The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02 TEN TRACT MAP 17144 12-04-07AGENDA IRUFTOR MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2007 TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 SUMMARY Agenda Item 2 Reviewed: City Manager Finance Director NIA On November 13, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 17144 to subdivide a 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of approximately 1,267,324 square feet of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities. The project site is bounded by Barranca Parkway on the south, Red Hill Avenue on the west, Warner Avenue on the north, and Armstrong Avenue on the east within Neighborhood E (Planning Areas 9-12) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Applicant: Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC.; Owners: City of Tustin, Tustin Public Financing Authority, and Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LCC.). RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 07-92 approving Tentative Tract Map 17144 to subdivide a 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of approximately 1,267,324 square feet of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities. FISCAL IMPACT: The Tentative Parcel Map is an applicant -initiated project. The applicants have paid applicable fees for the processing of this map. BACKGROUND Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan requires approval of a Concept Plan by the Zoning Administrator concurrent with a new development proposal, reuse plan, or Sector Level B Map. Tentative Tract Map 17144 is a Sector Level B Map submitted in conjunction with Concept Plan 06-001 which was approved by the Zoning Administrator on November 5, 2007. Sector Level B Map is a subdivision map that divides a larger City Council Meeting December 4, 2007 Page 2 parcel into additional parcels (development units) that will facilitate conveyance of the property by a master developer to vertical merchant builders or other parties. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9321 b, the tentative tract map shall be considered by the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 is a request to subdivide a 131 -acre site within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities. The approved Concept Plan for Neighborhood E calls for a total of 1,267,324 square feet of non-residential uses and encompasses two (2) phases of development as follows: R&D Flex/ General Office Office Park Light Industrial Commercial Total Phase 1 318,600 287,000 605,600 sqft. Phase 2 319,675 229,997 93,920 18,132 661,724 sqft. 638,275 229,997 380,920 18132 1,267,324 sqft. A total of 38.6 acres of open space is also included and is to contain the following types of open space: • Linear Park (private) • Focal Park (private) • Red Hill and Edge Open Space (private) • Detention Basin/Sports Fields (public) A Design Review which will facilitate the development proposals on the proposed lots will be forthcoming for the stated development in the approved Concept Plan. The following summarize TTM 17144 proposed lots: Lot Number Concept Plan Land Use Private Area Acreage Public Area Acreage Commercial Business Lot 1 Commercial Business 6.32 Lot 2 Commercial Business 16.56 Lot 3 Commercial Business 6.56 Lot 4 Commercial Business 11.13 Lot 5 Commercial Business 2.30 Lot 6 Commercial Business 3.83 Lot 7 Commercial Business 4.74 Lot 8 Commercial Business 5.28 Lot 9 Sports Field 8.61 Lot 10 Commercial Business 3.20 Lot 11 Commercial Business 3.46 Lot 12 Private Drive 0.06 Subtotal 63.44 8.61 City Council Meeting December 4, 2007 Page 3 Open Space Lot A Open Space 1.35 Lot B Open Space 0.55 Lot C Open Space 1.44 Lot D Open Space 0.43 Lot G Open Space/Monumentation 0.07 Lot H Linear Park/Detention Basin 16.30 Lot I Linear Park 10.00 Lot J Focal Park 0.72 Lot K Water Well Site 0.04 Lot L Water Well Site 0.03 Lot M Water Well Site 0.03 Subtotal 30.96 Infrastructure Lot AA Street RNV Carnegie Avenue 6.38 Lot BB Street RM "B" Street 1.58 Lot CC Street RNV "C" Street 1.33 Lot DD Street RNV "C" Street 1.36 Lot EE Street RNV Warner Avenue 5.70 Lot FF Street RNV Red Hill Avenue 0.05 Lot GG Street RAN Red Hill Avenue 0.04 Lot HH Street RNV Red Hill Avenue 0.12 Lot II Street RM "D" Street 0.92 Lot NN Street R/W Armstrong Avenue 6.74 Lot 00 Street RM "E" Street 0.83 Lot PP Street RM "F" Street 1.32 Lot QQ Street RM "G" Street 0.60 Subtotal 26.97 Flood Control Lot JJ Flood Control Purposes 0.32 Lot KK Flood Control Purposes 0.32 Lot LL Flood Control Purposes 0.14 Lot MM Flood Control Purposes 0.33 Subtotal 1.11 Total (Private/Public) 90.40 36.69 Total 131.09 The proposed TTM 17144 has been analyzed for conformity to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, DDA 06-01, the Tustin City Code, applicable City of Tustin guidelines and standards, applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified FEIS/EIR, and other agreements with the City of Tustin. In addition, the Public Works Department has reviewed the map and determined that it is technically correct and, as conditioned, TTM 17144 would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code). TLCP Letter Submitted to the Planning Commission At the Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 2007, the Tustin Legacy Community Partners submitted a letter to the Planning Commission raising six (6) conditions placed on to the map approval (Attachment C). Staff addressed all the City Council Meeting December 4, 2007 Page 4 concerns with the exception of a condition related to the obligation to construct the Red Hill median (Condition 6.8). The applicant indicated that the construction responsibility should be the City's and that the applicant should only be required to facilitate the construction activity as construction manager. Staff and the Planning Commission, however, believe that the obligation should be the applicant's as the City has required of other developers in the Tustin Legacy (Attachment E). To ensure that the applicant is reimbursed in a timely manner for the construction costs, a condition of approval (Condition 6.8) has been included to allow the City to enter into a reimbursement agreement with TLCP with provisions that will permit the applicant to receive reimbursement of segments of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. 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 FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. u tina Willkom Senior Planner Attachments: F-,Ul; I - ;2, 1 / &41�4 - Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director A. Location Map B. Tentative Tract Map 17144 C. Letter from Tustin Legacy Community Partners dated November 13, 2007. D. Resolution No. 07-92 E. Draft Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2007 and Resolution No. 4068 SAUMCCREPORMTM 17144 CCM (TLCP - NE).doc ATTACHMENT A Location Map ATTACHMENT B Tentative Tract Map 17144 ViCINaY LW 41' n__� NOTES: , r, T,EEIrIT ti.r, rA- !vj� �� ,o, E IK / W / �\ TRACT70260 m°rza��sro aaw's w s"rr�. i �I a �E,l..m Eta LOT 21 LEGAL DESCRFnOW TRAGI N0. '% 'l pNME�aOWNERS STATEMENT: i 17026 ILOT 19oT TDstw t K a nrls a,n.,I.c m,cr rw. ' TRACT NO 025 EARNEGIE AVENUE CARNEGIE AVENUE LOT 23 / .,. _�- �'� _ \\ \•/ TRACT NO. TumN Itn.n crowuNrtx r.erNEIIs TRACT NO. 17026 ,m .IEA ro \\ \ 17026 \ LOT IS LOT 17 \ ' SHEET 2 \ t SHEET 3 LOT 24 r, L oTSuMwwRY ;: •' d. Em E,K \ �' ; 1 _-_ - _. Im CONCrrruN ARA ARTA LAD WE ()T NVENUE_ CARNEGIE A_ AARP SUMMARY: �� DATE a w — TRACT NO. 13— 17026 11 9 — TRACT NO. - NET AAOE• +a Acscs f 17026 . I `: LOT 1 6 uNrow xrtERv.E '"'"` ll LOT 22 NUREP wTs +� SUBTOTAL '.4a 0.81 I , J ✓ _. LATSrE .talc SrIQ,S rl U .Mtaoss.� I' d .muK PC= TOSHEETS 'W $6II ltlIIIBE9 ... •,.. INDEX TO WIEM. NDTM..rm ncxmT wP I SUBTOTAL 30.90 TII.cs m.r — 2-4 I TYMC.L sEctaNs s _. .. _.. _. I .. .. CITY OF JUSTIN BARRANCA PKWY - _TRACT—saw AR'I _ BARRANCA PKWY E DYER tRv CITY Or ---... «_..- - _ -- --�� --' - - - -- -- - ------- ------------ ---- ROAD _ ... ��--..-�---+> . - _ . _ IV - SUBTOTAL P.M.B ru PMB PMB 20.07 10/29 27/18-20 110/28-29Rm w l zLU • SUBTOTAL 1.11 a a ,,.„rT R. E „� TOTAL ATEOEUBLIC 90A0 30. 1 INDEX MAP - _— _ __ — — _ _-- - ^ __..._ LEGACY PARK vuG. '•"°° TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1 m 6Tn arz r„I� ... arz Fmw. r aro NO. 17144 5 ,,_ CITY OF 7USTItJ SOCCCD Ricco jiF TRACT NO. r-- S z 17026iTjvO ` TRACT BOUNDARYJ i p�FjNvl n F LOT 2 WARNER AVENUE IiI WARNER - 1 _AVENUE E�'' Uj ` U' TRACT NO. 3 ' a. TRACT NO. 17025 N'Q w w d " "` 17025 LOT 25 i# LOT 20 SHEET 4 � / TRACT No. �l _ _ -\ ,/ _ /�/- 17026 LOT 15 (VACANT) ViCINaY LW 41' n__� NOTES: , r, T,EEIrIT ti.r, rA- !vj� �� ,o, E IK / W / �\ TRACT70260 m°rza��sro aaw's w s"rr�. i �I a �E,l..m Eta LOT 21 LEGAL DESCRFnOW TRAGI N0. '% 'l pNME�aOWNERS STATEMENT: i 17026 ILOT 19oT TDstw t K a nrls a,n.,I.c m,cr rw. ' TRACT NO 025 EARNEGIE AVENUE CARNEGIE AVENUE LOT 23 / .,. _�- �'� _ \\ \•/ TRACT NO. TumN Itn.n crowuNrtx r.erNEIIs TRACT NO. 17026 ,m .IEA ro \\ \ 17026 \ LOT IS LOT 17 \ ' SHEET 2 \ t SHEET 3 LOT 24 r, L oTSuMwwRY ;: •' d. Em E,K \ �' ; 1 _-_ - _. Im CONCrrruN ARA ARTA LAD WE ()T NVENUE_ CARNEGIE A_ AARP SUMMARY: �� DATE a w — TRACT NO. 13— 17026 11 9 — TRACT NO. - NET AAOE• +a Acscs f 17026 . I `: LOT 1 6 uNrow xrtERv.E '"'"` ll LOT 22 NUREP wTs +� SUBTOTAL '.4a 0.81 I , J ✓ _. LATSrE .talc SrIQ,S rl U .Mtaoss.� I' d .muK PC= TOSHEETS 'W $6II ltlIIIBE9 ... •,.. INDEX TO WIEM. NDTM..rm ncxmT wP I SUBTOTAL 30.90 TII.cs m.r — 2-4 I TYMC.L sEctaNs s _. .. _.. _. I .. .. CITY OF JUSTIN BARRANCA PKWY - _TRACT—saw AR'I _ BARRANCA PKWY E DYER tRv CITY Or ---... «_..- - _ -- --�� --' - - - -- -- - ------- ------------ ---- ROAD _ ... ��--..-�---+> . - _ . _ IV - SUBTOTAL P.M.B ru PMB PMB 20.07 10/29 27/18-20 110/28-29Rm w l zLU • SUBTOTAL 1.11 a a ,,.„rT R. E „� TOTAL ATEOEUBLIC 90A0 30. 1 INDEX MAP - _— _ __ — — _ _-- - ^ __..._ LEGACY PARK vuG. '•"°° TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1 m 6Tn arz r„I� ... arz Fmw. r aro NO. 17144 5 ,,_ CARNEGE AVEWX P.M. B 10/29 SEE SHEET 4 -- - Lar i 10 1 A0lEl — WTKK TRACT BOUNDMY ' 0.32 okc.- ------------- ----------- - ------------------------------------- ------ P.M.8 27118=20. FBF -- LEGACY PARK TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17144 1 0. LCfLOTN1,4 \ , X,, TRACT NO. 17026 LOT 15 TRACT N0. 17026 Lar i io' osLOT < LOT 17LOT FQ--6.7 ACRE 0.03VACTOOLNUW \ � _�� / '�„\ � �\ �•. TRACT NO. ] 7026 LOT 18 LOT 3.8 Lar II \ • \`�j �11 \ \ - 4.7 ACRES �--.�- s. -A - - _ d \ --- =i { � • r 1" W �. � --------------- 6.1 ACTdS ` - i�w in P -r1 - ui ..:.\b r 1 TRACT N0. ] 7026 TRACT NO. 17026 61 m'� hI '.'� LOT 16 0;72 ACRES t I I BOUNDARY . m.1.na ma U.8.8 A Lar,o 3.2 ACRES �LarE 1 a i- 0,03 ACRS 3 LOT KK E ✓ BOUNDARY .o°uo ,.- Lao 0.32 ACRES w'• �g „o®.�., ":i�1 - TRACT DO� LN40ARY I II �" em _ a Vo 1 , i SIY. W I A — _ — _ — _ -- i--------- -_- �I}s "6.11. __ .__r ____ - --_ - , - -_ - - -_- - --- - _ .._....:...LEGACY PARK ' - PNlev. _ w P.tvl.B ` _ - - - - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3 27/18-20 _ 1 ]O/28=29 NO. 17144 d< 6 51 :II II xl CITY RSCcD --0 lli 11 =� Or _ SM Rlrr'S * + •i. • fUSTII`d I TRAINING'. t t +; SOCgCD ------------ _ J, {_ ___ ___ _ __ I __ __ _ _ __---------------___ x 1 I w __ -� - - _-_ - - - _ -3- - - - - --- - - -- �� 1 _ _� - - ------------- - - d - - --- ----.._----------------------------------- ---cMAL`�'-1!lGt1'CIRfW------------_ ----- -'- till IR D _ _____ _ siw e:- m �wsmm = w ` ` 1 FIlTUF WARNER 3.7 iiAE3 .,moa -- '�x- _'-___-__ �5_ I«,f ^y� . , g ..w, o•... . a �� __ 7�8 I WARNERAV@RlE .ten.• t - - `�-� —_- --_--- I .,a �.. li } it TRACT NO I ; » TRACT eaa DART �� \\ Lar o ' 4; �} 17026 \ I o.o7 I. LOT 25 ...ff... I 1 IiifIYY r ,. VIII LOT207 RA 025 1 t� i--LarC * °� .- \\\ p,go / II 1,1\'; MV=BOUNMW is 1 tt:1is / LOT NN 711` 1\1 I � � LOT2 ;� ,� I I e* N0 - 18.6 ACRES.06 - — — —Y �1 i 4 _ _ �_-� ' -_'�--- 1 - ' 7026 �,OT 15 CANT) fw TRACT NO, 17026\ \� LOT 23 ;\ a LaT3 "A 6.5 ACRES 1_; Largo „i NO.�• O.a3 Acmes ; wI l —LOT HH , 1 d: n i 0.12 ACRES a / c Lar I D 7p o , t i Vis. LOT L r ;; o.o AaEs .. 1 a .. _ \\ - CAM*GIEAVENU II'_iy.° I �o.-, _ ,Yg, - �� a' w'"�'� 1 i o Aros e III ----- - ----- - - ' �; SEE SHEET 2 11K SEE SHEET 3 LEGACY PARK "n TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 4 "°� NO. 17144 A.v na.ra.. ro"ro"'�D NILLIAV6NVE------�--�I 1 �11 4z' $n' -►� ! I wrt.. sr�nownaa "nUnee aanacra Aranoa � N w�w�a w. LAME sry NUf r . . BUS TURBOUT Ti- -w...._w romp®. IIARna sduNGA . I - I v pp..ra �XSTRONa AYYNUd w 7 -Ll I 1 y I p'R' �oo ro •op ARYSTAOMC AYfNL-1 I � vim' aro romp A STRON6 AY NUf DUS TURNOUT rJ JNo suu ) r • r r 1k+ I DAP-" PA AY v.ar a..®ro�'�m "^'e JROX ST�Tron r� M� s JTlew rJ.»eo p� I e— { 77A 4RRANCA PARDIAY v nR,._.a+. '�'^��m'^� Mer Sfnew rwo Jtlu Jnon rJ..Je LEGACY PARK TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 5 NO. 17144 15 , --�' RDD BrLL AYanua w. LAME sry NUf r . . BUS TURBOUT Ti- -w...._w romp®. IIARna sduNGA . I - I v pp..ra �XSTRONa AYYNUd w 7 -Ll I 1 y I p'R' �oo ro •op ARYSTAOMC AYfNL-1 I � vim' aro romp A STRON6 AY NUf DUS TURNOUT rJ JNo suu ) r • r r 1k+ I DAP-" PA AY v.ar a..®ro�'�m "^'e JROX ST�Tron r� M� s JTlew rJ.»eo p� I e— { 77A 4RRANCA PARDIAY v nR,._.a+. '�'^��m'^� Mer Sfnew rwo Jtlu Jnon rJ..Je LEGACY PARK TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 5 NO. 17144 15 , ATTACHMENT C Letter from Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. dated November 13, 2007 Shead Properties November 13, 2007 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack Director of Community Development CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Tustin Legacy Neighborhood E Tentative Tract Map 17144 -REVISED Dear Ms. Binsack: On November 8, 2007, we were in receipt of Resolution No. 4068 for Tentative Tract Map 17144. Based on our review, we are in general agreement with the exception of the following conditions: Condition 1.3 It is assumed that by TLCP entering into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement prior to. or concurrent with the Final Map for the construction and completion of infrastructure obligations as defined in the DDA 06-01, we will have satisfied this condition. Condition 2.1 Per Tustin City Code Section 9901, the developer or property owner are required to "submit prior to issuance of building permits a trip reduction/TDM program for the entire proposed development site, including any anticipated phasing and shall submit such plan to the City Traffic Engineer or his/her designee." Condition 2.1 as written requires that we submit the TDM program prior to Design Review approval. We request this requirement be tied to the issuance of building permit only as appropriately timed in the City Code. Section 9901 further states that "the TDM must be designed to reduce trips to achieve one and five -tenths (1.5) AVR." We are in full support of a highly affective TDM program to reduce the vehicle demand on the local and regional system, in addition to the environmental implications of vehicle travel. However, we would like to go on record that it is our opinion that a 1.5 AVR is unrealistic based on data obtained from Spectrum Motion, a transportation demand management organization that monitors the AVR within the Irvine Spectrum. Based on our understanding, Spectrum currently realizes an AVR of 1.23, which assumes the use of carpool, vanpool, bus, rail, bicyclist, walkers and telecommuters. Although we anticipate facilitating the same TDM measures as Spectrum, the data shows that the commitment to alternative modes of travel is unpredictable through the week. We recommend this be a topic for future discussion with City staff. Condition 6.1 The condition refers to Red Hill, Barranca Parkway, Warner Avenue and Armstrong Avenue as "Local Infrastructure." It is recommended the last portion of the sentence be revised to clarify as follows: "...shall be constructed as p@14 e in conjunction with adjoining the Neighborhood E Project a& a Local Infrastructure improvements." Shea Properties Condition 6.5 Request to amend the condition to add the following sentence at the end of the condition: "The sidewalk and off-street bicycle path can be combined where conditions permit so as to avoid redundancy in the infrastructure and maximize landscape area." Condition 6.8 The City is requesting TLCP design and construction a raised median within Red Hill Avenue, from Barranca Parkway to north of Valencia Avenue. The condition does note that this not a requirement under DDA 06-01, and would be eligible for direct reimbursement. As you area aware, this improvement is estimated in the millions and not covered within our operating budget as defined by DDA 06-01. We will need to work closely with City staff to establish a reimbursement agreement specific to Red Hill Avenue medians improvements, and recommend the following clarifications to the condition: "The applicant shall design and construct as the construction manager for the City a landscaped raised median with the Red Hill Avenue improvements and any improvements on the west side of Red Hill Avenue necessary to construct the median on Red Hill Avenue in order to ensure orderly development... The City agrees that they will provide provisions for reimbursement that will permit the applicant to receive reimbursement of segments of the project with concurrent approval of invoices and payment, including design and construction management." Condition 10.3 Request to amend the condition to add the following at the end of the sentence: "...or otherwise defined in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R)." This development is complex with multiple ownerships. The CC&R's will clearly define maintenance responsibility and obligations (see CC&R conditions). We are confident that our concerns can be addressed prior to or as part of the public hearing processes. As you are aware, we are anxious to gain approval of TTM 17144 so as to initiate the building process in conformance with the Development and Disposition Agreement. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional clarification. Sincerely, TUSTIN LEGAC MMUNITY PARTNERS Elizabeth Cobb Director of Community Development Cc: Christine Shingleton, City of Tustin John Nielsen, Planning Commission Chair Jeff Thompson, Planning Commission Steve Kozak, Planning Commission Al Murray, Planning Commission Charles Puckett, Planning Commission Ms. Elizabeth Binsack November 13, 2007 Page 2 Colm Macken -Shea Properties Jack Godard -Shea Properties Simon Whitmey-TLCP 130 Vantis, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 T. 949.389.7000 F: 949.389.7188 www. sheaproperties. com ATTACHMENT D Resolution No. 07-92 RESOLUTION NO. 07-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 TO SUBDIVIDE A 131 -ACRE SITE INTO 12 NUMBERED LOTS AND 28 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC STREETS, AND FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDED BY BARRANCA PARKWAY ON THE SOUTH, RED HILL AVENUE ON THE WEST, WARNER AVENUE ON THE NORTH, AND ARMSTRONG AVENUE ON THE EAST. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17144 was submitted by Tustin Legacy Community Partners to subdivide a 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, and public streets, and flood control facilities. The site is bounded by Barranca Parkway on the south, Red Hill Avenue on the west, Warner Avenue on the north and Armstrong Avenue on the east; B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2007, and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4068 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 17144; C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map on December 4, 2007, by the City Council D. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan land use designation of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which designates the project sites (Planning Areas 9-12) as commercial business which provides for development of offices, retail and service commercial, public and institutional, and light industrial uses; E. As conditioned, the map would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code); F. That the Public Works Department has reviewed the map and determined that it is technically correct; Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 2 G. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed intensity and type of development; H. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems; That the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat; J. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. K. That any discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing sewer/storm drain system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code of the State of California. L. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin; and, M. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for Tentative Tract Map 17144, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes, or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. II. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map 17144 for the subdivision of an approximately 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B attached hereto. Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 4th day of December, 2007. LOU BONE Mayor PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 07-92 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of December, 2007, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 07-92 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 and the following evaluation 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): Concept Plan 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map 17144 Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 [pE i Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3115 Project Location: Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC 130 Vantis, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 General, Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP -1 Specific Plan), Neighborhood E Project Description: Concept Plan 06-001 for Neighborhood E and Tentative Tract Map 17144 to subdivide a 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities. Surrounding Uses: North: Warner Avenue/vacant lots East: Armstrong Avenue/vacant lots South: Barranca Parkway/Commercial and Business Parks West: Red Hill Avenue/ Business Complexes Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine B. Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on April 3, 2006. 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. DETERMINATION: 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. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1). has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Date: 11-01-07 Ju ina Willkom, Senior Planner —' Date 11-01-07 Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attachment A attached to this Checklist EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, No Substantial due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of New More Change From Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Significant Severe Previous I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis criteria established by the applicable air quality management a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not following determinations. Would the project: limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? to an existing or projected air quality violation? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ II AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of concentrations? Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: of people? 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 ❑ ❑ El Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR OUALITY: 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 which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ ❑ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the 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? I 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? 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 of formal cemeteries? i f VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: E t a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 MATERIA Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)' Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or 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? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ s 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 OUALITY: -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a s stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial l erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX._ LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ED 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? 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 excess noise levels? XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More. Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ED ED a ❑ ❑ ❑ED ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From t Significant Severe Previous 1 Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ 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 awrYelerated? ❑ ❑ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑, ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONCEPT PLAN 06-001 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 NEIGHBORHOOD E OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EIS/EIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the Navy (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy (NEPA). The FEIS/EIR analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse 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/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The DoN published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed, the agency is required to examine individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum if the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is required. For the proposed Concept Plan 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map 17144 project, the City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided below to determine if the project is within the scope of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and if new effects would occur as a result of the project. PROJECT LOCATION The Property is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan also known as Tustin Legacy. Concept Plan (CP) 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 consists of approximately 1,267,324 square feet of land at Tustin Legacy and is located within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Planning Area 9-12). Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (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 was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 2 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 also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (I-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 west, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barranca Parkway on the south. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the 'north providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. PRESENT CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY Historically, the Property was used as a Marine Corps helicopter training facility. Currently, the actual footprint of the Property is largely undeveloped land that was previously used for interim agricultural out -leasing by the Marines and also improved with landing strips and tarmac areas. Permits for demolition of abandoned buildings on the Property have been issued and existing facilities are in the process of being removed, with obsolete infrastructure also programmed for removal. The City has nearly completed a Phase I roadway project, the Valencia/Armstrong project, which included some demolition of tarmac areas, landing strips, and demolition of some obsolete utilities. The Valencia/Armstrong project also included the installation of water and sewer Backbone Infrastructure on a portion of the Property and interim storm drain retention facilities. Interim earth work and mass grading of the Property by the Developer has commenced. PROJECT COMPONENTS The project evaluated in this environmental review -includes two components described further in sections below: • Concept Plan 06-001 • Tentative Tract Map 17144 Concept Plan 06-001 Background Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, a concept plan shall be prepared and submitted for Zoning Administrator Approval concurrent with a new development proposal, reuse project, or Sector B level map. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ` CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 3 The purpose of the concept plan is to document and ensure that: 1. The necessary linkages are provided between the development project and the Planning. Area/Neighborhood in which it is located; 2. The integrity of the Specific Plan and purpose and intent of each Neighborhood is maintained; and 3. Applicable consideration of City requirements other than those spelled out in the Specific Plan are identified and satisfied. Description of the Concept Plan The Concept Plan for Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan includes Planning Areas 9-12. The following are components of the Concept Plan: • Land Use (development uses and parks/open spaces) • Circulation • Design Guidelines • Landscape Elements • Infrastructure The Land Use component of Neighborhood E includes a total of 1,267,324 square feet of non- residential uses and encompasses Phases 1 and 2 of Neighborhood E. Phase 1 includes a total of 118,600 square feet of general office uses and 287,000 square feet of R&D Flex/Light Industrial uses. Phase 2 includes 319,675 square feet of general office uses; 93,920 square feet of R&D Flex/Light Industrial use; 229,997 square feet of office park use; and, 18,132 square feet of neighborhood commercial (mixed) use. A total of 38.6 acres of open space is also included and is to contain the following types of open space: • Linear Park (private) • Focal park (private) • Red Hill and Edge Open Space (private) • Detention Basin/Sports fields (public) The Circulation component provides conceptual improvement plans for the proposed infrastructure (streets, utilities, transportation planning, and traffic and circulation analysis) to support the proposed Concept Plan. The Design Guidelines provide in-depth details and conceptual design elements such as visual character, planning, architecture, landscape, and hardscape. The Landscape Elements component provides conceptual landscape plans for open space areas, streetscapes, multi -use trail system, signage, decorative walls, park furnishings and lightings, and bridge design. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 4 The Infrastructure component identifies backbone infrastructure based upon the master roadway network and Local Infrastructure system. This infrastructure component includes conceptual plans for domestic water, well sites, reclaimed water, sewer, and storm drainage and water quality. Tentative Tract Map 17144 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 is a proposal to subdivide a 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities. TTM 17144 is a Sector B Map which is a subdivision map that divides a larger parcel into additional parcels (development units) that will facilitate conveyance of the property by a master developer to vertical merchant builders or other parties. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause aesthetic impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the site. There are no designated scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Although the project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that the loss of both historic blimp hangars would be a significant visual impact, the loss of only one hangar would be less than significant. The proposed Concept PIan and Tentative Tract Map would not change the conclusions of the analysis from the FEIS/EIR and Addendum relative to these visual changes since the status of the hangars would not be affected by the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 5 i Y No changes in original uses identified or permitted in the Specific Plan are being requested; therefore, the types of uses to be developed are consistent and would result in similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable to the project have been implemented with adoption of original Specific Plan. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Submitted Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) 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 proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. The project site was leased as interim agriculture sites. All agricultural activities on the site and Navy out leases were terminated in phases by the Navy prior to the closure of MCAS Tustin in July, 1999. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project. The physical impact area for the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map is the same as that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Implementation of the proposed Evaluation of Environmentai Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 6 project would continue to impact areas mapped (though not used) as Prime Farmland. Designated Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Specific Plan area is outside of the Master Developer footprint and is located north of Barranca Parkway, west of Harvard Avenue, and east of Jamboree Boulevard. Additionally, there are no areas subject to a Williamson Act contract, and conservation of farmland in this area was deemed unwarranted by NCRS. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the impact conclusions presented in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEIS/EIR are still infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with the loss of mapped/designated farmland. There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would reduce the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to urban uses. Mitigation options identified in the FEIS/EIR determined to be infeasible are still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. There would not be a substantial increase in the severity of project -specific and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; however, these impacts would continue to be significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. The Tustin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) Resolution No. 00-90 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 7 F 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 proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause Air Quality impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project. Consistent with the conclusion reached in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, the proposed project would result in significant short-term construction air quality impacts. Because the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map only involve a conceptual design development and subdivision of land within the threshold of the Specific Plan and the t previously approved -FEIS/EIR and its Addendum, the project would not substantially increase the type or severity of construction related air quality impacts from those identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for operational and construction activities. However, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum also concluded that the Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90). No new mitigation measure is required. Sources: Field Observations Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 8 FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 741 through 742 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan 1V. 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 physical impacts resulting from development uses proposed with the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would be similar to those identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Specifically, impacts to on-site vegetation and loss of habitat for the loggerhead shrike, a CDFG species of special concern, would be less than significant. It would be noted that project construction activities would be completed in compliance with federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (META). The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 9 plant or animal species; however, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project site) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern -pond turtle, which is identified as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation measures were included in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative off-site habitat, and to require the applicant to obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary for areas on the project site affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. The Master Developer has obtained these permits and is subject to conditions listed in the respective permits. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 821, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28 through 5-40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to cultural resources. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 10 Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA -ORA -381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. There is no new technology or methods available to reduce the identified significant unavoidable project -specific and cumulative impacts to historical resources associated with the removal of Hangars 28 and 29 to a level considered_ less than significant. Although these unavoidable project -specific and cumulative impacts would not occur with implementation of the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map (affects Neighborhood E only), the future development of the Master development footprint could present impacts to these resources. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address potential significant unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from the removal of both blimp hangars. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. MitigationlMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 11 E • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent i 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 (2001), 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 proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not cause any direct impact to geology or soil. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative geology or soil effect on the site. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicate that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non -seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. iWitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No new mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 12 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 979 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not involve the creation of a hazard or hazardous materials. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would result generally in the same types of land uses being developed Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 13 within the project area. As identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, these uses would generate and use small amounts of hazardous materials for operation and maintenance activities. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and then - current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum 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 DoN 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 and the Addendum, the project site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not propose changes to height limitation included in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose an aircraft -related safety hazard for. future residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No new or modified mitigation is required for the project. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49 through 5-55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 14 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Subvtantial Change from Previous Analysis: The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative hydrology and water quality effect on the site. The project site is located within the Barranca Channel Master Drainage Area. A master drainage hydrology study (San Diego Creek Flood Control Master Plan, Barranca Channel Update, dated September 28, 2007) was prepared and approved by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFD). The study identifies a detention basin to be located within Lot H of Tentative Tract Map 17144. The detention basin has been included in TTM 17144. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, preparation of a WQMP in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 15 s 4 development activities to a level of insignificance. Implementation of the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The types of land uses proposed are substantially the same, with minor square footage distribution among planning areas. The amount of impervious surface proposed for construction would not change substantially; therefore, analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed; therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patters, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin and Addendum; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56 through 5-92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) 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 being evaluated involves an amendment to the Original DDA, a new Development Agreement, and modifications to Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 16 parking standards. The proposed project would not alter the land uses proposed for development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the Specific Plan area, rather minor adjustments to development phases are proposed. The project site area is surrounded by existing development and development on-site would not physically divide an established community. Although the project only involves conceptual development proposal, the implementation of this Concept Plan would result in the continuation of similar uses. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) 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 Substand'al Change from Previous Analysis. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicated that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 17 f FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and z Addendum (Page 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) 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? f 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 proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would slightly modify the land use distribution (redistribution among non- residential areas and square footages) within the Specific Plan which would result in a slight redistribution of the traffic generated by the implementation of the project. However, the backbone circulation system identified for the implementation of the project is substantially the same or less than Average Daily Trips as that presented in the original DDA and Specific Plan. Consequently, the severity of the long-term traffic related noise impacts would not be increased more than previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. With respect to the short-term noise impacts, implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would be required to comply with 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. As discussed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of the project site. Based on review of the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the project site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 18 Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not involve the development of any uses that would expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to noise. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not increase the severity of the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures would be required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3- 162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map provide a similar amount and type of commercial/business uses as that included in the Specific Plan. No new housing, removal of existing housing, or displacement of any people to necessitate construction of additional housing are proposed with the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map consistent with the approved Specific Plan and previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Similar to the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not have an adverse effect on population and housing. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum related to population/housing. The Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 19 proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not change the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and no new mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-101 through 5-112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages. 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 37137) Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, s libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails; however, new facilities will be E provided within the Master Developer footprint to which the applicant will contribute a fair share. Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of existing fire stations in the areas surrounding the site and a future fire station proposed at Edinger Avenue and the West Connector Road will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 20 The impacts to schools resulting from the implementation of the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would be similar to that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Consistent with SB 50, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation measures that require the Master Developer to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD, IUSD, and SAUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the issuance of building permits (Neighborhood E is located within the SAUSD boundary). The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide "full and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development of real property on school facilities (Government Code 65995). SB 50 provides that a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real property on the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50. Other Public Facilities (,Libraries). Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that will directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area. Developers within the Specific Plan area are required to make a fair share contribution to a portion of the development costs of the library expansion. To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the site proceeded. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not increase the demand more than what was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no substantial change is expect6d. MitigationJMonitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services.. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-112 through 5-122) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 21 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? Impacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would include a relocation of the sports park to Lot 9 of TTM 17144 (southeast of the extension of Carnegie and the linear park). The acreage of open space areas remain consistent with the Specific Plan; thus the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services compared to conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 22 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)? The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build out of the Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at 18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/EIR for a complete list) and the levels of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no -project condition. The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips. The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would result in a reduction in daily trip generation of 14 percent than the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. No Significant changes to on-site circulation would occur with the proposed project. Austin Foust Associates, Inc. has prepared the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy, Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis — July 2007 (Exhibit A) to identify and evaluate how the traffic impacts from the proposed project differ from the analysis presented in the approved Tustin Legacy Park traffic analysis (March 6, 2007, Legacy Park of Tustin. Legacy Traffic Analysis, Austin Foust Associates, Inc), FEIS/EIR, and Addendum. The study has shown that the proposed Concept Plan, Tentative Map, and arterial circulation changes within the Neighborhood E have not resulted in new significant impacts that would require mitigation. The proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer also has reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the revised analysis. Mitigation/Monitoring Required., No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Maps than were originally considered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3- 142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5- 127 through 5-147) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 23 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1) 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 t may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) - Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and Iocal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to utilities and service systems. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed new off-site and on-site backbone utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, the applicant is required to pay a fair share towards off-site infrastructure and installation of on-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and off-site, and water availability. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, no unavoidable significant impacts would result. