting this Agreement or the rights of the City in and to the revested Property, without the approval of any other person or entity. [SIGNATURES CONTAINED ON FOLLOWING PAGE] Tustin Cornerstone I Development 43 Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final City of Tustin/Cornerstone I SIGNATURE PAGE TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year set forth below. ATTEST: By: Erica Rabe City Clerk Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney BY: David E. Kendig, Esq. CCCU ," City of Tustin, California By: Mayor "Developer" By: _ By: _ Name: Its: By: _ Name: Its: Tustin Cornerstone I Development Agreement S=1 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I 9-15-2016 (PC) final 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT "A" TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY' Phase 1 Parcel: Parcel 1 as shown on Parcel Map 2015-168, filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Orange, California on . 2016 in Book of Maps at Page Phase 2 Parcel: Parcel 2 as shown on Parcel Map 2015-168, filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Orange, California on 2016 in Book of Maps at Page 1 Legal Description to be confirmed and finalized upon recordation of Parcel Map 2015-168, prior to execution of this Agreement. Tustin Cornerstone I Development Exhibit A City of Tustin/Comerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Page 1 EXHIBIT "B ,2 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MAP SHOWING PROPERTY AND ITS LOCATION [see map attached] z Depiction to be confirmed and finalized upon recordation of Parcel Map 2015-168, prior to execution of this Agreement. Tustin Cornerstone I Development Exhibit B City of Tustin/Comerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Page I 1 1 0 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEM AREA: 39.705 ACRES GROSS NUMBERED PARCELS 2 LETTERED PARCELS; 1 SCALE 1' - 200' LEGEND ACASPHALT CONCRETE AC. ACRES OF CALCULATED FROM C/L CENIETIRE CFS GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM DCSORANGE COIAITY SURVEYOR O.R.OFFICIAL RECORDS P.C.C. POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE (RAD) RADIAL S.F. SQUARE FEET SNSEAMFED. FOOD NOTHING VAR. VARIES R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1/R2 RECORD REFERENCES () INDICATES MEASURED k RECORD DATA, ULM OTHERWISE NOTED RI TRACT M. 17144, N.N. 906/5-14 k CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION INSTRUMENT M. 2015000642502, O.R.; 12/21/2015 R2CORNER RECORD 2012-1706B R3 RECORD OF SURVEY ND. 2002-1D58, R.S.B. 194/19-27 MONUMENTNOTES 1. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN SET WILL BE SET WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEI,ENTS, EXCEPT AS NOTED. 2. NO MONIMEITTS WILL BE SET AT INTERIOR LOT C74ERS OR STREET CENTERLINES, U4.ESS OTHERWISE NOTED. O DENOTES 2' IRON PIPE k BRASS TAG STAMPED 'U.S. 6673', OR LEAD, TACK k TAG STAMPED 'L.S. 6673' IN CONCRETE, DR AN 8' SPIKE k WASHER STAMPED 'L.S. 6673' IN ASPHALT PAVEMENT PAVING A THICKNESS OF 2' OR MORE, TO BE SET AT ALL BOUNDARY CORNERS, ULM OTHERWISE NOTED. (NO MONUMENTS WILL BE SET ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARMSTRONG AVENUE, UE_ESS OTHERWISE NOTED.) A DENOTES OCS HORIZONTAL CONTROL STATION MONIAENT PER RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYM. A DENOTES LEAD, TACK AND TAG 'L. S. 6673' IN CONCRETE, OR 8' SPIKE k WASHER STAMPED 'L.S. 6673' IN ASPHALT PAVEMENT. OR 2' IRON PIPE TAGGED 'LS. 6673' TO BE SET PER R7. ® DENOTES MONUMENT AS NOTED AND REFERENCED HEREON. 01 FOLIO 2' BRASS DISC STAMPED 'L.S. 7177', DOWN 1.5' 1N WELL MONIACNT, PER R2. 6530 FOUND 3' CCS BRASS DISC STAMPED 'DRANGE MIM SURVEYOR 9411 99a DOWN25' IN WELL MOMAEM, PER R2. GS [OGPS W. 6530: N 2204089.342, E 6077144.581 PER OGS HORIZONTAL CONTROL DATA SMEET] 6535 FOM 2' BRASSDISC STAMPED 'L.S. 3246', DOWN 1.8' IN WELL MONLAENT PER R1. [OCS GPS KD. 6535: N 2202360.638, E 6079110.351 PER OCs HORIZONTAL CONTROL DATA SHEET] 6576FOLIO SPIKE k WASfR STAMPED 'L.S. 5831', FLUSH IN AC, PER R1 [OCS GPS NO. 6576: N 2197723.170, E 6084556.279 PER OCS HORIZONTAL CONTROL DATA SEER] PARCEL MAP NO. 2015-168 IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA NAU.IAM G. COX LS.6873 CMM� DATE OF SURVEY: SEPTEMBER, 2016 INTERNATIONAL FOR FINANCE AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES ONLY' GENERAL NOTES 1. PARCEL A IS NOT A SEPARATE BUILDING SITE, IS FOR STREET PURPOSES, ANO IS TO BE1 GRANTED BY SEPARATE INSTRULE14T. BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING BETWEEN DCS HENIZONTAL CONTROL STATION GPS M. v 6576 AND TPS M. 6530 BEING NORTH 49'20'22' EAST. DATUM STATEMENT COUDINATES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA NTj'45'32 COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE VI, 1983 NAD 7Rn9j W - (1991.35 EPOCH OCS CPS AOJI1MOIT)• ALL DISTANCES SHOWN GROU ARE ND UNLESS OTHERWISE v NOTED. TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCE MA-TIPLY GROM DISTANCE BY 0.99997720; COMBINATION FACTOR BEING 4.% �� 4y �O THE AVERAGE OF GPS NO. 6576 k 6530. LOT 'r 9 � A � LOT 'f? PARCEL 1 •�y4� 17.543 AC. LOT NINE DATA TABLE TRACT NO. M. DELTA RADIUS LENGTH C1 13'08'02' 138.32' 31.71' C2 13.15'04' 121.81' 28.17' R3 10 49'35' 1192.00 225.24' C4 14'09'16• 42.00' 10.38' CS 14.09'16' 58.00' 14.33' CES 14'30'51' 58.00' 14.69' C7 14'30'51' 42.00' 10.64' CB 01'48 16' 1452.04 45.73- C9 37.25'14' 82.00' 53.56' CIO 73'24'07' 82.00' 05.05 "I 1949'2' 8.0' 158.61' C2 C13 065 85 59-06- 00 50' 25.00 8.25' 37.52- C14 06.04.04'14DD.04' 14x.27' C15 85.59.06' 61.00' 1 91.54' PARCEL MAP NO. 2015-168 IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA NAU.IAM G. COX LS.6873 CMM� DATE OF SURVEY: SEPTEMBER, 2016 INTERNATIONAL FOR FINANCE AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES ONLY' GENERAL NOTES 1. PARCEL A IS NOT A SEPARATE BUILDING SITE, IS FOR STREET PURPOSES, ANO IS TO BE1 GRANTED BY SEPARATE INSTRULE14T. BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING BETWEEN DCS HENIZONTAL CONTROL STATION GPS M. v 6576 AND TPS M. 6530 BEING NORTH 49'20'22' EAST. DATUM STATEMENT COUDINATES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA NTj'45'32 COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE VI, 1983 NAD 7Rn9j W - (1991.35 EPOCH OCS CPS AOJI1MOIT)• ALL DISTANCES SHOWN GROU ARE ND UNLESS OTHERWISE v NOTED. TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCE MA-TIPLY GROM DISTANCE BY 0.99997720; COMBINATION FACTOR BEING 4.% �� 4y �O THE AVERAGE OF GPS NO. 6576 k 6530. LOT 'r 9 � A � LOT 'f? PARCEL 1 •�y4� 17.543 AC. LOT PARCEL 2 21.195 AC. 3� PARCEL A (FUTU€ STREET) 42,085 S.F. 5\ 1 \ pG• S ��A SEE DETAIL 'D' FERE0N1 EASEMENTODETAIL O i J < � DETAIL C \ NOT TO SCALE \ DETAIL'Y NOT TO SCALE 1" NXDETAIL'S' \ NOT TO SCALE C HEREON / P W o) A A \ oa N, SE DETAIL \l,Pp) B. � Z a'o9 7s- c. L 1fi 15 622.18' 1 v 756.72' .63' _ _ (N49.19'41'W 1463.53')CF R1 pryOWRMRR--(1487.53')R7_-0 - - •-(N49�19'41'W 2617.6l')Rl•o "-C/L RARRANCA PARKWAY • N49'20'12'p 9770.65' (9770.43') GRID• - tiC/L ASTON BASIS OF BEARINGS - I AVENUE > TRACT NO. 17144 P � - I L DARRANCA M.M. 906/5-14 AVENUE Q� n2� c mjjj I r--- II r �I�� L25 _ L24 A L24 R1 P4 I LOT 5 a R1I 36' 1 R1 v I LOT R1 Rl / - - - - _ _ - _ - 6530 NS3'30'36_N 1097.03' GPS TIE 36.00'. R1 L23� C/L ❑1 DYER •• �c R� - - - - SFN- ROAD NOTHING SET PARCEL 2 21.195 AC. 3� PARCEL A (FUTU€ STREET) 42,085 S.F. 5\ 1 \ pG• S ��A SEE DETAIL 'D' FERE0N1 EASEMENTODETAIL O i J < � DETAIL C \ NOT TO SCALE \ DETAIL'Y NOT TO SCALE 1" NXDETAIL'S' \ NOT TO SCALE C HEREON / P W o) A A \ oa N, SE DETAIL \l,Pp) B. � Z a'o9 7s- c. L 1fi 15 622.18' 1 v 756.72' .63' _ _ (N49.19'41'W 1463.53')CF R1 pryOWRMRR--(1487.53')R7_-0 - - •-(N49�19'41'W 2617.6l')Rl•o "-C/L RARRANCA PARKWAY • N49'20'12'p 9770.65' (9770.43') GRID• - tiC/L ASTON BASIS OF BEARINGS - I AVENUE s T ^II 5P ill DETAIL'A' fi535 NOT TO SCALE `C/L RARRANCA PARKWAY EASEMENT NOTES Q DENOTES AN EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL k COMANICATION SYSTEMS IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY RECORDED ,ARE 25, 2014 AS INSTRU£NT M. 2014000249989, O.R. QB DENOTES VEIIMM ACCESS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RELEASED AND RELINQUISHED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN. EXCEPT AT STREET INTERSECTIONS AND APPROVED ALCM LOCATIONS, 10.00')R1 PER R1. 00 6535 27A 9�\� N C 6576 AVENUE PARCEL 2 P � - I L DARRANCA 21.195 AC. AVENUE Q� c mjjj / r �I�� L25 _ L24 SEE DETAIL 'A' HEREON L24 11271 L26 'yl� c o s T ^II 5P ill DETAIL'A' fi535 NOT TO SCALE `C/L RARRANCA PARKWAY EASEMENT NOTES Q DENOTES AN EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL k COMANICATION SYSTEMS IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY RECORDED ,ARE 25, 2014 AS INSTRU£NT M. 2014000249989, O.R. QB DENOTES VEIIMM ACCESS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RELEASED AND RELINQUISHED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN. EXCEPT AT STREET INTERSECTIONS AND APPROVED ALCM LOCATIONS, 10.00')R1 PER R1. 00 6535 27A 9�\� I-C/L HARVARD 6576 AVENUE -C/L ARMSTRONG I L DARRANCA AVENUE PARKWAY 1ae361(laxzeo) EXHIBIT "C" TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PUBLIC BENEFIT IMPROVEMENTS As additional Public Benefits, Developer shall design and construct the following Public Benefit Improvements as set forth below and in the DDA and in accordance with the requirements of the applicable conditions of approval, if any, set forth in the Entitlement Approvals. Each of the following Public Benefit Improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a Building within the Property, as further described below, and in all events shall be completed prior to the date that is four (4) years after the Effective Date, subject to the Force Majeure Delay provisions of this Agreement, provided that in no event shall the period for completion of the Public Benefit Improvements be extended beyond the Phase 1 Term. Modifications to the schedule may be made with the approval of the City Community Development Director in his or her sole discretion. 1. Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of full width improvements to the public portion of Flight Way from Barranca Parkway to the entrance of the Property including utilities, curb adjacent sidewalks on both sides of the street, and street lights along both sides of the street. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property between Barranca Parkway and the Food Hall Building shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 2. Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of the public portion of Flight Way and Barranca Parkway. Intersection enhancement shall include the creation of left turn lane on Barranca Parkway to Flight Way, additions of signal apparatus including loops and interconnects, signing and striping modifications as necessary, and restoration of landscape medians impacted by - left -turn enhancements or median modifications. 3. Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to Barranca Parkway from the public portion of Flight Way to Armstrong Avenue. Developer shall design and construct the decelerating and accelerating lane and meandering sidewalk on Barranca Parkway along project frontage from Armstrong Avenue to Flight Way. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property along Barranca Parkway from Flight Way to Armstrong Avenue as approved for Phase 1 of the Project from back of curb to landscape set back limits shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 4. Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to Armstrong Avenue from Legacy Park,to Barranca Parkway, including curb adjacent sidewalks adjacent to the Property. Developer shall also provide final/finish surface course .Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix (ARHM) paving on Armstrong Avenue from Warner Avenue to Barranca Parkway, traffic striping and raise any manhole to grade. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property along Armstrong Avenue from Legacy Park to Barranca Parkway as approved for Phase 1 of the Project from back of sidewalk to landscape Tustin Cornerstone I Development Exhibit C City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final page 1 1 1 1 set back limits shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. Developer shall additionally construct the curb adjacent sidewalk along the west side of Armstrong Avenue from Legacy Park to Warner Avenue. Developer shall install signal conduit, pull boxes and cable for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Airship Avenue and Armstrong Avenue.. 5. Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of a four-way traffic signal, including loops, interconnects, and radar detection system at the intersection of southerly project entrance and Armstrong Avenue. 6. Developer shall design and construct the public storm drain system, wet utilities, and dry utilities along Flight Way connecting to and crossing Legacy Park (Tract No. 17144, Lots "AA" and `BB"), and the public storm drain system along the north side of Phase 1 adjacent to the Food Hall Building in the locations required pursuant to the DDA and the Entitlement Approvals. Developer shall provide the necessary utility and access easement to the City. 7. Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to Airship Avenue between Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue, including utility improvements, street lighting and curb adjacent sidewalks in the locations required pursuant to the DDA and the Entitlement Approvals. Developer shall also provide final/finish surface course ARHM paving, traffic striping and raise any manhole to grade. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property as approved for Phase 1 of the Project shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 8. Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to the private portion of Flight Way between the entrance of the Property and Armstrong Avenue, including utility improvements, street lighting and curb adjacent sidewalks, except that between Airship Avenue and Armstrong Avenue sidewalk improvements need only be constructed on the north side of Flight Way. Developer shall also provide final/finish surface course ARHM paving, traffic striping and raise any manhole to grade. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property as approved for Phase 1 of the Project shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 9. Construction of interim landscaping on Phase 2, as more specifically set forth in the DDA and the Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement, as and when required thereby. Such landscaping shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development_ Director. 10. A public access easement for public access over to Legacy Park along with the ingress and egress over those certain private streets and pedestrian paseos designated in the Entitlement Approvals and the Roadway and Utility Easement Agreement shall be provided and identified. This shall be provided at no cost to the City and be subject to the review and approval by the City., 11. Developer shall submit legal descriptions and sketches of the areas below, prepared by a California Licensed Civil Engineer or California Licensed Land Surveyor, current Title Tustin Cornerstone I Development Exhibit C City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Page 2 Report, applicable back up documents, and plan check deposit to the City Public Works Department for review and approval. a. Easements for emergency vehicle access and public services ingress and egress purposes over the private streets and driveways shall be provided, at no cost to the City. b. Developer shall dedicate public access and maintenance easements to the City for sidewalks along the public and private portions of Flight Way and Airship Avenue, Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue, at no cost to the City. c. Developer shall dedicate an easement for pedestrian ingress and egress connecting Airship Avenue and Legacy Park through Lot 1, as generally depicted on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 18003. Tustin Cornerstone I Development Exhibit C City of Tustin/Cornerstone I Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Page 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 EXHIBIT "D" TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVALS • Development Agreement (DA) 2016-001 • Concept Plan (CP) 2016-001 • Design Review (DR) 2016-001 • Subdivision (SUB) 2016-02/Tentative Parcel Map (TTM) 2015-168 • Conditional Use, Permit 2016-01 (Alcoholic Beverages — Type 47) • Conditional Use Permit 2016-02 (Joint Use Parking) • Conditional Use Permit 2016-15 (Live Entertainment) • Conditional Use Permit 2016-23 (Projection of Mechanical Equipment) • Minor Adjustment 2016-01 (10% Reduction - Parking) • Minor Adjustment 2016-02 (10% Increase - Building Height) I Tustin Cornerstone I Development Exhibit D Agreement 9-15-2016 (PC) final Page 1 City of Tustin/Cornerstone I 1 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4321 Environmental Checklist 1 1 1 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to. Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact Person: Flight at Tustin Legacy City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Erica H. Demkowicz Phone: 714-573-3127 Project Location: That certain site comprised of approximately 38 acres within Neighborhood E/Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, generally bounded by Aston Street to the northwest, Barranca Parkway to the southwest, Armstrong Avenue to the northeast, and the future Legacy Park on the north, all in Tustin, Orange County, California. Project Sponsor's Name City of Tustin and Address: 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 General Plan MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Description: LPC West LLC is proposing "Flight at Tustin Legacy," (the "Project") an approximately 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use development. Phase I, which is projected to commence construction in Fall of 2016, will Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 2 include up to approximately 390,440 square feet of development, comprised of four office buildings, a small office campus, a retail/conference center and associated parking to be provided on a shared basis, all as depicted on the accompanying site plan. The retail uses may include a food hall, intended to serve local commercial developments. The balance of the Project is expected to be constructed in one future phase, which may be further broken out into two sub -phases. The buildings will range from one to five stories. The Project will be fully consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is within the Specific Plan. Planning Area 9-12's authorization of 1,267,324 buildable square feet of commercial floor area. The Project will include biofiltration planter boxes and/or basins placed along the perimeters of buildings and in other appropriate areas throughout the project site in order to detain and treat stormwater. A Modular Wetland System will also be placed along streets to provide for additional biofiltration treatment. Project Approvals will include: vesting tentative tract map; development and building permits (including, without limitation, grading, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits); conditional use permits for joint -use parking, on- site alcoholic beverage sales / ancillary live entertainment, and added height for screened mechanical equipment; a concept plan; minor modification for reduction in parking and increased building height pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; all 'required approvals by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of Orange Health Department; a Development Agreement; and a Disposition and Development Agreement. Surrounding Uses: Northeast: Vacant Land Northwest: Future Linear Park (aka Legacy Park) Southeast: Vacant Land Southwest: Light Industrial and Commercial Previous Environmental On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Documentation: 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 1 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 3 Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR that reduced overall nonresidential development within the Specific Plan Area, replaced the originally proposed golf course with a linear park system and combined Planning Areas 9-12 so that Neighborhood E would have a single unified trip budget and set of development standards. 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 ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation & Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Agricultural Resources C. DETERDIINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Noise ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 4 ❑ 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. ❑x 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. 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 5 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation' and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 6 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non., attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions . which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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 plan's, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc,) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ . 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 7 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ D VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ D ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ D iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ 0 iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ D b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ D 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? ❑ ❑ 0 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? ❑ ❑ 0 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? ❑ ❑ D 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? ❑ ❑ D b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 11 ❑ D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 8 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? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ (] ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 9 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ (] i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ (] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ (] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑x c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ Z 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? ❑ ❑ D 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? ❑ ❑ M 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? ❑ ❑ N b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ D 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? ❑ ❑ D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 10 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? 0 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? XII. POPULATION, AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of 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? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result insubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 11 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? 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? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 12 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? 1 No Substantial Change From New Significant - More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ p 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 13 SECTION E EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Flight at Tustin Legacy 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 Addendums and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Supplement, and Addendums analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed, and the FEIS/EIR analyzed, a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, 15168 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (1-5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (1-405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the northwest, Edinger Avenue- and Irvine Center Drive on the northeast, Harvard Avenue on the southeast, and Barranca Parkway on the southwest. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 14 Rail Station is located immediately to the northeast providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. LPC West LLC is proposing "Flight at Tustin Legacy," (the "Project" or "Proposed Project") an approximately 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use development. Phase I, which is projected to commence construction in Fall of 2016, will include up to approximately 390,440 square feet of development, comprised of four office buildings, a small office campus, a retail / conference center and associated parking to be provided on a shared basis, all as depicted on the accompanying site plan. The retail uses may include a food hall, intended to serve local commercial developments. The balance of the Project is expected to be constructed in one future phase, which may be further broken out into two sub -phases. The buildings will range from three to five stories. The Project will be fully consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is within the Specific Plan Planning Area 9-12's authorization of 1,267,324 buildable square feet of commercial floor area. The Project will include biofiltration planter boxes and/or basins placed along the perimeters of buildings and in other appropriate areas throughout the project site in order to detain and treat stormwater. A Modular Wetland System will also be placed along streets to provide for additional biofiltration treatment. Project approvals will include: vesting tentative tract map; development and building permits (including, without limitation, grading, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits); conditional use permits for joint -use parking, on-site alcoholic beverage sales / ancillary live entertainment, and added height for screened mechanical equipment; a concept plan; design review; minor modification for reduction in parking and increased building height; all required approvals by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of Orange Health Department; a Development Agreement; and a Disposition and Development Agreement. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that the Project is within the scope of the previously approved FEIS/EIR and that- pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. 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? D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 15 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to permit uses that were previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Therefore, the Project would not change the future development condition that was analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and there would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions (including allowed minor modifications of 10% pursuant to the terms of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards compared to that analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, and the Project will comply with all requirements of the MCAS Specific Plan governing project design. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project. The minor modification and conditional use permit to allow additional building height and mechanical equipment represent de minimis changes that would not be visible from off-site public locations and, additionally, mechanical screening would be screened to further ensure there are no adverse visual impacts. There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not ,in rexistence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and is implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. No new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual quality. The implementation of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses and development. This visual change, as part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development was not a significant impact in the FEIS/EIR. There are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area; therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Project Site is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis. of the historic blimp hangars from the FEIS/EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project would not affect these hangars. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 16 and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-58 through 3-67, 4-81 through 4-92), Addendum 1 (Page 5-3 through 5-7), and Addendum 2 (Page 24 through 26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert /Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) .Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There were no agricultural uses on the Site in the recent past. There are currently no agricultural uses on the Site. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to agriculture and forest resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 17 regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January 16, 2001 concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83 through 3-87, 4-109 through 114), Addendum 1 (Page 5-8 through 5-9), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. i Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 18 The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There would be no change to the allowed development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, other development standards or vehicle trips that would lead to increased air emissions from vehicle trips. An access analysis prepared for the project confirms that the Proposed Project would generate fewer trips than the maximum allowed within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan and that were described and analyzed in Addendum 1. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to air quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality. The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the "project' analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant long-term and/or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 19 and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-143 through 3-153, 4-207 through 4-230, 7-41 through 7-42), Addendum 1 (Page 5-10 through 5-28), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 32) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? s 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to biological resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 20 analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to biological resources that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on biological resources. Based on : current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that `require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27), Addendum 1 (Page 5-28 through 5-39), and Addendum 2 (Page 33 through 35) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 21 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were considered in the FEIS/EIR. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other construction activities. Consequently, future development is required to perform construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural and paleontological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26), Addendum 1 (Page 5-40 through 5-45), and Addendum 2 (Page 36 through 37) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 22 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures -to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substantia/ Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and soils. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to geology and soils that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR as prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS/EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non -seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 23 subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS/EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental ER or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources:. Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29), Addendum 1 (Page 5-46 through 5-49), and Addendum 2 (Page 38 through 40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 24 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. The FEIS/EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then -current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to (or exceedances of) the maximum 100 -foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 25 consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-106 through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31), Addendum 1 (Page 5-49 through 5-55), and Addendum 2 (Page 44 through 47) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 26 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? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post -construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, -hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to hydrology and water quality. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of .10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAS Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 27 Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to hydrology/water quality that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hydrology/water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to hydrology/water quality. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for future development projects on the Project sites in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from development activities to a level of insignificance. The Project has prepared such a WQMP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR. No increase in development intensity is proposed as part of the Project. Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, including FAR and landscaping and would require preparation of a WQMP. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of impervious surface area from the amount that was previously analyzed in the Specific Plan. The Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The drainage pattern and water management systems in the` Project Site vicinity would remain consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and, potential flooding would result from the Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-98 through Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 28 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129,. 7-29 through 7-30), Addendum 1 (Page 5-56 through 5-91), and Addendum 2 (Page 48 through 51) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to land use and planning. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. Implementation of the Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use, conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 29 measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-3 through 3-17, 4-3 through 4-13, 7-16 through 7-18), Addendum 1 (Page 5-92 through 5-94), and Addendum 2 (Page 52 through 54) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There are no known mineral resources located at the site. The Project would not cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to mineral resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to mineral resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to mineral resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 30 measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal . and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91), Addendum 1 (Page 5-95), and Addendum 2 (Page 55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?, e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The ambient noise environment on the site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, existing uses, and aircraft noise from flight operations at John Wayne Airport. However, none of these exterior noise sources would impact the project beyond levels analyzed and described by the FEIR/EIS, and the project would be able to achieve the interior noise standards set forth in Section 5.507.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise. There would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation building height restrictions Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 31 (including minor height modifications of less than 10% allowed by the MCAs Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise. The Project would not modify the noise -related land use distribution within the Tustin Legacy site. All proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan. Consequently, long-term traffic -related noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project have previously been identified and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Short-term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified FEIS/EIR; implementation of any future project would be required to comply with applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction -related noise impacts. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the. Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-154 through 3-162 and 4-231 through 4-243), Addendum 1 (Page 5-96 through 5-101), and Addendum 2 (Page 57 through 60) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 32 XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to housing and any associated population. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required. Sources: FEIS/EIR for. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-18 through 3-34, 4-14 through 4-29, and 7-18 through 7-19), Addendum 1 (Page 5-101 through 5-111), and Addendum 2 (Page 61 through 62) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 33 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to public services. There would be no change to the permitted levels of development intensity, which would lead to an increased demand for public services. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to public services and facilities that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Fire Protection Fire protection for the Tustin Legacy Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project will be subject to OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS/EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional firefighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the Project and other development within Tustin Legacy. No new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified. Police Protection Police protection for the project site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was previously anticipated in the FEIS/EIR. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 34 Schools The Project will not directly result in any residential development. Therefore, the Project does not generate K-12 students and there is no impact to K-12 schools. Parks Parks for the project site were discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Other Public Facilities The FEIS/EIR concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the Specific Plan proceeded. The FEIS/EIR does identify that the City will require certain conditions for individual future development projects (identified as Implementation Measures on pages 4-67 through 4-70) to be complied with as appropriate. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 through 3-57, 4-56 through 4-80 and 7-21 through 7-22), Addendum 1 (Page 5-112 through 5-122), and Addendum 2 (Page 63 through 65) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 35 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Project will be adjacent to the Linear Park and will facilitate access to the Park by tenants of the mixed-use commercial development, consistent _with the levels anticipated by the previously certified FEIR / EIS. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to recreation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to recreation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 through 3-57, 4-56 through 4-80, 7-21 through 7-22), Addendum 1 (Page 5-122 through 5-127), and Addendum 2 (Page 66 through 67) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin City Code Section 9331 d (1)(b) Tustin General Plan 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 36 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. More specifically, the MCAS Specific Plan allocates 1,267,324 square feet of non-residential development to Planning Areas 9-12 (Neighborhood E), and allocates a unified trip budget to Neighborhood E of 17,516 average daily trips (ADT). These allowable development square footages and neighborhood trip budgets were previously analyzed in the MCAS Specific Plan Final EIR/EIS and the First Addendum thereto. The 870,000 sf Project is located entirely within Neighborhood E and would utilize only approximately 68% of the developable square footage in Neighborhood E under the MCAS Specific Plan, and would utilize just more than half of the developable area in Neighborhood E under the proposed MCAS Specific Plan Amendment. As documented in an access analysis independently reviewed and approved by the City, the Project would generate 9,484 ADTs, which is less than half of the Neighborhood E Trip Budget under the MCAS Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project is less intense, generates fewer trips, and (as explained further below) would have less effect on the circulation network Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 37 than initially described and analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS and the First Addendum thereto. In short, there are no changes to the land use intensity or density and resulting trip generation. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIR/EIS, Addendums, and Supplement. Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-118 through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42), Addendum 1 (Page 5-127 through 5-146), and Addendum 2 (Page 68 through 73) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 . through 3-62, Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 38 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? f) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? h) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? i) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to utilities/services systems that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to utilities and service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems. 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 39 The FEIS/EIR identifies that the City will require certain conditions for future individual development projects identified as "Mitigation" or "Implementation Measures" (pages 4-43 through 4-46) to be complied with as appropriate. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there ,have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-35 through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21), Addendum 1 (Page 5-147 through 5-165), and Addendum 2 (Page 74 through 76) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62, Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 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.) 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 40 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not change development intensity, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAs Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementationof the Project. The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS/EIR; there are no new mitigation measures required; and there are no new significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any project -specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of the Project. All feasible applicable mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR are incorporated into the Project approvals. Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62, Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan, 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 41 CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Supplement, and Addendums, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to the Project, as applicable. 102061824.4.DOC 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4322 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SUBDIVISION 2016-02/ VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18003 TO SUBDIVIDE AN APPROXIMATE 38 -ACRE SITE INTO TWENTY-ONE (21) NUMBERED LOTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN 870,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT WITHIN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREAS 9-12 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (100-750 FLIGHT WAY) The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by Flight Venture LLC for the project, which includes a phased commercial mixed-use development with a retail food hall and conference center consisting of a total of 870,000 square feet to be developed in two (2) phases on an approximate thirty- eight (38) acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin within a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The development contained within each phase is as follows: 1. Phase 1 — nine (9) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 390,440 square feet 2. Phase 2 — eight (8) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 479,560 square feet B. That the development application includes the following requests: 1. General Plan Conformity to determine that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximate thirty- eight (38) acre site within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for the development of 870,000 square feet of a commercial mixed-use project is in conformance with the approved General Plan. 2. Development Agreement 2016-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site within the boundaries of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 3. Concept Plan 2016-001 to develop an 870,000 square -foot commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center and ensure necessary linkages are provided Resolution No. 4322 Page 2 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. 4. Subdivision 2016-02 Nesting Tentative Tract Map 18003 to subdivide an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site into twenty-one (21) numbered lots for the development of a commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. 5. Design Review 2016-001 for the design and site layout of a thirty- eight (38) acre site into a commercial mixed-use project with a retail use -(food hall) and conference center. 6. Conditional Use Permit 2016-001 for the establishment of on-site alcohol consumption in conjunction with the operation of the food hall entertainment for Building D (Lot 4, 220 & 250 Flight Way). 7. Conditional Use Permit 2016-002 for the establishment of joint use parking for Lots 1-10 of VTTM 18003 (address range 100- 750 Flight Way). 8. Conditional Use Permit 2016-15 for the establishment of live entertainment in conjunction with the operation of the food hall/conference center for Building D (Lot 4, 220 & 250 Flight Way). 9. Conditional Use Permit 2016-23 for the allowance of mechanical equipment to exceed the maximum allowable building height for Building A (100 & 350 Flight Way). 10. Minor Adjustment 2016-001 for the allowance of a ten (10) percent parking reduction for Phase 1 of the project site. 11. Minor Adjustment 2016-002 for an increase in building height for Building A for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of project site. C. That the site is zoned as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP -1) within a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of Neighborhood E; and designated as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18003 is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Code as follows: Resolution No. 4322 Page 3 1. That the site is located in a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that the proposed development, as conditioned, will be .physically suitable for the type of development and proposed density of development; 2. The subdivider will be required to provide funding towards the project's fair share of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program, which includes improvements that are required to serve new development at MCAS -Tustin, including but not limited to roadway improvements; traffic and circulation mitigation to support development at Tustin Legacy; domestic and reclaimed water; sewer; storm drains; retention and detention systems; and, other utility backbone systems; 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat; 4. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems; 5. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the subdivision; 6. The waste discharge from the proposed subdivision has been designed in compliance with all applicable codes and will not result in or add to violations of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and 7. The preliminary soils report has been prepared by a registered civil engineer which considered the existence of expansive soils or other soils problem to avoid structural defects within the subdivision. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on September 27, 2016, by the Planning Commission. 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 Resolution No. 4322 Page 4 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 B 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. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision 2016-02Nesting Tentative Tract Map 18003 to subdivide an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site into twenty-one (21) numbered lots for the development of a commercial mixed use project within a portion of Planning Area 9- 12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan subject to conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1 1 Resolution No. 4322 Page 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 27th day of September, 2016. 6--� AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson C G� ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4322 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27th day of September, 2016. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 1 Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Thompson (4) Smith EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 4322 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 2016-021VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 18003 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped October 18, 2016, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code (TCC). (1) 1.2 Except as otherwise provided by the Conditions of Approval, the Development Agreement and/or the Subdivision Map Act, the subject project approval shall become null and void unless one or more permits are issued and substantial construction is underway prior to the later of i) the deadline for Developer Completion of construction of the Phase 1 Horizontal Improvements and Minimum Phase 1 Vertical Improvements (as such deadline may be extended by Force Majeure Delay) set forth in the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement (Cornerstone 1); and (ii) the expiration of the Phase 1 Term of Development Agreement 2016-001 (as such expiration date may be extended by Force Majeure Delay). Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development_ Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.3 Unless otherwise specified herein, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.4 Approval of SUB 2016-02/VTTM 18003 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed' form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk -Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) BUILDING CODE (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION 1 L 1 Exhibit A Resolution No. 4322 Page 2 Department. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1162(a). (1) 1.6 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.7 As a condition of approval of SUB 2016-02AITTM 18003, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. *** 1.9 The applicant shall comply with executed DA 2016-001 and associated Disposition and Development Agreement. TRACT MAP (1) 2.1 Within twenty-four (24) months from tentative map approval, the applicant shall record with appropriate agencies a final map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the TCC, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9323 of the TCC. The Final Map shall be submitted at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Tentative Map for review, processing, and recording prior to the expiration of the Tentative Map. Time extensions shall be in conformance with the provision of the TCC and State Subdivision Map Act. (1) 2.2 Preparation and recordation of a final subdivision map shall be required. (1) 2.3 At the time of Final Map submittal, the applicant shall also submit two (2) copies of an up-to-date title report. (1) 2.4 The final tract map shall be recorded in accordance with approved VTTM and all applicable requirements of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, TCC, Exhibit A Resolution No. 4322 Page 3 Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Code and applicable, policies and guidelines. All applicable conditions of approval herein, as applicable, shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or as specified herein. (1) 2.5 The subdivider shall comply with all applicable requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the TCC, applicable City guidelines and standards and applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified FEIS/EIR, and other agreements with the City unless otherwise modified by this Resolution. (1) 2.6 Sub -divider shall execute a subdivision and monumentation agreement and furnish the improvement and monumentation bonds as required by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final map. (***) 2.7 A public access easement shall be put in place to and from the project site to Legacy Park. Said easement shall be noted on the TTM. (***) 2.9 Reciprocal parking and access easements and agreements shall be finalized prior to the recordation of the final Tract Map. (***) 2.10 Developer shall dedicate easements for emergency vehicle access and public services ingress and egress purposes over the private streets and driveways, at no cost to the City, on the Tract Map. (***) 2.11 Developer shall dedicate public access and maintenance easements to the City of Tustin for sidewalk along "A" Street, Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue, at no cost to the City, on the Tract Map. CC&Rs (1) 3.1 Prior to recordation of the final map, all organizational documents for the project including any Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the City Attorney's Office and shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. Costs for such review shall be borne by the applicant. A copy of the final documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within five (5) days of recordation. At a minimum, the following items shall be included, unless an acceptable alternative is approved by the Community Development Department: a. The City shall be included as a party to the CC&Rs for enforcement purposes of those CC&R provisions in which the City has interest as reflected in the following provisions. However, the City shall not be obligated to enforce the CC&Rs. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4322 Page 4 b. The requirement that property association bylaws be established. C. Membership in the property association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual parcels. d. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common - areas and facilities including buildings and amenities, trash enclosures, landscaped areas, walls and fences, private roadways (i.e., walks, sidewalks), parking structure and parking area, common area, etc. Maintenance standards shall also be provided. Examples of maintenance standards are shown below. i. All common area landscaping and private areas visible from any public way shall be properly maintained such - that they are evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, debris, and weeds. All trees and shrubs shall be trimmed so they do not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Trees shall be pruned so they do not intrude into neighboring properties and shall be maintained so they do not have droppings or create other nuisances to neighboring properties. All trees shall also be root pruned to eliminate exposed surface roots and damage to sidewalks, driveways, and structures. ii. All private roadways, sidewalks, and open space areas shall be maintained so that they are safe for users. Significant pavement cracks, pavement distress, excessive slab settlement, abrupt vertical variations, and debris on travelways should be removed or repaired promptly. iii. Common areas and facilities shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid the reasonable determination of a duly authorized official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. e. Provision assuring the continued availability of the number of parking spaces designated for common use and the availability of reciprocal access easements ensuring access to the public rights- of-way. f. Architectural controls shall be provided and may include, but not be limited to, provisions regulating exterior finishes, roof materials, fences and walls, accessory structures such as mechanical Exhibit A Resolution No. 4322 Page 5 equipment, television and radio antenna, and signs, consistent with the TCC and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan zoning district. g. In order to achieve the appropriate balance of harmonious and diverse design within the project, all plans for exterior improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by the City and the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall provide for an adequate means of ensuring compliance with this requirement, such as, by way of example only, property owner association approval of exterior improvements prior to requesting a building permit from the Community Development Department. h. Parking controls shall be provided and may include, but not be limited to, provisions regulating vehicle and truck deliveries, vehicle and truck parking, shared parking, loading and unloading activities, etc. A parking exhibit shall be made part of the CC&Rs. i. Provisions requiring access from Phase 2 to the Linear Park. An access exhibit shall be made part of the CC&Rs. j. An updated parking summary shall be provided with any proposed conversion or addition to the tenant spaces to ensure compliance with all City requirements and the provisions of the.CC&Rs. k. The property association shall be required to file the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one member of the property association Board and, where applicable, a manager of the project before January 1st of each year with the Community Development Department for the purpose of contacting the association in the case of emergency or in those cases where the City has an interest in CC&R violations. The property association shall be responsible for establishing and following procedures for providing access to public utilities for maintenance of their facilities within the project area, subject to those agencies' approval. M. No amendment to alter, modify, terminate, or change the property owners association's obligation to maintain the common areas or other CC&R provisions in which the City has an interest, as noted above, or to alter, modify, terminate, or change the City's right to enforce maintenance of the common areas, shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the Community Development Department. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4322 Page 6 n. All utility services serving the site shall be installed and maintained underground. o. Provision for a Parking Management Plan to include a "Parking and Circulation Exhibit" shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall be enforced by the property owners association. In addition to the exhibit, provisions regarding parking shall be included in the CC&Rs, including the following: 1. Total parking provided on-site. 2. Assigned and unassigned parking spaces shall be permanently maintained in locations shown on the "Parking and Circulation Exhibit." P. The property owner's association shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing all parking and traffic regulations on private streets. The proposed CC&Rs shall include provisions requiring the association to develop and adopt an enforcement program for parking and traffic regulations within the development which may include measures for fire access and enforcement by a private security company. ENVIRONMENTAL (5) 4.1 All mitigation measures related to the project that are required by the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the MCAS Tustin, identified in this exhibit and in other related project entitlements, shall be implemented. Additional measures related to development of this project as noted in the adopted EIS/EIR and are not previously identified in this exhibit as a condition of approval are required as follows: a. Prior to issuance of any permits, the developer shall retain a County -certified archaeologist. If buried resources are found during grading within the reuse plan area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. b. The developer shall comply with the requirements established in a Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) prepared for the site, which details the methods to be used for surveillance of construction grading, assessing finds, and actions to be taken in the event that unique paleontological resources are found. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4322 Page 7 C. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Community Development Department that a County -certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct salvage excavation of unique paleontological resources if they are found. d. Prior to issuance of any permit,. the developer shall provide traffic=, operations and control plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. The plans shall address roadway and lane. closures, truck hours and routes, and notification procedures for planned short-term or interim changes in traffic patterns. Such plans shall minimize anticipated delays at major intersections. Prior to approval, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall review the proposed traffic control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction. e. The applicant shall comply with all City policies regarding short- term construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed fifteen (15) miles per hour. f. The developer shall coordinate with the Tustin Police Department to ensure adequate security provisions are implemented. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4323 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN 2016-001, DESIGN REVIEW 2016-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-23, MINOR MODIFICATION 2016-01 AND MINOR MODIFICATION 2016-02 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATE 870,000 SQUARE FOOT PHASED COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT WITHIN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREA 9-12 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by Flight Venture LLC for the project, which includes a phased commercial mixed-use project with a retail food hall and conference center consisting of a total of 870,000 square feet to be developed in two (2) phases on an approximate thirty- eight (38) acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin (the City) within a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The development contained within each phase is as follows: 1. Phase 1 — nine (9) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 390,440 square feet 2. Phase 2 — eight (8) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 479,560 square feet B. That the development application includes the following requests: General Plan Conformity to determine that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximate thirty- eight (38) acre site within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for the development of 870,000 square feet of a commercial mixed-use project is in conformance with the approved General Plan. 2. Development Agreement 2016-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site within the boundaries of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 3. Concept Plan 2016-001 to develop an 870,000 square -foot commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center and ensure necessary linkages are provided Resolution No..4323 Page 2 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. 