HomeMy WebLinkAboutZA Action 07-008ZONING ACTION 07-008 AND CONCEPT PLAN 06-001
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 07-008
CONCEPT PLAN 06-001
NEIGHBORHOOD E
PLANNING AREAS 9-12
The Zoning Administrator of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The Zoning Administrator finds and determines as follows:
A. That Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. submitted a proper
application for Concept Plan 06-001 to allow for a total of 1,267,324
square feet on non-residential development within Neighborhood E
(Planning Areas 9-12) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan;
B. That pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan,
preparation and submittal of a Concept Plan concurrent with a new
development proposal or Sector B map is required for each planning area;
C. That Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC has submitted a concurrent
application for Sector B Map identified as Tentative Tract Map 17144;
D. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for Concept Plan
06-001 on November 5, 2007, by the Zoning Administrator;
E. That,-Concept Plan 06-001 is in conformance with the Tustin Area General
Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and approval of Concept Plan 06-
001, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit B attached hereto, would
achieve the development concepts set forth by the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan, including:
1. Ensuring the continuity and adequacy of all circulation systems,
such as: roadways, access points, pedestrian walkways, and other
infrastructure systems needed to serve the project;
2. Ensuring the continuity and design quality of architecture,
landscape, streetscape, 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.
F. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for
the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the
Zoning Administrator Action 07-008
CP 06-001
Page 2
Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a
program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The
FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential environmental
impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air
Station, Tustin;
G. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for Concept
Plan 06-001, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Environmental Checklist
concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant
environmental impacts, substantial changes or a substantial increase in the
severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has
surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
II. The Zoning Administrator hereby approves Concept Plan 06-001 to allow for a
total of 1,267,324 square feet on non-residential development within
Neighborhood E (Planning Areas 9-12) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, subject
to the conditions contained within Exhibit B, attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Tustin, at a regular
meeting on the 5~h day of November, 2007.
D(~th.~,vJ
ELOISE RIS
RECORDING SECRETARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
ELIZABETH A. BINS CK
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
I, Eloise Harris, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Zoning Administrator
Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Zoning Administrator Action 07-008 as
duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Zoning Administrator, held
on the 5~' day of November, 2007.
ELOISE RIS
RECORDING SECRETARY
EXHIBITA
OF
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 07-008
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin
This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of
an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation
evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s): Concept Plan 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map 17144
Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3115
Project Location: Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC
130 Vantis, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP-1 Specific Plan), Neighborhood E
Project Description: Concept Plan 06-001 for Neighborhood E and Tentative Tract Map 17144 to
subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the
purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets,
and flood control facilities.
Surrounding Uses: North: Warner Avenue/vacant lots
East: Armstrong Avenue/vacant lots
South: Barranca Parkway/Commercial and Business Parks
West: Red Hill Avenue/ Business Complexes
Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIRj 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 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on April 3, 2006.
B.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
^Land Use and Planning
^Population and Housing
^Geology and Soils
^Hydrology and Water Quality
^Air Quality
^Transportation & Circulation
^Biological Resources
^Mineral Resources
^Agricultural Resources
C. 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.
^ 1 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.
Preparers _
J
Date: I 1-01-07
Willkom, Senior Planner
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Date 11-01-07
See Attachment A attached to this Checklist
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan`?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
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
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
o a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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
^ ^
a ^
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?
VILHAZARDS 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?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY• -Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
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?
~ 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 IJSE AND PLANNII~TG -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^ ®.
^ ^
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 alocally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels?
XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previoa~s
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the Impacts Analysis
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?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
No Substantial
New More Change From
Signiftcant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CONCEPT PLAN 06-001
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144
NEIGHBORHOOD E OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Final Joint Environmental Impact StatemenbEnvironmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the
Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the EIS/EIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the
Navy (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy (NEPA). The FEIS/EIR analyzed the environmental consequences
of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and
the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental
impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to
implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The DoN
published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001. On April 3, 2006, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR.
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed amulti-year
development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed, the agency is required to examine individual activities to
determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The agency can
approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum if the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA
Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental
document is required. For the proposed Concept Plan 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map 17144
project, the City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided
below to determine if the project is within the scope of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and if new
effects would occur as a result of the project.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Property is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan also known as Tustin Legacy. Concept
Plan (CP) 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 consists of approximately 1,267,324
square feet of land at Tustin Legacy and is located within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan (Planning Area 9-12).
Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin within the
City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for
nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined
surplus to federal government needs and was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page
former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining
approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine.
Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of
downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa
Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana (I-5), Laguna (SR-133) and San Diego (I-405). Tustin Legacy is also
served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways
bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue and Irvine
Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barranca Parkway on the south.
Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles
to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the .north
providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and
San Diego counties.
PRESENT CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY
Historically, the Property was used as a Marine Corps helicopter training facility. Currently, the
actual footprint of the Property is largely undeveloped land that was previously used for interim
agricultural out-leasing by the Marines and also improved with landing strips and tarmac areas.
Permits for demolition of abandoned buildings on the Property have been issued and existing
facilities are in the process of being removed, with obsolete infrastructure also programmed for
removal. The City has nearly completed a Phase I roadway project, the Valencia/Armstrong
project, which included some demolition of tarmac areas, landing strips, and demolition of some
obsolete utilities. The Valencia/Armstrong project also included the installation of water and
sewer Backbone Infrastructure on a portion of the Property and interim storm drain retention
facilities. Interim earth work and mass grading of the Property by the Developer has
commenced.
PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project evaluated in this environmental review includes two components described further in
sections below:
• Concept Plan 06-001
• Tentative Tract Map 17144
Concept Plan 06-001
Background
Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, a concept plan shall be prepared
and submitted for Zoning Administrator Approval concurrent with a new development proposal,
reuse project, or Sector B level map.
Evaluation of Enviromnental Impacts
LP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 3
The purpose of the concept plan is to document and ensure that:
1. The necessary linkages are provided between the development project and the Planning
Area/Neighborhood in which it is located;
2. The integrity of the Specific Plan and purpose and intent of each Neighborhood is
maintained; and
3. Applicable consideration of City requirements other than those spelled out in the Specif c
Plan are identified and satisfied.
Description of the Concept Plan
The Concept Plan for Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan includes Planning
Areas 9-12. The following are components of the Concept Plan:
• Land Use (development uses and parks/open spaces)
• Circulation
• Design Guidelines
• Landscape Elements
• Infrastructure
The Land Use component of Neighborhood E includes a total of 1,267,324 square feet of non-
residential uses and encompasses Phases 1 and 2 of Neighborhood E. Phase 1 includes a total of
318,600 square feet of general office uses and 287,000 square feet of R&D Flex/Light Industrial
uses. Phase 2 includes 319,675 square feet of general office uses; 93,920 square feet of R&D
Flex/Light Industrial use; 229,997 square feet of office park use; and, 18,132 square feet of
neighborhood commercial (mixed) use.
A total of 38.6 acres of open space is also included and is to contain the following types of open
space:
• Linear Park (private)
• Focal park (private)
• Red Hill and Edge Open .Space (private)
• Detention Basin/Sports fields (public)
The Circulation component provides conceptual improvement plans for the proposed
infrastructure (streets, utilities, transportation planning, and traffic and circulation analysis) to
support the proposed Concept Plan.
The Design Guidelines provide in-depth details and conceptual design elements such as visual
character, planning, architecture, landscape, and hardscape.
The Landscape Elements component provides conceptual landscape plans for open space areas,
streetscapes, multi-use trail system, signage, decorative walls, park furnishings and lightings, and
bridge design.
Evaluation of Environmental [mpaets
CP U6-OO l and TTM 17144
Page 4
The [nfrastructure component identities backbone infrastructure based upon the master roadway
network and Local Infrastructure system. This infrastructure component includes conceptual
plans for domestic water, well sites, reclaimed water, sewer, and storm drainage and water
duality.
Tentative Tract Map 17144
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 is a proposal to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered
lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space,
public streets, and flood control facilities. TTM 17144 is a Sector B Map which is a subdivision
map that divides a larger parcel into additional parcels (development units) that will facilitate
conveyance of the property by a master developer to vertical merchant builders or other parties.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the
Environmental Analysis`Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not directly cause aesthetic impacts. Development activities proposed by
the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable
negative aesthetic effect on the site.
There are no designated scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed Concept
Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista. Although the project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated state
scenic highway, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that the loss of both historic
blimp hangars would be a significant visual impact, the loss of only one hangar would be
less than significant. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not
change the conclusions of the analysis from the FEISIEIR and Addendum relative to these
visual changes since the status of the hangars would not be affected by the proposed
Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map.
EvaluaCion of >vnvironmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM l 7144
Page 5
No changes in original uses identified or permitted in the Specific Plan are being
requested; therefore, the types of uses to be developed are consistent and would result in
similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. All implementation of activities and
development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under
CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis
previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable to the project have
been implemented with adoption of original Specific Plan. No refinements need to be made
to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Submitted Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map
Field Observations
FEIS/E1R for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-13~)
Tustin General Plan
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. The project site was leased as
interim agriculture sites. All agricultural activities on the site and Navy out leases were
terminated in phases by the Navy prior to the closure of MCAS Tustin in July, 1999.
Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously
considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been
found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project.
The physical impact area for the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map is the
same as that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Implementation of the proposed
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 6
project would continue to impact areas mapped (though not used) as Prime Farmland.
Designated Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Specific Plan area is outside of
the Master Developer footprint and is located north of Barranca Parkway, west of Harvard
Avenue, and east of Jamboree Boulevard. Additionally, there are no areas subject to a
Williamson Act contract, and conservation of farmland in this area was deemed
unwarranted by NCRS. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the
impact conclusions presented in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The loss of Prime
Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and
unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEIS/EIR are still
infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with
the loss of mapped/designated farmland.
There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would
reduce the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to
urban uses. Mitigation options identified in the FEIS/EIR determined to be infeasible are
still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant.
There would not be a substantial increase in the severity ofproject-specific and cumulative
impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum;
however, these impacts would continue to be significant unavoidable impacts of the
proposed project. The Tustin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council
adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that
impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation
is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10)
Resolution No. 00-90
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 7
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
" projected air quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not directly cause Air Quality impacts. Development activities proposed by
the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects,
nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects
occur as a result of the proposed project.
Consistent with the conclusion reached in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, the proposed
project would result in significant short-term construction air quality impacts. Because the
proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map only involve a conceptual design
development and subdivision of land within the threshold of the Specific Plan and the
previously approved FEIS/EIR and its Addendum, the project would not substantially
increase the type or severity of construction related air quality impacts from those identified
in the FEIS/ElR and Addendum.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City
Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long-term, and
cumulative air quality impacts.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/I~Ionitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the
Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for operational and
construction activities. However, the FEI5/EIR and Addendum also concluded that the
Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully
mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the
Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90). No new mitigation
measure is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 1714
Page 8
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143
through153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum
Pages 5-10 through 5-28)
MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Resolution No. 00-90
Tustin General Plan
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state
habitat conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The physical impacts resulting from
development uses proposed with the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would be
similar to those identified in the FEISlEIR and Addendum. Specifically, impacts to on-site
vegetation and loss of habitat for the loggerhead shrike, a CDFG species of special concern,
would be less than significant. It would be noted that project construction activities would
be completed in compliance with federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 191 S (MBTA). The
MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests.