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 24 ,Vfitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FEIS/EIR and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map. With the enforcement of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly nor degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90) for issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 25 resources, and traffic/circulation. The project does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) WAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) and Addendum Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for WAS Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. t I CITY OF TUSTIN LEGACY PARD OF TUSTIN LEGACY Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis July 2007 ��wAUSrA*A0 lBr. ssoc ArfS /1iic JUL 2 0 RIMEMILM! D TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS a`_PT. CITY OF TUSTIN — LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2223 East Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 (714) 667-0496 July 20, 2007 �oQ�pfESS IpHAIF CDLAJ z r^ No. 123 � `* Exp i"�7 `�Jf.4rl FftC 1 Table of Contents Sectio PaLq Introduction........................................................................................................... LandUse and Trip Generation....................................................................................................................1 Circulation System........................................................................... . Intersection Capacity.................................................................... Signalization.............................................................................................................................................18 Traffic Control Measures ................................. . RecommendedTurn Pocket Lengths........................................................................................................25 Effectsof Circulation Changes.................................................................................................................25 Conclusions.............................................................................................. ....................31 Appendix: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets City of ruin — Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Neighborhood E Intemal Circulation Anatyais i Austin -Fount Associate, Inc, 922004rptg.doc IL I Neighborhood E Land Use and Trip Generation Summary.........................................................3 2 Year 2025 Neighborhood E Buildout ICU Summary.................................................................16 3 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Peak Hour Signal warrant Summary...............................................21 4 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Peak Hour Signal Warrant Summary...............................................23 5 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended Left -Turn Storage Lengths ..............27 6 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended Left -Turn Storage Lengths......................................28 7 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended Right -Turn Pocket Lengths.....................................29 8 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended Right -Turn Pocket Lengths.....................................30 I 9 Armstrong Avenue Intersection Analysis Summary ..................................................................32 City of Tustin — Legacy Paris of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. Neighborbood E Interaal Circulation Analysis ii 922004rptS.doe List of Figures Figure Page 1 Tustin Legacy Master Developer Footprint..................................................................................2 ' 2 Neighborhood E Concept Plan.....................................................................................................4 3 Neighborhood E Access Plan.......................................................................................................5 4 Neighborhood E Circulation System.......................................................................6 ' 5 Armstrong Avenue Lane Configuration Alternatives..................................................................8 6 Year 2025 ADT Volumes (000s) — Alternative 1.........................................................................9 7 Year 2025 ADT Volumes (OOOs) —Alternative 2.......................................................................10 ' 8 Year 2025 AM Peale Hour Volumes — Alternative 1. .11 9 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes — Alternative 1..................................................................12 10 I 1 Year 2025 AM Peak Hour Volumes — Alternative 2..................................................................13 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes — Alternative 2..................................................................14 ' 12 Intersection Lane Configurations...............................................................................................15 13 Intersection Location Map..........................................................................................................17 14 Peak Hour Signal Warrants (Higher Speeds/Rural Areas).........................................................19 t 15 Peale Hour Signal Warrants (Lower Speeds/Urban Areas).........................................................20 16 Traffic Control Measures............................................................................................................26 'f A-1 Intersection Location Map....................................................................................................... A-5 List of Tables IL I Neighborhood E Land Use and Trip Generation Summary.........................................................3 2 Year 2025 Neighborhood E Buildout ICU Summary.................................................................16 3 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Peak Hour Signal warrant Summary...............................................21 4 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Peak Hour Signal Warrant Summary...............................................23 5 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended Left -Turn Storage Lengths ..............27 6 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended Left -Turn Storage Lengths......................................28 7 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended Right -Turn Pocket Lengths.....................................29 8 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended Right -Turn Pocket Lengths.....................................30 I 9 Armstrong Avenue Intersection Analysis Summary ..................................................................32 City of Tustin — Legacy Paris of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. Neighborbood E Interaal Circulation Analysis ii 922004rptS.doe li 3 CITY OF TUSTIN -- LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis i 1 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the access and internal circulation analysis for proposed development in Neighborhood E of the Legacy Park master developer footprint within the Tustin Legacy (see Figure 1), and provides a more detailed analysis of the roadway needs within Neighborhood E than the recently approved traffic study dated March 6, 2007, for the entire Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy. information provided includes site access designations, the type of intersection traffic control measure (i.e., based on 1 traffic signal warrant analyses), intersection approach lane requirements, and recommendations for left - turn and right -turn pocket design features. gh po gn starts. LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION ! The development within Neighborhood E is comprised o gh mpn of non-residential uses such as office and industrial uses as well as park and recreational land uses. Table I summarizes the land use and daily trip j generation for buildout of Neighborhood E (see Figure 2). The land uses in Neighborhood E have been refined since the March 6, 2007, traffic study, which results in a reduction in daily trip generation of 14 percent. This report will present an analysis that shows the effect of the land use refinements on traffic in Neighborhood E and surrounding circulation system. I CIRCULATION SYSTEM I Figure 3 shows the roads and proposed access locations for Neighborhood E. Figure 4 illustrates the midblock lanes on the roadways. The circulation system resented here p provides amore detailed analysis of the roadway needs within Neighborhood E than previously presented in the March 6, 2007, ! traffic study. "A" Street between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue with two and four lanes is r designated as a secondary arterial, and "C" Street between Barrancas Parkway and "A" Street is a two-lane local collector. The remaining roadways within Neighborhood E, "B" Street, "C" Street, "D" Street, "E" Street, "F" Street and Road G, are all two-lane local streets. Neighborhood E development traffic loads directly to the arterial system at several locations, These include full access at Red Hill Avenue via "A" Street, Warner Avenue at Road G, Armstrong City of Tustin — Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Associates, Loc. Neighborbood E iotornal Circulation Analysis 1 922004rpd.doc D 4ex m N - r a. a. o �0 aoa o a a P6 N 1 Table I NEIGHBORHOOD E LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 1 TSF 1.631 Land Use UnitIn AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Out Total Iu Out TOW -1 Buildout TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 9145 Neighborhood Commercial 18.13 TSF 30 19 49 86 92 178 2 028 General Office Office Park E Light Industrial/R&D 638.27 TSF 230 TSF 379.72 TSF 1,053 178 391 146 56 81 1.199 234 .472 197 92 62 950 164 348 1,147 256 410 8 470 2 944 3 081 Park Sports Park 26.3 Acre 8 Acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 33 0 60 132 430 Total uildout Acre 1,652 302 1954 464 1 587 2 051 17,083 Total(Previous) Difference 1 739 -87 340 -38-125 2 079 560 -96 1,695 -108 2,255 -204 19,982 -2997 % Difference -5% -11% -6•/a -17•/a -6% -9•/e -l4% Trip Rata Neighborhood Commercial 1 TSF 1.631 1.05 2.68 4.68 5.06 9.741 111. General Office TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 9145 Office Park TSF .77 .24 1.02 .40 .71 1.11 12.80 Light Industrial/R&D TSF 1.03 .21 1.24 .16 .92 1.088.11 Park Acre .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5.00 Sports Park Acre Ol .00 .01 1 3.401 4.10 7.50 1 53.90 Notes: 1) Office Park equation is based on 91.89 TSF. 2) Trip Rate Sources -MCAS Tustin EIS/M dated December 1999, and IPE Trip Generation Manual 7° Edition. 3) The land use -based trip rates for Office Park uses are based on the following equation: LN(T)-AxLN(X)+B where XQland use amount and Tadaily hips --- AM Peak Hour -- PM Peak Hour CoefBcient.0% Pk/ADT Pk/ADT Land Use Type Units A B Ratio In Out Ratio In Out Office Park TSF .768 3.654 .080 76% 24% .087 36% 64•/. Abbreviations: ADT - average daily trips DU - dwelling unit (EQ) - Equation based trip rates used. City of Tustin - Legacy Put of Tustin Leery Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Neiabborhood E Intaoal Circulation Analysis 3 922004".doc r ,r IL w e:10 Ir Fig use T r NEIGHBORHOOD E CONCWr PIAN I E R City of Tustin - Lepcy Paris of Tustin Lepcy Austin -Foust Asaoda M Inc f NeiSbbordood E Interna! Ciralatiom Analysis 4 922004rpt8F42-dwf Legend -Maim ArNmiN - ft%&M Arterial _ Sa odaq Attend Figurer 3 Lad CoDMewr NEIGH80RHOOD E ACCESS PLAN Lod Sbow City of Tustin - Lglaq Pui of Tustin Legacy AustinFou�t Aasoostes, Ioc Neigbborbood E Interns! CkcUlstion Analyw 5 Ft3.dwg 11 1 Ii 00 � 6 6 WARNER AY 6 00 N v DWY 0 �+ F h. m N W 4 � A ST S j 7� `• eo r 1 ^� 4 4 4 co 4 sz 8 8 IMIN CA gcwr 7 Legend X MidbloCk Lapp PWm 4 NEIGHBORHOOD E CIRC'UTA nON SYSTEM City of Tustin - Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Fouxt A x)datek I= Neigbbor600d E Intemal Circulation Analyn* 6 922004rpt8F44.dn 'i t E Avenue via "B" Street and "C" StreetPT' Street, and Batranca Parkway at "C" Street. Driveway D on Red Hill Avenue (located north of Carnegie Avenue'A" Street) is introduced as a project access point that is restricted to right -turns in and ri t -turns out . onl l3h Y 'The on-site circulation system for Neighborhood E features four intersections along the future section of Armstrong Avenue to be constructed between Warner Avenue and Banana Parkway. Two of ' the four intersections (at "C" Street/"I" Street and at "E" Street) will be examined in two alternatives with respect to signalization and lane deployment. The two alternatives analyzed at "C" Street/ `I" Street and L "E" Street have two intersections signalized and two unsignalized (see Figure 5). In each alternative, "A" '" Street is assumed to be signalized with all turn movements allowed Also, B" Street is assumed to be ' unsignalized with all movements allowed. Alternative I has a traffic signal at "E" Street and stop control at "C" Street/"I" Street. With a stop control at "C" Street/1' Streetthemovements , are restricted to right -turns out on "C" Street and "P' Street and all turn movements are allowed on Armstrong. Avenue. ' Alternative 2 features a signalized intersection at "C" Street/ T' Street and stop control at "E' Street. With a stop control at "E" Street, only right -turns out are allowed on "E" Street and all turn movements are allowed on Armstrong. Avenue. Figures 6 and 7 show the buildout ADT volumes fork roadway link key y locations within Neighborhood E for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. Figures 8 through I 1 show the corresponding AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively, for key intersection locations within this area for Alternatives 1 and 2. The volumes shown here will be slightly g UY different than the March 6, 2007, traffic study because of the addition of the restricted driveway along Red Hill Avenue and the conversion of three intersections on Armstrong Avenue (`B" Street, "C" Stroet/"I" Street and "E" Street), which were previously restricted to certain turn movements, to full access (Alternatives 1 and 2). There are minor volume differences on "C" Street and "A" Street between Alternatives 1 and 2. INTERSECTION CAPACITY I I The intersection lane geometry for the access locations analyzed here is presented in Figure 12. I The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for Alternatives 1 and 2 are presented in Table 2 for the Iintersections shown in Figure 13 for year 2025 conditions. By practice the ICU methodology assumes that intersections are signalized. The results of this analysis are consistent with the March 6, 2007, traffic i study and show that all intersections under year 2025 conditions operate at an acceptable level of service r "D" or better, and that only minor differences occur between Alternatives 1 and 2. I City of Tustin — Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 7 922004rptg doc i ALTERNATIVE 1 k ALTERNATIVE 2 k 4 F,w s r Stop Control ARMSTRONG AVENUE LANE CONFIGURATION Signal Control ALTERNATIVES City of Tustio - Lcpcy Park of Thalia Lusty Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 8 9=wrp rW5.d" Figure 6 YEAR = ADT VOLUMES ("S) - ALMMAME 1 c t City of Tustin - Leaary Pa* of Tustin Lejjacy Neigbborbood E Internal Circulation Analyte g Amin -Foust Amociatck I= 922W4rpt8FW6,dwg 57 WARWCR �� 51 43 N V t�A owr 0 & 2 F s ti o A) v� 12 A ST ST fp 7� O .O vs 1 W II � 10 A SS fix"M" WON Figur '7 YEAR 2025 ADT VOLUM M (000'x) - ALTERNATIVE 2 City of Tustin - I. gvq Park of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Anooates, Inc, Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 10 922004rpdWlS7.dwg FISUM 8 YEAR 2025 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVE 1 Gty of TurW - Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Anxtin-Foust Associates, Inc. Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 11 922004rpt8Fig8Awg IF qr0 U L '+ A 2 16670 50 260 . i 43�11Nt'= r 2016 i -0-12:85::: 1530 --w-! t80 --4r0000022020 r WA � AV 29 1 r •' Yj 186 • 1 �a,N 24--4,--� 1698-+ N S i,�t 30 OWY 0 a� 46 r �' 26 04K to -j 5A F UP 0 1 X10 .� o S �, — N7 49 .� z 0 .� 126 369 1 �1► �h` 30--owA floo-41 co 4p O Jj O 289 30 ^' -0-492 160 �.► 522 �1)t Ao sl 268 -+ ,ee--� 243 as k 1otov 00 16Z �i..0 _ �,e oos n H 17 , o .��► eARaANCA aKwr 16400—. A A �1s80o-� it 30--* S--�. ASTON fF�9 YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME$ (( - ALTERNATIVE 1 City of Tustin - Lt pq Put of Tustin L pq Austin -Foust Associates, bm '. Neighborhood E loternal Cirarlation Analysis 12 92 Mfpt8FW dwg 1 1 M M 11 16 8 NO NN�O i 800 1260 NN� i 134 N^� i 1 0 • w�Rnp .►— 2106 ^ v r 59 -s-1758 16 -� 230--4,000 1 3 19953 136 170 t r NN � 1290-r 557Z nn°i o ap N 4 12 DWY 0 � �°� 1 0 o F 4 �h� 0 9� 1� 1b o lb a �a 130 ♦C �srA 189 `20$A )�0~112 110 IC ��~ A 249 255 .� 20--w 30Z . rs C sr INN, , ?�q5 1p o� i t27 4-1 tia7s1 ii 1 =�f A 173 • 209 --► i$ io 55 NN t 16o tn�O SSS$ 16 o BAMM CA PKWY 300_ 1150—', b 37�-► 13W__4, 90 Z � ASTON Fisure 10 YEAR 2025 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME$ • ALTERNATIVE 2 City of Tustin - Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Neigbborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 13 Austin -Foust Asodatm hm 922004rpt8ftio.dtof City of Tustin - Legacy Park of Tustin Legaq Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analyi& 14 Figur 11 YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVE 2 Austin -Poiret Anodatm Inc. 922004rptWS1 l.dwg i 670 ~ 1260 �Npp AQ 280 1 WARNER i 43 r 2035 NN^ 1%1 1 1--1284 `► 1180 --► 1 AV 29 �, 1� i80...� 2024 A x,14 '� nn 1695-+ 1 392 N j pwtt 0 & 04 -, r� ,!,_►130 F C4 �r 'L6b 0 y 1ti � �r b rt s, A%P`� z 0 M 369 4 .� A 126--► �r _ 100"4• ,dos N O -+ r N 281 ►� 30 0— 4291 ' f 91d i A 30 254-t 2 �oi:v 00 16"+ uA+ru pp .-4$ 189 20 n Ndf 6ARRANCA PKWY 40 16630--;6 • 1630 Cvj g N ASTON City of Tustin - Legacy Park of Tustin Legaq Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analyi& 14 Figur 11 YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVE 2 Austin -Poiret Anodatm Inc. 922004rptWS1 l.dwg �i �L 1 Legend Figure 12 -'-A► De -facto Right Turn MERSEMON LANE cmmaCTRAT%ONS City of Tustin - Legacy Park of Tustin I-egaoy Neighborhood E Internal Circulation AnalyWo 15 Austin -Fact Asocia m i= 922004rptgFtglz ft VL"►000?088000880000 ��BaooS88$888888$8 o , sw ««A ««A < < N v1 ! 00 %0 O N 0% el V1 <, �O .� 00 111: Ci C� M M R N 1 v1 V1 .-+ M M t► t+► N O r+ 00 N Qp Y1 N N iia O � N 0 M0 V1 M r+ 00 h .�+ N M e�1 h !'� .•r n � V1 0� V'1 .• �D oo M N �-+ N g� < m cj ;1. $�oOo.$CS ou ca .. ... QAnNo C4 C4 x 9if .1 1 103 WARNER Ay 22 5 u owr o 21 owl F s� N 26 6 104 23 y A ST 115 24 ,� s 18 � o 25 6 A 114 gt eARRAWA NWY 106 107 F* me 13 WMRSEMON LOCATION MAP City of Tustin - Lcpq Parr of Tustin Le`acq Austin -Foust As:ociates,lnc Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 17 9imm A ptg i �l3. I= 11 SIGNALIZATION Traffic signal warrants based on peak hour volumes as adopted by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans were used here to determine the need for signalization. In applying this warrant, the volumes of both the major and minor street must meet or exceed those shown on the curves in Figures 14 and 15 under rural and urban conditions, respectively. I Determining the major street approach for the signal warrant involves calculating the number of j vehicles approaching the intersection on both major street legs. The highest total volume for either the continuous east and west approach or the north and south approach during either AM and PM is determined to be the major street approach for both peak hours. The minor street peak hour signal 1 warrant volume is the number of peak hour vehicles approaching the intersection on only the highest volume leg. The highest volume for either the AM or PM determines the minor approach for both peak ihours. Rural or urban classifications are determined by the speed on the major street. Warrants are based on rural when the speed on the major street is 40 miles per hour (mph) or higher. For urban areas, fthe speed on the major street is 35 mph or lower. Speeds along Armstrong Avenue, Warner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue are expected to be 40 mph or higher therefore the signal warrant analysis for the intersections along these major roadways is based on rural. Speeds along "A" Street, "B" Street and "C" w e signal warrant Street are expected to be 35 mph or lower therefore th final atran analysis for the intersections along these minor roadways is based on urban. I The signal warrant analysis has been carried out at the intersections previously depicted in Figure 13 (with the exception of the Red Hill Avenue intersections at Warner Avenue and Carnegie Avenue and the intersection of Armstrong Avenue at Barranca Parkway which are currently signalized). The signal warrant analysis for these intersections use the roach volumes previously shown in Figures 8 throw ys approach Pn Y 8� 6h 11. The signal warrant volumes are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. ( Based on the application of the warrant and year 2025 forecast volumes, traffic signals should be installed at all the analyzed intersections except for the intersections of `B" Street at "A" Street, "F" Street and `B" Street, and "D" Street intersections at "C" Street and "A" Street. Typically, signals are not installed until actual traffic volumes exceed the warrants. i City of Tustin — Legacy Pack of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Neighborbood E internal Circulation Analysis Is 922004rpt$.doe 500 F-7- 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) do 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) z 400 U = 4 02 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) do 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) dt 2 MORE LANES (MINOR) w Q 300 w w in 0 0 0 200 _Z > U 100 1 LANE (MAJOR) do 1 LANE MINORA 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET VPH (TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES) A NOTE: THESE CURVES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR USE IN AREAS OF RURAL CLASSIFICATION (i.e. POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON THE MAJOR STREET IS 40 MPH OR HIGHER. * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES. AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE ) LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH ONE LANE. Figura 14 PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANTS (HIGMR q El )MURAL AREAS) City of Tustin - Legacy Part *( Tustin Legacy Neigftdbood E lownal ChIllatim Amallyzim Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 19 922OD4gAgFtgl4.dwg 700 600 �V 0 500 Q` a. w a 400 w N 300 00 Z _ 200 100 ONE,.— 2 OR MORE LAN.ES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MiNOR� 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR I LANE AJOR),& 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR NNE ONI I ANE, (MIN 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET VPH (TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES) A NOTE: THESE CURVES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR USE IN AREAS OF UR13AN CLASSIFICATION (i.e. POSTED SPEED UNIT ON THE MAJOR STREET IS 35 MPH OR LESS). * NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES, AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH NTH ONE LANE. Fid 15 PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANTS (LOWER SPEEDSRJRHAN AREAS) city of Tusda . Lepry Put of Twin Leery Austin -Foust Associ-Im Loc. Nei16whood E WMI&I (ha6doa io 1 Table 3 YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARy Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 5. Armstrong & Warner 2,337 Westbound Major Approach Eastbound 2,018 2,276 4,732 Westbound 1,998 1,536 131 Total 4,016 3,812 yp Southbound 492 _ Minor Approach Northbound — 854 Satisfies Warrant (Higher Speeds/Rural)? yq Yes 6. Armstrong & A St 430 Total Major Approach Northbound 536 _ 78 Southbound 227 _ yes Total 763 _ Minor Approach Westbound 435 _ Satisfies Warrant ffigber S ural ? ya _ Major Approach Eastbound — 457 Westbomd — 941 Total -- 1,398 Minor Approach Southbound -- 471 Satisfies Warrant(Higher S ural ? _ Yea 16. Armstrong & C SO St Major Approach Northbound 577 661 Southbound 723 741 Total 1,300 1,402 Minor Approach Westbound 83 127 Satisfies Warrant (Hixber Speeds/Rural)? ya Yes 18. Armstrong & E St Major Approach Northbound 586 489 Southbound 502 S99 Total 1,088 1,088 Minor Approach Westbound 130 342 Satisfies Warrant (Higher Speeds/Rural)? ye as 21. Armstrong & B St Major Approach Northbound 638 781 Minor Approach Satisfies Warrant i S eds/Rural ? wa.�..waawa Tom tb Wesound Eastbound ow 1,444 1 s -- No 677 1,458 _ 143 yes 22. Rd G & Warna Major Approach Eastbound 2,433 2,337 Westbound 2,299 2,098 Total 4,732 4,435 Minor Approach Southbound 131 554 Satisfies Warrant (Higher Speeds/RIW yp Yes 23.ESt&A St Major Approach Eastbound 533 190 Westbound 508 430 Total 1,041 620 Minor Approach Southbound 78 297 Satisfies Warrant(Higher S e"ural ? yes Yes City of Tustin — Legacy Perk of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Assocista, Inc. Neishbodwod E Internal Circulation Analysis 21 922004rptB.doc 1 1 Table 3 (cont.) YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Intersection(N/S, Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 24. B St &A St Major Approach Eastbound 303 367 Westbound 457 407 Total 760 774 Minor Approach Southbound 55 30 Satisfies Warrant(Lower S eedslUrban ? No No 25. C St & A St Major Approach Eastbound 305 372 Westbound 216 625 Total 521 997 Minor Approach Northbound 462 103 Satisfies Wan -ant Pwer Speeds/Urban)? Yes No 26. F St & B St Major Approach Eastbound 2 -. Westbound 309 — Total 311 — Minor Approach Southbound 8 -- Satisfies Warrant Lower Speeds/Urban)? No Major Approach Southbound -- 147 Minor Approach Westbound — 50 Satisfies Warrant(Lower Speeds/Urban)? — No 114.DSt&ASt Major Approach Eastbound 441 314 Westbound 257 563 Total 698 877 Minor Approach Southbound 42 229 Satisfies Warrant(Lower S rhea? No No 115.DSt&CSt Major Approach Eastbound 61 — Westbound 45 -- Total 106 — Minor Approach Northbound 23 — Satisfies Warrant Lower S eods/Urbgn ? No — Major Approach Northbound -- 66 Minor Approach Westbound -- 48 Satisfies Warrant(Lower Speeds/Urban)? No Abbreviations: NIS Rd, E/W Rd — North/South Road, East/West Road t City of Tustin - Legwy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin -Fact Associates, Inc. Neighborhood E Internal CimuJadon Analysis 22 922004rpd.doc i City of Tustin — I,e&acy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin -Fount Aaaociates, Inc Neighborhood E Internal CkWation Analysis. 2; 922miate , im i Table 4 YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY ! intersection !S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 5. Armstrong & Wamer Major Approach Eastbound 2;017 2,276 Westbound 1,996 1,525 Total 4,013 3,801 Southbound 492 — Minor Approach Northbound 870 ' ( Satisfies Warrant 2figher S eds/Rural ? Yes Yes 6. Armstrong & A St Major Approach Northbound 536 — Southbound 215 Total 75.1. 1 Minor Approach Westbound 446 — Satisfies Warrant (Higher Speeds/Rural)? Yes Major Approach Eastbound -- _ 438 ' Westbound -- 1,001 Total -- 1,439 Minor Approach Southbound 401 l+ Satisfies Warrant er S eds/Rural ? Yes 16. Armstrong & C SO St Major Approach Northbound 575 648 Southbound 719 729 r Total 1,294 1,377 Minor Approach Westbound 95 153 Satisfies Warrant (Higher S eds/R ? 18. Armstrong & E St No yes ' Major Approach Northbou od, 583 471 Southbound 510 606 ' Minor Approach Satisfies Warrant OUgher Speed!/Rural Total Westbound 1,093 108 1,077 267 ? No Yd 21. Armstrong & B St Major Approach Northbound 645 802 Southbound 801 664 TOW 1,446 1,466 Westbond 1 s Minor Approach Eastbound — 134 Satisfies Warrant Speeds/Rural)? No Yes 22. Road G & Warner Major Approach Eastbound 2,433 2,337 I `I Westbound 2,299 2,097 Minor Approach TOW Southbound 4,732 131 4,434 554 Satisfies Warrant (Higher Speeds/Rural)?— Yes Yes i City of Tustin — I,e&acy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin -Fount Aaaociates, Inc Neighborhood E Internal CkWation Analysis. 