4. Subdivision 2016-02 / Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18003 to subdivide an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site into twenty- one (21) numbered lots for the development of a commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. 5. Design Review 2016-001 for the design and site layout of a thirty- eight (38) acre site into a commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. 6. Conditional Use Permit 2016-001 for the establishment of on-site alcohol consumption in conjunction with the operation of the Food Hall/Conference Center for Building D (Lot 4, 220 & 250 Flight Way). 7. Conditional Use Permit 2016-002 for the establishment of joint - use parking for Lots 1-10 of VTTM 18003 (address range 100- 750 Flight Way). 8. Conditional Use Permit 2016-15 for the establishment of live entertainment in conjunction with the operation of the Food Hall/ Conference Center for Building D (Lot 4, 220 & 250 Flight Way). 9. Conditional Use Permit 2016-23 for the allowance of mechanical equipment to exceed the maximum allowable building height for Building Type A (100 and 350 Flight Way). 10. Minor Modification 2016-001 for the allowance of a ten (10) percent parking reduction for Phase 1 of the project site. 11. Minor Modification 2016-002 for an increase in building height for Building A for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of project site. C. That the site is zoned as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP -1) within a portion of Planning Areas 9-12 of Neighborhood E; and designated as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 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 the project site is currently owned by the City and the City wishes to dispose of an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site within a portion of Resolution No. 4323 Page 3 Planning Areas 9-12 to accommodate the development a new commercial mixed-use project which includes a creative office campus with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. E. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 4.2.2.A requires the submission of a Concept Plan prior to or concurrent with .the submission of a new development proposal within a portion of Planning Areas 9-12. The project has been found to comply with the requirements of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as amended and Concept Plan review criteria. Specifically, the proposed project depicts: Continuity and adequacy of all circulation systems, such as roads, access points, pedestrian ways, and other infrastructure systems needed to serve the project; 2. Continuity and design quality of architecture proposed, as well as landscape and hardscape theme and treatments; 3. Satisfactory response to the urban design features specified in Chapter 2 and under Planning Areas 9-12 in Chapter 3; 4. Conformity with the Non -Residential Land Use/Trip Budget; and, 5. Compliance with other Specific Plan provisions, as amended. F. That the proposed Phase 1 development comprised of nine (9) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage totaling 390,440 square feet with 1,544 parking stalls. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan requires the provision of 1,722 parking spaces for Phase 1 development. G. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 4.2.6 allows for Minor Modifications to reduce the required amount of non-residential parking (up to a maximum ten (10) percent reduction). The adjusted reduction of parking spaces is a limited deviation from the parking standards in that: 1. The granting of the Minor Modification for parking would not change the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan intent for Planning Area 9-12; 2. The proposed project will not result in the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other, properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated in that a ten (10) percent decrease in required parking is permitted by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; 3. The intent of the parking regulations as stipulated in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is preserved; and Resolution No. 4323 Page 4 4. The parking provided will be sufficient to serve the use intended and potential future uses of the same site as demonstrated in the submitted Flight at Tustin Legacy Shared Parking Analysis dated August 3, 2016. H. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.13.1(B) allows parking facilities be used jointly for uses with different peak hours of operation with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. That the request of the ten (10) percent parking reduction and the establishment of parking facilities to be jointly use within Phase 1 of the Flight of Tustin Legacy will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare in that: 1. That a Flight at Tustin Legacy Shared Parking Analysis dated August 3, 2016, was prepared by a licensed traffic engineer (LSA Associates, Inc.) in accordance with TCC Section 9264 and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 2. That the Parking Analysis has been reviewed and accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer for methodology and accuracy. 3. That per the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the Phase 1 development would require 1,722 off-street parking spaces; 1,544 parking . spaces are currently proposed; the Parking Analysis determined a peak usage of 1,526 parking spaces; therefore, the Parking Analysis demonstrates that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the proposed uses within Phase 1. 4. That the parking spaces designated for joint -use are located such that they will adequately serve the uses for which they are intended. 5. That the proposed use, as conditioned, will not have a negative effect on surrounding properties, or impact traffic on the ability of parking in that sufficient parking would be available on-site. 6. That a written agreement is required to be recorded on each of the affected parcels to ensure the continued availability of the number of parking spaces designated for joint -use and availability of reciprocal access easements. Resolution No. 4323 Page 5 J. That the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan limits building height for Planning Area 9-12 to seventy (70) feet. The proposed project includes buildings that are seventy-seven (77) feet, which is a ten (10) percent increase in allowable height by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Section 4.2.6 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan allows for a Minor Modification which includes up to a ten (10) percent increase in building height. K. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.11.15 states that all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from any abutting street, highway or adjacent use. The mechanical equipment on the proposed building roof will encroach above seventy-seven (77) feet to a maximum height of eighty (80'-6") feet. Section 9271 (d) of the TCC, allows for mechanical equipment to encroach above the maximum allowable height with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. L. That the request of the ten (10) percent increase in building height and the encroachment of mechanical equipment beyond the maximum building height will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare in that: 1. The proposed project conforms to the Tustin General Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed creative office use campus is conforming to the land use designation; 2. The mechanical equipment will be screened from view and the screening will be architecturally integrated in the building design consistent with the requirement of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 3. Proposed project will not result in the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated in that a ten (10) percent increase in building height is permitted by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The increase in building height would have minimal impact to other properties in the vicinity. M. Pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: Resolution No. 4323 Page 6 i 11. Height, bulk, and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings. 6. Towers and roof structures. 7. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination. 8. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 13. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. N. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on September 27, 2016, by the Planning Commission. O. 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 Justin 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. 1 Resolution No. 4323 Page 7 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Concept Plan 2016-001, Design Review 2016-001, Conditional Use Permit 2016- 02 for Joint Use Parking, Conditional Use Permit 2016-23 for mechanical screening, Minor Modification 2016-01 for ten (10) percent parking reduction and Minor Modification 2016-02 for building height increase up to ten (10) percent for the development of an approximately 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use project within portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit B. 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION 4323 Environmental Checklist Shared Parking Study Access Analysis Noise Study COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. - A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact Person: Flight at Tustin Legacy City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Erica H. Demkowicz Phone: 714-573-3127 Project Location: That certain site comprised of approximately 38 acres within Neighborhood E/Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, generally bounded by Aston Street to the northwest, Barranca Parkway to the southwest, Armstrong Avenue to the northeast, and the future Legacy Park on the north, all in Tustin, Orange County, California. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project, Description: LPC West LLC is proposing "Flight at Tustin Legacy," (the "Project") an approximately 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use development. Phase I, which is projected to commence construction in Fall of 2016, will 1 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 2 include up to approximately 390,440 square feet of development, comprised of four office buildings, a small office campus, a retail/conference center and associated parking to be provided on a shared basis, all as depicted on the accompanying site plan. The retail uses may include a food hall, intended to serve local commercial developments. The balance of the Project is expected to be constructed in one future phase, which may be further broken out into two sub -phases. The buildings will range from one to five stories. The Project will be fully consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is within the Specific Plan Planning Area 9-12's authorization of 1,267,324 buildable square feet of commercial floor area. The Project will include biofiltration planter boxes and/or basins placed along the perimeters of buildings and in other appropriate areas throughout the project site in order to detain and treat stormwater. A Modular Wetland System will also be placed along streets to provide for additional biofiltration treatment. Project Approvals will include: vesting tentative tract map; development and, building permits (including, without limitation, grading, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits); conditional use permits for joint -use parking, on- site alcoholic beverage sales / ancillary live entertainment, and added height for screened mechanical equipment; a concept plan; minor modification for reduction in parking and increased building height pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; all required approvals by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of Orange Health Department; a Development Agreement; and a Disposition and Development Agreement. Surrounding Uses: Northeast: Vacant Land Northwest: Future Linear Park (aka Legacy Park) Southeast: Vacant Land Southwest: Light Industrial and Commercial Previous Environmental On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Documentation: 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 3 Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR that reduced overall nonresidential development within the Specific Plan Area, replaced the originally proposed golf course with a linear park system and combined Planning Areas 9-12 so that Neighborhood E would have a single unified trip budget and set of development standards. 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 ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Noise ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Public Services ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Transportation & Circulation ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Agricultural Resources 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 4 ❑ 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 5 A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the proj ect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proj ect: 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? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 6 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non., attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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 plan's, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p p N p a e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ 0 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? ❑ ❑ ❑D V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑D b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑x c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 7 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 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 reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ (] ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 8 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? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 9 h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑D ❑ ❑ ❑D ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ D —7 L 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 10 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑x f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑x XII. POPULATION. AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑x b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ l7 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: ❑ ❑ a) Would the project result insubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑x Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑x Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑x Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑x Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ z 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? ❑ ❑ ❑x 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? ❑ 0 z Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 11 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a), Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 1 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ p Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 12 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ 0 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 br 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? ❑ ❑ 0 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)? ❑ ❑ 0 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ 0 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 13 SECTION E EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Flight at Tustin Legacy 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 Addendums and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Supplement, and Addendums analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed; and the FEIS/EIR analyzed, a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, 15168 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (1-5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (1-405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the northwest, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the northeast, Harvard Avenue on the southeast, and Barranca Parkway on the southwest. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 14 Rail Station is located immediately to the northeast providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. LPC West LLC is proposing "Flight at Tustin Legacy," (the "Project" or "Proposed Project") an approximately 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use development. Phase I, which is projected to commence construction in Fall of 2016, will include up to approximately 390,440 square feet of development, comprised of four office buildings, a small office campus, a retail / conference center and associated parking to be provided on a shared basis, all as depicted on the accompanying site plan. The retail uses may include a food hall, intended to serve local commercial developments. The balance of the Project is expected to be constructed in one future phase, which may be further broken out into two sub -phases. The buildings will range from three to five stories. The Project will be fully consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is within the Specific Plan Planning Area 9-12's authorization of 1,267,324 buildable square feet of commercial floor area. The Project will include biofiltration planter boxes and/or basins placed along the perimeters of buildings and in other appropriate areas throughout the project site in order to detain and treat stormwater. A Modular Wetland System will also be placed along streets to provide for additional biofiltration treatment. Project approvals will include: vesting tentative tract map; development and building permits (including, without limitation, grading, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits); conditional use permits for joint -use parking, on-site alcoholic beverage sales / ancillary live entertainment, and added height for screened mechanical equipment; a concept plan; design review; minor modification for reduction in parking and increased building height; all required approvals by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of Orange Health Department; a Development Agreement; and a Disposition and Development Agreement. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that the Project is within the scope of the previously approved FEIS/EIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. 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? 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 15 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to permit uses that were previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Therefore, the Project would not change the future development condition that was analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and there would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions (including allowed minor modifications of 10% pursuant to the terms of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards compared to that analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, and the Project will comply with all requirements of the MCAS Specific Plan governing project design. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project. The minor modification and conditional use permit to allow additional building height and mechanical equipment represent de minimis changes that would not be visible from off-site public locations and, additionally, mechanical screening would be screened to further ensure there are no adverse visual impacts. There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and is implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. No new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual quality. The implementation of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses and development. This visual change, as part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development was not a significant impact in the FEIS/EIR. There are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area; therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Project Site is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic blimp hangars from the FEIS/EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project would not affect these hangars. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to` the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 16 and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-58 through 3-67, 4-81 through 4-92), Addendum 1 (Page 5-3 through 5-7), and Addendum 2 (Page 24 through 26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert /Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There were no agricultural uses on the Site in the recent past. There are currently no agricultural uses on the Site. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to agriculture and forest resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 17 regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January 16, 2001 concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83 through 3-87, 4-109 through 114), Addendum 1 . (Page 5-8 through 5-9), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management ,or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 18 The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There would be no change to the allowed development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, other development standards or vehicle trips that would lead to increased air emissions from vehicle trips. An access analysis prepared for the project confirms that the Proposed Project would generate fewer trips than the maximum allowed within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan and that were described and analyzed in Addendum 1. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to air quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality. The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant long-term and/or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 19 and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-143 through 3-153, 4-207 through 4-230, 7-41 through 7-42), Addendum 1 (Page 5-10 through 5-28), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 32) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to biological resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as, proposed in the Specific Plan and previously Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 20 analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to biological resources that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on biological resources. Based on current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that `require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27), Addendum 1 (Page 5-28 through 5-39), and Addendum 2 (Page 33 through 35) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 21 - No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were considered in the FEIS/EIR. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other construction activities. Consequently, future development is required to perform construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural and paleontological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26), Addendum 1 (Page 5-40 through 5-45), and Addendum 2 (Page 36 through 37) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 22 Vi. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and soils. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to geology and soils that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR as prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS/EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non -seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 23 subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS/EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental ER or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29), Addendum 1 (Page 5-46 through 5-49), and Addendum 2 (Page 38 through 40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: —Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous . or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?_ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 24 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. The FEIS/EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then -current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to (or exceedances of) the maximum 100 -foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 25 consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-106 through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31), Addendum 1 (Page 5-49 through 5-55), and Addendum 2 (Page 44 through 47) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 26 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? 1) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post -construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to hydrology and water quality. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the WAS Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 27 Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to hydrology/water quality that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hydrology/water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to hydrology/water quality. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for future development projects on the Project sites in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from development activities to a level of insignificance. The Project has prepared such a WQMP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR. No increase in development intensity is proposed as part of the Project. Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, including FAR and landscaping and would require preparation of a WQMP. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of impervious surface area from the amount that was previously analyzed in the Specific Plan. The Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The drainage pattern and water management systems in the Project Site vicinity would remain consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-98 through Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 28 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30), Addendum 1 (Page 5-56 through 5-91), and Addendum 2 (Page 48 through 51) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to land use and planning. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. Implementation of the Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use, conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 29 measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-3 through 3-17, 4-3 through 4-13, 7-16 through 7-18), Addendum 1 (Page 5-92 through 5-94), and Addendum 2 (Page 52 through 54) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There are no known mineral resources located at the site. The Project would not cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to mineral resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to mineral resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to mineral resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 30 measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91), Addendum 1 (Page 5-95), and Addendum 2 (Page 55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The ambient noise environment on the site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, existing uses, and aircraft noise from flight operations at John Wayne Airport. However, none of these exterior noise sources would impact the project beyond levels analyzed and described by the FEIR/EIS, and the project would be able to achieve the interior noise standards set forth in Section 5.507.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise. There would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation building height restrictions Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 31 (including minor height modifications of less than 10% allowed by the MCAs Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise. The Project would not modify the noise -related land use distribution within the Tustin Legacy site. All proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan. Consequently, long-term traffic -related noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project have previously been identified and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Short-term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified FEIS/EIR; implementation of any future project would be required to comply with applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction -related noise impacts. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-154 through 3-162 and 4-231 through 4-243), Addendum 1 (Page 5-96 through 5-101), and Addendum 2 (Page 57 through 60) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 1 1 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 32 XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to housing and any associated population. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal, and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-18 through 3-34, 4-14 through 4-29, and 7-18 through 7-19), Addendum 1 (Page 5-101 through 5-111), and Addendum 2 (Page 61 through 62) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 33 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to public services. There would be no change to the permitted levels of development intensity, which would lead to an increased demand for public services. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to public services and facilities that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Fire Protection Fire protection for the Tustin Legacy Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project will be subject to OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS/EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional firefighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the Project and other development within Tustin Legacy. No new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified. Police Protection Police protection for the project site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was previously anticipated in the FEIS/EIR. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 34 Schools The Project will not directly result in any residential development. Therefore, the Project does not generate K-12 students and there is no impact to K-12 schools. Parks Parks for the project site were discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Other Public Facilities The FEIS/EIR concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the Specific Plan proceeded. The FEIS/EIR does identify that the City will require certain conditions for individual future development projects (identified as Implementation Measures on pages 4-67 through 4-70) to be complied with as appropriate. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 through 3-57, 4-56 through 4-80 and 7-21 through 7-22), Addendum 1 (Page 5-112 through 5-122), and Addendum 2 (Page 63 through 65) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 35 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Project will be adjacent to the Linear Park and will facilitate access to the Park by tenants of the mixed-use commercial development, consistent with the levels anticipated by the previously certified FEIR / EIS. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to recreation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to recreation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 through 3-57, 4-56 through 4-80, 7-21 through 7-22), Addendum 1 (Page 5-122 through 5-127), and Addendum 2 (Page 66 through 67) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin City Code Section 9331 d (1)(b) Tustin General Plan J Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 36 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies; plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. More specifically, the MCAS Specific Plan allocates 1,267,324 square feet of non-residential development to Planning Areas 9-12 (Neighborhood E), and allocates a unified trip budget to Neighborhood E of 17,516 average daily trips (ADT). These allowable development square footages and neighborhood trip budgets were previously analyzed in the MCAS Specific Plan Final EIR/EIS and the First Addendum thereto. The 870,000 sf Project is located entirely within Neighborhood E and would utilize only approximately 68% of the developable square footage in Neighborhood E under the MCAS Specific Plan, and would utilize just more than half of the developable area in Neighborhood E under the proposed MCAS Specific Plan Amendment. As documented in an access analysis independently reviewed and approved by the City, the Project would generate 9,484 ADTs, which is less than half of the Neighborhood E Trip Budget under the MCAS Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project is less intense, generates fewer trips, and (as explained further below) would have less effect on the circulation network Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 37 than initially described and analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS and the First Addendum thereto. In short, there are no changes to the land use intensity or density and resulting trip generation. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIR/EIS, Addendums, and Supplement. Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-118 through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42), Addendum 1 (Page 5-127 through 5-146), and Addendum 2 (Page 68 through 73) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62, Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 38 v XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? f) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? h) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? i) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to utilities/services systems that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to utilities and service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems. :l Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 39 The FEIS/EIR identifies that the City will require certain conditions for future individual development projects identified as "Mitigation" or "Implementation Measures" (pages 4-43 through 4-46) to be complied with as appropriate. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR. for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-35 through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21), Addendum 1 (Page 5-147 through 5-165), and Addendum 2 (Page 74 through 76) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62, Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 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.) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 40 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not change development intensity, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAs Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementation of the Project. The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS/EIR; there are no new mitigation measures required; and there are no new significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any project -specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of the Project. All feasible applicable mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR are incorporated into the Project approvals. Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to'evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62, Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 41 CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Supplement, and Addendums, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to the Project, as applicable. 102061824.4.DOC 1 1 L I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200 S A IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 August 3, 2016 Krys Saldivar Public Works Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 FRESNO RIVERSIDE 949.553.0666 TEL BERKELEY PALM SPRINGS ROCKLIN 949.553.8076 FAX CARLSBAD PT. RICHMOND SAN LUIS OBISPO Subject: Flight at Tustin Legacy Shared Parking Analysis Dear Ms. Saldivar: LSA Associates Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this analysis of shared parking for Phase 1 of the Flight at Tustin Legacy (proposed project). The project will be constructed on currently vacant land at the northwest corner of Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway. Access is proposed from a new traffic signal at AstonBarranca Parkway, a right-in/right-out driveway at Park WayBarranca Parkway, a new traffic signal at Armstrong Avenue/Main Street, and a new traffic signal at Armstrong Avenue/Park Way. Internally, Park Way and Main Street will be private drive aisles. Phase 1 of the project includes the portion of the property west of Park Way. The project proposes to construct nine buildings and a parking garage under Phase 1. Of the nine buildings to be constructed, eight would exclusively provide office space, for a total of 371,938 square feet (sf). The ninth building would consist of an 11,970 sf food hall space for small restaurants and a conference facility with 3,553 sf of meeting space and 2,979 sf of office/storage space. The proposed project will construct 374,917 sf of office, 11,970 sf of restaurant, and 3,553 sf of meeting space, for a total of 390,440 sf of development. Figure 1 (attached) illustrates the location of the Phase 1 buildings and parking spaces. Parking for the project is located primarily within a 1,158 -space parking garage. A 219 -space parking lot will be located between buildings on the northern portion of the project site. The southern portion of the project site will have a 54 -space parking lot. On -street parking along various internal drive aisles is anticipated to total 113 spaces. Altogether, Phase 1 of the Flight at Tustin Legacy will construct 1,544 parking spaces. This parking analysis estimates the parking demand for Phase 1 and compares it to the proposed parking supply. Because not all uses generate their maximum parking demand at the same time, the analysis accounts for the potential for shared use of parking. Parking Required The parking requirements found in the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, Section 3.13.5, are used for the proposed project. The parking requirements established in the Specific Plan state that offices must provide one parking space for each 250 sf of space, restaurants must provide one parking space for each 100 sf of space, and places of assembly must provide one parking space for each 35 sf of space. Table A shows that straight application of the Specific Plan would require 1,722 parking spaces. Within the Phase 1 parking area, the project proposes to provide 1,544 parking spaces, which is a 10 percent reduction. 8/3/16 aP:\LPC150nParking Study\Shared Parking Lette17.docx» PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. 1 Table A: Specific Plan Parking Requirements Land Use Parking Rates per MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.13.5, Table 3-6 Project Parking Re uirements Required Size Unit Parking Spaces Office 1 space per 250 sf 374,917 sf 1,500 Restaurant 1 space per 100 sf 11,970 sf 120 Conference/Assembly 1 space per 35 sf 3,553 sf 102 TOTAL 1,722 MCAS = Marine Corps Air Station sf = square feet Travel Demand Management The proposed project is located approximately 2.5 miles from the Tustin Metrolink station. The project's proximity to the Tustin Metrolink station provides an opportunity for the operation of vanpools to reduce office parking demand. In the long term, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) StationLink buses similar to Route 472 or Measure M2 Project V internal circulators, which are similar to the recently approved iShuttle Route W, could serve the MCAS Tustin employment centers, including the proposed project. These future travel demand management (TDM) strategies could lead to further reductions in parking demand over and above employee vanpools. Furthermore, the proposed project is conditioned to prepare a Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan will consider the effects of TDM strategies, the location and cost of parking, variation in parking demand by time of day, and the interaction between uses (i.e., walking between offices and on-site restaurants). LSA applied a 10 percent reduction in parking demand for offices and restaurants to account for these factors. As a result, the estimated parking demand for office use would be reduced to 1,350 parking spaces and the estimated parking demand for restaurant use would be reduced to 108 parking spaces. The total site parking demand, therefore, is 1,560. The total site parking demand will also be reflective of the operational details/characteristics of the site. Combinations of different land uses, whose maximum parking demands occur at different times of the day, can result in a parking demand that is lower than would be calculated for freestanding facilities. That is, a mixed-use campus results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak parking requirements. Based on review of the project design and operational characteristics, the shared parking methodology is appropriate for this site. This is because parking is centrally located so as to provide a short walk between parking areas and the buildings served by the parking. Academic research within the planning profession has identified that a 0.25 -mile walk (1,320 feet) is considered to be an acceptable distance. Within Phase 1 of the Flight at Tustin Legacy, all buildings on the project site are within 750 feet of the parking structure, resulting in an appropriate walking distance. The site also contains a food hall that will naturally attract some of its business from the office tenants. Importantly, restaurant parking demand usually peaks in the evening hours, which is offset with office parking demand. 1 8/3/16 (IP:\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking LetteC.docx» 2 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Shared Parking Because of different hours of operation and different offsetting parking activities, not all uses at the site require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. LSA used methodologies found in Shared Parking, 2nd Edition (Urban Land Institute 2005) to identify the daily variations in parking demand for each of the site's land uses. The time -of -day factors found in Shared Parking are based on empirical studies and results from multiple parking accumulation counts. A detailed table outlining the parking reductions and shared parking analysis (Table B) is provided as an attachment to this report. The variation in parking needs reflects uses that are not fully utilized at the same time. LSA modified the time -of -day factors for restaurant use to account for 100 percent utilization during the 12:00 p.m. -1:00 p.m. lunch period. With this modification and accounting for the effect of TDM, Table B identifies a peak parking demand for 1,526 parking spaces. This total parking demand includes full utilization of the conference facility. This total parking demand could be accommodated by the 1,544 parking spaces proposed on the site. Findings Section 3.13 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan allows for joint use of parking areas if five requirements are met. This analysis addresses the first three of those requirements. 1. A parking study prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer or civil engineer experienced in the preparation of such study shall be submitted by the applicant demonstrating that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours ofparking demandfor the uses for which joint use is proposed. The methodology to be used in preparing the study shall be that promulgated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); This parking study was prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer and demonstrates that at the period of peak demand (2:00 p.m.), a maximum of 1,526 parking spaces would be required out of the 1,544 parking spaces proposed on the site. The parking study was prepared based on Urban Land Institute shared parking methodology. 2. The number ofparking spaces which may be credited against the requirements for the structures or uses involved shall not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be available during different hours of operation; This parking study examined parking demand and parking supply for all uses in the proposed project based on different peak hours of parking demand for each use and estimated maximum parking demand for 1,526 parking spaces out of a parking supply of 1,544. 3. Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they will adequately serve the uses for which they are intended; Academic research within the planning profession has sought to identify an average person's acceptable walking distance variables that may affect the acceptable distance. The state of the practice considers 0.25 mile (1,320 feet), or a 5 -minute walk, to be an acceptable distance (although longer distances are acceptable in certain circumstances). All buildings in the proposed project are within 750 feet of the parking structure. Therefore, the parking spaces in the structure are located so that they will adequately serve the uses for which they are intended. 8/3/16 «P:\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking LetterUocxn LSA ASSOCIATES. INC„ 4. A written and recorded agreement shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Community Development Director and executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of the number of parking spaces designated for joint use and availability of reciprocal access easements. The adequacy of the reciprocal parking agreement is not addressed by this study. 5. Planning Commission review and approval is required for joint -use parking. This study is being included in a request for review and approval. Conclusion LSA examined parking at the proposed Flight at Tustin Legacy. Parking requirements in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would require 1,722 parking spaces. LSA prepared a parking analysis to estimate total on-site parking demand accounting for TDM and the variable parking demand for each of the site's uses. A maximum parking demand for 1,526 parking spaces is anticipated for the site, including full use of the conference space. This parking demand could be accommodated within the 1,544 parking stalls provided on site. The methodology and conclusions of the parking study are consistent with the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 9264 and Section 3.13 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The analysis of shared parking appears to support a 10 percent reduction in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan parking requirement. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Anthony Petr s Principal Donson Liu, TE Transportation Engineer Attachments: Figure 1: Phase 1 Building and Parking Locations Table B: Weekday Time -of -Day Parking Requirements for Flight at Tustin Legacy, Phase 1 8/3/16 aP:\LPCISOI\Parking Study\Shared Parking Lettef/.docxo 1 1 1 1 1 � f § w c: t i4 ;; .. QW, , e AN In x a ��,,',P} D+ e Jf 5 R e x _v s�f p c] tf irA #1581 11aM E 111,111 11 , t 7 ?f im i7't 4 VA ��n�4ll. J�p �-e`i_����ff,._...,_'"Y� ci.!-: �" § .=Y"".., �T".. ���i ..:' � •I��� L S /' \ FIGURE 1 *\(E� NO SCALE 1:\LPC1501\G\Phase-1 Bldg&Parking Locations.cdr (7/14/2016) Flight at Tustin Legacy Phase 1 Building and Parking Locations LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AUGUST 2016 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA Table B: Weekday Time -of -Day Parking Requirements for Flight at Tustin Legacy, Phase 1 Time -of --Day Facto's referenced from Shared Parking, Edition, Urban Land Institute (2005), with modifications to account for higher lunchtime restaurant demand. 2 Parking Requirements are per the Marine Corps Air Station Tustin Specific Plan. . ' - P.\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking Letter7.docx «08/03/16» Tustin Circulation Shared Parking Requirements Time -of -Day Factors' 6:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 .m. 1:00 .m 2:00 .m 3:00 .m. 4:00 .nL 5:00 .m. 6:00 .m. 7:00 .m. 8:00 .m. 9:00 m. 10:00 .m. 11:00 .m. Office Visitor 0% 1% 20% 60% 100% 45% 15% 45% 100% 45% 15% 10% 5% 2% 1% 0/ 0% 0% Employee 3% 30% 75% 95% 100% 100% 90% 90% 100% 100% 90% 50% 25% 10% 7% 3% 1% 0% Restaurant Customer 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 40% 100% 100% 65% 40% 50% 75% 95% 100% 100% 100% 95% 75% Employee 0% 20% 50% 75% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 75% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% Convention Visitor 0% 0% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 50% 30% 1 30% 10% 0% 0% Center Employee 5% 1 30%1 33% 33% 100% 100% 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 70% 1 40% 25% 1 20% 20% 5% 0% Time -of -Day P rking Demand Total Demand Use Gross Net Office 1,500 1,350 38 378 960 1,249 1,350 1,298 1,144 1,172 1,350 1,298 1,144 637 319 127 89 38 13 0 Restaurant 120 108 0 3 8 12t28 51 106 106 74 49 58 85 103 108 108 108 103 82 Conference Center 102 102 5 28 35 39 102 102 102 102 102 92 73 41 26 21 19 5 0 TOTAL 1,722 1,560 43 409 1,003 1,300 1,451 1,352 1,380 1,526 1,449 1,294 795 463 261 218 165 1 121 82 Time -of --Day Facto's referenced from Shared Parking, Edition, Urban Land Institute (2005), with modifications to account for higher lunchtime restaurant demand. 2 Parking Requirements are per the Marine Corps Air Station Tustin Specific Plan. . ' - P.\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking Letter7.docx «08/03/16» 1 Ls ^ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. � \ 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SVITE 200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 July 22, 2016 Krys Saldivar Public Works Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 FRESNO RIVERSIDE 949.553.0666TEL BERKELEY PALM SPRINGS ROCKLIN 949.553.8076 FAX CARLSBAD PT. RICHMOND SAN LUIS OBISPO Subject: Flight at Tustin Legacy Access Analysis Dear Ms. Saldivar: LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this access analysis for build out of the Flight at Tustin Legacy (project) located in Neighborhood E, currently vacant land at the northwest corner of Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway in the City of Tustin (City), County of Orange, California. The purpose of this analysis is to assess the feasibility and strategy of allowing vehicles to travel into and out of the project site at full build out. The project proposes construction of 19 buildings and 2 parking garages in two phases. As analyzed in the Shared Parking Analysis, Phase 1 consists of 390,440 square feet (sf). This analysis addresses traffic volume at build out. Phase 2 consists of 479,560 sf. The proposed project would construct 854,477 sf of office space, 11,970 sf of restaurant space, and 3,553 sf of meeting space, for a total of 870,000 sf of development. The Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Specific Plan allocates 1,267,324 sf of nonresidential development to Planning Areas 9-12 (Neighborhood E), and allocates a unified trip budget to Neighborhood E of 17,516 average daily- trips (ADT). The MCAS Specific Plan Amendment, which would reallocate land uses between all Planning Areas throughout the Tustin Legacy site, allocates 1,588,000 sf of developable area and 17,832 ADTs in Neighborhood E. These allowable development square footages and neighborhood trip budgets were previously analyzed in the MCAS Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and the First Addendum thereto. The current site plan for the project has four access points into the project site: a signalized full -access driveway on AstonBarranca Parkway, an unsignalized right-in/right-out driveway along Barranca Parkway, and two signalized full -access driveways along Armstrong Avenue. In an effort to document the circulation operation at each of the four access points, LSA developed internal volumes through the project site, analyzed level of service (LOS) for year 2035 plus project conditions at the access points and internal intersections, and performed a queuing analysis at the access points. Based on the analysis of internal volumes, LOS, and queuing data, access through the project is feasible with no significant effects with the proposed geometrics. 7/22/16 ((P;\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docxn PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation calculations for the proposed project were based on the daily and peak -hour trip rates taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9h Edition, 2012) and directed by City staff. The proposed project includes the construction of 854,477 sf of office use, 11,970 sf of food hall space for small restaurants, and a conference facility with 3,553 sf of meeting space. Project trip generation is presented in Table A. The proposed project will generate approximately 9,484 trips per day, including approximately 1,467 trips in the a.m. peak hour (1,249 inbound and 219 outbound) and approximately 1,387 trips in the p.m. peak hour (287 inbound and 1,102 outbound). Table A: Flight at Tustin Legacy Trip Generation Land Use (Land Use Code) Size Unit ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates' Office (710) 2 TSF 9.28 1.37 0.19 1.56 0.25 1.23 1.48 High -Turnover Restaurant TSF 127.15 5.95 4.86 10.81 5.91 3.94 9.85 Phase 1 Office A 147.436 TSF 1,368 202 28 230 37 181 218 Office B 74.636 TSF 693 102 14 116 19 92 110 Office C 110.366 TSF 1,024 152 21 172 28 136 163 Office D 2.979 TSF 27 4 0 4 1 4 5 Offices E—J 39.500 TSF 367 54 7 62 10 49 58 Food Hall D 11.970 TSF 11522 71 58 129 71 47 118 Conference Center 3.553 TSF 33 5 1 6 1 4. 5 Subtotal 390.440 TSF 5,034 590 129 719 167 513 677 Phase 2 Office A . 294.872 TSF 2,736 405 55 460 74 362 436 Office B 149.272 TSF 1,385 205 28 233 38 183 221 Offices E—G 35.416 TSF 329 49 7 55 9 44 52 Subtotal 479.560 TSF 4,450 659 90 748 121 589 709 Total 9,484 1,249 219 1,467 288 1,102 1,386 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9 Edition (2012) for base office equivalency identified by the City of Tustin. 2 Trip rates calculated from regression equation for 425,000 square feet of office use. ADT = average daily trips TSF = thousand square feet 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501Wccess Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» 2 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. METHODOLOGY The analysis evaluates typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Trips were distributed based on regional travel patterns and assigned based on the location of parking spaces. These volumes represent proposed full build -out conditions of the project. The internal traffic volume turning movements are shown on Figure 1 (all figures attached). External through volumes traveling east - west along Barranca Parkway and north -south along Armstrong Avenue were taken from the 2035 plus project scenario from the MCAS Specific Plan, provided in Attachment A. The volumes from the MCAS Specific Plan were utilized for the northbound left and right movements, the eastbound through and right movements, and the westbound left and through movements at Aston/Barranca Parkway. The volumes from the MCAS Specific Plan were utilized for the northbound left and right movements; the southbound left, through, and right movements; the eastbound through and right movements; and the westbound left, through, and right movements at Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway. The external volumes traveling north and south along Armstrong Avenue were developed from Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway turn movements upstream and downstream. To determine the peak -hour operations at signalized intersections within the study area, the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology was used. The ICU methodology compares the volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums these critical conflicting v/c ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of LOS, where LOS A represents free-flow activity and LOS F represents overcapacity operation. Parameters set by the City for ICU calculations, including lane capacity, right -turn treatment, and clearance intervals, are included in the analysis. According to the City Circulation Element, LOS at an intersection or roadway is considered to be unsatisfactory when the ICU exceeds 0.90 (LOS D). The relationship of ICU to LOS is demonstrated in the following table. Level of Service ICU A 0.00-0.60 B 0.61-0.70 C 0.71-0.80 D 0.81-0.90 E 0.91-1.00 F > 1.00 ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 unsignalized intersection methodology presents LOS in terms of total intersection delay for all -way stop -controlled intersections and approach delay of the major and minor streets for two-way stop -controlled intersections in seconds per vehicle. The resulting delay is expressed in terms of LOS. The relationship of delay to LOS for unsignalized intersections is demonstrated in the following table: 7/22/16 <<P:\LPC150l\Access Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdom) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Levels of Service Unsignalized Intersection Dela (seconds) A <10.0 B >10.0 and 515.0 C >15.0 and <25.0 D >25.0 and 535.0 E >35.0 and 550.0 F >50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2010). Turn -pocket storage lengths were analyzed to see if adequate storage can be provided for the southbound and eastbound left turns at Aston/Barranca Parkway, the southbound and eastbound left turns at Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway, the northbound and eastbound left turns at Armstrong Avenue/Eastern Access, and the northbound and eastbound left turns at Armstrong Avenue/Northern Access. The queuing analysis has been conducted based on the HCM 2010 to show additional details on how much left -turn storage is available and provided for the access points. Queueing analysis has also been conducted to show if vehicles queued from internal intersections will not back into Armstrong Avenue and Barranca Parkway. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS The peak -hour signal warrant is generally intended for use at locations where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor street (i.e., Aston) suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street (i.e., Barranca Parkway). Peak -hour signal warrants were conducted for the intersections of Aston/Barranca Parkway, Armstrong Avenue/Main Street, Armstrong Avenue/Parkway, and Parkway/Main Street. The signal warrant analyses results are summarized in Table B. The major and minor street volume requirements for major streets with speeds above 40 miles per hour are depicted in this table (per Figure 4C-4 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [CA MUTCD]). 1 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» 4 1 i I.SA ASSOCIATES, INC. Table B: Peak -Hour Signal Warrant Analysis Aston/Barranca Parkway Street Name Approach' Movement Plus Project AM I PM Minor (2 Lanes) Aston NBL 55 106 NBT 0 0 NBR 41 69 SBL 43 217 SBT 0 0 SBR 25 126 Total' 96 343 Major (3 Lanes) Barranca Parkway EBL 269 62 EBT 1,696 1,641 EBR 16 66 WBL 19 67 WBT 1,932 2,286 WBR 62 14 Total 4,136 Signal Warranted? E3,994 No Yes ArmstrourAvenue/Main Street Street Name Approach Movement Plus Project AM PM Minor (1 Lane) Main Street EBL 14 73 EBT 0 0 EBR 56 284 Total 70 357 Major (2 Lanes) Armstrong Avenue NBL 341 79 NBT 424 612 NBR 0 0 SBL 0 0 SBT 439 394 SBR 82 38 Total 1,286 1,123 Signal Warranted? No Yes Armstrong Avenue/Parkway Parkway/Main Street Street Name Approach Movement Plus Project AM PM Minor (1 Lane) Parkway EBL 29 147 EBT 0 0 EBR 9 46 Total 38 193 Major (2 Lanes) Armstrong Avenue NBL 85 20 NBT 353 665 NBR 0 0 SBL 0 0 SBT 512 394 SBR 166 38 Total 1,116 1,117 Signal Warranted? No Yes Street Name Approach Movement Plus Project AM PM Minor (1 Lanes) Parkway WBL 64 15 WBT 29 7 WBR 79 18 Total 172 40 Major (1 Lane) Main Street NBL 40 103 NBT 44 50 NBR 6 30 SBL 15 74 SBT 63 95 SBR 34 29 Total 202 381 Signal Warranted? No No Northbound minor approach volume used for the AM peak hour total. Southbound minor approach volume used for the PM peak hour total. EBL = Eastbound left SBL = Southbound left EBR = Eastbound right SBR = Southbound right EBT = Eastbound through SBT = Southbound through NBL = Northbound left WBL = Westbound left NBR = Northbound right WBR = Westbound right NBT = Northbound through WBT = Westbound through Based on the results of this peak -hour signal warrant analysis, a traffic signal is warranted for the projected p.m. peak hour at Aston/Barranca Parkway, Armstrong Avenue/Main Street, and Armstrong Avenue/Parkway. Traffic signals are proposed at these intersections. The internal intersection of Parkway/Main Street does not warrant a signal. 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docxn 5 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Although Armstrong Avenue/Parkway is anticipated to meet Signal Warrant 3 based on peak -hour volume, it is less likely to meet the 4 -hour and 8 -hour signal warrants. Armstrong Avenue/Parkway would operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour) as a two-way stop -controlled intersection. Given the close spacing with the other proposed traffic signals along Armstrong Avenue, the City could consider not installing a traffic signal at this location to preserve progression along Armstrong Avenue. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS To determine the 2035 plus project condition LOS, traffic generated by the proposed project was added to the modeled volumes from the MCAS Specific Plan along Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. The 2035 plus project volumes are shown on Figure 2. As shown in Table C, all access points and internal intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS of D or better in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The LOS worksheets are provided in Attachment B. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a significant intersection impact. Table C: 2035 Plus Project Intersection LOS Summary # Intersection ICU/Delay (seconds) 2035 Plus Project LOS ICU/Delay AM (seconds) PM 1 Aston/Barranca ParkwayT 0.49 A 0.54 A 2 Barranca Parkway/Parkway Parkway/Parkway 9.8 A 10.9 B 3 Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway 0.55 A 0.67 B 4 Armstrong Avenue/Main Street 0.36 A 0.35 A 5 1 Armstrong Avenue/Parkway' 0.22 A 0.28 A 6 Parkway/Private Drive (north) 8.6 A 8.8 A 7 Private Drive (west)/Main Street 9.3 1 A 9.0 A 8 Parkway/Main Street 8.6 A 8.9 A 9 Private Drive (east)/Main Street 8.6 A 9.0 A 10 Parkway/Private Drive (south) 8.2 A 8.1 A ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service 1 Signalized Intersection The on-site internal intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level under a one -lane internal drive. Generally, roadway capacity of 800 to 1,200 vehicles per hour will warrant the need for a two-lane internal drive. However, the proposed capacities at the internal intersections do not meet these criteria. Therefore, the project site can operate under a one -lane internal drive with no significant effects. QUEUING ANALYSIS The queue lengths were compared to existing storage lengths and new storage lengths were recommended based on the queuing analysis, as shown in Table D. The queuing worksheets are 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx» 6 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. provided in Attachment C. Queue lengths for the internal intersections on the project site are forecast to be 50 feet (ft) or approximately two car lengths or shorter. Therefore, the queue lengths for the internal intersections are considered satisfactory with one lane of internal drive. Table D: Queue Lengths # Intersection 2035 Plus Project Queues Queue (ft) Existing Storage Movement AM PM Length (ft) Recommended Storage Length (ft) 1 Aston/Barranca Parkway SBL 68 349 - 350 EBL 274 74 - 275 WBR 7 0 350 350 2 ParkwayBarranca Parkway SBL 5 28 - 180 WBR 4 0 - 150 3 Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway SBL 173 233 - 250 EBL 273 259 600 600 4 Armstrong Avenue/Main Street NBL 236 53 - 250 EBL 16 43 - 180 EBR 25 46 - 180 5 Armstrong Avenue/Parkway NBL 55 22 - 100 EBL 24 79 - 150 9 Private Drive/Main Street WBTL 30 5 - 180 WBR 28 5 - 180 10 Parkway/Private Drive NBL 1 30 5 1 - 180 EBL = eastbound left NBL = northbound left EBR = eastbound right SBL = southbound left WBTL = westbound shared through -left lane ft = feet/foot WBL = westbound left WBR =westbound right The queue lengths for inbound and outbound left turns are illustrated on Figure 3. All of the anticipated queue lengths can be accommodated with some modifications. The intersection of AstonBarranca Parkway does not yet exist in full; there is no north leg and the eastbound left -turn lane does not exist. A utility pole is within approximately 130 ft west of AstonBarranca Parkway on the raised median. In order to accommodate -an eastbound left -turn pocket of 275 ft and a taper length of approximately 90 ft, the proposed alignment for the eastbound left -turn pocket on AstonBarranca will imitate the eastbound left -turn pocket on Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road -Von Karman AvenueBarranca Parkway. The eastbound left -turn pocket on these intersections is adjacent to the median that houses the utility poles and, therefore, leaves the utility poles untouched. The back-to-back queues between ParkwayBarranca Parkway and Parkway/Private Drive, Armstrong Avenue/Main Street and Private Drive/Main Street, and Armstrong Avenue/Main Street and Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway can be accommodated with the recommended storage lengths based on HCM 2010 analysis. The anticipated queue lengths are illustrated on Figure 3. The proposed storage lengths and geometries are shown on Figure 4. 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Based on the results of this analysis, the feasibility of accommodating the anticipated vehicular circulation at the four access points is acceptable under 2035 plus project conditions with recommendations provided in the analysis. The intersection of Aston/Barranca Parkway does not yet exist in full; there is no north leg and the eastbound left -turn lane does not exist. A utility pole is within approximately 130 ft west of Aston/Barranca Parkway on the raised median. In order to accommodate an eastbound left -turn pocket of 275 ft and a taper length of approximately 90 ft, the proposed alignment for the eastbound left -turn pocket on Aston/Barranca will imitate the eastbound left -turn pocket on Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road -Von Karman AvenueBarranca Parkway. The proposed turn -lane geometrics for the project site are shown on Figure 3. All storage lengths and lane geometries can be implemented without significant impacts to intersection LOS or queuing. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this assessment, the proposed conditions of the Flight at Tustin Legacy project can accommodate vehicular circulation at the four access points for 2035 plus project conditions, if the proposed geometries and storage lengths were to be applied as recommended, and the eastbound left -turn storage length at Aston/Barranca Parkway can be accommodated. The on-site roadway system can accommodate vehicular circulation with a one -lane internal drive. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES INC. "Petr Principal Attachments: Figure 1: Project Traffic Figure 2: Forecast Traffic Volume Figure 3: Queue Lengths Figure 4: Proposed Lane Geometrics A: Traffic Forecasts B: LOS Worksheets C: Queuing Worksheets 7/22/16 «PMPCISOIWccess Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» 1 1 r °BIIiG; fi �&31 f �H 4 �w I I E I i EI.S b I Cr t31� yci t O ,5/b 52/37 .= Y`ft 4-- r581298 326-x' t F PARKING PL GARAGE � i% 'm __...[ ♦ , l �309171-► ;; 4 .5/1 _ — 26/6 3J1 --i ,,t I 00 I Q e7 b # P p 1 I I t [ 1 "T"'` SLUG,:.€ l I•l1 a PARKING Q': 1 n I �lit};rtts� r�� �tdAuEI�Et�' . 1111 i 1 1 - P P {� ! l.; Ll 4%22 —� .y�' 1 P 1 3%14 -� : 14121 11 1 I :�� I �s tq f I I r . .,.Y ..._i I.E ` �i �l �� w ON 1 L J. — t` i{ J I W 62/14 ' I t— 62/14 � i � 236154 � ; t-198/48 +— 62/313 �— B3i.121 __ -* 298/69 269/62 271/269 —► 228/52—� 228/52--o- 43/217--01 40 LSA NO SCALE LEGEND XX/YY - AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes O - Study Area Intersections - Trip Distribution Percentage 1:\LPC1501\G\Project Volumes.edr (7/19/2016) on FIGURE 1 Flight at Tustin Legacy Project Traffic Volume 1 ---19'32/2286 269/62 1696/1641--► 16/66 --i 1 t I =EM � r 1[i Q 1663/1879 —► ., _, :..w i ; �► 4-198/206 r--2015/1732 2287127=! ©.__.f-282/161 1163/1503-'0' 154/100 1 t r+ a,Uj Q N N O iOQ t0 Q t0 L S A LEGEND FIGURE 2 XX/YY - AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes O - Study Area Intersections Flight at Tustin Legacy NO SCALE Forecast Traffic Volume 1ALPC1501\G\Forecast Volumes.cdr (7/19/2016) 1 1 1 1 10, LSA NO SCALE I:\LPC1501\G\Queue Lengths.cdr(7/21/2016) �'rf'�•g\. �' SSS 4s titt;� r t it�Ll iiAtk ,� kkkkkk .�� 1 PARK1114 "- i GARAGE w ... TM�,30 _ - �45 30' I arae. a �mM � r 1 W. .......,1 x — - Z ��=..;� .. �� _. a _,� _ �.. a__� . _a.. �a75�.�..�,� . �►i 10, - .:.. _ FIGURE 3 Flight at Tustin Legacy Queue Lengths Il.a '.1.111 I 1311)r, A at 11Z jL ,e t}, j .'j ► a � I 1 L ss� -� , r f 'd� L LG.r1 l 7 f PARKING EDIV­ �I a� GARAGE �I W7_- I � �---'- � .�► .- alp � ; j N t4filii, �_ Fu.r g i t I3 '+ttEPC+.0 GARAGxE W f j !la i{ I.! `i II �1 ,... —� l!1A 1, �-; j ,) _f -yam r BIMG. I�I f�i _._ !I �s I t _.., O coI ... .. �. I . _. _275'.,,. f - -- — F --I w L S A LEGEND O - Study Area Intersections N f - Lane Geometry � �--� - Existing Storage Length - Proposed Storage Length NO SCALE IALM501\0\Proposed Geometrics.cdr (7/21/2016) - Signalized Intersection - All -Way Stop -Controlled Intersection -a- - Stop Sign FIGURE 4 Flight at Tustin Legacy Proposed Geometrics 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MAY 2016 ACCESS ANALYSIS FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A TRAFFIC FORECASTS P:\LPC1501Wccess Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx «07/22/16» 29 . Aston St. at Barranca Pkwy. 2035 No -Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .69 30 . Armstrong Av. at Barranca Pkwy. 2035 No -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 45 .03* 213 .13 NBT 2 3400 54 .03 218 .13* NBR 0 0 61 .04 339 .20 SBL 1 1700 131 .08 22B .13* SBT 1 1700 144 .08* 123 .07 SBR 1 1700 96 .06 140 .08 EBL 1 1700 114 .07* 102 .06 EBT 3 5100 1168 .23 1493 .29* EBR d 1700 139 .08 84 .05 WBL 2 3400 287 .08 173 .05* WBT 4 6800 1789 .26* 1647 .24 WBR 1 1700 242 .14 199 .12 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 With -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 54 .03 110 .06* NBT 1 1700 93 .09* 71 .09 NBR 0 0 53 79 SBL 1 1700 93 .05* 205 .12 SBT 1 1700 9 .06 108 .23* SBR 0 0 98 287 EBL 1 1700 277 .16* 136 .08* EST 3 5100 1434 .28 1405 .28 EBR 1 1700 19 .01 74 .04 WBL 1 1700 21 .01 68 .04 WBT 4 6800 1558 .23* 1853 .27* WBR d 1700 309 .18 140 .08 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .69 30 . Armstrong Av. at Barranca Pkwy. 2035 No -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 45 .03* 213 .13 NBT 2 3400 54 .03 218 .13* NBR 0 0 61 .04 339 .20 SBL 1 1700 131 .08 22B .13* SBT 1 1700 144 .08* 123 .07 SBR 1 1700 96 .06 140 .08 EBL 1 1700 114 .07* 102 .06 EBT 3 5100 1168 .23 1493 .29* EBR d 1700 139 .08 84 .05 WBL 2 3400 287 .08 173 .05* WBT 4 6800 1789 .26* 1647 .24 WBR 1 1700 242 .14 199 .12 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 With -Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .69 2035 With -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 60 .04* 234 .14 NBT 2 3400 46 .03 259 .15* NBR 0 0 64 .04 348 .20 SBL 1 1700 136 .08 168 .10* SBT 1 1700 165 .10* 90 .05 SBR 1 1700 129 .08 112 .07 EBL 1 1700 99 .06* 127 .07 EBT 3 5100 1163 .23 1603 .31* EBR d 1700 154 .09 100 .06 WBL 2 3400 282 .08 161 .05* WBT 4 6800 2015 .30* 1732 .25 WBR 1 1700 194 .11 206 .12 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .68 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .67 :.: 1 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 55 .03 106 .06* NBT 1 1700 74 .07* 56 .07 NBR 0 0 41 69 SBL 1 1700 71 .04* 182 .11 SBT 1 1700 5 .06 78 .21* SBR 0 0 95 281 EBL 1 1700 299 .18* 140 .OB* EBT 3 5100 1468 .29 1589 .31 EBR 1 1700 16 .01 66 .04 WBL 1 1700 19 .01 67 .04 WBT 4 6800 1870' .28* 1973 .29* WBR d 1700 267 .16 114 .07 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .69 2035 With -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 60 .04* 234 .14 NBT 2 3400 46 .03 259 .15* NBR 0 0 64 .04 348 .20 SBL 1 1700 136 .08 168 .10* SBT 1 1700 165 .10* 90 .05 SBR 1 1700 129 .08 112 .07 EBL 1 1700 99 .06* 127 .07 EBT 3 5100 1163 .23 1603 .31* EBR d 1700 154 .09 100 .06 WBL 2 3400 282 .08 161 .05* WBT 4 6800 2015 .30* 1732 .25 WBR 1 1700 194 .11 206 .12 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .68 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .67 :.: 1 1 Fil 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ACCESS ANALYSIS JULY 2016 FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN. COUNTY OF ORANGE. CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B LOS WORKSHEETS P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx a07/22/16» O1 2035 Plus Project AM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:45:28 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Aston/Barranca Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.492 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Aston Barranca Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound' Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include - Include Include Include . Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0� 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I . Volume'Module: Base Vol: 55 0 41 43 0 25 269 1696 16 19 1932 62 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. Initial Bse: 55 0 41 43 0 25 269 1696 16 19 1932 62 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 55 0 41 43 0 25 269 1696 16 19 1932 62 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 0 41 43 0 , 25 269 1696 16 19 1932 62 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 55 0 41 43 0 25 269 1696 16 .19 1932 62 ------------I---=-----------I,I---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 1700 0 1700 1700 5100 1700 1700 6800 1700 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module- Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.04 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715.(c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 i HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 ' 4-- 4Q \11 Lane Configurations W f f tT* Traffic volume (yehm) 0 1663 2109 236fr 0 41 YT . _ .®...E... - Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1663 2109 236 0 41 FreeFree v. Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0 92 0`92 X6.92 '1777-, 0 92 * Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1808 2292 257 0 45 Pede`st�ans_. a Lane Width (ft) Walking'Speed (ft/s) . 7, Percent Blockage 777 F77 Right turn flare (veh), Median type None None 77-7 Upstream signal(ft)710 780 _ pX, platoon unblocked''a 073 �._�.n, .�.,77 „.__..._.` vC, conflicting volume 2549 3023 702 uC1 stage 1 corif vol v .._.0 E.� .. vC2, stage 2 conf vol u ' 4 unblocked vol 1270 �r 638 0 r _._... _ _ �- tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 cSH _ 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 °1700 1700 791yt Volumexto—Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.06 m , 77 Queue Length 95th _ .i Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS _~' A _K; Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.8 ntersection;Summa►Y.,,��.� AverageDela�r- Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 IF (s) 2.2 3.5 �3.3 _ p0 queue free % , r _ 1 QO _u cM capacity (veh/h) 396 338 791 a ' � W .,1 :WB 2 WB 3r B ��ZB 1 irection Lane"# EB'j1',EB 2. EB 3 x 1z Fa � °` , Volume Total 603 603 603 655 655 655 584 45 UolumemLeft a _„ _�r 0. ,.�� �0 .._ 0 00��. Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 45 cSH _ 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 °1700 1700 791yt Volumexto—Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.06 m , 77 Queue Length 95th _ .i Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS _~' A _K; Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.8 ntersection;Summa►Y.,,��.� AverageDela�r- Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 01 2035 Plus Project AM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:45:28 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.552 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Barranca Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II--------------- II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228 1163 154 282 2015 198 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228.1163 154 282 2015 198 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228 1163 154 282 2015 198 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228 1163 154 282 2015 198 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228 1163 154 282 2015 198. ------------ I-=-------------II---------------II--------------- II --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.12 0.88 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1908 1492 1700 5100 1700 3400 6800 1700 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.23 0.09 0.08 0.30 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 01 2035 Plus Project AM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:45:28 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Armstrong Avenue/Main Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.363 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Main Street Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II--------------- II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 0 3400 1700 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA O1 2035 Plus Project AM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:45:28 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Armstrong Avenue/Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.218 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle:, 29 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 •Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ---------=--1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0 0 Reduct. Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0- 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation,Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1..00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 0 3400 1700 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715-(c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Parkway & Private Drive 7/19/2016 7 Intersection77777].. Intersection klay,,s/yo_ 8.6 'in-fe-r-s-ec-fio-n-, LOS A- Tmffic-Vol veh/h 0, 2 "V A 0 :-29 0, '1', 1 0'- 24 � 15 124 0 -- 135 -- -1-3-6 `, - 80 24 Future - ­Vo­l�,' ve-h-/h, 0 2 0 -- 0 29 O 19 --0" ---24 LT Vol 24 0 80 24 Peak Hour Factor -6.9, 2-7-0-.9-2 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 -'0.92 UZ' 0.92 0.92 ��0.92 0.92 0.92, 0.92' 0.92 0.92 Hea 1 1 -0.0-08 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 'Mkfrif�row'- -77 Yes 0 '.4 '0 32-- % O� ervice7ime' 1K 2.61 2.761 135 0 W 87 �t Number of Lanes 0 k6m lmalneLbS'A A 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 Vol Thru, % 9% 0% flk-fing-, ft Approach Le 33% 'NB 7,:7 7�7 ,EB 2-- WB' Conflicting Lanes ft -Right _7 -'_7 "--S—B-, --Stop_ Stop Conflicting Approach ght NB 7-1��' 7-7----1 EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 LT Vol 24 2 29 135 7,6 9. HbIM,LOS- A A A A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 7 14 U Ll I I LU LII IVM LJ L-1 I I OWL.3 I I Vol Left, % 0 0 660� 5�6 2 - Vol Thru, % 9% 0% 0% 33% o Right, 06 /7 360o '67% 40%_', 77, 10 Sign Control --Stop_ Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 163, 6 48 239 LT Vol 24 2 29 135 5 0 0:._ ' 80 RT Vol 124 4 19 24 Larie,'Flow Rate, 177 7 52 260 !;!qpTeq Grp 1 1 -0.0-08 1 1 De req of bfi(( 0.193 0.069,'0.305 Departure Headway 3.914 -Yes 4.596 4.75 'Yes 4.223 qonvergenqe,,VN Yes Yes Cap 921 781 757 839 ervice7ime' 1K 2.61 2.761 2,305 HL CM Lane V[& Ratio 0.192 0.009 0.069 0.31 HCM 1qY1 k6m lmalneLbS'A A A HbM-§-5&f41e-d- 0.7 b 1 Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 7 TrafficVoli veh/h 0 19 ',309 3. O' 5 58 ;'26- Q 1 0'' 1, -0 0 - 0' 1 10 Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 309 3 0 5 58 26 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 10 '0ea'kYou--r-Facfo-r---, 0--.9-2-- 0-.92 -,6.9-2—. 0.92 ---- 0-.92 0.9-2-0.92-,-0.-92---0.92---0.92 Sign Control -L"a-n, Stop Stop ---3-31-- Stop --,--89-,- -0-.92,,-.0.92 --- ' -0-.92 -"",- 0.92--- - -'� 0.92 -" -2 0.92 -,-- He"hicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 LT Vol 2 2 2 2' 2 2- 2 Mvmt Flow O 21 336' 3 0 5 63 28 0 1 0' 1 0 0 0 -11, Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Oppos�ig_Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left coldic'tin-g-A-pproachRight Conflicting Lanes Right HCMnt--I-,b-e4a HCM LOS WB SB __NB 1 A EB NB SB T A SB EB 'WB 7.7 A NB WB EB 7.4 A -777RRff'EBLn1WBLnf$—BG-1 77 Vol Left%0 50% 6% 6% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 65% 0% Vol 1-- -61. 50% -�-I% 29%, 100% Sign Control -L"a-n, Stop Stop ---3-31-- Stop --,--89-,- Stop e--- Traffic V_01 by 2 LT Vol 1 19 5 0 Through' Vol _ 0 309' 58 RT Vol 1 3 26 10 Lane' -Flow -R-ate- 2" 36-0... 97 -11 _ Ng!eoqf 0.403' 0109 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.719 4.036 4.061 4.305 Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 763 892 872 836 ,Servi me 2.72 2.063 2.139 2.305 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 0.404 0.111 0.013 HCM Control Delay---,.' -,9--.8, "J'.6 -----7--.4 HCM Lane LOS A A P, A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 8 Future Vol, veh/h HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Parkway & Main Street 26 0 64 7/19/2016 79 0 40 44 6 0 15 63 34 Peak Hour Factor 0:92 0 92 0 92' 0 92' 0 92 "0 92 u �2 �22 0 "92 0:92 ntersectian f�"6ro+i�'�s'�..:.W" p T 2 2 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 _ Intersection LOS�e�_A Future Vol, veh/h 0 52 31 26 0 64 29 79 0 40 44 6 0 15 63 34 Peak Hour Factor 0:92 0 92 0 92' 0 92' 0 92 "0 92 u �2 �22 0 "92 0:92 0 92 d 0 92 0 9 0.92 0:92 0 92 0 92 0:92 �2 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 ..�-_�aNB __�. __�EB w1 2w 2� 2 2µ 2 2 2 Conflicting Lanes Right 0-7— X32 86 0�� 43� 48 70 7- •" 16 ` ' .68 `- 3 J Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 8:6 8.7 9 3 7 7 kMf Lane LOSu A A A A� A HCM 95th -tile Q ` osin Ah 9._PP.roac :WB "' EB _.. .__ ,S& . _ NB- _P..pO _ Opposing Lanes __...._______ _ _._ _._. 1 1� 1 Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop _2 Co_nflictingAppr cao h`Left_,__.a_ SB Traffc 1/01 _ , WB:� �1 Conflicting Lanes Lefty ___� _ _. 1 ..�-_�aNB __�. __�EB w1 1 2 6 26 0 34 Conflicting Approach Righf NB Conflicting Lanes Right . _ _'_t 1 _ . _�SB.". 1 2 1 Departure Headway (Hd) HCM Control Dela Convergence YM Yes Yeses Yes,,.,-, _Yes. Yes �_�. .. HCM LOS A� A f A A ,.>_..,.._.._.._a..,....s.,..s.....�...�.�>__.a...._.._...A_..._.._n.. _..a..._..._..W.......«,...,.�,h,...,...,-......�..<.....�..,..a..amir�..k...,«...........o.._.._r._..............:..,......,..w.....�.+......a.,.i..«._..G......un..�..,..�_x.,..,�_....�_... ..._._._.._.��..«._..... Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 9 Uol Left, /o 44%0 48% 69% 0% 13%_ _ Vol Thru,% _ <' 49% 28% 3131% 0% 56% —� — Vol Ri ht % 7% 24% 0%.100% : 30% ---1 � F Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffc 1/01 LT Vol 40 52 64 0 15 29 0' _-63 �79� RT Vol 6 26 0 34 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 _ Degree of Util (X) _ 0132 0.— 6 0155 0107 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.859 4.74 5.515 4.465 4.63 Convergence YM Yes Yeses Yes,,.,-, _Yes. Yes �_�. .. Cap 736 755 650 801 773 _ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.133 0.1560.155 0.107 0.158 HCM ControlA61ay 8:6 8.7 9 3 7 7 kMf Lane LOSu A A A A� A HCM 95th -tile Q ` 07777 .5 0.6: 0 5 0 4" - 0 6 _ _. Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 9 Tlafl'io -WB -27 ,24 O '� O_ _32 172 220_ _0()_`0_ 7V 39 <} O Sign Control Stop fl Con icting App Stop Stop Stop pne LT Vol 7 32 0 39 o Departure Headway (Hd) 4.431 4.678 4.729 3.955.182 SqrviceTime 2.437 2.684 2.4931.713 3.186 TuabnQmulabon 7/1412016 012035 Plus Project AN Synohm9Report -WB NR Opposing Lanes 2 Sign Control Stop fl Con icting App Stop Stop Stop pne LT Vol 7 32 0 39 o TuabnQmulabon 7/1412016 012035 Plus Project AN Synohm9Report Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop pne LT Vol 7 32 0 39 o Departure Headway (Hd) 4.431 4.678 4.729 3.955.182 SqrviceTime 2.437 2.684 2.4931.713 3.186 TuabnQmulabon 7/1412016 012035 Plus Project AN Synohm9Report HCM 2010 AWSC 10: Parkway & Private Drive 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Intersection LOS` A x Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 0 3 0 4. 0 4 0 11 192 33 0 18 34 29 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 92 0 92° 0 92 ; U2 ,,,,,,0 .92 092 0 92 0 92 s 0 92 0 92 r 0 92 _ ,2 .. . ;. _ . m .... .w 0 92 0 92 0 92 -0 92 Heavy Vehicles, 2. 2_ % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0 4 0 3 0 4 '0 4 0 12 X209 36 0 "20�' ._ _ W�. a �.d� �_. _ . s_ .. �. Number of Lanes 0 0 1� 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop M per.r,-1K Approach � ��� � s� SEB �� � , WB � � � NB,= 13' Opposir A' roach WB B SBT- PP �9_ _.__ Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 _ 1 —77 CoinoLw .._ -a Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1� 2 Conflicting Appr h. Right NB ' SB WB EB � _ Conflicting Lanes Right � �1. 1�.��.�2n.1a. 4.565 HCM'Control Delay 77 9 8 5 Convergences Y/N _ _... . __ .� _ . - HCM LOS A A A A RT Vol 33 wuW, ur..FruJ;4r.9vuI-.irv,rV nuc, vu LA I. -Is" n "...�VU,e.,:.- I Lane Flow. Rate257 M. �/ol Left,._% .�. ..,._ 5°lu 57%100% Vol Thru, % 81% ^ 0% 0% 0%M ^ 42%° Geometry Grp 2777 5 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 0 01 0 0070 006 0 097 is Traffc VoI by Lane ,_ _ ,� 236. ? _ 4 s 4 81 LT Vol 11 4 4 0 18 3.954 4.632 RT Vol 33 3 0 4 29 Lane Flow. Rate257 M. 4 Geometry Grp 2777 5 7 7 2 Degree wof Util (X) 0 282 0 01 0 0070 006 0 097 is ,._ , , _ _ b Departure Headway (Hd) 3.954 4.632 5.773 4.565 3.984 Convergences Y/N Yes Cap _Yes 908 777 624789 891 Service Time 1 985 2 6333 473 2 265 2045 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.099 HCM Control Dela 8'5 7 7' 8 5 7 3 --'7,5:,, 3 HCM Lane L 0 S A A A A A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 Two -Way Stop -Controlled Alternative 1 1 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 C777 Movement _,.EBLBI. s $ IVB � NBl` �Trafflc Vol, vehlh.9.. 85 353 .�w,. 512 t 168 M., Future Vol, veh/h 29 9 85 353 512 166 _ ConflicfingPeds,#/hre gip. _r 0 0_ �` _ .._ u.._._...n Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free T Chamnelizedaa . m,u �_ None None Storage Length 0 300 100 - -100 _ Veh injMedian Storage, # .0 sn �.m� Grade, % 0� - 0 _ 0 - Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 22 2 Mvmt Flow X32 10 : 92 3$4 _ 557 180 Conflicting Flow All 934 278 557 0 - 0 55f'' Stage 2 377 - - - - - Critical Hd _r 6 84 6 94 � 14 7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Crttical Hd St 2 5_84 �w Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - PotCad T" w. Stage 1 537..- ` h Platoon blocked, % - _ - - Mov Cap Maneuver 177 7 - a6 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver .__. 240 - - - - - 17 _ Sta9e Stage 2 603_ - - - - - 4 X: . ,.... _....w _ ._......,i:..a..... .,,_._..�.._.._,....s_k._�„"...,a,...Sa,.twa.,...,, .a_-,, HCM LOS C7 777 _ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 - 0.131 0.014 HCM Lane LOS A - C B - - HCM 95th %tile Q veh 0 3 0 4 0 �_ _. _ . - Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 01 2035 Plus Project PM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:48:44 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Aston/Barranca Parkway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.541 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 50 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Aston Barranca Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 14 „ User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 1.4 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 14 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 14 ------------ I---------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane': 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 1700 0 1700 1700 5100 1700 1700 6800 1700 ------------1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.32 0.04 0.04 0.34 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 } -+- A, \1, Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1879 2223 54 0 208 Sigri Control, Stop _ ._ .�_ __.. _._...._.__.. Grade 0% 0% 0% Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 pX, platoon unblocked _0:77 _ _�, �u_�� nm_�. 0:88 vC, conflicting volume 2475 3126 634 yC1, stage 1 conf vol a ,._. b�u4 . > a _ vC2, stage 2 conf vol uCu, unblocked vol _u_ b. ._....1401 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 71 _ pO queue 100 00 cM capacity (veh%h) 371 314 831 Volume Total 681 681 681 690 690 690 404 226 Volume Left =0 _. _� . v0 Volume Right 00 0 0 0 0 59 226 cSH 1700 1700_ 1700_ 1700 1200 1700 1700 831 '" _. _ _ _ v. _, Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.24 0.27 y.� Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Lane LOS _B vuw_ , w.' _. Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.9 771 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A AnalysisuPenod(min) w � Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 01 2035 Plus Project PM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:48:44 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.665 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 68 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Barranca Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 5100 1700 3400 6800 1700 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.31 0.06 0.05 0.25 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 O1 2035 Plus Project PM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:48:44 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Armstrong Avenue/Main Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.347 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Main Street Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 0 3400 1700 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 ------------ I---------------II----------.-----II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 01 2035 Plus Project PM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:48:44 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Armstrong Avenue/Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.282 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -• T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0, 1 0 0 0 0 0 - ---=------- I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 665 0 0 394 38 147 0 46 0 0 0. Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 665 0 . 0 394 38 147 0 46 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 20 665 0 0 394 38 147 0 46 0 0' 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 665 0 0 3,94 38 147 0 46 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 •1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00, 1.00 MLF Adj: 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1-.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 20 665 0 0 394 38 147 0 46 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II-----=---------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00• .1.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 0 3400 1700 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 ------------1=--------------II---------------II--=------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.12 '0.02 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c). 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Parkway & Private Drive 7/18/2016 Intersection Delay s/veh 8.8 Intersection LOS A u s.. e.._....... .... .a_ .,.a.. .+r .�... ....- .m ... a+. ..n ..aa:.-i..u..a... , n.�. ,... s..., ....�.a.. _�. �..P: w�.. m.....,�u...vm.+. W...�...: .........r.... _.......... .. s:_ s..:......w...uuv_._..,...au.,...�._ .._ d i..»..._.,_....«i Future Vol, veh/h 0 11 0 21 0 149 0 99 0 5 71 29 0 31 18 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 ' 0 92 0 92 " 0 92 �0 92 ,0 92 0 92 0 92 0.92 Oa92 0 92'. 0 92 '0.92- Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.n 2 R_ 2 2 22� 2 Mvmt Flow 0 12 0 23 0 1620 108 0 5 77 X32 0 34IT 20 m5 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Lanes _1 Conflicting Approach Left._. w .SB �_ �. ,. 4 _.A. of NB .�w,�. ..a.Eg Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflic# ng App ach Right max N,B F ,'u ,SB f .... _ ._ .._._..Y. WB _.x .._.,. ... _ EB` Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 -11'RE® . HCM LOS �A A A A Vol Thru, % 68% 0% 0% 33% f 9% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 1D5 32' 248 54 LT Vol 5 11 149 31 RT Vol 29 21 99 5 Lane flow Rate 114 35 t6""' .__ �1 Geometry Grp 1 1� 1 ,z Degreeof Ufil (X)r 0144 0 042 0 319 l) 078 ,., Departure Headway (Hd) 4.529 4.307 4.262 4.809 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes`�Yes ... _ Cap 792 831 844 745 Service Time_ s G 2 553 2 334 M 2 281 2;83 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.144 0.042 0.32 0.079T HCM Control DelaY 8 3 7.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A A Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 7 HCM 2010 AWSC 7: Private Drive & Main Street 7/18/2016 �tersection _ : a:.a „¢» Intersection Delay s/veh 9 Intersection L08' : 7 _M A Traffic Vol, veh/h µ . ., V_e �.. 4._ 71N -_0 _ 290'"?'—_...am 6 " :,:O 4 ,. 0 4 0 � 4�_._ 0 49 Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 71 1 0 1 290 6 0 4� 0 4 0 0 0 49 Peak Hour Factor ,',0.92 0.92 0 92; 0 92 ! 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92_ 0 92 0.92 0.92 s ',OM Heavy Vehicles, % v 2 _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow �' 0 4 77� 0 13157 0 4 0 w in Number of Lanes 0 0 1 _1y 0 0 �0 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 0 QPP_osing Approach ,"VW13 :SB Opposing Lanes _ 1 1 1 _ �._ 1 ConflictingApproach Lefty SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 w_. Conflictn A roach Ri ht N677-----,,-7771--1-" SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 17-7 1 1 � 1 ,. HCM Control Delay 79 r _ _ _ 9 5 _ . _ k . ..._.., 7 7 w.. . _m _ 7 5 xt HCM LOS ..w_ A _. A A A Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Parkway & Main Street 7/18/2016 hterseQtO. .,' �IN .j xo- a a`asr Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.9 Intersection LOS Future Vol, veh/h 0 37 26 6 0 15 7 18 0 103 50 30 0 74 95 29 Peak Hour Factor 0;.92 0 92 0 921 0 92 0 92 0 920 92 0 92 0 92 0 92' 0 920.92 0 92 0 92v! 0 92 '0>92 _ ... Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .2 2 103 32 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 -77 { ,..,. _v, �,1_. .., ,._..... w......