Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 CUP 04-015, DR 04-01Don Report to the ou Planning Commission DATE: JULY 26, 2004 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON CONCEPT PLAN 04-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16695, DESIGN REVIEW 04- 010, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-015, AND VARIANCE 04- 002 APPLICANT: VESTAR DEVELOPMENT/ KIMCO TUSTIN, L.P. 2425 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85016 OWNER: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BRAC OFFICE CODE 06CC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 1220 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO, CA 92132-5190 LOCATION: PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS-TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (REUSE PLAN DISPOSITION PARCELS 10, 11, AND 12), FUTURE WARNER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, FUTURE TUSTIN RANCH ROAD TO THE WEST, PLANNING AREA 18 (REUSE PLAN DISPOSAL PARCEL 9) TO THE SOUTHWEST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE EAST. ZONING: SP -1 SPECIFIC PLAN, PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIS/EIR) CERTIFIED ON JANUARY 16, 2001, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION WILL BE PREPARED. PROJECT: 1) CONCEPT PLAN 04-001 FOR DEVEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS-TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN; Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 26, 2004 Page 2 2) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16695 TO SUBDIVIDE 111.77 (GROSS) ACRES INTO TWENTY-NINE (29) NUMBERED LOTS AND FIFTEEN (15) LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING 1,006,100 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN; 3) DESIGN REVIEW 04-010 AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF 1,006,100 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES ON A 111.77 -ACRE (GROSS) SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN; 4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-015 AUTHORIZING TWO (2) DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS, A MOVIE THEATER, A FUELING STATION, A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, AND REDUCTION OF OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF 1,006,100 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES ON A 111.77 ACRE (GROSS) SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN; AND, 5) VARIANCE 04-002 TO CONSTRUCT A MOVIE THEATER BUILDING FIFTEEN (15) FEET FROM BARRANCA PARKWAY, WHERE A MINIMUM THIRTY (30) FOOT BUILDING SETBACK IS REQUIRED, AND AT A HEIGHT OF SIXTY (60) FEET WHERE A MAXIMUM FIFTY (50) FOOT HEIGHT IS PERMITTED WITHIN PLANNING AREA 19 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3919 recommending that the City Council find that Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 is within the scope of the adopted Final EIS/EIR for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and finding that Concept Plan 04-001, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 are within the scope of the adopted Final EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3920 approving Concept Plan 04-001 for proposed development of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; 3. Adopt Resolution No. 3921 recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 for the subdivision of a 111.77 (gross) acre site into twenty-nine (29) numbered lots and fifteen (15) lettered lots for the purpose of developing 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 26, 2004 Page 3 4. Adopt Resolution No. 3922 approving Design Review 04-010 for development of 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses on a 111.77 -acre (gross) parcel within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; 5. Adopt Resolution No. 3923 approving Conditional Use Permit 04-015 approving two (2) drive-through restaurants, a movie theater, a fueling station, a master sign program, and reduction of off-street parking requirements in conjunction with the development of 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses on a 111.77 acre (gross) site within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; and, 6. Adopt Resolution No. 3924 approving. Variance 04-002 to construct a movie theater building fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway, where a minimum thirty (30) foot building setback is required, and at a height of sixty (60) feet where a maximum fifty (50) foot height is permitted within Planning Area 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2004, the Planning Commission was scheduled to consider a 1,006,100 square foot commercial development known as "The District at Tustin Legacy" to be located at the northwest corner of Barranca Parkway and Jamboree Road (Attachment A — Staff Report dated July 12, 2004). The applicant requested a continuance to allow additional time to review the recommended conditions of approval and discuss any concerns they had with staff. The Planning Commission continued the item to July 26, 2004. (Attachment B). DISCUSSION On July 19, 2004, staff met with representatives of Vestar Development to review the recommended conditions of approval. The developer and their consultants requested a number of minor changes to several conditions to clarify the timing for submittal of plans and more clearly identify the applicable requirements or extent of required improvements. To clarify the process and intent of the conditions, staff agreed to a number of minor modifications to Resolution Nos. 3921, 3922, and 3923, which are reflected in the revised resolutions of approval in Attachment C. IVA* klv—A— M`att West Associate Planner 1_�Olv Iia f - C, Karen Peterson Senior Planner Attachments: A - Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 12, 2004 B - Letter from Jeff Axtel dated July 12, 2004 C - Revised Resolution Nos. 3919, 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924 S:\Cdd\PCREPORT\VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-02 (Vestar)-july26.doc ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 12, 2004 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: JULY 12, 2004 i A W SUBJECT: CONCEPT PLAN 04-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16695, DESIGN REVIEW 04-010, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-015, AND VARIANCE 04-002 APPLICANT: VESTAR DEVELOPMENT/ KIMCO TUSTIN, L.P. 2425 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85016 OWNER: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BRAC OFFICE CODE 06CC SOUTHWEST DIVISION 1220 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO, CA 92132-5190 LOCATION: PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS-TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (REUSE PLAN DISPOSITION PARCELS 10, 11, AND 12), FUTURE WARNER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, FUTURE TUSTIN RANCH ROAD TO THE WEST, PLANNING AREA 18 (REUSE PLAN DISPOSAL PARCEL 9) TO THE SOUTHWEST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE EAST. ZONING: SP -1 SPECIFIC PLAN, PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIS/EIR) CERTIFIED ON JANUARY 16, 2001, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION WILL BE PREPARED. PROJECT: 1) CONCEPT PLAN 04-001 FOR DEVEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS-TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN; Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 2 2) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16695 TO SUBDIVIDE 111.77 (GROSS) ACRES INTO TWENTY-NINE (29) NUMBERED LOTS AND FIFTEEN (15) LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING 1,006,100 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN; 3) DESIGN REVIEW 04-010 AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF 1,006,100 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES ON A 111.77 -ACRE (GROSS) SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN; 4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-015 AUTHORIZING TWO (2) DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS, A MOVIE THEATER, A FUELING STATION, A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, AND REDUCTION OF OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF 1,006,100 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES ON A 111.77 ACRE (GROSS) SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN; AND, 5) VARIANCE 04-002 TO CONSTRUCT A MOVIE THEATER BUILDING FIFTEEN (15) FEET FROM BARRANCA PARKWAY, WHERE A MINIMUM THIRTY (30) FOOT BUILDING SETBACK IS REQUIRED, AND AT A HEIGHT OF SIXTY (60) FEET WHERE A MAXIMUM FIFTY (50) FOOT HEIGHT IS PERMITTED WITHIN PLANNING AREA 19 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3919 recommending that the City Council find that Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 is within the scope of the adopted Final EIS/EIR for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and finding that Concept Plan 04-001, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 are within the scope of the adopted Final EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3920 approving Concept Plan 04-001 for proposed development of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; 3. Adopt Resolution No. 3921 recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 for the subdivision of a 111.77 (gross) acre site into twenty-nine (29) numbered lots and fifteen (15) lettered lots for the purpose of Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 3 developing 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; 4. Adopt Resolution No. 3922 approving Design Review 04-010 for development of 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses on a 111.77 -acre (gross) parcel within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; 5. Adopt Resolution No. 3923 approving Conditional Use Permit 04-015 approving two (2) drive-through restaurants, a movie theater, a fueling station, a master sign program, and reduction of off-street parking requirements in conjunction with the development of 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses on a 111.77 acre (gross) site within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; and, 6. Adopt Resolution No. 3924 approving Variance 04-002 to construct a movie theater building fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway, where a minimum thirty (30) foot building setback is required, and at a height of sixty (60) feet where a maximum fifty (50) foot height is permitted within Planning Area 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. BACKGROUND The project is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, which includes 1,000 acres that have been conveyed by deed from the Department of the Navy to the City of Tustin and approximately 153 acres conveyed by lease to the City of Tustin for redevelopment of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) (Attachment A — Location Map). The MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR previously addressed impacts of the reuse of Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 to include up to 1,442,710 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed project includes 1,006,100 square feet of commercial development known as "The District at Tustin Legacy" to be located on approximately 111.77 gross acres within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan bounded by future Warner Avenue to the north, future Tustin Ranch Road to the west, the existing Army Reserve site to the southwest, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Jamboree Road to the east (Attachment B — Site Plan). The project site also includes seven (7) parcels leased to the City of Tustin by the Department of Navy, known as Lease In Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) parcels, legally described in Navy documents as parcels III -C-3, III -C-4, III -C-5, 111-D-9, III -D-11, II -D-10, and portions of parcels III -H-13 and IV -G-3 (Attachment C — Parcel Configurations). Portions of Reuse Plan Disposition Parcels 8, 14, 16, 27, and 31 are also included within the boundaries of the Tentative Tract Map for the sole purpose of showing the ultimate Warner Avenue, South Loop Road, and Tustin Ranch Road (to the west curbline only) right-of-way improvements. Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 4 The following entitlements are required, and are discussed in more detail under the "Discussion" section: Approval of Concept Plan: To ensure the development maintains the integrity and intent of the Specific Plan for the Neighborhood/Planning Area. The Planning Commission will review Concept Plan 04-001. Subdivision of Land: To accommodate the proposed buildings and separate ownerships the project site would need to be subdivided. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding Vesting Tract Map 16695. Approval of Site and Building Design: To obtain building permits, approval of the site and building design would be required. Although the Community Development Director is the decision-making body for Design Review 04-010, this application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for a decision based on concurrent review with the other entitlements. Approval of Conditionally Permitted Uses: The applicant is requesting approval for two (2) drive-through restaurants, a movie theater, a fueling station, master sign program, and reduction of off-street parking requirements. Conditional Use Permit 04-015 will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Approval of Variances from the Development Standards: The applicant is requesting to construct the movie theater building fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway where a minimum thirty (30) foot building setback is required and at a height of sixty (60) feet where a maximum fifty (50) foot height is permitted within Planning Area 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Variance 04-002 will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Disposition and Development Agreement: Since the City of Tustin is the primary property owner of the subject property, Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA 04-02) has been drafted and will be considered by the City Council as a separate item on July 19, 2004. Public Noticing A public hearing notice identifying the time, date, and location of the public hearing for the proposal was published in the Tustin News. In addition, property owners within 300 feet of the site and affected agencies were notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site and at City Hall on July 1, 2004. The applicant was informed of the availability of the agenda and staff report for this item. DISCUSSION The proposed project would permit the construction of 1,006,100 square feet of commercial development. The following sections will discuss the required entitlements and associated issues such as subdivision of the existing properties, utilities and Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 5 drainage, site and building design, traffic and circulation, phasing, demolition, conditionally permitted uses, and proposed variances. Concept Plan Concept plan approval is required for each Planning Area within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, except Planning Area 2 (Community Park), prior to or in conjunction with a new development proposal. The purpose of the concept plan is to ensure that: Necessary linkages are provided between the development and the Neighborhood/Planning Area in which it is located; The integrity and intent of the Specific Plan is maintained in each Neighborhood/Planning Area; and, Other requirements that are not included in the Specific Plan are addressed. As described in more detail in the following discussion, the proposed project provides for continuity of vehicular, pedestrian, and infrastructure facilities and linkages, including drainage facilities; incorporates architectural and landscape design and urban design features such as entry and edge treatments, streetscape and landscape concepts, site and architectural design, and provides for logical phasing of development; and, incorporates the requirements of the Specific Plan and other requirements, such as the 2001 California Building Code and Construction Standards for Private Improvements per Resolution No. 3922 and Public Improvement Standards per Resolution No. 3921. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 To support the proposed development, the project site would be subdivided into twenty- nine (29) numbered lots and fifteen (15) lettered lots for the purpose of developing 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses (Attachment D — Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 and Grading Plans). The tract would include the following lots: ■ Lots 1 through 3 will accommodate 46,494 square feet of "mid -major" sized retail users; ■ Lot 4 will accommodate a 250,900 square feet "lifestyle core" retail and entertainment component including a fourteen (14) screen movie theater, retail, and restaurant tenants; ■ Lots 5 through 11 and 19 will accommodate eight (8) free-standing retail and restaurant tenants ranging from 3,220 to 11,000 square feet in size; ■ Lot 12 will accommodate 205,000 square feet of "mid -major" sized retail users; ■ Lots 13 through 15 will accommodate an automated fueling station for Costco Wholesale to be located directly to the north across South Loop Road; ■ Lots 16 and 17 will accommodate two (2) attached retail/restaurant tenants totaling 12,000 square feet in size; ■ Lots 18 and 20 through 29 will accommodate 426,000 square feet of "big box" retail commercial users; and, Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 6 Lots A through O will accommodate right-of-way improvements. New off-site and on-site backbone utility systems will be required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed commercial development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste management (Attachment E — Utility Plans). In accordance with the FEIS/EIR and Resolution No. 3921, the applicant is required to pay a fair share towards off-site infrastructure and install public and private infrastructure and utilities necessary to support the project. While conceptual infrastructure and utility plans were submitted, refined constructions drawings and supporting information will need to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works during plan. check. For example, the development of the site will be required to meet all federal, state, and local standards for design of the off-site and on-site drainage system. The developer will need to submit, and have deemed adequate, a complete hydrology report prior to recordation of the Final Map. As a result of any new findings in the final hydrology report, the developer may need to modify plans to the utility, drainage, and grading plans as conditioned by Resolution No. 3921. Adjacent public right-of-way improvements will include: Tustin Ranch Road will include: final design, alignment, and construction of Tustin Ranch Road from Barranca Parkway north to Warner Avenue. A Class II bike trail, a new domestic water line per the requirements of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), a new brine line, a new reclaimed water line per the requirements of the IRWD, a new sanitary sewer line per the requirements of the IRWD, and a storm drain per the requirements of the Runoff Management Plan (ROMP) for Tustin Legacy with adequate capacity to accommodate runoff from the proposed development. The development would also require installation of new backbone underground dry utilities (electric, gas, cable TV, telephone, etc). Tustin Ranch Road will have a thirty-four (34) foot median and meandering eight (8) foot sidewalks on each side of the street within an ultimate right-of-way of 120 feet. Tustin Ranch Road will be completely installed along the west boundary of the project by the developer, up to and including the west curb line, from Barranca Parkway to Warner Avenue. Warner Avenue will include: design and construction of full -width improvements of Warner Avenue from its current terminus west of Jamboree Road to Tustin Ranch Road and the Warner Avenue Southbound on- and off- ramps at Jamboree Road where they intersect with the future South Loop Road.. A Class II bike trail, a new domestic water line per the requirements of the IRWD, a new brine line, a new reclaimed water line per the requirements of the Irvine Ranch Water District, a new sanitary sewer line per the requirements of the IRWD, and a storm drain per the requirements of the Runoff Management Plan (ROMP) for Tustin Legacy with adequate capacity to accommodate runoff from the proposed development. The development would also require installation of new backbone underground dry utilities (electric, gas, cable TV, telephone, etc). The project is also Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 7 conditioned to improve Warner Avenue in the City of Irvine from the east City boundary to near Construction Circle. The applicant will need to obtain all necessary right-of-way acquisition and improvements in the City of Irvine to accommodate the realignment and widening of existing Warner Avenue and Jamboree Road ramps. • South Loop Road from Tustin Ranch Road north to the southbound Jamboree Avenue off -ramp north of Warner Avenue will include: a new domestic water line per the requirements of the Irvine Ranch Water District, a ninety-two (92) foot wide right-of-way with a four (4) to fourteen (14) foot median, with a five (5) foot meandering sidewalk on both sides of the street, and a Class II bikeway will be constructed off-street along the north side of the road. • Barranca Parkway from Jamboree Road to Tustin Ranch Road will include: design and construction of the full north side widening and improvements to Barranca Parkway between Jamboree Road and the future Tustin Ranch Road, including any necessary improvements to the Barranca Channel and its under - crossing of Barranca Parkway in accordance with the City's Run-off Management Plan for Tustin Legacy (ROMP) and all necessary right-of-way improvements adjacent to the property designated as Reuse Plan Disposition Parcel 9 (the Army Reserve Property) per DDA 04-02, Class I and Class II bikeways, intersection enhancements to the intersection of Barranca Parkway and Jamboree Road required in the Final EIS/EIR, and intersection enhancements to the intersection of Barranca Parkway and Milliken Avenue to serve the Project. The project is also proposing to design and construct roadway improvements in the City of Irvine as part of the orderly development of the project and the entire Tustin Legacy. Improvements include the widening of the north side of Barranca Parkway, consisting of relocation of electrical transmission lines and utilities in the roadway medians, reconstruction of the medians and left turn pockets, adding travel lanes, and Class I and Class II bicycle lanes. The widening of the Barranca Parkway is a mitigation measure of the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) Project in the City of Irvine, but is necessary at this time to facilitate orderly development of this project. • Jamboree Road improvements will include: design and construction of curb and gutter improvements adjacent to the project site, and design and installation of landscape improvements in the area behind the curb within the public right-of- way area. Sidewalk improvements at the northwest corner of Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway will terminate at the north curb return area along Jamboree Road and will not extend north on Jamboree Road Resolution No. 3921 includes conditions to ensure compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the FEIR/EIS Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Subdivision Map Act, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 8 Design Review 04-010 Site Plan The overall site plan includes commercial buildings around the perimeter of the site and a central lifestyle center with entertainment, retail, and dining. Three (3) large commercial buildings, ranging from 125,000 to 165,000 square feet will be located along Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue (Attachment F — Floor Plans). The buildings will be primarily single -tenant users except for 12,000 square feet attached to Major 6 for smaller retail users. An additional 47,000 square feet of retail space will be located at the southwest corner of Tustin Ranch Road for mid-size retail users. A large building mass of approximately 200,000 square feet of mid-size retail users will be located along Jamboree Road. All of the buildings positioned along the perimeter roadways will be situated with the storefronts toward the interior of the project site and the utility areas facing the streets. Eight (8) retail and restaurant pads are located in the project's interior and a 250,900 square foot, pedestrian -oriented "Lifestyle Core", with storefronts primarily oriented toward a central exterior pedestrian corridor, is located in the project center at the northwest corner of Barranca Parkway and Milliken Avenue. The majority of the parking is located in the interior of the site. Access, Circulation, and Traffic The main entrance to the development site will be at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Barranca Parkway and a new signal will be installed to accommodate two (2) new eastbound left -turn lanes from Barranca Parkway into the site (Attachment G —Striping Plans). South Loop Road will create two (2) other entry points to the project at Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue and new traffic signals will be installed at these entries. Milliken Avenue becomes a private drive to the South Loop Road; Tustin Ranch Road, Warner Avenue, and South Loop Road will be public roads. Multiple private driveways along South Loop Road will provide access to the project interior, including the intersection of South Loop Road and the northern terminus of the Milliken Avenue entry drive aisle. The applicant will also install a new traffic signal at this intersection. Three (3) additional driveways along Tustin Ranch Road will provide access to the development: one (1) between the Army Reserve Site and Major 16, one (1) behind Major 6, and one (1) between Major 10 and 12. As proposed and conditioned, all driveways, drive aisles, and parking stalls conform to the City of Tustin Parking Lot Design Guidelines. The service vehicle plan identifies adequate service vehicle turning radii and access (Attachment H — Service Plan). All future access points will require approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments per Resolution No. 3923. Pedestrian and bikeway access will be provided per the attached plans (Attachment I — Pedestrian and Bikeway Circulation Plan). Traffic generation associated with the proposed project is not expected to exceed previously identified average daily trips (ADTs) in Table 3-3 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Table 3-3 identifies the proposed development within Planning Areas 16, 17, and Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 9 19 could generate vehicle traffic up to 35,650 ADTs; however, Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers prepared "Traffic Impact Assessment and Parking Analysis — The District At Tustin Legacy", dated June 21, 2004 (Attachment J), identifying the proposed project is expected to generate 33,933 ADTs. If a traffic problem results from the proposed project or operational changes within the development, the applicant will need to submit a new or revised traffic study prepared by a professional traffic engineer, and perform or install interim and permanent mitigation measures as a result per Resolution No. 3922. Development Standards The proposed project complies with the development standards of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, including the maximum allowed floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial uses in Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19, which is forty (40) percent and is calculated by Planning Area. The proposed FARs are 26.42 percent, 6.37 percent, and 34.37 percent in Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19, respectively. With exception to the setback and height variance discussed in the Variance section, all landscape and building setbacks are provided and maximum building heights comply. Architecture The large buildings (Majors 1-10, 12, and 16) are designed with a modern architectural theme, comprised of stacked stone bases and wall treatments, flat rooflines and cornices, and painted plaster wall finishes (Attachment K — Elevations for Majors 1-10, 12, and 16). The Lifestyle Core utilizes the same design theme; however, since it is intended to be a pedestrian -oriented area and focal point of the center, there will be additional articulation through the use of stained wood siding and trellises, and outdoor furniture such as a fireplace utilizing the same stacked stone found on the buildings (Attachment L — Elevations for Lifestyle Buildings). The freestanding pads will also have similar architectural treatments; however, to accommodate a variety of tenants and to create aesthetic interest, individual pad tenants will be permitted additional design flexibility (Attachment M — Elevations for Freestanding Pads 1-8). The general color scheme for the development includes a variety of earth tones to complement the stacked stone and wood trellises. Since the Lifestyle Core is intended to create the development's liveliness, additional colors will be used to accent the varied wall planes and features. To ensure a consistent design theme and character defining features are maintained in the future, design guidelines will be submitted to the Community Development Department per DDA 04-02 and Resolution No. 3922. To screen utility areas, there are planted "green screens," ranging from fifteen (15) to thirty (30) feet in height, proposed along the rear elevations of most large buildings facing a major right-of-way, such as behind Majors 1 through 8 along Jamboree Road, Majors 6, 10, and 12, and Majors 7, 9, and 16 along Tustin Ranch Road, and Pads 1 and 2 at the corner of Barranca Parkway and Jamboree Road. Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 10 Landscaping The developer submitted conceptual landscaping and hardscaping plans generally identifying perimeter and interior landscaping schemes (Attachment N — Landscaping/Hardscaping Plans). As proposed and conditioned, the development will be comprised of a varied and dense landscaping scheme with rows of tall evergreen trees and date or fan palms along the project perimeter, throughout the parking areas, and along store fronts; the tall trees will be supplemented with a variety of landscaping treatments as conditioned by Resolution No. 3922. All perimeter and interior landscape and hardscape will be installed by the developer and maintained by the property management. The edge of Jamboree Road will be enhanced with a minimum of thirty-six (36) inch tall berming and planted with a screen of landscaping materials, including groundcovers, shrubs, and tall evergreen trees and repeating date or fan palms. Special streetscape designs will also be provided for Barranca Parkway including a pattern of small broad dome trees, and large flowering canopy trees along South Loop Road to provide shade and visual interest for pedestrians, and dense planting along Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Landscaping treatments will also be refined during the plan check process to create project focal points for primary entry intersections per the Specific Plan. The interior of the development, including the lifestyle core, will consist of a variety of decorative paving and concrete treatments, combined with repeating patterns of palm trees throughout the site. Resolution No. 3922 will require additional landscaping throughout the site to reduce the visual mass of the concrete proposed to cover a major portion of the property. The specific location, species, and number of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers would be identified at plan check, subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. Department of Navy Lease In Furtherance Of Conveyance (LIFOC) Parcels There are several existing parcels that are leased to the City of Tustin from the Department of the Navy (DON), known as "Leases in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC)," that contain soil and groundwater contamination. These parcels underlie portions of Reuse Plan Disposition Parcels 11 and 12 and the future South Loop Road and Tustin Ranch Road within the project area, and are identified on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 as Lots 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, and Lot C. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan FEIS/EIR found that reuse would not be impacted by hazardous materials in the groundwater or soil since the DON is in the process of implementing various remedial actions that will remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances located within the site. The DON has committed to an expedited schedule to support the rapid transfer of affected parcels to support early reuse of the site. The developer will be required to obtain DON approval for any construction activities within any LIFOC parcels and comply with any lease restrictions to protect the DON's remediation activities and prevent the spread of contamination. Until the property is conveyed, the terms of the ground lease with the Developer would preclude economic uses of the property with the Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 11 exception of parking, landscaping, and hardscape improvements. Prior to economic uses on the property, however, the developer may proceed with development on the adjacent sites and will need to coordinate with the Department of the Navy during demolition to ensure utilities can be maintained to allow the clean-up process to continue. Army Reserve Site The adjacent Reuse Plan Disposition Parcel 9 is currently owned by the United States Army and is used as an Army Reserve site. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan identifies the property as a future commercial property; however, there are no plans to currently reuse the property. To accommodate the proposed development on Reuse Plan Disposition Parcels 10, 11, and 12, the developer will be responsible for design and construction of ingress and egress to the Army Reserve property from the future Tustin Ranch Road between Barranca Parkway and the northerly boundary of the Army Reserve Parcel and also an access location modified along Barranca Parkway in accordance with DDA 04-02. Provisions of the existing Agreement between the United States Army and the City of Tustin also requires landscaping improvements along Tustin Ranch Road and Barranca Parkway and relocation of facilities (fencing, signs, flagpole and electrical service). Resolution No. 3922 requires all necessary alterations to utilities and facilities on the Army Reserve site to be specifically identified and separately prepared in writing with proper exhibits and approved in writing by the Army Reserve. As noted below, a demolition and severance plan will need to be prepared to demonstrate the proposed development will not have a negative impact on utilities or infrastructure on the Army Reserve site. In addition, landscaping and fencing will be required on the project site along the north and east perimeter of the Army Reserve site per DDA 04-02 Demolition/Severance Plan The majority of Planning Areas 17 and 19 are currently vacant land. The City of Tustin completed demolition of Buildings 190, 251, and 252 in May, 2004 to facilitate remediation; however, there are numerous buildings and appurtenances in Planning Area 16 that the developer will be required to demolish to accommodate the development. Conditions of Resolution No. 3921 require submittal of a demolition plan. The demolition plan will be required to also include provisions for the developer to manage the removal of any asbestos and lead-based paint from the site as stipulated in the deed for the property including FOST #2, satisfy any mitigation measures as required by the adopted EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, and comply with DDA 04-02. A demolition and severance plan will need to be coordinated with the existing Army Reserve site and Department of Navy LIFOC parcels to ensure continued utility service to existing buildings and LIFOC areas. Phasing Plan The applicant intends to construct the entire project in a single phase; however, if the project is constructed in more than one (1) phase, the improvements would need to comply with the requirements of DDA 04-02, which would allow for the a minimum project of 641,394 square feet (lifestyle center and large commercial buildings) and Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 12 subsequent phases of 63,706 square feet (freestanding pads) and 301,000 (two remaining large commercial buildings on LIFOC parcels in PA 16). At a minimum, the first phase would include all horizontal improvements, such as grading, on-site private streets, drive aisles, sidewalks, all utilities and associated connections, drainage improvements, and common area landscape and hardscape improvements. All vertical improvements, including, but limited to, buildings, architectural amenities, parking, security lighting, pedestrian amenities, and trash enclosures would be constructed with each phase as necessary. To ensure there is sufficient infrastructure to support development phasing, all off-site and on-site public and private infrastructure and landscaping for the entire project, with the exception of improvements on LIFOC parcels under the ownership of the Department of the Navy, would be completed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Use and Occupancy in the first phase of development. Conditional Use Permit Drive -Through Restaurants Two (2) drive-through restaurants are proposed at the corner of Barranca Parkway and Jamboree Road. Pads 1 and 2 will have a Chick-Fil-A and an IN -N -Out restaurant, respectively. Both restaurants will have drive-through lanes located between the building and the public right-of-way. The Chick-Fil-A is proposed to have twelve (12) drive-through queuing spaces, and In -N -Out will have twenty (20) spaces. Pursuant to the "In -N -Out Burger and Chick-Fil-A Drive -Through Queuing Analysis at The District of Tustin Legacy," dated June 21, 2004, prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan (Attachment O — Queuing Analysis), and accepted by the Public Works Department, the proposed queuing lanes will be adequate. As conditioned, the In -N -Out and Chick-Fil-A will be permitted to operate from 5:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m., Sunday through Saturday. Although not anticipated, if traffic or circulation problems arise in the future, Resolution No. 3923 would require the applicant to identify the impacts and implement immediate and permanent mitigation measures. Conditions of Resolution No. 3923 have been included to minimize potential impacts to the development and the City. Gas Fueling Station Costco Wholesale, the proposed tenant of Major 10, is proposing an automated gas fueling station on Lots 14 and 15 directly across South Loop Road from Major 10. The station will include four (4) pump islands with eight (8) pumps and will be completely self -serve, with the exception of a gas station attendee providing general assistance to customers. The station will be open twenty-four (24) hours and will be operated and maintained by the tenant of Major 10. Conditions of Resolution No. 3923 have been included to minimize potential impacts to the development and the City. Movie Theater A fourteen (14) screen and minimum 3,000 seat movie theater (as required per Resolution No. 9323 and DDA 04-02) is proposed to be located fifteen (15) feet north of Barranca Parkway, immediately west of Milliken Avenue. The movie theater is intended to be the anchor and major entertainment attraction to the Lifestyle area of the project and Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 13 complement the pedestrian -oriented area. The theater will use industry leading projection and sound systems, interior decor, floor and wall treatments, and seating arrangements (i.e. "stadium" style seating) per Resolution No. 3923. In addition, the movie theater will be part of a pedestrian and entertainment -oriented lifestyle center available to all people of all ages, where no adult or sexually explicit films will be permitted to be shown; as conditioned, the operating hours would be 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week. Master Sign Program While a master sign program is required for new multi -tenant developments pursuant to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.12.1.C, the developer has requested that the signs discussed below be considered as the first phase of a master sign program and has not provided detailed information for individual tenant signage guidelines. As a result, the developer would be required to resubmit a complete master sign program that includes exhibits, graphics, and criteria for all sign types in addition to the proposed pylon signage, detailed information for monument, wall, photographic "lifestyle images," and directional signage, etc. for review and approval by the Community Development Director per Resolution No. 3923. The Community Development Director would be able to approve the complete master sign program if it is consistent with the Tustin Sign Code. The developer is currently proposing the following signage (Attachment P — Sign Plan and Elevations): • Four (4) twenty-five (25) foot tall by seventeen (17) foot wide multi -tenant pylon signs are proposed along Jamboree Road; 0 Three (3) twenty-five (25) foot tall by twelve (12) foot wide multi -tenant pylon signs are proposed along Tustin Ranch Road; • Four (4) fourteen (14) foot tall by twelve (12) foot wide single -tenant pylon signs are proposed on South Loop Road south of Warner Avenue; and, • Multiple large photographic "lifestyle images" on building elevations. The Tustin Sign Code conditionally permits pole or pylon signs at a maximum height of twenty (20) feet; however, the Planning Commission may consider signage that deviates from the Tustin Sign Code in conjunction with a master sign program. For the large pylon signs along Jamboree Road and Tustin Ranch Road, conditions of approval would require the applicant to submit a photo simulation and sign plans that accurately represent the size and scale of all the proposed improvements such as the buildings, landscaping, signage, and other improvements visible in the area and show that the signs enhance the overall development for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Reduction of Off -Street Parking Requirements The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan parking requirement for the project would be 5,994 parking spaces; the developer is proposing 4,767 spaces, which is a deficiency of 1,227 spaces. Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 14 However, a reduction of off-street parking requirements may be permitted per Tustin City Code 9171 aa, subject to Planning Commission authorization, if no substantial conflicts will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the various uses. As a result, a "Traffic Impact Assessment and Parking Analysis for the District at Tustin Legacy," dated June 21, 2004 (Attachment J), was prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers. Based upon the peak hours of operation for the development, the Lifestyle Core is expected to operate during off-peak hours of the other commercial uses, particularly in the evening hours. Therefore, 4,767 parking spaces will be sufficient based upon the proposed mix of uses, and findings and recommendations in the parking assessment and as conditioned per Resolution No. 3923. Variance As noted in the development standards section above, the proposed project will comply with all development standards except regarding the height and setback of the proposed movie theater on Lot 4. Variance 04-002 is a request to construct the movie theater building fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway where a minimum thirty (30) foot building setback is required and at a height of sixty (60) feet where a maximum fifty (50) foot height is permitted. The proposed movie theater will be located in, and integral to creating critical mass for, the "lifestyle" component of the development. The lifestyle experience is designed tc create an outdoor pedestrian environment in an elongated layout so people may walk from one end to the other. Based upon the required location of South Loop Road, the intersection of Barranca Parkway and Milliken Avenue, the existing Army Reserve site, and overall project site configuration, the lifestyle component must be located in the proposed location between Barranca Parkway and the South Loop Road, adjacent to the Army Reserve site resulting in Lot 4 being elongated and restricting flexibility in site design. Due to the minimum square footage required to create the lifestyle experience and the unusual project site layout, it is necessary to reduce the thirty (30) foot setback to fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway to establish the critical mass necessary for the lifestyle component. The movie theater will be the anchor for the lifestyle component and is critical to the lifestyle experience. Due to the size of movie screens and the modern "stadium" style seating, movie theater buildings tend to be taller than other commercial buildings to accommodate these elements. The structure itself will comply with the fifty (50) foot height limit; however, the mechanical equipment and associated screening above the "box -like" shape and height needed to accommodate the screens and stadium seating exceeds the maximum permitted height in Planning Area 19. To provide a curved roofline to enhance the building's appearance while simultaneously screening the rooftop equipment, an increase in the maximum building height is necessary. Furthermore, due to the constricted available development area for the lifestyle component, placing the mechanical equipment on the ground or in the structure might further impact the necessary theater seating and critical square footage. Planning Commission Report Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 July 12, 2004 Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION On January 17, 2001, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and Specific Plan (FEIS/EIR). The proposed types and square footage of uses are consistent with development considered in the FEIS/EIR. Staff has prepared a checklist that finds all potential impacts of the project were addressed by the certified FEIS/EIR and no additional impacts have been identified (Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 3919). In addition, a mitigation monitoring program matrix was prepared by the Community Development Department that identifies the specific mitigation measures or implementation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR that are applicable to the project; all applicable mitigation measures in the FEIS/EIR are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project, in conditions of approval in Resolution Nos. 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924, or in DDA 04-02. A decision to approve the proposed project may be supported by the findings contained in Resolution Nos. 3919, 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924. vk4k�t M tt West Associate Planner Karen Peterson Senior Planner Attachments: A — Location Map B — Site Plan C — Parcel Configuration D — VTTM 16695 and Grading Plans E — Utility Plans F - Floor Plans G — Striping Plan H — Service Site Plan I — Pedestrian and Bikeway Circulation Plan J -- Traffic Impact Assessment and Parking Analysis for the Legacy, dated June 21, 2004 K - Elevations for Majors 1-10, 12, and 16 L — Elevations for Lifestyle Buildings M — Elevations for Pads 1-8 N — Landscaping and Hardscaping Plans O — Queuing Analysis P — Sign Plan and Elevations Q - Resolution Nos. 3919, 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924 S:\Cdd\PCREPORT\VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-02 (Vestar).doc District at Tustin ATTACHMENT A Location Map LOCATION MAP CONCEPT PLAN 04-001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 166915, DESIGN REVIEW 04-010, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-015, AND VARIANCE 04-002 LOCATION: PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS-TUSTIN .SPECIFIC PLAN (REUSE PLAN DISPOSITION PARCELS 10,'11, AND 12), FUTURE WARNER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, FUTURE TUSTIN RANCH ROAD TO THE WEST, PLANNING AREA 18 (REUSE PLAN DISPOSAL PARCEL 9) TO THE SOUTHWEST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE EAST. REQUEST: 1) Concept Plan 04-001 to subdivide 111.77 acres (gross) and develop 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS -Tustin Specific Plan; 2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, to subdivide 111.77 (gross) acres into twenty- nine (29) numbered lots and fifteen (15) lettered lots for the, purpose of developing 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS -Tustin Specific Plan; 3) Design Review 04-010 authorizing the development of 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses on a 111.77 -acre (gross) site within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS -Tustin Specific Plan; 4) Conditional Use Permit 04-015 authorizing two (2) drive-through restaurants, a movie theater, a fueling station, a master sign program, and reduction of off-street parking requirements in conjunction with the development of 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses on a 111.77 acre (gross) site within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS -Tustin Specific plan; and, 5) Variance 04-002 to construct a movie theater building fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway where a minimum thirty (30) foot building setback is required, and at a height of sixty (60) feet where a maximum fifty (50) foot height is permitted within Planning Area 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. (Owner: City of Tustin/Department of the Navy; Applicant: Vestar Development Company) ATTACHMENT B Site Plan 9 I ILL It if I if Fj ittE L LOT J, OilWR, Do PIN XW%� D, U104!IDD 'L11.111 ADV931 Misni 0 13181510 3H1 WsftL 30 3081 )G llo 5 �—o F-m i LOT, q, 7 U) P z .40T to AVM N 8 V d V 3 N V 8 8 V 0 WsftL 30 3081 )G llo 5 �i jvi �—o F-m i LOT, q, 7 U) P z �i jvi .40T AVM N 8 V d V 3 N V 8 8 V 0 �n wusm P. :a olwoJpoj •upsnl '4000 RR ADV031 NJISni ® 1JIUSI0 3H1 if o A o €8ppail all� � sY a a z z a � � C. a � � � � � ! a 3 � � ` � � � ITK G 4canoa0opea°cc"c"cc"c <<: " a77�77<11h97777l77'Y 77977l7.i �:��3?�9� JNCOIJOULODOODO LO o��aa�0�0���[]�oUO�oa ODODOGOO N Nil All a lie elm go it®I!i®® I a 1sCa e „ j i �g C b " pox ez 0 4Yn pp BB p b ! A d7 Q 5 a g' P Rill @ „taqic 7 �0 0 lila aas RY8O 1Ybc 9a H 3F^.b t 3 H �. = l i SM, b. �bA.� r -4 tlR ki � EYe NP'i a a yy b? €R g E� j b,� sg �'�a X�Q�F§ a- R tr•�'�y�as � � �v�$e a#' � 5 § ��§�k a �'� � � P. ■ ���p<`s��. �$Ri a<- a � X�� y t�`��$����' ° ��� ° .. �� � a€� �'r��gtuG � =a4°a• b a�6agd b �. �� ' e$h �b k� Xi go�b�yal 4 a � �?"I��'3�:' � € �S e y bi E^ IR � � � WIN i 5l yAy3�p''� s €qagz§ '��3p$aabl�®pe ¢$ g9�3gk@�x�qe �eR` ?§€�63be Yg�$gBe R iia g m � b �" BppEp' � Y§ b }YL $� <€ € ���i��G Egg E is 4a' a a A a $<p9a `a k$ p y pg R R �a $ y fPig I:8 ac�p AbpR�yy9 Y $ a 3=g79 6r YP a b„ e ¢ Rc9gaRYYa' e< e it -• Rapp a �a� aria NIP Y b :& b ` � �?R -:a RiR ,T a € Sp1ji:l., p$, n€c ! ppa $ip P u pr�J.i _ €s� aeY 1 'a, a qq C € l^ IcIAF�6R6Ivi a � :'Ia; 9 ag 9 ��ia�l �� �> � aA �464AIRM9 a $�cb b 1b !P s!7� 1b 'd Nib,g I Mal JR4 �� R 4 d P y � a 44 9? `�� �e rp� ggggg �Y b 7E yR i s p■ d d d � y A 6: gR� Sa g � a .p a �ppa a gH # pe" gpg g3 7 �0 0 lila aas RY8O 1Ybc 9a H 3F^.b t 3 H �. = l i SM, b. �bA.� r -4 tlR ki � EYe NP'i a a yy b? €R g E� j b,� sg �'�a X�Q�F§ a- R tr•�'�y�as � � �v�$e a#' � 5 § ��§�k a �'� � � P. ■ ���p<`s��. �$Ri a<- a � X�� y t�`��$����' ° ��� ° .. �� � a€� �'r��gtuG � =a4°a• b a�6agd b �. �� ' e$h �b k� Xi go�b�yal 4 a � �?"I��'3�:' � € �S e y bi E^ IR � � � WIN i 5l yAy3�p''� s €qagz§ '��3p$aabl�®pe ¢$ g9�3gk@�x�qe �eR` ?§€�63be Yg�$gBe R iia g m � b �" BppEp' � Y§ b }YL $� <€ € ���i��G Egg E is 4a' a a A a $<p9a `a k$ p y pg R R �a $ y fPig I:8 ac�p AbpR�yy9 Y $ a 3=g79 6r YP a b„ e ¢ Rc9gaRYYa' e< e it -• Rapp a �a� aria NIP Y b :& b ` � �?R -:a RiR ,T a € Sp1ji:l., p$, n€c ! ppa $ip P u pr�J.i _ €s� aeY 1 'a, a qq C € l^ IcIAF�6R6Ivi a � :'Ia; 9 ag 9 ��ia�l �� �> � aA �464AIRM9 a $�cb b 1b !P s!7� 1b 'd Nib,g I 1 �S�R� a§yha@Egp6�888�gb4 I p Ii:b; ge' MgA M sag rp� ggggg �Y as; &gE1 l 1114,01,T1119; TS g6. leg 1 ge' MgA g � a .p a �ppa a pe" pea p• ATTACHMENT C Parcel Configurations 1i1 r_ IMO 'm LL cr FL �e R ATTACHMENT D Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 and Grading Plans S10NN11hill lilt 4 s b I LO L� W OW O (O LV s d UFO w ^xl c - Z gf a� E �aC: a 4ga4p `ii N Q „ o gg pp N Z :q z f � L� W OW O LV s d UFO w ^xl W �� I al E �aC: h A 4ga4p `ii ddd § �gg3g gg pp ,b 8SE` Z �Y g6 �b W Yr a g a Z :q z f � LV s al E �aC: h A 4ga4p `ii ddd § �gg3g gg pp tlep 99€la Jil gil 8SE` �Y g6 a s al E �aC: `ii § �gg3g ul �Y g6 a g a g £ € 4�y ly w § � _ �Y�Ass 7 all o00 b � { ��4�a � ip �y� �a ����p 4���� I�I�g � �� r� ;! i � •-xq- y I •1q- ���� as 1 3 cgc-t xepg@ -- a I. 9 e!aa ° i�ag�g5� e Rp �a °� iG� iR ° = 6 ase b $ sayg R AAAaYp� 9 i4 $9 !e ��i iii i 5 4 010 ggg9y$$ b g boI b�ppb $ 4 0 2 p�el�aaglbe �¢g 9 8 3 by a i®$4ap� x0x/06 �g 1 d d y !I I s5 _ o �SiEaF 6 :6 =5 ` xbgi C tl@ S ebib _R as Q 6 I� ®III a p61 — _ AYYblllgt L'YYl . R/tl g= x y- b • D �s g ie86§ YaA 1 6 , R i s @ b $ gp § 9@ "I'm $fid cjF ' IgR� F q3x§R¢a�1q�!ppq'�� aei6 °�� i=§° � €�`6� q�l 6 k'�g6F g abgl` Eg b$ § 6 $yaasRx �lbk&���R IFI I6 a �§ y�� x t y g° € mill`, a MI6p ¢9 ��pR g I B 8 a. 6Y s -Hell, 6 jx@RF$16[;� x9° 061 p "41 $ ad D$ege,.s@s F F$Fy�F $ ra�911f 38 t k$ab „a b ° b F Fa 8` 1 F r�a� ° q gF F R� f F 6 c gq� a �Ra @b$a¢� 6eFq§� �t$ d E'k��i�$b ?I'�gingS3� xQ=q$� RF6$ �FFes§FI$I�@a x lb@tlyx9 FFFi� i6a xa xa$�a 4 #6b* ¢ �F _ s 666$5 Eq` F ! a t� i x x3 R �e lE xF ;6p66$iR s °I i bQ F $� °! I i F4 $ fillz i '3I RI # qY b '� �� 6YF 6 6 $ � s �xx b : FFR M5 I, 4 � b °�.9 G S a °ixi$ Illili $6 b $ 6 �6 x@ ;i �# g F R 1 I6 > xwill =_d 1,11 F1yp4�J°y 9t4$ } 9g syF's �#$R x �$ =° R I'"'<, R b �R S °Dt b i I° °x I I s° 11111 gp t, gg $axa, Y= a6 eg9p� � 16x gt6 § q@ k- y 6 iI F xa6?x :zi° qa ;65g G6 �M1,11011 s x °6FiY ata b xF s�D~ R§ lglI6$ 16 Milli, 51 p k b F I Gb ;q, - IV If x F b b pp pp_ ppipe X xa III!, " 4 i 4 xx R a ! 43eDF F' T till pS;I x " b 1$b$` e 6Y I e= qq s x c $� 6 161 I sz3 Da fq° F °6 }F�a$ til E e� s�s °01114 !° " FF f F 6 gg.gg g@ I 6� F §p x q$g 7 � pR g F F i'a" �8•I' ¢s$y f6 qp§ e Q 6 6 PF p 2 e e 9 a R 6' S I. 1 3ay4 a ��� Fa e � � � F p4. �6biF°�6 p �4 di@ x xai €}$E �Ya > `s � F g6YJ11g §� fill' x x4 e$ae Ya -$ `a 6° 6 p�e16 N! Pi g c a 3 � 6 IF I! � 6` 9 gx 1� !° � ep Dp'�Fy �I§� R =d' jl'$ 9 i b y I [ <�bR ■e a g t jI ;i l b1 as ieR.� $axF 1�FFRx b 666 ke6? OI 1 gz 1€q !` Mill b b� i �< eN R €g# ttRi�l@!F! loll-Illx'�d46 xas, �< xa �6sgp�l6§i§:= z66! 6 z66R € F6x,i Yk :�-g X as i�bai I ggFB� 3 sss 1��1�l�6 � :qx x� � ���� 6'6 � F 8 �66 5r b4i $$GG ag=6 ex x a�$ 16§I $ R 1111'§ x 3 P-li € x 6113 a @R a6 e 6 63Gfi ee=x Y s °x $ e e x s F6n I = $= 6 x$ g e F � ;6 6 =� 6` p FI @` g j QF< b6R 6�3d�;F;eFE 6.Ib §x gIl F I is a: � I $ e S j § F 1 b< Iy F i gg}y F c apR Y p 4 ¢ Rb R§ ! M as g $q° R e$ £ pE` 0 I° E $gi`.11 6@F` w ap qY§ 1.111 9 g� a 1 y F6 1$ 6 y$16 b ■ x 2 �!� i �Y�§x$ �R-14, F` �'tlQ�JRboat a_16 '�6a.Y'3�b F�ai� g� 16 ad�a� F6° aps g 7 FF r 3 a� x : x i €$` tp R$ e I ° 4;� F4<61 SF ¢. b,F b�+= °F 1;I " ebY b 3 na� g6¢fy I $ n sb aF"I a§ e$�e e g 6 xg a 5fi _ �$ g �$ gg �F�X$ g I b R lF s s pe, 96 �I ri66x $6611 q�6 �. §`$ 6 sFiy F 3lF5IR b6a��166agbF6a�FF$ E ki�R1 I pose '10011 � 6 ; .. D it ill ; 11ig a 0 �gY a g$�6� F ' $ x§ xF x°g xb ;I I 1 Pill P i! q 6 b 6. hi a $ "e " F l� °6$ a e $ ¢ a .}4p! x'F }; eF 6E X114111 61 § FI$6 $ e 113 A Fd 6 Q6'a _ IFt6 � §� g a6b ' 6<9616t�Cg �'ad x as 'sir �F"16 YagR.�6b I §p ° $i FFFFF� � n II i P. 1 F1 9y I'; FFF 'I6 $ Yg fill° c g $Ai€.166511 66¢4Ra FY 1:161, -1g 6 j6"6 a e C li as $ x" ;$ °a , g I g a 6 € "a+pb !Id:! sFRgx FF IIYA�Fk'�I°13Fg6p@F6agFg€xba $a 666666 6! Ix°' §6'66 666 s'xfaeH 666k6�Y6 x �.--xHIM, x'�$ x �1 $ 5.$ x $° p xxa.� yp x�Q ► $ Ig$$ E` Ya = p 66 i.. 6b I$ $ �ppQ X x eb l6$"ab E§a : eeg : bi6 R RFFe 6 L itYei$ atl �i §b a` �iR ppR'$F ' xb 19a FF - r FF[p :11$1R ill 8 I E��1111 � i6<�1a�96� 6�� S�ad�R m �!s � gp� ��� 36@F6'�F�'� x a �ys e I 3x Ka I gill - No 1 11 x! xatR ! 6 NNI �Iq� �Raill, x6as1 q x &'gas YI •=tRa r X00 G G , [SAS ���il■in���mIIN1f� Fr2Eart.jT.S.Q'.r,�Q� an r ■ ■ •��. 1f4 � � • a • ' .''I, . s sw � ■� irk i �'�'1sA�4i= C�?,if�� � ii WA i7� •n � �• � ii■ ��I i on r,;�',�' �;'�■■� -nig r.■ - v A � i ON Eat SIIMMMm _-�'� ��'"•" - __ �.__ �.' ®ICS a of i £ @aF �SEliFs�i, 44 1 IM S 9@S R� 1@ 9 �' � S�§ � S =�� & 1 ►5 � Iii 9 b�y �1iS �.pR S� 9@i� gF$G �pS �S S��g=•9S �zl� � !�� E o S S` s 6b66 $�S SSE � ��S�L�I:S 1i S�pS 6 z�SS h%� �•yy _ �� ed`b b �= s Eb kp E- ! S g 5 R !h 1 d ! � ����E F19�= �¢+o�%@q�� �_.€ eg°;.��i �. E§ 1qy" .•p �j3�J g R= #� ppg °�pgi ��� % ��'! p]a 6. � Q g►pe 6 E ib i iN EiR � �€:CICi�:���g�e �a! �%� :E%b�:sa°���EgEb,'g�•FQE °EiE�.°���.��•�,�b �EsEB�tlb=R��,°= ,!�� dip 3g!il14�i�@�6E8io6E%ii6B!y!Ai>!gEi 1��piiE"@6 %.iS_�aEb �aI �a� QEzS4ba4bE�% �bp@6E%Fib�5i�'hipE!'� ���%aib��liie,e3�i3 1b�a 11" !1 §! l° l @66 S:iMI mi.I1SRI%SSi hill U41131i i�% r Ei'§ = iE{€.p@iS sill b i,,i %e jpII•silplqiip SSgE @FFp%�Ri9 'll, 6§6p§p�4���iE Mii!@S�E 9e bg8 �b p b g! bills i@F� N3E1a@ °SSi§moi EEpi %lOj�p�€ =EEp figl§ % %E��f!° iE I :$SSS EE3Ee��iiE@FSEfli�i ESE@ dR 9 i@ °hs"SSE_Q SgiSFx°S@6SpSl°SEi�i @.! b 4141' IN R SSztli�S�§F @r�Ri`@e%6E F%piit I§Si SS S !@S hiiax i b1RS Ebi �!j � % R : ■1[hill, �' ` f : d �^.p� §b■@!@!� di � iCt°�t {� E �i@SS@�R�jE °%,i 31� �ei cE § z§E � Sp� 6p.% S' b i lit S! �l�RYYY=°t�be9l Ei � E RR �§t ,� g % §; � p.' i° �'�`6p6pp6° s i 'iIJllIg ° fill gEf Rp' 3 6%b146i101112"; b E .b ° � e �` �M F§i ° g °a'l l jiSRi � € �°�• �° �� ! @p r b�� }ii� # §6iii6 11111lii �i i6 ';€iE6 'RiI= E �ri�a i mil R ! 01111il! I OM I � � 1 � �"11 Hi>%�saa �isf � ��1i! II �6�E��i9!ii�i� FEN�i�%sN= 11, aiEn �il��iiSRi _ §�E� @FFp%�Ri9 'll, 6§6p§p�4���iE Mii!@S�E i dR 9 i@ °hs"SSE_Q SgiSFx°S@6SpSl°SEi�i @.! b 4141' IN R SSztli�S�§F @r�Ri`@e%6E F%piit I§Si SS S !@S hiiax i b1RS Ebi �!j � % R : ■1[hill, �' ` f : d �^.p� §b■@!@!� di � iCt°�t {� E �i@SS@�R�jE °%,i 31� �ei cE § z§E � Sp� 6p.% S' b i lit S! �l�RYYY=°t�be9l Ei � E RR �§t ,� g % §; � p.' i° �'�`6p6pp6° s i 'iIJllIg ° fill gEf Rp' 3 6%b146i101112"; b E .b ° � e �` �M F§i ° g °a'l l jiSRi � € �°�• �° �� ! @p r b�� }ii� # §6iii6 11111lii �i i6 ';€iE6 'RiI= E �ri�a i mil R ! 01111il! I OM I � � 1 � �"11 Hi>%�saa �isf � ��1i! II �6�E��i9!ii�i� FEN�i�%sN= 11, aiEn .f L rte•`-- -------- . ...: _ :. �_ � - —� • 4— gat I....ndrFIRS F. °�!. �' :° • I X11, I ° ��' ll, '1 :oil • .,.NII t y.�� ;�• '; _ 'i = '1ll ■` is r ii � d I � Ill i � i � i .= :, • .I • — All <� _�� b:. Ail 1 �� ' • illi ,I 111 ° _ ■ = u -- � � � »x.31 �'.a. °�`�° �,; ., ,1 • �� ellMm � • - �..��. ; ��■ --- ----1- -,6°'i r Baa --mwmmm MIN IN SOME 111. RM I Bill k. ill mow■ li (_��l,I��� Y ■a �` I' �� awu '000000000�©� CIO I Ill/ I � v i a93 r 8 jf I i II � p Q� ( ppBE �e�� 11AAilA�SSI�a� A 1 _ 6 � � A b a _ CIO I Ill/ I � v i a93 r 8 jf I i II � p Q� ( ppBE �e�� 11AAilA�SSI�a� ATTACHMENT E Utility Plans 10d MM E2'92.00 V002/YD/90 OSP'80117SIE20\^7\IoniOawo]\Mo}aM 44s^1 .m S&A W -20\2002\0i -. SII • ��=�e'ss4g�' -� fa�t�r��i��` wriwrwww■�•r..\� �;I�'�I i r■ go -IRE -14111 ■■ ■■■ �. ! • i i �'IA Ott �U�L��O1_��U_���jlf ''■■I 1 { All OR o I � r o ' I.il• � I,I`� • �'� ' L� � !�; .1 �..i..i. � Ll G ,:r r•� fa !:11:11;1 . I - e, - r■■r�wrnw V111 = iJ.fl Ml■1 EEe uv zo erm wW/10/Ed w —, o ., siE-2o\ c / ^ O©Oh76C1©Ii 'I �',� o00000000000�,0000aoo o - 000e�000e ATTACHMENT F Floor Plans 8 0 air eusru oonip aoigsn o1wo;1103 'upsnl g< a Q s ^ ADV931 NII ® 1 1211514 3H1 " z sg� �=o �00000000ci v N 0 pp� it T a 8 Zm G � W 3dr'xarvr .. \J' 8 D,*vo o� „ Nusni oow oiujo4poo 'uiisnj oQ N ADH`J37 MiSi ® IDWS14 3H1 oo�000000n DI-OPPO u .,ovoT misni ® iDiaisicj 3Hi ZZ 0 MI 011 NllSlll Oorvlp dole.ap T� CN ♦ 8 Cd oiwojilI 'wPsnl - w,E oa a �Pij o` i �$g AJVo3l NllSfll ® 1J12i1510 3H1 p 1�vI pr y ��N h oo�000000o I. IR�n� � I I. o,oiwoj!IDC��° psnl p.oA H III oz N AOV037 Misnl ® iDI?USIO ]Hi an .A •••� 91s 8 �000000000 0 ATTACHMENT G Striping Plans _ L�NONE -I - ___ / I of ::��..�,•:.L. � �culW�llllll � , _� / i I I I I ' i I ` a t - _ C: ��IIIII���1�1 0. am! S., �.lIIIYVAIYt=G 'iiVIIIIL.lal •�i�.�.4.a son .o,ll I�III �! '`IW1L I 6f1.1� r ! i'� �� �,�� � � �i0 � ����� �_, �� �� i � � I. III I �\ � pllippli ��I\\ �T. II ,� `a, ` +� ``\. \�� I III . �� :.� _ _ '. � � � : �� 4 t� I L �� � �� ,�I; � I� � � I� _-_�___ a � : • ♦ I I^ �'' = - _ ,I � _ I � � �� , � fu'�l �� �,� i l � 1�', II I \` . + \ �-r� s „.I �� ������� — -- pI �� ,� � ��� 7i��� .... �I 1���7iiii�a�a� [���► 1/��D � �-ii' i' ��r��►�►i► I- ,�, ; ,�. .. ATTACHMENT H Service Site Plan a awollloo 'w}sn1 wwNa XOV03l N11Sn1 ® 13IN1SI4 3H1 +s I MEMO I�uoo��r 1 - � ATTACHMENT I Pedestrian and Bikeway Circulation Plan 3co Um _ c+d E N G I N E E R S FINAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PARKING ANALYSIS THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY Tustin, California Prepared For: VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 7575 Carson Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90808 Prepared By: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 641-1587 FAX: (714) 641-0139 2-032488-1 June 21, 2004 (original dated March 26, 2004) E N G I N E E R S ENGINEERS &PLANNERS ■ TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 ■ San Diego, California 92108 Phone: 619 299-3090 ■ Fax: 619 299-7041 June 21, 2004 Mr. David R. R.istau Clare M. Look -Jaeger, P.E. Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Director of Design and Construction VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 7575 Carson Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90808 LLG Reference No. 2.03.2488.1 Subject: FINAL TRAFFIC MACT ASSESSMENT AND PARKING ANALYSIS FOR THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY (original dated March 26, 2004) Tustin, California Dear Mr. Ristau: As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Final Traffic Impact Assessment and Parking Analysis for the District at Tustin Legacy that has been revised to reflect the current project site plan. Based on our review of the current plan, the project development tabulation is essentially identical to the description included in the reports previously submitted on March 26, 2004, May 11, 2004, and June 7, 2004. This assessment focuses on the potential trip generation and parking requirements associated with the development of up to 1,006,100 square -feet (SF) of retail, entertainment and restaurant floor area within Planning Areas (PA) 16, 17, and 19 of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan /Reuse Plan for Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (hereinafter referred to as the "MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan"). PA 18, which is the Army parcel, has been excluded from this analysis. Consistent with Chapter 3: Land Use and Development / Reuse Regulations of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, the trip generation analysis is based on the information contained in Appendix F to the FEISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin — Final Traffic Technical Report, prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. dated November 1999. The information contained in the EIS/EIR Traffic Study was used to establish a trip budget for the project site. According to the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, a maximum of 1,442,710 SF of non-residential space is permitted within PA 16, 17 and 19 (also identified as Neighborhood F), with an established trip budget of 35,650 average daily trips (ADT's). Costa Mesa - 714 641-1587 ■ Pasadena - 626 796-2322 ■ Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 • Founded 1966 ■ An LG2W6 Company Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 EN GI NEE Rs Paget To ensure consistency with the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, a. comparison of the project's ADT potential with the established neighborhood ADT trip budget has been prepared. Per the specific plan, this comparison is essential "to document ADT status as it is impacted by each development project so that sufficient roadway capacity remains to accommodate later projects." This parking analysis for the District at Tustin Legacy is also consistent with Chapter 3: Land Use and Development / Reuse Regulations of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, Section 3.13 Off-street Parking and is based on the shared parking approach/methodology outlined in Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking publication. The parking analysis also references the findings and recommendations outlined in the Second Edition of the Urban Land Institute's (ULD Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers publication, and the parking generation rates/equations found in the 2nd Edition, Parking Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to determine the proposed project's peak parking needs. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based on the project site plan dated June 21, 2004 and potential tenant information provided by the Vestar Development Company, the District at Tustin Legacy will consist of a retail shopping center on. Planning Areas 16, 17 and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan with a retail / entertainment / restaurant floor area of 1,006,100 square -feet (SF) of gross leasable area (GLA) (See Attachment 1 for project site plan). Review of Attachment 1 indicates that primary access to the project site will be provided via the proposed signalized intersections of Barranca Parkway at Millikan Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road at South Loop Road and Warner Avenue at South Loop Road. Secondary access (provided primarily for truck access) to the project site will be provided via three "right -turn in/out only" driveways on Tustin Ranch Road and one "right -turn in" driveway on Warner Avenue. The proposed "right -turn in/out only" driveway located on Barranca Parkway, between Jamboree Road and Millikan Avenue, has been eliminated per the requirements of the City. Attachment 2 illustrates the pedestrian and bikeway circulation plan for the project. Review of Attachment 2 indicates that pedestrian access to the project site is provided from all public roadways bordering the site, including the South Loop Road with sidewalks provided along both sides of this public street. Consistent with the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and the City's requirements, bicycle access is also provided from all public roadways bordering the site. Off-street bike paths (Class I) are provided along the nortliside of Barranca Parkway between Jamboree Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road, and the southside of the South Loop Road, between Tustin Mr. David R. Ristau HNSCOTT VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LAW &I LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy GREENSPAN June 21, 2004 ENGINEERS Page Ranch Road and Warner Avenue. Consistent with the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, on - street bike lanes (Class II) will be included on Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue. Table 1, located at the end of this letter report, summarizes the anticipated land uses and estimated floor area for the District at Tustin Legacy within each of the Planning Areas in Neighborhood F of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The potential tenants/land uses at the District at Tustin Legacy include general retail, department stores, a home goods store, an electronics store, a home improvement store., a membership warehouse with gas dispensing station, and a bookstore with a total floor area of 827,400 SF, up to 108,700 SF food-uses/restaurants/ entertainment, and a 70,000 SF 18 -screen movie theatre with 2,898 seats. A total of 4,767 parking spaces are proposed as part of the project development plan; PA 16 has a proposed parking supply of 2,174 spaces, whiles PA 17 and PA 19 have proposed parking supplies of 1,217 and 1,376 spaces, respectively. Table 2, provided for informational purposed, summarizes the assumed land uses and building areas for Planning Areas in Neighborhood F of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. As shown, approximately 1,442,710 SF of non-residential space is permitted, which consists of 745,500 SF of retail floor area, 97,250 SF of office space and 599,960 SF of industrial / office park floor area. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Trip Generation Analysis Traffic .generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or Iexiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in this traffic forecasting procedure are those published, in the 6L' Edition of Trip Generation, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 1997] and are consistent with those included in Appendix F to the FFTS/ETP, for the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin —Final Traffic Technical Report. Table 3 summarizes the trip generation rates / equations used in forecasting the impact of the proposed project as reported in the - MCAS EIS/EIR Traffic Study. Table 4 summarizes a comparison of the trip generation potential for the proposed District at Tustin Legacy and the trip budget of 1,442,710 SF of non-residential uses as established by the MCAS EIS/EIR Traffic Study. As shown in the upper portion of Table 4, the District at Tustin Legacy, at buildout, is forecast to generate approximately 33,933 daily trips, with 699 trips (425 inbound, 274 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 2,915 trips (1,448 inbound, 1,467 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday. Review of the lower portion of Table 4 shows that Neighborhood F (excluding PA 18), as evaluated in the MCAS EIS/EIR Traffic Study, is forecast to generate 35,650 daily trips, with 1,735 trips Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy M June 21, 2004 E N G I N E E R S Page 4 (1,344 inbound, 391 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 3,462 trips (1,350 inbound, 2,112 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday. Comparison of the proposed project's daily trip generation potential of 33,933 ADT with that of the trip budget of 1,442,710 SF of non-residential uses established by the MCAS EIS/E1R Traffic Study, indicates that the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,717 fewer trips on a daily basis. Further, comparison of the Approved MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan trip budget for Neighborhood F with that of the proposed project shows that the trip generation potential of the District at Tustin Legacy is well within the mitigated "trip budget" established for the site, with 1,036 fewer trips generated during the AM peak commute hour and 547 fewer trips generated during the critical PM peak commute hour. Trip Generation "Sensitivity" Evaluation To determine the amount of square -footage that could be developed based on a daily trip budget of 35,650 ADT's for PA 16, 17 & 19, a trip generation sensitivity evaluation was prepared. Based on our evaluation, it was determined that an additional 88,625 SF of retail floor, for a total project floor area of 1,094,725 SF (1,024,725 SF shopping center with 2,898 Seat, 70,000 SF theatre) could be constructed. The upper portion of Table 4A summarizes the results of this evaluation. Further, if the army parcel, identified as PA 18, was to be considered a part of the proposed District at Tustin Legacy project, the additional 542 daily trips allocated to this parcel would .provide the. Vestar Development Company the opportunity to construct an additional 28,525 SF of retail floor area within this planning area of Neighborhood F. As result, a total project floor area of 1,123,250 SF (1,053,250 SF shopping center with 2,898 Seat, 70,000 SF theatre) could be constructed. The lower portion of Table 4A summarizes the results of this trip generation sensitivity evaluation. - However, if the excess ADT budget from PA 16, 17 & 19 of the proposed project were transferred (reallocated) to PA 18, up to 117,150 SF (88,625 + 28,525) of retail/restaurant floor area could be constructed by the Vestar Development Company within the army parcel. With the transfer of trips, PA 18 would have a revised ADT trip budget of 2,259 daily trips (1,717 + 542). Trip Budget Assessment Table 5 summarizes the trip budget assessment for PA 16, 17 and 19 of Neighborhood F of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. Review of Table 5 shows that the daily trip generation potential of the District at Tustin Legacy is well within the established ADT budget for PA 17 and PA 19, but exceeds the ADT budget for PA 16. As a result, a transfer of trips from PA 17 and PA Mr. David R. Ristau LINSCOTT VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LAW LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy GREENSPAN June 21, 2004 EN G I N E E R 5 Page 19 to PA 16 will be necessary to ensure compliance with the Approved MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan trip budget for Neighborhood F. PARKING ANALYSIS This parking analysis for the District at Tustin Legacy involves determining the expected parking needs, based on the size and type of proposed development components, versus the parking supply. In general, there are two methods that can be used to estimate the site's peak parking demands. These methods include: 1. application of City code requirements (which typically treat each use in the commercial shopping center as a "stand alone" use at maximum demand); and 2. application of shared parking usage. patterns by time -of -day (which recognizes that the parking demand for each land use component varies by time of day, day of week, and/or month of year). The shared parking methodology is certainly applicable to a development such as the District at Tustin Legacy, as the individual land uses (i.e., retail, restaurant, theatre, etc.) experience peak demands at different times of the day. CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS As a benchmark, the number of parking spaces required to support the District at Tustin Legacy project was first calculated -.using the Off-street parking provisions of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan or the Tustin City Code. Table 6 summarizes the code parking requirements for the project strictly applying the City's off-street parking rates for retail, restaurant, and theatre. Review of Table 6 indicates that direct application of City parking codes to the development totals . of the District at Tustin Legacy results in a total theoretical on-site parking requirement of 5,994 spaces. Based on a projected 6n -site parking supply of 4,767 spaces, the project site will be deficient by 1,227 spaces when compared to City code. These parking requirements reflect the total parking demand of the center assuming each use is a "freestanding" development at maximum demand and does not consider the "sharing" of parking spaces or time of day parking demand needs. Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1— The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 ENGINEERS Page SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS Shared Parking Rationale and Basis Accumulated experience in parking demand characteristics indicates that a mixing of land uses results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak requirements for each land use. Due to the proposed mixed-use characteristics of the District at Tustin Legacy, opportunities to share parking can be expected. The objective of this shared parking analysis is to project the peak parking requirements for the project based on the combined demand patterns of different land uses at the site. Shared Parking calculations recognize that different uses often experience individual peak parking demands at different times of day, or days of the week, or even months of the year. When uses share a common parking footprint, the total number of spaces needed to support the collective whole is determined by adding parking profiles (by time of day, week, and year), rather than individual peak ratios as represented in Section 3.13 of Chapter 3: Land Use and Development / Reuse Regulations of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan or the City of Tustin Code. There is an important common element between the traditional "code" and the Shared Parking calculation methodologies; the peak parking ratios, or "highpoint" for each land use's parking profile, typically equals the "code" parking ratio for that use. The analytical procedures for Shared Parking Analyses are well documented in the Shared Parking publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULD. Shared parking calculations for the District at Tustin Legacy utilize peak parking ratios and hourly parking accumulations developed from field studies of single developments in free-standing settings, where travel by private auto is maximized. These characteristics permit the means for calculating peak parking needs when land use types are combined. Further, the shared parking approach will result, at other than peak parking demand times, in an excess amount of spaces that will service the overall needs of the District at Tustin Legacy. Shared Parking Development Standards Table 7 presents the Shared Parking Criteria to be applied throughout the District at Tustin Legacy, including the freestanding pads. Each of the expected land use types are represented by a heading in the table, and under each heading appears the peak parking ratio to be applied for that use, as well as the percentage of peak demand specific to that use for each hour from 6:00 AM through Midnight on a weekday (Monday through Friday), and on a weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). Using the project specifics (land use type and size), the indicated peak parking ratio, and time of day percentage, a demand profile for every element of the plan can be constructed. Demand profiles for all uses of the District at Tustin Legacy are added together to determine the center's peak parking needs. On-site parking lots are sized to meet these minimum requirements. Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1— The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 E N G I N E E R S Page 7 The utilization of the criteria on Table 7 will provide Vestar Development Company and the City of Tustin with a mechanism by which the parking implications of enhancements/modification to the development tabulation or land use mix might be evaluated. Specifically, the proposed Shared Parking calculation procedure for the District at Tustin Legacy is as follows: I. Identify the land uses and quantities (floor area, theater seats, restaurant square -footage etc.), within the District at Tustin Legacy to be utilized in the Shared Parking model. 2. Determine the peak -parking requirement for each land use component in that zone based on factors from the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan or City's Parking Code. 3. Adjust parking demand component for seasonal variation (i.e. different use peak at during different months of the year). 4. Adjust for any parking supply component that will be unavailable for sharing. Examples are spaces that will be exclusively dedicated and/or accessible by only one use type. 5. Using the Table 7 matrix, determine the parking demand profile for each use to be parked in a shared parking configuration. 6. Determine the total demand for the site, by time of day, based on the summation of the demand profiles developed by using the parking matrix presented in Table 7. Isolate the maximum demand level between 6:00 AM and Midnight. This maximum demand level is the minimum standard for sizing (in terms of spaces) the parking supply for that study area. Shared Parking Ratios and Profiles The hourly parking demand profiles (expressed in percent of peak demand) presented in Table 7, and applied to the District at Tustin Legacy, are based on profiles developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and published in Shared Parking. The ULI publication presents hourly parking demand profiles for seven general land uses: office, retail, restaurant, cinema, residential (Central Business District: CBD and non -CBD), hotel (consisting of separate factors for guest rooms, restaurant/lounge, conference room, and convention area). These factors present a profile of parking demand over time and have been used directly, by land use type, in the analysis of this project. Since the primary project component for the District at Tustin Legacy is retail space, the ULI retail use profiles are applied directly. In doing so, there is an intermediate step in expressing ULI profiles as a percentage of the week-long peak, thus arriving at a weekday profile and weekend profile each expressed as a percentage of the baseline parking ratio (ULI actually starts with Mr. David R Ristau LINSCOTT VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy GREENSPAN June 21, 2004 ENGINEERS Page separate ratios for weekday and weekend day, and develops profiles for each accordingly; we've found it more convenient to translate both profiles to a percent of expected maximum demand, which, for retail, turns out to be on a Saturday). The resulting profiles represent the most likely hourly parking demand profile, and are applied to a recommended parking ratio of 1 space/200 SF of retail and service commercial floor area. Peak demand for retail uses (i.e. 100 percent attainment of its peak parking demand of the day) occurs between 1:00 — 2:00 PM on weekdays, and 2:00 — 4:00 PM on weekends (Saturday). Please note that proposed warehouse floor area in Majors 1 through 8, 10 and 12, which totals 49,680 SF, is parked at the City code parking ratio of 1 space/1000 SF. The office profiles were also directly derived from ULI. For office uses peak demand occurs between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM on weekdays, and is minimal on Saturdays. The peak -parking ratio for office uses exactly equals the City's Parking Code requirement of 1 space per 250 SF. For this project, office uses are not currently proposed and the data provided in Table 7 is for informational purposes only. The restaurant use profile is based on a quality/sit-down restaurant (typically non fast-food). Like the retail profiles, the restaurant profile derives exactly from the ULI baseline. The restaurant - parking ratio recommended as part of the District at Tustin Legacy Shared Parking Criteria exactly matches the City code rate of 1 spaces/100 SF of floor area. For this study, we have recommended that the restaurant parking profile and ratio be also applied to the proposed nightclub that will also provides food and beverage service. According to the Shared Parking publication, restaurant uses are shown to experience peak demand between 7:00 — 10:00 PM on weekdays, and 8:00 — 10:00 PM on weekends. In-line food services in a shopping mall setting tend to have a higher customer turnover, draw from the on-site retail or theater customers and employees, and are not destinations in and of themselves. Examples are coffee shops, delicatessens, "express" versions of. some fast food operations, and independent (non -chain) venues. Given that only a small portion of the total floor area will be dedicated to "in-line" food services, we recommend using the retail profile and the peak demand of I space/200 SF for this component. Thus, they are included under the retail headings of our demand tables. Of the 108,700 SF of food and beverage establishments at the District at Tustin Legacy, approximately 12,000 SF will be dedicated to in-line food services / food court. The ULI Shared Parking publication includes a cinema profile that is used in this analysis. To estimate the theatres parking demand, a parking ratio of 1 space per 3 seats (which matched City code) is utilized. As shown in Table 3, a cinemas. peak demand occurs between 8:00 and 10:00 PM on weekdays and weekends. Mr. David R. Ristau V VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ` LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 ENGINEERS Page Application of Shared Parking Standards to the District at Tustin Legacy Tables 8 through 11 present the weekday and weekend parking demand for the District at Tustin Legacy project based on the shared parking standards presented previously in Table 7. Tables 8 and 9 summarize the peak non -holiday winter (December) weekday and weekend parking demand for the center, while Tables 10 and 11 summarize the peak non -holiday summer (July) parking conditions for the project. Columns (1) through (4) of these tables present the parking accumulation characteristics and parking demand of the District at Tustin Legacy project for the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight. Column (5) presents the expected joint -use parking demand for the entire site on an hourly basis, while Column (6) summarizes the hourly parking surplus/deficiency for the proposed project compared to a parking supply of 4,767 spaces. Note that the sizing (floor area or number of seats) of each component, and recommended parking rates are included in the tabular headings of each type; seasonal adjustment factors for retail, cinema and restaurants uses for the months of July and December are based on data presented in the LTU Shared Parking publication. Based on our experience, the shared parking approach summarized in Tables 8 through 11 are believed to be the most appropriate in evaluating the parking supply -demand relationships for the District at Tustin Legacy project. The results in these tables are the focus of this parking investigation and recommendations. Shared Parking Analysis Results Peak Non -Holiday Winter Condition (December) As shown in Table 8, the peak midday use parking requirement for the proposed project during a weekday totals 4,707 spaces and occurs at 1:00 PM. The peak evening parking demand during a weekday, which occurs at 7:00 PM, totals 4,631 spaces. Table 9 presents the hourly shared parking demand forecast on a weekend day at completion of the project. As shown, the peak weekend midday use .parking demand for the mixed -used project is expected to occur at 2:00 PMS when a parking demand of 4,764 spaces is forecast. The peak weekend night use parking demand, which occurs at 7:00 PM, is 3,660 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 4,767 spaces, a surplus of 60 spaces is forecast during the peak hour of a non -holiday winter weekday condition; during the peak hour of a non -holiday winter weekend condition, a surplus of 3 spaces is projected. Peak Non -Holiday Summer Condition (July) Review of Table 10 shows that the peak day use and evening parking requirement for the District at Tustin Legacy during the peak non -holiday summer conditions totals 4,108 (occurring at 1:00 PM) and 4,318 spaces (occurring at 8:00 PM). On a weekend day during peak non -holiday summer conditions, the peak parking requirements for the District at Tustin Legacy during the day occurs at 2:00 PM, when a parking demand of 4,150 spaces is forecast; at the night the peak parking demand occurs at 8:00 PM and totals 3,582 spaces (see Table 11). Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy • June 21, 2004 ENGINEERS Page 10 Based on the proposed parking supply of 4,767 spaces, a surplus of 659 spaces and 617 spaces would result during the peak hours of a non -holiday summer weekday and weekend condition, respectively. Parking Supply -Demand Analysis Tables 12 and 13 present a comparison of the proposed parking supply versus the forecast demand for the District at Tustin Legacy during the weekday evening peak hour and weekend midday peak hour. Parking supply within each planning area is measured against the peak forecast demand in each planning area to determine the amount of surplus parking (supply exceeding demand) or deficiency (demand exceeding supply). The adjacent surpluses and deficiencies were then balanced where applicable to account for the probable distribution of the District at Tustin Legacy parking needs of the "lifestyle center" (identified as PA 19 — West in Table 1). Review of Tables 12 and 13 indicate that the peak weekday and weekend (non -holiday) parking requirements for PA 16, PA 17 and PA 19 — East can be accommodated within their "own sites"; there is not a "need" to share spaces with the other planning areas. However, as shown in Table 12 and 13, PA 19 — West ("lifestyle center") is dependant on the other planning areas to provide the parking supply to meet its peak parking demand. To accommodate the unadjusted deficiency in PA 19 — West, the parking demand for the "lifestyle center" was redistributed to PA 16, PA 17 and PA 19 — East. The anticipated balanced parking surplus/deficiency are shown in the last columns of Tables 12 and 13. ADDITIONAL PARKING DEMAND FORECAST INFORMATION Parking. Forecast Based On Current ULI..Parking,.S.tudies For Shopping Centers A recent publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) titled Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers [Washington, D.C.; 19991 includes detailed parking accumulation counts at a total of 169 shopping centers, and 15 in-depth case studies as part of their study. Of the 169 surveys, 160 were conducted on Saturday, December 12, 1998 between the hours of 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM, while the remaining 9 surveys were conducted on Saturday, December 19, 1998 during the same hours. Appendix A contains an excerpt from the Parking Requirements for Shopping Center publication. Briefly, ULI's Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers recommends a parking ratio of 4.50 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) for shopping centers having a GLA of over 600,000 square feet. This recommended parking ratio would provide shopping centers with sufficient parking to serve the needs of customers and employees at the 201x' busiest hour of the year. This recommended ratio will provide for a surplus of parking spaces during all but 19 hours of the year that a shopping center is open for business. During 19 hours each year, typically Mr. David R. Ristau HNSCOTT VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy. June 21, 2004 ENGINEERS Page 11 distributed over four peak shopping days during the holiday season, some patrons may have to circulate through the parking area to find an available parking space when they first enter the site. Table 14 provides a summary of recommended parking ratios per 1000 SF of GLA from the ULI 1999 publication. As shown, for centers with over 600,000 SF of GLA and up to 20% of GLA designated to Restaurant, Entertainment, and/or Cinema space, a rate of 4.5 spaces per 1000 SF of GLA is recommended.. If the percentage of Restaurant, Entertainment, and/or Cinema space exceeds 20%, the Shared Parking methodology is recommended for use. The District at Tustin Legacy will have a total GLA of 1,006,100 SF at completion of the proposed project, of which 178,800 SF (or 18%) will be dedicated to restaurant, entertainment and cinema space. Using the criteria outlined in Table 14, a total of 4,743 spaces will be required GLA (4.74 SP/1000 SF of GLA x 1006.100 SF of GLA � 4,769 spaces). With a planned parking supply of 4,767 spaces, the District at Tustin Legacy peak. parking demand can be accommodated. Forecast Parking Demand based on the 2nd Edition of Parking Generation Parking Generation factors and equations used to determine the parking requirements of certain land uses can be found in the Second Edition of Parking Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 1987]. Table 15 summarizes the parking generation equations utilized in forecasting the parking requirements of the District at Tustin Legacy. To forecast the project's parking demand, ITE Land Use Code 820: "Shopping Center" was utilized. As shown in Table 15, application of the parking generation equations to the project's development tabulation of 1,006,100 SF of GLA results in a peak parking requirement of 4,245 spaces (or a peak parking ratio of 4.25 spaces/1,000 SF of GLA). SOUTH LOOP ROAD OPERATIONS ANALYSIS In response to the City of Tustin concerns regarding the downgrading/downsizing of the South Loop Road from a planned four -lane arterial to a local two-lane divided collector street, a traffic analysis that evaluates the operating conditions at six (6) intersections located along the South Loop Road, between Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue that will serve the District at Tustin Legacy retail/entertainment center was prepared. The operations analysis was conducted based on projected weekday and weekend peak hour traffic volumes and proposed intersection lane geometrics utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000) methodology. Based on projected peak hour service levels, the appropriate intersection traffic controls are recommended for the District at Tustin Legacy driveways, and the adequacy of the storage capacity of the proposed left -turn and/or right -tum pockets is analyzed and verified. Mr. David R. R.stau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 ENG IN EE Rs Page 12 Intersection Traffic Volumes For the purposes of this analysis, the District at Tustin Legacy site was divided into six traffic analysis zones (TAZ). Table 16 identifies the TAZs and their associated trip generation potential. TAZ A and B consists of the 448,000 SF of retail/commercial floor area center located in PA 16, TAZ C and D consists of the 44 1, 100 SF of retail/entertainment/restaurant floor area located in PA 19, and TAZ E consists of the 47,000 SF of retail floor area located in PA 17. The proposed 70,000 SF, 18 -screen movie theatre in the "life style" center was designated TAZ F: As previously indicated, the District at Tustin Legacy is forecast to generate approximately 33,933 weekday daily trips, with 699 trips (425 inbound, 274 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 2,915 trips (1,448 inbound, 1,467 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday. Exhibits 1 and 2 present the AM and PM peak hour project -related traffic volumes at the key study intersections along the South Loop Road, as well as other project driveway intersections along the extension of Millikan Avenue into the project site, Barranca Parkway, Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue. Exhibits 1 and 2 also illustrate forecast Post -2025 peak hour traffic volumes based on traffic model projections provided by Austin -Foust & Associates at key intersections along Barranca Parkway, Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue. Project traffic volumes, both entering and exiting the site, were distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations: 1. Peak Hour select zone assignment plots, 2, the site's proximity to major traffic carriers (i.e. Jamboree Boulevard, Barranca Parkway, Tustin Ranch Road, etc.), and 3. ingress/egress availability -at the project site and the location of proposed parking areas. Intersection Operating Conditions Tables 17 and 18 summarizes the weekday AM peak hour and PM Level of Service results at the six project driveway intersections along the South Loop Road, assuming buildout of the District at Tustin Legacy based on the HCM method of analysis, projected traffic- volumes, and the intersection lane configurations illustrated in Exhibit 3. The first column (1) of values in Table 17 presents a summary of future traffic conditions for the AM peak hour of a "typical" weekday at the study intersection along the South Loop Road, Austin Foust Associates, Inc. prepared select zone assignment plot using the Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (ITAM) 3.01. Mr. David R. Ristau LINSCOTT VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1— The District at Tustin Legacy GUENSPAN June 21, 2004 ENGINEERS Page 13 assuming two-way stop control at project driveways #1, #2, #4, #5 and #6, and traffic signal control at project driveway #3 (Alternative #1 scenario). The values presented in the second column (2) summarize the anticipated AM peak hour service levels assuming two-way stop control at project driveways #1, #5 and #6, traffic signal control at project driveway #3, and all -way stop control at project driveways #2 and #4 (Alternative #2 scenario). Table 18 summarizes the PM peak hour operating conditions for the six project driveways along the South Loop Road for the same traffic scenarios listed above. Review of Tables 17 and 18 indicate the six project driveways along the South Loop Road are, overall, projected to operate at LOS A or B during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour of a "typical" weekday, the proposed signalized intersection of South Loop Road at Millikan Avenue/Project Driveway #3 is forecast to operate at LOS B or better with forecast approach service levels of C or better. Further, implementation of either two-way stop control or all -way stop control for project driveways #2 and #4 will be acceptable intersection controls since high levels of service will be achieved at both these project intersections. Appendix B contains the HCM/LOS calculation sheets used in the operations analyses. Table 19 summarizes the results of the queuing analysis for the six project driveways located alon� the South Loop Road. Based on the HCM service level calculations, which calculates a critical (95 percentile) queue value in feet, the weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour queue lengths are not more than 110 feet (approximately five vehicles, assuming 22 feet per vehicle) for any of the turning movements at the six project driveways. Review of Table 19 indicates that the proposed left -turn and right -turn storage lengths at the six project driveways range, which range between 100 feet and 250 feet, are more than sufficient and will accommodate the projected queue of vehicles during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Appendix C presents the concept striping plans for South Loop Road, between Tustin Ranch Road and Warn— Avenue, and Millikan Way, between Barranca Parkway and South Loop Road which illustrate the proposed intersection lane configurations/assignments, storage length for turn pockets and proposed intersection controls. Also included in Appendix C are conceptual striping plans, prepared by DRC, for Barranca Parkway, between Tustin Ranch Road and Jamboree Boulevard, including the Millikan Avenue signalized intersections, and Warner Avenue, between Tustin Ranch road and Construction Circle North. Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1— The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 E N G I N E E R S Page 14 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Trip Generation Based on the results of this traffic assessment, we conclude that the proposed District at Tustin Legacy project daily trip generation potential is within the trip budget of 35,650 average daily trips (ADT's) established for PA 16, 17 and 19, as identified in Appendix F- FEISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin — Final Traffic Technical Report, prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. dated November 1999. Comparison of the proposed project's daily trip generation potential of 33,933 ADT's with that of the trip budget of 1,442,710 SF of non-residential uses established by the MCAS EIS/EIR Traffic Study, indicates that the proposed project is forecast to generate about 1,717 fewer trips on a daily basis. Parking Analysis • An analysis using the applicable City of Tustin parking rates indicates that 1,006,100 SF of GLA proposed at the District at Tustin Legacy would theoretically require 5,994 parking spaces to satisfy City parking code. Thus, the propos—on-site par -king supe of f-767— spaces would be theoretically deficient by 1,227 spaces (20 percent) and would not satisfy the City parking requirements. • Given that retail uses have peak periods (early afternoon) that differ from restaurant uses (around noon and in the evening) as well as a movie theatre, it is appropriate to utilize the shared parking concept to forecast the overall parking demand for the site. This approach is consistent with Chapter 3: Land Use and Development / Reuse Regulations of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, Section 3.13 Off-street Parking Based on the results of the shared parking analysis, which is based on the ULI Shared Parking methodology, we conclude that the proposed parking supply will provide adequate parking at the District at Tustin Legacy during peak non -holiday winter and summer weekday and weekend conditions. During the peak hour of a non -holiday winter weekend condition, a peak -parking requirement of 4,764 parking spaces is projected. With a planned parking supply of 4,767 parking spaces, a surplus of 3 spaces is projected. ULI's publication titled Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers recommends a rate of 4.74 spaces per 1000 SF of GLA be used for centers with over 600,000 SF of GLA and 18% of GLA designated to Restaurant, Entertainment, and/or Cinema space. This recommended parking ratio would provide shopping centers with sufficient parking to serve the needs of customers and employees at the 20`h busiest hour of the year. This recommended ratio will provide for a surplus of parking spaces during all but 19 hours of the year that a shopping center is open for business. During 19 hours each year, typically distributed over four peak shopping days during Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 E N G I N E E R S Page 15 the holiday season, some patrons may have to circulate through the parking area to find an available parking space when they first enter the site. However, employees are often directed to park off-site to increase the amount of holiday parking spaces for patrons/customers. Using a parking ratio of 4.74 spaces per 1000 SF of GLA, the District at Tustin Legacy will require 4,769 parking spaces. • Based on the equations published in ITE's Parking Generation, 2nd Edition, we project that the District at Tustin Legacy will require 4,245 spaces. This is equivalent to a peak -parking ratio of 4.25 spaces/1,000 SF of GLA. Operations Analysis • The results of the South Loop Road operations analysis indicate that six project driveways along the South Loop Road are projected to operate at LOS A or B during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour of a "typical" weekday and during the midday peak hour of a "typical" Saturday. Further, Implementation of either two-way stop control or all -way stop control for project driveways #2 and #4 are acceptable intersection controls since high levels of service will be achieved at both these project intersections. • The proposed left -turn and right -turn storage lengths at the six project driveways range are more than sufficient and will accommodate the projected queue of vehicles. RECOMMENDATIONS • Based on the results of this parking evaluation, the proposed on-site parking supply of 4,767 parking spaces will be sufficient to serve the parking needs of customers and employees of the District at Tustin Legacy except, during the peak holiday season conditions. • To accommodate the peak holiday parking demand and ensure adequate parking is provided at the District at Tustin Legacy, Vestar Development Company shall develop and implement a Parking Management Plan. • The Parking Management Plan should include, at a minimum, valet parking for visitors, implementation of on on-site shuttle service for visitors/customers, designated employee -only parking zones in remote areas of the mall parking lots and/or off-site employee parking areas with employee shuttle service. Parking demand for employees account for approximately 20 perccnt of the total parking demand during the peak period. Thus, requiring employees to park off-site could result in a 20 percent reduction in on-site parking demand. Mr. David R. Ristau LINSCOTT VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1— The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 E N G I N E E R S Page 16 This completes our traffic and parking analysis. If there are any further questions, or you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS wlotrlv�' Richard E. Barretto, P.E. �RDFFS$/0 Principal Attachments r`t NO' �200��yv�� * Exp. AFF1G N:\2400\2032488\Report\2032488 Final Trip Generation and Parking Analysis 6-21-2004.doc E N G I N,E E R S cn 1 N W9 E N G I N E E R S TABLE 1 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY The District at Tustin Legacy Planning Area 16 Retail 426,000 SF Retail 12,000 SF Restaurant 10,000 SF Subtotal 448,000 SF Planning Area 17 Retail 47,000 SF Subtotal 47,000 SF Planning Area 19 - West Retail 137,400 SF Restaurant 31,500 SF Movie Theatre w/2,898 seats 70,000 SF Food Court 12,000 SF Subtotal 250,900 SF Planning Area 19 - East Retail 205,000 SF Restaurant 48,000 SF Fast -Food Restaurant 7,200 SF Subtotal 260,200 SF Total Project Square Foota a 1,006,100 SF [ 1 ] Source: The District at Tustin Legacy Site Plan, dated 05-11-2004, LPA 11 -May -04 E N G I N E E R S TABLE 2 MCAS SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS' The District at Tustin Legacy _,_ ...