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 9
plant or animal species; however, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum determined that
implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed
project site) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern-pond turtle,
which is identified as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation
measures were included in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR to require the relocation of the
turtles and establishment of an alternative ot~ site habitat, and to require the applicant to
obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary for areas on the project
site affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. The Master
Developer has obtained these permits and is subject to conditions listed in the respective
permits.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required ~ Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-
82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28
through 5-40)
MCA5 Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to cultural resources. Development activities
proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the
Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Numerous archaeological surveys
have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 10
Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin
had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological
site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have
been destroyed It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or
paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading
and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the
MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural
resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance.
There is no new technology or methods available to reduce the identified significant
unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts to historical resources associated with
the removal of Hangars 28 and 29 to a level considered less than significant. Although
these unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts would not occur with
implementation of the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map (affects
Neighborhood E only), the future development of the Master development footprint could
present impacts to these resources. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address potential
significant unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from the removal of both
blimp hangars. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed
in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
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. No refinements need to be made
to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-
74, 4-93 through 4-I02, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40
through 5-45)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 1714
Page 11
• 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 IVtines and Geology Special Publication ~2.
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
• Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not cause any direct impact to geology or soil. Development activities
proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the
Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no
demonstrable negative geology or soil effect on the site. The FEIS/EIIZ and Addendum
indicate that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan
and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local
settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows)
and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking,
ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with
dam failure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that
compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established
engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of
significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for
development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
avoid the creation of potential impacts. No new mitigation is required.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 12
Sources: Field Observations
FEISiEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-
97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46
through 5-49)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysi.~ The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not involve the creation of a hazard or hazardous materials. Development
activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within
the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The proposed Concept Plane and
Tentative Tract Map would result generally in the same types of land uses being developed
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 13
within the project area. As identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, these uses would
generate and use small amounts of hazardous materials for operation and maintenance
activities.
The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and then-
current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan
area. The DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration
programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR
and Addendum concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a
significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on
the property during construction or operation since the DoN would implement various
remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or
isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater.
As identified in the FEIS/EIlZ and the Addendum, the project site is within the boundaries of
the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The
proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not propose changes to height limitation
included in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose anaircraft-related safety hazard for future
residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Implementation of activities and development at the
project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be
required bylaw. No new or modified mitigation is required for the project.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3-
117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49
through 5-55)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-S, 10-2, 14,
and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41
Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas
1, 2, 3, and 4
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)
Tustin General Plan
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 14
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. Development
activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within
the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no
demonstrable negative hydrology and water quality effect on the site. The project site is
located within the Barranca Channel Master Drainage Area. A master drainage hydrology
study (San Diego Creek Flood Control Master Plan, Barranca Channel Update, dated
September 28, 2007) was prepared and approved by the Orange County Flood Control
District (OCFD). The study identities a detention basin to be located within Lot H of
Tentative Tract Map 17144. The detention basin has been included in TTM 17144.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, preparation of a WQMP in compliance with
all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 15
development activities to a level of insignificance. Implementation of the proposed
Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in new or substantially more severe
impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum. The types of land uses proposed are substantially the same, with minor square
footage distribution among planning areas. The amount of impervious surtace proposed for
construction would not change substantially; therefore, analysis and conclusions in the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater
levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially. In addition, no change to the
backbone drainage system is proposed; therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to
drainage patters, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the
implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of
insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage
were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS
Tustin and Addendum; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project or as conditions of approval far the project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-
105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56
through 5-92)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
IX. LAND U5E AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The project being evaluated involves an
amendment to the Original DDA, a new Development Agreement, and modifications to
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page l6
parking standards. The proposed project would not alter the land uses proposed for
development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the Specific
Plan area, rather minor adjustments to development phases are proposed. The project site
area is surrounded by existing development and development on-site would not physically
divide an established community. Although the project only involves conceptual
development proposal, the implementation of this Concept Plan would result in the
continuation of similar uses.
Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Implementation of activities and development at the project
site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required
by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would
be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map do not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEIS/EIR
mitigation and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3
to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicated
that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The
proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or
identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no
substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISlEIR and
Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observation
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-OOI and TTM 17144
Page 17
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and
Addendum (Page 5-95)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XI. NOISE -Would the project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map would slightly modify the land use distribution (redistribution among non-
residential areas and square footages) within the Specific Plan which would result in a slight
redistribution of the traffic generated by the implementation of the project. However, the
backbone circulation system identified for the implementation of the project is substantially
the same or less than Average Daily Trips as that presented in the original DDA and
Specific Plan. Consequently, the severity of the long-term traffic related noise impacts
would not be increased more than previously identified in the FEI5/EIR and Addendum.
With respect to the short-term noise impacts, implementation of the Concept Plan and
Tentative Tract Map would be required to comply with adopted mitigation measures and
state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures
and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction-related noise impacts.
As discussed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of
the project site. Based on review of the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the project
site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 18
Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not involve the development of any uses that
would expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that with
implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to
noise. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not increase the severity of
the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no
refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures would be required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3-
162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XII. POPULATION & HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map provide a similar amount and type of commerciaVbusiness uses as that included
in the Specific Plan. No new housing, removal of existing housing, or displacement of any
people to necessitate construction of additional housing are proposed with the Concept Plan
and Tentative Tract Map consistent with the approved Specific Plan and previously
approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Similar to the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR,
the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not have an adverse effect on
population and housing.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEISIEIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• Because no significant impacts were identified, no
mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum related to population housing. The
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 19
proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not change the conclusions of the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum and no new mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-1 S to 3-34, 4-
14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-101 through 5-112)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute
to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools,
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
and a future fire station proposed at Edinger Avenue and the West Connector Road will
meet the demands created by the proposed project.
Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of
resident population estimates, square footage ofnon-residential uses, etc. Implementation of
the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not increase the need for police protection
services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The developer
as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police
Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at
plan check.
Schools.
Evaluation of Environmental [mpacts
CP Ob-001 and TTM 1714
Page 20
The impacts to schools resulting from the Implementation of the proposed Concept Plan
and Tentative Tract Map would be similar to that identified in the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum. Consistent with SB 50, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation
measures that require the Master Developer to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD,
IUSD, and SAUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the
issuance of building permits (Neighborhood E is located within the SAUSD boundary).
The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide
"full and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development. of real property on
school facilities (Government Code 65995). SB 50 provides that a state or local agency
may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real property on
the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that
established by SB 50.
Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County
Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the
Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public
facility that will directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area.
Developers within the Specific Plan area are required to make a fair share contribution to a
portion of the development costs of the library expansion.
To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public
services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR and
Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to
meet projected needs as development of the site proceeded. The proposed Concept Plan and
Tentative Tract Map would not increase the demand more than what was already analyzed
in the previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no substantial change is
expected.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEI5/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would
be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed Concept
Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of
impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Therefore no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-
56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-112 through 5-122)
MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XIV. RECREATION
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 21
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Impacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEIS/EIR
and Addendum. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would include a
relocation of the sports park to Lot 9 of TTM 17144 (southeast of the extension of Carnegie
and the linear park). The acreage of open space areas remain consistent with the Specific
Plan; thus the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in new or
substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services compared to conclusions of
the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would
be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the
proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial increase in
the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56
to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127
MCA5 Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin City Code Section 9331 d (1) (b)
Tustin General Plan
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
Evaluation of Environmental [mpacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page ?2
e) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build
out of the Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at
18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/EIR for a complete list) and the levels
of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no-project condition.
The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and
Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips.
The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each
neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential
development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity
exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed Concept
Plan and Tentative Tract Map would result in a reduction in daily trip generation of 14
percent than the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
No Significant changes to on-site circulation would occur with the proposed project. Austin
Foust Associates, Inc. has prepared the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy, Neighborhood E
Internal Circulation Analysis -July 2007 (Exhibit A) to identify and evaluate how the traffic
impacts from the proposed project differ from the analysis presented in the approved Tustin
Legacy Park traffic analysis (March 6, 2007, Legacy Park of Tustin ,Legacy Traffic
Analysis, Austin Foust Associates, Inc), FEIS/EIR, and Addendum. The study has shown
that the proposed Concept Plan, Tentative Map, and arterial circulation changes within the
Neighborhood E have not resulted in new significant impacts that would require mitigation.
The proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance
with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer also has
reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the revised analysis.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts
would result from implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Maps than were
originally considered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no new or revised
mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-
142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5-
127 through 5-147)
Evaluation of Environmental [mpacts
CP o6-001 and TTM 17144
Page 23
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan%Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust
Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to
utilities and service systems. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of
Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin
and Addendum. The FEISlEIR and Addendum analyzed new off=site and on-site backbone
utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed
development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable
television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEIS/EIR and Addendum,
the applicant is required to pay a fair share towards off-site infrastructure and installation of
on-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and
local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and ofl=site,
and water availability. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, no unavoidable
significant impacts would result. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map
would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 24
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts
would result from implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map; therefore,
no new or revised mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3-
46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147
through 5-165)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
and the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map. With the enforcement of the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation and implementation measures approved by the
Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as
conditions of approval, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated environmental
effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly
nor degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife
populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address
cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was
adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90) for
issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 1 ~ 144
Page 25
resources, and traffic%cireulation. The project does not create any impacts that have not
been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
and Addendum
Resolution No. 00-90
Tustin General Plan
CONCLUSION
The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS
Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be
required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project
that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
t
i
CITY OF TUSTIN
LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis
July 2007
~,~~AUST/A~FOUST ASSOCUTE~S~J~kC.
p ~ ~ ~'
JUL 2 0 2001
TUSTIP! PUBLIC WQRKS 13~PT.
CITY OF TUSTIN -LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis
Prepared by:
Austln•Foust Associates, Inc.
2223 East Wellington Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92701-3161
(714)667-0496
~;., 4;- , ~,~
~,~ zT
No. 1123 _
July 20, 2007
i
Table of Contents
Section
Pa e
Introduction ........................
..................
.......... ...........................................................................................1
Land Use and Trip Generation .......................... ....
......................................................................................1
Circulation System ............................................ ..
.....
...................................................................................1
Intersection Capacity ............................
.............
...
......................................................................................7
Signalization ...................
..........................
...... .......................................................................................1 S
Traffic Control Measures ..............................
....
.
.......................................................................................25
Recommended Turn Pocket Lengths ................
..
...........
...........................................................................25
Effects of Circulation Changes ........................... ....
......
............................................................................25
Conclusions ..............
.................
................ ..................................................................................... 31
Appendix: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets
City of Tustin -Legacy Pat1c of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Iutemal Circulation Analy:is Austin-Foust Asaocistes, Lac.
~ 922004tpcg.doc
'~
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Tustin Legacy Master Developer Footprint ..................................................................................2
' 2 Neighborhood E Concept Plan .....................................................................................................4
3 Neighborhood E Access Plan .......................................................................................................5
4 Neighborhood E Circulation System ....................................................................................... .....6
' S Armstrong Avenue Lane Configuration Alternatives .............................................................. .....8
6 Year 2025 ADT Volumes (OOOs) -Alternative 1 .................................................................... .....9
'
i 7
8
9 Year 2025 ADT Volumes (OOOs) -Alternative 2 ....................................................................
Yeaz 2025 AM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 1 ...............................................................
Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 1 ............................................................... ...10
...11
...12
'
'
~ 10
11
12
13
14 Year 2025 AM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 2 ...............................................................
Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 2 ...............................................................
Intersection Lane Configurations ............................................................................................
Intersection Location Map .......................................................................................................