_...,. ,_ a.e..�... e. ....,C,.�>.,...»�.,�.._,.,.-......_,�p..�....n...u........,._-, ._......... �..�-..._.p..�..,....,..>-.:�..._�._n_.P.u...__.�,._......._..w......_,.,_>._,_.... ..-._..._ ERA, OpposingApproa_ch WS� Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SBS 'NB WB > e,�. ti � r Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2� Conflicfmg Approach Righf NBy m'.. Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 mEB 1 H_CM_Control Delay 7 �'L w. _ _ _.S HCM LOS A A� �ILI A a Au. ��..., ro>......., ,,,.{=.w _.R,...e ..,- sC. a._.�..n,,:. ...�..G, r...e., ._tx.,� «.....a��.�..._. ,_.._a.«.. :. _......:.an...+.a,..,... ....... e, .a... ..rs.a:.. u.... ...a ... ..v .�._";"e ..._.sm...�.. ,u'I .aiic t,.-,R,,,y,x,k",Aavuct;.�uu�-uruuf,rruu�c.r�ut�ui ;5:w as .r. a.._. pft V"" 54%' Vol Thru, % 27% 38%� 32% 0%0 48% °l 150/c Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol b Lane _ 183 > 69 22 18 _ 198 > LT Vol 103 37 15 0 74 ThroughyVol 50 26� i 77- 770 957,77 RT Vol 30 6 0 18 29 Lane Flow_Rate 199 75 24 20 215 77 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 Degree_of Util E >> .n > 0 248 0106` 0 039 °0 026 0 266 y W Departure Headway (Hd) 4.492 5.092 5.904 4.853 4.449 Convergence Y/N Ye's Yes' Yes Yes yes _ Cap _ 800 703 606 736 807 Service Time644'2 593 2 473 3 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.249 0.107 0.04 0.027 0.266 HCM Lane LOSA A A A A HCM 95th hle 0 1 0 4 01 01 1 1 _ _ .. �..__..�_..-- _. �.... �,�_.m_. ���_�. �� �m w, �w �� Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 9 HCM 2010 AWSC 9: Private Drive & Main Street 7/18/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9 Intersection LOS` A Traffic Vol�yeh/h �a, 0__. 6,:,,'124 NB 0 0'.-' 7 .... _. x . 1 51 Conflictmggpproach Left `� _0 _ 0 v 34 ,.� O= 1.99- 0 '_ �0 . Future Vol, veh%h �m 0 6 ._ 124 0 0 7 _ ..AO 40 _0 51 0 _. 0 0 34 0 199 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0:92 0'92 0 92 0 92 r , 0 92 .0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0.92 0 92 - 0 92 0 92 y OM92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow_ 0 7 135' 0 0 8 43 55. 0 0 :` 0 37 —67' 216- 6 Number of Lanes ....�._..,......_.._._...�..xiW,,...... 0 ,»..R..�._ � �0 .... e,.u.m.,.......,.. 1 _ ,. M �0 . �_.�ma 0� W......-.......—.ox.,...,..._...�....a 0 �1 1 n„«...nn. � 0 ,.n ..,..,..._..... �0� _«... 1 ._.. ...wN�..,_w.m 0 0 a.. .�..., ..,w. �0� «.. ._. _0 1 � e......_._...._..,. 0 ..__..,.. Opposing Approach WB � SB NB o Opposing Lanes .. _. 2 __�a,EB �-�__._ 1 .... _. x . 1 � � �._ 1 Conflictmggpproach Left `� SB =N6 �� EB WB: Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflictin9dAP.Proach,Right NB -S 6 0 0 Conflicting Lanes Right 1 _._ 1 2 1 HCM Controll)el _ 8,9 81 _._ _. _ v_ -_w �7 7 , 7 HCM LOS A A A A M. �z L.. .�.�_..-...e... .... ....._. .. ..+v�._.._...... :m.. z. r;...,_ ...m_�.w�:��....�."a. .r.._ _ ...k._._...m.�...m....u...e�»..............v.._......,..,.�..wa,.�..�..,..d........_.._. ...._,............_.....��......nan._,«.«..... �,...........__... __..._. __. ;!t _5%' 15% 0%00 1% Vol Thru, /o 85% 0% 0% Vol Right, % z , 100% _ 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop n Traffic Vol by Lane�_34 130: 47"51',`199 w wd ._ LT Vol 0 6 7 0 199 Through Uol 0 124 40 0 0 RT Vol 34 0 0 _ 51 0 LaneFlow Rate w 37 _ r Geometry Grp m __. 2 5 7 7 2 Degreeof lJtil (Xj 0 043 0188 0 076 0 071 0286 x w Departure Headway (Hd) 4.197 4.79'-5 361 4.58-4.767 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes' YesYes Yes _ _._ Cap C66' --'--A-9- 668 781 753 Service Time R 2.239--:2-. 824{ 3 096 2 316 2799 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.188 0.076 0.07 0.287 HCM Control Delays 74 898 5� 7 79 y. HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th file Q 0`1 0 7; .0 .2 0 2 1 2 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 10 HCM 2010 AWSC 10: Parkway & Private Drive 7/18/2016 Intersection Delay, sIveh 8.1 vvb - Lb bb Nb Opposing Lanes 2 1 Vol Thru, % 80% - ------ -- NB :EB vof Right-,­%-�- _Left_, Conflicting Lanes Left _39% Sign Control Stop Stop B -Z Stop Conflicting Lanes Right1 Traff i �q_y_ane4� 55 2 Movement -7- --5- 146M'664�01-befi­-' 1 . 'kc EB T"E 7.6 WBRI.-AB U N B L,NBT..': NM SBU SBL=- SBR Traffic Vol veh/h 0 "22 4 14 -0 21 0, 3, 44 9 �O 171 6 Future Vol, veh/h 7 2 Dqgrqe of Util_(X) 0.071 0.049 .0 .036 '0.025 0.224 Headway 4.548 5.64 4 171 6 Peak Hour Fa6i&-�7 - --- ----- 0-.9-2-09-2--'6.§f Yes Yes k— ' ----- ', Yes Cap 845 792 638 0.9 �-' -. 2' olji ­-O.§� Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 22 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2 2 2 2 0.229 kc -M Control Delay 7, 2 - ------7.8- -8,.-6, 7,-,. -3 --- Mvmt Flow 0 --0 �2 --0"'- 0 15 A 2�3 --2.- 0 21 0 —2— 3 -2 48 '9 0 4 umbe'r-of'L-a-n-e's­-- W 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ypposing Approacn vvb - Lb bb Nb Opposing Lanes 2 1 Vol Thru, % 80% oonfliciiR-g Approach 0% NB :EB vof Right-,­%-�- _Left_, Conflicting Lanes Left _39% Sign Control Stop Stop B -Z Stop Conflicting Lanes Right1 Traff i �q_y_ane4� 55 2 1 146M'664�01-befi­-' 1 . 'kc --------- I- --- ---- -- - ' ' 1 -71',' , 8 7.6 ------------ ; a -L-0- S- A A A A '% I 1U"I 1 1, "W"I I I v v'WW I I v v W"I I&e QWW I I Vol Left Vol Thru, % 80% 0% 0% 0% 94% vof Right-,­%-�- 1, 5--%- _39% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traff i �q_y_ane4� 55 19 LT Vol 3 22 21 0 4 Through Vol 44 0 O� 0 -171 RT Vol 8 14 0 19 6 -"'- 39 �­- -23 21 9 7 2 Dqgrqe of Util_(X) 0.071 0.049 .0 .036 '0.025 0.224 Headway 4.548 5.64 4.433 4.104 -Departure '(Hd)_4.261 wK- Yes Yes Yes Yes ----- ', Yes Cap 845 792 638 811 862 Service Time _ -2-.-2"-6--5--,2-.5,-52- -3.3-44-2.3-3-8-- 219 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 0.049 0.036 0.026 0.229 kc -M Control Delay 7, 7--.-6 - - ------7.8- -8,.-6, 7,-,. -3 --- ---- 8-.-4, -7-7--" l4CVLane'[JdS- '- A AA A A — 0,2 -'-0— .2 -- ----- 0.1'� 01 ------ 0.9 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 Two -Way Stop -Controlled Alternative 1 1 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Armstrong Avenue 1, Parkway 7119/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 -7 - 77 ........... Future Vol, veh/h 147 46 .20 665 394 38 Conflicting7 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT None Channelized None 7e Storage Lenath 0 300 100 100 Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak r Fajfor F2 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 Mvmt Flow 160 50 22 723 428 41 Wpp`fWa c hJWWF;?JMVW, E8' NB- OW09A SB HCM Control Delay: S' 25,-,, 0.2 n HCM LOS D Capacity HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0.531 0.063 HCM Lane LOS A DA -7- =717 % CM�g�jk7o/ q Y Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - N P Page 1 Conflicting Flow All_833 214 428 0 0 E i6-42 �F Stage 2 405 Critical Hd_wy 6.8 6'94,- 77-7�-- 414 u Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 :CT-77`77-�,777- -77777-1 Follow-up Hdwy 3.523.32 .22 Pot q@p-..tMaqquNte -7C-777. -i __791, 28 Stage 1 625 t . ...... "A TL Platoon blocked, %- Mqy �p-� ManeL�v 7-730-1 —7 9-1 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 301 --Z'7--TIL---- af 1 77— 62_5 M Stage 2 629 7, Wpp`fWa c hJWWF;?JMVW, E8' NB- OW09A SB HCM Control Delay: S' 25,-,, 0.2 n HCM LOS D Capacity HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0.531 0.063 HCM Lane LOS A DA -7- =717 % CM�g�jk7o/ q Y Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - N P Page 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JULY 2016 ACCESS ANALYSIS FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN. COUNTY OF ORANGE. CALIFORNIA 1 ATTACHMENT C QUEUING WORKSHEETS 1 1 P:\LPC1501Wccess Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx «07/22/16» 1 Queues 1: Aston & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 292 1843 17 21 2100 67 60 45 47 27 u/c Rano ' 0 68 0 02 016 072 w 0 09 0 53 016 0 48 012 r X0.53 _ wr Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 a * 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0.. 0 „ ^ y w a u Control Delay 41.8 8.8 0.0 41.3 21.6 0.9 58.5 1.3 58.1 1.0 Queue Dela 0'0 00 00 x;00 00 00 '00 00 00, Total Delav _00s 41.8 8.8 0.0 41.3 21.6 0.9 58.5 1.3 58.1 1.0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #274 279 0 34 315 7 #84 0 #68 0 InternalLmkDist(ft) 1095 630 X889 „�� Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 315 145 _b 325 �473� 428 11.27 X130 � 29.19 783 114 :450 _ 98 ;3506 p -431 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0.. 0 0 0 0� .ro. Storage Cap Reductn 00 w_ . ,� ��� 0 0 ��- 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced ylc RaEio0 68 0 53 0 X02 a 016 0 72 0`:09 0 53 010 0 48 0 06 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 �--- k Lane Configurations T`'FT iiia ­ 603 „ f' 655 Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 1663 2109 236 Volum40:1- Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1663 2109 236 0 41 0 0 0 _� `Stop__. _ _ -�_ ------ 0 Grade 0% 0% 0% 1700 1700 1700 1700 791 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0 92 0,92 0.92 0 92 0.39 . _. �. � �m Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 a_ 1808 � 2292 257 0 45 0.0 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (ft) Percent Blockage Rig hu Median type 'e None None ,Median Stora veh ,� a ,� �� f Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 _ pX platoon unblocked 0.83 vC conflicting volume--"--' 2549 3023 702 uC1 sta e 1 conf vol vC2 stage 2 conf vol vCu uriblockedvol1270 T 638 0 tC single (s) 41 6.8 6.9 tF (s) 2.2 pQ queue free %' _ 1;00 3.5 100_ 3.3 �t94 = cM capacity (veh/h) 396 338 791 Volume Total 603 603 603 655 655 655 584 45 Volum40:1- Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 45 cSH 9700 1700 '1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 791 Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.39 0 34 0 06 _ v Queue Len th 95th ft - 0 � • �,,.., �, Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.8 r ._Pp _ A roach LOS I _.__ Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A 15__ Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 1 Queues 3: Armstrong Avenue & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 1264 167 307 2190 215 65 120 148 319 v/c Ratio V-4 "'OR, 019_ 0,68 30 73 025 0_89 0_45 0_64 0 51 0 Bpillback Cap Reductn 0 3. X27.7 Control Delay 64.4 20.9 5.1 57.0 29.1 3.9 135.5 29.8 61.2 Queue Delayu 0:0 0 00 00 0 0 k0 00D 0 0 0 0 0 70 _," Total Delay 64.4 20.9 5.1 57.0 29.1 3.9 135.5 29.8 61.2 27.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) ` X1;83 u. 223a 1'18 395 O a51 20 ' _110 66 '` Queue Length 95th (ft) 273 . X322 53 160 509 49 #140 50 173 104 _ Internal l R Dist,"(ft) 70t1 1065 461 4 591 Tum Bay Length (ft) " 600 �25265 ,. _ _u. 1000 175 "y 150 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bpillback Cap Reductn 0 3. .,,.. Storage Cap Reductn _ 0 .s..__..� .. _ _,n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 Reduced v/c"Ratio " 0,74 0 48 0ti19 " " 061 0:73 y Q'25 ' 0 89 019 0 62 "EA 35a s r Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 2 Queues 4: Armstrong Avenue & Main Street 7/19/2016 '\ t � 4 Cane Grouo_ . ,ry . LL.w .,..`EBL "..EBR �mw1VBL.=NBT, SBT.; :SBR .. f,` s a-7777�?: Lane Group Flow(vph) 15 61 371 461 477 89 v/c Rafio �` 0-;05 0.20 068 0:16 0,44 016 Control Delay 18.2 8.4 24.9 2.7 13.4 4.4 Queue!Dela 0.0 0 0 0 0 s Total Delay 18.2 8.4 24.9 2.7 13.4 4.4 Queue Length 96th (ft) 16 25 #236 35 87 22 InternalLmkDist(ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 100 _ _ Base Capacity (vph) A 821 767547 _3227 a 1962 917 �u meM_ �w Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 . Storage Cap Reductn .� 0 _ — 0 0 0 0 y �m 0 Reduced v/c Ratio w0 02 008 e 0 68° 014 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. J Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 3 1 1 1 Queues 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 I# Lane Group Flow NO) 32 -� r 10 92 384 5 557 180 Control Delay 16.8 10.2 23.6 2.1 6.2 2.4 Queue Dela 0 0 _:U 0000 0 0 00 0 Total Delav 16.8 10.2 23.6 2.1 6.2 2.4 Queue Length 95tpjft) 24 9 55 28 79 26 InternalLrnkDisf(ft) 366` 050 443 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 100 Base Capacitywph) 727 656 222 2425 1141 �u a. x3021 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpillbackCap Reductn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 _0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0 04 0 02 041 013 023 71,0 Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM LSA Analyst - NP Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 9: Private Drive & Main Street 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 _ m A —; Intersection LOS _ _ _ .,._ _ _ _ _ Future Vol, veh/h 0 27 24 0 0 32 172 220 0 0 0 7 0 39 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0 92;-'-0.92., 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 �0 92 092 0 92 0.92' 0.92 0 92 _,� Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 . , 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 29 26' 0 0 35 187 239 0` 0 0` 8 0 42 0 0 Number of Lanes 0� 0 1� 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 - 0 7 7'% Approach ° 7757—�� ���1 �, QPPosing Approach._ WB : EB SB NB �m _ �_ Opposing Lanes 2 _ �. 1 1 1 Conflicti[f Aroach Left ' SB 9 Pp NB EB WB' ._ .. _.._ . Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2777�- 1 HCM Control Delay 78 7 5 — �__..� �_ HCM LOS ." A., A. A� A UoI Left, % _v" 0% 53% 16% 0% 100% Vol Thru, % 0% 47% 84% 0% 0% 100% _0%W 0% A100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic VoI by Lanae 7 u _ 51 204 020 39_.�� _u _.39m. Oil LT Vol 27 32 0 Throu h Vol 0 24 172 _0 0 _9, �. _ ... v_ __� ._ _.w RT Vol 7 0 0 220 0 Lane Flow Rate r _ _ �8 _ 55T 222 239 '42_" Gr 2 Geomet ry P 5 7 7 2 Deeof009 gre 0 072 0 291 0 262 0061ati_ _.,", ,_ _�rrm Departure Hd) 4.431 P YC Headwa 4.678 4.729 3.95 5.182 es Convergence YIN y6 Yes Yes `_" Yes Yes .,..�. Cap 811 769 754 902 695 SerwceTime2 437 2 --,2A93:- X1713 3 186 ` 3....._ __._.�. HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 0.072 0.294 0.265 0.06 HCM ControlDelay 75 8` 9 4 81,8 5 HCM Lane LOS_ A A A A _A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 10 HCM 2010 AWSC 10: Parkway 11 Private Drive 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Intersecflon.a...n. Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 11 192 33 0 18 34 29 Peak Hour Facfor , ry ,0 92 0 92 0 92' 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 v 0 92 Ou92 0 92 ;0 92 , Q92 092 0 92 `v 0 92 0 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2, 2 .2 2 2 2 w 2 u_ 2. 2 _ _.2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 _'o RT Vol 33 3 0 4 29 Geometry Grp _2 5 7 7 2 De ree of Utll X 0 282 0 01 ' 0 007 0 006 0 097 ti Departure Headway (Hd) 3 954 4 632 5 773 4 565 3.984 Convergence, Y/N r _ es Yes' Yes Yes Yes y_ a Cap 908 777 624 789 891_ Servlce;Time 1 985 2 633 3 473 '2.2 2045 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.099 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A 7-7 HCM 95th tele Q T'2 �0 0 0 0 3 a Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 Vol Left,°lo 5% 57%100% Vol Thru, % 81% 0% 0% 0% 42% V01 RI ht % 14% 43%' 0% -100% 36% 9 _ _ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 7 71 Traffic Vol b Lane " 236 7m 4 4 81 LT Vol 11 4 4 0 �18 Through��Uol _ �.R_ _.�,.A am 192 mb 0 0 RT Vol 33 3 0 4 29 Geometry Grp _2 5 7 7 2 De ree of Utll X 0 282 0 01 ' 0 007 0 006 0 097 ti Departure Headway (Hd) 3 954 4 632 5 773 4 565 3.984 Convergence, Y/N r _ es Yes' Yes Yes Yes y_ a Cap 908 777 624 789 891_ Servlce;Time 1 985 2 633 3 473 '2.2 2045 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.099 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A 7-7 HCM 95th tele Q T'2 �0 0 0 0 3 a Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 Queues 1: Aston & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 } I �:ar%e:Group _' < < z i" `EBL« °LLEBT EBR �1jBL 1NBT T V1lBR,. .,NBL'. NBT SBL SBff,7 . m Lane Group Flow (vph) 67 1784 72 73 2485 15 115 75 236 137 plc Ratio 0 37 Q 63 U8 0`39 0:69 x.02 0 86 0 30 -1 86 �0 55 w_ n� _ w �. e Control Delay 43.0 16.0 1.1 42 8 16.5 0.0 92.2 41 441.9 16.5 µ e la 010 00 QueuDe _Y __ 00 00 _ 00 00 a. 00 00 Total Delay 43.0 16.0 1.1 42.8 16.5 0.0 92.2 41 441.9 16.5 Queue Length 50th (1� r 36 239 0 ^39 277 0 66 0 206 rt 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 357 9 79 398 0 #164 8 #349 54 Internal:LmkDist:(ft)1095 630 R 7r<889 fi473 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 315 145 325 Base Capacity (vph) 179 2851 938 X188rt944 N-133 s _ 439 127 434 M W� y m .., m Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn0 �0 0 _ 0 0 _..w 6'. �.� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Rat'io ", 0 37 0 63 0 08 0-:39 0 69 0:02 0 86 017 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th,°percentile volumeexceeds2capacity, queue maybe Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.„ 1 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016.012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 'A --*. * — A,,, 1,W ./ Lane Configurations ttt iiZT.) TraffcVolumeveh/h , 1879 X2223 =54 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1879 2223 �54 208 Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0:92 --0. 0.92 0:92 0:92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2042 2416 59 0 226 Lane Width (ft) WalkingSpeed(?t/s) Percent Blockage Righttilm_fla_re,(veh)___ Media"pe _ None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 _ pX ja atoort unblocked 0:77 vC, conflicting volume 2475 3126 634 vC2, stage 2 cont vol tC, single (s) - 4.1 6.8 �6.9 tF (s) 2.2 _ 3.5 3.3 p0 queueTfree %�. YR .v 100 ___.. _ T100 cM capacity (veh/h) 371 314 831 irectiori,>Lane #` . �, _ EB10� WME94M, EB ,",xWB WWB;2 973-I IN WB:4 .> SB 1tiMM Volume Total _ 681 681 681 690 690 690 404 226 Uolume,,Left .j�..x - "0 0 .w. 0 ." _ 0 .; . . . _� 0 �x 7 Volume Right _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 2261 cSH Y 1700 700 1700 1700 " 9700 9700 1700 ,x'831 m _ _ Volume to Capacity 0 40 0 40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.24 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft)� __.__. _ 0 ._ 0 y0 .'.. 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 �0.0 �0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Lane -LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 v0.0 _ 10.9 _ ntersection,Summa AverageDelay_,.�_�a- Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A '777- _ T _ '__77 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 Queues 3: Armstrong Avenue & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 EBLw,�',%, ;EBRZVg- p WBT, =UVBR . NBL hNBT z. SBL SBT Lan"Gr up Flow (vph) __ 138 1742 109 _ 175 1883 224 254 660 183 220 v/c Ratio H .1.38 - _ 0.84 0.15 .. _ '0.83 _ w,_.. 0.71 _ 0.28 0 53 _ 0 77 _ 0 80 6 59 _- Control Relat 262.2 33.8 1.4 81.8 28.6 3.8 39.9 37.1 72.2 32.7 - 70 0 M 0.6""°.0 0 0 0. 0 00 0 0 OPV _ 0.0. Total Delay 262.2 33.8 14 81.8 _ 28.6 1 w ._ 3_.8 39.9 37.1 _ 7.2.2 -j2.7 _ Queue Length 501h (ft)_ _ -1.32 M1`397 ^^0 ; 64 315 . 0 153-178 126.P� _ 43 Queue Length 95th (ft) #259 463 11 #132 362 46 246 247 #233 80 IntemalLink Dist" ft 7,00 1065 _ 461 591 Tum Bay Length (ft)_ 600 265 1000 175 150 Base Capacity_(vph) 100 2080 _25 ,741 - 211 ;2666 789 _. 475 877 --- 241 _ 899: _ Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,�_.�. _.�. S illback Ca 0 -� ._. .�� _ �.u. �� � _Reductn Storage Cap Reductn_0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio _ 1.38 O 84 0.15 0:83 0.71 0 28 0 53 0 75 0 76 0.24 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. F -I Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 2 1 1 1 Queues 4: Armstrong Avenue & Main Street 7/19/2016 } 4/ Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 309 86 665 4.28 41 0 VL Ratio ��.-0�. w 0 21 x 0 54 0 26 036 Control Delav 15.0 6.4 17.7 5.8 11.3 5.1 Total Delay 15.0 6:4 17.7 5.8 11.3 5.1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 46 53 70 76 15 'Reiri'a-fUnkbiist ft 294 X91 1.050 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 100 Base Ca aci h 908 962 353 3074 2169_ 986 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 _0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 ReducedvlcRatio 0'09 032 024022 020 004 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM LSA Analyst - NP Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Queues 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 � � 4\ Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 50 22 723 428 41 4 vIc Ratto :u 0.46 0,14 0:12 0 30 X019 0 04 v w� Control Delay 21.1 6.5 21.7 5.0 6.4 3.7 Q eu ue pelay 0.0 `0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Total Delay 21.1 6.5 21.7 5.0 6.4 3.7 Queue Length 5Qth (ft) 38 a 0 5 �A 22 �0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 79 19 22 81 74 14 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 100 Base Capacity (vph) �.,_r:652 ,� ,,,614 181 2417 2284 1036 _, __. Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 6 0 0 Spillbacl Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� 21 _W- Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 m Reduced v/c Rabb 0 25 4.,90-4- 0.12 0`30 019 0 04 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM LSA Analyst - NP Synchro 9 Report Page 4 1 1 1 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 9: Private Drive & Main Street 7/18/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9 _,_ r _u. Future Vol, veh/h �Uol Leftti°/u . _. 0 6 124 0 0 7 40 51 0 0 0 34 0 199 0 0 Peak Hour Factor92 . w 0 92 ` 0 92 ` 0 92 U 92 0 92 0 92 a,. 0 92 0 92 0 92 o2 _s2 0.92 0 92 0 92 �2 0 92w 0.92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2.u. 2a.� 2_ 22 RT Vole 34 0 0 51 0 2. 2. 2rt 2 2 Mvmt Flow " 0 7 135.' 0 0 8 43 55 0 0 0 37 D 21 & 0 o Number o Lanes a_ 0 —0 1 0 ,_ �_ 0 _ ._ 0 1 1 w. 0 _ 0 1 0 a.. 0 6 _0 1 0 HCM_ Control Delay 7 4 8 9 8 5. 7 7 9 7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th tele Q„ ._ 0 1 0 7 0 2- 0 21 2' Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 10 701 0/ 5lu ° 15°l0 0%u 100°l0 Vol Thru, % 0% 95% 85% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 100% 0%r 0% 100% �0 . _... Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lariep 34 130 x'47 51 X199 m.. LT Vol 0 6 7 e.a� 0 199 TA0 0:v 124 RT Vole 34 0 0 51 0 Lane Flow Rate_a 37 51 -77 w ,141 w. Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree hof Utilµ(X)`r 0.04 0188 0 076 77 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.197 4.79 5.361 4.58 4.767 _ Convergence Y/NYes_ Yes Yes Yes as _ Cap 850 749 668 _ 781 753 Service_Tirne 2 -2-3"9",',-2:'824—,,3.0-9-6-> 2 316 2 799 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.188 0.076 0.07 0.287� HCM_ Control Delay 7 4 8 9 8 5. 7 7 9 7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th tele Q„ ._ 0 1 0 7 0 2- 0 21 2' Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 10 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 22 0 14 0 21 0 19 0 3 44 8 0 4 171 6 Future Vol, veh/h 0 22 0 14 0 21 0 19 0 3 44 8 0 4 171 6 Peak _Hour Factor 6.92- -0.92---0-.92- A 0._92_ -0-.92- 0.92 0.92 _0:92 _0._92 --0,.-9-,2- 0_.9_ 2, ---- 0.9-2---- -0.92- _-0.92- 0.9_2 0-.92' Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 --,0---- 2 2 , 2 2 2 -9 2 2 2 2 I Mvint, Flow, 0 ,"-24 0.071 0.049 0- 23 0,224 21 01— 3- 4.548 —- __ 0_. _ 4-- 186 J Number __111 0 0 1 __.15 0 0 -.11 1 1 0 0 0 862 1 0 0 0 1 0 Oppo.sinlg,Approach, ------,.-..-WB EB SB I ---------- - NB Opposing Lanes Vol Thru, % 80% 0% Conflicting_Apploach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes left-- - 1 1 --'SB,' 1 2 i qA OA,qtt� pp Mb-- 7 Stop WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HGM Control Delay 7.8 8 7.6 8.4 HCM LOS A A A A Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 61% '100% 0% 2% Vol Thru, % 80% 0% 0% 0% 94% Vol Right, % 15°Io M.' 100016, Sign Control Stop Stop -Stop -Stop Stop Traffic "Vol by Lane- 55 36 21 r 19 181 LT Vol 3 22 21 0 4 Th-ro-64h 44 0 0 0 ..... . 171,, RT Vol 8 14 0 19 6 Lane Flow Rate' 60 39 D 21 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util_(X) 0.071 0.049 0.03-61 01.01251-- 0,224 ------- Departure Headway (Hd) 4.261 4.548 5.64 4.433 4.104 vergence, 'Yes,. Jes, Yes-, I- Yes'- qap845 -Yes,- _1265 - 792 638 811 862 Service Time 2.552 3.344- 2138 2:1,91 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 0.049 0.036 0.026 0.229 HCM Control beI _Lane -LOS _ -''7--.,8'-8,-.-6- 7.3. 4.4 HCM A A A A A HCM 95th tale Q 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 1 Interior Noise Analysis and CalGreen Analysis for "Flight" at Tustin Legacy City of Tustin, California Project #572901-0100-B May 31, 2016 Prepared For Lincoln Property Company 114 Pacifica, Suite 370 Irvine, CA 92618 Prepared By.- Ted y. Ted Lindberg, INCE Bd. Cert. Mike Holritz, INCE Landrum & Brown 19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 230 Tustin, CA 92612 949-349-0671 1 Interior Noise Analysis and CalGreen Analysis for "Flight" at Tustin Legacy City of Tustin 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this report is to determine the noise exposure levels at the planned "Flight" commercial project and determine any potential effects of traffic noise on the proposed project. The project calls for the development of nine commercial buildings, including offices, 'a conference hall, and a conference hall/food hall. 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 noise from traffic on Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. The project is also exposed to aircraft noise from flight operations at John Wayne Airport. 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 overall site plan for "Flight at Tustin Legacy" and the "Architectural 100% DD" drawings by Rios Clementi Hale Studios, dated February 8, 2016. 2.0 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 (November 20, 2012). The standards are based upon the Leq(12) and CNEL metrics. Leq(12) is a 12 -hour average noise level based on the hourly average 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. The noise standards applicable to this project are shown below in Table 1. For typical traffic distributions such as those on the roadways impacting this project, Leq(12) levels are slightly less than the CNEL levels. 1 Page 1 of 15 s� �F1:fN�TtiT'9;v e. ,$ 'T ,r f A Ay- ®� M Project Site . ; 2a, x owt « r ,,IwE . 41 . �. bIH Landrum & Brown Page 2of15 Exhibit 1 I Vicinity Map Page 3 of 15 1 1 L 1 Table 1 City of Tustin Exterior and Interior Noise Standards for Various Land Uses NOTES: 1. CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Leq(12): The A -weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a 12 -hour period (usually the hours of operation). 2. Noise standard with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment. 3. Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets and corridors. 4. Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes, multi -family patios and balconies (with a depth of 6' or more) and common recreation areas. 5. Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic areas, and other areas of frequent human use. For typical traffic distributions such as those on the roadways impacting this project, Leq(12) levels are slightly less than the CNEL levels. Therefore, this report will use CNEL as the comparison metric. With this adjustment to the metrics used, the interior noise standard for private offices and conference rooms is 45 dBA Leq(12). The interior noise standard for offices is 50 CNEL. The interior noise standard for restaurants is 55 CNEL. The City of Tustin does not have any exterior noise standards that would apply to this project. Page 4 of 15 �XToise Statida ds". ` Land' LFse -- Intetio� �e E eitoi Residential - Single fancily, multifamily, du- CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dB; Alex, mobile hone Residential - Trinlsient lodging, hotels, motels, CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dBW lllu'Slllg homes, 110Sp1talS Private offices, church sanctuaries, libraries, board rooms, conference rooms, theaters, Leq(12) 45 dB(A) - auditor]ttns, concert halls, meeting halls, etc. Schools Leq(12) 45 dB(A) Leq(12) 67 dB(.A)3 General offices, reception, clerical, etc. Leq(12) 50 dB(A) - Batik lobo retail store restaurant tj ln- y' T' Leq(12) 55 dB(A) - pool, etc. Manufacturing, kitchen, iva ehousing, etc. Leq(12) 65 dB(A) - Parks, playgzotulds - CNEL 65 dB5 Golf courses, outdoor spectator sports, auutse- _ CNEL 70 dB5 uient parks NOTES: 1. CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Leq(12): The A -weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a 12 -hour period (usually the hours of operation). 2. Noise standard with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment. 3. Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets and corridors. 4. Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes, multi -family patios and balconies (with a depth of 6' or more) and common recreation areas. 5. Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic areas, and other areas of frequent human use. For typical traffic distributions such as those on the roadways impacting this project, Leq(12) levels are slightly less than the CNEL levels. Therefore, this report will use CNEL as the comparison metric. With this adjustment to the metrics used, the interior noise standard for private offices and conference rooms is 45 dBA Leq(12). The interior noise standard for offices is 50 CNEL. The interior noise standard for restaurants is 55 CNEL. The City of Tustin does not have any exterior noise standards that would apply to this project. Page 4 of 15 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. 4.0 Noise Exposure 4.1 Traffic Noise Impacting Project Site The future (year -2025) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue were obtained from Ms. Krys Saldivar at the City of Tustin on September 30, 2015. 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. 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 2 Future Traffic Volumes, Speeds, and Roadway Grades Traffic Volume Roadway (ADT) Speed Grade Barranca Parkway 32,000 50 <3% Armstrong Avenue 7,000 40 <3% Page5of15 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 L 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 dB, 65 dB, and 70 dB 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. Table 4 Distance to Noise Contours for Future Traffic Conditions Roadway Barranca Parkway Armstrong Avenue Distance to CNEL Contours (feet) 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB 117 251 541 19 41 89 The buildings will be exposed to traffic noise from both Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. The buildings will be located from 105 feet to 828 feet from Barranca Parkway, and from 376 feet to 980 feet from Armstrong Avenue. The noise levels at the southern building faces due to noise from Barranca Parkway will range from 54.5 dB to 68 dB CNEL, while the noise levels on the eastern building faces due to noise from Armstrong Avenue will range from 44.3 dB to 50.6 dB CNEL. The worst case noise levels from both roadways at each of the buildings are listed in Table 5. As a worst case projection, noise mitigation of traffic noise due to shielding from intervening buildings was not taken into consideration. 