2; 922miate , im i 'I Table 4 (cont.) YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 23. E St & A St Major Approach Eastbound 533 190 Westbound 508 430 Total 1,041 620 Minor Approach Southbound 78 297 Satisfies Warrant (Higher Speeds/Rural)? Yea Yes 24.BSt&ASt Major Approach Eastbound 304 369 Westbound 455 - 412 Total 759 781 Minor Approach Southbound 56 23 Satisfies Warrant(Lower Speeds/Urban)? No No 25.CSt&ASt Major Approach Eastbound 306 379 Westbound 215 621 Total 521 1,000 Minor Approach Northbound 462 154 Satisfies Warrant LLDwer S Beds/ rban ? No No 26.FSt&B St Major Approach Eastbound 0 - Wesd)ound 310 - Total 310 - Minor Approach Southbound 7 - Satisfies Warrant pwer S /Urban ? No Major Approach Southbound - 139 Minor Approach Westbound - 44 Satisfies Warrant(Lower S eeds/Urbon ? No 114.DSt&ASt Major Approach Eastbound 437 340 Westbound 256 559 Total 693 899 Minor Approach Southbound 39 214 Satisfies Warrant ffgwer Speeds/Urban)? No No 115.DStACSt Major Approach Eastbound 68 - Westbound 45 - Total 113 -- Minor Approach Northbound 25 - Satisfies Warrant wer S rban ? No - Major Approach Northbound - 81 Minor Approach Westbound - 58 Satisfies Warrant (Lower S rban ? - No Abbreviations: NIS Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, EasWVest Road City of Tustin — Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Neighborhood E iatunal Circulation Analysis 24 9220"rptS.doe 11 { TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES The recommended on-site traffic control measures shown in Figure 16 within Neighborhood E ' include one-way stop signs and traffic signals. Except for the changes to the three Armstrong Avenue f intersections previously mentioned, this data is consistent with the March 6, 2007, traffic study. Changes 'to the traffic control measures shown here will require subsequent analysis. It q qu y should be noted that traffic control measures are not project mitigation measures. Rather they address the traffic operational needs of the project site depending on individual capacity and include a combination of traffic signals and all -way and one-way stop signs. ' RECOMMENDED TURN POCKET LENGTHS ' This section addresses turn pocket lengths for left -turn and right -turn lanes encs at future signalised ' intersections with exclusive right -tura and left -turn ' lanes. They are based on vehicle storage requirements, and are thereby exclusive of transition len (typically, ti lengths (typ y, transt ons are 90 feet for a single lane and 120 to 150 feet for a double lane). The recommended tum pocket lengths for left -turns are summarized in Tables 5 and 6 for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, and Tables 7 and 8 for right -turns. The turn pocket lengths shown here may be slightly different than the March 6, 2007, traffic study because of the changes along Armstrong Avenue and Red Hill Avenue which affect traffic patterns in Neighborhood E. IEFFECTS OF CIRCULATION CHANGES Several changes to the circulation presented in the March 6 2007, traffic study are introduced in this report. As part of the plan being submitted for Neighborhood E, Driveway D on Red Hill Avenue (located north of Carnegie Avenue/'A" Street) is introduced as an access point that is restricted to right- turns i t -turns in and right -turns out. The effect of this new driveway on the adjacent intersections especially as it (E relates to intersection spacing is analyzed. Other changes occur on the periphery of Neighborhood E along Armstrong Avenue. Three intersections on Armstrong Avenue ('B" Street, "C" Street/"I" Street and "E" Street), which were previously restricted to certain turn movements, are converted to full access 1 in this traffic analysis. i . f i City of Tustin — Legacy Pule of Tustin Legacy ' Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. Neighborhood E Internet Circulation Analysis 23 422004rptg.doc 9ARRMCA Pt �< I � s� h v , V ALTERNATlYE Z ugcnd Fwm 16 S*naliud Intcmctioo TRAMC CONTROL NCEASUREB • Stop Sip City of Tustin - Lapq Put of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Associates. bm Neighborhood E Internal Cir elation Analysis 26 922OO4rp8Fig16Awg City of Tustin — Legacy Pwk of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust AsI Ire, Neigbbodwod E WtcmW Circulation Analysis 27 922004rptS.doc Table 5 YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) RECOMMENDED LEFT -TURN STORAGE LENGTHS Intersection IS Rd at EJW Rd Movement Peals Hour Volume Lines Volume/Lane Les ld 5. Armstrong & Warner SBL PM 124 1 124 150' NBL PM 565 2 283 300' EBL PM 186 1 186 200' WBL AM 104 1 104 150' 6. Armstrong & A St SBL PM 138 1 138 150' NHL PM 69 1 69 150' EBL AM 96 1 % 150' WBL PM 160 1 160 200' 16. Armstrong & C SW St SBL AM 190 1 190 200' NBL AM 14 IL 14 150' 18. Armstrong & E St SBL AM 297 1 297 300' WBL PM 77 1 77 150' 21. Armstrong & B St NBL AM 220 1 220 259 22. Road G & Warner SBL PM 120 1 120 150' NBL PM 110 1 110 150' EBL AM 336 1 356 400' WBL AM 59 1 59 1 NY 23. E St & A St SBL PM 167 1 167 2001 NHL PM 28 1 28 150 EBL AM 249 1 249 250' WBL AM 107 1 107 I NY 25. C St & A St SBL AM 12 1 12 150' NBL AM 254 1 254 300' EBL AM 18 1 18 150 WBL PM 312 1 312 350' 103. Red Hill & Warner SBL AM 600 2 300 350' NBL PM 480 2 240 250' EBL PM 280 2 140 150 WBL PM 260 2 130 1-W 104. Red Hill & Carnegie SBL AM 500 2 2S0 250' NBL AM 120 1 120 150' EBL PM 90 1 90 150' RBL PM 230 1 230 250' 114. D St & A St EBL AM 173 1 173 200' R'BL AM 17 1 17 150' 115. D St & C St WBL AM 28 I 28 150' Abbreviations: NIS Rd, EJW Rd — North/South Road, East(West Road Notes: The turn pocket length for left -turn lanes is determined from the highest AM or PM peak hour forecast volume per lane with a minimum of 150' and rounded into increments of 50'. Only intersections with dedicated left -tum lanes are analyzed here. City of Tustin — Legacy Pwk of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust AsI Ire, Neigbbodwod E WtcmW Circulation Analysis 27 922004rptS.doc Table 6 YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) RECOMMENDED LEFT -TURN STORAGE LENGTHS Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Movement Peak Hour Volume Lanes Volume/Lane Len rtk 5. Armstrong & Warner SBL PM 126 1 126 ISO' NBL PM 565 2 283 300' EBL PM 186 1 186 200' WBL AM 102 1 102 150' 6. Armstrong & A St SBL PM 139 1 139 150' NBL PM 69 1 69 i 50' EBL AM 93 1 93 150' WBL PM 229 1 229 250 16. Armstrong & C St/l St SBL AM 190 1 190 200' NBL AM 14 1 14 150' EBL PM 38 1 38 150' WBL AM 11 1 11 150' 18. Armstrong & E St SBL AM 294 1 294 300' 21. Armstrong & B St NBL AM 221 1 221 250' 22. Road G & Warner SBL PM 120 1 120 15V NBL PM 110 1 110 150' EBL AM 356 1 356 400' WBL AM 59 1 59 150' 23. E St & A St SBL PM 167 1 167 200' NBL PM 28 1 28 150" EBL AM 249 1 249 250' WBL AM 107 1 107 150' 25. C St & A St SBL AM 12 1 12 50' NBL AM 253 1 2S3 -1 300' EBL PM 22 1 22 150' WBL PM 311 1 311 351Y 103. Red Hill & Warner SBL AM 600 2 300 350' NBL PM 480 2 240 25V EBL PM 280 2 140 15O' WBL AM/PM 260 2 130 150' 104. Red Hill & Carnegie SBL AM 500 2 250 250' NBL AM 120 1 120 150' EBL PM 90 1 90 150' WBLPM 230 1 230 250' 114. D St & A St EBL AM 173 1 173 200' WBL AM 17 1 17 150' 115. D St & C St WBL AM 28 1 28 150' Abbreviations: NIS Rd, VW Rd — North/South Road, East/West Road Notes: The tum pocket length for left -turn lanes is determined from the highest AM or PM peak hour forecast volume per lane with a minimum of 150' and rounded into increments of 50'. Only intersections with dedicated left -turn lases are analyzed hem. City of Tustin — Legacy Paris of Tustin Legacy Austin -Fount Associates, Ioe. Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 28 922004rpd.4oe li u oo'vo' o 000�ph si 1. N NNNmenN It If Iw te1NNNN ?` law Uo en v0l vM1i i 5 g Q � w Rr 0� m %O t+1 N O� f� 0 r -Am C4 NN NNN%O'np p ' >OON�Oh.+�� NCpOpppOOpQO N NNC4 h gr4 :� s i n � l+1 M1 e+1 vhf 00 1r1 M1 O M p O W %n 4A ' E A elIts 4• M1 He3e�e+►..r....Mr. vv "I env.•.v1� a Vv�1M1hNH * p ��N/rlpp.•i N N .•+ rr (yIR eV O ahaaaaa aaaaa o _� C4 as 40 j L44r t+i ►• 3 Q r Chi ( I OG I I °i h a z. zza>° Uz (a.r2bbbgbg SQOOCO 1#1 kn NN Na NNN �j co � Y°Oi, t ' � � u ' F QM M NNNN N O C+ ► a;N.- k is w �ooeq co all N�O.-+� �OOt+O1OpS�pO '� s E.a ■ �p Q. .Q �+ �p 00 M V 1 00 0% O M M Vr 0 O s 02s, .•• aM v9 Q O� v1 �1'f �G N v1 IV V1 Vl V1 M �p W cc 00 O pp ��b� t�1ph0�o�o nH�p O N N eVv 0� G%G ri N p apgaa.� as a�z o o �F mmF E"' gg ° a 3 a •9 ' 3 3 zwt 7 P a w a _j �: v <, da> ..a rah N N The addition of a driveway north of Carnegie AvenueJ"A" Street alleviates traffic conditions at the adjacent intersections, Red Hill Avenue at Warner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue at Carnegie { Avenue/"A" Street. Review of the spacing of Driveway D from Warner Avenue and Carnegie i Avenue!'A" Street on Red Hill Avenue shows that there is sufficient spacing between intersections based i on the northbound right -turn pocket needs at Warner Avenue and at Driveway D intersections. Therefore the proposed location of Driveway D is adequate (approximately 1,000 feet south of Warner Avenue and i 1,200 feet north of Carnegie Avenue/"A" Street). ` The signal warrant analysis presented earlier for Neighborhood E concluded that each of the four intersections along Armstrong Avenue between Warner Avenue and Barranca Parkway would meet a signal warrant. A signal progression analysis was conducted for this scenario which concluded that no Adverse conditions would occur. However, whether signals are needed at all four,icularl if some P� Y movements could be eliminated (e.g., exiting left turns at non -signalized intersections) were further examined. As mentioned previously, two alternatives are I P Y analyzed for the intersections of Armstrong at "C'/"I" Street and at 'B" Street with respect to signalization and lane deployment. The analysis showed ` minor volume differences along "C" Street between "A" Street and Armstrong Avenue, "A" Street 1 € between "C" Street and Armstrong Avenue and on Armstrong Avenue between. `B" Street sad "A" Street. Intersection performance is further evaluated here using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedure for stop -controlled intersections and ICU procedure for signalized intersections. Table 9 Lists the level of service (LOS) results. As can be seen in this table, all intersections under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would not experience adverse conditions with the exception of "B" Street with forecasts showing that the eastbound left -turn move from "B" Street could experience, a delay of up to 65.1 seconds. CONCLUSIONS 1 The intent of this report is twofold. First, a guide is provided to show the needs of the roadways (i.e., recommendations for midblock lanes, intersection lane geometrics, signalization, left -turn and right - turn pocket lengths) in Neighborhood E and when implemented would adequately supporttraffic within Neighborhood E. Secondly, with minor land use and circulation changes in and around Neighborhood E, the data is consistent with that presented in the March 6, 2007, traffic study for Legacy Park, and generally, the traffic conditions are alleviated at the intersections adjacent to the driveway that is added and to the intersections along Armstrong Avenue that are changed. City of Tustin — Legacy Paris of Tustin L.epey Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 31 922004rpd.doe Table 9 ARMSTRONG AVENUE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Alternative 1 Alternadve 2 "B" Street Control Side Street Stop Control Side Street Stop Control Prohibited Movements None None AM Dela (LOS)* EBL — 65.1 secs EBL — 62.9 secs PM Dela (LOS)* EBL — 42.1 secs EBL — 39.6 secs "C" Street/"I" Street Control Side Street Stop Control Sipg Prohibited Movements No EB/WB left turns None No EB/WB AM ICU/Dela (LOS)* 11.1 secs.38 A PM ICU/Dela * OS 11.8 Seca .40 A "E" Street Control sigma Side Street Stop Control Prohibited Movements None No exi!i Ig left -toms AM ICU/Dela OS * .40 A 11.2 secs PM ICU/Dela (LOS)* .38 A 12.1 soca "A" Street Control Si=W Sigmil Prohibited Movements None None AM ICU OS .42 A .41 A PM ICU S .48 A .47 A * For stop control, the delay and corresponding LOS apply to the side street movement with the higbest delay. City of Tustin — Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 32 922004rptg.doe i r Appendix Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets This appendix summarizes information pertaining to the intersection analysis presented in this traffic report. i ICU Calcul tion Methodology The ICU calculation procedure is based on a critical movement methodology that shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical movement at an intersection. A capacity of 1,700 vehicles per ' hour lane is assumed toe N _ per together with a .OS clearance interval. A de facto right -turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and right - turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet or more from curb to outside of through -lane with � parking prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped right -tum lanes during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in place of a numerical entry for right -turn lanes. I 1 L The methodology also incorporates a check for right -turn capacity utilization. Both right -turn -on- . green (RTOG) and rigbt-turn-on-red (RTOR) capacity availability arse calculated and checked against the I total right -turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made, I Example for Northbound Right i1__$r aht-Turn-On-Green (RTOG) If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG - V/C (NBT) Otherwise, RTOG - V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL) M Z. Right -Turn -On -Red (RTOR) f If WBL is critical move, then: RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, ! RTOR - V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT) i z i City of Tustin — Legacy Paris of Tustin Leggy Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Neighborbood E Inte al Circulation Analysis A-1 922044rpts.doe i ' 3. Right -Turn Overiap Adjustment If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the ' RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows: RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL) RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL) 4. Total Right -Turn Capacity (RTC} Availability For NBR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (0'/o for County intersections, S 75% for intersections in all other jurisdictions within the study area) Right -turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) — RTC 'A zero or negative value indicates that adequateg capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately accommodate the right -turn V/C, therefore the right -turn is essentially considered to be a critical movement. in such cases, the right -turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in i i the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that a right -turn adjustment is required for more than one right -turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right -turn movement reference, and the right -turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right -turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right -turn adjustment credit should be applied. IShared Lane V/C Methodology ' For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn I movement (e.g., left/through, through/right, left/through/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated (� to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The I' following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: Example for Shared Left/Through Lane I . Average Lane Volume (AV) ALV = Left -Turn Volume + Through Volume Total Left + Through Approach es me u g shared ane City of Tustin — Legacy Park of Tustin Lepey AustiD.Foust Aawcia&M Inc. Neighborbood E lntemel Circulation Analysis A-1 922004rpt$.doc 11 z 2. ALV for Each Approach ALV (Left) = Left -Turn Volume ' Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV (Through) _ Through_ Volume ' F Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane) S 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted If ALV(Left) than ALV then full dedication left - turn is 8r on of the shared lane to the left turn approach is warranted. Left -tum and through V/C ratios for this case are calculated as I follows: V/C (Left) _ Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane) V/C (Through) s Through Volume Through Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) Similarly, if ALV (Through) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the through approach is warranted, and left -tum and through V/C ratios are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) _ L&ft-Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) t V/C (Through) = Through Volume IThrough Approach Capacity (including shared bane) 4. Lane Dedication is WWarranted t If ALV (Left) and ALV (Through) are both less than ALV, the leftlthrough lane is assumed to be i truly shared and each left, left/through or through approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left/through V/C ratio is calculated as follows: I V/C (ufflhrous�) = v + 7broueh vohme Total Left +'Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane) This V/C (Left/Through) ratio is assigned as the V/C ('Through) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU summary listing. f If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Through) that is attributed to the left -tum volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left -turn (including shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = V/C (Through) E I City of Tustin — Legacy Putt of Tustin Legacy Austin -Foust Asammes, Inc. Neighborhood E Interna! CirWation Analysis A-3 92200".doe 't If approach has only one left -tum lane (shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity If this left -turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. These same steps are carried out for shared through/right lanes. If full dedication of a, shared through/right lane to the right -turn movement is warranted, the right -turn V/C value calculated in step three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity. When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., left/through and through/right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for either of the shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved in the other shared lane. Figure A-1 illustrates the intersections that were analyzed in this study, and the AM and PM peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) worksheets then follow. City of Tustin — Lewey Put of Tustin Lewy Austin -Foust Anocisw, Inc. Neighborhood E Interum Circulation Amlytda A-4 922004rpts.doe i11 F4= Arl IMERSEcnON LOCATION MAP ( City of Tusdu - Lepq Park of Tustin Lesaq Austin -Foust Amd&tM Inc. Neijhborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis A -S 9220 q)dF*gA-l.dwj 103 WAR R AV 22 5 DWY D °G 21 of F S� 0 26 6 4 104 23 y~ A ST X11 24 115 ti �� s 18 0 25 H 6 A Sl 114 106 GAMtAHCA Pxwlr 107 7 F4= Arl IMERSEcnON LOCATION MAP ( City of Tusdu - Lepq Park of Tustin Lesaq Austin -Foust Amd&tM Inc. Neijhborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis A -S 9220 q)dF*gA-l.dwj 5. Armstrong i Varner 2025 Alternative 1 AN PK HOUR PH PX HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C MBL 2 3400 270 .08* 565 .11* NBT 2 3400 124 .04 235 .09 NBR 0 0 9 147 54 SBL SBL 1 1700 78 .05 124 .07 SBT 2 3400 142 .04* 204 .06* SBR 1 1700 272 .16 248 .15 EBL 1 1700 170 .10* 186 .11 EBT 3 5100 1288 .25 1698 .33* EBR 1 1700 560 .33 392 .23 WBL 1 1700 104 .06 82 .05* NBT 3 5100 1758 .34* 1285 .25 NBR 1 1700 136 .08 170 .10 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .04* .04* Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAFA= UTILIZATION .65 .66 6. Armstrong i A St 2025 Alternative 1 AN PK HOUR PN PK HOOK PM P1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL Y/C NBL 1 1700 64 .04 69 .04 NBT 2 3400 363 .14* 153 .09* NRR 0 0 109 0 147 SBL 1 1700 136 .08* 138 .08* SBT 1 3400 90 .03 331 .10 SBR 0 0 1 1700 2 .16 EHL 1 1700 96 .06' 48 .03* EBT 2 3400 107 .04 166 .10 EBR 0 0 40 1700 243 .14 NBL 1 1700 115 .07 160 .09 NBT 2 3400 193 .09* 492 .23* NBR 0 0 121 1700 189 .08 Clearance Interval .10 .05* Turn Adjustment .05* IMU CAPACITY OTILIEATI01 .42 .4/ 2025 Altaraatiw 2 AN PX HOUR PM P1 HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 270 .08* 565 .17* NBT 1 3400 128 .04 239 .09 MBR 0 0 9 66 1 SBL 1 1700 78 .05 126 .07 SBT 2 3400 141 .04* 102 .06* SBR 1 1700 172 .16 146 .15 EBL 1 1700 170 .10* 186 .11 EBT 3 5100 1190 .25 1698 .33* EBR 1 1700 557 .33 392 .23 NBL 1 1700 102 .06 70 .04* NBT 3 5100 1758 .34* 1284 .25 NBR 1 1700 136 .08 171 .10 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .04* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITZ Of am .65 i I 2015 Alternative 2 AM P1 HOUR PM PR HOOK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 64 .04 69 .04 NBT 2 3400 363 .14* 153 .09* MBR 0 0 109 147 SBL 1 1700 136 .08* 139 .08* SBT 1 3400 79 .02 262 .08 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1 1700 93 OS* 36 .02* EBT 2. 3400 103 .04 149 .09 EBR 0 0 40 243 .14 NBL 1 1700 126 .07 229 .13 NBT 2 3400 193 .09* 491 .23* MBR 0 0 127 281 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILISATION .41 .47 A-6 Legacy Pwk of Tusoa Legacy: Neigh E 7/07 922.004 21. Arm:tronq i I St 2025 Alternative 1 AN PK HOUR PN PK HOUR AN PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VIC LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1700 220 .13* 8 .00 NBT 2 3400 386 .12 743 .13* NBR 0 0 32 .00 30 .00 SBL 0 0 0 .25 0 356 SBT 2 3400 717 .24* 636 .20 SBR 0 0 89 14 41 NBL 1 1700 EBL 1 1700 5 .00 64 .04 EBT 1 1700 0 .00 0 .05* EBR 0 0 2 .03* 79 NBL 1 1700 5 .00 26 .02* NBT 1 1700 1 .01* 1 .03 wu 0 0 12 46 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPA= UTILIUMN .43 .35 22. Rd C i llaraw 2025 Alternative 1 AN PK HOUR PN PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 19 .01 110 .06 NBT I 1700 1 .01* 7 .08* NBR 0 0 7 1 137 391 SBL 1 1700 17 .01* 120 .07* SBT 1 1700 2 .00 3 .00 SBR 1 1700 112 .07 431 .25 EBL 1 1700 356 .11* 193 .11* EBT 3 5100 1994 .39 2020 .40 EBR 1 1700 83 .05 14 .01 NBL 1 1700 59 .03 16 .01 NBT 3 5100 2106 .44* 1039 .41* wBR 0 0 134 .00 43 .05* Right Turn Adjustment 0 0 SBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* 1 .05* MM CAPACITY OTILILATI01 .72 .11 2025 Alternative 2 AN PK HOOK PM PK HOUR AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR VIC LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 221 .13* 2 .00 NBT 1 3400 391 .11 769 .14* NBA 0 0 32 .00 31 .00 SBL 0 0 0 .2S 1 356 SB? 1 3400 712 .24* 623 .10 SBR 0 0 69 14 40 wBL 1 1700 EBL 1 1700 4 .00 55 .03 EBT 1 1700 0 .00 0 .05* EBR 0 0 2 .03* 79 NBL 1 1700 5 .00 26 .02* NBT 1 1700 1 .O1* 1 .03 wBR 0 0 12 46 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOM CAPACITY WILIEATION .43 .36 2025 Alternative 2 AN PK HOOK PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1700 19 .01 110 .06 NBT 1 1700 2 .O1* 7 .08* M 0 0 7 137 SBL 1 1700 17 .O1* 120 .07* SIT 1 1700 2 .00 3 .00 SBR 1 1700 112 .07 431 .2S EBL 1 1700 356 .21* 293 .17* EBT 3 5100 1994 .39 1010 .40 EBR 1 1700 83 .05 14 .01 wBL 1 1700 59 .03 15 .01 NIT 3 5100 2106 .44* 2039 .41* wBR 0 0 134 43 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* MU CAPAi M OTILIYATION .72 .81 A-8 Legacy Pwk of Tustin Legacy: Neigh @ 7/07 922.004 25. CSt&ASt 2025 Alternative 1 AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR AN PK HOUR PK PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 254 .15* 42 .01' NBT 1 1700 43 .12 9 .04 NBA 0 0 165 162 52 43 SBL 0 0 12 12 11 11 SBT 1 1700 5 .02* 41 .06* SBR 0 0 23 23 42 5l EBL 1 1700 18 .01 11 .01 EBT 1 1700 165 .17* 251 .21* EBR 0 0 22 22 110 110 NBL 1 1700 36 .02* 312 .18* NBT 1 1700 180 .11 313 .18 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05' 05* TOTAL CAPACITY UPILIMICK .41 .52 26. 1st Aast 2025 Alternative 1 AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR AN PK NOUR PK PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 253 0 41 NBT 0 0 0 47 0 20 NBR 0 0 0 162 0 43 SBL 0 . 0 6 12 142 11 SBT 1 1700 0 .00* 0 .09* SBA 0 0 2 23 5 5l EBL 0 0 0 21 0 22 EBT 1 1700 2 .00 2 .00 EBR 0 0 0 22 0 110 NBL 0 0 0 36 0 311 NST 1 1700 53 .18* 24 .03* NBA 0 0 256 0 16 0 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05' .05* DOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .23 .17 1025 Alternative 2 AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR AN PK HOUR PK PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 253 .15* 41 .02* NBT 1 1700 47 .11 20 .04 NBA 0 0 162 0 43 SHR 0 0 SBL 0 0 12 EBL 0 0 11 SBT 1 1700 5 .02* 48 .06* SBR 0 0 23 5l O EBL 1 1700 21 .01 22 .01 EBT 1 1700 263 .17* 241 .21* EBR 0 0 22 110 NBL 1 1700 36 .02' 311 .18* NBT 1 1700 179 .11 310 .18 NBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05' .05* mm CAPACITY UTILIZATION .41 .52 i 2025 Alternative 2 AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NOT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 5 134 SBT 1 1700 0 .00* 0 .08' SHR 0 0 2 5 EBL 0 0 0 1 EBT 1 1700 0 .00 0 .00 Em 0 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 O 0 NBT 1 1700 54 .18* 18 .03' WBR 0 0 156 26 Clearance Interval .05* .05* DOTAL CaFWM UTILIZATION .23 .16 A-10 Lcgwy Park of Tustin Legacy: Neigh E 7/07 922.004 104. Aston 6 Burma 2025 Alternative 1 TOTAL CAFA= OTI UTICB .52 .59 109. Arastra" 6 Barrauea 2025 Altasastivs i .52 AN PR HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NOL 1 1700 20 .01 130 .00 NBT 1 1700 10 .02* 10 .04* NBR 0 0 30 .01* 50 1 SBL 1 1700 20 .01* 150 .09* SBT 1 1700 20 .01 10 .01 SBA 1 1700 20 .01 310 .1/ EBL 1 1100 300 .18* 40 .02* EBT 4 6100 1710 .2/ 1660 .25 M 0 0 150 .25 30 0 VBL 1 1104 10 .OS 20 .01 VBT 4 6800 1630 .26* 1090 .2/* NOR 0 0 160 .24* 40 0 Right Turn Adjustment 150 SBR .11* Clearance Interval .05* .OS* TOTAL CAFA= OTI UTICB .52 .59 109. Arastra" 6 Barrauea 2025 Altasastivs i .52 .39 2025 Altautiw 2 AN PR HOOR PM PE HOOK AN PR BOOR PN n BOOR V/C LAND CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C BEL 1 1704 60 • .04 100 .06 w 1 1704 20 .01* 20 .01* M 1 1700 30 .02 10 .OS SOL 1 1700 10 .05* 340 .20* SBT 1 1700 30 .02 10 .01 SBA 1 1700 146 .01 370 .22 EBL 1 1700 370 .21* 110 .11* EBT 4 6100 1370 .11 1650 .25 EBR 0 0 90 .11* . 