Peak Hour Signal Warrants (Higher Speeds/Rural Areas) ...................................................... ...13
...14
...15
...17
...19
, 15 Pcak Hour Signal Warrants (Lower Speeds/CJrban Areas) ...................................................... ...20
16 Traffic Control Measures ......................................................................................................... ...26
~~ A-1 Intersection Location Map ....................................................................................................... A-5
'~
'~
List of Tables
Table p .~
-
I
~f
I f 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Neighborhood E Land Use and Trip Generation Summary .........................................................3
Year 2025 Neighborhood E Buildout ICU Summary .................................................................16
Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Peak Hour Signal Warrant Summary ...............................................21
Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Peak Hour Signal Warrant Summary ...............................................23
Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended Left-Turn Storage Lengths ......................................27
Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended Lcft-Turn Storage Lengths ......................................28
Yeaz 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended Right-Turn Pocket Lengths .....................................29
Yeaz 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended Right-Turn Pocket Lengths .....................................30
Armstrong Avenue Intersection Analysis Summary ..................................................................32
City ofTustin -Legacy Puk of Tustin Legacy Austin-fioust Associate, Loe.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis ii 922004rptg.doc
~~
'I CITY OF TUSTIN -LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGAC
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis Y
E
1
INTRODUCTION
'I
This report summarizes the access and internal circulation analysis for proposed development in
'~ Neighborhood E of the Legacy Park master developer footprint within the Tustin Legacy (see Figure 1),
and provides a more detailed analysis of the roadway needs within Neighborhood E than the recently
approved traffic study dated March b, 2007, for the entire Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy, Information
i
provided includes site access designations, the type of intersection traffic control measure (i.e., based on
' ~ traffic signal warrant analyses), intersection approach lane requirements, and recommendations for left-
turn and right-turn pocket design features.
LAND USE AND TRIP
GENERATION
~~
The development within Neighborhood E is comprised ofnon-residential uses such as office and
i
industrial uses as well as park and recreational land uses. Table 1 summarizes the land use and daily trip
~ generation for buildout of Neighborhood E (see Figure 2). The land uses in Nei borh
gh ood E have been
refined since the March 6, 200'7, traffic study, which results in a reduction in daily trip generation of 14
percent. This report will present an analysis that shows the effect of the land use refinements on triiffic ~
Neighborhood E and surrounding circulation system.
I~
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
('
Figure 3 shows the roads and proposed access locations for Neighborhood E. Figure 4 illustrates
~ the midblock lanes on the roadways. The circulation system presented here provides a more detailed
analysis of the roadway needs within Neighborhood E than previously presented in the March 6, 2007,
traffic study. "A" Street between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue with two and four lanes is
f designated as a second
ary arterial, and "C" Street between Barranca Parkway and "A" Street is a two-lane
local collector. The remaining roadways within Neighborhood E, "B" Street, "C" Street, "D" Street, "E"
Street, "F" Street and Road G, are all two-lane local streets.
Neighborhood E development traffic loads directly to the arterial system at several locations.
. „
These include full access at Red Hill Avenue via ` A Street, Warner Avenue at Road G
;Armstrong
City ofTustin -Legacy park of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis l Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rptg.doc
i
it
~.~
~~
N
r
i~
iF
~` r N
r
~ ~ i N
a~
~~
~, ~ a
~ ~a
~~
~~'A
i~
11
~~~
~~~~
I~~
~~
~~
~~
S
r
r
r
r
i~
iA
i~
r~
i'
r'
Table I
NEIGHBORHOOD E LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMNIA.RY
Land Use 1 AM Pesk Hoar ~ PM Peak Hour
Buildout Units ~ In Out Tnrst r .,'T
~~~ ----
a oral y
ADT
Nei boyhood Commercial 18.13 TSF 30 1 g
General Office 638.27 TSF 1 053 146 1 199 197 950
Office Park E
230 TSF
178
56
234
92 1 147 8 47(
Li ht tndustrial/R&D
379.72 TSF
391
81
472 164
Pam
26.3 Acrc
0
0
0 62 348 4l0 3 081
S its Park
8 Acre
0
0
0 0 0 0
Total uildout
Total evious
1 652
302
1 934 27
464 33
1 587 60
2 051 430
17 085
Difference 1 739 340 2 079 560 1 695 2 SS 19 982
'/e Differentx -87
-5% -38 -125
° -96 -108 -204 -2 897
Tri Rates -11% -6
/a -17% -6% -9% -14%
vei boyhood Commercial TSF 1.63 1.05 2.68 4
68 5
06
'e°erat Office
TSF
1.65
.23
1
88 .
31 . 9.74 111.82
office Pazk E
TSF
,77
24 .
1
02 . 1.49 1.80 9 145
:i t IndustriaUR&D TSF
1.03 .
21 .
1
24 .40 .71 1.11 12.80
~~
Acre
,00 .
,00 .
.00 ,16
00 .92
00 1.08 8.11
its Park
Acre
.O1
.00
.Ol .
3.40 .
4.10 .00
7.50 5.00
5't stn
Notes:
1) Office Park equation is based on 9l .89 TSF.
2) Trip Rate Sources - MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR dated December 1999, and ITE Trip Generation Manual, 716
Edition.
3) The land use-based trip rates for Office Park uses are based on the following equation;
LN(T~AaLN(X}+B where X=land use amount and T=daily trips
--- AM Peak Hour ---- --_ PM Peak Hour ----
Coefficient:~ Pk/ADT Pk/ADT
Land Use T Units A B Ratio 1n Out Ratio In Out
Office Park TSF .768 3.654 .080 76% 24% .087 36% 64%
Abbreviations: ADT - avtrage daily trips
DU -dwelling unit
(E~ -Equation based trip rates used.
City of Tastin - Legary Paris of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Anatysw 3 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rpt8.doc
~~
'E
'~
'~
1
'~
'E
~~
~~
~r
~ ~., ~
~ ~ ~ ~ s ~~
- - i . _ ~'
-_.
---
_sa.~,_y~ ,,- ~~.--
~-' 4
~ (~
ill ,~ ~ ' K°'.~ ~ 1-jam
.~.~q~
q '~
i ~ vj-' Jt~
Z ~
.E-iar c ~ ~i~
~ {/ -I~ 401 ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ UAO q
~~ /^ `~
~' ,..i- ' .~s.. ~ ~ ~~
i iiT..iE' '.~'~ %'~
,% ~, `,~ t
-,~ + ,! s
~~ yr ~
A
1 ! E .. ~rq / r ~~. ~,s
• ~..r ~. ~'~ ~~ ~,
i ,,-~_._..y
....:.L•3~t.._.__.' LR ~ ~
y
1 =:.: j _
l
-. - a ~zF.'-..f.-l'-'1'~' i---.__..
Source: RBF ,1 j~
Figure 2
NEIGHBORHOOD E CONCEPT PLAN
City of Tustin • Legary Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Aasoaatea, Inc.
Neighbordood E Internal Circulation Analysis 4 g~fg4~tgg~y dwg
t
i~
r
i
i~
id
im
~~
Legend --
- '~ Arterial
- Primary Arterial
~n~y ~~ Figure 3
~ L.oca! CO~~ NEIGHBORHOOD E ACCESS PLAN
~'~ Local Street
City of 'Ilutin -Legacy Pack of'Iltatin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Citt:ulation Analysis 5 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rptgFig3.dw;
C~
I
u
i~
i~
i
r
I~
I~
I~
00 v
6 6
WARNER Av 6
op
(V v
0
DWY D ~
0'-~
~
F y~
< 2
sl
~' S~
~ ~
e
~ ~
,o = ~,
o N ~„
ti 4 by
'~
4 2 is
~
A 5T ~ (~L ti
~ c+ s
~` ~
~ 1
~
~ G
~ ~
Y
N q
a
4
st
00 ~
8 8
PKWY
BARRANCA
t
Legeod Figure 4
X Midblock Lanes NEIGfiBORHOOD E
- CIRCULATION SYSTEM
City of Tustin -Legacy Part of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Asaoc3ztea, Inc.
Neighborhood E Iuterual Circulation AnaFysia 6 922004rptgFig4.dwrg
i
~'`
~~
Avenue via "B" Street and "C" Street/"I" Street, and Barranca Parkway at "C" Street. Driveway D on
'{ Red Hill Avenue (located north of Carnegie Avenue/"A" Street) is introduced as a project access point
f that is restricted to right-toms in and right-turns out only.
'~ The on-site circulation system for Neighborhood E features four interne
ct~ons along the future
section of Armstrong Avenue to be constructed between Warner Avenue and Barranca Parkway. Two of
I
the four intersections (at "C" Street/"I" Street and at "E" Street) will be examined in two alternatives with
respect to signalization and lane deployment. The two alternatives analyzed at "C" Street/"`I" Street and
' ~ "E" Street have two intersections signalized and two unsignalized (sec Figure S). In each alternative, "A"
Street is assumed to be signalized with all turn movements allowed. Also, "B" Street is assumed to be
'' tincignalized with all movements allowed. Alternative 1 has a traffic signal at "E" Street and stop control
at "C" Street/"I" Street. With a stop control at "C" Streetl"I" Street, the movements are restricted to
' ~ right-turns out on "C" Street and "I" Street and all turn movements are allowed on Armstrong. Avenue.
Alternative 2 features a signalized intersection at "C" Street/"I" Street and stop control at "E' Street.
With a stop control at "E" Street, only right-turns out are allowed on "E" Street and all turn movements
'! are allowed on Armstrong. Avenue.
' ~ Figures 6 and 7 show the buildout ADT volumes for key roadway link locations within
Neighborhood E for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. Figures 8 through 11 show the corresponding AM
and PM peak hour volumes, respectively, for key intersection locations within this area for Alternatives 1
and 2. The volumes shown here will be slightly different than the March 6, 2007, traffic study because of
(~ the addition of the restricted driveway along Red Hill Avenue and the conversion of three intersections on
Armstrong Avenue (B Street, C Street/ `I Street and E Street), which wen reviousl restricted to
certain turn movements, to full access (Alternatives 1 and 2). There are minor volume differences on "C"
Street and "A" Street between Alternatives 1 and 2.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY
The intersection lane geometry for the access locations analyzed here is presented in Figure 12.
The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for Alternatives 1 and 2 are presented in Table 2 for the
intersections shown in Figure 13 for year 2025 conditions. By practice the ICU methodology assumes
that intersections are signalized. The results of this analysis are consistent with the March 6, 2007, trafEc
~ study and show that all intersections under year 2025 conditions operate at an acceptable level of service
"D" or better, and that only minor differences occur between Alternatives 1 and 2.
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E tntetnal Circulation Analysis 2 Austia-Foust Associates, fnc.
922004rptg.doc
~~
~~
~k
i
'i
~I
~~
~~
r
i
i~
i~
i~
i
ALTERNATIVE 1
k
ALTERNATIVE 2
~~~~
~~
k
Legend Figttte s
••~ Stop Control ARMSTRONG AVENUE LANE CONFIGURATION
~ Signal Control ALTERNATIVES
City of Ilistin - Legacy Puk of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associates, lnc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Aaalyas 8 922004tlutgpig5•dwg
1
i~
i~
r~
r
I~
I~
II
~~~
Figure 6
YEAR 2025 ADT VOLLIMFS (000's)
- ALTERNATIVE I
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy,
Neighborhood E Internal Cirailation Analysis
Austin-fiouat Associates, lnc,
922004rptgFig6.dwa
ii
0
i~
i~
i
i
I~
I~
it
57
WARNER Ay
51 43
~
(V V i
V
0
DWY D ~
2
Dvt+
F ~1
'< sll ti
5~
`'.r \
~ e ,~
_ ~
W W
12 12 ~S~`~
A ST ~ "~' (p
~ 7L
~ f ~
Ij c a
U
.D
A
W
10
11 sz
A
BARRANCA PKWY
Figure 7
YEAR 2025 ADT VOLUMES (000't)
- ALTERNATIVE 2
City of Tuatin - Lega~.y Park of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal C¢culation Analysis 10
Austin-Foust Aswciatet, Inc.