4.2 Aircraft Noise Impacts The standard approach corridor for John Wayne Airport is located over one-half mile west of the project site. As a result, the project will be subject to noise from flight operations associated with the airport. John Wayne Airport publishes annual CNEL noise contours, and the latest set of contours available from the Airport's website is for 2013. A copy of those noise contours is Page 6 of 15 presented in Exhibit 3 along with the location of the project site. The aircraft noise level projected at the project site is expected to be about 55 dB CNEL. Table 5 Distances and Traffic Noise Levels for Each Building Building Distance Noise from from Barranca Barranca Parkway Parkway (ft.) (dB CNEL) Distance from Armstrong Avenue (ft.) Noise from Armstrong Avenue (dB CNEL) Al - Office Building 761 57.8 665 46.9 A2 - Office Building 160 67.9 1,033 '44.0 B - Office Building 688 58.4 906 44.9 C - Office Building 172 67.5 1,328 42.4 D2 — Conference Hall 858 57.0 1,080 43.7 E - Office Building- 1,,172 55.0 645 47.1 F - Office Building 1,247- 54.6 541 48.2 G - Office Building 1,081 55.5 515 48.5 H - Office Building 1,258 54.5 412 50.0 4.3 Total Noise Exposure The project will be exposed to the combination of traffic noise and aircraft noise. The projected the noise levels from the two noise roadways and the aircraft have been combined and the results are presented in Table 6. The individual levels are combined on a logarithmic basis to produce the resulting total noise levels impacting the project site. The results of these calculations shows that the buildings within the project site will be exposed to total noise levels ranging from 58.5 dB to 68.2. dB CNEL. 5.0 Noise Impacts 5.1 Exterior Areas As previously mentioned, the City of Tustin does not have any exterior noise standards that would apply to this project. Therefore, no noise mitigation measures to protect the exterior areas are required or recommended. Page 7 of 15 1 1 1 1 Project Site MI 1 JOHN WAYN"E AIRPORT 2013 ANNUAL 60, 65 70, AND 75' CNEL NOISE CONTOURS Iteatra GraeeAssodates: a fliwzion i MIDE Landrum& Brown 1 Exhibit 3 I John Wayne Airport Noise Contours Page 8 of 15 Table 6 Combined Traffic and Aircraft Noise Levels for Each Building Noise from Noise from Barranca Armstrong Noise from Total Noise Parkway Avenue Aircraft Level Building (dB CNEL) (dB CNEL) (dB CNEL) (dB CNEL) Al - Office Building 57.8 46.9 55 59.8 A2 - Office Building 67.9 44.0 55 68.2 B - Office Building 58.4 44.9 55 60.2 C - Office Building 67.5 42.4 55 67.7 D2 - Conference Hall 57.0 43.7 55 59.2- E - Office Building 55.0 47.1 55 58.3 F - Office Building 54.6 48.2 55 58.3. G - Office Building 55.5 48.5 55 58.7 H - Office Building 54.5 50.0 55 58.4 5.2 Interior Areas The project will need to comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 dB as listed previously in this report. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor -to -indoor building attenuation in order 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 interior noise level standard for that use, and a conclusion regarding whether additional studies are needed for that area, are presented in Table 7. The data in Table 7 shows that in order to meet the applicable interior noise standards, one of the buildings would require approximately 23 dB of noise reduction. The construction details used in determining exterior -to -interior noise transmission loss are presented below. These construction details were taken from the architectural drawings prepared for the project by House and Robertson Architects, dated February 8, 2016. 1 Page 9 of 95 Table 7 Combined Traffic and Aircraft Noise Levels for Each Building Building Total Noise Level (dB CNEL) Land Use Interior Noise Standard (Leq (12)) Noise Reduction Required (dB) Conclusion Al - Office Building 59.8 General Offices 45 dBA 14.8 No Mitigation A2 - Office Building 68.2 General Offices 45 dBA 23.2 No Mitigation B - Office Building 60.2 General Offices 45 dBA 15.2 No Mitigation C - Office Building 67.7 General Offices 45 dBA 22.7 No Mitigation D2 — Conference Hall 59.2 Conference Rooms 45 dBA 14.2 No Mitigation E - Office Building 58.3 General Offices 45 dBA 13.3 No Mitigation F - Office Building 58.3 General Offices 45 dBA 13.3 No Mitigation G - Office Building 58.7 General Offices 45 dBA 13.7 No Mitigation H - Office Building 58.4 General Offices 45 dBA 13.4 No Mitigation The roofs are. flat, with single layer of plywood roofing membrane over tapered rigid insulation over concrete over corrugated metal pan. Minimum concrete depth of 3 ". This roof/ceiling assembly was estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=48 /EWNR=44. Exterior walls will be constructed with aluminum framed curtain wall system using 1 " insulated fixed glass units, Viracon VEI -2M. The 1 " thick assemblies will consist of '/ " glass, % " air gap, and '/a " glass. The walls were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=36 /EWNR=32. The roll -up doors will be made of 1 " thermally broken, insulated sectional door panels with insulated glazing unit, Viracon VEI -2M. The 1 " thick assemblies will consist of '/ " glass, %" air gap, and % " glass. The doors were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=36 /EWNR=32 The operable doors will be aluminum framed doors with 1 " insulated glass units, Viracon VEI -2M. The 1 " thick assemblies will consist of '/a " glass, % " air gap, and '/ " glass. The doors were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=34 / EWNR=30. The operable windows will be aluminum framed doors with I " insulated glass units, Viracon VEI -2M. The I " thick assemblies will consist of %" glass, '/z " air gap, and '/ " glass. The windows were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=34 /EWNR=30. Page 10 of 15 The fixed windows will be aluminum framed doors with I " insulated glass units, Viracon VEI-2M. The I" thick assemblies will consist of % " glass, % " air gap, and '/ " glass. The windows were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=36 / EWNR=32. The project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 dBA Leq(12). To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor -to -indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The project building surfaces nearest to Barranca Parkway will be exposed to a maximum noise level of 68.2 CNEL and, therefore, will require at least 23.2 dB of noise reduction in order to meet the 45 dBA Leq(12) interior noise standard. Based upon the construction details and the EWNR values listed above, the exterior -to -interior noise reduction was calculated for a number of offices in the project. Calculations indicate that the worst-case offices will achieve an outdoor -to -indoor traffic noise reduction of at least 28 dB. This exceeds the required reduction of 23.2 dB. Therefore, all offices are projected to meet the 45 dBA Leq(12) interior noise standard without building upgrades. 6.0 CalGreen Analysis 6.1 Introduction The purpose of this section of the report is to demonstrate compliance of the project with the noise related requirements of CalGreen as enforced by the City of Tustin. The site will be exposed to noise from traffic on Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. This section specifies any mitigation measures necessary to meet the CalGreen acoustic standards for traffic noise. 6.2 Noise Standards The CalGreen acoustical requirements are called out in Section 5.507.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) and in the supplement effective July 1, 2012. These requirements are applicable to the commercial portion of this project. This project experiences traffic noise that regularly exceeds 65 dBA, and therefore, is subject to specific requirements called out in Section 5.507.4 of CalGreen. The following exterior building element criteria are contained in CalGreen: The roof must meet an STC 50 rating, the exterior walls must achieve an STC 50 rating, and the windows must have an STC 40 rating, • The interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hour of Page 11 of 15 operation. This approach is referred to as the "performance method" (see Section 5.507.4.2 of CalGreen). The performance method has been used for this anal 6.3 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". 6.4 Noise Exposure The future (year -2025) average. daily traffic (ADT) volumes for Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue were obtained from Ms. Krys Saldivar at the City of Tustin on September 30, 2015. The peak -hour traffic volumes were estimated to be 10% of the ADT's. The speed limits for the roadways were obtained and used in the noise analysis. The peak -hour traffic volumes and vehicle speeds used in the CNEL calculations are presented below in Table 8. Table 8 Future Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes and Speeds The traffic distribution that was used in the CNEL calculations is listed previously in Table 3. Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The two buildings closest to Barranca Parkway are the A2 Office and C Offices. The nearest building faces will be located approximately 160 feet from the roadway centerline and will be exposed to a peak -hour traffic noise level of 68.5 dBA Leq. The building face nearest Armstrong Avenue is approximately 1,033 feet from the roadway centerline, and will be exposed to a peak -hour traffic noise level of 44.6 dBA Leq. At the worst-case corner of the building, the combined noise level will be 68.5 dBA Leq. 6.5 CalGreen Traffic Noise Requirement for Commercial Spaces The project must comply with the CalGreen indoor noise standard of 50 dBA (peak -hour Leq). To meet the interior noise standard, the building 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 Page 12 of 15 ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED Barranca Parkway Armstrong Avenue 6,000 700 50 40 The traffic distribution that was used in the CNEL calculations is listed previously in Table 3. Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The two buildings closest to Barranca Parkway are the A2 Office and C Offices. The nearest building faces will be located approximately 160 feet from the roadway centerline and will be exposed to a peak -hour traffic noise level of 68.5 dBA Leq. The building face nearest Armstrong Avenue is approximately 1,033 feet from the roadway centerline, and will be exposed to a peak -hour traffic noise level of 44.6 dBA Leq. At the worst-case corner of the building, the combined noise level will be 68.5 dBA Leq. 6.5 CalGreen Traffic Noise Requirement for Commercial Spaces The project must comply with the CalGreen indoor noise standard of 50 dBA (peak -hour Leq). To meet the interior noise standard, the building 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 Page 12 of 15 characteristic transmission loss. The critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, and insulation. Exterior building surfaces at the worst-case location will be exposed to a peak -hour Leq noise level of about 68.5 dBA, and therefore, interior areas at this location will require at least 18.5 dB exterior -to -interior noise reduction in order to meet the CalGreen 50 dBA peak -hour interior noise standard. Based upon the construction details and the EWNR values listed above, the exterior -to -interior noise reduction was calculated for a number of offices in the project. Calculations indicate that the worst-case offices will achieve an outdoor -to -indoor traffic noise reduction of at least 28 dB. This exceeds the required reduction of 18.5 dB. Therefore, all offices are projected to meet the CalGreen 50 dB Leq interior noise standard without building upgrades. 1 1 Page 13 of 15 1 1 1 APPENDIX CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS DATA USED TO DETERMINE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONCEPT PLAN (CP) 2016-001, DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2016-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2016-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2016-23, MINOR MODIFICATION 2016-01 AND MINOR MODIFICATION 2016-02 PLANNING AREA 9-12, NEIGHBORHOOD E (.FNFRAI (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped September 19, 2016, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. Phase 1 consist of nine (9) buildings and one parking garage with a total of 390,440 square feet. Phase 2 consist of two (2) sub -phases with eight (8) buildings and one (1) parking garage with a total of 479,560 square feet. Altogether the proposed project would construct 854,477 square feet of office space, 11,970 square feet of restaurant space and 3,553 square feet of meeting space for a total of 870,000 square feet of development. CP 2016-001 includes the proposed development within Phase 1 and illustrative development potential within Phase 2. DR 2016-001 approval comprises the proposed development within Phase 1 only. Proposed development within Phase 2 would require future submittal of a Site Plan and Design Review to the Community Development Department for review and approval. Any changes in the approved project and/or phasing shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department. The Director of Community Development may approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the TCC. (***) 1.2 Except as otherwise provided by the Conditions of Approval, the Development Agreement and/or the Subdivision Map Act, the subject project approval shall become null and void unless one or more permits are issued and substantial construction is underway prior to the later of i) the deadline for Developer Completion of construction of the Phase 1 Horizontal Improvements and Minimum Phase 1 Vertical Improvements (as such deadline may be extended by Force Majeure Delay) set forth in SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) BUILDING CODE (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement (Cornerstone 1); and (ii) the expiration of the Phase 1 Term of Development Agreement 2016-001 (as such expiration date may be extended by Force Majeure Delay). Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.4 Approval of the proposed project is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk -Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) 1162(a). (1) 1.6 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. Within ten (10) working days after approval, the applicant shall pay any outstanding fees to reimburse the City for costs related to Code Enforcement activity. (1) 1.7 CUP 2016-02 may be reviewed on an annual basis, or more often if necessary, by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with CUP 2016-02, or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding tenants or neighborhood, the Community Development Director shall impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts, or may initiate proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. (1) 1.8 If in the future the City's Community Development Director, Police Chief, and/or Public Works Department determine that a parking, traffic, or noise problem exists on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the facility, the Community Development Director, Police Chief, and/or Public Works Department may require that the applicant prepare a parking demand analysis, traffic or queuing study, or noise analysis and the applicant shall Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy bear all associated costs. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic or noise problem, the applicant shall be required to provide mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, Police Chief, and/or Public Works Department. Said mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Adjust hours of operation. b. Provide additional parking. c. Engage parking attendants. (1) 1.9 As a condition of approval of the project, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.10 All activities shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. (***) 1.11 The applicant shall comply with executed Development Agreement 2016- 00.1 and associated Disposition and Development Agreement. (***) 1.12 A sidewalk shall be installed on both sides of Flight Way for Phase land only on the north side of Flight Way for Phase 2. (***) 1.13 Street lights shall be installed along both sides of the private drive aisles (Flight Way and Airship Avenue). (1) 1.14 The proposed project shall comply with the City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance as identified in Section 9265 the TCC. TDM program plans shall be prepared for the proposed project and shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. (1) 1.15 The applicant shall make the required deposits for plan check and permit issuance in accordance with the City's most recent fee schedule, or as otherwise required by Development Agreement 2016-001. (1) 1.16 All new structures shall provide adequate radio coverage for City emergency service workers operating on the 800 MHz Countywide Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy Coordinated Communication System. Further, the applicant/owners or tenants shall maintain a reasonable standard of reliable radio communication within their buildings and structures once a certificate of occupancy is issued or a final inspection is conducted. For the purposes of this section, adequate radio coverage shall include those specifications in the City of Tustin Public Safety Radio System Coverage Specifications set forth in Chapter 10, Section 8958 of the TCC, even if the project is exempt from Section 8958. (City of Tustin Public Safety Radio System Coverage Specifications). STREET IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (***) 2.1 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of full width improvements to the public portion of Flight Way from Barranca Parkway to the entrance of the Property including utilities, curb adjacent sidewalks on both sides of the street, and street lights along both sides of the street. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property between Barranca Parkway and the Food Hall Building shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. (***) 2.2 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of the public portion of Flight Way and Barranca Parkway. Intersection enhancement shall include the creation of left turn lane on Barranca Parkway to Flight Way, additions of signal apparatus including loops and interconnects, signing and striping modifications as necessary, and restoration of landscape medians impacted by left -turn enhancements or median modifications. (***) 2.3 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to Barranca Parkway from the public portion of Flight Way to Armstrong Avenue. Developer shall design and construct the decelerating and accelerating lane and meandering sidewalk on Barranca Parkway along project frontage from Armstrong Avenue to Flight Way. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property along Barranca Parkway from Flight Way to Armstrong Avenue as approved for Phase 1 of the Project from back of curb to landscape set back limits shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. (***) 2.4 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to Armstrong Avenue from Legacy Park to Barranca Parkway, including curb adjacent sidewalks adjacent to the Property. Developer shall also provide final/finish surface course Asphalt Rubber Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy Hot Mix (ARHM) paving on Armstrong Avenue from Warner Avenue to Barranca Parkway, traffic striping and raise any manhole to grade. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property along Armstrong Avenue from Legacy Park to Barranca Parkway as approved for Phase 1 of the Project from back of sidewalk to landscape set back limits shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. Developer shall additionally construct the curb adjacent sidewalk along' the west side of Armstrong Avenue from Legacy Park to Warner Avenue. Developer shall install signal conduit, pull boxes and cable for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Airship Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. (***) 2.6 Developer shall be responsible for the design and . construction of landscape and irrigation system along Armstrong Avenue adjacent to the property. (***) 2.6 . Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of a four- way traffic signal, including loops, interconnects, and radar detection system at the intersection of southerly project entrance and Armstrong Avenue. (***) 2.7 Developer shall design and construct the public storm drain system, wet utilities, and dry utilities along Flight Way connecting to and crossing Legacy Park (Tract No. 17144, Lots "AA" and "BB"), and the public storm drain system along the north side of Phase 1 adjacent to the Food Hall Building in the locations required pursuant to the DDA and the Entitlement Approvals. Developer shall provide the necessary utility. and access easement to the City. (***) 2.8 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to Airship Avenue between Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue, including utility improvements, street lighting and curb adjacent sidewalks in the locations required pursuant to the DDA and the Entitlement Approvals. Developer shall also provide final/finish surface course ARHM paving, traffic striping and raise any manhole to grade. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property as approved for Phase 1 of the Project shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 2.9 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to the private portion of Flight Way between the entrance of the Property and Armstrong Avenue, including utility improvements, street lighting and curb adjacent sidewalks, except that between Airship Avenue Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy and Armstrong Avenue sidewalk improvements need only be constructed on the north side of Flight Way. Developer shall also provide final/finish surface course ARHM paving, traffic striping and raise any manhole to grade. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property as approved for Phase 1 of the Project shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 2.10 Construction of interim landscaping on Phase 2, as more specifically set forth in the DDA and the Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement, as and when required thereby. Such landscaping shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 2.11 All public improvements itemized in the Development Agreement for Phase 1 and Phase 2 shall be completed in accordance with the timing specified in the Agreement. (1) 2.12 Separate twenty-four (24) by thirty-six (36) inches from the street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for all construction within the public right-of-way along "A" Street, Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue, as applicable. All improvements itemized in the Development Agreement shall be installed consistent with the timeframes set forth in the Development Agreement. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Curb and Gutter b. Sidewalk, including curb ramps for the physically disabled c. Underground utility connections d. Signing/striping plan e. Traffic signal f. Street lighting g. Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connection to existing storm drain system h. Domestic water facilities i. Reclaimed water facilities j. Sanitary sewer facilities k. Landscape/irrigation In addition, a twenty-four (24) by thirty-six (36) inch reproducible construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation may be required. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy (***) 213 The proposed landscaping material along "A" Street, Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue shall be consistent with the Tustin Legacy Backbone Street Plant Palette, Legacy Park Plant Palette, or as approved by the Community Development Director and/or the City Engineer. (1). 2.14 Developer shall provide a Geotechnical Report, Pavement Analysis, and Design Report for all required Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure improvements required in the Tentative Tract Map. (1) 2.15 Preparation of plans for and construction of: a. All sanitary sewer facilities shall be submitted as required by the City Engineer and local sewer agency. These facilities shall include a gravity flow system per the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. b. A domestic water system shall be designed and installed to the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Improvement plans shall also be reviewed and. approved by the Orange County Fire Authority for fire protection purposes. The adequacy and reliability of water system design and the distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated. The water distribution system and appurtenances shall also conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department. Any required reclaimed water system shall meet the standards as required by the Irvine Ranch Water District. (1) 2.16 Existing sewer, domestic water, reclaimed water and storm drain service laterals shall be utilized whenever possible. (1) 2.17 Any damage done to existing public street improvements and/or utilities shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development. (1) 2.18 All utility lines shall be placed underground by the developer. (1) 2.19 Current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements shall be met at all driveways and sidewalks adjacent to the site. City of Tustin standards shall apply, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (1) 2.20 A street lighting system shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of Tustin and Southern California Edison. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy (1) 2.21 Class II Bike Lanes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan requirements and approved street improvement plans. (***) 2.22 The minimum pipe diameter for all public storm drains shall be twenty-four (24) inches. (1) 2.23 Developer shall be responsible for abandoning and removing all existing utilities within the current and proposed roadway sections. (1) 2.24 Developer shall be responsible for connection of the project to new backbone utility systems. The applicant shall provide applicable easements for any new utilities on private property. (1) 2.25 As part of the final design process and to comply with the Final EIR/EIS requirements for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, the applicant shall submit detailed 100 -year storm event hydrology calculations for the existing pre -project condition and for the project condition. As part of the study, the project's contribution to the overall increase in stormwater runoff from the redevelopment of MCAS Tustin shall be estimated and the potential design and construction costs to mitigate the increase stormwater discharge contribution from the project shall be determined. (1) 2.26 Developer shall enter into a Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement with the City of Tustin for the construction, maintenance, repair and replacement of the landscaping described in the Developer Agreement for the maintenance of parkway improvements within public rights-of-way adjacent to the project along "A" Street, Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. (1) 2.27 CADD Requirements - In addition to the normal full-size map and plan submittal, all final maps and plans including, but not limited to, tract maps, parcel maps, right-of-way maps, records of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format to the Satisfaction of the City Engineer. a. The standard file format is AutoCAD Release 2009, or latest version, having the extension "DWG". All layering and linotype conventions are AutoCAD -based (latest version available upon request from the Public Works Department). Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy b. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time plans are approved, and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. No project bonds will be released until acceptable "as built" CADD files have been submitted to the City. SITE & BUILDING DESIGN (4) 3.1 Project materials shall substantially comply with those identified in the approved plans (as such plans may be modified pursuant to the Conditions of Approval). Additional color and material samples may be requested by City staff at the time of plan check. Substitutions to the approved materials may occur subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Enhancements to the architectural detailing may be required at the time of plan check based on the proposed materials. (4) 3.2 - All roof access shall be provided from the inside of the building. (4) 3.3 No exterior downspouts shall be permitted. All roof drainage shall utilize interior piping and may have exterior outlets into landscaped areas at the base of the building. Any roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so that overflow drainage will not stain the walls. (4) 3.4 All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be painted to match the building. (4) 3.5 All rooftop mounted equipment shall be installed at a minimum height of six (6) inches below the top of the parapet so as not to be visible from the public right-of-way and parking lot areas. No rooftop mounted equipment shall be visible from Armstrong Avenue or Barranca Parkway which may require adjustments to equipment and/or the parapet to meet this condition. (4) 3.6 Utility meters located outside of the building shall be screened with landscaping to the greatest extent possible. Electrical transformers shall be located in areas with room for landscape screening to be planted outside the required access space. (4) 3.7 Backflow devices and double detector checks shall be painted to match surrounding landscaping when in planters or painted to match the building when located adjacent to. Landscaping shall be utilized to screen the devices where possible. (1) 3.8 No outdoor storage shall be permitted except as approved by the Community Development Director. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy (1) 3.9 At plan check, trash enclosures shall be designed with roofs/covers that are architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings. (1) 3.10 Freestanding walls and fencing shall be treated with graffiti -resistant coating. LANDSCAPING (1) 4.1 Landscape plans shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Ordinance No. 1457, regarding the water conservation requirements stipulated in the Governor's Executive Order B-29-15 and the City's Water Management Plan. (1) 4.2 All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy and vigorous condition typical to the species in accordance with the approved landscape plan. Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition, which includes, but is not limited to trimming, mowing, weeding, litter removal, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of diseased or dead plants. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — JOINT USE PARKING (***) 5.1 In accordance with the Shared Parking Analysis prepared by LSA Associates (dated August 3, 2016), Phase 1 of the proposed project shall include the construction of a total of 1,544 parking spaces; a 1,158 space parking garage, a 219 -space parking lot located on the northern portion of the project site, a 54 -space parking lot located on the southern portion of the project site and 113 on -street spaces along various internal drive aisles within the project. Any changes of on-site parking, parking lot and/or circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. (***) 5.2 A Parking Management Plan shall be prepared for the project and reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Said plan shall describe how the parking will work within the project, including to the extent appropriate, the number of parking spaces assigned per building and/or tenant. If parking impacts are identified on-site or iri the immediately adjacent park areas during either Phase 1 or Phase 2, the Community Development Department shall have the ability to re-evaluate the plan and request that the applicant modify it accordingly to mitigate any impacts identified. (1) 5.3 Applicant shall not lease parking lot(s) and/or parking structure(s) within the project site for off-site uses. (1) 5.4 Applicant may charge separately for parking for employees and/or Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy customers and guests to the project subject to the approval of a Parking Management Plan by the Community Development Department. (1) 5.5 Installation of gates across certain private drives to facilitate payment and enforcement of parking requirements shall be subject to approval of a Parking Management Plan by the Community Development Department. (1) 5.6 A written and recorded agreement shall be required assuring the continued availability of the number of stalls designated for joint use and availability of reciprocal access easements. Said agreement shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development. MASTER SIGN PLAN (1) 6.1 Applicant shall submit a Master Sign Plan for the project that is in accordance with MCAS Specific Plan/Reuse Plan and/or the TCC. Said plan shall be designed in accordance with both documents and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development and/or Planning Commission. The Director of Community Development may approve modifications to the master sign plan that are consistent with the intent of the Tustin City Sign Code. Such modifications shall be accompanied with findings to support said decision. (1) 6.2 A sign permit shall be applied for and obtained from the Community Development Department prior to constructing, erecting, altering, replacing, moving, or painting any sign, except for signs exempt from a permit according to the Tustin Sign Code. Permit applications shall be accompanied by information as required for a standard sign plan or master sign plan, pursuant to the Tustin Sign Code. (1) 6.3 All signs shall conform to the approved Master Sign Plan and revert to the City of Tustin Sign Code for any issues that remain silent in said Plan. (1) 6.4 All signs shall be structurally safe and maintained in good condition at all times. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to order repair, replacement, or removal of any signs which constitute a hazard or nuisance to the safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, or obsolescence. (1) 6.5 All signs shall be constructed of a non -corrosive, rust -resistant finish so as not to degrade in adverse weather conditions. (1) 6.6 The locations for any signs shall comply with the City of Tustin Guidelines for Determining Sign Location Visual Clearance and Public Safety Areas. Signs shall not be placed in a manner that will obstruct or inhibit sight Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy distance or visibility for the motorist. At plan check submittal, all signs shall be clearly identified on plans as to the exact locations. Any signs in proximity to the public right-of-way that could impact driver sight shall be shown at a larger scale that will be adequate for plan check purposes. (1) 6.7 Center Identification monument signs to The Flight at Tustin Legacy shall include the Tustin Legacy community name where text is applied. BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 7.1 Except as provided in the Development Agreement, at the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the latest edition of the codes (building codes, Green Building Code), City Ordinances, State, Federal laws, and regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City of Tustin. (1) 7.2 Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit, Developer shall install chain link fence with green screen along Phase 2 boundary along Armstrong Avenue, drive aisles, and Barranca Parkway. (1) 7.3 A photometric drawing of the parking structure showing compliance with the City's required lighting levels will be required at the time of plan check submittal. (1) 7.4 All private on-site design and construction of improvement work shall be designed and performed in accordance with the applicable portions of the City of Tustin's "Grading Manual" and "Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drain and On -Site Private Improvements," except as otherwise approved by the Building Official. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Sidewalks and paths of travel, including curb ramps for the physically disabled; all sidewalks and pathways shall comply with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act; b. Drive aprons; c. Signing/striping plan; d. Street lighting; e. Street and drive aisle paving; all private streets, drive aisles, and curb return radius shall be consistent with the City's design standards for private street improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Official, and all roadway and driveway Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy widths and parking area widths (and lengths where appropriate) shall be dimensioned on the plans; f. Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connections to the public storm drain system with approval of the City of Tustin; g. Sanitary sewer facilities: All sanitary sewer facilities must be submitted as required by the Building Official and IRWD. These facilities shall be consistent with the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District; h. Underground utility connections: All utility lines shall be placed underground by the developer; i. Fire hydrants; Telecommunications facilities including, but not limited to, telephone and cable television facilities. Developer is required to coordinate design and construction of cable television facilities with a City -franchised system operator and shall not place an undue burden upon said operator for the provision of these facilities. (1) 7.5 The applicant shall submit a Noise Study for Phase 2 that determines the attenuation measures required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. GRADING AND DRAINAGE CONDITIONS (1) 8.1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a final grading plan, prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted and approved. The grading plan shall be consistent with the approved site and landscaping plans. (1) 8.2 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a grading bond (on a form acceptable to the City) will be required. The engineer's estimate, which covers the cost of all work shown on the grading plan, including grading, drainage, water, sewer and erosion control, shall be submitted to the City for approval. (1) 8.3 The entire Phase 1 site shall be rough graded at one time prior to the construction of Phase 1. 1 Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy WATER QUALITY (1) 9.1 This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State, and Regional Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations. (1) 9.2 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP shall identify Low Impact Development (LID) principles and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to retain storm water and treat predictable pollutant run-off. (1) 9.3 The Priority WQMP shall identify: the implementation of BMPs, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessees, etc.), and reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. (1) 9.4 Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the applicant shall submit a deposit of two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,700.00) to the Public Works Department for the estimated cost of reviewing the WQMP. (1) 9.5 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall record a "Covenant and Agreement Regarding O & M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality BMPs, Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification" with the County Clerk -Recorder. (1) 9.6 This document shall bind current and future owner(s) of the property regarding implementation and maintenance of the structural and non- structural BMPs as specified in the approved WQMP. (1) 9.7 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Quality Control Board. COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND AGENCIES (1) 10.1 Developer shall obtain permission from and coordinate with affected property owners, jurisdictions, and resource agencies for all public and private improvements, including, but not limited to, the following: Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy a. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. b. The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of the bus stop locations with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). c. The applicant shall obtain written approval'and/or permits from the applicable utility companies, including but not limited to Southern California Edison, The Gas Company, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), AT&T, Cox Communications, Time Warner, etc. d. The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of all utilities with the utility providers and the City. e. Street improvement plans and signal plans along Barranca Parkway and Aston Street shall be submitted to the City of Irvine for review and approval, as these improvements directly affect traffic operations in the City of Irvine. SOLID WASTE RECYCLING CONDITIONS (1) 11.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Reduction Plan (WRRP). a. Developer/contractor is required to submit a WRRP to the Public Works Department. The WRRP must indicate how the applicant will comply with the City's requirement (City Code Section 4351, et al) to recycle at least fifty (50) percent of the project waste material or the amount required by the California Green Building Standards Code. b. Developer will be required to submit a fifty dollars ($50.00) application fee and a cash security deposit. All commercial projects shall submit a security deposit in the amount of five (5) percent of the project's valuation as determined by the Building Official, rounded to the nearest thousand, or two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), whichever is greater. In no event shall a deposit exceed twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). c.' Prior to issuance of any permit, Developer shall submit the required security deposit in the form of cash, cashier's check, personal check, or money order made payable to the "City of Tustin". (1) 11.2 Facility Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Plan. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy a. The applicant, property owner, and/or tenant(s) are required to participate in the City's recycling program. b. Waste and Recycling collection facilities shall be equally and readily accessible by the property owner(s) or tenant(s). c. Waste and Recycling collection facilities must be placed in a location that can be easily and safely accessed by the solid waste hauler while utilizing either front loader or side loading equipment. d. Adequate collection capacity shall be provided to insure that collection frequency shall not exceed four times per week for commercial customers. e. All trash enclosures shall utilize the City's standard enclosure designed with roof to accommodate at least two (2) 4 -yard bins, with at least one (1) bin reserved for recyclable materials. f. Businesses that will be large generators of organic waste such as food scraps shall also provide space for a sixty (60) gallon cart as part of the State required organics diversion program. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS (1) 12.1 Prior to Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) clearance of a final map, a fire master plan is required to be submitted to OCFA for review. (1) 12.2 Prior to concealing interior construction, a sprinkler monitoring system plan and fire alarm system plan must be prepared and submitted to OCFA for review. (1) 12.3 Emergency Access Easements: Irrevocable reciprocal access easements for emergency access purposes to the benefit of the City shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or, where no final map is required, prior to approval of the fire master plan. (1) 12.4 Lumber -drop inspection: After installation of required fire access roadways and hydrants, the applicant shall receive clearance from the OCFA prior to bringing combustible building materials on-site. Call OCFA Inspection Scheduling at (714) 573-6150 with the Service Request' number of the approved fire master plan at least five (5) days in advance to schedule the lumber drop inspection. (1) 12.5 Emergency Responder Digital Radio System: Evidence of compliance with emergency responder digital radio system performance criteria shall be Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy provided prior to occupancy. Refer to OCFA Guideline E-03 or the local jurisdiction's emergency responder radio ordinance, as applicable, for requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL (1) 13.1 All mitigation measures related to the project that are required by the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the MCAS Tustin, identified in this exhibit and in other related project entitlements, shall be implemented. Additional measures related to development of this project as noted in the adopted EIS/EIR and are not previously identified in this exhibit as a condition of approval are required as follows: a. Prior to issuance of any permits, the developer shall retain a County -certified archaeologist. If buried resources are found during grading within the reuse plan area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. b. The developer shall comply with the requirements established in a Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) prepared for the site, which details the methods to be used for surveillance of construction grading, assessing finds, and actions to be taken in the event that unique paleontological resources are found. C. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Community Development Department that a County -certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct salvage excavation of unique paleontological resources if they are found. d. Prior to issuance of any permit, the developer shall provide traffic operations and control plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. The plans shall address roadway and lane closures, truck hours and routes, and notification procedures for planned short-term or interim changes in traffic patterns. Such plans shall minimize anticipated delays at major intersections. Prior to approval, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall review the proposed traffic control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction. e. The applicant shall comply with all City policies regarding short- term construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site Exhibit 13 - The The Flight at Tustin Legacy and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed fifteen (15) miles per hour. f. The developer shall coordinate with the Tustin Police Department to ensure adequate security provisions are implemented. FEES (1) 14.1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a. Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. b. Engineering plan check and permit fees to the Public Works Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. c. OCFA plan check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. d. Payment of Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the Tustin Public Works Department are required at the time a building permit is issued. e. Water and sewer connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District. f. Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), Benefit Area "B" fees based upon the most current rate of new or added gross square floor area of construction or improvements to the Community Development Department. g. New construction fee in the amount often cents ($0.10) per square foot. h. School facilities fee in the amount as required by Tustin Unified School District. i. Other applicable Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program fees. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy (1) 14.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of final approval of the project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above -noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4324 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-15 AUTHORIZING ON-SITE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONSUMPTION AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT (FOOD HALL/CONFERENCE CENTER) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN 870,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT WITHIN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREAS 9-12 OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (100 - 750 FLIGHT WAY) The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by Flight Venture LLC for the development of an 870,000 square foot commercial mixed-use project on approximately thirty-eight (38) acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin (the City) within a portion of Planning Areas 9-12 of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan. The project will include a creative office use campus with retail use (Food Hall) and conference center. LPC West LLC is requesting authorization for on-site alcoholic beverage consumption and , live entertainment in conjunction with a Food Hall/Conference Center located in the small office campus area in the northern portion of the project site. B. The project site is zoned MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP -1) and has a General Plan land use designation of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which provides for a variety of uses including industrial, research and developments, professional office, retail and specialized employment and merchandizing uses to compliment adjacent areas within the vicinity. Pursuant to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.7.4.A.3, alcoholic beverage sales establishments are conditionally permitted in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Sections 3231 and 9232, the establishment of any live entertainment with three (3) or more performers is conditionally permitted. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -element of the City's General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub -element. C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2016-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2016-15 on September 27, 2016, by the Planning Commission. Resolution No. 4324 Page 2 D. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare; the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or the community as a whole of the City in that: 1. The proposed sale of on-site alcoholic beverages and ancillary live entertainment in conjunction with a proposed Food Hall/Conference Center use is allowed within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan with the approval of a CUP. 2. Pursuant to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.14.2, on-site alcoholic beverage sales establishments in all planning areas (except Planning Area 15), are exempt from distance separation requirements to residential uses, sensitive uses, and other alcoholic beverage sales establishments. 3. As conditioned, the proposed on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages is consistent with the Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishment Guidelines as amended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council on May 21, 2001. 4. The proposed on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages would be in conjunction with a Food Hall/Conference Center where food will be served at all times when alcoholic beverages are served. 5. The proposed live entertainment of three (3) or more musical performers or other similar performances would be ancillary to the Food Hall/Conference Center use and would be conducted at the same time when food and alcohol will be served and limited to no more than ten (10) times per month. 6. The design for the outdoor seating area adjacent to the Food Hall/Conference Center is compatible with the proposed design and function of the creative office campus. 7. The outdoor seating area is included in the Shared Parking Analysis for the restaurant use, which can be accommodated by the proposed joint - use parking arrangement within Phase 1 the project site. , 8. The Food Hall/Conference Center with ancillary live entertainment is located in a separate stand-alone building (Building D) within the Resolution No. 4324 Page 3 creative office campus and will be shared by all users within Phase 1 and, Phase 2. The characteristics of the proposed use and hours of operation for both the Food Hall/Conference Center would be similar to the complimentary to the other office uses within the project and vicinity. Ancillary live entertainment would take place during the hours of operation for the Food Hall/Conference Center. Hours of operation for both the Food Hall/Conference Center and live entertainment would be similar to hours of operation within the office campus. 9. The City's Police Department has reviewed the application and has no immediate concerns. E. On January 16, 2001, the City's certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR, along with its Addenda and Supplement, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS, Tustin. An environmental checklist attached hereto as Exhibit B has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not to result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council to approve CUP 2016-001 and CUP 2016-15 authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages and ancillary live entertainment (Food Hall/Conference Center) for the development of an 870,000 square foot commercial mixed-use project within a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit k attached hereto. Resolution No. 4324 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 27th day of September, 2016. AUSTIN L BARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4324 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27th day of September, 2016. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 1 Kozak, Lumbard, Mason, Thompson (4) Smith EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 4324 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-001 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-15 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform to the submitted plans for the project date stamped October 18, 2016, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, o,r as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code (TCC). (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Except as otherwise provided by the Conditions of Approval,' the Development Agreement and/or the Subdivision Map Act, the subject project approval shall become null and void unless one or more permits are issued and substantial construction is underway prior to the later of i) the deadline for Developer Completion of construction of the Phase 1 Horizontal Improvements and Minimum Phase 1 Vertical Improvements (as such deadline may be extended by Force Majeure Delay) set forth in the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement (Cornerstone 1); and (ii) the expiration of the Phase 1 Term of Development Agreement 2016-001 (as such expiration date may be extended by Force Majeure Delay). Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION . Exhibit A Resolution No. 4324 Page 2 (1) 1.4 Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2016-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2016-15 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk - Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to TCC Section 1162(a). (1) 1.6 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney's fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.7 - CUP 2016-001 and CUP 2016-15 may be reviewed on an annual basis, or more often if necessary, by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with CUP 2016-001 and CUP 2016-15, or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding tenants or neighborhood, the Community Development Director shall impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts, or may initiate proceedings to revoke the CUP. (1) 1.8 As a condition of approval of CUP 2016-001 and CUP 2016-15, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in the defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.9 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney's fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4324 Page 3 (1) 1.10 The applicant shall obtain the appropriate license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for the type of alcoholic sales authorized for the site. A copy shall be provided to the City prior to final inspection. Any violations of the regulations of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as they pertain to the subject location, or of the City, as they relate to the sale of alcoholic beverages, may result in the revocation of the subject CUP, as provided for in the TCC. USE RESTRICTIONS (***) 2.1 Business hours for Food Hall/Conference Center/Outdoor Patio Area: 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM, Monday — Thursday 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM (midnight), Friday, Saturday & Sunday Hours of sales of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to the hours when food is available. ON-SITE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION (1) 3.1 This approval authorizes the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a Food Hall/Conference Center (Building D). The proposed on-site consumption must be consistent with the Department of ABC requirements. Any changes and/or upgrades to the ABC License shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. The sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor seating area adjacent to the Food Hall/Conference Center shall be restricted by and subject to any required State ABC or other applicable license or permit governing the use. Any outdoor Food Hall seating area where alcoholic beverages are sold or consumed shall be enclosed by a barrier and shall be supervised at all times by an employee of the restaurant. No alcoholic beverages may be removed from the outdoor Food Hall seating area, except to the interior of the restaurant. No alcoholic beverages may be served or consumed within any portion of the outdoor seating area when an approved ABC compliant barrier is not present. (1) 3.2 The proposed project shall operate in accordance with all applicable State, County and TCCs. Where a CUP is required, any violations of the regulations of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as they pertain to the project site may result in revocation of the CUP, as provided for in the TCC. (1) 3.3 No off-site sale or consumption of alcohol is authorized, except partially consumed bottles of wine as .authorized in Business and Professions Code Section 23396.5. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4324 Page 4 (1) 3.4 The menu of the Food Hall shall consist of foods that are prepared on the premises. (1) 3.5 All persons serving alcoholic beverages within a restaurant establishment must be eighteen (18) years of age or older and supervised by someone twenty-one (21) years of age or older. The supervisor shall be present in the same area as point of sale. (1) 3.6 Alcohol service shall be allowed as an accessory/ancillary component of the Food Hall and shall comprise no more than forty-nine (49) percent of the total sales within the establishment; fifty-one (51) percent of the remaining sales shall be in food. The gross annual sales receipts shall be provided to the Community Development Department upon request. To verify that the gross annual sale of food exceeds the gross annual alcohol sales, an audited financial statement shall be provided for review and approval by the Community Development Director upon request. If the audited financial statement demonstrates that the sale of alcohol exceeds the sale of food, the sale of alcoholic beverages shall cease immediately. (1) 3.7 Except as otherwise allowed pursuant to catering or other appropriate license issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), consumption of on-site alcohol sales shall be limited to 11, 970 square feet within the interior of the Food Hall building, exterior public seating spaces located in proximity to the Hall and the conference center. In addition to the conditions of approval set forth herein, said establishment shall be subject to all conditions of approval of the license issued by the ABC, which license may include beer, wine and spirits. (1) 3.8 All tables and areas within the Food Hall (including the Food Hall bar area) and on the adjacent patio area will be available for food service, consistent with the Food Hall's primary permitted operation as a self- service restaurant with ancillary alcoholic beverage sales for on-site consumption. (1) 3.9 The applicant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, county and City laws and regulations concerning accessibility and nondiscrimination in the provision of services, and operation of the outdoor restaurant seating area shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. 1 Exhibit A Resolution No. 4324 Page 5 (1) 3.10 No outdoor keeping or storage of food or beverages to be served shall be permitted. No open keeping or storage of used dishes, utensils or food scraps shall be permitted. Self-closing outside trash containers shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. All outdoor restaurant seating areas shall be cleaned on a continual daily basis. (1) 3.11 The adjacent outdoor Food Hall patio area may have a menu board that does not exceed six (6) square feet in area. (1) 3.12 Doors from the main Food Hall to the outdoor Food Hall patio area shall be self-closing. (1) 3.13 The outdoor Food Hall patio area shall not obstruct any fire exit, fire escape, or other required ingress or egress to any structure or property. (1) 3.14 The Food Hall/Conference Center shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. (1) 3.15 Lighting shall be provided to illuminate the outdoor Food Hall seating area. (1) 3.16 No loitering signs shall be placed near the entrance(s) on the outside of the Food Hall area. (1) 3.17 All litter shall be removed from the exterior areas around the premises including sidewalk areas and parking areas, no less frequently than once each day that the Food Hall is open. Trash receptacles shall be provided in the outdoor patio area adjacent to the Food Hall. (1) 3.18 All outdoor furniture and fixtures must be of durable and sturdy construction and suitable for outdoor use. Furniture shall be in good condition without any visible dents, tears, rust, corrosion, or chipped or peeling paint and that it be in a clean condition at all times. (1) 3.19 All on-site signs, including permanent and temporary signs/banners, shall comply with the Master Sign Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. LIVE ENTERTAINMENT (1) 4.1 Ancillary live -entertainment with three (3) or more music performers/musicians shall be permitted in conjunction with the Food Hall/Conference Hall, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 1 1 1 Exhibit A Resolution No. 4324 Page 6 (1) 4.2 Any proposed live entertainment shall be primarily comprised of musical performances or other similar performances including without limitation, poetry, written word exhibitions and other events appropriate for a Food Hall such as cooking demonstrations. (1) 4.3 Any proposed live entertainment shall not occupy not more than five (5) percent of the total Food Hall/Conference Center area. (1) 4.4 Any proposed live entertainment shall be designed as an accessory use to the primary food service operation at the Food Hall/Conference Center. (1) 4.5 Any proposed live entertainment shall not occur more than ten (10) times per month unless additional live performances ancillary to the Food Hall operations are approved by the Director of Community Development. (1) 4.6 Any proposed live entertainment shall require a live entertainment permit in accordance with TCC Section 3231. Said live entertainment permit shall be non-transferrable in accordance with TCC Section 3236. (1) 4.7 Any proposed live entertainment shall be in accordance with site plans approved by the Director of Community Development. Site plans shall be modified through approval by the Director. (1) 4.8 Any proposed live entertainment shall be subject to an annual review as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 5.1 Except as provided in the Development Agreement, at the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the latest edition of the codes, City Ordinances, State, Federal laws, and regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City of Tustin. At plan check, all exterior colors and materials shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 5.2 Prior to issuance of building permit, Orange County Environmental Health and Orange County Fire Authority approval is required. (1) 5.3 Current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements shall be met at all driveways and sidewalks adjacent to the site.