-, , 4-11 gg,, 67an P auntug I F ` Neighborhood F PA 16 General / Community Commercial 72,930 SF General Office 97,250 SF Light Industrial 315,950 SF PA 17 Light Industrial / Commercial 284,010 SF PA 19 Shopping Center 672,570 SF 'otat T(oolr area assanied in 1ieitiirorl}"poc�` 4fthe ,1442,711 SF t�GAS � :ec}fi<e� pian Source: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan IReuse Plan for Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin, Table 3 — 3, page 3-19. E N G I N E E R S TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF WAS TUSTIN REUSE TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS/RATES2 The District at Tustin Legacy Land ase s Eoef dents y . AMeakHour p1Vi'?ek dour Pk/lDQ ' 10. Community Commercial TSF 68.17 1.00 .64 1.64 2.85 3.09 5.94 12. General Office TSF 13.27 1.65 0.23 1.88 1.65 0.23 1.88 • Movie Theatre Seat 1.80 0015 A015 .0030 .086.058 .144 TSF = thousands of square feet of land use (EQ) = Equation -based trip with equation form: LN (T) = A * LN (X) + B where (X) = Land Use Amount & T = Daily Trips. 2 Source; Table 2-2 of Appendix F to the FEISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin — Final Traffic Technical Report, prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. dated November 1999. Movie Theatre trip rates based on information included in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Trac Generators, April 2002. 1 Eoef dents y . AMeakHour p1Vi'?ek dour Pk/lDQ ' PWADT X. 244 ..&ItQ 11. Shopping Center (EQ) TSF .643 5.866 .024 61% 39% .087 48% 52% 16. Industrial Park (EQ) TSF 768 3.654 .142 88% 12% .135 17% 83% TSF = thousands of square feet of land use (EQ) = Equation -based trip with equation form: LN (T) = A * LN (X) + B where (X) = Land Use Amount & T = Daily Trips. 2 Source; Table 2-2 of Appendix F to the FEISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin — Final Traffic Technical Report, prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. dated November 1999. Movie Theatre trip rates based on information included in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Trac Generators, April 2002. 1 E N G I N E E R S TABLE 4 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST The District at Tustin Legacy I liu "Dse 1 'ro act Desi option / ' I2al" ly A P a %»� PIVI au u_ u � Planning tA>ire(PA 2ay,. The District at Tustin Legacy 11. Shopping Center (936,100 SF) 28,717 420 269 689 1,199 1,299 2,498 • Theatre (70,000 SF w/2,898 Seats) 5,216 5 5 10 249 168 417 Project Traffic Generation Potential 33,933 425 274 699 1,448 1,467 2,915 for 1,006,100 SF of Development: WAS Specific Plan Land Uses for Neighborhood F 3 PA 16 10: Community Commercial (72,930 SF) 4,972 73 47 120 208 225 433 12. General Office (97,250 SF) 1,291 160 22 182 30 145 175 16. Industrial Park (315,950 SF) 3,211 401 55 456 74 360 434 PA 17 16. Industrial Park (284,010 SF) 2,959 370 50 420 68 332 .400 PA 19 11. Shopping Center (672,570 SF) 23,217 340 217 557 9701,050 2.020 MCAS Specific Plan — Neighborhood F Trip Budget Total for 1,442,710 SF 35,650 1,344 391 1,735 1,350 2,112 3,462 of Development (excludes PA 18): NetDtifference in vi. enerat►on PrQposed Pro�e.cC vs, Approved WAS -1,717 -919 117 -la3b 98' -645 547 S e�tfic` Plan.T;r� ', Bud _ et 3 Source: Trip Generation Forecast for PA 16, 17, and 19, Appendix A of Appendix F to the FEISIEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin —Traffic Technical Report Appendices, prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. dated June 1999. E N G I N E E R S TABLE 4A PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION "SENSITIVITY" PROJECTIONS The District at Tustin Legacy Land Ilse / 'rsl�cc"t eSE tption % Da�iy A I PFea TouRW ra, Plnnxu tea'') Way Tn: ()>t . tal The District at Tustin Legacy - Alt #1 12. Shopping Center (1,024,725 SF) 30,434 445 285 730 1,271 1,377 2,648 • Theatre (70,000 SF w/2,898 Seats) 5,216 5 5 10 249 168 417 Project Traffic Generation Potential 35,650 450 290 740 1,520 1,545 3,065 for 1,094,725 SF of Development: WAS Specific Plan Land Uses for Neighborhood F 4 WAS Specific Plan - Neighborhood F Trip Budget Total for 1,442,710 SF 35,650 1,344 391 1,735 1,350 2,112 3,462 of Development excludes PA 18): Nit llffereaaeTrt'Tr>tp Geuerahori Plcoposed Prolect;vs Apparoved MCAS 0 ' -894 -101 -995 17 567 -397 +�ie1<f c Pian Tri; Built The District at Tustin Legacy - Alt #2 13. Shopping Center (1,053,250 SF) 30,976 454 290 744 1,294 1,401 2,695 • Theatre (70,000 SF w/2,898 Seats) 5,216 5 5 10 249 168 417 Project.,Traffic Generation Potential 36,192 459 295 754 1,543 1,569 3,112 for 1,123,250 SF of Development: MCAS Specific Plan Land Uses for Neighborhood F s 7 MCAS Specific Plan - Neighborhood F Trip Budget Total for 1,483,560 SF 36,192 1,411 400 1,811 1,363 2,173 3,536 of Development (includes PA 18 - Army Parcel): Net Ihfference in Trip Generation ^424: Proposed;Project vs. Aip.proved MCAS ' 0 -9 2 10.5 1,4571S0 �604- 5 ec�ftc Plan Tri Bud et 4 Source: Trip Generation Forecast for PA 16, 17, and 19, Appendix A of Appendix F to the FEIS/EIR for the Disposal and ,Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin -Traffic Technical Report Appendices, prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc, dated June 1999. 5 Source: Trip Generation Forecast for PA 16, 17, 18 and 19, Appendix A of Appendix F to the FEIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin -Trac Technical Report Appendices, prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. dated June 1999. E .N G I N E E R S TABLE 5 PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET ASSESSMENT The District at Tustin Legacy i'l�lsf.'l7.- aa , i 3 A AD:1 General / PA 16 Community 72,930 SF 323"0 Commercial Nl-.2"u' General Office 97,250 SF 448,000 SF Light Industrial 315,950 SF Subtotal 486,130 SF PA 17 Light Industrial 284,010 SF / Commercial PA 19 Shopping 672,570 SF Center Totals 1,442,710 SF i 3 A AD:1 n h °%r ..._." t' 323"0 Orel, Nl-.2"u' 4,972 Shopping 448,000 SF 13,784 +4,310 Center 1,291 3,211 9,474 2,959 Shopping 47,000 SF 1,436L-4,504 Center Shopping 23,217 Center with 511,100 SF 18,713Movie Theatre 35,650 1,006,100 33,933 E N G I N E R S TABLE 6 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT The District at Tustin Legacy Planning Area 16 Retail 391,920 SF 1 Space per 200 SF 1,960 Warehouse [3] 34,080 SF 1 Space per 1000 SF 34 Retail 12,000 SF 1 Space per 200 SF 60 Restaurant 10,000 SF 1 Space per 100 SF 100 Subtotal 448,000 SF Subtotal 2,154 Planning Area 17 Retail 47,000 SF I Space per 200 SF 235 Subtotal 47,000 SF Subtotal 235 Planning Area 19 - West Retail 137,400 SF 1 Space per 200 SF 687 Restaurant 31,500 SF 1 Space per 100 SF 315 Movie Theatre w/2,898 seats 70,000 SF 1 Space per 3 seats 966 Food Court 12,000 SF I Space per 100 SF 120 Subtotal 250,900 SF Subtotal 2,088 Planning Area 19 - East Retail 190,040 SF I Space per 200 SF 950 Warehouse [3] 14,960 SF 1 Space per 1000 SF 15 Restaurant 48,000 SF 1 Space per 100 SF 480 _ _ .... I Space per 100 SF, plus min. 7 72 Fast -Food Restaurant 7,200 SF car stacking for drive-thru Subtotal 260,200 SF Subtotal 1,517 Total Project Square Footage[ -1,006,100 SF Total Parking Requirement 5,994 Proposed Parking Supply [2] 4,767 Parking Surplus/Deficiency (+/-) -12227 Notes: [1] Source: The District at Tustin Legacy Site Plan, dated 05-11-2004, LPA [2] Source: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Off -Street Parking Requirements. [3] Warehouse floor area assumed to be 8% of the total floor area of Majors 1 through 8, 10 and 12. 1 -1 -May -04 E N G I N E E R 5 TABLE 7 THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY SHARED PARKING CRITERIA' The District at Tustin Legacy The utilization of this "Shared Parking" criteria, in place of City code, provides Vestar Development Company and the City of Tustin with a mechanism by which the parking implications of the development tabulation or land use mix might be evaluated. 1YI!'I! am. t �tfj �fryla 1 �:tlt i! Ir 1 J 1 , i 4 �C! 4 II 111 '-04 1 x:112 y in `dl' It t7ra: Qam. i�i� Tian@ ii�e �l c;�lII"lineot)d�,;, I Uia FI{I A II't��tl�i� ! u 1Voa11 pl dl q� �li le.l� IJSeB �Zl�l ���IalEltSiitar� W`�il1PIIti� X611 i4 !a d� i! Peak Y space/ y sp t'"slaesl y p+, Pahkilig ZO©P of 251i�f ' , '� Af R�arlo,� f[0 79rea f1oQr area xflopr�ea a+ y 1lonzah�rds !iY a aS3 a s 1 ate t B M. r! Da , t TWY Qf W1l Wk 1 n41 11 „ ��i � �a EMiC�i'r#C�a1 R �J ` ,�i.�,. -'.. �..�,��!>I!A•,:., ,. .. ,. `� 1R ...:,�h �,{w 7W:.4p!i ix, .�i.. :.,:.rI1 +'. ,..!..: ,.,,, h; ,. .,."^L:a:h. 0% . 0% �!4r.:!i!M$ii.. li.� 0% 6:00 A.M. 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7:00 6 3 20 3 2 2 2 2 0 0 8:00 14 10 63 10 5 3 5 3 0 6 9:00 32 30 93 13 10 6 10 6 0 0 10:00 52 45 100 13 20 8 20 8 0 0 11:00 66 73 100 17 30 10 30 10 0 0 Noon 74 85 90 17 50 30 50 30 25 30 1:00 P.M. 76 95 90 13 70 45 70 45 58 70 2:00 74 100 97 10 60 45 60 45 58 70 3:00 72 100 93 7 60 45 60 45 58 70 4:00 66 90 77 7 50 45 50 45 58 70 5:00 60 75 47 3 70 60 70 60 58 70 6:00 62 65 23 3 90 90 90 90 67 80 7:00 68 60 7 3 100 95 100 95 75 90 8:00 66 55 7 3 100 100 100 100 83 100 9:00 46 40 3 0 100 100 100 100 83 100 10:00, 24 38 3 0 90 95 90 95 83 100 11:00 10 13 0 0 70 85 70 85 67 80 Midnight 0 0 0 0 50 70 50 70 58 1 70 The utilization of this "Shared Parking" criteria, in place of City code, provides Vestar Development Company and the City of Tustin with a mechanism by which the parking implications of the development tabulation or land use mix might be evaluated. t� M d' N t - O ' + d C, '-+ b r- 00 V) to 01, of 00 �c m 5- 4 d \D M 00 r- M 00 N \D h. O; — •.-� d' 00 \D 00 O M 00 N�(�il''��. r+{ �O O O �Y M O\ 01 o0 �--� p C t t W G y O M^ "m \D r- t0 N r< d ct O 00 N V) V1 M C� M N .--i N M d' ! d- d' M �f"r, ct — R et N �. •an • � d U A a = � W G . Nf M O\ Vl O o\ o\ N W) 00 In. Vl N 00 V1 N A c .�• p W o �' u; D U a O p � P. "1!z A V a 0 W h O N v' O O O O O o O O O O V� t� O\ p Q C 0 0 0 l� W W O cn o ^• N M zzW;�,x O � U ��' 00 rn Q ++ TI3 a1', O p', .O _ .--r N M O N h r- b \U \O V1 r- d0' 00 Ncm d" N' � -t � Opo'- 0000 0000 u\oi h (/ W Fi{ � TK O\ C�. lb; o U y P. " IR a O O b O N V1 O O O O L't% O O O O O lD ul L` O\ p' p O O O O O 01 l� Vl " O G W O ►WF'i L ✓ y V 00 v�. N ta. N', w N M N(�:'. Q �+ e a �WQ.j, AD way p. O O N r. .p V �o c °�. L ; O O O O N N'N NN_ N M C14 00 N o h ..a W v :.� U Op ri. U �,y .y CU o o \ \ \ \ e' 0 0 0 0 o O- 0 0 0 o o tr ta •N p tr V) n lz O N U, y . , Fy7 O o O o O O - N �: ` 00 00 00 DD `n W) V- . Vi \D if') n: M MM l- 00 00 .oD.. oo .\D.. V\ a 0 t/] .... _ 'w -...r za �Q a C -U; O O tT 01 D1 00 rno�-- t-a\n 00'.. 00 00 — t7\ O\ o,- rn O\, o� — — � o v v o `er ' O O N 00 v -r Vl M \D r' \o M Q\ M Ml M M M '-• O tr N Do '- to w iz1 M z P+ V] -" N t+1 M M M M C- M M N N c P 0 .h N N o o \° c \ e \ 0 0 0 0 0 `• 0 \ o e o 0 o e \ \ \ o 0 o JO ++ G7...GC, jay -.'El O oo r O M N d %C oo rn 1n', C% N O M h oo rn C\ oo r t� ,1n 00 cn o0 O N O 0o v M r- tr O V l v N � Lo 7 N a w -0 d P. P. P. P. P. ili P, P. cx7 ca ai u 'u 3 bs� q 000000�o`cao:0000 o 000 , , O 0000�'R .O t` 00 tT ri:. C:)0000000 N c*i '� Vi \O -.Q i1; 0 0 0 o a v to tn ^ H .� ,� 9 C� i t O h o0 M %} to "t 00 r+ O N M f� O\ 00 00te, .-y M N N N M ? N 00 P M N oP»� =rrrrrrrr'rrrr rrrrr r �o rD 10 ro r r t�r�rw� r r r r �� rnr rn a"4 v d �r;v v �r v v'r 4 er a rQ{ d y NC7\ kn 0000rno,cs�NMrn� yr b M ooo rD I1 o �D r�r `[^ O to O 0 M [`m N N 00 O 00 to O�00 d- M M M7'.' M N N . IF�+G^1 H • � O .F/] � A:�. of W o De U .. a q ° kn C, v7 rn o, C., oo to C,4 kr) W) W ;� '►', i/7 ,:C O --� N d' to lD N N M N zA QWd �v� 0 A e� f4c� 7 C C C Ooo 0a`�nv,00v�: tntno w -. r; C7 � M C) rA ++ 'bA' M -•O V;N N N; N N M to !l7 tD \10 v1 N N oc � 00 V' �o :O �C %,D 00 N �D' o o �c 00 \o Q' o N M M= M M V r n 00 00 r �D to Q c :FOR ea v} 17' Z O o v e`3�+ V H.1 : U 0 0 0 0 o O O v1 vl O O O O N M �D 00 �f' d' xD D1 ` O O O\ 00. r- 0 0 '�Oy18 00 00 00 .G. 0ry.000` 0O cn mM 00 l` 00 00 00 00 Mu 00 jOcoO O O O M M M M M M 'C ar 0. W HU �R Via- o00000oog000Oa C>C) a o .._.. . ... .._ .. - _ >. .may r n '•, r+ F. o, U:o 0 o rn -- O, rn o�;rn O, C, C,C7 o" rn 00 W h ►% O^ : p Wd O N O-, W) Mn. — ay GZ.,. .� .-...� N M M M M M N N N N '�-� C s W, y p ;fly p r v CL ❑❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0:\° \ 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 o C4 [� y 0 An N �, xdy,1:.:;O O V1 M t/�vl : O v) v1 p:. �!1 O 00 M0�7pMp: v W tU„ O M ,... M d' r 00 O� A._ r, Q1 r �D \D. to Ct M ^" G~ n ti n ^ N 0 q Ln 7 'G o 0 0 0p±o O o O o`o 0 0 o z 0000Q�z000000o'o0C, 0 0 0 0 \D t -I 00 O�"'Cn t!1 �.D (� 00 O� a� cn [n v) �'.' v] 0.i'. L:i _ • . z � � z U z W 0 C W W z u z I� t4+�i O O r- N O\ --�Y 00 N rr� Vl r N Q S}4 i ch M N ON r••i^ O\ �„^ N M M zz O H A , u rWMr V Q � a� A 0 r•l.',� a 00 Wp �z W l W W z u z 0 U ch N N C l M M \D O to N f N O T9 k' pa Cjt a O ct t� N l t� d d M W) \O M O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 :Or p O O O W r+ u' 79 Pni •� O N �n N t.r� v'1 l- ON ,_,p' ,� ON l- �n N W Ni ria'; w o A 4-4 y, w+� O rno\00�:t-r-oo��tn.inv,��oo w, � O oo v O Q) d SN; M M d N O ON C�! O� O N ct d O, N �' to v,. -' I'D 00 tD 00 00 c0 00 Q C. O O O O eafl�itoel1�.':oNv,Oo00o'0000000;oa,t`� .--i N, M W) t- \o \D W) � O\ .-. .t.q. .-. v P. 0. q NO C)U N O. -O O N N t� O L� �,//•°�`.Z 000IC oo�NknV-1t�knV)n"Dr09`.00000\�Dvri yIX X '.; O O.O.. 0.,� N 00 00 �. 'r)'M D1 O\ O\ -O, C'\; O1 Q\ O\ O\ O\ O\ Ot' U C7: O O ON 't O0 v7 erioo,. to T 00 C M o0 Zf'� M \O O 't7 ,W y M; Z ,� :,U • N V)•N: N N N N N N N: CJS \\ 0 0 0 0 o e 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o c �•-M •� 4�. .'y. p 00 DMO �' M � oM0 -�. 07 O N O Q, o o o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl C:> C) o Z G% F' O O O O O z •. .. "C7. 00 . ~ h N M N �p l� 00 O I� t4+�i O O r- N O\ --�Y 00 N 00 00 M 00 N W r N Q S}4 i ch M N ON r••i^ O\ �„^ N M M 0 r•l.',� 00 l e, i 01 CO O� �t I- N C O\ O� M \D l- O O\ M M 00 vl 00{: n0'. 00 N O [- 00 qr 00 iii Jai O to t!'1 ty .. oo T o0 00 00 .--� ,(�'� tr) to O M �a ;52 Ntn �--� N N M'. M M M M M a e " o w 0 U ch N N C l M M \D O to N f N O T9 k' pa Cjt a O ct t� N l t� d d M W) \O M O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 :Or p O O O W r+ u' 79 Pni •� O N �n N t.r� v'1 l- ON ,_,p' ,� ON l- �n N W Ni ria'; w o A 4-4 y, w+� O rno\00�:t-r-oo��tn.inv,��oo w, � O oo v O Q) d SN; M M d N O ON C�! O� O N ct d O, N �' to v,. -' I'D 00 tD 00 00 c0 00 Q C. O O O O eafl�itoel1�.':oNv,Oo00o'0000000;oa,t`� .--i N, M W) t- \o \D W) � O\ .-. .t.q. .-. v P. 0. q NO C)U N O. -O O N N t� O L� �,//•°�`.Z 000IC oo�NknV-1t�knV)n"Dr09`.00000\�Dvri yIX X '.; O O.O.. 0.,� N 00 00 �. 'r)'M D1 O\ O\ -O, C'\; O1 Q\ O\ O\ O\ O\ Ot' U C7: O O ON 't O0 v7 erioo,. to T 00 C M o0 Zf'� M \O O 't7 ,W y M; Z ,� :,U • N V)•N: N N N N N N N: CJS \\ 0 0 0 0 o e 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o c �•-M •� 4�. .'y. p 00 DMO �' M � oM0 -�. 07 O N O Q, o o o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl C:> C) o Z G% F' O O O O O z •. .. "C7. 00 . ~ h N M N �p l� 00 O Vim' et 0 00 z W H a �a ;52 a e " o w 964 b 4) O W L ti G o 00 C �N N y d V 1 'ti \ � a• a b -E �y Vl Qfl Gp w j 4 -c a � v s 3 R o 00 b i V ;60 1Uy y ti m H G z "-- u J Iml O D h h + i> C7 ^¢� r +R* 00 00 O\ O v1 00 \O M O d 00 M h 1p [�: N h O h h �c h 00 v7 to ul M N d M d 00 �+ �. r C-4 voi vii '7 y `'. d d M 48 0 hh�hhhh�n-.hhh�h�':hhhh 0 U iii h h h I c c rlr a v�Mr,� d tr;v�v� O CS 00 r400 N O 1(7' 00 -• -• O 00 4n t?I; :00: N N 00 M M N 00 vY p' 7. •6iy�Y' O O M d M ' " O �,..- oo Il v1 MMM M t'ri. M ('rl � � o N r w .U'N O •--� N d' %.o (_ N N�.N N M v1 00 r"t .N:. N 00 W) O q v7+ G7 V ctl En o w '{?a H Cl O Q 0 N Imo. vl'Ci - N M �O 00. O <: d. �' 1.o ON O� O� 00 I'DO C `o -V (71 M N i -'0:311 1.0 O N 000 000 •If3 00' h O •"� t 000 000 t- � Cd w .21 b x o a � y 0 0 0 0 0\ p \ o 0 0W) 0 p\\\ 0 0 0 0 0 c \ \ .e :' \ 0 0 0 o . a 6y! Iaf5K m O N m "D 00 . CD 0 d d rn Q O oo C � 0 oq. m a 3 O y v \C 10 � � \10 M O\ \'D` 110 \D M �-O :00 Off\ .2 O O O O O N O' lo a h n v c v U n cd V] M D Q � e O .� rA:� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.01 0 0 0 0 0 C; Q. 4 0 0 V) o o tV_ff•..� Rt O O O. �.. O: -- w a� © OC? Q' W '� 00 D\ p^: o � 6i: U O cd O\ O1 ON O� O O O oo �t d' O O O M .-. 4n 00 O1, 0\' O ff: 0� O� O1 ON O\ ON OI\ d' k �D N O� h 'CS 'V :� O1 O O D\ 'd O� O „d ,M. ,Z.. � . C, M O� „_, N N N N N N N C) i7 p C O 00 00 vOo 4 M "" M °n n o �°n; 0 o _ M 00 ..O 4-+ 0O 0 "d. -- O O O O O O Q O O. 0 0 0 0 0 O O O �O '.0 O c) 0 Z O a ',N �. 0 0 �D [� 00 0, O ,--� •-• N. M V N \D h 00 Q1 O .-+ Q . x ^ �- Vl D h h 48 0 0 U o a O o bo � � o F+ W V ctl En o w H o 0 N C w .21 b x o a v '� v h h m C � 0 m a 3 O y v cc n: Cn 00 e.i E v LO o n v c v U D Q � e O .� (Yn V) o o m � o z r. u ENGINEERS TABLE 12 WEEKDAY PEAK PARKING SUPPLY -DEMAND EVALUATION PER PLANNING AREA FOR PEAK NON -HOLIDAY WINTER CONDITIONS The District at Tustin Legacy Planning Area 16 Retail 438,000 SF 1,951 Restaurant 10,000 SF 63 Subtotal 448, 000 SF 2,014 2,174 160 60 Planning Area 17 Retail 47,000 SF 223 Subtotal 4 7, 000 SF 223 1,217 994 0 Planning Area 19 - West Retail 137,400 SF 652 Restaurant 31,500 SF 198 Movie Theatre w/2,898 seats 70,000 SF 280 . Food Court 12,000 SF 57 Subtotal 250,900 SF 1,187 0 -1,187 0 Planning Area 19 - East Retail 205,000 SF 915 Restaurant 48,000 SF 302 Fast -Food Restaurant 7,200 SF 65 Subtotal 260,200 SF 1 1,282 1 1,376 94 1 0 4,707 4,767 60 60 Totals 1,006,100 SF 11 -May -04 ENGINEERS TABLE 13 WEEKEND PEAK PARKING SUPPLY -DEMAND EVALUATION PER PLANNING AREA FOR PEAK NON -HOLIDAY WINTER CONDITIONS The District at Tustin Legacy Planning Area 16 Retail 438,000 SF 2,054 Restaurant 10,000 SF 41 Subtotal 448,000 SF 2,095 2,174 80 3 Planning Area 17 Retail 475000 SF 235 Subtotal 47,000 SF 235 1,217 982 0 Planning Area 19 - West Retail 137,400 SF 687 Restaurant 31,500 SF 128 Movie Theatre w/2,898 seats 70,000 SF 338 Food Court 12,000 SF 60 Subtotal 250,900 SF 1,213 0 -1,213 0 Planning Area 19 - East Retail 205,000 SF 963 Restaurant 48,000 SF 194 Fast -Food Restaurant 7,200 SF 65 Subtotal 260,200 SF 1,222 1,376 154 0 Totalsl 1,006,100 SF 4,764 4,767 3 3 11 -May -04 E N G I N E E R S TABLE 14 RECONEWENDED PARKING RATIOS FOR SHOPPING CENTERSI The District at Tustin Legacy Less than 400,000 GLA 400,000 - 599,000 GLA 600,000 GLA and over — 4.0 4.0 Shared parking 4.0-4.5 4.0-4.5 Shared parking4 sliding scale sliding scale 4.5 4.5 Shared parking4 Notes: 1 From Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers Section Edition, ULI [Washington, D.C., 1999]. Parked cars per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. 2 For each percent above 10 percent, a linear increase of 0.03 spaces of 1,000 SF should be calculated. 3 Recommended parking ratio increases/decreases proportionally with centees square footage. Shared Parking is defined as parking spaces that can be used to service two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. E N G I N E E R S TABLE 15 PARKING GENERATION EQUATIONS' The District at Tustin Legacy Source: Parking Generation, 2"d Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (1987). The generation equations are based on space (P) per 1000 SF of gross leasable area (X). @F,G� F AST TJ IiILENT PSE ',ANDIll P31TGENE7l'Ffil®1 FR[3:CT P•4G PrCING �i3 ... ..:; AE 820: Shopping Center Weekday LN (P) = 1.173 LN (X) + .064 1,006,100 SF 3,548 spaces 3.55 sp/1000 SF of GLA (Space/1000 SF of Peak Hour Weekend 4.25 sp/1000 SF GLA) Peak Hour LN (P) = 1.261 LN (X) — .365 1,006,100 SF 4,245 spaces of GLA Source: Parking Generation, 2"d Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (1987). The generation equations are based on space (P) per 1000 SF of gross leasable area (X). oo C`N v�[0Nt'M�r kn N N N r � 0 � C) kn 001 r _ N I C71%01 00 N -� M N O m 00 • M M �O d et N) M N M N N tt T�3 , b ECi 00 �I 0� NMM c 'A ��"' �I N N �c N �. O kn N I N 1Nr .. N O^ NO O"o oN0 lD O ON Rt, : M pp A, N M 3 � Co0Fmct :. V)w ¢d¢¢ rn w 3 ° Q C7awC7au7; aw1�00 .° Q_5 �0 M O1,7,% O O O 4.,N y ., o w > �, a, o cn cn Co cn w w N A i. oC7A U O v 0 00o0V)U) .y C 0 X 0 0 V O w anew �� % o o ° Ln ts L4C ... w � �C v`a � dWUQWW y, � a�a{ E N G I N E E RS TABLE 17 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY The District at Tustin Legacy, Tustin Note: • s/v = seconds per vehicle intersection delay. • [ l] The HCM2000 and Synchro Percentile Delay methodologies do not calculate vehicular queues for all -way stop -controlled intersections. A.ltaroative#;t 'it `' pa�v��#2 1. South Loop at Driveway 1 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Northbound Approach 9.2 s/v A 9.2 s/v A • Southbound Approach 8.9 s/v A 8.9 s/v A • Eastbound Left -Turn 7.4 s/v A 7.4 s/v A • Westbound Left -Turn 7.4 s/v A 1 7.4 s/v A • Overall Intersection 2.7 s/v A 2.7 s/v A 2. South Loop at Driveway 2 ➢ Two -Way Stop ➢ A11 -Way Stop • Northbound Left -Turn 9.0 s/v A 7.0 s/v A • Eastbound Approach N/a N/a 6.9 s/v A • Westbound Left -Turn 7.4 s/v A 6.9 s/v A • Overall Intersection 1.9 s/v A 6.9 s/v A 3. South Loop at Driveway 3 ➢ 2 -Phase Signal • Northbound Approach 1.4 s/v A 2.4 s/v A • Southbound Approach 1.3 s/v A 2.4 s/v A • Eastbound Approach 15.3 s/v B 20.9 s/v C Westbound Approach 34.0 s/v C 20.8 s/v C • Overall Intersection 13.7 s/v B 12.4 s/v B 4. South Loop at Driveway 4 ➢ Two -Way Stop ➢ All -Way Stop • Northbound Approach 9.2 s/v A 7.2 s/v A • Southbound Approach 9.0 s/v A 7.1 s/v A • Eastbound Approach 2.2 s/v A 6.7 s/v A < Wes -bound ..^.ppreac s/v A 6.8 s/v A • Overall Intersection 3.5 s/v A 6.9 s/v A 5. South Loop at Driveway 5 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Northbound Approach 8.5 s/v . A 8.5 s/v A Southbaund A:ppraach 9.0 S/v A 9.0 S/v A • Eastbound Left -Turn 7.4 s/v A 7.4 s/v A • Westbound Left -Turn 7.3 s/v A 7.3 s/v A • Overall'Intersectiou 2.3 s/v A 2.3 s/v A 6. South Loop at Driveway 6 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Southbound Approach 8.7 s/v A 8.7 s/v A • Eastbound Left -Turn 7.4 s/v 1 A 7.4 s/v A • Overall Intersection 0.5 s/v A 0.5 s/v A Note: • s/v = seconds per vehicle intersection delay. • [ l] The HCM2000 and Synchro Percentile Delay methodologies do not calculate vehicular queues for all -way stop -controlled intersections. ENGINEERS TABLE 18 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY The District at Tustin Legacy, Tustin Note: • s/v = seconds per vehicle intersection delay. • [ lJ The HCM2000 and Synchro Percentile Delay methodologies do not calculate vehicular queues for all -way scop controlled intersections. 77777777, A�te#nat<ve#� D,e{a� �e1a _­Aie 001 1 South Loop at Driveway 1 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Northbound Approach 16.0 s/v C 16.0 s/v C • Southbound Approach 13.8 s/v B 13.8 s/v B • Eastbound Left -Turn 7.9 s/v A 7.9 s/v A • Westbound Left -Turn 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A • Overall Intersection 5.2 s/v A 5.2 s/v A 2. South Loop at Driveway 2 ➢ Two -Way Stop ➢ All -Way Stop • Northbound Left -Turn 12.3 s/v B 9.3 s/v A • Eastbound Approach N/a N/a 9.4 s/v A • Westbound Left -Turn 8.1 s/v A 9.1 s/v A • Overall Intersection 3.6 s/v A 9.2 s/v A 3. South Loop at Driveway 3 ➢ 2 -Phase Signal • Northbound Approach 4.0 s/v A 5.2 s/v A • Southbound Approach 3.5 s/v A 4.7 s/v A • Eastbound Approach 32.8 s/v C 10.8 s/v B Westbound Approach 28.5 s/v C 9.9 s/v A • Overall Intersection 18.8 s/v B 8.0 s/v I A 4. South Loop at Driveway 4 ➢ Two -Way Stop ➢ All -Way Stop • Northbound Approach 11.2 s/v B 9.0 s/v A • Southbound Approach 13.7 s/v B 9.2 s/v A • Eastbound Approach 2.0 s/v A 9.1 s/v A ,Westbound Approach 1.9 s/v A 9.5 s/v A • Overall Intersection 5.1 s/v A 9.3 s/v A 5. South Loop at Driveway 5 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Northbound Approach 9.6 s/v A 9.6 s/v A • Southbound Approach 11.6 s/v B 11.6 s/v .;;: B • Eastbound Left -Turn 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A • Westbound Left -Tum 7.7 s/v A 7.7 s/v A • Overall Intersection 2.9 shy A 2.9 s/v A 6. South Loop at Driveway 6 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Southbound Approach 10.4 s/v B 10.4 s/v B' • Eastbound Left -Turn 7.8 s/v A 7.8 s/v A • Overall Intersection 0.8 s/v I A ji 0.8 s/v A Note: • s/v = seconds per vehicle intersection delay. • [ lJ The HCM2000 and Synchro Percentile Delay methodologies do not calculate vehicular queues for all -way scop controlled intersections. E N G I N E E R S TABLE 19 WEEKDAY VEHICULAR STACKING/QUEUING ANALYSIS' (ASSUMING ALTERNATIVE #1 INTERSECTION CONTROLS) The District at Tustin Legacy, Tustin Stacking/Queuing analysis is based on the Synchro 6 Percentile Delay methodology for signalized intersections and Highway Capacity Manual 2000 for unsignalized intersections. A minimum queue of one vehicle (i.e., 22 feet) was assumed for any approach lane. Queues and storage lengths are reported on per lane basis. Propdsec tdegrtpe 95a/•'�pp Sto;r#yy&ge '�Stolg�e 9��npp �to�.�g� ,tae pp��-11., r•.CS ` 1. South Loop at Driveway 1 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Eastbound Left -Turn 22 100 Yes 22 100 Yes • Westbound Left -Tum 22 200 Yes 22 200 Yes 2. South Loop at Driveway 2 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Eastbound Right -Turn 22 145 Yes 22 145 Yes • Westbound Left -Tum 22 200 Yes 22 200 Yes 3. South Loop at Driveway 3 ➢ 2 -Phase Signal • Eastbound Left -Tum 22 200 Yes 29 200 Yes • Eastbound Right -Tum 22 150 Yes 27 150 Yes • Westbound Left -Turn 34 250 Yes 1.10 250 Yes • Westbound Right -Tum 22 150 Yes 22 150 Yes 4. South Loop at Driveway 4 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Eastbound Left -turn 22 200 Yes 22 200 Yes • Eastbound Right -Turn 22 200 Yes 22 200 Yes • Westbound Left -Turn 22 150 Yes 22 150 Yes • Westbound Ri ht -Turn 22 150 Yes 22 150 Yes 5. South Loop at Driveway 5 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Eastbound heft -Turn 22 150 Yes 22 150 Yes • WestboundLeft-Tum 22 150 Yes 22 150 Yes • Westbound Right -Turn 22 150 Yes 22 150 Yes 6. South Loop at Driveway 6 ➢ Two -Way Stop • Eastbound Left -Turn 22 150 Yes 22 150 Yes Stacking/Queuing analysis is based on the Synchro 6 Percentile Delay methodology for signalized intersections and Highway Capacity Manual 2000 for unsignalized intersections. A minimum queue of one vehicle (i.e., 22 feet) was assumed for any approach lane. Queues and storage lengths are reported on per lane basis. E N G I N E E R S I � — B A R R -ANCA. PARKWAY 7 F— u � U�HNHN+HIN � 1 �1 , I , i � of HIIIHIHN+IH+H+HiI+HO • I � � �I �Ij(� � U+HfHH►NNHHfIN+MRNO �INIlN-0 il,,, � t � " i ; _ ::.� p�fNHHNNHHINfIHNIU NfU ; iillj ; � BiHfHHffIHHHFNfIHf410 'UI}NfHIHHHNIHNI+MHNfIiHtfli6 /' •� ' ,`�� ,� k! i ' LhIfNtItIHHHHiHHNIHtINN+1N1M ;! yr ' Flo .I i p{}µ{}rff}I+q -- CWHINNHINNI9 DHHfNl6 ilkIIiiI►.'j i �kHH}N1;k#N}IHiININO '� "�l4HHN18 DHNNN9 _ i� /� :// �•; I �I�+ i � �}III+HNHf♦I�NIH+!IIHiO ' � % ,� ,,r � � I ��� � i �1#IHIHlNiNfl♦♦IL °1 •� �� �� � � � ,� 1�' Oji! I i•. :� ./ ����, ,: ��` c� moi? •��:% ,b' ' <• __ .. �• THE DISTRICT ® TUSTIN LEGACY CD G _ _ g TueNn, '.aNtumia VEsiAq .wW Ws. LLC. i KEY EXHIBIT 1 NO SCALE O . TRAFFlC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) LIN SCOTT LAW & POST 2025 AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT GREENSPAN THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY, TUSTIN EN CIN EE Its NLLsni '1.DVf)3'1 NLLSrLL IV 10JUSIG 3H1 S 9 3 3 N 18 N 9 ZOHfOHd HJJK SaWMOA OIdd YH-L HIIOH XYHd NId ME ZSOd NVdSN •9 MVS Mv'l u00SNn (ZV.L) 3Not SIS/.Ww Oami- OX 31VOS c x 8 LIEIIHXa )351 ppN O N W N O co E N CD a � o e 6 Jll i lit 0 ' l �0 9Z A A I _ O I gro c O xKq LiDZ ,-Lct J l %,4s1e 1 `e06 J 1 Tit 33WSriVr Ls 9091 --�. -� 5z a LZZ — °a io J 1 I szi I PP ` CZ ati` J ^ tic ( r r� ''� J 9z J NVMIl ingiC J (Slo im£ N Y e� IreQ� 1� y N iWd m �s� J% . �a1�' 4►�b O3 I V ION ! l4 mti�w � SII � � I � s Ilrig. SY9 �\ i VON AN NOT A PART PA77 y( CD > 7 DRIVEWAY #2 �t PA16 h�C J - WLUKAN Ix PA19 Opi� i- RD o JA B R i 0 0 a a 0 J P m00 L O 0 a s L co co H 0 N ®xKEY EXHIBIT 3 NO SCALE O -TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) LINSCOTT • = TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AND LAW & - STOP SIGN TRAFFIC CONTROLS GREENSPAN THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY, TUSTIN E N G I N E E R S E N G I N E E R S E N G I N E E R S APPENDIX A . EXCERPT FROM ULPS PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHOPPING CENTERS PUBLICATION This report presents a set of base recommendations for parking supply based on center size and makeup. An analysis of the survey data shows that these independent variables do not significantly affect the required park- ing supply: — Geographic area Aw Urban versus suburban setting — Large city versus small city. On the other hand, the amount of parking needed at a shopping center is affected by these variables: Proportion of restaurant, cinema, and entertainment land uses a Percent of nonauto travel to the center �+ Treatment of employee parking during shopping peaks Size of the center. Adjustment factors for these variables will be discussed later in the report. Parking Ratio Recommendations Table 1 shows the recommended num- ber of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA). The table located in Appendix A pro- vides a comprehensive matrix of rec- ommended ratios. This recommended provision of parking spaces will pro- vide the typical shopping center with sufficient parking to serve the parking needs of customers and employees at the 20" busiest hour of the year. Moreover, these recommended ratios provide for a surplus of parking spaces during all but 19 hours of the more than 3,000 hours per year during which a shopping center is open. Dur- ing 19 hours of each year, which are typically distributed over four peak shopping days, some patrons will not be able to find vacant spaces when they first enter the center. The recom- mended parking ratios are applicable for centers in which retail shops occu- py at least 80 percent of the GLA. The recommended parking ratios in Table 1 exclude centers in which 20 percent or more of occupied GLA is composed of restaurants, enter- tainment, and/or cinema space. The appropriate number of spaces for these centers should be deter- mined using methodology such as that described in the Urban Land Institute's 1983 publication entitled Shared Parking. It defines shared parking as "parking spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment." Also, the data analyzed in this study suggest that for neighborhood and community centers, the recommended ratio may be as low as 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA provided a Parked cars per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. b For each percent above 10 percent, a linear increase of 0.03 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be calculated. c Recommended parking ratio increases/decreases proportionally with center's square footage. d Shared parking is defined as parking spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. A-1 Percentage of GLA in Restaurant, Entertainment, and/or Cinema Space Center Size (GLA �.,.. w.,..... ----- in Square Feet) ?{ 0-10%. 