922004rptgFig7.d~
li
1'.
li
1
f
1~
IA
f
I~
I~
~0
Figure 8
YEAR 2025 AM pEAK HOUR VOLUMES
- ALTERNATIVE I
City of Tustin -Legacy Pazk of Tustin Legacy '
Neighborhood E Intemai Circulation Analysis 11 Austin-Foust Associates, InC,
922004rpt8Figg.dwg
r
d
t
i~
~~
~"
ado
Pry'
Y ~ i 670
.~-_ 1650
260
'~'
~ .- i 43
w
c~vcpi~ L, 170
2801
WARNER f- 2039
.~ t6 i i I x-1285
Y+`1
t 530 ---
t 80 -~,
m ~ ~ Ay
20 01
t 86 _ 1, t ,1
l
1
Y OIN 24~ o~.~ 392 -~ '~~n
~~pp n
~
p Y'1N
N
~,
i t 30 ~
°
rn~
r' 46
'
'
OWY 0 ~ .
•, ~~ 2ti pVt
t
-
`
0o 04
~
~~
N F ~
9"''
`b
~ 51
~,f
i fj ~~ 5~
N 4
s`' ~f ti 0
~~,~~
,y~
W
K W 1 ~
~~L4 ~~Z
~
o rn
o
2 ~ ^ ~, '' h~ 7,p O
7~b ~~
~
r) ~ ~-
0
230
~ ~ ~- 369 ti
6
, s
~ ~
r ~
y
90 * ~ A 581 • A r y~
s) \ ~ c~ ~,6~~
~ N '°s`' ti~ ~\' ~~
`Sl M~11ti G O `~.i~'CJ
~
~~
J~i~'
~
r
~`
lOl 9G
~
Jj O
7
J
~
N
~~J
Ary
~ N ~~
492
~'1. ~--
160
Y ~ .i'~ 5~ 48-~
A 0 SZ
268 -- ~ ~ ~ 243 acn~
~c u
00
16-i. wow v
~ ^ i 40 g
nNs
J~~
`-1820 17
~~b
-
BARRANCA PI(WY 40
1660---
~~ 160
30-Z
g 1650-+
30-i 8NS
ASTON
Figure 9
YEAR 2D?S PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
- AL~rERNA~rrvE 1
City of 7~stin - uB~7' Patk of'I~stin Legacy
Neig66orhooei E internal Circulation Analysis 12
Austin-Foust Assaaates, Inc.
922(104tpt8Fig9.dwg
r
i
M
r
Fig~ue 10
FEAR 2025 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUI~S
- ALTERNATIVE 2
City of Tustin -Legacy Part of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 13
Austia-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rpt8Fig10.dw~
~~
7
i~
~i
t
~~
~r~
E
°~
p~u'
~~ i 670
~i
wnoi a3
NNN
530 260
WAR
~- 2039
i- t 5 i 171
1 ~ I (-1284
~ `
t
-+
~ 0 NER Ay .
29 ~' 1
-
180 --y o
v~m
202~~ 1~
onn
Z -- 16 8-- I
392-7,.
;•
e
o ~
~
cv
i t 30 v
46
r N
DYYY D ~ -,
o. ~1 ~ 25 ~,~('f
0o
^
F• Sf ~t
5
r Oa -+ yt
~9~y N~ 1 \
c J,~ ti~ ,,ti
5
' ~
~ ~
1 6
0
`
o
K
W s
'
~ mo`b`'
r )\
~~~ ~~`
• ~
O ~
~oJJ+ ~ s
d ~ '' 230 .~ ~ `' 35g `' r
~ ~~ t
~~
~ A
28 t r ,
~
s9 t
~ ~ 6~
~.
100-~ ,~~ ,
6 n n ti z ti
~ • ~~,, ~pJ 1~ S
~
w N ~ T,,, ryO ~ ~~ R
~
Z 1
`rl ga0 • G
•
O \
a `~~j
i
r/
J>r1j ~ ~ ~L
O
~
`~
~
Jj O
J
~
~ `r
p -~ N ~
a
ryp~/+
i
J i 281
oN
k J_
s_ 30
518 ~ ~ 229
~ 36•x' h
. 1 ~
A 3O 51
~ ~ +
2~ -.~
254-- ~ouv
oo~
`~ 16'7. u...u
ooh
N
i 40 n
~ 17
~ ~ 4 ~. t82o d ~ b '~
BARRANCA PKWY 40
16
~ 78Q
~
~~ ~ 16~~ g
r
$
ASTON
IrlglttC lI
YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
- ALTERNATIVE 2
City of Tusiin -Legacy Puk of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 14
Auatin-Foust A,vocaatp, Inc,
922004~pt8Figl l.dwg
1~
~~
r
i~
i~
i
i
~~
,y
u
ALTERNATIVE
k
Lcgcnd
Figure 12
~- De-facto Right Tum IN'TERSECT'ION IANE CONF7(3URATIONS
City of Tustin - I.egary Put of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analyait 15 Austin-Foust Assoctiatea, Inc,
922~04rpt8Fig12.dwg
~'
~i
li
1~
1~
1•
r
i~
r
i~
w 0 0 0 0 S O S S O 0 0 S 0 0 0 O O
z a r
_~
D
~ Q
O
~
O
~
S
S
S p
O
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SGA Q d ~ Q A ~ Q Q Q A Q Q w Q d
N
~' ~"~n
~O t~
~}' ~ oo
M ~o
M
00 v~
M o
M M
V1 :o ~ n
Y1 o
~O N
~O O,
M ~
~, ~
~ ooa
a < a a a U ~ Q ~ d U ~ < a Q
U
...
r7
Q ~ v1
~O
d 00
M Or
M M
d N
I~ V1
M V)
C+5
st M
N O
~
Vl N
v1 pp
~D h
N N
~
~
N ~
a: W
H ~
~aa
Q
Q
Q
~
A
~
~
~
Q
A
~
Q
aO
Q
~
~
o
~'k
~
"~
oo
et
N
M
OO
M
Vi
M
00
~
M
~
M
N
E
n
..r
O
t~
V'1
o~
h
~
~p
oo
M
N
Q
V1
S
c~ aa ~ Q ~ ~ U t 4 4 ~ U t ~ ~ «
~'
a "v'f
~O N
d rs
M O
d M
ef' N
C~ ~n
M ~n
M .~+
d M
N O
60
.
Vt
. N$
v'1
. v~
N
. N
~
.
dc~lU
A
w
w
ppp
p
p
6
~~oOO.p~00
U u
SAO I'~00~~
a
3
l V]
U Cif v1
waa
~ ~
3
~ ~
~~ a0
~2l
al
~
~3~1
~
in
v~
v~
~
°~3
~f
W ~ ~
~
3 0 0 ° a
°O ~ ~ Q ~ R~ ~ ~ a
b ~I ~3 ~
.
u
~ ~ b U, ~ ~ ° ~ a ~ , ~ , ~ a
Q
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
~ .
~a ~r
G n
wc v~r
g n~
U nt
w ~p ; Q A A
ri
v1 ~
O
~
~
N
N
N
N r
N ;
O
~ yt~
v 0 vv
~ ; >
y
r N
~~
~.
~~
N
a
:°
~~
0
~~
m~
~~
I LU
~~
6
~z
r
~~
r
u
i
i~
i~
r
r
i~
i~
i~
,,
Figure 13
IN'T'ERSECTION LOCATION MAP
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E [ntemal Circulation Analysis 17 Awtin-Foust Associates, Inc
~2004rpt8Fig13.dwg
1~
SIGNALIZATION
Traffic signal warrants based on peak hour volumes as adopted by the Federal Highway
Administration and Caltrans were used here to determine the need for signalization. In applying this
warrant, the volumes of both the major and minor street must meet or exceed those shown on the curves
' ~ in Figures 14 and 15 under rural and urban conditions, respectively.
' I Determining the major street approach for the signal warrant involves calculating the number of
~ vehicles approaching the intersection on both major street legs. The highest total volume for either the
~ continuous east and west approach or the north and south approach during either AM and PM is
' ~ determined to be the major street approach for both peak hours. The minor strcet peak hour signal
warrant volume is the number of peak hour vehicles approaching the intersection on only the highest
volume leg. The highest volume for either the AM or PM detemunes the minor approach for both peak
t hours.
i Rural or urban classifications are determined by the speed on the major street. Warrants are
~`
based on rural when the speed on the major street is 40 miles per hour (mph) or higher. For urban areas,
r ~ the speed on the major street is 35 mph or lower. Speeds along Armstrong Avenue, Warner Avenue and
!'
Red Hill Avenue aze expected to be 40 mph or higher therefore the signal warrant analysis for the
intersections along these major roadways is based on rural. Speeds along "A" Street, "B" Street and "C"
Street are expected to be 35 mph or lower therefore the signal warrant analysis for the intersections along
I ~ , these minor roadways is based on urban.
The signal warrant analysis has been carried out at the intersections previously depicted in Figure
13 (with the exception of the Red Hill Avenue intersections at Warner Avenue and Carnegie Avenue and
the intersection of Armstrong Avenue at Bamanca Parkway which are currently signalized). The signal
warrant analysis for these intersections use the approach volumes previously shown in Figures 8 through
11. The signal warrant vohnnes are summa*~~Pd in Tables 3 and 4 for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively.
Based on the application of the warrant and yeaz 2025 forecast volumes, traffic signals should be installed
at all the analyzed intersections except for the intersections of "B" Street at "A" Street, "F" Street and "B"
i
Street, and "D" Street intersections at "C" Street and "A" Street. Typically, signals are not installed until
i
actual traffic volumes exceed the warrants.
City of Tustin -Legacy Pant of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Aoatysu l g 922004rptg.doc
r
r
r
* i~
0
O
r7
0
0
N
~ Cn
~ W
r
U
Q
r
Q
Q
Q)
O ~
O Q
~ ~
j
W
] W
J ~
~ ~
~ O
~ Q
~~
~ °'
W
~_ w~
_ ..
~ ~
~ a w°
N a~
~ W
~, a ~ z ~ a
g a, cq
~_ ~ p~~~
~ a H
u~
~o x~
~ ~ ~ c5
W ~ ~ {a
...
J
~ W
O
W
W
WWD
1-
0
a
s
o
.,. p
a
F Q
v ~ 4i
~. W i
~ ~ a
J ~ ~ .ti
U
Q ?
j ~
O
a
w ~ a
< > <
W
~~~
a~ a
O ~ Z
tty~y
O
W <
~ N ~ ~~
N 9 4~'
W O ~$ ,
N vrS [7..j
~ ~ ~ O
WU a ~ ~.