30 .05* VBL 1 1700 170 .10 40 .02 VOT 4 6000 1600 .27* 1480 .24* VBR 0 0 150 170 Clearance Interval .05* .05* MM CAPACITY OTILIEATICK .60 .61 A-12 2023 Alternative 2 .52 .39 2025 Altautiw 2 AN PR HOOR PM PE HOOK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 10 .01 130 .01 VBT 1 1700 10 .02* 10 .04* NBR 0 0 30 20 50 M 1 1700 SBL 1 1706 20 .01* 150 .09* SBT 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 SBR 1 1700 20 .01 310 .11 M 1 1700 300 .11* 40 .02* EBT 4 6100 1710 .21 1660 .25 c04 0 1 150 1650 30 EBR 0 0 NOL 1 1701 10 .05 20 .01 of 4 6100 1630 .26* 1110 .21*. V0B 0 0 160 1 480 40 NU 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment 170 SBR .11* . Clearance Interval .05* .OS* .05* i .05* TUML UpAwT araaZwm .52 .39 2025 Altautiw 2 AN PR Nam PN PR BOOT LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C Na 1 1700 60 .04 100 .04 NBT 1 1100 20 .Olt 20 .Olt M 1 1700 30 .02 00 .05 SBL 1 1700 80 .05* 350 .21* SBT 1 1700 30 .02 20 .01 SM 1 1700 140 .0/ 370 .22 EBL 1 1700 370 .22* 110 .11* EBT 4 6800 1370 .21 1650 .25 EBR 0 0 90 30 NEL 1 1700 170 .10 40 .02 w 4 6800 1610 .27* 1 480 .24* NU 0 0 ISO 170 Clearance Interval .05* .05* i TOTAL CUACM OTILIZATIlIr .60 .62 LeNary Put Of Tusdn L *w r Neilb E 7/07 922.004 EXHIBIT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 07-92 GENERAL EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 07-92 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Approval of Tentative Tract Map 17144 is contingent upon the applicant 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) 1.2 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 Tustin City Code, applicable City of Tustin guidelines and standards and applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified FEIS/EIR, DDA 06-01, and other agreements with the City of Tustin unless otherwise modified by this Resolution. (1) 1.3 Prior to Final Map approval, DDA 06-01 (Master Developer) shall remain in full force and effect without defaults, and all construction and completion of obligations identified in DDA 06-01 shall be satisfied, as applicable. (1) 1.4 All approvals noted in Zoning Administrator Action 07-008 and Resolution No. 07-92 shall become null and void in case of default or termination of DDA 06-01 by Developer prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, including but not limited to, the City's approval of any final maps not completed at the time of default or termination. (1) 1.5 The final tract map shall be recorded in accordance with submitted maps date stamped December 4, 2007, and all applicable requirements of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Tustin City Code, and applicable policies and guidelines. All conditions of approval herein, as applicable, shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or as specified herein. (1) 1.6 The applicant is required to prepare and record final map(s) within 24 months from tentative map approval. The applicant shall record with appropriate agencies, final map(s) prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the Tustin Municipal Code. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 2 (1) 1.7 The applicant shall execute subdivision and monumentation agreement(s) and furnish improvement and monumentation bond(s) prior to recordation of the Final Map(s) for the estimated costs of all Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure costs. (1) 1.8 Prior to approval of the final tract map, the applicant shall file a petition for the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) or Assessment District (AD) for the project area. The district may include the acquisition and construction or portions of the backbone infrastructure the applicant wishes to have funded through CFD or AD funding as well as the mandatory required imposition of a service special assessment tax for maintenance of public open space, landscape improvements such as backbone infrastructure medians, and other eligible public service items including street sweeping, traffic signal maintenance, landscape and park maintenance, lighting, flood and storm drain protection, police and fire protection, ambulance and paramedic services, recreation program services, other services and facilities at Tustin Legacy consistent with the CFD or AD Act. In the event that a district is not established prior to issuance of the first building permits, maintenance of items which would have been otherwise covered by imposition of a special service assessment tax, shall be the responsibility of a community association until such service tax is in place. The applicant shall acknowledge and agree pursuant to provisions contained in Section 8.11 of the DDA that the City shall have the right to determine, in its sole discretion, to fund any of the sub -divider's Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Work through imposition of an Community Facilities District (CFD) or Assessment District (AD). (1) 1.9 Upon recordation of the final map(s) or issuance of building permit(s), whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit new addresses for corresponding future buildings. PLANS AND SUBMITTALS (1) 2.1 Prior to approval of any design review application for development within the tract, the applicant shall provide trip reduction facilities pursuant to Section 9904 of the Tustin City Code. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Trip Red uction/Transportation Demand Management Strategy Plan to the Public Works/Engineering Department in conformance with the Tustin City Code Section 9901 et al and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.13.1.C. (1) 2.2 All infrastructure shall comply with the City of Tustin Standard Drawings and Design Standards for Public Works Construction. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 3 (1) 2.3 All wet utilities, dry utilities, other utilities, and other facilities shall be provided underground and in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, unless otherwise approved by responsible agencies or noted in this resolution. (1) 2.4 The design of driveways, sidewalks, trails, and pathways shall comply with the provisions of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (1) 2.5 All final development plans, improvements plans and maps shall be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file format is AutoCAD having the extension DWG. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved and updated CADD files reflecting "record drawing" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. The subdivision bonds will not be released until the "record drawing" CADD files have been submitted. The Final Map(s) should be tied to County of Orange control points (latest revision). Refer to Specifications of Digital Submission as maintained by the Surveyor's Office of the County of Orange for specific requirements for individual submittals. (1) 2.6 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, Encroachment Permit(s) shall be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. GRADING (1) 3.1 The applicant shall submit grading plans for review and approval. The submittal package shall include, at the minimum, the following: A. Technical details and plans for all utility installations including telephone, gas, water, and electricity. B. Six (6) copies of the latest Soil Report(s) prepared by a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer (less than one (1) year old). Expanded information regarding the levels of hydrocarbons and ground water contamination found on-site shall be provided in the soil report. C. All site drainage shall be handled on-site and shall not be permitted to drain onto adjacent properties. D. Three (3) sets of the Hydrology & Hydraulic Report(s) prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 4 (1) 3.2 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the applicant shall prepare sediment and erosion control plan(s) for all work related to this development. (1) 3.3 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits, infrastructure construction plans, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for all private on-site construction. (1) 3.4 Grading bond(s) will be required prior to permit issuance. The engineer's estimated cost of the grading, drainage, and erosion control shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. (1) 3.5 The applicant 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 for development of this site. (1) 3.6 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), 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 Control Board. Evidence that the NOI has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. In addition, the applicant shall include notes on the grading plans indicating that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities. (1) 3.7 A project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of grading permit. The WQMP shall be prepared using the City of Tustin Guidance for Preparing Project WQMPs. Applicant shall be responsible for certifying that all structural Best Management Practices (BMP) described in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications and shall demonstrate that adequate copies of the approved WQMP are available on-site for future building owners or tenants (1) 3.8 Prior issuance of the first rough or precise grading permit and for any subsequent grading permit involving excavation to increased depth, the applicant shall provide letters from an archaeologist and/or paleontologist stating that individuals are on call during grading and ground disturbing activities. Written recommendations specifying procedures for cultural/scientific resource surveillance as required by the FEIS/EIR mitigation requirements shall be submitted for review and approval of Community Development Department. Should any resources be Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 5 discovered, no further grading shall occur in the resource area until the Department of Community Development is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect the resource. (1) 3.9 Prior to issuance of precise grading permits or building permits for development within tract, screening shall be provided behind the curb along all public streets. The screening shall be in the form of temporary opaque fencing. Temporary screening shall be modified as necessary to accommodate infrastructure improvements, but shall remain in place until the ultimate improvements are installed in accordance with streetscape plans approved under the Concept Plan for Neighborhood E. (1) 3.10 Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1 development, landscape within the streetscape setback area shall be installed. (1) 3.11 Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, the applicant shall submit a groundwater survey of the Neighborhood E site subject to the grading permits. The analysis shall be prepared by a geotechnical engineer and versed in groundwater analysis and shall include the following information and analysis: A. Potential for perched groundwater intrusion into shallow groundwater zone upon build -out. B. Analysis of relief of groundwater buildup and properties of soil materials on-site. C. Impact of groundwater potential on building and structural foundations. D. Proposed site measures to avoid potential for groundwater intrusion within five feet of the bottom of footings. DRAINAGE (1) 4.1 The proposed Tustin Legacy Backbone, Local and Private Infrastructure storm drain system be designed per the applicable Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) and City of Tustin's standards and shall also incorporate the requirements of the Tustin Legacy Runoff Management Plan (ROMP) and the Barranca Channel Update Study. Public and private drainage collection systems shall be designed for a minimum 25 - year storm frequency. Regional drainage facilities shall be designed for a minimum 100 -year storm frequency. (1) 4.2 The applicant shall provide drainage study for 100 -year storm frequencies showing the maximum water surface area in all sump locations and Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 6 secondary overflow discharge locations for review and approval by the City Engineer. For all sump conditions, secondary drainage outlet discharge points shall be provided and shown on the plans per the applicable Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) and City of Tustin's standards. (1) 4.3 Detailed hydrology and hydraulic analysis for 25 -year and 100 -year storm frequencies shall be provided for both the existing and proposed conditions to determine any requirements for on-site storm water retention/detention and facility sizing. (1) 4.4 The applicant shall be required to accept any upstream storm water that would historically cross the property and detain/retain on the property such upstream water so that the release of said water into downstream regional flood control systems does not exceed historical flow rates or the downstream capacity of such systems. (1) 4.5 All Tustin Legacy Backbone, Local and Private Infrastructure storm drain system pipe shall be Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) and the minimum size shall be 24 -inch, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. The storm drain system angle of confluence between main line and lateral shall not exceed 45 degrees. (1) 4.6 The applicant shall be responsible for design and construction of any interim or permanent retention facilities on-site, within Neighborhood E, which may be needed to retain on-site water from the project, based upon a hydrology and hydraulic analysis. Any interim or permanent retention facilities on property not yet owned by the applicant are subject to the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department review and approval and will require issuance of license agreement(s) between the applicant and the City. (1) 4.7 The applicant shall design and construct the permanent retention basin and appurtenant flood control facilities for the Barranca Channel from Red Hill Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road, in accordance with the City's Run-off Management Plan for Tustin Legacy (ROMP) and the Barranca Channel Update Study. This work shall include intersection enhancements at Barranca Parkway/Armstrong Avenue and at Barranca Parkway/Red Hill Avenue. (1) 4.8 The applicant shall provide written approvals and obtain permits from the OCFCD for any connections and improvements to existing OCFCD storm drain facilities prior to the City approving the proposed storm drain improvements for the project. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 7 (1) 4.9 Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the applicant shall submit for approval by the City a Basin Maintenance and Operations Program, annual estimated maintenance cost, and a Faithful Performance Bond equivalent to 1 -year of estimated maintenance cost. The City will maintain the inlet, OCFCD will maintain the outlet and the Master Association will maintain the landscape elements. TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE, LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 5.1 Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure improvements shall comply with the City of Tustin General Plan, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, City development standards and guidelines, and all conditions contained herein. (1) 5.2 The applicant shall submit 24" by 36" mylar improvements plans, other public improvements, and private improvements, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer for review and approval. The improvements plans shall include, but not limited to the following: A. Grading plans. B. Catch basins, retention/detention facilities, storm drain lines and laterals, or connections to the existing storm drain system. C. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. D. Curb ramps for the physically disabled. E. Drive aprons. F. Street paving. G. Signing/striping plans. H. Traffic signal plans. I. Street lighting. J. Domestic water facilities. K. Reclaimed water facilities. L. Sanitary sewer facilities. M. Fire hydrants. N. Landscape and irrigation. O. Underground dry utility facilities and connections. P. All private streets, drive aisles, and curb return radius shall be consistent with the City's design standards for private street improvements. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 8 (1) 5.3 The applicant 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) 5.4 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits for any parcel within the tract, the applicant shall construct the full width improvements of all roadways listed as required roadways to be constructed for Tentative Tract Map, whether Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure or Local Infrastructure shall include all master planned systems including the streets, sidewalks, bikeways (Class I and Class ll), landscaped medians, street lighting, traffic signals, bus turn -outs, landscaping and irrigation, domestic water lines, gas, storm drainage, telephone, electricity, cable TV, sewage and reclaimed water, telemetry, any necessary telecommunication systems as shown in the Specific Plan, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Sub Area Master Plan for Tustin Legacy as approved by the City and responsible utility providers, and as required by the DDA 06-01. Intersection enhancements shall include the creation or extension of left turn lanes, additions or modifications 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, all of which shall be carried out in accordance with City standards. (1) 5.5 The applicant shall also include the design and construction of dry utility conduits and pull boxes for future City use in the backbone system throughout the project. (1) 5.6 The applicant shall design and construct all transitional components of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program that are determined by the City to be necessary to construct and operate the project, protect the public health and safety, and/or ensure logical and orderly future phasing of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, which are to be connected to the applicant's Local Infrastructure improvements, consistent with DDA 06-01, including, but not limited to, such items as roadway striping and signing, modifications to traffic signals, curbs and gutters, and medians. (1) 5.7 Prior to approval of the first Final Map and Pursuant to provisions of DDA 06-01, the applicant shall submit an off-site traffic mitigation cash payment fee in an amount based on the methodology identified in the Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Tustin and City of Santa Ana regarding the Tustin -Santa Ana Transportation System Improvement Authority for Grand Avenue/Edinger Avenue and Grand Avenue/Dyer Road intersection improvements which is currently estimated Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 9 at $9,282,979, and which will be adjusted based on written agreement and confirmation between the City of Tustin and City of Santa Ana. TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND SUBMITTALS (1) 6.1 Roadways identified in Table 4-4 of the Amended Specific Plan including the north side of Barranca Parkway from Red Hill Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road, the eastside of Red Hill Avenue from Barranca Parkway to 1,000 feet north of Valencia Avenue, Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and Armstrong Avenue from Warner Avenue to Barranca Parkway shall be constructed as part of the Neighborhood E Tentative Tract Map 17144 required improvements. (1) 6.2 For all design and construction within the public right-of-way for Backbone Infrastructure improvements funded by CFD or AD, separate plan packages shall be provided, which include all plans, specifications, and estimates necessary to conduct a public bid process. (1) 6.3 The applicant shall design and construct all Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements in the first phase of development as identified specifically in and required by DDA 06-01. (1) 6.4 The applicant shall design and submit 24" by 36" reproducible construction area traffic control plans, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation for review and approval. (1) 6.5 The applicant shall revise the Barranca Parkway off-street bicycle path along the north side of the street to ten (10) feet as previously requested. The sidewalk should be no closer than five (5) feet to the curb and eight (8) feet from the Property line to allow for adequate planting. Also the length of sidewalk curb adjacent should be the absolute minimum required to promote a safer pedestrian experience. The sidewalk and off-street bicycle path can be combined in certain locations (not at street intersections) where any public works and safety concerns are addressed subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. (1) 6.6 The applicant shall design and construct full -width street improvements for Armstrong Avenue between Warner Avenue and Barranca Parkway, including the intersection improvements at Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue/Warner Avenue. (1) 6.7 The applicant shall design and construct half -width street widening and improvements along the eastside of Red Hill Avenue including roadway Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 10 rehabilitation between Barranca Parkway and 1,000 feet north of Valencia Avenue. (1) 6.8 The applicant shall design and construct a landscaped raised median with the Red Hill Avenue improvements and any improvements on the west side of Red Hill Avenue necessary to construct the median on Red Hill Avenue in order to ensure orderly development. The median improvements are not an applicant requirement under DDA 06-01; consequently, the design and construction of said improvements shall be specifically identified as an eligible direct reimbursement to applicant by the City or the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency as part of any Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement required under DDA 06-01, prior to Final Map(s) approval. The City agrees that the applicant will provide provisions for reimbursement that will permit the applicant to receive reimbursement of segments of the project, including design. (1) 6.9 The applicant shall design and construct the full north -side widening and improvements to Barranca Parkway between Tustin Ranch Road and Red Hill Avenue including modification to the median and any improvements along the south side of Barranca Parkway necessary to re -construct the median. (1) 6.10 The applicant shall identify, design and construct the bus turnout and pad locations along the east side of Armstrong Avenue, similar to that shown for the north side of Warner Avenue. (1) 6.11 The applicant shall design and construct the full width improvements of Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue including intersection improvements to the intersection of the Warner Avenue/Red Hill Avenue, and to the intersection of Warner Avenue/Armstrong Avenue. Pursuant to Attachment 28, Section 1.8 (a) of DDA 06-01, the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of a second west -bound left turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue and second west -bound right turn at Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue. (1) 6.12 The applicant shall design and construct traffic signals and signal interconnect systems at the intersection of Barranca Parkway/Armstrong Avenue, at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue/Warner Avenue, at the intersection of Armstrong Avenue/South Loop Road, and at the intersection of Warner Avenue/Armstrong Avenue. (1) 6.13 Additional traffic signals and measures will be required as determined necessary by the Director of Public Works, which will be applicant requirements with all cost to be solely borne by the applicant, but will not Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 11 be included in the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program Improvements, consistent with DDA 06-01. (1) 6.14 The applicant shall design and construct the median on Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and the improvements on the north and south side of Warner Avenue. The applicant shall be responsible for grading the right-of-way and stabilizing any finished grades within the right-of-way areas in conjunction with the Warner Avenue street improvement. (1) 6.15 The applicant shall design and construct a pedestrian bridge across Armstrong Avenue at the Linear Park. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant shall submit for City approval a Pedestrian Bridge Maintenance and Operations Program and annual estimated maintenance cost. The pedestrian bridge will be owned and maintained by the City. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 7.1 All design and construction of improvement work shall incorporate applicable conditions contained within DDA 06-01 and shall be designed and constructed 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." (1) 7.2 Roadways identified in Table 4-4 of the Amended Specific Plan including Carnegie Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and Aston Street from Barranca Parkway to Carnegie Avenue shall be constructed as part of the Neighborhood E Project. (1) 7.3 All private improvement work shall be 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." (1) 7.4 Sanitary sewer facilities, domestic water systems, and reclaimed water systems shall be designed and constructed to the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) standards. These improvements plans shall be reviewed and approved by IRWD. The domestic water system improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for fire protection purposes. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 12 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND SUBMITTALS (1) 8.1 The applicant shall design and construct Carnegie Avenue between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue as a four lane secondary road and Aston Street ("C" Street) between Barranca Parkway and Carnegie Avenue as a two lane local collector road and shall be part of the Public Infrastructure improvements (not Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements). In addition, certain additional identified modifications to the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements due to applicant's project shall be the applicant responsibility. Any incremental increases in costs to make changes required by Attachment 28, Section 1.8 (a) of the DDA 06-01 shall be considered as applicant's cost not as fair share costs (i.e. second west -bound left turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue, second west -bound right turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, Aston Street extension). (1) 8.2 The applicant shall design and construct the full -width improvements of "A" Street (Carnegie Avenue), "B" Street, "C" Street (Aston Street), "D" Street, "E" Street, "F" Street and "G" Street as local public streets, including but not limited to landscaped and raised medians. (1) 8.3 The applicant shall provide a cross section on the improvement plans for "E" Street, "F" Street and "G" Street that indicates the location of the sidewalks in relation to parked vehicles in areas where the sidewalks will be adjacent to parking. A minimum five (5) foot clear sidewalk shall be provided along the aforementioned streets. (1) 8.4 Traffic signals, control devices, and signal interconnect systems for the intersection of: Red Hill Avenue/Carnegie Avenue, Armstrong Avenue/"A" Street, Armstrong Avenue/"C" Street, Barranca Parkway/"C" Street, Warner Avenue/Lot "G", "A" Street/Lot "E" and "A" Street/"C" Street shall be designed and installed by the applicant as identified in the approved traffic analysis for the project dated July 2007. (1) 8.5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, improvements plans, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for the following private improvements: A. Street lighting. The private street lighting system shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tustin and Southern California Edison. B. Landscape/irrigation. C. Trash facilities. The applicant shall provide for commercial trash collection and obtain approval from the Engineering Division for the location, size, and number of trash enclosures. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 13 COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED AGENCIES GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 9.1 The applicant 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: A. The applicant shall obtain permission, approvals, or temporary easements from affected property owners as necessary. B. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the applicable municipal agencies for work within the agencies' City limits. All infrastructure improvements in the City of Irvine and the City of Santa Ana shall be coordinated with the City of Irvine and the City of Santa Ana and shall comply with Irvine's and Santa Ana's applicable standards respectively. C. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the applicable Regional Resource Agencies including, but not limited to: the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc. for work within the open channels. D. The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of the bus stop locations with the Orange County Transportation Authority. E-. The applicant shall obtain written approval/permits from the applicable utility companies. (1) 9.2 The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of all utilities with the utility providers and the City. The applicant shall also include the design and construction of dry utility conduits and pull boxes for future City use in the arterial streets backbone system throughout the project subject to review and approval of City Engineer. DEDICATIONS/RESERVATIONS/EASEMENTS GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 10.1 The applicant shall satisfy dedication and reservation requirements as applicable, including but not limited to, dedication of all required street and flood control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements and water easements, parkland and open space easements defined and approved as to specific locations by the City Engineer, Redevelopment Agency and other agencies as applicable. The locations and dimensions of all existing and proposed easements shall be shown on the Final Map(s) and plans, unless otherwise indicated that separate instruments are required pursuant to this resolution. All storm drain and utility easement widths shall be dimensioned and labeled on the final maps and plans. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 14 The applicant shall submit to the City an offer of fee dedication of the twenty (20) foot right-of-way area for future flood control purposes along the north side of the existing Barranca Channel per separate instrument. The legal description and plat of the dedicated area, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer and/or California Licensed Land Surveyor, shall be submitted to the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department for review and approval. The applicant shall maintain the property as legally described in the offer of dedication area defined in this condition along the north side of the existing Barranca Channel until acceptance of any offer of dedication by the City. (1) 10.2 Reciprocal ingress and egress, parking, and pedestrian access shall be provided between all lots, where applicable. (1) 10.3 The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City of Tustin for maintenance of all parkway improvements within public rights-of-way and for any non -backbone median islands. (1) 10.4 The applicant shall enter into any public easements necessary for maintenance access to any traffic signal equipment and detector loops in conjunction with any proposed signalized intersections proposed within the tract. (1) 10.5 Any easement that lies within or crosses public right-of-way proposed to be deeded or dedicated to the City shall be subordinated to the City prior to acceptance of the rights-of-way, unless otherwise exempted by the Redevelopment Agency or Public Works Department. (1) 10.6 All public access easements outside of the existing or proposed street rights-of-way shall be clearly shown and labeled on the plans and street sections. (1) 10.7 The subdivision includes land required as private parkland and open space under DDA 06-01 which, shall be privately maintained. The applicant shall design and construct private parkland and open space as shown on the Tentative Tract Map consistent with time restrictions contained in DDA 06-01. The applicant shall be required to dedicate perpetual easements and public access for public use across all open space parcels as identified in the Concept Plan, on the Tentative Tract Map, and pursuant to DDA 06-01. The perpetual easement and public access agreement shall be separate from map notations and shall be by separate instrument in favor of the City in a form and substance approved by the Redevelopment Agency and Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 15 Community Development Department for the benefit of the public providing in perpetuity and at no cost to the City. The easements shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. The right of the general public to use the open space and park facilities. B. The provision of public park access to and from the said facility. C. The maintenance of the open space and park facilities by the applicant and its successors and assigns including a future community association in compliance with the provisions of the DDA. Prior to exoneration of any security on the tract map, the copy of the recorded instrument reserving in perpetuity of the private parkland and open space, as required by the Concept Plan, Tentative Tract Map and DDA 06-01. (1) 10.8 Prior to recordation of Phase 2 Final Map(s), the City in consultation with the applicant agrees to provide Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) with an interim license on Phase 2 property within Neighborhood E for IRWD to undertake pilot drilling testing of the three (3) well sites which are shown on the Tentative Map to determine their feasibility for permanent well locations. Upon provision of the test results to the City and the applicant, IRWD shall either confirm the original three (3) well sites or shall request minor modifications of the three (3) well sites within Phase 2 of Neighborhood E. IRWD may also request that one of the three (3) well sites be expanded to approximately 40,000 square feet to be a combination well site and treatment facility. In conjunction with City's confirmation of the IRWD submitted results and any request by IRWD for a combination well and treatment facility, the City shall authorize minor modifications on the Phase 2 Final Map(s) to the original general locations of the three (3) well sites as originally shown on Tentative Tract Map 17144 (Lots K, L and M). IRWD in making the request for the treatment facility shall also reconsider and inform the City in writing that they no longer have need for the fourth required well site originally anticipated in Neighborhood D and as originally requested by IRWD in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The applicant upon City's receipt of such written notice from IRWD, shall be released from such future obligation in Neighborhood D. The revised well site locations in Neighborhood E shall be deeded sites to the City by a separate grant deed instrument which form and content shall be approved by the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department. Upon finalization of the revised sites, the City will appraise the well sites and/or the combination well and treatment facility and will enter into a written Agreement with IRWD for IRWD reimbursement to the City of the Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 16 market value of any expanded ground lease area necessary to accommodate the combination well and treatment facility. The City will then grant a restricted easement(s) to IRWD for well(s) and/or well and treatment facility and access easements for public utility purposes only and subject to MCAS Tustin development standards, all Neighborhood E Legacy Park Design Guidelines and final approval by the Redevelopment Agency and the Public Works Department. CC&RS (1) 11.1 All organizational documents for the project including any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department, Redevelopment Agency City Attorney's Office, and Special Counsel. Costs for such review shall be borne by the subdivider. The approved CC&Rs shall be recorded with County Recorder's Office at the same time as recordation of the Final Map. A copy of the final approved and recorded documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department after recordation. (1) 11.2 No parcel or unit in the development shall be sold or a Certificate of Occupancy issued, unless a community property owners association has been legally formed with the right to assess all these properties which are jointly owned or benefited to operate and maintain all other mutually available features of the development including, but not limited to, open space, amenities, landscaping, or slope maintenance landscaping, private streets, and utilities. No parcel or unit shall be sold unless all approved and required open space, amenities, landscaping, or other improvements, or approved phases thereof, have been completed or completion is assured by a development agreement or financing guarantee method approved by the City, and Redevelopment Agency. The CC&Rs shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: 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. B. All requirements mandated by Section 12.1, 12.2 of the DDA. C. All requirements as mandated by Section 8.3.8 of the DDA requiring inclusion of adopted Design Guidelines for the master developer footprint and Neighborhood E to be part of the CC&Rs. D. All requirements as mandated for maintenance of private parkland and open space contained in Section 8.15.3 of the DDA, and common areas under the control of an Association. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 17 E. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance and maintenance standards of all common areas and facilities including landscape easement areas and lots, private parks, walls, fences, private roadways (walks, sidewalks, trails and paseos). F. The requirement that association bylaws be established. G. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including recreational buildings and amenities, landscaped areas and lots, walls and fences, private roadways (i.e., walks, sidewalks, trails), parking lot, parkland facilities and bikeways, and open space areas. H. Membership in the property owners association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual units. . I. 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 patios, sunshades, trellises, awnings, exterior mechanical equipment, television and radio antenna, consistent with the Tustin City Code and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. J. Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed in Section G above in CC&Rs. Examples of maintenance standards are shown below. 1. 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. 2. All private roadways, parking areas, 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 travel ways should be removed or repaired promptly. 3. Common areas 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. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 18 K. Community property owners association approval of major exterior improvements requiring a building permit shall be obtained prior to requesting a building permit from the City of Tustin Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency. All plans for exterior improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by the City and the CC&Rs. L. Park land and open space areas within the tract shall be considered private open space and shall be illustrated on a "Private Open Space Exhibit" and shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall specify those portions of the common open space area that are allocated for private use and public use and access rights in perpetuity. The CC&Rs shall include a separate 8'/2 inch by 11 inch dimensioned site plan for each unit that is allocated private open space. M. The approved site plan showing the public portion of the park site and associated public easements that will be accessible to the public and provisions for maintenance of these areas by the Property Owners Association. N. The approved "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. All buildings are required to maintain the required number of parking spaces based on Table 3-6 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 2. The property owners 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. O. Maintenance of lettered and numbered Lots (including but not limited to Lots A, B, C, D, H, I, and J), containing all common areas, public and private park open space, edge open space, drives, alleys, walkways, paseos, the Retention Basin, etc. shall be by the community property owners association. P. Television and radio antennas shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Tustin City Code. Q. All utility services serving the site shall be installed and maintained underground. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 19 R. The community property owners association shall be required to file the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one member of the association Board and, where applicable, a manager of the project before January 1 st of each year with the City of Tustin 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. S. The community property owners 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. T. The approved "Trip Red uction/Transportation Demand Management Strategy Plan" shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall be enforced by the community property owners association. U. No amendment to alter, modify, terminate, or change the property owners association's obligation to maintain the common areas and the project perimeter wall or other CC&Rs 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 and maintenance of the project perimeter wall shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the City of Tustin Community Development Department. BUYER NOTIFICATION (1) 12.1 Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a buyer notification document that includes the notifications listed below. The notification document shall be signed by each buyer prior to final inspection and occupancy, and a copy of the signed notification shall be provided to the Community Development Department prior to final inspection and/or issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy. A. A notice for roadway, trail, and train noise that may impact the subdivision, including roadway noise associated with Red Hill Avenue, Baranca Parkway, Warner Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, and train noise associated with the rail corridor north of the project. The notice shall indicate the current number of trains per day (59) and the estimated increase to over 100 trains on a 24-hour basis by the year 2020. The notice shall indicate that additional building upgrades may be necessary for noise attenuation. This determination is to be made as architectural drawings become available and/or where field-testing determines inadequate noise insulation. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 20 B. A notice indicating that public use of a portion of the park site, to be maintained by the property owners association, will be allowed noting public ingress and egress through the subdivision will be provided for access to the park. C. A notice explaining the easements, facilities, amenities, and dedications that will be provided on lettered lots and indicating all on- site streets, rive aisle, paseos, and common areas are to be maintained by the property owners association. D. A notice, to be approved by the City Attorney, indicating that neither the site, nor the project, nor any part thereof, nor any street or sidewalk, drive aisles, or paseos thereon shall be privately gated, provided however that any fitness/spa facility within the common area and any indoor common area improvements, including any fitness center and bathrooms, may be gated or locked and made available solely to employees of the project and their guests. E. A notice indicating that surrounding properties may be developed in accordance with City ordinances in a manner which may partially or totally obstruct views from the owner's unit and that the City of Tustin makes no claim, warranty, or guarantee that views from any unit will be preserved as development of surrounding properties occurs. F. A notice explaining and providing a copy of a "Private Open Space Exhibit" and separate 8Y2 inch by 11 inch dimensioned site plan for each parcel or unit, as applicable, that is allocated private open space within the common area. G. A notice explaining and providing a copy of the approved "Parking and Circulation Exhibit" and related CC&Rs provisions. H. A notice explaining the phasing of construction within the subdivision and that activity may be disruptive. I. The Developer shall notify all buyers that future Assessment/Maintenance Districts may affect the property. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION (1) 13.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits within the tract, a final acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures and sites to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical reports are incorporated into the design of the project. Evidence prepared under the supervision of an expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall be provided. At least a preliminary analysis at the subdivision level and prior to building permits should evaluate whether or not mitigation other than Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 21 building construction will permit achievable compliance with required minimum General Plan interior noise standards. (1) 13.2 Prior to the first final map recordation (except for financing and re- conveyance purposes) or building permit issuance for development within the City of Tustin portion of the site, the project developer shall provide evidence of compliance with all requirements and standards of the City of Tustin Park Code. ATTACHMENT Draft Planning. Commission Minutes of November 13, 2007 and Resolution No. 4068 ITEM #1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2007 16 A' 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Puckett absent ROLL CALL Present: Chair Nielsen, Chair Pro Tem Puckett Commissioners Kozak, Murray, and Thompson Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works Doug Anderson, Transportation/Development Services Manager David Kendig, Deputy City Attorney Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Edmelynne Hutter, Associate Planner Ryan Swiontek, Associated Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 23, 2007, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Adopted Resolution 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 SUBDIVIDING A 131 - No. 4068, as ACRE SITE INTO 12 NUMBERED LOTS AND 28 modified by staff LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF prior to the meeting DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC STREETS, AND FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES. APPLICANT: TUSTIN LEGACY COMMUNITY PARTNERS Minutes — Planning Commission 11-13-07 Page 1 PROPERTY CITY OF TUSTIN OWNERS: TUSTIN PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LOCATION: PROJECT SITE GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WARNER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, ARMSTRONG AVENUE TO THE EAST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND RED HILL AVENUE TO THE WEST ZONING: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREAS 9 THROUGH 12 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4068 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 17144 to subdivide a 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities. 7:02 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Willkom Presented the staff report, pointing out the suggested modifications that were provided at the dais. Thompson Asked staff to explain the detention basin area that appears to overlay the park and whether or not this would be a combined use with the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) or a part of the City facilities for storm drain purposes. Willkom Suggested that Doug Anderson, Transportation and Development Services Manager, should answer that question. Anderson Stated that the basin is a requirement of the OCFCD for improvements to the Barranca Channel which is currently an impaired water body and is deficient; one of the requirements was to retain some of the flow on-site; the basin will function as a joint - use facility; in the off season, when there is no flow, it will be maintained as a passive open space and may be used for recreational purposes; there is also a 24 -inch low -flow pipe that will be installed adjacent to the current channel which would catch the nuisance flow from Red Hill and the site and transfer those through the property; the only time water is expected to be retained is after Minutes — Planning Commission 11-13-07 Page 2 a large, intense rainfall; there are inlet and outlet structures, everything that would be in a normal basin, will be included. Thompson Asked if that becomes a facility that the County operates as a flood control device. Anderson Indicated that it is a County requirement that the master developer through the association will provide the landscaping; the various inlet/outlet structures will be maintained. Nielsen Suggested that this area will be used as a Linear Park unless a significant rainfall would require it as a retention basis. Kozak Asked if there will be any improvements to the Barranca Channel. Anderson Answered in the affirmative, probably from Aston easterly to link up with the covering of Barranca Channel just west of Tustin Ranch Road that the District development is improving; it will all be a covered channel. Thompson Referred to the reference on page 3 is to open space as a flex use; and, asked if this would be private or public acreage. Willkom Responded that the open spaces are private areas with the exception of the sports field planned for Lot 9 which will be public. Nielsen Questioned whether the park facilities with open space with a perpetual public easement would be maintained by the homeowners association. Willkom Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked for clarification regarding a possible gymnasium or other private park areas that the public would not be able to access in the Linear Park area. Willkom Replied that all the Linear Park area will be open to the public. Nielsen Stated his understanding that the perpetual public easement is ongoing with no time limit. Willkom Answered in the affirmative. Puckett Asked staff to repeat the numbers of the conditions that were modified. Minutes — Planning Commission 11-13-07 Page 3 Willkom Reiterated the condition numbers: 2.1, 6.1, 6.5, and 11.21 Director Added that Condition 13.3 is proposed to be eliminated. Thompson Recommended that Item J on the revised resolution referencing sewer in relation to the Regional Water Quality Board should be changed to storm runoff. Director Stated the condition is accurate. Nielsen Asked if it is accurate now or would be accurate as modified by Commissioner Thompson's suggestion. Kendig Indicated that it will be accurate if it is revised to state storm runoff. Kozak Referred to page 13 of the Environmental evaluation; it is encouraging to see the improvements to Red Hill with the raised landscape median as an example; and, asked for clarification regarding IX. in the last paragraph referencing modifications to parking standards. Willkom Stated that the modification to parking standards was approved by the City Council a few months ago through a zone change proposal; the proposed project tract map will be consistent with what the Council approved. Nielsen Asked why there was no Negative Declaration included in the staff report. Willkom Responded that staff prepared an Initial Study Checklist and requests that the Planning Commission determine that the project is consistent with the program EIR/EIS with no new mitigation or additional environmental impact information required. Nielsen Asked if pedestrian access through the Linear Park across Carnegie and Armstrong would include pedestrian bridges. Willkom Stated there will be a pedestrian bridge across Armstrong. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Elizabeth Cobb, Stated the applicant is pleased to have the Neighborhood E representing tentative map, which encompasses the initial entitlement, to begin Legacy Park breaking ground and getting into construction; this is a monumental partners point for the developer. Minutes — Planning Commission 11-13-07 Page 4 This is a complex project and this is one neighborhood with two to come; the applicant has worked with staff on the conditions; a formal letter was submitted and is incorporated herein by reference; the letter outlined the conditions already worked through with staff; the exception would be Condition 6.8 with reference to the Red Hill median and the response to constructing that and working with the City through a reimbursement agreement. Applicant understands the importance of the median to the City and is willing to work with the City as construction begins on the east side of the street and anticipates that the applicant can work collaboratively with the City through the design elements and the construction elements of the median; there are many details in working through the median which the applicant anticipates resolving with the City; the applicant would like to see a concurrent invoice payment to help the applicant deal with cash flow concerns, considering it was not part of the Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) and what was contained in the infrastructure at that time; this is a highly technical component; applicant is putting forth the comments with the understanding that this can be worked through with staff. Nielsen Asked staff to respond to the applicant's remarks regarding Condition 6.8. Shingleton Stated she had spoken with the City Manager on the applicant's Assistant City request regarding Condition 6.8; the improvements of medians was Manager required by the Specific Plan on other projects similar to Tustin Legacy developers such as Lennar and William Lyon who had the full responsibility for construction of those medians; it was an oversight which was not specifically isolated in the DDA although Red Hill improvements were required; staff has agreed to include the Red Hill median cost reimbursement as an item for which the Redevelopment Agency would compensate the developer with the obligation that the developer would be required to construct the median. The applicant has alternatively requested that, while the applicant assumes a construction role on the median widening, a construction management role on the median is unacceptable to staff; the applicant will have full responsibility; staff recommended full construction of the median and the full right-of-way improvements on the east side of Red Hill Avenue; staff agreed to work through a required reimbursement agreement to provide the developer with segmentation of the physical improvements to allow for adequate reimbursement; the language requested regarding Minutes — Planning Commission 11-13-07 Page 5 concurrence, approval of invoices, and payments cannot be recommended at this point; the segmentation will automatically be concurrent with every invoice that the applicant receives on a construction project; the City will work collaboratively with the developer to find segments which staff determines to be reasonable. It is requested that the Commission trust staff in this regard and not recommend any further alterations to this condition. Kozak Suggested that segmentation of the project and payment for construction will be covered by the proposed reimbursement agreement. Shingleton Answered in the affirmative; adding that this is an expense that the Redevelopment Agency has agreed to accept; it would normally be a developer obligation of the Specific Plan for the developer to construct; this is far in excess of what would be normal; similar conditions have been imposed on other developers at the Legacy. Nielsen Asked if this requirement refers to timing. Shingleton Stated that the requirement refers to timing and construction management versus construction obligation; the City's position is that the obligation for construction shall be the developer's. Nielsen Asked if the applicant had any comment. Ms. Cobb Responded that the Redevelopment Agency is working closely with the developer and the cooperative effort is appreciated; this is not something to hold up the recommendation to move the project to the City Council. 7:27 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Commission It was the consensus of the Commission that the project be recommended to the City Council, as modified and as proposed by the Assistant City Manager. It was moved by Murray, seconded by Thompson, to adopt Resolution No. 4068. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Resolution 3. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-031, A No. 4075 REQUEST TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01-031 TO ALLOW FOR MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINIC USE. THIS Minutes — Planning Commission 11-13-07 Page 6 r RESOLUTION NO. 4068 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 TO SUBDIVIDE A 131 -ACRE SITE INTO 12 NUMBERED LOTS AND 28 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC STREETS, AND FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDED BY BARRANCA PARKWAY ON THE SOUTH, RED HILL AVENUE ON THE WEST, WARNER AVENUE ON THE NORTH, AND ARMSTRONG AVENUE ON THE EAST. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17144 was submitted by Tustin Legacy Community Partners to subdivide a 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, and public streets, and flood control facilities. The site is bounded by Barranca Parkway on the south, Red Hill Avenue on the west, Warner Avenue on the north and Armstrong Avenue on the east; B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map on November 13, 2007, by the Planning Commission; C. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan land use designation of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which designates the project sites (Planning Areas 9-12) as commercial business which provides for development of offices, retail and service commercial, public and institutional, and light industrial uses; D. As conditioned, the map would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code); I E. That the Public Works Department has reviewed the map and determined that it is technically correct; F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed intensity and type of development; Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 2 G. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems; H. That the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat; I. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. J. That any discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code of the State of California. K. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin; and, L. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for Tentative Tract Map 17144, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes, or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Il. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 17144 for the subdivision of an approximately 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B attached hereto. Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 3 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 13th day of November, 2007. JOH IELSEN Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 1, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4068 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of November, 2007. EL ZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 4068 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 Approval of Tentative Tract Map 17144 is contingent upon the applicant returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Cleric -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) 1.2 The subdivider shall comply with all applicable requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the WAS Tustin Specific Plan, the Tustin City Code, applicable City of Tustin guidelines and standards and applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified FEIS/EIR, DDA 06-01, and other agreements with the City of Tustin unless otherwise modified by this Resolution. (1) 1.3 Prior to Final Map approval, DDA 06-01 (Master Developer) shall remain in full force and effect without defaults, and all construction and completion of obligations identified in DDA 06-01 shall be satisfied, as applicable. (1) 1.4 All approvals noted in Zoning Administrator Action 07-008 and Resolution No. 4068 shall become null and void in case of default or termination of DDA 06-01 by Developer prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, including but not limited to, the City's approval of any final maps not completed at the time of default or termination. (1) 1.5 The final tract map shall be recorded in accordance with submitted maps date stamped November 13, 2007, and all applicable requirements of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Tustin City Code, and applicable policies and guidelines. All conditions of approval herein, as applicable, shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or as specified herein. (1) 1.6 The applicant is required to prepare and record final map(s) within 24 months from tentative map approval. The applicant shall record with appropriate agencies, final map(s) prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the Tustin Municipal Code. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 2 (1) 1.7 The applicant shall execute subdivision and monumentation agreement(s) and furnish improvement and monumentation bond(s) prior to recordation of the Final Map(s) for the estimated costs of all Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure costs. (1) 1.8 Prior to approval of the final tract map, the applicant shall file a petition for the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) or Assessment District (AD) for the project area. The district may include the acquisition and construction or portions of the backbone infrastructure the applicant wishes to have funded through CFD or AD funding as well as the mandatory required imposition of a service special assessment tax for maintenance of public open space, landscape improvements such as backbone infrastructure medians, and other eligible public service items including street sweeping, traffic signal maintenance, landscape and park maintenance, lighting, flood and storm drain protection, police and fire protection, ambulance and paramedic services, recreation program services, other services and facilities at Tustin Legacy consistent with the CFD or AD Act. In the event that a district is not established prior to issuance of the first building permits, maintenance of items which would have been otherwise covered by imposition of a special service assessment tax, shall be the responsibility of a community association until such service tax is in place. The applicant shall acknowledge and agree pursuant to provisions contained in Section 8.11 of the DDA that the City shall have the right to determine, in its sole discretion, to fund any of the sub -divider's Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Work through imposition of an Community Facilities District (CFD) or Assessment District (AD). (1) 1.9 Upon recordation of the final map(s) or issuance of building permit(s), whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit new addresses for corresponding future buildings. PLANS AND SUBMITTALS (1) 2.1 Prior to approval of any design review application for development within the tract, the applicant shall provide trip reduction facilities pursuant to Section 9904 of the Tustin City Code. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Trip Red uction/Transportation Demand Management Strategy Plan to the Public Works/Engineering Department in conformance with the Tustin City Code Section 9901 et al and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.13.1.C. (1) 2.2 All infrastructure shall comply with the City of Tustin Standard Drawings and Design Standards for Public Works Construction. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 3 (1) 2.3 All wet utilities, dry utilities, other utilities, and other facilities shall be provided underground and in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, unless otherwise approved by responsible agencies or noted in this resolution. (1) 2.4 The design of driveways, sidewalks, trails, and pathways shall comply with the provisions of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (1) 2.5 All final development plans, improvements plans and maps shall be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file format is AutoCAD having the extension DWG. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved and updated CADD files reflecting "record drawing" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. The subdivision bonds will not be released until the "record drawing" CADD files have been submitted. The Final Map(s) should be tied to County of Orange control points (latest revision). Refer to Specifications of Digital Submission as maintained by the Surveyor's Office of the County of Orange for specific requirements for individual submittals. (1) 2.6 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, Encroachment Permit(s) shall be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. GRADING (1) 3.1 The applicant shall submit grading plans for review and approval. The submittal package shall include, at the minimum, the following: A. Technical details and plans for all utility installations including telephone, gas, water, and electricity. B. Six (6) copies of the latest Soil Report(s) prepared by a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer (less than one (1) year old). Expanded information regarding the levels of hydrocarbons and ground water contamination found on-site shall be provided in the soil report. C. All site drainage shall be handled on-site and shall not be permitted to drain onto adjacent properties. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 4 D. Three (3) sets of the Hydrology & Hydraulic Report(s) prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval. (1) 3.2 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the applicant shall prepare sediment and erosion control plan(s) for all work related to this development. (1) 3.3 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits, infrastructure construction plans, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for all private on-site construction. (1) 3.4 Grading bond(s) will be required prior to permit issuance. The engineer's estimated cost of the grading, drainage, and erosion control shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. (1) 3.5 The applicant 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 for development of this site. (1) 3.6 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent NOI indicating that coverage has been obtained ( ) 9 9 under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that the NOI has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. In addition, the applicant shall include notes on the grading plans indicating that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities. (1) 3.7 A project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of grading permit. The WQMP shall be prepared using the City of Tustin Guidance for Preparing Project WQMPs. Applicant shall be responsible for certifying that all structural Best Management Practices (BMP) described in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications and shall demonstrate that adequate copies of the approved WQMP are available on-site for future building owners or tenants (1) 3.8 Prior issuance of the first rough or precise grading permit and for any subsequent grading permit involving excavation to increased depth, the applicant shall provide letters from an archaeologist and/or paleontologist stating that individuals are on call during grading and ground disturbing activities. Written recommendations specifying procedures for Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 5 cultural/scientific resource surveillance as required by the FEIS/EIR mitigation requirements shall be submitted for review and approval of Community Development Department. Should any resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the resource area until the Department of Community Development is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect the resource. (1) 3.9 Prior to issuance of precise grading permits or building permits for development within tract, screening shall be provided behind the curb along all public streets. The screening shall be in the form of temporary opaque fencing. Temporary screening shall be modified as necessary to accommodate infrastructure improvements, but shall remain in place until the ultimate improvements are installed in accordance with streetscape plans approved under the Concept Plan for Neighborhood E. (1) 3.10 Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1 development, landscape within the streetscape setback area shall be installed. (1) 3.11 Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, the applicant shall submit a groundwater survey of the Neighborhood E site subject to the grading permits. The analysis shall be prepared by a geotechnical engineer and versed in groundwater analysis and shall include the following information and analysis: A. Potential for perched groundwater intrusion into shallow groundwater zone upon build -out. B. Analysis of relief of groundwater buildup and properties of soil materials on-site. C. Impact of groundwater potential on building and structural foundations. D. Proposed site measures to avoid potential for groundwater intrusion within five feet of the bottom of footings. DRAINAGE (1) 4.1 The proposed Tustin Legacy Backbone, Local and Private Infrastructure storm drain system be designed per the applicable Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) and City of Tustin's standards and shall also incorporate the requirements of the Tustin Legacy Runoff Management Plan (ROMP) and the Barranca Channel Update Study. Public and private drainage collection systems shall be designed for a minimum 25 - year storm frequency. Regional drainage facilities shall be designed for a minimum 100 -year storm frequency. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 6 (1) 4.2 The applicant shall provide drainage study for 100 -year storm frequencies showing the maximum water surface area in all sump locations and secondary overflow discharge locations for review and approval by the City Engineer. For all sump conditions, secondary drainage outlet discharge points shall be provided and shown on the plans per the applicable Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) and City of Tustin's standards. (1) 4.3 Detailed hydrology and hydraulic analysis for 25 -year and 100 -year storm frequencies shall be provided for both the existing and proposed conditions to determine any requirements for on-site storm water retention/detention and facility sizing. (1) 4.4 The applicant shall be required to accept any upstream storm water that would historically cross the property and detain/retain on the property such upstream water so that the release of said water into downstream regional flood control systems does not exceed historical flow rates or the downstream capacity of such systems. (1) 4.5 All Tustin Legacy Backbone, Local and Private Infrastructure storm drain system pipe shall be Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) and the minimum size shall be 24 -inch, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. The storm drain system angle of confluence between main line and lateral shall not exceed 45 degrees. (1) 4.6 The applicant shall be responsible for design and construction of any interim or permanent retention facilities on-site, within Neighborhood E, which may be needed to retain on-site water from the project, based upon a hydrology and hydraulic analysis. Any interim or permanent retention facilities on property not yet owned by the applicant are subject to the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department review and approval and will require issuance of license agreement(s) between the applicant and the City. (1) 4.7 The applicant shall design and construct the permanent retention basin and appurtenant flood control facilities for the Barranca Channel from Red Hill Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road, in accordance with the City's Run-off Management Plan for Tustin Legacy (ROMP) and the Barranca Channel Update Study. This work shall include intersection enhancements at Barranca Parkway/Armstrong Avenue and at Barranca Parkway/Red Hill Avenue. (1) 4.8 The applicant shall provide written approvals and obtain permits from the OCFCD for any connections and improvements to existing OCFCD storm Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 7 drain facilities prior to the City approving the proposed storm drain improvements for the project. (1) 4.9 Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the applicant shall submit for approval by the City a Basin Maintenance and Operations Program, annual estimated maintenance cost, and a Faithful Performance Bond equivalent to 1 -year of estimated maintenance cost. The City will maintain the inlet, OCFCD will maintain the outlet and the Master Association will maintain the landscape elements. TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE, LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 5.1 Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure improvements shall comply with the City of Tustin General Plan, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, City development standards and guidelines, and all conditions contained herein. (1) 5.2 The applicant shall submit 24" by 36" mylar improvements plans, other public improvements, and private improvements, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer for review and approval. The improvements plans shall include, but not limited to the following: A. Grading plans. B. Catch basins, retention/detention facilities, storm drain lines and laterals, or connections to the existing storm drain system. C. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. D. Curb ramps for the physically disabled. E. Drive aprons. F. Street paving. G. Signing/striping plans. H. Traffic signal plans. I. Street lighting. J. Domestic water facilities. K. Reclaimed water facilities. L. Sanitary sewer facilities. M. Fire hydrants. N. Landscape and irrigation. O. Underground dry utility facilities and connections. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 8 P. All private streets, consistent with the improvements. drive aisles, and curb return. radius shall be City's design standards for private street (1) 5.3 The applicant 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) 5.4 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits for any parcel within the tract, the applicant shall construct the full width improvements of all roadways listed as required roadways to be constructed for Tentative Tract Map, whether Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure or Local Infrastructure shall include all master planned systems including the streets, sidewalks, bikeways (Class I and Class II), landscaped medians, street lighting, traffic signals, bus turn -outs, landscaping and irrigation, domestic water lines, gas, storm drainage, telephone, electricity, cable TV, sewage and reclaimed , water, telemetry, any necessary telecommunication systems as shown in the Specific Plan, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Sub Area Master Plan for Tustin Legacy as approved by the City and responsible utility providers, and as required by the DDA 06-01. Intersection enhancements shall include the creation or extension of left turn lanes, additions or modifications 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, all of which shall be carried out in accordance with City standards. (1) 5.5 The applicant shall also include the design and construction of dry utility conduits and pull boxes for future City use in the backbone system throughout the project. (1) 5.6 The applicant shall design and construct all transitional components of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program that are determined by the City to be necessary to construct and operate the project, protect the public health and safety, and/or ensure logical and orderly future phasing of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, which are to be connected to the applicant's Local Infrastructure improvements, consistent with DDA 06-01, including, but not limited to, such items as roadway striping and signing, modifications to traffic signals, curbs and gutters, and medians. (1) 5.7 Prior to approval of the first Final Map and Pursuant to provisions of DDA 06-01, the applicant shall submit an off-site traffic mitigation cash payment fee in an amount based on the methodology identified in the Amendment Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 9 to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Tustin and City of Santa Ana regarding the Tustin -Santa Ana Transportation System Improvement Authority for Grand Avenue/Edinger Avenue and Grand Avenue/Dyer Road intersection improvements which is currently estimated at $9,282,979, and which will be adjusted based on written agreement and confirmation between the City of Tustin and City of Santa Ana. TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND SUBMITTALS (1) 6.1 Roadways identified in Table 4-4 of the Amended Specific Plan including the north side of Barranca Parkway from Red Hill Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road, the eastside of Red Hill Avenue from Barranca Parkway to 1,000 feet north of Valencia Avenue, Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and Armstrong Avenue from Warner Avenue to Barranca Parkway shall be constructed as part of the Neighborhood E Tentative Tract Map 17144 required improvements. (1) 6.2 For all design and construction within the public right-of-way for Backbone Infrastructure improvements funded by CFD or AD, separate plan packages shall be provided, which include all plans, specifications, and estimates necessary to conduct a public bid process. (1) 6.3 The applicant shall design and construct all Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements in the first phase of development as identified specifically in and required by DDA 06-01. (1) 6.4 The applicant shall design and submit 24" by 36" reproducible construction area traffic control plans, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation for review and approval. (1) 6.5 The applicant shall revise the Barranca Parkway off-street bicycle path along the north side of the street to ten (10) feet as previously requested. The sidewalk should be no closer than five (5) feet to the curb and eight (8) feet from the Property line to allow for adequate planting. Also the length of sidewalk curb adjacent should be the absolute minimum required to promote a safer pedestrian experience. The sidewalk and off-street bicycle path can be combined in certain locations (not at street intersections) where any public works and safety concerns are addressed subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. (1) 6.6 The applicant shall design and construct full -width street improvements for Armstrong Avenue between Warner Avenue and Barranca Parkway, including the intersection improvements at Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue/Warner Avenue. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 10 (1) 6.7 The applicant shall design and construct half -width street widening and improvements along the eastside of Red Hill Avenue including roadway rehabilitation between Barranca Parkway and 1,000 feet north of Valencia Avenue. (1) 6.8 The applicant shall design and construct a landscaped raised median with the Red Hill Avenue improvements and any improvements on the west side of Red Hill Avenue necessary to construct the median on Red Hill Avenue in order to ensure orderly development. The median improvements are not an applicant requirement under DDA 06-01, consequently, the design and construction of said improvements shall be specifically identified as an eligible direct reimbursement to applicant by the City or the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency as part of any Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement required under DDA 06-01, prior to Final Map(s) approval. The City agrees that they will provide provisions for reimbursement that will permit the applicant to receive reimbursement of segments of the project, including design. (1) 6.9 The applicant shall design and construct the full north -side widening and improvements to Barranca Parkway between Tustin Ranch Road and Red E Hill Avenue including modification to the median and any improvements along the south side of Barranca Parkway necessary to re -construct the median. (1) 6.10 The applicant shall identify, design and construct the bus turnout and pad locations along the east side of Armstrong Avenue, similar to that shown for the north side of Warner Avenue. (1) 6.11 The applicant shall design and construct the full width improvements of Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue including intersection improvements to the intersection of the Warner. Avenue/Red Hill Avenue, and to the intersection of Warner Avenue/Armstrong Avenue. Pursuant to Attachment 28, Section 1.8 (a) of DDA 06-01, the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of a second west -bound left turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue and second west -bound right turn at Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue. (1) 6.12 The applicant shall design and construct traffic signals and signal interconnect systems at the intersection of Barranca Parkway/Armstrong Avenue, at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue/Warner Avenue, at the intersection of Armstrong Avenue/South Loop Road, and at the intersection of Warner Avenue/Armstrong Avenue. (1) 6.13 Additional traffic signals and measures will be required as determined necessary by the Director of Public Works, which will be applicant Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 11 requirements with all cost to be solely borne by the applicant, but will not be included in the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program Improvements, consistent with DDA 06-01. (1) 6.14 The applicant shall design and construct the median on Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and the improvements on the north and south side of Warner Avenue. The applicant shall be responsible for grading the right-of-way and stabilizing any finished grades within the right-of-way areas in conjunction with the Warner Avenue street improvement. (1) 6.15 The applicant shall design and construct a pedestrian bridge across Armstrong Avenue at the Linear Park. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant shall submit for City approval a Pedestrian Bridge Maintenance and Operations Program and annual estimated maintenance costa The pedestrian bridge will be owned and maintained by the City. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 7.1 All design and construction of improvement work shall incorporate applicable conditions contained within DDA 06-01 and shall be designed and constructed 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." (1) 7.2 Roadways identified in Table 4-4 of the Amended Specific Plan including Carnegie Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and Aston Street from Barranca Parkway to Carnegie Avenue shall be constructed as part of the Neighborhood E Project. (1) 7.3 All private improvement work shall be 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." (1) 7.4 Sanitary sewer facilities, domestic water systems, and reclaimed water systems shall be designed and constructed to the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) standards. These improvements plans shall be reviewed and approved by IRWD. The domestic water system improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for fire protection purposes. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 12 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND SUBMITTALS (1) 8.1 The applicant shall design and construct Carnegie Avenue between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue as a four lane secondary road and Aston Street ("C" Street) between Barranca Parkway and Carnegie Avenue as a two lane local collector road and shall be part of the Public Infrastructure improvements (not Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements). In addition, certain additional identified modifications to the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements due to applicant's project shall be the applicant responsibility. Any incremental increases in costs to make changes required by Attachment 28, Section 1.8 (a) of the DDA 06-01 shall be considered as applicant's cost not as fair share costs (i.e. second west -bound left turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue, second west -bound right turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue, Aston Street extension). (1) 8.2 The applicant shall design and construct the full -width improvements of "A" Street (Carnegie Avenue), "B" Street, "C" Street (Aston Street), "D" Street, "E" Street, "F" Street and "G" Street as local public streets, including but not limited to landscaped and raised medians. i (1) 8.3 The applicant shall provide a cross section on the improvement plans for "E" Street, "F" Street and "G" Street that indicates the location of the sidewalks in relation to parked vehicles in areas where the sidewalks will be adjacent to parking. A minimum five (5) foot clear sidewalk shall be provided along the aforementioned streets. (1) 8.4 Traffic signals, control devices, and signal interconnect systems for the intersection of: Red Hill Avenue/Carnegie Avenue, Armstrong Avenue/"A" Street, Armstrong Avenue/"C" Street, Barranca Parkway/"C" Street, Warner Avenue/Lot "G", "A" Street/Lot "E" and "A" Street/"C" Street shall be designed and installed by the applicant as identified in the approved traffic analysis for the project dated July 2007. (1) 8.5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, improvements plans, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for the following private improvements: A. Street lighting. The private street lighting system shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tustin and Southern California Edison. B. Landscape/irrigation. C. Trash facilities. The applicant shall provide for commercial trash collection and obtain approval from the Engineering Division for the location, size, and number of trash enclosures. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 13 COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED AGENCIES GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 9.1 The applicant 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: A. The applicant shall obtain permission, approvals, or temporary easements from affected property owners as necessary. B. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the applicable municipal agencies for work within the agencies' City limits. All infrastructure improvements in the City of Irvine and the City of Santa Ana shall be coordinated with the City of Irvine and the City of Santa Ana and shall comply with Irvine's and Santa Ana's applicable standards respectively. C. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the applicable Regional Resource Agencies including, but not limited to: the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc. for work within the open channels. D. The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of the bus stop locations with the Orange County Transportation Authority. E. The applicant shall obtain written approval/permits from the applicable utility companies. (1) 9.2 The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of all utilities with the utility providers and the City. The applicant shall also include the design and construction of dry utility conduits and pull boxes for future City use in the arterial streets backbone system throughout the project subject to review and approval of City Engineer. DEDICATIONS/RESERVATIONS/EASEMENTS GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 10.1 The applicant shall satisfy dedication and reservation requirements as applicable, including but not limited to, dedication of all required street and flood control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements and water easements, parkland and open space easements defined and approved as to specific locations by the City Engineer, Redevelopment Agency and other agencies as applicable. The locations and dimensions of all existing and proposed easements shall be shown on the Final Map(s) and plans, unless otherwise indicated that separate instruments are required pursuant to this resolution. All storm drain and utility easement widths shall be dimensioned and labeled on the final maps and plans. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 14 The applicant shall submit to the City an offer of fee dedication of the twenty (20) foot right-of-way area for future flood control purposes along the north side of the existing Barranca Channel per separate instrument. The legal description and plat of the dedicated area, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer and/or California Licensed Land Surveyor, shall be submitted to the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department for review and approval. The applicant shall maintain the property as legally described in the offer of dedication area defined in this condition along the north side of the existing Barranca Channel until acceptance of any offer of dedication by the City. (1) 10.2 Reciprocal ingress and egress, parking, and pedestrian access shall be provided between all lots, where applicable. (1) 10.3 The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City of Tustin for maintenance of all parkway improvements within public rights-of-way and for any non -backbone median islands. (1) 10.4 The applicant shall enter into any public easements necessary for maintenance access to any traffic signal equipment and detector loops in conjunction with any proposed signalized intersections proposed within the tract. (1) 10.5 Any easement that lies within or crosses public right-of-way proposed to be deeded or dedicated to the City shall be subordinated to the City prior to acceptance of the rights-of-way, unless otherwise exempted by the Redevelopment Agency or Public Works Department. (1) 10.6 All public access easements outside of the existing or proposed street rights-of-way shall be clearly shown and labeled on the plans and street sections. (1) 10.7 The subdivision includes land required as private parkland and open space under DDA 06-01 which shall be privately maintained. The applicant shall design and construct private parkland and open space as shown on the Tentative Tract Map consistent with time restrictions contained in DDA 06-01. The applicant shall be required to dedicate perpetual easements and public access for public use across all open space parcels as identified in the Concept Plan, on the Tentative Tract Map, and pursuant to DDA 06-01. The perpetual easement and public access agreement shall be separate from map notations and shall be by separate instrument in favor of the City in a form and substance approved by the Redevelopment Agency and Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 15 Community Development Department for the benefit of the public providing in perpetuity and at no cost to the City. The easements shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. The right of the general public to use the open space and park facilities. B. The provision of public park access to and from the said facility. C. The maintenance of the open space and park facilities by the applicant and its successors and assigns including a future community association in compliance with the provisions of the DDA. Prior to exoneration of any security on the tract map, the copy of the recorded instrument reserving in perpetuity of the private parkland and open space, as required by the Concept Plan, Tentative Tract Map and DDA 06-01. {1) 10.8 Prior to recordation of Phase 2 Final Map(s), the City in consultation with the applicant agrees to provide Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) with an interim license on Phase 2 property within Neighborhood E for IRWD to undertake pilot drilling testing of the three (3) well sites which are shown on the Tentative Map to determine their feasibility for permanent well locations. Upon provision of the test results to the City and the applicant, IRWD shall either confirm the original three (3) well sites or shall request minor modifications of the three (3) well sites within Phase 2 of Neighborhood E. IRWD may also request that one of the three (3) well sites be expanded to approximately 40,000 square feet to be a combination well site and treatment facility. In conjunction with City's confirmation of the IRWD submitted results and any request by IRWD for a combination well and treatment facility, the City shall authorize minor modifications on the Phase 2 Final Map(s) to the original general locations of the three (3) well sites as originally shown on Tentative Tract Map 17144 (Lots K, L and M). IRWD in making the request for the treatment facility shall also reconsider and inform the City in writing that they no longer have need for the fourth required well site originally anticipated in Neighborhood D and as originally requested by IRWD in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The applicant upon City's receipt of such written notice from IRWD, shall be released from such future obligation in Neighborhood D. The revised well site, locations in Neighborhood E shall be deeded sites to the City by a separate grant deed instrument which form and content shall be approved by the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department. Upon finalization of the revised sites, the City will appraise the well sites and/or the combination well and treatment facility and will enter into a written Agreement with IRWD for IRWD reimbursement to the City of the Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 16 t market value of any expanded ground lease area necessary to accommodate the combination well and treatment facility. The City will then grant a restricted easement(s) to IRWD for well(s) and/or well and treatment facility and access easements for public utility purposes only and subject to MCAS Tustin development standards, all Neighborhood E Legacy Park Design Guidelines and final approval by the Redevelopment Agency and the Public Works Department. CC&RS (1) 11.1 All organizational documents for the project including any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department, Redevelopment Agency City Attorney's Office, and Special Counsel. Costs for such review shall be borne by the subdivider. The approved CC&Rs shall be recorded with County Recorder's Office at the same time as recordation of the Final Map. A copy of the final approved and recorded documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department after recordation. s, (1) 11.2 No parcel or unit in the development shall be sold or a Certificate of Occupancy issued, unless a community property owners association has been legally formed with the right to assess all these properties which are jointly owned or benefited to operate and maintain all other mutually available features of the development including, but not limited to, open space, amenities, landscaping, or slope maintenance landscaping, private streets, and utilities. No parcel or unit shall be sold unless all approved and required open space, amenities, landscaping, or other improvements, or approved phases thereof, have been completed or completion is assured by a development agreement or financing guarantee method approved by the City, and Redevelopment Agency. The CC&Rs shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: 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. B. All requirements mandated by Section 12.1, 12.2 of the DDA. C. All requirements as mandated by Section 8.3.8 of the DDA requiring inclusion of adopted Design Guidelines for the master developer footprint and Neighborhood E to be part of the CC&Rs. D. All requirements as mandated for maintenance of private parkland and open space contained in Section 8.15.3 of the DDA, and common areas under the control of an Association. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 17 E. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance and maintenance standards of all common areas and facilities including landscape easement areas and lots, private parks, walls, fences, private roadways (walks, sidewalks, trails and paseos). F. The requirement that association bylaws be established. G. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including recreational buildings and amenities, landscaped areas and lots, walls and fences, private roadways (i.e., walks, sidewalks, trails), parking lot, parkland facilities and bikeways, and open space areas. H. Membership in the property owners association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual units. I. 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 patios, sunshades, trellises, awnings, exterior mechanical equipment, television and radio antenna, consistent with the Tustin City Code and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. J. Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed in Section G above in CC&Rs. Examples of maintenance standards are shown below. 1. 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. 2. All private roadways, parking areas, 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 travel ways should be removed or repaired promptly. 3. Common areas 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. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 18 K. Community property owners association approval of major exterior improvements requiring a building permit shall be obtained prior to requesting a building permit from the City of Tustin Community Development Department and Redevelopment Agency. All plans for exterior improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by the City and the CC&Rs. L. Park land and open space areas within the tract shall be considered private open space and shall be illustrated on a "Private Open Space Exhibit" and shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall specify those portions of the common open space area that are allocated for private use and public use and access rights in perpetuity. The CC&Rs shall include a separate 8'/2 inch by 11 inch dimensioned site plan for each unit that is allocated private open space. M. The approved site plan showing the public portion of the park site and associated public easements that will be accessible to the public and provisions for maintenance of these areas by the Property Owners Association. N. The approved "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 i shall be included in the CC&Rs, including the following: 1. All buildings are required to maintain the required number of parking spaces based on Table 3-6 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 2. The property owners 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. O. Maintenance of lettered and numbered Lots (including but not limited to Lots A, B, C, D, H, I, and J), containing all common areas, public and private park open space, edge open space, drives, alleys, walkways, paseos, the Retention Basin, etc. shall be by the community property owners association. P. .Television and radio antennas shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Tustin City Code. Q. All utility services serving the site shall be installed and maintained underground. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 19 R. The community property owners association shall be required to file the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one member of the association Board and, where applicable, a manager of the project before January 1st of each year with the City of Tustin 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. S. The community property owners 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. T. The approved "Trip Reduction/Transportation Demand Management Strategy Plan" shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall be enforced by the community property owners association. U. No amendment to alter, modify, terminate, or change the property owners association's obligation to maintain the common areas and the project perimeter wall or other CC&Rs 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 and maintenance of the project perimeter wall shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the City of Tustin Community Development Department. BUYER NOTIFICATION (1) 12.1 Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a buyer notification document that includes the notifications listed below. The notification document shall be signed by each buyer prior to final inspection and occupancy, and a copy of the signed notification shall be provided to the Community Development Department prior to final inspection and/or issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy. A. A notice for roadway, trail, and train noise that may impact the subdivision, including roadway noise associated with Red Hill Avenue, Baranca Parkway, Warner Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, and train noise associated with the rail corridor north of the project. The notice shall indicate the current number of trains per day (59) and the estimated increase to over 100 trains on a 24-hour basis by the year 2020. The notice shall indicate that additional building upgrades may be necessary for noise attenuation. This determination is to be made as architectural drawings become available and/or where field-testing determines inadequate noise insulation. Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 20 f B. A notice indicating that public use of a portion of the park site, to be maintained by the property owners association, will be allowed noting public ingress and egress through the subdivision will be provided for access to the park. C. A notice explaining the easements, facilities, amenities, and dedications that will be provided on lettered lots and indicating all on- site streets, rive aisle, paseos, and common areas are to be maintained by the property owners association. D. A notice, to be approved by the City Attorney, indicating that neither the site, nor the project, nor any part thereof, nor any street or sidewalk, drive aisles, or paseos thereon shall be privately gated, provided however that any fitness/spa facility within the common area and any indoor common area improvements, including any fitness center and bathrooms, may be gated or locked and made available solely to employees of the project and their guests. E. A notice indicating that surrounding properties may be developed in accordance with City ordinances in a manner which may partially or totally obstruct views from the owner's unit and that the City of Tustin makes no claim, warranty, or guarantee that views from any unit will be preserved as development of surrounding properties occurs. F. A notice explaining and providing a copy of a "Private Open Space Exhibit" and separate 8'/2 inch by 11 inch dimensioned site plan for each parcel or unit, as applicable, that is allocated private open space within the common area. G. A notice explaining and providing a copy of the approved "Parking and Circulation Exhibit" and related CC&Rs provisions. H. A notice explaining the phasing of construction within the subdivision and that activity may be disruptive. I. The Developer shall notify all buyers that future Assessment/Maintenance Districts may affect the property. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION (1) 13.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits within the tract, a final acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures and sites to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical reports are incorporated into the design of the project. Evidence prepared under the supervision of an expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall be provided. At least a preliminary analysis at the subdivision level and prior to building permits should evaluate whether or not mitigation other than Exhibit B Resolution No. 4068 TTM 17144 Page 21 building construction will permit achievable compliance with required minimum General Plan interior noise standards. (1) 13.2 Prior to the first final map recordation (except for financing and re- conveyance purposes) or building permit issuance for development within the City of Tustin portion of the site, the project developer shall provide evidence of compliance with all requirements and standards of the City of Tustin Park Code.