11-20%b >20% Less than 400,000 4.0 4.0 Shared parkingd 400,000-599,999 4.0-4.5 4.0-4.5 Shared parkingd 3 sliding scales sliding scalec, 600,000 and over 4.5 4.5 Shared parkingd a Parked cars per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. b For each percent above 10 percent, a linear increase of 0.03 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be calculated. c Recommended parking ratio increases/decreases proportionally with center's square footage. d Shared parking is defined as parking spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. A-1 that additional spaces are available for restaurants, entertainment, and/or cin- ema use. However, because of limited parking data from these centers, the recommended parking ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet from the 1980 study should still be used. As shown in Table 1, when restaurants, entertainment, and cinema space com- bine to equal 11 to 20 percent of the total GLA, a linear increase of 0.03 spaces per 1,000 square feet for each percent above 10 percent should be cal- culated. For instance, a 300,000 -square - foot center in which restaurants, enter- tainment, and cinema space account for 14 percent of the total GLA would require 4.12 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Base Level: 4.0 (Spaces) + 4% excess restaurant, entertainment, cinema x .03 = • 12 Estimated ratio: 4.12 For recommended ratios with a sliding scale, the parking ratio increases or de- creases proportionally with the center's square footage. For example, a 500,000 - square -foot center with restaurant, enter- tainment, and cinema space constituting 10 percent or less of the total. GLA would require 4.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet (halfway between the 400,000- and 599,999 -square -foot ratios). Method of Travel The method of travel influences park- ing demand at a center. Employees or customers who arrive by modes of transportation other than private auto- mobile reduce the demand for parking. The parking ratio recommendations contained in this report are for centers that are primarily auto dependent, with minimal walk-in or transit use. Employee Parking Requirements Parking demand for employees contin- ues to account for approximately 20 percent of the total parking demand during the peak period. Thus, centers that require employees to park off site during the peak season could see up to a 20 percent reduction in the parking demand. However, this adjustment should be utilized with caution since centers with uncontrolled free parking often have difficulty completely enforc- ing employee parking. Parking Supply Ratios It is important in recommending park- ing ratios to determine the current park- ing supply. A series of parking supply ratios was calculated for centers with parking accumulation counts based on the number of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. As seen in Table 2, the park- ing supply exceeded demand for the survey period for all center sizes. There- fore, parking demand during the design hour was not constricted by the avail- ability of parking. Parking Space Design In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a trend toward smaller vehicle sizes. As stated in the 1980 Parking Req- uirements for Shopping Centers, the expectation was "that by 1990, most automobiles (60 to 95 percent) in use nationwide would be compacts." However, according to the National Parking Association (NPA), vehicles became increasingly larger in the 1990s. This trend has accelerated with the increased sales of sport utility vehicles. The NPRs last report that detailed trends in car size was published in 1996. It stated that only 39 percent of vehicles on the road were considered compact. Dimensions of Parking, published by ULI, provides historical automobile sales data by size of vehicle. Given the declining number of compact vehicles, a one -size -fits -all ("universal" stall) parking space design is recommended. Table 2 r.,: Parl:iri� Supply a��yDastland Ratios fcr C crier", with Cara Counts A -2- Parking Ratio (Parking Spaces per 1,000 Square Filet of Occupied GLA) Center Size (GLA in Square Feet) Number of Responses Supply Demand Less than 400,000 49 5.8 3.7 400,000-599,999 15 5.6 4.0 600,000-1,499,999 96 5.8 4.5 1,500,000-2,500,000 9 4.7 3.8 Total 169 . A -2- A Comparison of 1980 and 1998 Studies The recommended parking ratios for centers under 400,000 square feet are consistent in the 1980 and the 1998 studies. However, larger centers require lower parking ratios today than those rec- ommended in 1980. This is particularly evident in centers with 600,000 square feet or more. Table 3 compares the find- ings of the 1980 and 1998 studies. � e�3 ` a d 1998:: Studies frTs,°. gerj4,�, endeti Pat�k�ng, R� !o�.'�� �,,��; . Parking Ratio (Parking Spaces per 1,000 Square Feet of occupied GLA) Center Size (GLA in Square Feet) 1980 Study 1998 Study Less than 400,000 4.0 4.0 400,000-599,999 4.0 4.0-4.5 (sliding scale) 600,000 and over 4.0-5.0 (sliding scale) 4.5 Note: See Table 1 explanation of sliding scale A3 Definition of Peak Hours Previous studies have established. the 20th highest .hour of the year as the appropriate hour for determining parking requirements. Parking Require- ments for Shopping Centers, published in 1980, gave this rationale: This study has selected the 20th highest hour of the year as the demand hour upon which the design of shop- ping center parking facilities should be based. Use of this hour as the design period will result in adequate parking for all patrons and employees during the more than . 3,000 hours per year a center is open. In fact, based on this design period, it is estimated that during 40 percent of the hours of the year, over half of the available spaces will be empty. However, during 19 hours of each year, distributed over ten days, some patrons will be unable to find parking spaces Linn]ediately upon entering a center. Designing a shopping center parking facility to accommodate parking con- ditions during the average hour of demand would be unacceptable, since by definition, during half of the time parking would be inadequate. However, providing sufficient parking to meet conditions generated during a center's busiest hour of the year would result in substantial excess capacity during all but one hour of the year—an unrealis- tic design standard for the community, the consumer, and the shopping center developer/owner. This study again rec- ommends the 201h highest hour of the year as the appropriate standard. Selection of Survey Day and Time Selection of the appropriate survey day and hour required evaluation of extensive data available from a limited number of centers, responses from the questionnaires, consistency with previ- .Qus stlIA es,. and industry judgment. An array of electronic counting devices makes it possible to count pedestrians at entrances and exits, vehicle traffic on entry roads, and the number of fl.14 vehicles parking in paid facilities. Pedes- trian or vehicle traffic data were avail- able on a daily basis from 32 centers. Another 16 centers collected data on an hourly basis, offering around-the- clock tabulations of shopping center patrons throughout the year. An analysis of the detailed pedestrian and traffic data, shown in Appendix J, determined that the afternoon of December 12, 1998, between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., had the best chance of approximating the 20th highest hour for the study's parking accumulation counts. This survey period also was the same as that used for the 1980 study. Although December 191h was used as a backup data collection day in the event of severely inclement weather or staff shortages, only 5 percent of the parked car data «,as coLected oa that day. E N G I N E E R 5 APPENDIX B HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM) LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CALCULATION WORKSHEETS E N G I N E E R S ALTERNATIVE #1 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCVI) CALCULATION WORKSHEETS HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: South Loop Road & Driveway 1 AM Peak Hour Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Aft 1) �' [nr � 0 _ � r S �n. _.. fi. wF} i a { ei"}�yy::;�Ir Wdfy,(= ✓� f iti.,Jt"'� t w ! i {� P S � �4� { } i `�tv � ] i rt C� , ��`� � is i���P ��. e P ➢I ;. {^ ��S h4ti> f -" �cJ" 1 � 1^�.V 1 lir d©� ^ 14d� � { �aF 1l ly / �.} � �i It 1 li(.. �C2�.,, . x1. Cfl�' y�'� - • .. �•,, / � 1 1 11 /1 1 1 1 1 1 11 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/ 1,2 F. Pedestrians vC1, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 71 88 180 200 44 159 204 36 tC, 2 stage (s) }} , , . &�� p0 queue free % 99 100 99 100 99 99 100 98 Volume- 1 1 1 • 1 1 i �^ 'y yq dt✓ ?s 5h'� � t:. s^s r�- ��� f�" ydy,.3 11 1700 1506 1700 1700 871 946 Approach • '1 Average Delay 2.7 p y �Z$," .2 ��'� ^Y._ e n� ���`�� f �f:1.� syt.��c t s �.�1 �`' ��` r � r,�� �.t.t.t .;, �,� � :�.ir t ✓ : a ���� The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT1v2.sy6 Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 8• South Loop Road & Driveway 2 AM Peak Hour Grade 0% 0% 0% Iciur rid 11 II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked vC 1, stage 1 conf vol _ unblocked lrr-n ly '�� v!. ��C �a: t{k 1 CY 3's•� n+���"�,,e��v`r,l�a�k��s u�lr';�rr�� �' U �� ��,7 ��,, cr�� r ` 3, rr� s��., t°,r � Ir' r ?.k. •/ queue •• •• 'Fu � �:'— 1 � / - bt a. � �4 lka •'jn �jr7 Eur , { ay �; F'��;/ �"� ("y� �` �"�'i'� �4, :e " e� y- E y ) � � r ) y .�` • — 1 1 / s_ 11 . 11 1! • � „ w — • 1 1. y i pp— tb°l r`p�".3n�6iq nt.. 11 rr(f rat � r 1�� 'fm�-•'�jkYt .r .. s N'^^,?�'";., Approach Average Delay �a `� s ti � �t� ( i t� R �. €kf� ' ul�€" 1.9 =.;. i°� � �. ., a yir ��,s � '� vr�r s� .-� 1 b� t ' p�..,.�..;- s.ts.,£,•� x.. "...'.� s�� The District at Tustin Legacy $. Z,. Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT1 v2.sy6 Page 2 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations iwlim� TIN otal Lost time. (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0, 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 T law`. Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 4863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 d w. Satd. Flow (perm) 1359 4863 1583 1368 1863 1583 1383 1863 1583 1381 1863 1583 X1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Groug Flow (vph) 11 35 47 30 42 11 48 r is , 24 40 6 23 9 Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 74.6 74.6 74.6 74.6 74.6 74.6 ' ,ar Actuated,,g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1. .!.. r#;.. ..1�.. v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 ' 1 v Ratio- . 0.10 { 1„10.23 0.36 0.27 A 0.27 0.08 0.04 ,.197iei1{. a ..,k ... 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 ��� [•Y-iC��� ta.�n. �.[Sr ��� �r��u N•�jr'� fl', E�.����.. �'�� .1.+. E,3Y. � 1 ,Sf...A Progression Factor 0.55 0.58 0.16 _F *0.87 'f'. 0.86 xEY511i1 0.78 1.00 .. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i yx s ? M� �4 tS " -18161M 5. '.:iR..,�., • s ;r::. Delay (s) 21.4 23.0 8.1 34.9 34.4 30.0 1.4 .... ,u 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1 3 Y a1 '��YJcj; y[ B Yuu kxr cv t ^tt r� 1 f����'i t r vysa� /9� r epi! t' 1 1 '•�'.'zf..4�f,f`.i.. ��.,N1tr,>µ�, W.t�.'.. .x. ..,u ..:' w'! dln r+;u Approach Delay (s) 15.3 nba''iiUFvdnx 34.0 ,ua5+cunrwe u.'; , ti17n�:ni�,.:i„A 1.4 1.3 . HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.07 MIR Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0% ICU Level of Service A r : r • d ,b! �� u a E��� '�f $�"»� a '"�'.� 1 � �'� ,q"x��'�^ 3,, ...... -, �.. .,,. • v . _ tt div ..ai>wsrretmuc :sS'i 3��.,; r..',�„e�'' r �«...�.`�,"z � , . id+�a., ..vdi'�.Y+.��`«s7,:." v�? The District at Tustin Legacy3 Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT1 v2.sy6 Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 11.0 11.0 Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way 11.0 AM Peak Hour 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 M, Lane Configurations Storage Length (ft) 260 150 250 160 150 0 90 0 INS 9.7 9.7 Nf Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 77.8 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.17 0.22 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 OMMINA •_ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 lvt Now Flt Permitted 0.730 1.7 0.734 0.742 0.742 13.0 2.6 2.7 1.1 2:8 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Am amd Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 a,.i �.vi �n -+e! :.. '. v'r. . Offll 1 �C, e px t. a 'IL'b h%'iJr.TMF•A.F. t' rY•r iv4.j . .r Link Distance (ft) 400 27.4 650 350 280 �,,`�4�t;,f r .v< �^�:`.�: �� . it � ro ,�i�sa r-• ,. �• « .:S: yr,,S �1 $ (u 5S : �: Volume (vph) 11 35 47 30 ,w . 42 11 48 24 40 6 23 9 �2 W'. Adj. Flow (vph) 11 35 47 30 42 11 48 24 40 6 23 9 p•� Tum Type. Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm y Page 1 , x� h �y 'd kali .. ... u Permitted Phases 4 :. 4 8 A, 8 2 2 6 6 Y'�?1 q L' 'j, t;F,'FF3 .�. "• r it F •' "6N',H `Jra;SrNr �S\lypN;py'>t�•1; 'f�d�p{� YfiS q t I A 1�'' SA1 n�.A,'� :j t x l �, t{� Y d '� •.'3i•y5ab1i5N`[1'YiWtdtifla#1RsY'""'�s'% ��;q �„,,y �•Af 'iS , ,S 0. �7�{��?I� }�,� iSS a.. ,� ��Rx 'F iJ�r+�" x+a�mrcrar� �'1i�!w�a3H....I.: ",.;�•'Z��i�r''!F "'M1S. r - ,r r Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 .♦ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 y y Total Split (s) 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 •. ' r��..�5) ' Siy��kE , , � r. � ,u' * rr,. ro � "dt'J Maximum Green (s) 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 , 42.0 42.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 W-1 11 "le'llsq'I III; ill!, t ;Yy Ail -Red Time (s) 1.0 i.0 1 U 1.0 Y k t S. Po 1.0 1.0 1.,0- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Id42!fAis'1 ""'. yi"EK.-..:.H:. 1.>,.:. �.: a.alY?Y::e..YA:>.mA:.:.:..:...4i.F�...:..:..f.:1L'T:..:st...Y,$:WF7.6':.'rfl...+'hl,NFF,tit IK FYI'-I�.:d6.:j.f�%... a..:.✓::.. -,31 ::.:.......z,.zwfii4i'i44•,..Y.-'w.4.i:!�i�Mi..51u'iY_x _H-0ttf. '. '. Recall Mode None None None None None None Coord Coord Coord Coord Coord Coord =MB'.. Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 M, Act Fffet Green (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 77.8 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 long>..' Delay 18.0 19.6 1.7 29.6 29.5 13.0 2.6 2.7 1.1 2:8 2.7. 18 Approach Delay 10.4 27.4 2.1 2.5 The District at Tustin Legacy �2 Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT1v2.sy6 p•� Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 11 • South Loop Road & Millikan Way AM Peak Hour SBfi�C:Giat4G1Y�'J.. 6 90th %ile Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 70th %ile Green (s) 10.4 10 4 10.4 10.4 Y 4.0 10.4 10.4 71.6 71.6 1.6 71.6 71.6 * 71.6 J 50th %ile Green (s) 8 7 8 7 g(*FgyB 7 8.7 8.7 8.7 73.3 73.3 73.3 73.3 73.3 73.3 0`4`1 it ,! MI'Mam, WM 30th %ile Green (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 10' nam 10th %ile Green (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 3' 11 0 14 20 0 4 2 0 1 2 0 un internal Link Dist (ft) 3�f(2200�0 570 270 Al 95th lip Block Time �Y w�.cr y.' r^y-. .1i1NtS 5l� k� IktinJ k�r�t 5?��lts,�..• H.n'Cs� , t .7k` 4+.t�`t'�a+� F �E'tri�;'�P'i~1 F�a�.Y4•t � �� CY�r;'a����t..rl,�eti�i.` �'`��' ��.'t�a�. `:���'���' "�$��#fin .... $a'n�s��;=,�',mt: a,.�, V� .,.s4,.x;,;.,:�.w1�,..�;:aE�:k�'::3aa• 3�.Wr,,.:.».1. 50th Bay Block Time % UP t �"{ 7 N, �,t�t9uS�N���3' � rii'd655:,�:5%�:iacWY �i�t "aT•ikt�l'x'&�.�u� ..�1�7:.)L•; r�•. Jr:'it h�^hiA n.il:tis ,�`i�,,..rk"Y;"NAi;£�',.5.. •Y.:.�IdPo la nl}ril t-:.,, 1M1 •'. Queuing Penalty (veh) Area Type: Other y t .�.r .•�^ ^:-sr;- �•tii p}2„5`lult^+ saw Axid a� Actuated Cycle Length: 90 w, •' �}` ppx"�weFaa,„'as 'Mx��'p9•�, i����'�C �'hvrd�+ �, . , . .�� WIN .. ,,.; N�Yf 1 Natural Cycle: 45 40 sr,:wiYrr 4 t •a si .• 1'. r++.; ijwt i t":. . p„ �zZ,r��"/Y t arwnra��f}irdJ.. ,.�Y.i�a.? W. 4mam,r:, Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.22�g AME `xs}'.i>L"�.� � Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0% ICU Level of Service A ...,�.._.....:...-.,.....................u,,,. ,. ........,..,vn..,..,,�..,.n.+.z�.a,..�umr::.r•:svvi::�.xrrfa^,�,.. The District at Tustin LegacySynchro 5 Report N:\240012032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT1v2.sy6 �d5 Page 2 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 14: South Loop Road & Driveway 4 AM Peak Hour a a k ®���,� ,� �V-' ..Pe �, �'.. .���'. 'C c'j !..Ar +Yrsl��-'�m. .»r'���.7S(a ,r[4J}+ °xa ni^rY�P2nA24.i'.V;,��ios�i,(�.. �-:tiil- r+ lsi rrt,, �sL, �.:.J- +�t.,lzr �.: „��✓�' `xg�l er d Yp 4 01=11, 11 11 11 II 1/ II Pedestrians .. , . vcY�µ,4 +ApsS. %blhV 'r1�Y2t✓ �A rn i�l.J3J�Srh;��JA'i'�i�di..�a i�C#�.�H�;eK��?'i.�ilG�`YC«. Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare (veh Median storage veh) _-.-- M ....... _.__......._,._ vyC,�1, stage 1 col vol �'lt% �At �t �, ,��rw x�'°fa ���4 x }W�pf ` y' ��l r� 4M+��•rr t �t�� :; r " s a ¢>t r,'at� +� ' s t.� ..�"", 3' yr .; ... .z��;"+.�•,m�, 1��''�,_'�:. 4�':'a,..,'. �s,.�•� tij�._, ;:. .��?.. ;. z`i .c .rf.l �+m ,,.r.,?.� vCu, unblocked vol 81 ..a'.7,.€.s''�i�`tx .`'�r's+ah�,� 57 231 238 41 225 227 54 tC, 2 stage (s) nay... .. ,� 14 m�Y' ��y & ���1...� �irl� ,.., iS MI. q.. A .... r !�.. p0 queue free % 98 ... . .. _. ,t'`T 98 99 00 99 99 100 98 z'z. n ..h'p..r.�_�'y Volume Left 24 0 0 34 0 0 8 5 ll!! M11111111111 Sp r �'rl+ s L n, �•� b ..7Y9t%�AASIW¢RitRc'�-, o.,.:.. .:C. .t7ix[ cSH 1517 1700 1700 1547 1700 1700 873 930 Queue Length (ft) 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 Lane -LOS A A A A Approach LOS A A lingi Average Delay 3.5 a_ Y .MINNEWOUNtwMENEW&MMOMEMI WON. The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT1 v2.sy6 Page 4 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 17: South Loop Road & Driveway 5 AM Peak Hour - • • 11 11�� � 1�1� tl ��1�1 !1 11 11 11 11 11 11 „ra vC 1, stage 1 conf vol unblocked vol 100 2 201 186 36 181 179 93 pO queue free % 98 100 100 100 100 99 100 98 — P7 • - / 1 1 1 e3 .�, i ^ r-'�e�- I„d- .✓a Lane LOS A A A A I, IN IIN, Approach LOS A A Average Delav 2.3 The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Syn6hro\3-22-04\AM-ALT1 v2.sy6 �.� Page 5 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 25: South Loop Road & Driveway 6 AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pedestrians x ,r.• '.{2�.� }�.. � 5 i ^'P�"'., _ . i�. .t as ...,a'v�a'fi;��° � 4i �1��,.� ����T�" 2F�':h44� �fl �. 1, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 109 149 54 oil 14 -0 tC. 2 staae (M p0 queue free % 100 100 100 ... ^d_se7�rsr.d�! •d .�>> .`x'i t-�s,S ip 1* " �'2l +.as :6 �^ 't ,+t 1479 1700 1700 1700 967 Lane LOS A A . ¢ ,� `n� if 7 �.. ;µ a ,� s � } p.,. � ', r ... v � � - ' f .'i. ... �'.` �A:�...d�L"�...�•.�.0 � .,i.'., r i" f;:s � � V :; , Approach 4avemna Dal9v 0.5 The District at Tustin Legacy N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT1v2.sy6 �'g LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Synchro 5 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 2: South Loop Road & Driveway 1 PM Peak Hour Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 7 WE • 11 11 11 11 /1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 pX, platoon unblocked vC1, stage 1 conf vol kF ��` '�..' �'.,�.� 5 ;� �. iia•:a s.,°ski .:���.. rv< N2�� ass .c€� .f r �a,^..:,�yr,�y sK.F ..':'1?,'�... _:.... } .... kt: vCu, unblocked vol 238 272 675 707 136 594 728 119 moff 271 "07 free % 93 99 84 100 95 83 100 88 ,�'mq�lrbnrY ..............` 99 0 0 19 0 0 46 59 cSH 1326 1700 1700 1288 1700 1700 414 573 Lane • .��,! 1 :a� a kli f,"q ��� � � q�a r .Y�f` f l .:? ;,�a � G/. , he< �i �'€ id.�2l„ }. `�t`� z4h.,s,J.�.:1'& � F"ky � •P; � „��`N.d $:3�n Approach • ,Averaae Delav The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT1v2.sy6 �� Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM. Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 8: South Loop Road & Driveway 2 PM Peak Hour, �, 'vMN;Mn gc 8LI. . . ,w Peak •ur Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 pX, platoon unblocked womemom vC1, stage 1 conf vol 0I k v(:i t i inhlnrkarl vrd 994 659 245 c ."'�..i$..'�,; cSH �r 1700 1700 1268 1700 654 h u Lane LOS A B Average Delay 3.6 Ll Y[ iPi1 A_% i m hq t e" Y The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT1 v2.sy6 Page 2 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 11 • South Loop Road & Millikan Way PM Peak Hour Lane Configure Total Lost time Frt EMMOM Satd. Flow (prc Satd. Flow (Pei ,PHF Protected Phases etu!at"ad'G'Mreen, MEROMM Actuated, g/C Ratio Vehicle Extension ,J v/s Ratio Prot v/c Ratio Progression Factor A l4.0 4.0 4.0 41 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 44.0 4.0 i�t�-i��h:. 't1!4}a�..�.'il...IJT(0{4,h���,�'�)t,:"�itn`D 41 11 11 1 11 11 1 11 /1 1 11 11 1 � �3„fl �' l i �i� !) �.i ��©� P .,. t 9�,��' ,F. }S �- �F�✓�1•.�IA �DZn5 L" 'I. 1',y..� M•' , «" . : i':f t f X11 11 11 11 11 .L.�� 11 11 11 11 11 /1 11 l.� t;,4 A {f tU� �i 1:L '•�'li ,%. ��, 1!'l t } ,I,i�� ._lh i 4^ A. ' i� X r �Ilu �1 �..fl )� Q1'i t r lw:�(r V� 1 Ftf1 t �ffejrla.r n rai K :;0 l�t..yy..9,fG `' ! .�,'�SIJ ars -r-,1„� txfa�ls Vie, ..,y �,” z�✓}��y -1 1 1 1 1• 1 1 1 1 D a � +i�!ra �' �'SY`{Yr,"�' +..• �jf [ .t }, �rt�g �' � ,� � ���a.,' �! �e it���kan ri ' 4<�i, �. P� -r± o} �) '�3''.�`� d: 1 ai�¢�d�� 1 / // 1• 1 1 1 • / 1. / 1 1 /� 1 1 1 1 ���r N,o '.'UO d a�&�;O a CF�Y. .' 'I:W G} 7'" ���'��YO ��.- _• N .�. N / 1 • 1 1 1 .1 1 :I 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 NOW '` h it L".i— w, i \ _'yj4��v +s� /t(•SiPEtfk #;�S&��v t -`.'j9 ,,i, •. 'e' .re. 32.8 28.5 1 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Y { q yl VA',k ' r jf "'h'"' , : ^I•` "k-' Yy t Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.0% ICU LevelofService A >NO ...zrivx. The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:\240012032488\Synchrol3-22-04\PM-ALT1 v2.sy6j • Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations Storage Length (ft) 260 150 250 160 150 0 90 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 70 4.0 4.0 VII 1111ilill i:; Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEMNAVAN some= d NOWa Lane III Factor 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1ljllijlllpiiiiil.00 1.00 III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 sili Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Flt Permitted 0.684 0.691 0.695 0.702 IIIIIIIIN OWED Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Pill 111111111 N OW Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 �. 10 11 Link Distance (ft) 400 650 350 280 Volume (vph) 33 r 102 242 144 114 33 180 84 121 42 95 24 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 102 242 144 114 33 180 84 121 42 95 24 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 'V' �4YY err TN' '{FtiiJ3 �1 :4.�nn'Ptr. a � w i�.r f .§ F G..! 9'41` h i •µ57_4•� Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 g' P r, 1 i4 �Y�il£rti #M,.r(a� WIN 10, ,..,rre:'F mTen�lhirr,d_�P£nSvin .. al Split (s) 44 0 44 0 44 0 Tot44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 `�, , .. .4a, n sa qtr+r,gkt ri �'n._V4;:!Y����. Maximum Green (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 42.0 vplre 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 Ali=Red Tirn� (s) 1 G 1.0 1 0 1 0 1.00 1:(� 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1.0 n1s }l�X.M1�y' yyrY,yyXfx'�f .��`4t_Yu�.. � �tll£d'S- 4 zi�YU(MRlrn'"tatd.5.a ImPr�ftG-4rj''n'�A:? t R'^l. dy p 1R i Pt : iN.7U:h+d*��'A 3:W 3 4Nr =r uth+ . .o-iiw4af'w�7I," r Lead -Lag Optimize? 0111111ilifl, 1111:13, .n`h ..iYw- 111, lI�ilimilliI�lI'i isAll Recall Mode None None None None Egg None None Coord Coord Coord Coord CoordCoord Ai es" � v . ,x ..rg 1E � Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.011.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 h•,., Act Effct Green (s) 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 X16.4 6.4 65.6 65.6 65.6 65.6 65.6 65.6 m v/c Ratio 0.14 0.30 0.50 0.61 0.34 0.10 0.19 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.02 Delay 21.8 23.6 2.1 26.2 24.1 5.7 5.Or 4.6 1.1 4.8", 4.6 2.1 Approach Delay 9.6 23.0 3.7 4.3 The District at Tustin Legacy g' 17- Synchro 5 Report Pagel N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT1v2.sy6 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 • M. • • • - I MG I ,fu�vz ��Ci" / - ! • 1 • 9 2 Ix .>�. .1-•�.. ��`, t- - ....., cr,.?� . D, �... ;..... , owl / • 1 • 1 1 • r tl �..�{z"z411� $R�.Ei ✓� 4 ®� �Rl®611}G 0 r .. 9 - .r®�. G9T,-v f 9 yF14��°1� G 3 a� @ 0 ® ��06� ©". .a�„�)�7�1 ��"A-ETv�kA�Af•*© a fit' GO�UO 4jtxnu P1AG 9 ie; 0 '315'��A"�' ANT r %� S• w- c50th4 4 �y}J:1e fl fr9' .. D t}iB 6 a�Gi.', i®Qn.P,..0 0 BP u. .ps�G7Cgo �'{�V.P'. I T 1 1 ' 15 . / Y YP4��F1.8. h )r r C{�{4`rfi�n.%�"i �''�'?T ©�, IT6J,,T �6" Ft�.r�t�. ;i.R .�t ,irk :. ai`i.y �.." v✓.�ii '. �.;.r � r 4 �: lFi A � Vis' ° • •i -.lock ;;p. j!! �t ff 4Cjii7 je�€t64tG,:n .tIARIIMMI �, ,::r,.'.� r�� ;;� k``� t.•. Splits and Phases: 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way 6n7 A. 014 The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\20324881Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT1v2.sy6 13 Page 2 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 14• South Loop Road & Driveway4 PM Peak Hour Grade0. /• 1 �; e �'�1�'q�����, W V�' 1�.. � ?� ..7ia A. ° �f. ,���t f �l" raS. •F�a,. fit. �,. �";?t �j;� x,:41' a . , , 1,,;�,.,� d - u� r w �,^+',,,��-t�. �,y", 1 1rt am- • • 11 11 /1 It 11 11 11 1/ 11 11 11 1/ } oa 'd vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 241 197 731 696 159^ 755 y 680w 187 2 _. . •1 . . •. • 11 :: 11 °1 �q ;' � e e C r�, ; �x r k s..- y, �< ��� .� N r+ ,�' � R ;?✓t. z�� �t�. ,�;`. �";� • ,n, .��' � : a ,>,}� � . u , 17 ryry!! � ��. 3"1"- x Il 4 i �72 'p} ` 2P PS� yp{� � �. ('.ir'-`�F ( 1 N✓ 3+ �d. C a L rt • •: 1 1 :/ 1 1 j � traq � + � • � k 1P tt The District at Tustin Legacy �. Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT1 v2.sy6 Page 4 LiNSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 17: South Loop Road & Driveway 5 PM Peak Hour -.* -•• --v f' +- '-- 4\ 1` �► l ,1 ������ C�,��,�.�t1 Ari ht ,.` 5 (t rn � � �i -�:. �� S.l;>> � i ,'�+'k. ,n v,fn �� +-•�. _ .lt n, � �. � a �,., .+ ;,lt ,",�` Peak Hour Factor 11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pedestrians .•. • 100 94 100 89 Volume114 R" 61 1 7 1 1 1 23 ��• 77 —7, 77277, 1 1 1 1 1 1 ��., �^i' U ' gh'�. A la ,3a ,. F3-,Je✓R'� ro?Y.x Y ifrlF .�...a` Yj �„g,�h;^��4,� The District at Tustin Legacy lb. l5 Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT1v2.sy6 EE�> Page 5 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 1) 25: South Loop Road & Driveway 6 PM Peak Hour 1 4} a 9 t ai. . Sv t 'k L�[1�mJ1� PYi�y'fY,Ai Pi i �f �<�'ir;�: `.,'�1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.90 Derlcetrione I" 5E n Tom, ruxrl3 �Y ,t .:! +{rrs ,var 3 �wC S. vCu. unblocked vol 248 520 124 .9 98 97 r r - r wry r r Gr t Nr r�r� _4` t, �ff�c7., apt v�� ,� �(( � w7 ,Nn ,h , h�,�� �j y�;l i,• - i!�271�".4 Aaoroach LOS B The District at Tustin Legacy bSynchro 5 Report N:\2400\20324881Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT1 v2.sy6 Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 E N G I N E E R S . ALTERNATIVE #2 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM) CALCULATION WORKSHEETS HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 2• South Loop Road & Driveway 1 AM Peak Hour Old 7 1 '� e r 1r r d s S Y .�, 17 211a.TIME 1 � • unblocked vC1, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 71 88 180 200 44 159 204 36 NAM,S� i iN ii�Y iYS QF-xuf- r8 j'' l ..- ... �5�'rl.,A Ha .�.aYlt9:�. �:w,-fit. .w, cS.n,. ..�. tC, 2 stage (s) 'dk�iS4tA`.Rtd7,�11v)nai1"1'.',4fV,xn!!.'$FY'! uTR+d.tMl,vxmRY•ttldVlM:�wYW F+rc<.<�'wu,.,.... mze..ww-.x.. a-:-........ ......... .... ......._-.-_._ ......_. _. _.. .. p0 queue free % r 99 100 q, 99 a 100. 99 y X99 $100 9{�8} Volume Left 20 0 0 6 0 0 8 8 rRN 1527 1700 1700 1506 1700 1700 871 946 The District at Tustin Legacy 5111 N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT2v2.sy6 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Synchro 5 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 8: South Loop Road & Driveway 2 AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations ===&=1=6mTrAm Volume (veh/h) 77 8 27 72 5 17 -: Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 77 8 27 72 5 17 Volume Total (vph) 77 8 27 72 22 �7� •Mt�e����li{^' �''r��l :q�l�.'�.� Volume Right (vph) f 0 nE, 8 .. .. 0 t�'s.YN au,+MJk. 0 17 .... .:.a�w» .. ,. �i kyr PC ��+ feu 1i(dn4' , Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4.0 4.8 4.6 3.9 f�.kfi•;, r . .-d.^S.�F �. -.,-h_ ... .:�. y� ...x r?v��, "�. %,..':�:_,��!C(4.4.4.fi'.,�^... �Y }�. 'rhi'�s.r. �rinRt4 �,.. :-r Capacity (veh/h) 766 871 737 762 870 .: } jvnu�, y.1 1 Approach Delay (s) 6:9 6.9 �$ 7.0EM k . •�til� , 1111 M�� 1 WA Yj 99 M. HCM Level of Service A (( iJ a.9� The District at Tustin Legacy e>.15 Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 2 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic:(Alt 2) 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way AM Peak Hour Total 1 4.0 �' 4.0 Il 4.0 , �,..1 4.0 l� }nn 4.0 }- 4.0 4.0 ( 1 4.0 � E�{ 4.1t 4.41 i.Jp -. C U ]�' l Frt 5 '� E� `�jf{jl a )l��✓x 1.00 Y ,l ii) 1.00 aPL'1 1�� 0.85 ( i�i� r 1.00 11.00 0.85 r. n 11 1.00 0.85 .r. 1.00 1.00 1 .85 F -,', • • • • t .. 3 0 1:. 11r .. 1 :. 12 =11W; : '- �(�-O, i ��if��f ,p ._� Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 a. KNOW? Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 35 47 30 42 11 48 24 40 6 23 9 Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1 39 1 Actuated g'/C Ratio 0.15 MIR 'M 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 .` 0.7 I OM�:..1xkumW '.lx. ' d:. Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 x... 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 v/s Ratio Prot 0 02 0.02 0.01 v}/c Ratio 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.15 n 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.02 0 04 0.01 0.02 0 01 Progression Factor 1 00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 ��7yj�", _uI/��jjf``(y�^pr� i y ° y ' •. tLi '�� 5 s t Y(M','+�y�:. . r :. A ."dr AjA,n , ,F�1...C�d 1. Delay (s) 20.4 20.7 21.1 20.9 20.8 20.3 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 � 2 4 r }r � pf%1 ?";v4�� AoDroach Delav (s) 20.9 20.8 2.4 2.4 : .. � x `..,.. i' .. r n m .' ':n afr:... n;N,'„ � .. ..... �:•...ir. 1.::,:, . �.�}�.a% C. ,r. .: ...F. .. .R„ .}�. HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.08 .,,� yia, ttj 3 y.. 1k. �s Y-, arm,. an.•.fi i1K.'":�=.'? �ti ;�'-,h Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0% ICU Level of Service A The District at Tustin Legacy 1�, ti Synchro 5 Report N:12400\20324881Synchrot3-22-04\AM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way AM Peak Hour -i` --I, -v 'r *- .I-- -*, t /A,. \0. 1 Lane • ..- _ . .1 1 1 None .e 1 1 •1 1 'f �'`i',.SY:. pal. .��1. ���4151 ��4 .. �n.�H� � .,L 1_ .nl ���e,f ) A... .,) •f'l rir-.: 4 lE i.:. �Y� ,4} � +� {.�1..:'S Y:l i.. b F� IT� g '�'v-f a '•w' 1J�d:.. ,l Y�', � -" 13 11.0 r r 11.0 4 irJ a` ' al �,7 3ar9 W,� �� � � n: � t,R - �- - • 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yy• Hx � 4. �i���.�,M1� i. ,�2. � .3�� ;� �' Fv w �ti 4`ii ..� i �. .)., t/i .�. 4E, ,dh Ii• r�a i 1 f� � t { • 11 /1 11 e1 11 11 11 Ie 11 1/ 11 11 Ratio 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.030.01 0.02 0.01 n fi' ifi� °ufl q"}§C S�}1 ��0'`V�V7YlIYri ISI i{IFIr 1�+ J�'f ei'� �6 � 1 v ![LS!i A Jr, �I��,i 31�5.�„")�r1j1 � �� �f� �+�'�.�?� �.. 1'�Si �rl�i ,. �nl PLr �,�� 4�15.f L �h. l r'G j r � �)'� +�;�Jt •....��.��i� � a b s,4� x4 �i�,�i �� f.�5',k ` �C.1 '� : � AL� •'', 1, ��. �� �}� '`� k;� ���' y,EE �i�,r� �rF d< <r c � - ���.. � a • 11 it le 11 t1 11 11 11 e1 11 el 11 yy yy '+z d;Ctr,tO�'hi. 5. 1 1 • 1 i : A s�151 / Pi j` • • e : 1 • • p y I' Y ,; 1 t 1 i t 9 '` ` i 1 �,4 m ,W �wa�� � `��� `?N^�. �� �` r4 :',�,� t r #� .� � q� �'%' 8 ,��`�✓��0 :r- ty� D ;�.�' Sl �fi�'"y9 '�'� 6}u �{i,� �F�6 T�Q r�'� ' b ��, '�, '' G e d {Q 'u u ID 46•. 7 n �_ • y a d o rip o � 6� -•1.0 1.0 1.0; 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 �'AFk.F. G) Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min Min Min Min Min Flash D• 1 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 GreenAct Effct • • • •e Ratio 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.030.01 0.02 0.01 n fi' ifi� °ufl s,4� Approach Delay • 4.6 5. The District at Tustin Legacy g, Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 11 • South Loop Road & Millikan Way. AM Peak Hour •, - 1 t ij / 1 1� ��4�%�rP:S �1 ♦ • �r .. y�,.t dry i `�❑�q l yyC G '7�n� k}W14 �"� ��Wp :. 3 . t I '1! �"yi { irv'}. ,•i) 1IRMA • I'M 9}R 11V 41 G 0 krtl ��4 6i D4^ k}0 0 � 1 �F„ V 1 {y�`y1 1 ldt i Queue LengthI . ��1! r qR o ; 1 fir r Internal Link Dist (ft) yy 1 1 / . 1 <:.. 1 574 1 1 -vim ♦ • • • • I'M 9}R 11V 41 G 0 krtl ��4 6i D4^ k}0 0 � 1 'l, µ" r � �1 b.( � �¢i 4N F� L'�A�+ m Y •� �?�rRtiJ l�;i':� �i+{r (�" �:, d�l��= yy 1 1 1 . 1 <:.. 1 • 1 . 1 F. 1 1 1 � P�,xx���. / 1 1 kNl YII � 1 1 / i^ tN 4.':i't !' �%✓�iyt'..i a � Y 1 uC_714� 0.' fNYLI 1 1 A -l} y� r �,�'� 200 Area Type: Other ` Actuated Cycle Length: 57.1 M,5e i , s�+� »""r''��C�'h 14301. aim! Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinatedg �. �r . "51 1 fit •� �i�J��J'���� S� y .. tl.�. /•.B l��µ�'..'L Intersection' Signal Delay: 5.1 intersection LOS: A t ry5 . :.. A 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 44 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 18.7 R 10th.°/¢ile Actuated Cycle: 120 Splits and Phases: 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way 14o4 e8 The District at Tustin LegacySynchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 2 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 14: South Loop Road & Driveway 4 AM Peak Hour Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 24 41 16 34 54 27 8 0 14 5 0 20 Volume Total (vph) 24 57 34 81 22 25 Volume Right (vph) 0 16 0 27 14 20 ,Z7'? t E ' Departure Headway (s) 49 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.1 4.0 Capacity (veh/h) 721 774 727 784 836 868 Approach Delav (s) 6.7 6.8 7.2 7.1 The District at Tustin Legacy $, Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 4 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 17: South Loop Road.&. Driveway 5 AM Peak Hour 0' 9'- 4 I-6UGAU IQI IA - 4 'N' r Walking Speed (ft/s) of . '. u4t8uY'�l1 � �� i'S � It' i f fi'� dour` P' � ( 3 � i 4 t+• � tl`t�: .: :: � � �d' Til ri45r�t,'i,5'�'-�Y O���k1 •. :..:r ���....'ta .. n�G?��C�i :, ��» .i.y�. ���.� "��.��,���n; yA�u9C� � +.,.a�.�.�i�.'�.c,n��� Right turn flare (veh) storageMedian ��+ • •latoon unblocked q g x{{ p .