N >
~~~ °5S
~w
Z Z
~* w
0
~~
~ ~ O O ~
Q Q ~
~ d. r.,~ N O
(HSd02~ddd 3W(1lOn HOIH)
Hdn 133~I1S bONIW
W
~ a
* * ~ r Q
W
=
~
~' o
O ~ ~
O ~
w
O ~ w
O
a
dz
J
F- W
O ~
_
O -~ ~
In N O
O = N
O
Q o
O
a g
~ ~ u ~
Z
Q -% p ,~
4' J
O ~ ~ a~
U
_
t-
~ ~ ~ W H
O ~`' a i ~
O J =
v ~ v
~ Z Z O
m ~
a
~ l
a
-
O ~ ~ ~ a
~ ~w
O =
~
W
~
~ ~ ~ .?~ N
O L 1 Z O
qq ~
00 (C j a <
(!1
~ ~'
O
O
~
~
~
0
O a
~
~
p ~ ~ o
~ ~ o
W
~
2
W
O ~ Vi W
O w <~
~
~
~ V~1W
~ J ~ ~
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O j~<o
~ Ua~i
O O
~ cD O
t17 O
d
~ O
N ~ 3 r-
~ "' ~
(H~b' 02lddd 3Wf1 ~0~ H~IH)
H d/~ 13 32i1S ~lONIW o 0
z z
0.'
O
Z_
~ d'
O
N
W Z
O
Z Z
J ~ fn
~w
O Z .J
~ a~
~
O ~ O
~
N °a
~i ~
~ O
O cV
O ~ ~!
Q
~ `i
NQ ~
O
Z
w
w cQ ~
Z J ~ W
J 0 2 J
~ J
~ ~' ~ '~
~
O N O O
N Q
W
a
3~
~ ~~
C~7pp
u. H
O r4
x~
~s
~~
W
~~
0
~`d
w~
~~
0
az
1
n
i~
i~
I
~Y
I~
I~
Table 3
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Intersection /5 Rd at E/W Rd
5. Armstrong & Warner Direction AM Peak flour PM Peak Hour
Major Approach Eastbound 2,018 2,276
Westbound 1,998 1,536
Total 4,016 3,812
Minor Approach Southbound 492
Satisfies Warrant i er S eds/Rura1 ? Northbound
Y 854
6. Armstrong & A St es
Yes
Major Approach Northbound 536
Southbound 227
Minor Approach Total
Westbound 763
435
Satisfies Warrant i er S oral ? '
Major Approach Eastbound Yes
Westbound -
_ 457
94 }
Minor Approach Total
Southbound
_ 1,398
Satisfies Warrant er S urn ?
~~ 471
16. Armstrong & C St/I St -- Yes
Major Approach Northbound 577
661
Southbound 723 741
Minor Approach Total
Westbound 1,300
83 1,402
Satisfies Warrant Hi er S /Rural ? 127
18. Armstrong & E St Yes
Yes
Major Approach Northbound
586
Southbound
502 489
599
Minor Approach Total
Westbound 1,088
130 1,088
Satisfies Warrant i r S oral ? 342
21. Anztstrong & B St 1,~
Yes
Major Approach }d°~}~d
638
781
Southbound 806 677
TOE 1 ~~ 1,458
Minor Approach Westbound 18
Satisfies Warrant i er S eds/Rural ? Eastbound 143
22. Rd G & Warner No
Yes
Major Approach Eastbound 2
433
Westbound ,
2,299 2,337
2,098
Minor Approach Total
Southbound 4,732 4,435
Satisfies Warrant i er S eeds/Rural ? 131
554
23. E St & A St Ycs Ycs
Major Approach Eastbound 533
Westbound
508 I ~
430
Minor Approach Total
Southbound I ,041 620
Satisfies Warrant er S eeds/Rural ? 78
297
Yes Yes
City of Tustin -Legacy Psrit of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 2 ~ Austin-Foust Associates, Inc,
922004rptg.doc
,f
~~
~~
~A
~'
ii
f ~•
Table 3 (cont.)
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT. SUMMARY
Intersection N/S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
24. B St & A St
Major Approach Eastbound 303 367
Westbound 457 407
Total 760 774
Minor Approach Southbound 55 30
Satisfies Warrant wer S eeds/Urban ? No No
25.CSt&ASt
Major Approach Eastbound 305 372
Westbound 216 625
Total 521 997
Minor Approach Northbound 462 103
Satisfies Warrant wer S roan ? Yes No
26.FSt&BSt
Major Approach Eastbound 2 ~ --
Westbound 309
Totat 311 -
Minor Approach Southbound 8 --
Satisfies Warrant Lower S eeds/1Jrban ? No --
Major Approach Southbound -- 147
Minor Approach Westbound -- 50
Satisfies Warrant wer S rban ? - No
114.DSt8tASt
Major Approach Eastbound 441 314
Westbound 257 563
Total 698 877
Minor Approach Southbound 42 229
Satisfies Warrant Lower S roan ? No No
115.DSt&CSt
Major Approach Eastbound 61 --
Westbound 45
Total 106 -
Minor Approach Northbound 23 --
Satisfies Warrant Lower S rban 1 No
Major Approach Northbound -- 66
Minor Approach Westbound -- 48
Satisfies Warrant wer S eeds/Urban ? - No
Abbreviations:
N/S Rd, EJW Rd - NorthlSouth Road, East/West Road
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Fount Associates, Inc.
Neighborfiood E Internal Circulation Analysis 22 922004rptg.doc
n
n
i~
iA
r
i~
n
f~
Table 4
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Intersection /S Rd at E/VV Rd
5. Armstrong & Warner Direction AM peak FIonr PM Peak Rour
Major Approach Eastbound 2,017
2,276
Westbound 1,996 1,525
Total 4,013 3,801
Minor Approach Southbound 492
Satisfies Warrant i her S eds/Rural ? Northbound -
~ 870
6. Armstrong & A St 1, Yes
Major Approach Northbound 536
Southbound 215
Minor Approach Total 751
.
Satisfies Warrant er S eds/Rural ? Westbound 446 ~
Major Approach Eastbound Yes
Westbound N
__
438
1,001
Minor Approach Tots(
Southbound 1,439
Satisfies Warrant er S eds/Rural ? 401
16. Armstrong & C SdI St Yes
Major Approach Northbound 575
Southbound
719 648
729
Minor Approach Total
Westbound 1,294 1,377
Satisfies Warrant er S eds/Rural ? 95
153
I8. Armstrong & E St NO Yes
Major Approach Northbound
583
Southbound
510 471
606
Minor Approach Total
Westbound 1,093 1,077
Satisfies Warrant er S oral ? 108 267
21. Armstrong 8c B St No
Yes
Major Approach Northbour~
64S
Southbound
gpl 802
664
Total 1,446 1,466
Minor Approach Westbound 18
--
Satisfies Warrant er S wal ? Eastbound 134
22. Road G & Warner No y~
Major Approach Eastbound 2,433
2,337
Westbound
, 2 299 2,097
Minor Approach T
~ 4,732 4,434
Satisfies Warrant Hi er S eds/Rura1 ? Southbotnd 131 554
1'~ Yes
City of Tustin - Lcgacy Park of Tustin [,tgacy
Neighborhood E Iattxnal Circulation Analysis 23 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rpt8.doc
0
r
i~
i~
i
i~
i~
i~
i~
Table 4 (cont.)
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
23.ESt&ASt
Major Approach Eastbound 533 190
Westbound 508 430
Total 1,041 620
Minor Approach Southbound 78 297
Satisfies Warrant i er S eds/Rural ? Ycs Yes
24. 13 St&ASt
Major Approach Eastbound 304 369
Westbound 455 412
Total 759 781
Minor Approach Southbound 56 23
Satisfies Warrant Lower S eeds/Urban ? No No
25. C St & A St
Major Approach Eastbound 306 379
Westbound 215 621
Total 521 1,000
Minor Approach Northbound 462 154
Satisfies Warrant wer S eeds/[Jrban ? No No
26.FSt&BSt
Major Approach Eastbound 0 --
Westbound 310 --
Total 310 -
Minor Approach Southbound 7 -
Satisfies Warrant wer S eeds/Urban ? No -
Major Approach Southbound -- 139
Minor Approach Westbound - 44
Satisfies Warrant wer S eetis/[Jrban ? - No
114.DSt8cASt
Major Approach Eastbound 437 340
Westbound 256 559
Total 693 899
Minor Approach Southbound 39 214
Satisfies Warrant wer S xds/Urban ? No No
115.DSt&CSt
Major Approach Eastbound 68 -
Westbound 45 -
Total 113 -
Minor Approach Northbound 25 -
Satisfies Warrant Lower S rban ? No -
Major Approach Northbound - 81
Minor Approach Westbound - 58
Satisfies Warrant Lower S etxls/[Irban ? -- No
Abbreviations:
N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road
City oCTustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Fount Associates, Inc.
Neightartwod E Interne! Circulation Analysis 24 922004rptS.doc
~~
~~
~i
~i
~'
1~
I'~
i~
~J
TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES
The recommended on-site traffic control measures shown in Figure 16 within Neighborhood E
include one-way stop signs and traffic signals. Except for the changes to the three Armstrong Avenue
intersections previously mentioned, this data is consistent with the March 6, 2007, trafftc study. Changes
to the traffic control measures shown here will require subsequent analysis. It should be noted that traffic
control measures are not project mitigation measures. Rather they address the traffic operational needs of
the project site depending on individual capacity and include a combination of traffic signals and all-way
and one-way stop signs.
RECOMMENDED TURN POCKET LENGTHS
This section addresses turn pocket lengths for left-loin and right-turn lanes at future signalized
intersections with exclusive right-tom and left-turn lanes. They are based on vehicle storage
requirements, and are thereby exclusive of transition lengths (typically, transitions aze 90 feet for a single
lane and 120 to 150 feet for a double lane). The recommended turn pocket lengths for left-turns aze
summarized in Tables 5 and 6 for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, and Tables 7 and 8 for right-turns.
The turn pocket lengths shown here may be slightly different than the Mazch 6, 200'7, traffic study
because of the changes along Armstrong Avenue and Red Hill Avenue which affect traffic patterns in
Neighborhood E.
EFFECTS OF' CIRCULATION CHANGES
Several changes to the circulation presented in the March 6, 2007, traffic study are introduced in
this report. As part of the plan being submitted for Neighborhood E, Driveway D on Red Hill Avenue
(located north of Carnegie Avenue/"A" Street) is introduced as an access point that is restricted to right-
turns in and right-turns out. The effect of this new driveway on the adjacent intersections especially as it
relates to intersection spacing is analyzed. Other changes occur on the periphery of Neighborhood E
along Armstrong Avenue. Three intersections on Armstrong Avenue ("B" Strett, "C" Street/"I" Street
and "E" Street), which were previously restricted to certain turn movements, are converted to full access
in this traffic analysis.
City of 7ltstin -Legacy Part of Tustin L.eBx7'
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis ZS Austin-Foust Associates, lac.
922004rptg.da
i
i
i
i
r
i.
i~
i~
r
i
I~
I~
~~.
I`
-~ ~ N4QNER r__ '_ ~ --_-
U t
1
n ~ ~~
j ',wv ~ z -
` I ,~\rl\ ~~ ~
~ 1~ a ~;
_,
~~ i w'~
3
J
4~~
/ ~,.~
BARRANCA GR MY
O
n
,i
SFE ~NSE1
SS
k
,~
~'q+,~ ~
~ ~,
4~`~
ALTERNATIVE 1
~; ~+~. ..
f. ~r'~H, _ fw
``„
~~ ALTERNATIVE 2
Legend Figure 16
Signalized Intersection TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES
• Stop Siga
City of Tuatin - Legsry Park of Tustin Legscy Auatitt-Foust Aasocietes, Inc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysia ~ 922001rpt8Fig16.d~
'f
'~
tf
'~
t
'i
i~
i~
r
ii
iL
i~
~~
i
i
Table 5
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) RECOMMENDED LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTHS
Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd
S. Armstrong & Warner Movement Peak Hour Volume Lanes Volume/Lane Lea ~
SBL PM 124 1 124
l50'
NBL PM 565 2 283 300'
EBL pM 186 1 186 200'
6. Armstrong & A St WBL
SBL AM IO4 1 104 150'
NBL PM
PM 138
69 I
138
150'
EBL
AM
96 1
1 69
96 1S0'
'
16. Armstrong 8c C SdI St WBL
SBL PM 160 1 160 1 SO
200'
NBL AM
AM 190
14 I 190
200'
18. Armstrong & E St SBL
`~
297 1 14 150'
WBL
PM
77 1
1 297 300'
21. Armstron dt B St
NBL
AM
220 77 1 SO'
22. Road G & Warner
SBL
pM 1
220
2S0"
NBL
PM 120
I10 l
1 120 150'
EBL
AM
3S6
1 110
356 150'
'
23. E St & A St WBL
SBL AM 59 1 59 400
ISO'
NBL PM
pM 167
28 I
167
200'
EBL
AM
24 1
1 28
249 1 SO'
'
25. C St & A St WBL
SBL AM 107 1 107 250
1S0'
AM 12 I ~ ~ . ~,,.
WBL
103. Red Hill & Warner SBL .~..
PM , a
312 t
1 18
312 150'
3S0'
NBL AM
pM 600
480 2
300
350'
EBL
PM
280 Z
2 240 250'
WBL
104. Red Hill & Carnegie SBL
PM
260
2 140
130 150'
1 SO'
NBL AM
AM S00
120 2
250
250'
EBL pM
~ 1
1 120 150'
WBL
PM 90 ISO'
114.DSt&ASt EBL 230 I 230 2S0'
WBL AM
AM 173
17 1
173
200'
11 S. D St & C St
WBL
AM
28 1 17 150'
1 28 150'
Abbreviations;
N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road
Notes: The turn pocket length for left-turn lanes is determi ned from the highest AM PM
per lane with a minimum of 150' and rounded into increments
f SO' or peak hour forecast vohime
a
l
d o . Only intersecti ons wi th dedicat
d l
ft
re ana
yze
here. e
e
-l ion lanes
City of Twtin -Legacy pack of Twtin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 27 Awtin-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rpt8.doc
1
a
u
I~
i
Table 6
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) RECOMMENDED LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTHS
[ntersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Movement Peak Hour Volume Lanes Volume/Lane Len d
5. Armstrong & Warner SBL PM 126 1 126 150'
NHL PM 565 2 283 300'
EBL PM 186 I 186 200'
WBL AM 102 1 102 150'
6. Armstrong & A St SBL PM 139 1 139 150'
NBL PM 69 1 69 150'
EBL AM 93 1 93 150'
WBL PM 229 1 229 250'
16. Armstrong & C St/I St SBL AM 190 1 190 200'
NBL AM 14 1 14 150'
EBL PM 38 1 38 150'
WBL AM 11 1 I1 150'
l8. Armstro & E St SBL AM 294 1 294 300'
21. Armstron & B St NBL AM 221 1 221 250'
22. Road G & Warner SBL PM 120 1 120 150'
NBL PM 110 1 110 150'
EBL AM 356 1 356 400'
WBL AM 59 1 59 150'
23. E St & A St SBL PM 167 1 167 200'
NBL PM 28 1 28 1 SO'
EBL AM 249 1 249 250'
WBL AM 107 1 107 150'
25. C St & A St SBL AM 12 1 12 150'
NBL AM 253 1 253 300'
EBL PM 22 1 22 I50'
WBL PM 311 1 311 350'
103. Rcd Hill & Warner SBL AM 600 2 300 350'
NBL PM 480 2 240 250'
EBL PM 280 2 140 150'
WBL AM/PM 260 2 130 150'
104. Red Hill & Carnegie SBL AM 500 2 250 250'
NBL AM 120 I 120 150'
EBL PM 90 1 90 150'
WBL PM 230 1 230 250'
114. D St & A St EBL AM 173 1 173 200'
WBL AM 17 1 17 150'
115. D St & C St WBL AM 28 1 28 150'
Abbreviations:
N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road
Notes: The turn pocket length for left-turn lanes is determined from the highest AM or PM peak hour forecast volume
per lane with a minimum of 150' and rounded into increments of 50'. Only intersections with dedicated left-turn lanes
are analyzed hero.
City ofTustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associates, tnc,
Neighborhood E Internal Circulsuon Analysis 28 922004rpt8,doc
'±
''
'~
i
~,
'~
f
I
I
~~
r
f`~•
~ ~ooooSgo ~g$~°v°,vO~~» °~,~
a N N N N r+'i e„i N a? Q' ~ N N N N ~ N
a~
ama as qua. a i
c0
~Vi `o ov, oo chi a h = . C ,yu
U .''.JJg9
...
q d ~
~""'~OON~OV'i Oooo o0e'~
~r o, ~., ~o ,.', v o, r~
~+ O N M .-. N~ N N N N N b vO'1 S 00 ~ ~' C
'~ O
h
a
~~
a
~
F
Ar 00 N ~O h
~! CT M ~O
N K1 .-+ (V
exi C
"'~ N ~D tp
b n
°
`o
°O
d;
v
i v
h
W
r~
~
~ ~l
-p 'C O N M .,.
f'"
^ O
' ~ ~ ~ ~
.
. N ~O I~ n r
t
"
~
yry~
!
y
°aa~aa
~
`
t"~ ,
~
a
~
, 4~~Orr~~ F~~
~ ~
N G
~
~ H >aaaaa
I
i
a
b
h
T
O
V
N
.f,:
E'+
Op
'C
~ .-. V1 ~
~ ~~ s
~° ~
~, OpCapp tt++~~ C ~~y~p~
N N ry N N b '~ O 000 O a7 OQ ~
,~N.. 3 ~
:r'3 ,~Gu
t*1 v'f o0 V1 l~ O M O O ~ ~ ,~ d0
~O N v~j V h h h M N V ~
~ O
... ~
M "" ~ Q M M ~ .~. Vy ~ .~y
G b
OUpop 1$YO.
N ^ a b b ~ tOn N yD ~ Si
`~ N .-~ .-r N V .
N ,~ ~ O
~p
:~ ~a c~~.aaaa $~ .=
'~ o _~
'F N H H E" F H H H a '~
~u~ ~~~3~~~~ ~.~ ~ ~ a
x x~axpaoxaxa ~5 ~ ~ ~
w ~ w3z~w~~
C
O
w ~ .~q g a' AL
u a voi e . "' ~ ~ °
~ ~, o
p
~ ~ a.
«eCddd;
ed •~
p
O *
Q y N
~
u O ."Q.
~5. ~i
$ ~ fn
~ ~
~3 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~. z ~ z
o°~
~ ~
Q
~ ~ ~
r~
x A ~• X
fib,
8 ~ a.. a..~°~~
N
~ ~ ~
~
~ $ °~ 7
~ .a ~
~
W -, y
C
~
.
,
N N C ~ ai
a O Q
z
~ "'G
~ ~ ;O-ti ~ ~ ~ I
`
. zd~.~z
a>
~~
..}}o~
4U
1}~
r.7 W
F
0
~, ,'~
~z
~~
Q P
w
d
N
0
0
0
~,
J
i~
I~
I~
It
I~
H A
a a o
N 0 0
N N o
N S
M o
N $
Q ~ S
~' g
h o
N 0
N 0
N 0
N ~ o
~
~
a ~
~~ ~
as
a
a
~
a
a 0
~ ~
(,
rn
~O
a0
M 0o
O~
v1
I 8
~ C 8 .
~d
p
~ ~
`
~
ii
L
E.,, `~~O]
LY oo
N N ~O
M
' ~
N ~
N O
N O O O O
41 p
O ~'
a0 O
,., ~'C SOD
~
Cy
r O M ~ N N ~O "
"
'
~ YY
F °
~
w
>
a
?
fV
~
K1
~~+1
..
M
R
d'
N
~''
N
N
N
oO0
N
O
~
~
~O
O
Y1 p
8
^
000
N
0
'-~ y
~
~ p
~ ~
`3
.
3 ~
,
H ~ ~
°
r
.Ti
'V!-y e
~
~ ~
~, ;
O
~. ~O
`O
v1 ~D
a0
h
M M
[~
~O V1
tI5
N OO
d'
V1 h
O~
~f tr
V'1
V7 O
~/'~
V1 M
~O
h
0
N M
h
~O 1
$
w ~ Oq
O V 07
Fsi
W
A
A
A ~ ~ s
S N M ^ ~-+ M .-. Q ~!' M M d' ^ Y1 V' ~„ L7
H Y.
I
~ 0 ~
0 C
' ~ r ~"~ O ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ O O ~ '~ 3
N ,~
t N
N +
~
N
^
.-.
^
N M N
N y .~ ti
~~ O
Q
~~
a
a
~
a
a
~
~
a
~
a
a
a
a
a '
80 '~
~ a
c e,~° v~ir ~ ~ v~ir ~ w N z w 3 zr ~ ~ ~
•~ v
~
~
N ~q _
C7 . C
~
~i
ii~~" ~,eM W f
v~ ~
W ~ f~1p
v~ ~~
W 1~
W 17~
v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W ~ ~ `~
`~
~
~G
p
O
!^
~ ~ ~ ~
w
Y 1~ ~
~ V ~ ~ ~
A ~..~ !~y M ~ E
~° ~8
„
~'
~ a a a ~ ~ ~ z
~
~~ ~
~ ,
o
_
~
~
p O C 7 Q ~ ~ ". ~ ae c~. ~ •~
~ ~ ~
V '
Z7
~ ~ ~
~ ~ a ~~~~a>
~~
~ ~
C ~ x W ~ ~
~
~ ., ~ ~ ~ ,-. a
~
~~
a
~s
Q
~.
..~~o
ayyU
R~
.~ W
' ' The addition of a 'v ~.
do sway north of Carnegie Avenue/ A Street alleviates traffic conditions at
the adjacent intersections, Red Hill Avenue at Warner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue at Carnegie
~~
Avenue/"A" Street. Review of the spacing of Driveway D from Warner Avenue and Carnegie
Avenue/"A" Street on Red Hill Avenue shows that there is sufficient spacing between intersections based
1
' ~ on the northbound right-turn pocket needs at Warner Avenue and at Driveway D intersections. Therefore
the proposed location of Driveway D is adequate (approximately 1,000 feet south of Warner Avenue and
1,200 feet north of Carnegie Avenue/"A" Street).
~~
The signal warrant analysis presented earlier for Neighborhood E concluded that each of the four
I ' intersections along Armstrong Avenue between W
amen Avenue and Barranca Parkway would meet a
I ~ signal warrant. A signal progression analysis was conducted for this scenario which concluded that no
adverse conditions would occur. However, whether signals are nceded at all four, particularly if some
I ~ movements could be eliminated (e.g., exiting left turns at non-signalized intersections) were further
examined. As mentioned previously, two alternatives arc analyzed for the intersections of Armstrong at
"C'/"I" Street and at "E" Street with respect to signalization and lane deployment. The analysis showed
minor volume differences along "C" Street between "A" Street and Armstrong Avenue, "A" Street
between "C" Street and Armstrong Avenue and on Armstrong Avenue between "B" Street and "A"
Street. Intersection performance is further evaluated here using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
I 1 procedure for stop-controlled intersecti
ens and ICU procedure for signalized intersections. Table 9 lists
the level of service (LOS) results. As can be seen in this table, all intersections under alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 would not experience adverse conditions with the exception of "B" Street with forecasts
showing that the eastbound left-turn move from "B" Street could experience a delay of up to 65.1
seconds.