•' 1 conf• vCu, ,unblocked vol 100 36 201 186 36 181 79 tC, 2 free % 98 100 100 100 100 99 100 98 cSH 1493 1700 1575 1700 1700 1037 928 Queue Len The District at Tustin Legacy v,23Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\AM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 5 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 25: South Loop Road & Driveway 6 AM Peak Hour � � •�-- '�,,, fir• ,,�% gg 1s:7 J / f t M. d,A � r1 'r'�� 2 Y 1�// k 1(�' F . �-f ,+ tP5" ^} ;� 4w{ r 11r�'�� �� � 1 4 �' 1 � • h- `�� �gA�(E���,.ti�.�3s�llji tl.Li FE .�.. {.V`i••.ca ��°. rc.� .,�u $.;���;.�. r[i:.� � 7 .R lr /yi.�, ��.+,�a%..,��i ��._ 1,4�.� r�?t>r'i.i'�':.tik st-�, Peak Hour Fa6ifo-r00 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4w.�&;i;YF'�7}5� w ��%�_ . � SSt�� � �sy�/ m. l.� ���� � Y�� �f•�/r is � tiR�Y.W�ddiS2G�Z��4U'Y 'ARE:�YU4xy �8�,p 'f � `. t Y � ✓I �. 't : Walking Speed (ft/s) r � ,,+ v h� �: '4' F�✓f(` f Fi� .. r _ :., . �1 •r > >,. -.: *w K a t r j::: i 5 4t�1�''V-t'�r . yy� u. ��+��:ah�1S.VL1,�>l��Y,�'s�15;�:: ..r �.+.. ... r{{� f Right turn flare (veh) Median storage veh vC1, stage 1 conf vol cSH 1479 1700 1700 1700 967 Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Lane LOS A A �}. J:' a 'm°"oemS ..�'�9. t E Mfl+ ....,e.gi AwKrRrrm.,*Gn'*atN'i'7'fiM3p"d4JdN:EfiNS..iWiAt�ri5a9d'Iusan:Y."rsr' e'b9R+sTrsm•a Approach LOS A The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04WM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Aft 2) 2: South Loop Road & Driveway 1 PM Peak Hour Lane Confiqurations Grade 06% 0% ---...___._....._...__---__._.__.... __..__..___..,�...�..�..—w...._.—�..............w.+unurau-•enwaww,F er.;yta,flrsmm.:ra..wfaatNIIEW'mneiWlitMp.}5pi.ifi.Y•4Jn YX.WA'{.;.r':'"'.:+S4Ti0.i'•,r' Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 IFAVM 111 Pedestrians 1111110 I ur vC1, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 238 272 675 707 136 594 728 119 ��!` �' ... , � ��rf« � 5S���M1e �j�f � }.., if'+1"+� � � �� �6��y��"��E� ix{y�,. �p, t�t,,5bn sf,4t i•�F ��r�A �R����1 ��'�,�.'b '°i✓£ sti" tC, 2 stage (s) =:. [� ��.�7�'.�b� ._.�' ' 4 ,3�i' ; �.`'.,�{ tn£s .'t!i �,�'�'_'*�• �idJ�'�41.:fi��E�(�fi�skir,��'.i�'�h.����.�t'i'hA�ci t'"'�'.�t_,�� �.�ri.'n . , ,.e'��.'lsti;'�' 'uXvk�rt ,.::,.H...::.':s:;as,s,.�.� ..... i:ciSs. free % 93 99 84 100 95 83 100 88 Volume xF'A'.� .,�1,�1`iE�'"Eij iCw �� .& >l1, �rJ 1°f `� i';� Y.r� �'. �,4�i aiYiS 5 `mss 2.5.-MEW, e -Queue Length (ft) • • __._._•._-•—_--....x...........—,..A..�...,..m..�n.®,...:w„�nn,.a�urmwM+rrR,.vrcwnnwc: Lane LOS A A C B MMMMOMMMMMMMMMMMMM Approach LOS C OF Average Delay 5.2 The District at Tustin Legacy Q , 157Synchro 5 Report N:12400\20324881Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 W Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 8: South Loop Road &'Driveway 2 PM Peak Hour, Volume. • .. 222 165 Volume• • 1 49 1 1 130 HCM Level. of - ' `j ! Tt I,. MWp M k x The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 2 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 The District at Tustin Legacy 5-2-1 Synchro 5 Report N:�2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 t11Y1lIRfimt�ll •_ • / 1 1` / 1 G.. �; 1 I 1f 1 1 � 1 1 ?ve� �i��9 �� 1 -'� ?� ! ��•d �1dIbX �''-ki I � 1�JL} Fii fs �I �3 ^��A`I^�. ?19� r�1�1'17 � ��f �i� ��F { 1 �WI� li � 3'i{� t( � 9 i" .37� 1 t i. trttQ ext }' � i � d a��i��� J.�{�F' .�G... s 11 11 1 11 11 1 11 11 1 11 11 1 !( +p Al wl,i �J ti F,l ��.5 MPS {t{,}� s`i'�5 4 W rh1y4Roar .y jet^ t7 �•aA✓'.�T ,�Lr1�A�l �y„ovA F1.A�A ;�.V,:. �+ ��C Ill?���f-..r /77-7-177-771a �1 §„ji7 � ty�, � v 4 a� - �(�n•..S :r'�a. af�... - • • 11 11 11 �qv. /1 11 tY o,3-tt al� 1� ti 11 11 11 11 11 11 /1 }�1-s t� Ya��,`i ° ,li"�k�� �l�`>>� ��I� .r$ �a-�,a•� �aa � :ar4Y�si� rR., ln�'.e.,}-�' t.�:;C�a r r :;1. ,!i r, �,1lie f�}7 1f J A�',v �� [ �h��, FLS V' �-a ��1��� i�^r'g 4.i ^u. .�'` ,��f �L,'k;Y?ip>��P � �$.4� �•trt r� '1 d4��j�lyaau �"'!_;gnc 5 ,i'��. (t5��x..x�� �,a,�tPD �.�� �`� �- ���r'..'��„u.. c • t v �. 1 y !'����.� _• _ tin• • • • • • • 1 • 1m • 1 • 1 • 1 a 1 -. • • 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 �: 1 �: 1 1 �: 1 1 �: v w4jigr:i..r�iAM, a ''� (j'!�s I ! `•d;954 �� �2�k.c 'a -v �],'�'w`ioX �.FS -d S ON _ . } J�i1Cuk`�1r`-!�,�'lL f' q •'_Li 9 x. it U • 1 1• / i 1 i l I 1 1 ! • 1 1• 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 F q.'• �,� _ ..-v. . t , a '� Yt A t , p ,v . . E .v . � � :� .. �+ ' � , .ift i�f�9 1 `3' l���iP K � �1/ •• - • • 1I 11 11 1! 1/ it Ii 11 1/ I1 x F�1µ1 oe The District at Tustin Legacy 5-2-1 Synchro 5 Report N:�2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings None None None None None None Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way Min Min Min PM Peak Hour ., , Lane ConfigurationsJim 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Storage Length (ft) 260 11.0 11.0 11.0 150 250 6. 160 150 0 90 0 k r A :. Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.6 16.6 16.6 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.19 I Now Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FUE MAW Delay Lane Util. Factor 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0'(0]� 7.0 6.9 3.8 Flt Protected 0.950 Approach Delay 0.950 0.950 0.950 iN • 5.7 6.4 f elf -' �: Fit Permitted 0.684 2 0.691 - n 0.695 0.702 N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 Ism 1�190= Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00p' 1.00 1.00 Link Distance (ft) 400 650 350 280 Volume (vph) 33 102 242 144 114 33 180 84 121 42 95 24 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 102 242 144 114 33 180 84 121 42 95 24 Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm !I Mac Permitted Phases4 4 8 8 2 2 6 r6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 • f�1r.P' i aii' t .r. '.. tvl. f; 1 y� , , ` '• ^ "' t,x.' I'i : .. . .��. Total Split (s) 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 ,r'. ,Y, qf :.4 . 44.0 44.0 46 0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 y ft x Maximum Green (s) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 rrta k: , 40.0 40.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 Aii=Red Time (sl . - . - .. -1 0..: 1.0 1 0_ ... 10 . 1.G. . 1 0 - --1.0 . 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0. 1.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None Min Min Min Min Min Min ., , Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 NWARM ENE k Act tffct Green (s) 10.5 10.5 ..lv� 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.19 0.38 0.38 0.21 0.07 0.28 0.09 0.14 0.07 0.10 0.03 MAW Delay 7.2 7.2 1.7 7.7 7.2 3.6 7.5 6.9 2.3 7.0 6.9 3.8 Approach Delay 3.7 7.1 5.7 6.4 The District at Tustin Legacy 2 Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 1 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Traffic. Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 11 • South Loop Road & ,Millikan Way PM Peak Hour 90th Me Green (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Area Type: Other 1;.' Actuated Cycle Length: 33.8 .Fy}^ 4h}�{ii.�'k5"r�' S``'ty+9e`yr }�'�.dS"�ta�.'.u_r t4 t2Y,%S Pi rw fitL�z�?��i a:d1 r.�. .�`J:,ut. Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated NNIMEM-1, MEMO Intersection Signal Delay: 5.5 Intersection LOS: A 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 44 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 24.2 . N MCI, I, - 10th %ile-Aotuated Cycle: 51:4 _ Splits and Phases: 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way The District at Tustin Legacy �2 , Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 I� Page 2 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 ';,®2.r�trocl�[?7 �i�.°�i,° a, ! ��1;`~!",� tF �a Y " d, N k :��ltl�� h;J..,. ` ;.���., b ,t;7,- �;,.L. t:.�,iF1. MEM hf; 1 MAI �° i {� 6 �{ ✓ G,70 �'tj i n 0 IG Y V 0 �P. F' 0 OF �f..a. hr{ �r` 3.jF(t�'��e �i�..���I@4 r �G.' 6 ��� i�55Y""1...• WWII Li �"a © ^` ,, 4 11 - • / .f 1 p , i� • 1 • 1 1 Area Type: Other 1;.' Actuated Cycle Length: 33.8 .Fy}^ 4h}�{ii.�'k5"r�' S``'ty+9e`yr }�'�.dS"�ta�.'.u_r t4 t2Y,%S Pi rw fitL�z�?��i a:d1 r.�. .�`J:,ut. Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated NNIMEM-1, MEMO Intersection Signal Delay: 5.5 Intersection LOS: A 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 44 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 24.2 . N MCI, I, - 10th %ile-Aotuated Cycle: 51:4 _ Splits and Phases: 11: South Loop Road & Millikan Way The District at Tustin Legacy �2 , Synchro 5 Report N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 I� Page 2 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 14: South Loop Road & Driveway 4 PM Peak Hour Volume (veh/h) 68 159 38 80 187 54 15 0 113 32 0 89. .. ,_.; 5, ,.. :.. i"...:: .a» s`+`, 0�+`6. .,:• ;, ...pit ::. ar Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 68 159 38 80 187 54 15 0 113 32 0 89 Volume Total (vohl 68 197 80 241 128 121 11 7 5.4 5..6 5.3 5.0 5.1 Capacity (veh/h) 598 641 610 653 660 641 Approach Delay (s 9.1 9.5 9.0 9.2 HCM Level of Service A MA The District at Tustin Legacy Synchro 5 Report N:12400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-041PM-ALT2v2.sy6 Page 4 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 17: South Loop Road & Driveway 5 PM Peak Hour Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pedestrians n ; .rN�b'€ Y ', ut! .�1 Hh�.:L`J �„ {{��!- i{t(�jlflf�.,��'x'.���lt 1�'�i��� :•� `���'LM�ifn,¢7j P P;' P �"� -i [,iVrr��t •i7�.'r5}�T1�; j�y'iu t'�f ��� !d f'.. SiF# aSk { 1i4�,�lM ��'i�bTf lt7 iJ. Y'.,'.: . � r ��,J��:� �x"�t1 rlP...;�k�Y,,:ir,+.�� �� 7�.y, �.+�k�� �•hjw%11���{f'���... "'�`+�^s Ct�{ X45 � .:: �.,° -<'f , i.:: % � �. .n... :: �:�J�.� ,f, . ,. unblocked vC1, stage 1 conf vol g3i �. ,K ,i: , • q i • ` C .. 'M 1 rr9. •, 4 i Y +71 Y v3 4• . r„ `�,•��. � x 1 �NWrq i�4.Ak�4 7x� 1 � sTt��`�ki44:�`�.,.�'i"��� � , rt» �iJir�r� erxl r � ;�, rc,'; vCu, unblocked vol 241 242 700 619 242 615 608 230 p0 queueAu free % 95 99 100 100 99+x{}1 94 100 89dR M���Nr �^'l.•: Jaa+ d ,. x.. n.. s,w: :..tK Volume Left 61 0 7 0 0 0 23 MEM• �s !! r is rF'�� -x ••s' rpr f J '� l� ', Jj tli.� 7r r7 dfi 4i t'xra i�Uf 7 ' r i i �'in ryryryryryry ????dk ',•+ 1 i. -k r "Sed' i `i ea -«, Al. a.,am'K ?,, �"�k _ ki6�l� u�y�. ) ;,,., ' , _✓ � ^�.... ... 'A"V:% .r, 4�,A cSH 1326 1700 1324 1700 1700 797 663 The District at Tustin Legacy S. 3 B N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 Synchro 5 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis . Traffic Conditions w/Project Traffic (Alt 2) 25: South Loop Road & Driveway 6 PM Peak Hour 'A �„ - — � \O. •r/ ay 1Y r I401 WMI-M • tt • U 11 11 1/ 11 11 it ,4, 9p r �` W -i i i inhlnrrknd vnl 9AR 520 124 •1 queue .• •• 97 NOR> y s F a : 1.a ,,..� �; w'E Ia ,— bo�(rd�f ' ij' 1w Eia r t �.`i 4s n /f The District at Tustin Legacy N:\2400\2032488\Synchro\3-22-04\PM-ALT2v2.sy6 LINSCOCOS5-FF51 6' 3-,. Synchro 5 Report Page 1 E N G I N E E R S APPENDIX C CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLANS k r r � r w r r 4 i r # i ?� s � i Qz r� DRIVEWAY #6 a . A i DRIVEWAY #2- r1 O \fid r 13y° 6 �a DRIVEWAY #E DRIVEWAY #' a'a•�'� Fn 8 BARRANCA PARKWAY W +I a. r. I' '•I I , C ` t: l`•; ��I l j i , ° II `- ! i I. Tri; A VE. R(! j i R RRRRRRY lit t a s I' lir ' d a 7 -r 4 I ^: y d � r I � I \ ifit 7 , :I i I q lir ATTACHMENT K Elevations for Majors 1-10, 12, and 16 � 0 � Al | �> . !]111 � R UPa — DIUJ O�!JD ,-u!ls e � ADV931 10181SIG 3 —— —— }' } |§■,:l,.�r-erm� ee;.;eeeee,.eeee / < / P4000 2 __| u, 7 q | »ee iOINISIO _ |\`■§§r; E! 36eeeesees�.... , , ( ) \ ( °ZI! § ■ ! res *4000> 2 | RADVD31 e , 1018iSICI » ! R \ ,�}�§\�|��!■;:: A;eeeseee.n,,,m { / ) ( ( U.0. I e, | s,i am » \ \ ) ( § r, pa r! *4000 ,�«•es � � � � > | � Ra n a;� \ ) / ( � �) � Q•��/�) i§|)§k!!!|)/)| !■§E!|N!§■;§,,, ik;kk§k§%23i!|!k ! w § ��; ■§;����-E;; Aaeee.&;s.me,l, / § a | i 2� e P. a7 �© > III _m, e 111 RAOV031e,a:]HI � �) � Q•��/�) i§|)§k!!!|)/)| !■§E!|N!§■;§,,, ik;kk§k§%23i!|!k ! w § ��; ■§;����-E;; Aaeee.&;s.me,l, / § P4000 2 ■ ` ■ � :am' s _ _ h / �e,»,3 §§ j ! | |� A =--— - $ / � § ), <as E! AAeeeeese.,<me, 7 i � { i ) § e3eeeeeee.�:,.& \ ) !| __ _ ! 2 | | m «'es !ADV031 NllSni, ID181SIG » 7 i � { i ) § e3eeeeeee.�:,.& \ ) 011 Nusfu OoIYIN govg5 0 L- ol ed JI yng1 lair i w oia.�aa P,000 if ii oiwo;ilo0 'upsnl 13 If ADV931 NliSni ® i0l&SIO 3Hi afro a�a gym$ 0000a00000000000 _ � ! _ _ /_m ni . � \ pmaporo > e, 3 { � i !.�■;I■| � ; „ seee,ee,ee,eesee DOMIN _ _mj p2 � ; D!ujapo e P40000> | RAOV931 NliSrjj ni �z00 \ � � \ . •:* � . qt{ ` �» )Q•,&;.! §§ akmmeooseeeee�ee )� 9()| P},\ )|\!§\|||)§!|§§ f�.•4§;e;;{-;;� 4!8 §;eeeaee!«a,m,& \ \ ) ATTACHMENT L Elevations for Lifestyle Buildings ,ujo;! «•es |AOV931 Niisnins » � ) $ � � .;!)t !!§• !N;§:!4!§�:■!!,§ ■§!!§;;;�!§!!!|� ee,eeeemee:kee,e � •. 913 6aeeees;e&a»,.! \ ( p$ o 2 | _< >!a �> | ADV031 Nusnin l }\}\ I • ;1 z� §§;{ e.ee�meeee�eesee. | t Jj :�. ;§r�;��■E;§ eaeseeeee«Dane. � __ *4000 | �> ADV 031 Nas e,DISIO 3HI / ) / § `° ! *4000 �/> _ \ $ADV031 NllSnie 10181SIO _ 4 ~ ) \ } 2 8, pol A _ee s> !ADVOT Nusni, ID18iSiC » J, 8 ) \ q � � \ !i|Z �;�;|| .E.... ■!.4 BESS29ese.e.eeee ATTACHMENT M Elevations for Pads 1-8 � mi z_yA _ y q \ �| : m--- . >§ | � � s, »»m + $ § $ ! ) 7 � ■ ■ �f §��\§§§� �.■E■||:;r;��,�' e.ee&;aeee4Aeere § a 4d A 2 0400001 11111 � � $ ( � 7 \ i \ �sm �. cj • m � i\ \ N !0 s:!< E & § 2 | ! e � § § | ! ; di §§)|;;§■;;�|_■§ ,aaeeeQ;!&a,..s � a / 2 � ]OR. 11111 § � kft Z, U4 ` In m_, . , q . �\ \ , c, + % [ \ ! � - � ■��■ �A §aeeeeeee.,e&,s { i' % [ a | , N 11! � m,e «s (j \ ADVOTa, imisic « $ { � @ B | | aeememeee.me,,. $ ( ) i { ( i � § ~ \ Fez' s ADV« w,e,oIdiS , « § ƒ §)��§�■|�§�||§§ ;;•�)|�§;;!|;;; eeeeeeeee.;e,.. ATTACHMENT N Landscaping and Hardscaping Plans 0 L Lb u 6m 76 ff�i iia J 0 Cd ", :> H 11 01 MR z 0 D I ujopqc� U!jsnj Niisni 0 IONISIO -]Hl m (D NI I rti I H I 1--i I HI I N! IW II I rIA L � cc shoLL 8 yNy 6 gggRg 1 7b R ill oiNLLSN �JJry yyY153� _ I S �dW wo)ar) 'uilsnj ),DVO31 NuSill ® iowq;p 3H1 0 9 I ; ;A tlJrNav v 3 N v 6 v8 m L. azm — — � ! - ` | 0 30> JOI N �§ § | 2 » Nusni,aIO 3Hi , | § � , , | | t , 81 ed H I 2b CO I p6 Jll NLLSfIi 0^nIN yytl153A ; d jGN oiwo7poD 'ups nl 6ez N Wog OV931 NI1SM ® imisi0 3H1 g ATTACHMENT O Queuing Analysis E N G I N E E R S ENGINEERS & PLANNERS ■ TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, KING 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 ■ San Diego, California 92108 Phone: 619 299-3090 ■ Fax: 619 299-7041 June 21, 2004 Mr. David R. Ristau Director of Design and Construction VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 7575 Carson Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90808 Subject: IN -N -OUT BURGER & CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THROUGH QUEUING ANALYSIS t THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY Tustin, California Dear Mr. Ristau: John A. Boarman, P.E. Clare M. Look -Jaeger, P.E. Richard E. Barretto, P.E. RECEIVED JUN 2 12004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY LLG Reference No. 2.03.2488.1 As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Queuing Analysis for the drive-through lanes of the proposed In -N -Out Burger and Chick-Fil-A fast-food restaurants in the City of Tustin, California. The proposed In -N -Out Burger and Chick-Fil-A will be located on the northwest corner of Jamboree Boulevard and Barranca Parkway, within the proposed District at Tustin Legacy retail/entertainment center. This analysis has been updated to reflect the current project site plan and address comments of City staff on reports previously submitted on June 7, 2004. The queuing analysis has been prepared to determine the vehicular stacking needs of the drive- through window, per the City of Tustin requirements. The queuing analysis is based on two-day of surveys of an existing In -N -Out Burger and Chick-Fil-A restaurant in the immediate area. The surveys were conducted during the mid-day peak service period and evening service period of a "typical" weekday. The surveys were performed on a recent Tuesday and Wednesday in May and June 2004, between the mid-day peak service period of 11:30 AM and 2:00 PM, and evening peak service period of 4:30 PM and 7:00 PM. Briefly, based on the results of our queuing analysis, a twenty -car (20) reservoir is needed to support the anticipated queue of vehicles in the drive-through lane of the proposed In -N -Out Burger, while a ten -car (10) reservoir is needed to meet the peak demands of the proposed Chick- Fil-A. Review of the proposed site plan provided by Perkowitz + Ruth indicates that the storage requirements for both fast-food restaurants are met. Costa Mesa - 714 641-1587 ■ Pasadena - 626 796-2322 ■ Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 ■ Founded 1966 8 An LG2W6 Company LINSCOTT Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 E N G I N E E R S Page 2 Our method of analysis, findings and conclusions are described in detail below. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The proposed In -N -Out Burger restaurant will be located in the southeast corner of the District at Tustin Legacy site and is approximately 3,220 square -feet. The formalized storage provided in the proposed In -N -Out Burger drive-through lane totals approximately 440± feet (measured from the entry of the drive-through lane to the Cashier/Product Delivery Booth) and is enough storage for approximately twenty (20) vehicles. Similar to the proposed In -N -Out Burger, the proposed Chick-Fil-A restaurant will be located in the southeast corner of the District at Tustin Legacy site. This fast-food restaurant is approximately 4,486 square -feet. The formalized storage provided in the proposed Chick-Fil-A drive-through lane totals approximately 260± feet (measured from the entry of the drive-through lane to the Cashier/Product Delivery Booth) and appears to be enough storage for approximately twelve (12) vehicles. OPERATION OF DRIVE-THROUGH LANE It is our understanding that the proposed drive-through lane at both the In -N -Out Burger and Chick- Fil-A restaurants have menu boards with a single Cashier/Product Delivery Booth. Initially, a drive-through customer enters the drive-through and chooses a selection at the Speaker Menu Board. The patron then travels to the Cashier/Product Delivery Booth (window) to make the payment transaction receive the food ordered. With transactions completed, the patron then exits the drive-through lane. QUEUING ANALYSIS Queuing Survey Methodology To determine the amount of storage required to adequately stack drive-through traffic at the proposed fast-food restaurants, queuing surveys were performed at an existing In -N -Out Burger and Chick-Fil-A restaurant in the immediate area. The two fast-food restaurant study sites are located at: • In -N -Out Burger Study Site: 3020 El Camino Real, Tustin Marketplace • Chick-Fil-A Study Site: 13490 Jamboree Road, Irvine Marketplace Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 ENGINEERS Page The queuing surveys for In -N -Out Burger were conducted by Transportation Studies, Inc., LLG's subconsultant, on Tuesday, May 4, 2004 and Wednesday, June 16, 2004 and were performed continuously between the hours of 11:30 AM and 2:00 PM, and 4:30 PM and 7:00 PM. The surveys were conducted during the peak operating hours of a fast-food w/drive-through restaurant, and reflect the demand on a "typical" weekday. LLG staff conducted the queuing surveys for Chick-Fil-A on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 and Wednesday, June 16, 2004 during the same time periods mention above. The surveys were conducted during the peak operating hours of a fast-food w/drive-through restaurant, and reflect the demand on a "typical" weekday. During the surveys, the maximum queue of vehicles that was observed in the drive-through lane (starting at pick-up window) at each study site was recorded for every five-minute interval during the mid-day and evening service periods (a total of 62 data points/observations at each site was collected). Survey Results and Data Interpretation Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results of the weekday queuing surveys performed over two days at the In -N -Out Burger restaurant study site for the mid-day and evening observation periods. The survey results for the Chick-Fil-A restaurant are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. In -N -Out Burger Assessment Table 5 summarizes the Queue Frequency that was observed at the In -N -Out Burger study site (data for mid-day and evening period are combined). Our evaluation of this data indicates that on average, a queue of 10 to 11 vehicles in the drive-through lane can be expected during the mid-day and/or evening peak period, with a 95`h percentile queue of 20 vehicles. The 95`h percentile queue represents the maximum number of vehicles that can be expected in the drive-through lane during the mid-day or evening peak period, and indicates that 95 percent of the drive-through customers will wait in a line no longer than 20 vehicles; 5 percent of the customers will wait in a queue of 21 cars or more. Chick-Fil-A Assessment Table 5 summarizes the Queue Frequency that was observed at the Chick-Fil-A study site (data for mid-day and evening period are combined). Our evaluation of this data indicates that on average, a queue of 5 vehicles in the drive-through lane can be expected during the mid-day and/or evening peak period, with a 95`h percentile queue of approximately 10 vehicles. Design Criteria For the purposes of this queuing analysis (and consistent with City requirements), the 95`h percentile queue will be the criteria against which the design of proposed In -N -Out Burger and LINSCOTT Mr. David R. Ristau VESTAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLG Reference: 2.03.2488.1 — The District at Tustin Legacy June 21, 2004 ENGINEERS Page Chick-Fil-A drive-through lanes will be evaluated. Assuming the average car length is 22 feet, a stacking storage of 440 feet (20 vehicles x 22 feet/vehicle = 440 feet) will be required to ensure the impact drive of through traffic of the proposed In -N -Out Burger is minimized on on-site circulation during the mid-day and evening peak hours. The drive-through lane of the Chick-Fil-A restaurant will require a stacking storage of 220 feet. Adequacy Of the Drive -Through Lane Storage The results of our queuing study indicate that the distance between the proposed entry of the drive- through lane and the Cashier/Product Delivery Booth (window) of both the In -N -Out Burger and Chick-Fil-A restaurants are of sufficient length and can accommodate the peak stacking requirements of each restaurant. Review of the proposed site plan provided by Perkowitz + Ruth indicates that the drive-through lanes provide a twenty -car (20) reservoir for proposed In -N -Out Burger and a twelve -car (12) reservoir the proposed Chick-Fil-A. * * * * * * * * * * * We appreciate the opportunity of be of service on this project. Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to call. Sincerely, LINSCOTT, LAW, & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS *�tu* Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Principal Attachments N:\2400\2032488Vteport\2488 In -N -Out Burger & Chick-Fil-A Queuing Analysis 6-21-2004DOC E. NO 2p06 ,Im1 E N G I N E E R S TABLE 1 MAXIMUM QUEUE SURVEYS TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2004 In -N -Out located at 3020 El Camino Real, Tustin Time Of Day Maximum Veh. Queue 11:30 AM 8 11:35 AM 10 11:40 AM 4 11:45 AM 11 11:50 AM 15 11:55 AM 14 12:00 PM 11 12:05 PM 13 12:10 PM 15 12:15 PM 14 12:20 PM 14 12:25 PM 17 12:30 PM 22 12:35 PM 22 12:40 PM 19 12:45 PM 24 12:50 PM 17 12:55 PM 16 1:00 PM 14 1:05 PM 15 1:10 PM 17 1:15 PM 18 1:20 PM 21 1:25 PM 22 1:30 PM 19 1:35 PM 16 1:40 PM 17 1:45 PM 21 1:50 PM 18 1:55 PM 17 2:00 PM 13 Time Of Day Maximum Veh. Queue 4:30 PM 9 4:35 PM 8 4:40 PM 7 4:45 PM 4 4:50 PM 1 4:55 PM 7 5:00 PM 10 5:05 PM 13 5:10 PM 11 5:15 PM 12 5:20 PM 8 5:25 PM 5 5:30 PM 3 5:35 PM 6 5:40 PM 7 5:45 PM 5 5:50 PM 6 5:55 PM 5 6:00 PM 7 6:05 PM 6 6:10 PM 4 6:15 PM 6 6:20 PM 6 6:25 PM 5 6:30 PM 8 6:35 PM 6 6:40 PM 5 6:45 PM 3 6:50 PM 5 6:55 PM 3 7:00 PM 4 E N G I N E E R S TABLE 2 MAXIMUM QUEUE SURVEYS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2004 In -N -Out located at 3020 El Camino Real, Tustin Time Of Day Maximum Veh. Queue 11:30 AM 13 11:35 AM 14 11:40 AM 11 11:45 AM 12 11:50 AM 12 11:55 AM 14 12:00 PM 16 12:05 PM 14 12:10 PM 13 12:15 PM 15 12:20 PM 14 12:25 PM 17 12:30 PM 17 12:35 PM 20 12:40 PM 20 12:45 PM 20 12:50 PM 18 12:55 PM 18 1:00 PM 20 1:05 PM 20 1:10 PM 20 1:15 PM 20 1:20 PM 18 1:25 PM 18 1:30 PM 20 1:35 PM 19 1:40 PM 19 1:45 PM 20 1:50 PM 16 1:55 PM 17 2:00 PM 16 Time Of Day Maximum Veh. Queue 4:30 PM 6 4:35 PM 5 4:40 PM 4 4:45 PM 4 4:50 PM 6 4:55 PM 4 5:00 PM 6 5:05 PM 3 5:10 PM 5 5:15 PM 10 5:20 PM 11 5:25 PM 9 5:30 PM 8 5:35 PM 8 5:40 PM 7 5:45 PM 6 5:50 PM 9 5:55 PM 9 6:00 PM 10 6:05 PM 11 6:10 PM 10 6:15 PM 8 6:20 PM 7 6:25 PM '7 6:30 PM 5 6:35 PM 4 6:40 PM 6 6:45 PM 6 6:50 PM 4 6:55 PM 3 7:00 PM 3 E N G I N E E R S TABLE 3 MAXIMUM QUEUE SURVEYS TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2004 Chick-Fil-A located at 13490 Jamboree Road, Irvine Time Of Day Maximum Veh. Queue 11:30 AM 4 11:35 AM 5 11:40 AM 4 11:45 AM 2 11:50 AM 5 11:55 AM 5 12:00 PM 8 12:05 PM 10 12:10 PM 12 12:15 PM 10 12:20 PM 8 12:25 PM 10 12:30 PM 7 12:35 PM 5 12:40 PM 7 12:45 PM 7 12:50 PM 10 12:55 PM 8 1:00 PM 9 1:05 PM 7 1:10 PM 5 1:15 PM 8 1:20 PM 7 1:25 PM 10 1:30 PM 9 1:35 PM 6 1:40 PM 1 1:45 PM 4 1:50 PM 4 1:55 PM 5 2:00 PM 3 Time Of Day Maximum Veh. Queue 4:30 PM 2 4:35 PM 1 4:40 PM 1 4:45 PM 2 4:50 PM 3 4:55 PM 2 5:00 PM 2 5:05 PM 1 5:10 PM 3 5:15 PM 5 5:20 PM 4 5:25 PM 2 5:30 PM 3 5:35 PM 4 5:40 PM 4 5:45 PM 3 5:50 PM 5 5:55 PM 8 6:00 PM 7 6:05 PM 8 6:10 PM 6 6:15 PM 5 6:20 PM 5 6:25 PM 4 6:30 PM 3 6:35 PM 6 6:40 PM 3 6:45 PM 3 6:50 PM 2 6:55 PM 2 7:00 PM 4 E N G I N E E R S TABLE 4 MAXIMUM QUEUE SURVEYS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2004 Chick-Fil-A located at 13490 Jamboree Road, Irvine Time Of Day Maximum Veh. Queue 11:30 AM 6 11:35 AM 8 11:40 AM 8 11:45 AM 4 11:50 AM 5 11:55 AM 6 12:00 PM 5 12:05 PM 6 12:10 PM 8 12:15 PM 7 12:20 PM 10 12:25 PM 9 12:30 PM 8 12:35 PM 6 12:40 PM 6 12:45 PM 9 12:50 PM 8 12:55 PM 10 1:00 PM 9 1:05 PM 10 1:10 PM 10 1:15 PM 9 1:20 PM 11 1:25 PM 11 1:30 PM 7 1:35 PM 8 1:40 PM 8 1:45 PM 7 1:50 PM 6 1:55 PM 7 2:00 PM 8 Time Of Day Maximum Veh. Queue 4:30 PM 1 4:35 PM 1 4:40 PM 3 4:45 PM 4 4:50 PM 4 4:55 PM 2 5:00 PM 4 5:05 PM 3 5:10 PM 1 5:15 PM 1 5:20 PM 3 5:25 PM 3 5:30 PM 1 5:35 PM 1 5:40 PM 6 5:45 PM 8 5:50 PM 8 5:55 PM 6 6:00 PM 5 6:05 PM 5 6:10 PM 10 6:15 PM 9 6:20 PM 8 6:25 PM 8 6:30 PM 3 6:35 PM 2 6:40 PM 3 6:45 PM 4 6:50 PM 4 6:55 PM 3 7:00 PM 4 ENGINEERS TABLES IN -N -OUT BURGER DRIVE-THRU QUEUING ANALYSIS SUMMARY The District at Tustin Legacy 0 - yy 0 0 �a O.O% 1 1 - 1 1 0.8% 2 _ 0 1 0.8% 3 3 3 6 7 5.6% 4 4 5 9 16 12.9% 5 6 3 9 25 20.2% 6 6 6 12 37 29.8% 7 4 3 7 44 35.5% 8 4 3 7 51 41.1% 9 1 3 4 55 44.4% 10 2 3 5 60 48.4% 11 3 3 6 66 53.2% 12 1 2 3 69 55.6% 13 3 2 5 74 59.7% 14 4 4 8 82 66.1% 15 3 1 4 86 69.4% 16 2 3 5 91 73.4% 17 5 3 8 99 79.8% 18 2 4 6 105 84.7% 19 2 2 4 109 87.9% 20 - 9 9 118 95.2% 21 2 - 2 120 96.8% 22 3 - 3 123 99.2% 23 - - 0 123 99.2% 24 1 - 1 124 100.0% Total JE 62 62 124 100.0% E N G I N E E R S TABLE 6 CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU QUEUING ANALYSIS SUMMARY The District at Tustin Legacy E N G I N E E R S I 6 TAT fromgI�,� M ;OVA7 *1111�� 5 lTI7 9P . l 3020 E1 Camino Real, Tustin Traveling on I-5, exit at Jamboree Rd. and bead east. Turn left at El Camino Real. The In -N -Out is located at the corner of El Camino Real and Jamboree Rd. in the Tustin Marketplace. Driving Directions to this store IT u Store Hours: Sunday through Thursday 10:30 a.m.-1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday 10:30 a.m.-1:30 a.m. In -N -Out Burger is not a franchise organization. 2004 In -N -Out Burgers. All rights reserved. In -N -Out®, In -N -Out Burger®, in -n -out®, in -n -out burger® and the Arrow Logo are registered trademarks of In -N -Out Burgers, a California Corporation. Terms & Conditions i Privacy Policy ATTACHMENT P Sign Plan and Elevations LL ' 03 N P VP' IPIH 544; 16 An- ell`i 90 8 Y 011 NLLSh, Do- atl153n — - —T oiuior!loo •u!is,j ADVOT Nusni ® loiai.sio 3Ni _ LOT18 �\ L LOT 16 � \ /'j:.• gym• - "R \ ` \\ � \ � <"OT 13 m • \ \ 8 m �% aw - � SOT 2 LOT I 4D i a^ _-L..0 5— -----9 LOT 17 •�'�' t —j OT AoT io 0 0 O � i _ xvmNadd V 3 N V Ve 1 7T1 NLLSILL OJNIpeEoVw�aO E oiwo;i�oO •wlsnl _._ w�-e �In _ AOV03-1 Mism ® 101H151O 3H1 .. N a e y �{pgS�BI�� 4 K O _ u � I o I O C POO ¢ M O w L^ C, 2 J m J "' lip it -IOF; lip H fll'i 7 .. N It, 54 a e �{pgS�BI�� 4 K N 2 0 3 u � I o I O C POO ¢ M O w L^ C, 2 J m J lip H fll'i 7 11 It, 54 a e �{pgS�BI�� 4 K N 2 0 3 u � pill, o I O C POO ¢ M O w L^ C, 2 J m J a e u � I 7 �n ol orvusru oervipe�"N:3n __ a Cd Pwo3 I iw;ilw y oo3 'snl m 7 wo Q p � f�j A3V931 NI1Sni ® lOtNiSl4 3H1 a g<. �..a gB 3 s $1§ N ATTACHMENT Q Resolution Nos. 3919, 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924 (Not Included - See Attachment C of Staff Report, dated July 26, 2004) ATTACHMENT B Letter from Jeff Axtel dated July 12, 2004 IV Vestar July 12, 2004 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Jeffrey M_ A)deA Project Director Vix Facsimile (714) 573 3113 Re. July 12u'5 2004 Planning Comnnission Rearing Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 Dear Elizabeth: Vestar Development/Kimco Tustin, L.P. requests that the above referenced agenda item for the July 12th, 2004 Planning Commission Hcaring be rescheduled to the next Planning Commission Hearing dated July 26`h, 2004. We request this rescheduling to allow us the opportunity to meet with the city staff to review and clarify the conditions of approval for each resolution. JMA/gp Enclosure cc; Rick Kuhlc, Vestar Development Co., via facsimile David Ristau, Vestar Development Co., via interoffice mail Christine Shingleton, City of Tustin, via facsimile tit MI' A -adl Tuuin,(:11y 44 1 LWin-;1.4,11el iv Eliiabelh 13+n:sack 1171_ 4 &%,n Vestar Development Co. 7575 Corson Boulevard Long Beach, California 00808 phone: 562.936.1722 Fax; 562.938,1744 OIN Z00/ZOO'd 919-1 VVI 1886292 012A -Woad Wd9£:ZO 1'O -Z1-20 ATTACHMENT C Revised Resolution Nos. 3919, 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924 RESOLUTION NO. 3919 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THAT THE MCAS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MCAS TUSTIN PROGRAM EIS/EIR) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16695, THAT THE MCAS PROGRAM EIS/EIR (MCAS TUSTIN PROGRAM EIS/EIR) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR CONCEPT PLAN 04-001, DESIGN REVIEW 04-010, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-015, AND VARIANCE 04-002, AND THAT ALL APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 are collectively considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; B. That the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) was certified by the City Council on January 16, 2001. The FEIS/EIR considered the potential impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, including development of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19. C. That an initial study checklist, attached as Exhibit A hereto, was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the Project. The initial study checklist demonstrates that all potential impacts of the Project were addressed by the certified FEIS/EIR, no additional impacts have been identified, and all applicable mitigation measures in the FEIS/EIR will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project (Attachment 2 of Exhibit A), Disposition and Development Agreement 04- 02, or as conditions of approval of the Project. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 and hereby finds for Concept Plan 04-001, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 Resolution No. 3919 Page 2 that this Project is within the scope of the previously approved MCAS Tustin Final Program EIS/EIR previously certified on January 16, 2001, that the environmental effects of the Project are within the scope of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR and were fully examined in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR; that no substantial changes are proposed in the Project or have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken since certification of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR; no new information has become available since the certification of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2116 and the requirements of CEQA regulations promulgated with respect thereto including Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no additional environmental analysis, action or document is required by the CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 26th day of July, 2004. JERRY AMANTE Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3919 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of July, 2004. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3919 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 (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3924) 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): Development of "The District at Tustin Legacy" Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Matt West Phone: (714) 573-3118 Project Location: Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS -Tustin Specific Plan (Reuse Plan Disposition parcels 10, 11, and 12), the future Warner Avenue to the north, the future Tustin Ranch Road to the west, Planning Area 18 (Reuse Plan Disposal Parcel 9) to the southwest, Barranca Parkway to the south, Jamboree Road to the east. Project Sponsor's Name.and Address: Vestar Development/ Kimco Tustin, L.P. 2425 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: SP -1 Specific Plan, Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 Project Description: Approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the City of Tustin and Vestar Development and Concept Plan 04-001, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002 for the purpose of developing 1,006,100 square feet of retail uses within a development to be known as "The District at Tustin Legacy". Surrounding Uses: North and West: Existing former MCAS Tustin Airfield Facilities South: Light IndustrialBusiness Parks East: Jamboree Road/Industrial Uses Northeast: Existing Single -Occupancy Hotel 10 Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. 