CONCLUSIONS
The intent of this report is twofold. First, a guide is provided to show the needs of the roadways
(i.e., recommendations for midblock lanes, intersection lane geometries, signalization, left-turn and right-
: turn pocket lengths) in Neighborhood E and when im lemented would ads uatel su
p q y pport traffic within
Neighborhood E. Secondly, with minor land use and circulation changes in and around Neighborhood E,
k the data is consistent with that presented in the March 6, 2007, traffic study for Legacy park, and
generally, the traffic conditions are alleviated at the intersections adjacent to the driveway that is added
and to the intersections along Armstrong Avenue that are changed.
i
City of Tustin -Legacy Part of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 31 Austin-Foust Associates, Ina
922004rptg.doc
I~
i
i~
Table 9
ARMSTRONG AVENUE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
"B" Street
Control Side Street Sto Control Side Street St Control
Prohibited Movements None None
AM Dela LOS * EBL - 65.1 secs EBL - 62.9 secs
OS *
PM De
l
a EBL - 42.1 secs EBL - 39.6 secs
~ ~+
K
•
KC"1! S''trCeY i» Jtr~t
Control Side Street Sto Control Si al
Prohibited Movements No EB/WB left turns None
No EB/WH throu
AM ICU/Dela OS * 11.1 secs .38 A
PM ICU/Dela OS * 11.8 secs .40 A
"E" Street
Control Si Side Strcet St Control
Prohibited Movements None No exitin left-turns
AM ICU/Dela OS * .40 A 11.2 secs
PM ICU/Dela OS * .38 A 12.1 secs
"A" Street
Control Si al Si al
Prohibited Movements None None
AM ICU OS .42 A .41 A
PM ICU S .48 A .47 A
* For stop control, the delay and corresponding LOS apply to the side street movement with the highest delay.
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associates, inc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 32 9220IWrptg.doc
'f
Appendix
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets
~'
~'
This appendix summarizes information pertaining to the intersection analysis presented in this
traffic report.
'~
ICU Calculation Methodology
~~
The ICU calculation procedure is based on a critical movement methodology that shows the
', amount of capacity utilized by each critical movement at an intersection. A capacity of 1,700 vehicles per
hour per lane is assumed together with a .OS clearance interval. A "de-facto" right-turn Lane is used in the
' ~ ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and right-
turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet or more from curb to outside of through-lane with parking
prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped right-turn lanes during the
' ~ ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in lace of a
P
numerical entry for right-tum lanes.
'~
The methodology also incorporates a check for right-turn capacity utilization. Both right-tum-on-
I ~ green (RTOG) and right-turn-on-red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the
total right-turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total
capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made.
Ezample for Northbound Rlght
I 1. Ritzt-Turn-On-Green (RTOGI
~' If NBT is critical move, then:
RTOG = V/C (NBT)
Otherwise,
RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL)
2. R~~t-Turn-On-Red IRTOR)
If WBL is critical move, then:
RTOR = V/C (WBL)
Otherwise,
RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT)
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy.
Neighbotltood E [ntemal Circulation Analysis A_ 1 Austin-Foust Asaocia<ea ~.
922004rptg.doc
'~
3. Right-Tam Overlap Adjustment
If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the
RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows:
RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL)
RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL)
4. Total Right-Turn Capacity (RTC) Availability For NBR
RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR
Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (0% for County intersections,
7S% for intersections in all other jurisdictions within the study area)
i~
I
I~
I
it
(~'k
Right-turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) -RTC
A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is
accessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately
accommodate the right-turn V/C, therefore the right-turn is essentially considered to be a critical
movement. In such cases, the right-turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in
the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that aright-turn adjustment is required for more
than one right-turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right-turn
movement reference, and the right-turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity
utilization value. In such casts, fiuther operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if
under actual operational conditions, the critical right-turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a
right-turn adjustment credit should be applied.
Shared Lane V/C Methodology
For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn
movement (e.g., left/through, through/right, left!through/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluatui
to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given taro movement. The
following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out:
Ezample for Shared Left/Through Lane
1. Average Lane Volume (ALV~
ALV = Left-Turn Volume + Through Volume
Total Left + Throu Approac es me u g s are ane
City of Tustin -Legacy Pule of Tustin Legacy Auggan-Foust Aaweiata, Inc.
Neig6bofioad E Interval Circulation Analysis A-2 922004rptg.doc
u
'!
2. ALV for Each Approach
ALV (Left) = Left-Turn Volume
' ~ Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane)
l ALV (Through) _ __ Thro ugh Vo1LmP
' ' Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane)
3. Lane Dedication is Warranted
' ~ If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedicati
approach is warranted. Left-turn and through V/C ratios or this case are oal ul ted as
~ follows:
~~
V/C (Left) _ _ L.~ft-TL~*n Volume
' Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane)
V/C (Through) = T1Lmueh Volume
' ~ Through Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane)
~ Similarly, if ALV (Through) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the through
~ approach is warranted, and left-turn and through V/C ratios are calculated as follows:
V/C (Left) = L.~ft-Tu_rn Volume
f Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane)
~r
V/C (Through) = Throutt_h Volume
I ~ Through Approach Capacity (including shared bane)
4 Lane Dedication is not Warranted
I ~ If ALV (Left) and ALV (Through) are both less than ALV, the left/through lane is assumed to be
truly shared and each left, leftlthrough or through approach lane carries an evenly distributed
volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left/through V/C ratio is calculated as follows:
I V/C (Left/1'hrough) ~ -T +
Val
Total Left + Throes Approach ~it3' (including shared lane)
f ~ This V/C (I,eft1T'hrough) ratio is assigned as the VJC (Throw ratio
movement analysis and ICU summary listing. ~) for the critical
i
If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C
(Through) that is attributed to the left-turn volume is estimated as follows:
` If approach has more than one left-turn (including shared lane), then:
V/C (Left) = V/C (Through)
City ofTustin -Legacy Puic of Tustin Legacy
Neighborfiood E /atertul Circulation Analysis A_3 Austin-Foust Associate, Inc.
922004rptg.doc
If approach has only one left-turn lane (shared lane), then:
' VIC (Left) = Left-Turn Volume
Single Approach Lane Capacity
If this left-turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is
',
posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout.
' ` These same steps are carried out for shared through/right lanes. If full dedication of a shazed
through/right lane to the right-tum movement is warranted, the right-turn V/C value calculated in step
' ~ throe is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity. When an approach contains more than one
shared lane (e.g., left/through and through/right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the
', three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for wither of the
shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three
is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two
' movements involved in the other shared lane.
i
Figure A-1 illustrates the intersections that were analyzed in this study, and the AM and PM peak
I ; hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) worksheets then follow.
f
~~
I~
~~ ,
~~,~
~i
Ciry of Tustin -Legacy Par1c of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associate, Inc.
Neighborhood E lotemal Circulation Analysis A-4 922004rptg.doc
r
r
r
i~
i~
i
p
I~
IW
~~
r
• Figure A•1
INI'BRSECIION IACATION l1TAP
City of Tustin - Isgary Park of Tustin Lcgaoy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulati~ Analyaii q.5 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
~004cpt8FiB~--I.dwg
i
i
~~
~'
i~
i~
r
i
i~
iW
i~
i'
i
5. Ar~troag i Wuau
2015 Altunatiw 1
AH PK HOUR PH PK HWR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NHL 2 3400 270 .08* 565 .17*
NBT 2 3400 124 .04 235 .09
NBR 0 0 9 54
SBL 1 1700 78 .OS 124 .01
SBT 2 3400 142 .04* 204 ,06*
SBR 1 1700 272 .16 248 .15
EBL 1 1700 170 .10* 186 .11
EBT 3 5100 1288 .25 1698 .33*
EBR 1 11D0 560 .33 392 .23
WBL 1 1700 109 .06 81 .05*
WBT 3 5100 1758 .39* 1285 .25
WBR 1 1700 136 .08 170 .10
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .09*
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
TOlaL C1IPACIlT UTILIZ7trI0ll .65 .66
6. Arestrong i A St
2025 111turutiv~s 1
AM PK HOUR PN PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 64 .09 69 .09
NBT 2 3900 363 .14' 153 .09*
NBR 0 0 109 197
SBL 1 1700 136 .OB* 138 .08*
SBT 2 3400 90 .03 331 .10
SBR 0 0 1 2
EBL 1 1700 96 .06* 48 .03'
EBT 2 3900 107 .04 166 .10
EBR 0 0 40 243 .14
WBL 1 1700 115 .07 160 .09
WB? Z 3400 I93 .09' 992 .23*
WBR 0 0 127 Z89
Clearance Interval .C5' .OS*
DOTAL C11P11CITT OTILIZ1lTIp1 ./2 IB
2025 7-ltunatiw 2
AN PK HWR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 3400 270 .08' 565 .17*
NBT 2 3900 128 .04 239 .09
NBR 0 0 9 66
SBL 1 1700 78 .05 126 .07
SBT 2 3400 142 .04' 202 .06'
SBR 1 1700 272 .16 248 .15
EBL 1 1700 110 .10* 186 .11
EBT 3 5100 1290 .25 1698 .33*
EBA 1 1700 557 .33 392 .23
NBL 1 1700 102 .06 10 .09*
WBT 3 5100 1758 .39* 1284 .25
WBR 1 1700 136 .08 171 .10
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .04'
Clearance Interval .OS* .OS*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .65
2025 llt~rwtiw 1
AN PK HOUR PN PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 69 .04 69 .09
HBT 2 3400 363 .14* 153 .09*
NBR 0 0 109 141
SBL 1 1700 136 .OB* 139 .08*
.SBT 2 3900 79 .02 262 .08
5BR 0 0 D 0
EBL 1 1700 93 .05* 36 .02*
EBT 2 3400 103 .04 149 .09
EBR 0 0 40 243 .19
WBL 1 1706 126 .O1 229 .13
WBT 2 3400 193 .09' 491 .23*
NBR 0 0 127 281
Clearance Interval .05' .OS*
POlAL C11PbCITY OTILIZ11TI0>f .Il ./7
A-6 I..tgacy Part of Tustin Legacy: Neigh E 7/07 922.004
i
i
i
i.
i~
i~
i
i
i`
21. Anatronq t B St
2015 Alternative 1
AM PK HOUR PN PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL VJC
NBL 1 1700 220 .13* 8 .00
NB? 2 3400 386 .12 193 .23*
NBR 0 0 32 30
SBL 0 0 0 0
SBT 2 3400 117 .29' 636 .20
SBR 0 0 89 ql
EBL 1 1700 5 .00 6q .09
EB7 1 1700 0 .00 0 .OS*
EBR 0 0 2 79
WBL 1 1700 5 .00 26 .02*
WBT 1 1700 1 .O1' 1 .03
WBR 0 0 12 96
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
TOT11L CAPACITf O'1'ILILATIOp ./3 .35
22. Rd G i Narnar
2025 Alternative 1
AM PK ROUA PM PR HOUA
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 19 .O1 110 .06
NBT 1 1700 2 .O1' 7 .08*
~ 0 0 7 137
SBL 1 1700 11 .O1' 120 .07*
5BT 1 1700 2 ,00 3 .00
SBR 1 1700 111 .07 q31 .25
EBL 1 1700 356 .21* 293 .17*
EB? 3 5100 1991 .39 2020 .q0
EBA 1 1700 B3 .OS 29 .O1
WBL 1 1700 59 .03 16 .O1
WBT 3 5100 2106 .49* 2039 .41'
WBR 0 0 13q 43
Aiqht Turn Adjustment SBR .03*
Clearance Interval .05* .OS*
TOTAL CAPACIlt 0lILIZATIO>f .72 .81
A-8
1025 Alternative 2
AN PK HCUR PN PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL ] 1700 221 .13' 2 .00
~T 2 3400 392 .12 769 .2q*
NBA 0 0 32 31
SBL 0 0 0 1
SBT 2 3400 712 .2q* 623 .20
SBR 0 0 89 90
EBL 1 1700 q .00 55 .03
EBT 1 1700 0 .00 0 .OS'
EBR 0 0 2 79
WBL 1 1700 5 .00 26 .02*
WB1 1 1700 1 .O1' 1 .03
WBR 0 0 12 q6
Clearance Interval .OS* .05*
TOTAL CAPACI3? OlILIZIIlION ./3 .36
2025 Alternative 2
AN PK NWR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 19 .O1 110 .06
NBT 1 1700 2 .O1* 7 .OB*
NBR 0 0 7 131
SBL 1 1700 17 .Oi* 120 07*
SBT 1 1100 2 .00 3 .
.00
SBR 1 1700 112 .07 q31 .25
EBL 1 1700 356 .21' 293 .17*
EBT 3 5100 199q .39 2020 .90
EBR 1 1700 83 .OS 24 .01
WBL 1 1]00 59 .03 15 .O1
WBT 3 SI00 2106 .!q* 2039 .41'
WBR 0 0 13! q3
Right turn Adjustment S8R 03'
Clearance Interval .05* .
.OS*
TOTAL CAPACIl7 0lILIL1ITION .72 .81
Legacy Park of Tustin L.cgacy: Neigh E 7/07 922.004
i
i
i~
i~
ii
i~
~i
z5. cstsASt
2025 Altstnatiw 1
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 254 .15* 92 .02*
NBT 1 1700 43 .12 9 .04
NBR 0 0 165 52
SBL 0 0 12 11
SBT 1 1700 S .02* 97 .06*
SBR 0 0 23 42
EBL 1 1700 18 .O1 11 .O1
EBT 1 1700 265 .17* 251 .21*
EBR 0 0 22 110
NBL 1 1700 36 .02* 312 .18*
NBT 1 1700 180 .11 313 .18
NBR 0 0 0 0
Clearance Interval .OS* .05*
?OTAL GIPIICITY UTILIL1lTI01i ./i .52
26. P St i B St
2025 lllternatfw 1
A!f PK BOOR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 6 1!2
SB7 1 1100 0 .00* 0 .09*
SBA 0 0 2 5
EBL 0 0 0 0
EBT 1 1700 2 .00 2 .00
EBR 0 0 0 0
NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 1 1700 53 .18* 29 .03*
WBR 0 0 256 26
Clearance Interval .OS* .05*
TOT71L G1P11CITY UTILIZATION .23 .17
1025 Alt~rnativ~ 2
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 253 .15* 41 .02*
NBT 1 1700 97 .i2 20 .04
NBR 0 0 162 93
SBL 0 0 12 11
SBT 1 1700 5 .02* 48 .06*
58R 0 0 23 51
EBL 1 1700 21 .O1 22 .O1
EBT 1 1700 263 ,17* 247 .21*
EBR 0 0 22 110
NBL 1 1700 36 .02* 311 .18*
NBT 1 1700 179 .11 310 .18
WBR 0 0 0 0
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
TOTAL C71P71CIT! UTILIZIITICl1 .il .52
2025 Altunatiw 2
AM PK 1K)UR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 5 139
SBT 1 1700 0 .00* 0 .OB*
SBR 0 0 2 5
EBL 0 0 0 1
EBP 1 1700 0 .00 0 .00
EBR 0 0 0 0
NBL 0 0 0 0
NBP 1 1700 54 .18* 18 .03*
NBR 0 0 256 26
Clearance Interval .05* .OS*
TOl7lL C1P71CITT 0lILIZ71lION .23 .16
A- IO Leguy Puk of Tuaun Legacy: Neigh E ?/0'1 922.004
i
i
i
i
i~
i~
i~
IW
106. Jl~ton i Barranca
2025 Altmrnative 1
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 20 .O1 130 .08
NBT 1 1700 10 .02' 10 .04*
NBR 0 0 30 50
SBL 1 1700 20 .O1* 150 .09*
SBT 1 1700 2D .O1 10 .O1
SBR 1 1700 20 .O1 310 .18
EBL 1 1700 300 .18* 90 .02*
EBT 9 6800 1780 .28 1660 .25
EBR 0 0 150 30
WBL 1 1700 80 .OS 20 .O1
FiBT 9 6800 1630 .26* 1890 .28*
NBR 0 0 160 qp
Right Turn Adjustment 5BR .11'
Clearance Interval ,OS* .05*
TOTAL CAPACITY 0?ILI1~71TION .52 .59
107. Ar~strooq i Btrr~nc~
2025 1-lt~rnatiw 1
AM PK AoOR PM Px HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 60 .09 100 .06
NB? 1 1700 20 .O1* 20 .O1*
NBR 1 1700 30 .02 80 .05
SBL 1 1700 80 .OS* 390 .20*
SBT 1 1100 30 .02 20 .O1
SBA 1 1700 110 .08 370 ,22
EBL 1 1700 370 .22* 180 .11*
EBT 4 6800 1310 .21 1650 .25
EBA 0 0 90 30
WBL I 1700 170 .10 90 .02
NBT 9 6800 1680 .27' 1980 .29'
iiBR 0 0 150 170
Clearance Interval .OS* .05*
DOTAL CAPACITY OTILI2:11TIG11 .60 .61
A-12
2025 Altarnatiw 2
AN PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 20 .O1 130 .08
NBi 1 1700 10 .02* 10 .09'
NBR 0 0 30 50
SBL 1 1700 20 .O1' 150 .09*
SBT 1 1100 20 .01 10 .O1
SBR 1 1700 20 .O1 310 ,18
EBL 1 1700 300 .18* q0 .02*
EBT 9 6800 1180 .28 1660 .25
EBR 0 0 150 30
WBL 1 1100 80 .05 20 .O1
WBT 9 6800 1630 .26' 1890 .28*
WBR 0 0 160 40
Aight Turn Adjustment SBR .11*
Clearance Interval .OS* .OS*
TOTAL CAPACITY OTILItATIOB .52 .59
2025 Alt.rn,tiv„ 2
AM Px HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 60 .09 100 .06
NHT 1 1700 20 .O1* 20 .O1*
NBR 1 1700 30 .02 80 .OS
SBL 1 1100 80 .OS* 350 .21*
SBi 1 1700 30 .02 20 .O1
SBR 1 1700 190 .OB 370 ,22
EBL 1 1700 370 .22' 180 .ii*
EBT 4 6800 1370 .21 1 650 .15
EBR 0 0 90 30
KBL 1 1700 170 .10 40 ,02
(JBT 4 6800 1680 .Z7* 1980 ,2q*
NBR 0 0 150 1 70
Clearance Interval .05* .05'
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILILATIOIf .60 .62
~B~Y Pant of Tustin [.egary: Neigh E 7/07922.004
EXHIBIT B
OF
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 07-008
EXHIBIT B
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 07-008
CONCEPT PLAN 06-001
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted concept plan
for the project date stamped November 5, 2007, on file with the Community
Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Zoning
Administrator in accordance with this Exhibit. The Community Development
Director may also approve subsequent minor modifications to the concept plan if
such modifications are consistent with provisions of the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan, Tustin City Code, the Disposition and Development. Agreement where
determined by the Redevelopment Agency or other applicable regulations.
2. Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be
complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject
to review and approval by the Community Development Department.
3. Approval of Concept Plan 06-001 is contingent upon the applicant and property
owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a
notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing
and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary
Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established
by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be
provided to the Community Development Department.
4. Concept Plan 06-001 is approved for development of 1,267,324 square feet of
non-residential development within Neighborhood E (Planning Areas 9-12) of the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as per Tables 1 and 2 of the Legacy Park
Neighborhood E Concept Plan date stamped November 5, 2007.
5. Pursuant to the DDA and the defined development phasing identified therein, no
development of any building square footages on Lot 5 may occur until Phase 2
conveyance. The Developer shall be permitted to construct street and
streetscape improvements adjacent to Lot 5 as necessary and required by the
Concept Plan and the Tentative Tract Map conditions.
6. Since parkland programming information is only provided at a general level on
the Concept Plan, the Developer shall submit all required programming
information for parkland at the design review level. The City and Redevelopment
Agency reserve the right to request refinements and additional information as
needed to insure that the original intent of each open space area is achieved as
stipulated in Attachment 28 and its exhibits in the DDA.
7. The proposed Concept Plan includes the use of recycled on-site stone on
proposed walls. Since the amount of recycled on-site stones is not yet
determined nor the specific physical appearance of its installation, the use of
recycled on-site stone on proposed walls is subject to review and approval by the
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
CP 06-001
Page 2
City and Redevelopment Agency At the design review submittal, information as
to the availability of recycled on-site stone shall be provided and the City and
Redevelopment Agency shall have the opportunity to determine whether such an
application achieves the aesthetic quality that the City and Agency desires within
the Linear Park.
8. Prior to sign installation, a master sign program shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City for Neighborhood E. The, Sign program shall include
signage for the portions of the Linear Park within Neighborhood E (all privately
maintained parkland and open space areas) and community portal entry signage
as identified in Figure 2-15 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, pages I I-1 d
through II-14, and Appendix B of the Legacy Park Design Guidelines as
applicable within Neighborhood E. signage for privately maintained parks shall
indicate that the facilities are privately owned but accessible to the general
public.
9. signage at the comer of Barranca and Red Hill (Primary Community
Identification Sign) shall be installed per the approved Tustin Legacy Design
Guidelines. The signage shall reflect the Tustin Legacy Sign Type B (with or
without arches) as approved by the City and as shown in Appendix B of the
Design Guidelines. Other Legacy Park signage may be coordinated with this
sign when approved by the City, but should not replace the need for the Tustin
Legacy primary identification.
10. At the Design Review submittals for those portions of the Linear Park within
Neighborhood E, the applicant shall submit material boards and/or a list of
locations where the site furnishing will be installed for final City and
Redevelopment Agency review and approval. The applicant is encouraged to
incorporate historical elements and community branding along the paths, subject
to approval of actual design by the City and Redevelopment Agency.
11. At Design Review submittal, the applicant shall provide proposed materials for
paths (primary, secondary, tertiary, and accent areas) within the Linear Park and
a list of locations where the paving and concrete surfacing materials can be seen
in the field subject to review and approval by the City and Agency. The following
have been considered by the City and Redevelopment Agency:
a. Primary -Top Cast Concrete.
b. Secondary -Natural Concrete.
c. Tertiary Paths and Running Trail -Decomposed Granite.
d. Accent Paving -Colored concrete with four different options, two with
exposed stone and two with smooth surfaces. The accent paving,
given the locations proposed in the overall plan, would be best served
using the exposed stone.
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
CP 06-001
Page 3
12. At Design Review submittal, more detailed material and design information shall
be submitted on the Armstrong Bridge, including surface area of the pedestrian
crossings subject to review and approval by the City and Redevelopment
Agency. The City and Redevelopment Agency reserves the right to comment and
provide specific direction to the Developer regarding any responses or additional
information provided on the proposed bridges.
13. Unless otherwise agreed by the City and Redevelopment Agency in its sole
discretion, the property within the tract, any street, sidewalk, or alleyway thereon
shall not be privately gated.
14. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall
deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashiers check payable to
the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file
the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community
Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any
interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.