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 att West, Associate Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Christine A. Shingleton, Assist ity Manager D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached Date: 11111#q Date "� - Date —/ if %. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR 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? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 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? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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 ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the prof ect? 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? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ 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 accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? fl 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ATTACHMENT 1 OF EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts PLANNING AREAS 16,17 AND 19 OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN VESTAR DEVELOPMENT — "THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY" DISPOSITION AN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 04-002, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16695, CONCEPT PLAN 04-001, DESIGN REVIEW 04-010, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-015, AND VARIANCE 04-002 BACKGROUND The former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially closed on July 2, 1999. The City was designated as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the reuse of MCAS Tustin and, acting as such, approved a Reuse Plan that provided for future land uses at the former MCAS Tustin on October 1996, subsequently amended on September 1998 ("the Reuse Plan"). The Reuse Plan was subsequently reviewed and approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as consistent with federal law regarding the homeless. In accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") of 1969, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the federal government and City prepared a Joint Final Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Final Joint Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the disposal and reuse of MCAS -Tustin (referenced as FEIS/EIR herein). The project is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, which includes 1,000 acres that have been conveyed by deed from the Department of the Navy to the City of Tustin and approximately 153 acres conveyed by lease to the City of Tustin for redevelopment of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). The project site includes approximately 111.77 gross acres within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and an additional seven (7) parcels leased to the City of Tustin by the Department of Navy, known as Lease In Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) parcels, as legally described in Navy documents as parcels III -C-3, III -C- 4, III -C-5, III -D-9, III -D-11, II -D-10, and portions of parcels III -H-13 and IV -G-3. The site is bounded by future Warner Avenue to the north, future Tustin Ranch Road to the west, the existing Army Reserve site to the southwest, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Jamboree Road to the east. Portions of Reuse Plan Disposition Parcels 8, 14, 16, 27, and 31 are also included within the boundaries of the vesting Tentative Tract Map for the sole purpose of showing the ultimate Warner Avenue, South Loop Road, and Tustin Ranch Road right-of-way improvements. The proposed project is a subdivision request for a vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 16695) for the purpose of creating approximately twenty-nine (29) numbered lots and twelve (12) lettered lots to accommodate approximately 1,006,100 square feet of retail development known as "The District at Tustin Legacy." The project request is also for Concept Plan 04-001 to verify the project is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan as a whole, Design Review 04-010 to review the site plan and building designs, Conditional Use Permit 04-015 to review two (2) drive-through restaurants, a movie theater, a gas station, master sign program, and shared Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 2 parking analysis, and Variance 04-002 to construct the movie theater building fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway where a minimum thirty (30) foot building setback is required, and at a height of sixty (60) feet where a maximum fifty (50) foot height is permitted within Planning Area 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Primary access to the site will be provided at the intersections of Warner Avenue and South Loop Road, Tustin Ranch Road and South Loop Road, and Barranca Parkway and Millikan Avenue. Excepting the requested variances, the proposed project is consistent with the requirements and intent of the Specific Plan. The applicant is proposing 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses and Alternative #1 in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin previously analyzed 1,442,710 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19. All related environmental impacts were considered for the FEIS/EIR and all applicable implementation measures and mitigation measures are either included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919), DDA 04-02, or as conditions of project approval, as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. Development of the vacant aircraft facilities, parking aprons, and open areas of short grasses would be replaced by a more urban view with vertical elements, such as buildings, driveways, parking lots, and landscaping. Development of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 was considered within the FEIS/EIR and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site when mitigation measures are incorporated with approval of the project. All exterior design is required to be in compliance with Section 2.17.3 (B) — Urban Design Guidelines for Non -Residential Development of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the applicable development standards in Sections 3.8.2 and 3.8.4, and the Landscape Concept Section 2.17.2 as they relate to design of Warner Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road, Barranca Parkway, Jamboree Road, the South Loop Road, primary street corners, and project entries. The applicant is requesting to construct a movie theater building fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway where a minimum thirty (30) foot building setback is required and at a Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 3 height of sixty (60) feet where a maximum fifty (50) foot height is permitted within Planning Area 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and will be processed in accordance with Section 4.2.4. In accordance with the FEIS/EIR, the proposal includes a design review application process in accordance with Section 4.2.2 for Development Project review, which will ensure that the design of the project is cohesive and in harmony with the surrounding development. The project will utilize a variety of lighting methods to create distinct lighting sub -areas, or districts, on the project site through the use of pole- and wall - mounted light fixtures, in -grade and above grade uplights, festival lighting in trees, etc; however, all exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section 2.17.3 (B) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR. 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 as identified in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-60. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Tustin Security Ordinance Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The project would have a minimal impact to Reuse Plan Disposal Parcel 31 and not impact prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. Also, the property is not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the proposed use involve other changes in the Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 4 existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Existing portions of the site are identified as "Airfield Operations/Agricultural" in the Specific Plan; however, except for an extremely small portion of Parcel 31, no area of the project site is currently used or designated as agricultural land. Consequently, no mitigation measures are necessary and no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. 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) Resolution No. 00-90 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? All air quality environmental impacts related to development of the entire Specific Plan area (including the project site) were considered in the adopted FEIS/EIR. Development of the entire project would: 1) be inconsistent with the 1994 and 1997 South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); 2) exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance for CO, NO, and ROC from long-term operation emissions from mobile (vehicular) and stationary sources; and 3) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance during some or all phases of the project for peak reduced emissions of suspended particulates (PM,o), reactive organic compounds (ROC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) due to construction activities. However, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, identifying specific justifiable economic, legal, Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 5 social, technological, or other considerations. Since the proposed project includes 1,006,100 square feet of retail development with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of .3 2, which is less than the 1,442,710 square feet and permitted FAR range of .32-.54 analyzed in the FEIS/BIR for the project area, no additional impacts are anticipated. Construction air emissions are also anticipated and would result from the following four (4) construction activities: 1) demolition (which may include asbestos removal); 2) mass grading; 3) site preparation and utility installation; and 4) building construction. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR. MitigationlMonitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR for operational and construction activities. However, the FEIS/EIR 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). Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 throughl53, 4-207 through 4-230 and pages 7-41 through 7-42) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 6 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species, however, the FEIS/EIR 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 will 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. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 as identified in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-60. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) 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? Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 7 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. 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. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 as identified in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-60. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? 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 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 8 disposal of wastewater? The FEIS/EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non -seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin 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. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4-115 through 4-123 and 7-28 through 7-29) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) 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? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 9 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? The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. Construction and operation of commercial uses would not emit hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Navy has prepared and approved a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), in compliance with the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR, determining that the Quitclaimed portions of the project site are suitable for transfer and reuse as previously planned within the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin and as shown in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Navy has also prepared and approved a Finding of Suitability Lease (FOSL), in compliance with the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR, determining that the remaining portion of the project site currently leased to the City of Tustin by the Department of Navy are limited areas where lease restrictions are in place to prevent human exposure to potential contaminants while Navy remedial action and ongoing investigations are being concluded. These areas, as they affect portions of the site to be sub -leased and conveyed to the Developer are identified on Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 as lots 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 28. In addition, the project is at least two (2) miles from John Wayne Airport, lies within a flight approach or departure corridor, and is within the within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP); however, the Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County has not adopted an Accidental Potential Zone (APZ) in the AELUP for MCAS Tustin. As a result, it does not pose an aircraft -related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• Compliance with existing deed restrictions, rules, and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts; no mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) 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 Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 10 1, 2, 3,and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The Final MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan FEIS/EIR analyzed potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality assuming a development potential of 1,442,707 square feet within Planning Area 16, 17, and 19 on the former MCAS Tustin. The proposed development includes 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses. In addition, in accordance with implementation measures in the FEIS/EIR, the City of Tustin and County of Orange entered into Cooperative Agreement D02-119 and an amendment to the agreement to ensure the improvement of regional channel facilities through the Tustin Legacy site, including preparation of a Runoff Management Plan (ROMP) that documents the existing watershed conditions and outlines a plan to mitigate development runoff through appropriate backbone infrastructure to accommodate issues of urban drainage, flood protection, and stormwater Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 11 quality. The developer will be required to provide final engineering documents and plans that are consistent with the requirements of the proposed ROMP. The project site is partially developed with several buildings and ancillary site improvements such as parking areas. The remainder of the site is vacant. The site currently drains from the northwest to the southeast; an existing earthen channel located adjacent to and running parallel with Jamboree Road conveys a majority of the runoff from the site. No part of the site is within a flood zone, as determined by FEMA, and there are no dams in the vicinity. The project site is not expected to be subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. As discussed in the Hazardous Materials section, there are several existing parcels that are leased to the City of Tustin from the Department of the Navy (DON), known as "Leases in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC)," that contain soil and groundwater contamination. These parcels underlie portions of Reuse Plan Disposition Parcels 11 and 12 and the future South Loop Road within the project area, and area identified on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695 as Lots 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, and Lot C. The FEIS/EIR found that reuse would not be impacted by hazardous materials in the groundwater or soil since the DON is in the process of implementing various remedial actions that will remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances located within the site. The DON has committed to an expedited schedule to support the rapid transfer of affected parcels to support early reuse as planned in the approved Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin. The developer will be required to obtain DON approval for any construction activities within any LIFOC parcels on their site and comply with any lease restrictions to protect the DON's remediation activities and prevent the spread of contamination. Until the property is conveyed, the terms of the ground lease with the Developer would preclude economic uses of the property with the exception of parking, landscaping, and hardscape improvements. Water Quality As noted in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR, reuse development would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site, resulting in contaminants commonly associated with urban development including motor oils, fuel, and other vehicular fluids, and trash being washed by rain and carried with runoff into local and regional waterways. In addition, temporary site clearing, grading operations, and dewatering have the potential to dislodge dirt, surface materials, and contaminated groundwater that could be carried off-site into the storm drain system. However, the FEIS/EIR acknowledged that all reuse projects would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for sediment and salinity in the Newport Bay watershed, which requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), including the treatment of wastewater, if contaminated, preparation of a Storm Water Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would implement specific best management practices (BMP) and preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would reduce potential impacts to water quality during construction and long- term operation to a less than significant level. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for the reuse of MCAS Tustin. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 12 Groundwater Other than construction dewatering, the project will not require continued groundwater pumping nor contribute significantly to groundwater recharge, which is anticipated to occur in off-site retention basins. The FEIS/EIR did not identify any significant impacts to groundwater. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would reduce any possible impacts to groundwater during construction and long-term operation to a less than significant level. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for the reuse of MCAS Tustin. Drainage As noted in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR, reuse and redevelopment would increase the overall amount of impervious surfaces and surface water runoff. Utilizing the existing storm drain system would not be practical since the system is undersized. As such, a conceptual storm drain plan was developed in coordination with the Orange County Flood Control District and included in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to identify necessary backbone infrastructure to carry the twenty-five (25) year return frequency storm. As discussed above, the Runoff Management Plan also discusses specified requirements related to drainage. The project developer is required to install portions of the public backbone drainage system surrounding the project site and comply with the ROMP to prevent impacts to the downstream regional storm drainage system. As part of these improvements, the developer proposes to lower and cover a portion of the existing Barranca Channel (a regional channel owned by the OCFCD) and the existing private drainage channel within the site adjacent to Jamboree Road and replace this drainage channel elsewhere on the project site. As required by the FEIS/EIR, the developer will be required to obtain Section 404 permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Section 1601 agreements from the California Department of Fish and Game to modify these channels. As required by the FEIS/EIR, the project developer would also be required to design and construct all necessary on-site (local) drainage systems to adequately convey or contain the 10 -year runoff, 25 -year runoff, and 100 -year runoff, including any necessary improvements associated with relocating and piping the existing earthen channel that runs parallel to Jamboree Road on Reuse Plan Disposition Parcel 11. In addition to designing for the 10 - year and 25- year runoffs, the developer will be required to ensure that on-site project improvements would not result in increased 100 -year peak discharges within and downstream of the project limits, and would not worsen existing drainage conditions at storm drains, culverts, and other street crossings, including regional flood control facilities or construct adequate on-site flood control infrastructure. With adherence to the applicable implementation measures in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR, no significant drainage impacts are anticipated. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 13 insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage shown in Attachment 2 were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan FEMA Map (1999) Tustin General Plan Runoff Management Plan Cooperative Agreement D02-119, as amended 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? The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Reuse Plan for the former base, such as land use designations, zoning categories, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infrastructure systems. On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council approved the Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin that established land use and development standards for development of the site. The proposed project complies with the development standards in Chapters 2.17.3.13, 3.8.2 and 3.8.4 of the Specific Plan, and compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Tustin General Plan Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 14 X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR indicates that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) Reuse Plan and WAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? As discussed in more detail in the Transportation/Traffic section of this analysis, the proposed project is anticipated to operate under the maximum permitted average daily trips (ADT) identified in the WAS Reuse Plan Traffic Study, and since Figure 3.14-1 of the Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 15 MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR establishes noise contours around 65 Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) based upon aircraft and traffic levels, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional traffic noise beyond that anticipated by the FEIS/EIR. In addition, Table 3.14-2 identifies regional commercial centers, which include commercial retail, banks, restaurants, and movie theater uses, and are "normally compatible" with community noise levels up to 75 CNEL. The FEIS/EIR indicates that existing uses on other roadways surrounding the site would not experience noise levels that exceed those established as acceptable for the affected land use resulting from the full build -out of MCAS Tustin, and impacts would be less than significant. Since the proposed project is consistent with the amount and type of land uses and traffic generation analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. The City of Tustin will ensure that construction activities will comply with the adopted mitigation measures from the FEIS/EIR, and with local regulations and standards identified in the City's Noise Ordinance (i.e. restricted days and hours of construction activities). While the FEIS/EIR requires an acoustical study to assess reuse traffic noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors adjacent to Warner Avenue, between Harvard Avenue and Culver Drive, the completion of this study would occur prior to Warner Avenue, in its entirety, being connected at Red Hill Avenue. 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 as identified in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-60. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3-162, 4-231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project will not add new housing, remove existing housing, or displace any people to necessitate construction of additional housing. No substantial change is expected Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 16 from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) 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 FEIR/EIS for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails; however, new facilities will be 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 will meet the demands created by the proposed project. A future fire station is also proposed within the Specific Plan area at Edinger Avenue and the West Connector Road. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Development of the site would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR. 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. The proposed project is located within Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). As a condition of approval for the project, the developer would be required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of the building permit. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 17 result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of 10,000 square feet for a branch library and would not trigger the need for a new facility. General Implementation Requirements: To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with FEIS/EIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. MitigationlMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included as conditions of approval for the project as identified in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-60. 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) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Reuse Plan, as a whole, provides for a new 85.5 -acre Regional Park, a 24 -acre Community Park and two Neighborhood Parks of more than five -acres and regional and community riding and hiking paths through the property. While the Reuse Plan process identifies individual developers' requirements for park land dedications, pursuant to the City's Subdivision Ordinance, commercial subdivisions are exempt from Park Land dedications or fees in lieu. The commercial project would provide pedestrian walkways on he project site and a Class II bikeway along Barranca Parkway not affecting existing recreational facilities, so no change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation Attachment I of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 18 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 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) 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? 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 indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. A projected 216,445 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by full redevelopment of the base by year 2020 that, if left unmitigated, would overburden existing roadways and intersections surrounding the base property. The FEIS/EIR indicates that traffic circulation activities at MCAS Tustin generated a baseline of 12,400 ADT when the base was fully operational (1993). The FEIS/EIR considered the traffic impacts and developed a mitigation program to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. In accordance with the FEIS/EIR, the applicant will be conditioned to participate in its fair share responsibility for both on-site and off-site circulation mitigation and implementation measures. The project site will be accessed from future Warner Avenue, future Tustin Ranch Road, and Barranca Parkway. Internal circulation of the site would be accessed from the public South Loop Road via private drive -aisles in compliance with the roadway standards of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 2.5.2(B) related to secondary arterials. Table 7-3 of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR establishes a trip budget which allocates Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 19 maximum thresholds of average daily trips (ADT) by planning area based upon land use. The project site, located within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19, is identified to permit up to 35,650 ADTs; the proposed development is projected to generate up to 33,933 ADTs, which results in 1,717 fewer overall trips. The project development will be phased based upon the development phasing exhibit (Attachment 3 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-60) and as follows: • Phase 1 (Minimum Project) will include development in Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 equivalent to 641,394 square feet, which will generate 19,411 ADT. Phase 1 Minimum Project does not include the eight Minor Pads within Planning Area 19. Phase 1 Minimum Project will be completed no later than twenty-four months following the permit issuance date, as identified in DDA 04-02. • Phase 1 (Minimum plus 8 -Minor Pads Project) includes the Phase 1 Minimum Project and the eight Minor Pads located in Planning Area 19, which is equivalent to 705,100 square feet of development and generates 24,671 ADT. The Minor Pads are to be completed no later than five -years following the Initial Closing Date, unless such Minor Pad is a Lease Parcel in which event the provision applicable to Lease Parcels shall apply, as identified in DDA 04-02. • Phase 2 includes the complete build -out of the project in Planning Areas 16 (including 301,000 square feet within LIFOC Parcels), 17 and 19, equivalent to 1,006,100 square feet of development and generates 33,933 ADT. Phase 2 development will be completed no later than thirty -months following the Subsequent Closing Date for the affected parcel, as identified in DDA 04-02. Tables 4.12-7, 4.12-8, and 4.12-9 of the FEIS/FEIR identify threshold criteria for implementation of mitigation improvements at arterial intersections based upon cumulative ADT's approved for the entire Legacy Project. Based upon the project phasing plan, the cumulative ADT for the Phase 1 Minimum Project (19,411 ADT) and the previously approved ADT (6,177 ADT) for Reuse Plan Disposition Parcels 33 and 34 is 25,588 ADT and is within the cumulative minimum threshold criteria required for arterial intersection improvements, which is 32,000 ADT. The cumulative ADT for Phase 1 Full Project (24,617 ADT) and the previously approved ADT (6,177 ADT) is 30,848 ADT and is also within the cumulative minimum threshold criteria required for arterial intersection improvements. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the traffic analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/FEIR for MCAS Tustin. The cumulative ADT for Phase 2 (33,933 ADT) and the previously approved ADT (6,177 ADT) is 40,110, which is greater than the minimum threshold criteria of 32,000 ADT. This triggers arterial improvements at the intersections of Grand Avenue/Edinger Avenue and the SR -55 Southbound Ramps/Edinger Avenue in the City of Santa Ana. Improvements at the intersection of Grand Avenue/Edinger Avenue are subject to provisions of a Settlement Agreement between Tustin and Santa Ana, dated February 22, 2001. Improvements at the SR -55 Southbound Ramps/Edinger Avenue are programmed to be completed as part of the City's Edinger Avenue Widening between SR -55 and 1400' east of Red Hill Avenue Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 20 Project (CIP No. 7147). Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/FEIR identifies threshold criteria for implementation of on-site mitigation improvements. The minimum ADT criteria for roadway improvements is 27,000 ADT (cumulative). Based upon the aforementioned traffic information for each development phase, it is concluded that the Phase 1 Minimum Project ADT and the previously approved ADT, which is 25,588 ADT, is under the minimum threshold. Therefore, the roadway improvements in Table 4.12-10 are not required with this phase of development. However, the Phase 1 Full Project ADT and the Phase 2 ADT, along with the previously approved ADT, are both over the minimum threshold and would trigger the construction of Landsdowne Road, West Connector Road, and North Loop Road between Red Hill Avenue and West Connector. The requirement to improve Edinger Avenue adjacent to the Legacy Project was completed in 2002. In addition, the City has programmed the construction of the Valencia North Loop Road and Armstrong Avenue within MCAS Tustin Project (CIP No. 7139) for completion within the next 24 -months. This project includes the construction of the roadway improvements in Table 4.12-10 associated with the minimum threshold of 27,000 ADT. This would fulfill roadway mitigation improvements associated with full build -out of the project. The project is adjacent to and results in traffic impacts at the intersection of Jamboree Road/Barranca Parkway. The traffic analysis prepared as part of the FEIS/FEIR considered traffic impacts at this location and determined that significant unavoidable traffic impacts would remain at this location. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted as part of the FEIS/FEIR. The project is proposing to design and construct roadway improvements in the City of Irvine as part of the orderly development of the project and the entire Tustin Legacy. Improvements include the widening of the north side of Barranca Parkway, consisting of relocation of electrical transmission lines and utilities in the roadway medians, reconstruction of the medians and left turn pockets, adding travel lanes, and Class I and Class II bicycle lanes. The widening of the Barranca Parkway is a mitigation measure of the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) Project in the City of Irvine, but is necessary at this time to facilitate orderly development of this project. The project is also conditioned to improve Warner Avenue in the City of Irvine from the East City boundary to near Construction Circle, and to improve the Warner Avenue Southbound on and off ramps at Jamboree Road where they intersect with the future South loop Road. The project applicant is conditioned to coordinate any construction activity in the City of Irvine with their staff and obtain all necessary City permits. In addition, construction activities are required to comply with all transportation related FEIS/EIR Implementation and Mitigation Measures (e.g., lane closures, street/utility construction, construction vehicle traffic, etc.). With these mitigation measures, potential impacts to transportation and circulation resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: A Statement of Overriding Considerations for traffic Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 21 impacts at the intersection of Jamboree RoadBarranca Parkway was adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/FEIR. However, mitigation measures were 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 as identified in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-60. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-118 through 3- 142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-41) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Tustin General Plan Development Phasing Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The FEIR/EIR analyzed new off-site and on-site backbone utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed retail development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste management. The proposed project is consistent with the permitted uses analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, and the project is under the assumed 1,442,710 square feet of commercial uses. In accordance with the FEIS/EIR, 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. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 22 No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 as identified in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 04-60. 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) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) 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 previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed project is within the scope of the FEIS/EIR. With the enforcement of FEIS/EIR 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 Consideration 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 resources, and traffic/circulation. The project does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3919 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 04-02, VTTM 16695, CP 04-001, DR 04-010, CUP 04-015, VAR 04-002 Page 23 FEIS/EIR. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-167 through 2-171, 3- 105 through 110, 3-115 through 118) Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. 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. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90), and will apply to the proposed project, as applicable. S:\Cdd\MATT\Vestar\ENV\Vestar-Initial Study-analysis.doc ON ) rl °' co cy � ° In CN z a U cqs H O u V O � J W O �I p•r p� a> � o 0 � a ohH O � �wA Hw 3 U > QI �x ,SAF" F0� t, 0 w ��z a�w C •Cy. 0 en M C N O\ N �o = O +r C i, M M H 4, cd �' CV A z N o N � a' moo° hzo opo°04 C ri y �i CE p 0 O N r4 bD CD a� C4oad' °Cd� a,a L O U O N 'Q ) co cy � ° In CN U U OC cqs H O U ^-U» Cd O N 02 O c0. O C p•r p� a> � o 0 a O a ° Hw 3 U > QI R fl.•8, F0� t, 0 o C •Cy. en M C N O\ N = O +r C i, M M H 4, cd �' CV °' a z N o N � a' moo° hzo opo°04 C ri y �i CE p 0 O N r4 bD CD a� C4oad' °Cd� a,a L O U O N 'Q R a zra, x•+ wz� �.Eb c3 cl � � o M zl er voi "-4= o C >�wQ.' C O zH �a (D°� z� o�.�� �o C �F0���� aW�3"•3c .r E Cot 'd o o A wZ°�•�� :c a w 3 o a H H U w E C ..» to O y U O G bo a O a ° 3 U > o C •Cy. en M C N O\ N = O +r C i, M M U •� •� � a. O A I o M C ri y �i CE p 0 O N r4 bD CD RR M cl M L O U O N 'Q R a d x•+ e: � � o M '0 C E� C O ow �F0���� .r E 3 „ c o o :c a w 3 o a o`�o-= U> :E p o � � � aoi ca = W OD d i ° ami o.�� c� 3 r- Lnwi0U C cn CIS ._� . a U G U N "3 N 0�cqJ Nsz •b •N •Y 3-I ed CO Cd Oba H bib o o .� o o `� N bA R V >0 U U co d ti F- aoi a w 3 v °u cd Fs N 19 oro ° c E ^ n o S' o .E ? o .5 toi -0 -0 o a > O V > O V Ca ELtu o E cd =D C E C a C 0 4 C W O(1)> UCa O UCa > ur: � U L U L d L •R'� ON O� N �' O Cr) = N O� N L U O Q 4\ M L C> O �. O\ M y y 0� D\ M O O O v H y QMv� :a U rCi. C N O Q S7 i COO v, N U d O Q 'C y ¢, o d O N C O R O C� O C� 0 O 9z Z en gz a, R + " r:+ O� N b C^ + E + N 71 C� SU + + :� i + N bD u 7 L C? M M v d O i O M M i 4 CQ O U sC, C M M O tm O p eJ y O r V y O vi C, C U CL �'�� •"" O L H Cn C pr F, eeaiM ca C. RSM ceaiM CE O cl O cq 4. p p Gl, U L r. CC a. U 1. r. O ^� O .b cz t1 E q O E❑ U a. y on w >, w w f1 > > �+ O F O O > X U X ci::°�' c bp � � U � -- O .0 '� •►, � ¢, aCi O � ami cd _0w N > coo '> o C. W.'.' a� .c a> w O S'. it cc L" ii' C U HE — to a>w o+ > o '- C co arc 0 > 'on,� o •cl a'i o -d 'Q'3 E CZ o a _in.c 0. G E Q. ° U R .0 0 y E O, on cr.o LL ° L U E U E w C O Q a� co o 40, OV ca o p >, mi p' a� aoi aoi H o Ute.. ' •> U O o v " G" o> F>." L N U yO.� 7 yam„ OL .,V. • C,,�i ,D y TC b N 19 5 W $ a o . CIS o . C cc u bA O R ( Q O R ai C a.•c w R o,. W U A O U A Q u p o C .Ri yta •� U •L C a eq C U •L ri .� ON ienen .-r en 3 C4 C O A (14M Za� A u� u A M C Z C C > Uel O C r el b N b�A L a L 7 M C U y N R Ri R R G:i M R M O ccu O C+ �, 4•-. O O •G 4. cu O > V U C+ U c,3CU ❑cu � p C .0 C 0 0 0.4°^) O 4- 4 p Q 3 �>>' > Aw b oNo., a� 13. a 3 o d d a3i •-rn o a R O cr U O ~ cd U N C, s.• N y Ti R 0 0 }O a� O '� � � b O N •G�. .� c� � O v .+ R R O v O am. cA C O �C y +' R C1 0. � y T R' f Q> N w Cd 4. LL > R C O u 6, A. O 5 W v � C 0 i p U E cc p y m .O O L O } 14 O U Z w� o m O •C L>. -- C1 + -- c, r. cn O y N O in. a) V C EO bD O bD E O rj N en ,^ C N N bD rry •^ C N p� N f7. CJ_ OM �_ O O\ M M N U C O 03�++ O. O Q T1 O� p '� y p., O Q ^O O ONi 3 y¢ Or Q ^O O� M 'Z M � Z M •C. i.+ +El + v ca C s0.. C M M O. eC O i C ,� M M U C» 7 L C 3 MM V y N T3 p y+ r. O t� vO N C p %. �.. O V CAN ^C �+ a R ai M eCC (�•. U �' Q. R ai M R rte+ �O U bA }cz 4.4. 440 N cd O cd U w U O. cd" v R ct cqj cd O n .`a O O O O p N F: o 0 0 as cncoil 4 4- cc$ C U > > c� 0 owN O O C U � O O .4 > t CLcO O p 0.o W a>U o ~ o> co Q w w CL o~ o o °�' 0 o a Fes- ami �' a" P. c,3o c '" . 'o U° ami ti „� o o c >, o a>i --0cd �4.ao�� � cd 4w yc b �)E. N 0 u�-0 0P a n �b 5onO cdm ob — o°' cn on o •0 U A "a, N b n¢ �' °">,ami o 0 0 ° a O a 0 O 0 C7 aami r.A - .b U ate, —`� U¢ y C03 s ai �+ 3 b O> O E cd a Ln ° p c,ti ; ° •flp SO••N . _o E " S° i•+ „yp „cCC O OQ M .n ° tY .0r�ac�ca3 co O O r�,�o.�wy-0o.�°�' CA 0 0 a v W. 5 11) 0 O. O g Ha�� tu O o C tu O C' °y O Q 'LS cu M A O A y M O gz � � C •++ � a>i C C w� O C .--i > U C�� A O C .-i > V ^p A bD a D\ O C3 cV �+ N .a M "0 � �bA • � O bD O O � � R CQ C � U � C o C ^ L ^ p U v� N • ^+ O CLA N a pA L C o � 3 ° bA U O C c's : In. • LZ O .V o a) X > O U O °" ~ O O o `n O _ 0 U t3 p G a) > O Y 0 •G + cd O 'n p Qi 0 .,C "G •bp ••��j ° O ° O 'O >�� °'°c am 503Ln 0 Ln 00to on 'o En ., � o ° o° °� x c� Cc N w o° c > 3 b o w° ° o O ate, o � cn O U «t Cd pUp U cIScO `n U t3 •'" r .O mc a i cl o Cd >1 W a) EnTy �' Cd N tomt�, v�wl w Y a`i s.-. cca Sao Q "aU 'T3 0 p 0 y o d> iZL, `Ui b 'C v 0. 40. c1d. o ... .N.� 5 11) 0 C = o Y U 'L p •.�. �' N Cd r. rn � tBN a tb w �No a o aa3 E E»Qx R O� N .14 C N O� N .14 (7) N �p M N c» .0 O •� �' >-, M C-1 � � .o w C � M N s., c.OQ^�o o� � n. Z Z a > o 'Y�i ,� C bD a •"' M N O N S 'b i:+ �+ R .o �+ M N p +, eta on �O �bAO �bOO O OOMN QM N C OOM p L O c� v �O OpM � a M ��r a` V te a, a M R C a a m ccC en cl W ^C R w V, R > L 4-. O. C O ., ~ O Cd d O C U > O py R y C w L O > O C y O C O a '� b y y Obo O a� SYN °0 Y > �' C o M Y Y cw: •o " oo U OD>� o o � x� L En 0 0 ¢ O acd us 3 0 •o o U R n-0 °o o ° �o ° ° O' b -o a��b 0 o c �o Z y *Qj, 'X '� d .0 = O ,=cn 0 ,,. o y U yCO, nJ• N th , ° cd c :a cd O 0 N U- 0 N Vl dCc °� 3 0" o p 0 y c'i oEi3 i +� i c 4,�,Uoo. a�i4.- 3 o 0° o 0 � 0 o c� o ami °Q• E- o Cd to U o .0 °? w v v Q `. � ° °' .0 o O y ocd U O. M C Cd aa) o E E o 0 n c en ;Q a0i o a0i � C 'L C 0. c O. y O 03 O C z: O a > o U >cj i. N 5 u u Q Q U C L � bD O S. � bA O C0 rrj N M 04 R R .0 .O b R .0 O O ta U Ew a Raen C o o o 0 C O b O cd cl) a�C/J •0 4. +� cd b a> v 3 0> oq o „ ° °' E " o . g ami �• �' � �' � � c � a? � °�' ° �`�„ � ami . � o�nc� 2 O¢.. a�"i � � � c c i'� ami in. — cz-o>, o oono �� GE cd cd �; O = 7 Y > 'o a °� o 3 a o a vl U N CO > 'b aci o 'o' b '� °' °�' w �' "O N o � m Q. w �'•' .v C0 �? .1 L by ��., � y 0 � .= •� � v � .— C w A O a� >> mul O, Q >, °' C a> O ami o c a+ .4 y tj >Ocn w 7t -0w' m O L' c� -0 o C M. c2 m um Q. c� o � a� . U OA cC � . . �$=c��ha a� c 0 °o-oo _ u "C . O �- i a> o O C = =cn O. y a> 4110 at N a n Q' O O cl _ O � C � oa y (� >o� r�Fa n Cdy >L�� AFa >o n� s cd Cd W UCa> UCa UCa LC O O M bD Kj to �y M y U i- -- M y w L ^� M'An L C y U Z O W5 O CM C. a� O M C Z O Q A y O M Z O a> 3 C, A y as s G O �+ N� A Ca �y/ u N i.+ to +"' .0 p M O tw O O M CL R 'O R O M C. R O R i G N .a CL •0 L O O '� rn N ^p O bA •O w %. O O O v 'A CL O bA O M M U CL .+ 0. iYi M U [L ''' R 0 0. C=C 0. 0, C O �' bA to bA GQ O pas R W..�. O O .�. O 7 a� c O. > O cl a) G, cvOi crs ami Q- O Id c0 p ani .��. O CZ cts U 4.� 0 a) v1 4) ti cn � •v U ° c � � � .� •Cd 0 3 a to O °O a) U> O 3 a�w o.a,� o D a>i U a 0. ¢ �; cl R � °'o o cn a.Vj Q' b � _ tre r. w =moo 0 0 0 >, U a cn wG, tu c co a .E � N o En >� W uCl H�zu Eo ta 8 0 •� M � 's; � .� O� C N N �.+ 'y; C � O� .yam � M �.j s.. y i. G> 0 4 ,� C '� ... O >+M N u •COO M N c ami w vCi p ami Z M CRA M 00 U O C R D bD ^AO CAO 00 O O N � bA0 00 N p ai M R G. U isr ai M a U i:+ R ❑ U ° C U Q C G ~ Vim] O CCV' EL. p O p � O a n a cc ° o CpA y y mo=o �-�=— cl ❑ o Y o C C 44 o, o w U C U c� E� CIS R � ❑❑ 'E cl ° 'er c $ c E 4_ 4' > o U cYC U y F p, cs N b u m .R O b4 FD- al � y U iu. o S1 . , a� o b O O U a o w a :' CA °• I o a� O R U _ -0vpi" O . n. n co Cd U. U cc 0 o 0 E° ° m M ocr, a R .0R R ° 3 U a� U a�too'°. �a o 0 03 v� o c ci 5 M 0-S CDo A a. aXi c 3 v 0 ON tR c •- • c L o � _ o C a) N Fil /N� > y co � ^ U H •. O �r i. «S G od w Cd W CA CA > ❑ ca" Fo A U Q � C bD O M y y E bD O L o O M pj bA M N O O C M N yM N .� C •�� �' p >, M N (, � y� O Q ^C O O\ R• R L Qn � C z nZ •.� E M y C+ U A C vci C C = C CA G> C G> C A O 'n O N C a+ O N a> +_+ O �, + E ;a *,=O� N C +�+ F R � tG*=a� y N bRD 7 L bAO C M M OO _R y G bR�A L C M M ouO OO O O Q, bD R �c �tu0 N p M OCA CL �1r M a O N•Q V E M R T .+ L r� O e� v, N ^O ♦�.+ CSC Fii CCC 0.i a U U V w R a M cCC C � bA U O _ U O L' co C U R Q a) mICE w CdO 40 C1 O v bo�A o b boA ami -0LU. CC -0 R a iU-fC .fl bD o T3 bb .b b ^x Ch COC i yy+ +... ��/ w .ity] �... 7••• E 7 '� U bn CO 0 0 o M 0 3 CZ n •ti a.) bA == a GL Cd o U aci o w ai ti' 3 SSA o C co a� �, o �' m .S on o w y �s N °�' U >, r° ty U �>, b o c >, o= 3° '� S Y '+ 20 o, 'y y U bc A ,o 0 L 0 O 0. � 3� �En C a� c, o w, 0 ,-cz L O GCCC 'O of r- 0 .o c rcC. O ,� 0� U y 0 w U) o� Cd c° J o h G. 0 d a v c, aa) o w ac' ° I cdo o .o_`ts ., a 0 78b 0 0 > o > .0 0 V > o � CZ � � 0 � o o � GO ul o °? �b E E U ¢, • • • • • • U O aJ _y tR ti F c o ¢ r o �N ^ ° V3 a. , W UC�> o a > c U L y N en U c o •3 � a° Q � o� oO �� a° C. czM u y as S yA �ZM A y y a� c O r.+ O �+ O N '^a E w Q, N _ ai b CC iE �, O� N CQ bD CC L M O" en —C)'¢ to R L p D M M 4 V v° N 'B 09 M R Q+ V :Sr co ai M cC u p •O ++ O C b4 c bA � aci y 03 E c o U CC � c E D U O ° L 0 Ob cq �'' .5 .° o EL v c a cas O w b cOi p w w ani Y ° G. C O '> co *" 0 co aq z O °: 0 w by a V. c >, woo ai ° bo . o on CISo -0 bOA a3 w 0 6, 0 W ,�, O OU a I .6' ami o C's ami to > dA �o «t pOp .`� ,o O c7 cd abi o n Q ami by O c °" ° C,3°' a� �' i on c a� i. 1 bA O ° y bA �+ O a(1) u .o i > O a> } •d y n �c N C' t� U oU bq:b � 'M � O =° oo o 0 c i ocz aci °c° 0b > a c c �, o aci °'cdc °�' °A o o. o o c L c a �•c °�'•v � �Q az•i Fes- �•3� � � ac°> .0 U O N Q. ti F R Ccu a0i O d O U as y N 'c cqs oa 00� H Cac Q� O A a Y 5 COT CA> ti> CA a O (1) � C L � bD0 L � R is C N M O� P1 bA0 M .4 O N O\ N a> V O A N O O Q O C u 0.° M 40 4° CNiz en Od C� 'L3 R C 'rO�+ N -� O 7 •� w 'O tua C.O�AO SAL N G �MM O U _ M O.� R bAL O �M U ori. bD O O O Gi m N 't% O p +� y w.. O ++ a U E wp� RaM R a U+C+a Ran Q C O C3 a w O O y U b u r y �� W �i V N "Cy C � to 10) c3 >1 U O rn O y � o , O In. 0 Cl a� o 7.1 a,� N, o sb �+ v yb d Qo � (1) aU'> c co W 5 C �, o o Q 0 u C1 0 � cc 3 cd It a� an 0c a� a� o �, .I.. Lz *_ 0 0 0 0 > o t .o "C �• i"i �. Gl. cd 4. o ccs N o o= o O � o a a� > i� u y y o, y o w 3 ai C � w �'�' '� is -o o -cs ., 3 .c o . a� b o 0 lo Ll* Ln cm o a C* N � � N U a H H R 8 F ►j al t Y 6" cOC S°. L U ct U U N 'O cC `.," U R 0 ems, CtS cd v 4 - co 0.0 N a> a� +- G R w O y w 0 o•d Ct H •- o b a��i E v �» y:fl O N N G �, 4. a� o o o ° o °? O L o r. O O aUi cUi p O is O C °O. i C'sm❑ CIS . R W O A b N �, C O R ORA 0. O O v 0 O Co > o 4: cv ° „ R a� H .0E 39 a ll� Cc `o w .. o � a°i .o o �, 0 m to cc o 0 000 ob4. aLn 14 oi .8 aoi a bcd = > a % ° 3 .� 0 4- ,4 O O � to 40. H •� � U N O bio � ¢• ado O L. C ' A r o 0 m0, E bn to ❑ 0 0 00 O e Z A; E .O Q O w 'C O 4.. O U co y N N 0 '�.:O Q, > N O O or. 0H >, . r = o cdR O ti 0 0co 4J N o o [� o C* A¢ yC* V361o is . to U ai J� E aUi p; y0j) O cd i 0. v U cc o o U o o a0i o 0 m ca M ,° o v o. v o w o ° ° � to ami W oo �, as W ° R 0 U y Z U > y Ste, o 4� 0 40.aoic� W �-0"S �� 3 C O � c c U�i •� o 0 n' R L O� •p O� •'� U d U R p y 0 a bA ai O � � R 0 C O O M EE O N • ^ R � y C � GCi •Ll. � Q 3 •L" L L a� bA R bA in O O O M p Q R (/� �. o .0 n .0 oar, L acv* w 8 F ►j al t Y 6" cOC S°. L U ct U U N 'O cC `.," U R 0 ems, CtS cd v 4 - co 0.0 N a> a� +- G R w O y w 0 o•d Ct H •- o b a��i E v �» y:fl O N N G �, 4. a� o o o ° o °? O L o r. O O aUi cUi p O is O C °O. i C'sm❑ CIS . R W O A b N �, C O R ORA 0. O O v 0 O Co > o 4: cv ° „ R a� H .0E 39 a ll� Cc `o w .. o � a°i .o o �, 0 m to cc o 0 000 ob4. aLn 14 oi .8 aoi a bcd = > a % ° 3 .� 0 4- ,4 O O � to 40. H •� � U N O bio � ¢• ado O L. C ' A r o 0 m0, E bn to ❑ 0 0 00 O e Z A; E .O Q O w 'C O 4.. O U co y N N 0 '�.:O Q, > N O O or. 0H >, . r = o cdR O ti 0 0co 4J N o o [� o C* A¢ yC* V361o is . to U ai J� E aUi p; y0j) O cd i 0. v U cc o o U o o a0i o 0 m ca M ,° o v o. v o w o ° ° � to ami W oo �, as W ° R 0 U y Z U > y Ste, o 4� 0 40.aoic� W �-0"S �� 3 C O U�i Ute,, � ,_, U N C n' R L O� •p O� •'� U d U R p y O p. A bA ai O � � R 0 C O O M EE O N • ^ R � y C � GCi •Ll. Q 3 •L" L L a� bA R bA in O O O M p Q R (/� �. M .0 n .0 i3r U iYi Cp0 8 F ►j al t Y 6" cOC S°. L U ct U U N 'O cC `.," U R 0 ems, CtS cd v 4 - co 0.0 N a> a� +- G R w O y w 0 o•d Ct H •- o b a��i E v �» y:fl O N N G �, 4. a� o o o ° o °? O L o r. O O aUi cUi p O is O C °O. i C'sm❑ CIS . R W O A b N �, C O R ORA 0. O O v 0 O Co > o 4: cv ° „ R a� H .0E 39 a ll� Cc `o w .. o � a°i .o o �, 0 m to cc o 0 000 ob4. aLn 14 oi .8 aoi a bcd = > a % ° 3 .� 0 4- ,4 O O � to 40. H •� � U N O bio � ¢• ado O L. C ' A r o 0 m0, E bn to ❑ 0 0 00 O e Z A; E .O Q O w 'C O 4.. O U co y N N 0 '�.:O Q, > N O O or. 0H >, . r = o cdR O ti 0 0co 4J N o o [� o C* A¢ yC* V361o is . to U ai J� E aUi p; y0j) O cd i 0. v U cc o o U o o a0i o 0 m ca M ,° o v o. v o w o ° ° � to ami W oo �, as W ° R 0 U y Z U > y Ste, o 4� 0 40.aoic� W �-0"S �� 3 Mo C •- � y" t, %r L C 03 C U E C> C O N c. 0 CIS cd O Cd 42 W .fl a A a U cc A UasA O N O � y Itu ai a_+ r7i, •�' '� O � M N s... .0 7 CA W; e4 •= Gn O C. � > v 'C eq �' bD R M • + ^C a M N ao es a\ w ° •� 30. O U vpiN O y .� ya p bnO OOn O y O O N b u �+ La. U E RSM U r. ° vi C �' •- L=• b°A i" .D ,�" ° ° p fzr C�, +"o as o a) O E E o o w� °° o o 0o bp N O O ..+ O 6> C O N Z" cC GL O � m bA [� 'CJ O u O E � '-' 5 bq O.r b�A � �,,, fir t bA Qcr�m�m bCA A/ U ._ .+ F., O O O bA > o C U) ��tW QCs SOA ict '� N � U � C O .� G N N N i11 o. 3 ° e c o �' •C O Er 3 Q o c as `a p � C o 6 a ° '+4 'c> O ami ° . � *C O, •: cj a, a. b on 0 � �n (D to,cd � U °'1'..'��• a'�3�� �"aU�� ua� �o�� O 0 o= °�' 3 'z S ��asr Cc o cz a' C roU Q. . L4 '"� ' A 0 43 oCC Q 4, n a"' y o o 0-o *v a—oi aEi v o F- ° c E �>+ �� y o�p U 3 44 y ' > y cCc aCi C to 'b o o a a' a> ,> ca44 cilU o" F" �r +� +� L a� C 3 O a) 4p. m C C 'O U O. Q c �: G GL O w Ts 3 a> bk oCd o U ami s� o 0 4LA =a. a� fiio 'cc 0 .c o w° o 3 cv " a a� a r.Y a? E $ E `� 44o .1 ° ° o> Fes- v� •�" ° o ° a' ¢ t o oCZ o o U>icd aai a o to ^d ai U Mo Z R O bA L O cq u sl O Q HA3 L r+ � >a C.O C N O� N •�• C N O� N � „`�,C N N •y •L O� O :'�; � � � � M O G O O N � O O � M �.+ y •p .0 O� M N � .fir � L � O •� O >a M n Z M A AU Z M U A O N Ca E G>C Z .0 C O O r i vY A+ Ef O N C r+ �+ N U. C O O O M O R- CRD O OA bA 0 0 0 M "a n ami R bRD 7 bA L C M M ' O �.. i L N 'C LC O y OA 0 0 0 p O �^ L O v n e4 •p M R U U "rO 0. 0 n R O.L. U R C C W ° bA C b moi." c'Ici %Sr. NCUP1 p t,( .: w� o o N w O . oOC pM V C OO Z , UflUOrn .O^Gp4. .a, bA a� ¢ p z r. c co ct o cq0 > F " 0. U > W �C a, a o, "D > o cq q-4 °' • w °L' w o Cd y F O.� of C >, ��. as O R zO cc m tt,U_, Com' C1 O l...+. Gw-n.i .O° }+ }• '�a+ U O +c -C' U U 'rN N -- — N 4�0ca:+' U > �wO U� '}O• E y OcC O ba •R�C 'R Cy d- U O 3 O. ai 'O O ay E �EtsO + uwl � cd U W o ° �`c:' . Ko > a a> 8 9^" L . b Yr w y > Ln �U o Lc nb =' • to O RO. •+'' `n N W " N>O UU Oi 3 .X u �+ "O 4 OF"bO N3 .R SO pUHoA u a-+ COL 3S N Q cd N�N v)rl O ^'b Ob c Or. ❑O^- •2 [OOC 0. .+ ,y� +a -i' .bN '� LWL O�J" Ute ob r.. O 'v O > 0 •ln > m U fes, sU. >, �n O .D ;' o QL) vY c •� 03 •^Ui �'-' wai co a� .RN i c (1) am"o°O. U° y En bD Ed •r>',,A y = 0 Ll M bA 0 O G1. O C w cOO ► O O Ut .0 O r: Q>Qj i'�.. �. 4:' y O OCd bU t7 y > Ucd E o cc") o a a� a� o L L> 3 w a . W 3 E- o, w° c .� .c =o a o, "v c a .S a E°- ti eF- N M Q Q r� Z -a 0 o c LIS CIS C a� �a E� Q� o ° E(L)T Y u U ss Ca W � L)°>' ° HQ3 o uQ 0 b� L q N O\ N C N N O\ M p U a R i O Q v N u d Q M A O �-Oi u A v bAa ai C Com.+ •� C '� C4'O > G s C O C ,y Rt O O N > 0 c�a cl C OMM .� CA vbAi G'~' , M N R7 'AILIaM •� p= bD O O O p u n N cC6. C O � C � O U -C vO ti cnC ' 0 a a ° Y Cd Y(U aQi C O.° O O N +c °� 03O E o y v .s at d C U C N C O 0o�'U3>o. Cr O y °v oY3o �. ., .� = a0i 6 ObW O U N ,� Y -_ E U H -b 6 4. 42; -Fi Uw a> o .� w 3 .. - b o a> on U U o D° t r 'U r. fl O C>❑¢Qn cz Q OO C avCsi VCO . ' UNM z -j t, cOoC ^o to p '"cy u cd 0al ?? is o .0M r 0.O aN. CyO'o C aC �O a> bA cd > ❑a y ° r. cu LV 7-1 cz: o 5 U ` ° UN w 4. a w„ cz ° 00 None o C a o w° c e- ° a� Y o U o w b 3 n o ❑ 0 a cn o o> C* o a cn 03 aoi ° a > w >, v rw-o. Uw U.. a c a3 ° & c°>w �b o o 2 c. w ^a i •Q" O �_ i y�� O\ M i v 0� O� M a •� � O A� O C O Q„ � b O ON1 a M �� ��°rr a� m a p O ONS CQ �+ +' O C +- O ON O R E C O C cC � � �+ cd C 0A C y .5 - a L O D > W U 1 C i •Q" O �_ i y�� O\ M i v 0� O� M C •� � O A� O C O Q„ � b O ON1 a M �� ��°rr a� m a p O ONS CQ �+ +' O C +- O ON O R E R On R C O\ pn p bD bn O O O M .L" a N bD R R p M .a bn C tm bn O O p M O L y vU f4 C V E �:� RaiM R a V a'C+a. vaM R C i O R C a a L O ttii O L � R 7 C y y . &5 Q•' O bA C R Ar .O bn vi� O C bb C on on ° r. co 0 ° ° `� oon ° a0i w. rn _o cz 0 ° 41) d M, E- v 0 Iti > a c ono ° c o m w 'E60.2 o O O cr L C cd' a� p p 'cy O C U X cc, cn of O O b �' U U C U R C to 0 O— CCis cn O 4? � q V Y C O C bn Ocf) y wo. ' 'o >, o U o" o C 0� � V) .�' p, Ccd � Q> 0 i � C C3 0cn co R y In in. 7 S ° ti .� C Q a U ►a kn -- 4.. ,� o 0 c � � y .Y '.O ti '_..' O 4N o w �' o v a o°as b 0 .d 94 p 3 N L vOi 0- m= u II w o �°' y O � a�4. �'i o cqs '> j' cn Cdv aOi 3 oar `�' Y �0 ao v° o o mu -a 0 W Cd a� 3 0 ° �v ° ° �.�cc b OLO Cd o o'^ °a, o � `� cl own aoi 'n ! o aoi o ° v ai ° E ty o u 0 o > M a v o cn •+ c o a� Q G' a `bOb ° b g. m b = c° L C aui .uN, °' sem, oLn o °�' en a> W U :o I u 4° Q om. � a» E 04 3 w ^o o •L C y O >U _ > v' m _ N a) 0 2 > ai 0 � c AF a A� �. A�•o, p' M cqs C cCC" R V L ccz •�. � a..ia `� W U A °� U A .-. U A � � L � � •p •O � � M N �+ �, O :� U G vCi c oQ Z° bD a+ON U •=" y bA C bD L C M M U _ U r�''+ bA U CC a)0 Cd OO O, C O N CL Cd a>i y O 0 u O >O U .o E a c G U Y OO N (d 0 a) O 113C y .� >, cCC C O R C 0 w 3 a) d i p '�' vCi �. •�—� }', ` O 3 ai zs o y a' 2s o ' tz o O •°o , N. a a) 3 wcl O a) In CIS° Co ❑ 0O c, O n 0 w aa) >, OR a) m 0•� > n w a) N cO >, O 1 N wo to -d aU to O o E I E ai sC O QO b ' ., U w> U� .i, U N., b.aO�a U> > Cc 0 ) U U" ° f1 • �c,� a °C "ZL O O w . b bA•'id0 0 CO cz a) y io 0 aXi �aOi b 0 v 0. Q � 7 n 0 O" U a) 0 LZ:i 00 0 > O ca E .� 0 a) y p o, oA E 0> . aCd Oi 0. C a) t424 Cd cd ° a)j, ° ) o a« te° o0. o .0 •• >, ^h°cO .O°oc .bU , ° `d ©� a� ❑ H a>i "Cy A o y y o 0 o v 1 a) N U O •� '4 — C cw L �� Orb O(.., aS ow �. tg> C ti k C •� O .b 0it y .� N 'O w° 1 1 1 1 1 N M a a CN I C 9 O I K C L C C N� � w > N � O' c O y i.L°•`i • W U u m U C R Q �+ U = o o_ n. U O O O w O C) C � � O U C�3 a o C Y R O O L' y bb •� .II a� Ci F 3 E p Cd b N cz U 4-i y O ate.• > In ° `+Or 3 an N C o o ca.� a X a' o `�Cl) a' °�' y• j c O U' .0 cc en = c a a; a Uo°b (1) u � � o )C " �. L N cis Q w; v ° ° a w �cts c Ln O3 Xo Cd v a+ a> C p tO U cd N N 'Y:. y N N U y co a> U N O ,t.. C N o ca C '��� O Cd �bA � - ' v G 'b «S .� N O bA O ti N° -o O CO bA Qr sV. �-•� G O r. N C� 1. E O O Q .p y {., aN' a. y i L i N y LL �.. ^� Ci N U a' c o ;x o ¢ 3 = Fes» . abi O. a � U bA bqcd '> -- ° = as > cl > '> a a > -c... w LZ �UaUw a P". a. a cz a I K C O > o c i O E C C '= v"r3 b�D O C � CdO w C �I U % N .O C O i.+ eC G a E R N bA C � O bn vi C." ❑ a- y a}i N O O N �� +� yCL cl ° a o D ^ c ono o 0 i fa 0O E V > " p. p .0cl v' > OC C ,� U C v M uo�?° >, U° X33 0ssY >, 3 Y w �6;000� o W,`°�--�' ` 4; o >� as °cc44a col Y + Q vi 0 vCi ° >; N ° w -o Zs C U>1 0 3" C E >, c`d o a� a> o w 0 c aoi v fl '�" y v fl ' y O .c," h ca 'b ;'d •- p O '� •v, 'b '� >' ?? T3 �N, A, y 0 O Up.�+ N> O .O 0 V c 3 w^ a p LS p, N 'i. U y p" U 'i ^C U o. b a+ ti ani U ti Lytjr N w U O 2s a C) o ct 'W o '> o. > UAB Eo- A cod- d'N C4 O N N �� M N p V U L O �. ,� O .� w C >•, M N cu .+ vOi O Cl. C4 r - M E y+ A zM C O 3 u ++ u A O u > " cl a>i E= �oN,N o o� g Eel a v o elM CT cO .+ O N ^C •. OU O N E COC a U�� cc R y V V a en U n U E L O O N N L� E E Z uct •O OO•.� J p Tct y V .�O O O �.� .7 p Y C o .O 3 R wZn C 3 ro cd O = O OD c t1 0 C4 O d] i. y tl � O cC U C tm rn viCd ++ i. n >p b L." Q U as n O •O O U+ O U.. _�' U vOi ..0 b bOA }, O �, ai t1 N N .0 00 +4 -- tZ •cam '�; o °= a¢. `� 0 0 3� o co °- 3 3 }' � .0 cd a. U o O O 3C,f a� a� 'v o 0 �y o c� a a �' E ?? a? .� � X i� C as _o . 0 a> a 0 o u as m N U ani aUi a.+ as Ri 1 NCc U 0 O •� cn O 'O •�as, O, bUq .— ai as O U C, �+ n O 7 y . G UO O> ca O . >N t y -o b -W >o c Z. o •O cq, O ai > 00 C to Q U V y vim^ y x -0 .0 o��0 r.3=°ate a c ov :? aw V) o o�,H O E o �]. v O a� C% avi 0 U 0 as O y Cd p o 3 aa) Q r•. > U N .D ¢' rn •fl CL V1 cd bq O .0 as >, O v O O �, Cn tC 0� O O 0 0 3 L-0 O o tl, 4, o o p O U a� + b � .E ,,to -0N 40.(n Y L O •L O = N �-• � •O_D b 0 Cd O cn O DA •� Y O O Y Y .�. .O TJ 0. H O 'C 0. cz ------ zpq a5 N N C � a a. � � o > L C � 00 O � 'O � H 0 •L O d � cC c� b � o � 00 cn H Q5 0 e °u' U o O U o bA L a y c y W C F - Q O E-•� Q ci 0 8 CCC C N p� N N O� N o �w � � Y al NCA Q O M N p .a aLi '=i, O C ani R O, = a� a� A C Z M 0 � � 0 = A O C .� N > `� C O C C C •� .� `n > aU+ �+ y bAai ++ 0 p N Opp0 N ' 7 p O E u C.�C,M� O M � U CR bDR i U U p U bA o �M� O O O M p v O M U toO O N "t7 Q' p 1, u y N p LO. bb C 4r " in. 3 bD C p O > .bq H 0 O ° - — C. 4. � O O Cd U O Y O 0 0 U' ai .; O R fl ? w O o. E a. y aoi . -•.+ tU. O �. Cd c � C ' 3 4p U O O 0 a� .� 0 o O ' o Y R = U jE U E. ,O Y N •c� E Cq O cn O rn O S'V. in L O" O 0 Cc3 0O 0 O y O O .N �.. R Y y y Y U 6 ' o ¢ � o o w' •�000s�.�o�,Qo Qo �aU -o U o teY Q^ N �y3o O+i �> 6 8 UU o�xpQ 60� r6o° a u o o'°''fib. o ti Y 0 Q.ai d a '° = 0; LV. g o 0 o� a o U v fQ o p' o a H -0 p O_ C � a a. � � o > L C � 00 O � 'O � H 0 U � N N b � o � 00 cn H Q5 0 � C O ,O M N a c O C W � O O b a a. � M O � N C � O � 'O ? O z� N N b � cn H N pp 0 � C M N a W � O w o �w � � Y Q a .a � U 0 � � N N � O M U Q' RESOLUTION NO. 3920 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPT PLAN 04-001 FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 16, 17, AND 19 OF THE MCAS-TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Vestar Development Company/Kimco Tustin, L.P. submitted a proper application for Concept Plan 04-001 to develop 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses on Disposition Parcels 10, 11, and 12 within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; B. That the Planning Commission continued consideration of Concept Plan 04-001 from July 12, 2004, to July 26, 2004; C. That the proposed project is consistent with the "MCAS -Tustin Specific Plan" land use designation of the Tustin General Plan, which provides for a variety of development opportunities in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub -element, D. That pursuant to Section 4.2.1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, submittal of a concept plan for development of planning areas is required prior to or concurrent with an initial subdivision application; E. That Vestar Development Company has submitted concurrent development applications identified as Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16695, Design Review 04-010, Conditional Use Permit 04-015, and Variance 04-002; and, F. That Concept Plan 04-001 is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Approval of Concept Plan 04-001 and implementation of conditions contained in Resolution Nos. 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924, would achieve the development concepts set forth by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, including: Resolution No. 3920 Page 2 1. Ensuring the continuity and adequacy of all circulation systems, such as: roadways, access points, pedestrian ways and other infrastructure systems needed to serve the project; 2. Ensuring the continuity and design quality of architecture, landscape, and hardscape themes and treatments; 3. Providing urban design features as per Chapters 2 and 3 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; 4. Ensuring conformity with the Non -Residential Land Use Trip Budget; and, 5. Ensuring compliance with all applicable provisions of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Il. The Planning Commission hereby approves Concept Plan 04-001 to develop 1,006,100 square feet of commercial uses on Disposition Parcels 10, 11, and 12 within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 26th day of July, 2004 JERRY AMANTE Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3920 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26th day July, 2004. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A — CONCEPT PLAN 04-001 RESOLUTION NO. 3920 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (1) 1.1 All entitlements specified in Resolution Nos. 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924 shall not become effective until such time as the City and Vestar Development/Kimco Tustin L.P. have executed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) 04-02. All entitlements specified in Resolution Nos. 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924 shall become null and void in the case of default by the developer or termination by the City of DDA 04-02, including, but not limited to, the City's approval of any final maps not completed at the time of default or termination, to ensure that development proceeds in an orderly manner as specified in DDA 04-02. (1) 1.2 Approval of Concept Plan 04-001 shall be contingent upon implementation of all conditions of approval contained within Resolution Nos. 3919, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924. (1) 1.3 As a condition of approval of Concept Plan 04-001, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. RESOLUTION NO. 3924 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING VARIANCE 04-002 TO CONSTRUCT A MOVIE THEATER BUILDING ON LOT 4 OF TRACT 16695 FIFTEEN (15) FEET FROM BARRANCA PARKWAY WHERE A MINIMUM THIRTY (30) FOOT BUILDING SETBACK IS REQUIRED, AND AT A HEIGHT OF SIXTY (60) FEET WHERE A MAXIMUM FIFTY (50) FOOT HEIGHT IS PERMITTED WITHIN PLANNING AREA 19 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Variance 04-002 was filed by the Vestar Development Company/Kimco Tustin L.P. to construct a movie theater building on Lot 4 of Tract 16695 fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway where a minimum thirty (30) foot building setback is required and at a height of sixty (60) feet where a maximum fifty (50) foot height is permitted within Planning Area 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on July 12, 2004, and continued to July 26, 2004, by the Planning Commission; C. That the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan land use designation of the General Plan provides for development of a variety of commercial uses. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub - element. D. The proposed movie theater will be located in, and integral to creating critical mass for, the "lifestyle" component of the development. The lifestyle experience is designed to create an outdoor pedestrian environment in an elongated layout so people may walk from one end to the other. Based upon the required location of South Loop Road, the intersection of Barranca Parkway and Milliken Avenue, the existing Army Reserve site, and overall project site configuration, the lifestyle component must be located in the proposed location between Barranca Parkway and the South Loop Road, adjacent to the Army Reserve site resulting in Lot 4 being elongated and restricting flexibility in site design. Due to the minimum square footage required to create the lifestyle experience, and the unusual project site layout, it is necessary to reduce the thirty (30) foot setback to fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway to establish the critical mass necessary for the lifestyle component. Resolution 3924 Variance 04-002 Page 2 E. The movie theater will be the anchor for the lifestyle component and is critical to the lifestyle experience. Due to the size of movie screens and the modern "stadium" style seating, movie theater buildings tend to be taller to accommodate these elements. The structure itself will comply with the fifty (50) foot height limit; however, the "box -like" qualities of a typical movie theater needed to accommodate the screens and seating create difficulties in architecturally articulating the building's fagade. As such, the height of mechanical equipment and associated screening exceeds the maximum permitted height in Planning Area 19. To provide a curved roofline to enhance the building's appearance while simultaneously screening the rooftop equipment, an increase in the maximum building height is necessary. Furthermore, due to the constricted available development area for the lifestyle component, placing the mechanical equipment on the ground or in the structure might further impact the necessary critical square footage. F. The granting of this variance would not constitute a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan in that the specific conditions affecting the project site are collectively unique and will only be found on Lot 4 in Tract 16695 in Planning Area 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and not on any other property in the City of Tustin. G. That a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and Specific Plan (FEIS/EIR) was prepared and certified, which considered the development of commercial uses within Planning Areas 16, 17, and 19. A checklist was prepared that finds all potential impacts of the project were addressed by the certified FEIS/EIR and no additional impacts have been identified; all applicable mitigation measures in the FEIS/EIR have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program or as conditions of approval. The Planning Commission has adopted Resolution No. 3924 finding the FEIS/EIR for the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and Specific Plan adequately addressed all potential impacts related to the variance. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 04-002 to construct a movie theater building on Lot 4 of Tract 16695 fifteen (15) feet from Barranca Parkway where a minimum thirty (30) foot building setback is required, and at a height of sixty (60) feet where a maximum fifty (50) foot height is permitted within Planning Area 19 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. Resolution 3924 Variance 04-002 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 26th day of July, 2004. JERRY AMANTE Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3924 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of July, 2004. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A VARIANCE 04-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed movie theater shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped July 26, 2004, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code and other applicable codes. (1) 1.2 Approval of Variance 04-002 shall be contingent upon implementation of all conditions of approval contained within Resolution Nos. 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924. (1) 1.3 All entitlements specified in Resolution Nos. 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924 shall not become effective until such time as the City and Vestar Development/Kimco Tustin L.P. have executed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) 04-02. All entitlements specified in Resolution Nos. 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 3924 shall become null and void in the case of default by the developer or termination by the City of DDA 04-02, including, but not limited to, the City's approval of any final maps not completed at the time of default or termination, to ensure that development proceeds in an orderly manner as specified in DDA 04-02. (1) 1.4 As a condition of approval of Concept Plan 04-001, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODES (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION