HomeMy WebLinkAboutConcept Plan 06-001 - ReportTY Q~,
AT'E: NOVEMBER 5, 2007 ,~, ~~ `~-~~ ~ i
~r~ter-tom G~^c`
TO: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CONCEPT PLAN 06-001
APPLICANT/ TUSTIN LEGACY COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC
PROPERTY 130 VANTIS, SUITE 206
OWNER: ALISO VIEJO, CA
LOCATION: NEIGHBORHOOD E OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
PLANNING AREAS 9-12
ZONING: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: ON JANUARY 16, 2001, THE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTIFIED THE
PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIS/EIR)
FOR THE REUSE AND DISPOSAL OF MCAS TUSTIN. ON APRIL
3, 2006, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 06-
43 APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS
TUSTIN. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND IS DETERMINED NOT
TO RESULT IN ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES OR A SUBSTANTIAL
INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF ANY PREVIOUSLY
IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IN THE FEIS/EIR AND
ADDENDUM. MOREOVER, NO NEW INFORMATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE HAS SURFACED SINCE
CERTIFICATION OF THE FEIS/EIR AND ADDENDUM.
REQUEST: CONCEPT PLAN FOR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF
APPROXIMATELY 1,267,324 SQUARE FEET OF NON-
RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ENCOMPASSES PHASES 1 AND 2
OF NEIGHBORHOOD E. PHASE 1 INCLUDES A TOTAL OF
Zoning Administrator
November 5, 2007
CP 06-001
Page 2
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 RED
FLEX/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE; 229,997 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE PARK USE; AND, 18,132 SQUARE FEET OF
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (MIXED) USE.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Zoning Administrator adopt Zoning Administrator Action No. 07-008 approving
Concept Plan 06-001.
BACKGROUND
Section 3.7.4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan identifies permitted and conditionally
permitted uses within Neighborhood E (Planning Areas 9-12) of the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan. In general, offices, retail commercial, service commercial, and light
industrial uses are permitted.
Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan requires approval of a Concept Plan by
the Zoning Administrator to ensure that the integrity, purpose and intent of the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan is maintained and satisfied. Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan also requires the submittal of a Sector Level B Map or Design Review
application to accompany the Concept Plan submittal. Consequently, Tentative Tract
Map 17144 (Sector B Map) has been submitted and is scheduled for Planning
Commission and City Council considerations on November 13, 2007, and November
20, 2007, respectively.
DISCUSSION
Site and Surroundings
The project site is generally bounded by Barranca Parkway to the south, Red Hill Avenue
to the west, Wamer Avenue to the north and Armstrong Avenue to the east within
Neighbofiood E (Planning Areas 9-12) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Attachment A -
Location Map). The surroundings developments include a commercial center to the south
across Barranca Parkway, office buildings and light industrial uses across Red Hill
Avenue, and vacant former marine corps air station properties to the north and east.
Concept Plan
Concept Plan (CP) 06-001 consists of approximately 1,267,324 square feet of land at
Tustin Legacy (Attachment B -Legacy Park Neighborhood E Concept Plan). The
purpose of the Concept Plan is to ensure that:
• The necessary linkages are provided between the development project and the
Planning Area/Neighborhood in which it is located;
Zoning Administrator
November 5, 2007
CP 06-001
Page 3
• The integrity of the Specific Plan and purpose and intent of each Neighborhood is
maintained; and,
• Other requirements that are not included in the Specific Plan are identified and
satisfied.
Concept Plan 06-001 for Neighborhood E (Planning Areas 9-12) is organized into five
(5) components as follows:
• Land Use (development uses and parks/open spaces)
• Circulation
• Design Guidelines
• Landscape Elements
• Infrastructure
In general each component can be summarized as follows. Further descriptions of
each element can be found in Attachment B.
Land Use
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 eneral
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)
Circulation
The Circulation component provides conceptual improvement plans for the proposed
infrastructure (streets, transportation planning, and traffic and circulation analysis) to
support the proposed Concept Plan. Backbone roads such as Barranca Parkway right
of way and road widening dedication, Red Hill Avenue right of way dedication and road
widening, Warner Avenue full right of way dedication, and Armstrong Avenue right of
way dedication were identified. Local roads such as Carnegie Avenue, "B", "C", "D" "E",
"F", and "G" Streets were also identified in the Concept Plan.
Bus stops and turnouts are shown throughout Neighborhood E and are depicted on
Exhibits 4a and 4b of the Concept Plan. Traffic signals which consist of new si
gnats
Zoning Administrator
November 5, 2007
CP 06-001
Page 4
required by the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) or the project traffic
study and modifications to existing signals were identified as well on Exhibits 4a and 4b.
Design Guidelines
The Design Guidelines provide in-depth details and conceptual design elements such
as visual character, planning, architecture, landscape, and hardscape. A copy of the
already approved Design Guidelines for Tustin Legacy is available at the Community
Development Department and will be available at the meeting.
Landscape Elements
The Landscape Elements component provides conceptual landscape plans for open
space areas, streetscapes, a multi-use trail system, signage, decorative walls, park
furnishings and lighting, and bridge design. The Landscape plans for open space areas
in Neighborhood E are designed to incorporate a linear park, sports field, pocket park
(Lot J), and edge open space along Red Hill Avenue. Canopies of trees will line
pedestrian spaces that connect the corporate centers to the Linear Park. Combinations
of deciduous and canopy trees will be used throughout Neighborhood E to create
evergreen backdrops with accent color.
signage and walls were identified conceptually and will be proposed in detail at the time
of Design Review. Landscape areas within the Linear Park are divided into two (2) -
zones, the Ecological and the Environmental zones. These two zones are connected to
each other by a multi-use trail called "Legacy. Path". Legacy path is canopied and
defined by skyline trees, canopy trees, and accent trees to provide a comfortable
pedestrian scale. The Ecological zone contains a storm water detention basin that will
be planted primarily with grasses and wildflowers. These plants will be able to tolerate
periodic flooding. The Environmental zone contains a pond area with a minimum of
10,000 square feet of surface area with an edge planted with native riparian trees.
Conceptual Linear Park furnishings and lighting will consist of wood and metals.
Other open space areas such as the Red Hill open space, focal park, sports field and
internal business park landscape also will use a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground
covers consistent with the intents and purposes of the areas.
Infrastructure
The Infrastructure component identifies backbone infrastructure based upon the master
roadway network and local infrastructure system. This infrastructure component
includes conceptual plans for domestic water, well sites, reclaimed water, sewer, and
storm drainage and water quality.
Sewer and domestic water within Neighborhood E will be provided by IRWD. A total of
four wells will be provided within both Neighborhoods D and E. These wells are
currently under testing and the actual location and the number of wells will be
determined by IRWD upon completion of the tests. Upon the determination of the final
Zoning Administrator
November 5, 2007
C P 06-001
Page 5
well site locations, the sites will be dedicated to the City of Tustin and leased to IRWD
for public utility purposes will be provided.
Storm drain infrastructure improvements within Neighborhood E include backbone and
local infrastructure. The backbone infrastructure includes existing storm drain
infrastructure along Red Hill and the Barranca Channel along the north side of Barranca
Parkway. Additional right of way along Barranca Parkway will be required and will be
conveyed through the Sector B Map. Local infrastructure will include new storm drain
lines connecting to the backbone facilities located within Barranca Parkway and
Armstrong Avenue. The hydrology study also has been completed and has determined
that the detention basin at the southwestern portion of Neighborhood E is adequate.
ENVIRONMENTAL
On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS
Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an
Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan and is determined not to result in any new significant environmental
impacts, substantial changes, or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously
identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new
information of substantial importance has surtaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Concept Plan has been analyzed for conformity to the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan, DDA 06-01, the Tustin City Code, applicable City of Tustin guidelines and
standards, applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified FEIS/EIR, and other
agreements with the City of Tustin. As conditioned,
provides for allowable uses identified in the .MCAS Tustin Spe ~pficsP anC provides for
continuity of vehicular, pedestrian, and infrastructure facilities and linkages, including
drainage facilities; incorporates quality architectural and landscape design and urban
design features such as streetscape and landscape concepts, site design, and
architectural design; and incorporates the requirements of the Specific Plan.
ina Willkom
Senior Planner
Attachments: A -Location Map
B -Legacy Park Neighborhood E Concept Plan
C -Zoning Administrator Action No. 07-008
5:1Cdd~ZAf7EPORP20071CP (N Optdoc
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION MAP
J I ~ ~ 7 9 `~ ~ +~ z~'.--
' i~-. it / ~~~~3 - ~~:. JA~~ ~~ r ~~% .:~" k,.,y`°",r-„~y"~'~'~,
v "~
i 1 i - ,_~ - :~~ Z,
~~~ I f ' ~; .~ 6 ~ j ~, f ~
.. .
.~
~~ ~ ~~ %
~~ ~ f \`
/ \
I` V ~ ~. ~ flV ,~J ~ i
~ ~ ,f /
4
~~~
~~ ~~~
~~~',
i° ~ ,~r
`.,
~ iv
~~~ ~, 'rte ~" ,~
Concept Pian 06-001
Planning Areas 9-12
Neighborhood E
MCAS Tustin
~',~
~~ ,
ATTACHMENT B
LEGACY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD E CONCEPT PLAN
(Available at Community Development Department) _
ATTACHMENT C
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 07-008
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 a rovin an Addendum to
Pp the Final
9
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
impacts associated with development on the fo pmeent~arinev'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.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
ELOISE HARRIS
RECORDING SECRETARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
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 HARRIS
RECORDING SECRETARY
EXHIBIT A
OF
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 07-008
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
F.NVrun~vM~,.1T ~ T . ,.... _~ ____
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Envir no mental 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/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine
Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Cote
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
^Hazards and Hazardous Materials
^Noise
^Public Services
^Utilities and Service Systems
^Aesthetics
^Cultural Resources
^Recreation
^Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL'
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed'~~
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparers
Justina Willkom, Senior Planner
Date:
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Date
Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager Date
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Attachment A attached to this Checklist
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
L 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 ^
^ ^
V. 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
Deparhnent 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
logical resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
.finance?
fl 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:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
rse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
t:~ volving:
No Substantial
Netiv More Change From
Signifrcant 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 substantia[ 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?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Signifrcant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
.dopted 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 UALITY: -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?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
fir area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
-" LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
<., 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 Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
_) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the Impact 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 -
Would the project increase the use of existing
ighborhood 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,
~p curves or dangerous intersections} or incompatible uses
, farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
~ O
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL [MPACTS
CONCEPT PLAN 06-001
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144
NEIGHBORHOOD E OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the
Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the EIS/EIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Deparhnent 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/BIR and
Addendum if the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA
Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental
document is required. For the proposed Concept Plan 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map 17144
project, the City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided
below to determine if the project is within the scope of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and if new
effects would occur as a result of the project.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Property is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan also known as Tustin Legacy. Concept
Plan (CP) 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 consists of approximately 1,267,324
square feet of land at Tustin Legacy and is located within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan (Planning Area 9-12).
Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin within the
City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for
nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined
surplus to federal government needs and was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 2
former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining
approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine.
Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of
downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa
Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana (I-5), Laguna (SR-133) and San Diego (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 Environmental [mpacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 3
The purpose of the concept plan is to document and ensure that:
1. The necessary linkages are provided between the development project and the Planning
Area/Neighborhood in which it is located;
2. The integrity of the Specific Plan and purpose and intent of each Neighborhood is
maintained; and
3. Applicable consideration of City requirements other than those spelled out in the Specific
Plan are identified and satisfied.
Description of the Concept Plan
The Concept Plan for Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan includes Planning
Areas 9-12. The following are components of the Concept Plan:
• Land Use (development uses and parks/open spaces)
• Circulation
• Design Guidelines
• Landscape Elements
• Infrastructure
The Land Use component of Neighborhood E includes a total of 1,267,324 square feet of non-
residential uses and encompasses Phases 1 and 2 of Neighborhood E. Phase 1 includes a total of
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 s uare feet
neighborhood commercial (mixed) use. q of
A total of 38.6 acres of open space is also included and is to contain the following types of open
space:
• Linear Park (private)
• Focal Park (private)
• Red Hill and Edge Open Space (private)
• Detention Basin/Sports fields (public)
The Circulation component provides conceptual improvement plans for the proposed
infrastructure (streets, utilities, transportation planning, and traffic and circulation analysis) to
support the proposed Concept Plan.
The Design Guidelines provide in-depth details and conceptual design elements such as visual
character, planning, architecture, landscape, and hardscape.
The Landscape Elements component provides conceptual landscape plans for open space areas,
streetscapes, multi-use trail system, signage, decorative walls, park furnishings and lightings, and
bridge design.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 1714
Page -I
The Infrastructure component identifies backbone infrastructure based upon the master roadway
network and Local Infrastructure system. This infrastructure component includes conceptual
plans for domestic water, well sites, reclaimed water, sewer, and storm drainage and water
quality.
Tentative Tract Map 17144
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 is a proposal to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered
lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space,
public streets, and flood control facilities. TTM 17144 is a Sector B Map which is a subdivision
map that divides a larger parcel into additional parcels (development units) that will facilitate
conveyance of the property by a master developer to vertical merchant builders or other parties.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the
Environmental Analysis Checklist.
L 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 fram 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 FEIS/EIR and Addendum relative to these
visual changes since the status of the hangars would not be affected by the proposed
Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 5
No changes in original uses identified or permitted in the Specific Plan are being
requested; therefore, the types of uses to be developed are consistent and would result in
similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. All implementation of activities and
development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under
CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis
previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable to the project have
been implemented with adoption of original Specific Plan. No refinements need to be made
to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Submitted Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map
Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-13~)
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 FEISIEIR 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 FEISJEIR 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
[II. 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:
8) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and "I'TM 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/EIIZ 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/EIR and Addendum.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City
Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long-term, and
cumulative air quality impacts.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as maybe required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the
Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for operational and
construction activities. However, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum also concluded that the
Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully
mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the
Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90). No new mitigation
measure is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 8
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143
through 153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum
Pages 5-10 through 5-28)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Resolution No. 00-90
Tustin General Plan
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 FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Specifically, impacts to on-site
vegetation and loss of habitat for the loggerhead shrike, a CDFG species of special concern,
would be less than significant. It would be noted that project construction activities would
be completed in compliance with federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (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/E1R and Addendum determined that
implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposers
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 oI~ 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/E1R 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)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to cultural resources. Development activities
proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the
Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Numerous archaeological surveys
have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP U6-001 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-3 $1) 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 FEISlEIR 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 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40
through 5-45)
MCAS Tustin Specif c Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-8$, 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 Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
• Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not cause any direct impact to geology or soil. Development activities
proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the
~°- Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no
demonstrable negative geology or soil effect on the site. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum
indicate that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan
and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local
settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows)
and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking,
ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with
dam failure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that
compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established
engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of
significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for
development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
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
Sor~rces: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR 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 Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not involve the creation of a hazard or hazardous materials. Development
activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within
the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The proposed Concept Plan and
Tentative Tract Map would result generally in the same types of land uses being developed
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 13
within the project area. As identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, these uses would
generate and use small amounts of hazardous materials for operation and maintenance
activities.
The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and then-
current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan
area. The DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration
programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR
and Addendum concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a
significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on
the property during construction or operation since the DoN would implement various
remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or
isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater.
As identified in the FEIS/EIR and the Addendum, the project site is within the boundaries of
the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The
proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not propose changes to height limitation
included in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose 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 4-8, 10-2, 14,
and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41
Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas
1, 2, 3,and4
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)
Tustin General Plan
Evaluation of Environmental ImpacCs
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 14
V[II. 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 identifies a detention basin to be located within Lot H of
Tentative Tract Map 17144. The detention basin has been included in TTM 17144.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, preparation of a WQMP in compliance with
all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 15
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.
MitigationlMonitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of
insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage
were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS
Tustin and Addendum; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project or as conditions of approval for the project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-
105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56
through 5-92)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1Vo 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 17 t44
Page 16
parking standards. The proposed project would not alter the land uses proposed for
development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the Specific
Plan area, rather minor adjustments to development phases are proposed. The project site
area is surrounded by existing development and development on-site would not physically
divide an established community. Although the project only involves conceptual
development proposal, the implementation of this Concept Plan would result in the
continuation of similar uses.
Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Implementation of activities and development at the project
site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required
by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would
be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map do not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEIS/EIR
mitigation and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3
to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- ~°"
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No 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 FEIS/EIR and
Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observation
Irvaluation of Environmental ImpacCs
CP 06-001 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
XL NOISE -Would the project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
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 FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
With respect to the short-term noise impacts, implementation of the Concept Plan and
Tentative Tract Map would be required to comply with adopted mitigation measures and
state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures
and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction-related noise impacts.
As discussed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of
the project site. Based on review of the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the project
site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 18
Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not involve the development of any uses that
would expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that with
implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to
noise. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not increase the severity of
the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no
refinements need to be made to the FEIS%EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures would be required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3-
162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XII. POPULATION & HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere? ._,_
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map provide a similar amount and type of commerciaUbusiness uses as that included
in the Specific Plan. No new housing, removal of existing housing, or displacement of any
people to necessitate construction of additiorial housing are proposed with the Concept Plan
and Tentative Tract Map consistent with the approved Specific Plan and previously
approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Similar to the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR,
the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not have an adverse effect on
population and housing.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR far
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 l9
proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not change the conclusions of the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum and no new mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4-
14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-1 O l 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 Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 20
The impacts to schools resulting from the implementation of the proposed Concept Plan
and Tentative Tract Map would be similar to that identified in the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum. Consistent with SB 50, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation
measures that require the Master Developer to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD,
IUSD, and SAUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the
issuance of building permits (Neighborhood E is located within the SAUSD boundary).
The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide
"full and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development of real property on
school facilities (Government Code 65995). SB 50 provides that a state or local agency
may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real property on
the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that
established by SB 50.
Other Public Facilities (Libraries,. Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County
Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the
Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public
facility that will directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area.
Developers within the Specific Plan area are required to make a fair share contribution to a
portion of the development costs of the library expansion.
To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public
services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR and
Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to -°
meet projected needs as development of the site proceeded. The proposed Concept Plan and
Tentative Tract Map would not increase the demand more than what was already analyzed
in the previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no substantial change is
expected.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would
be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed Concept
Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of
impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Therefore no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-
56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-112 through 5-122)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-Sl, 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/TItAFFIC -- Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the exisring traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 22
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build
out of the Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at
18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/EIR for a complete list) and the levels
of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no-project condition.
The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and
Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips.
The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each
neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential
development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity
exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed Concept
Plan and Tentative Tract Map would result in a reduction in daily trip generation of 14
percent than the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
No Significant changes to on-site circulation would occur with the proposed project. Austin
Foust Associates, Inc. has prepared the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy, Neighborhood E
Internal Circulation Analysis -July 2007 (Exhibit A) to identify and evaluate how the traffic
impacts from the proposed project differ from the analysis presented in the approved Tustin
Legacy Park traffic analysis (March 6, 2007, Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic
Analysis, Austin Foust Associates, Inc), FEIS/EIR, and Addendum. The study has shown
that the proposed Concept Plan, Tentative Map, and arterial circulation changes within the
Neighborhood E have not resulted in new significant impacts that would require mitigation.
The proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance
with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer also has
reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the revised analysis.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts
would result from implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Maps than were
originally considered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no new or revised
mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-
142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5-
127 through 5-147)
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 23
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust
Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1)
XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
'` projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to
utilities and service systems. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of
Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin
and Addendum. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed new off-site and on-site backbone
utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed
development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable
television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEIS/EIR and Addendum,
the applicant is required to pay a fair share towards off-site infrastructure and installation of
on-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and
local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and off-site,
and water availability. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, no unavoidable
significant impacts would result. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map
would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-OOI 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
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
and the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map. With the enforcement of the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation and implementation measures approved by the
Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as
conditions of approval, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated environmental
effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly
nor degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife
populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address
cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was
adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90) for
issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural
Evaluation oP Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 25
resources, and traffic/circulation. The project does not create any impacts that have not
been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-l l )
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-Sl, 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.
r
CITY OF TUSTIN
LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY
NeYghborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis
July 2007
~~~AUST/M~FOU6T ASSOGUTfS, /~
C
D `~
JUL 2 0 2007
TUSTIN PUBLIC WQRKS I~~PT.
CITY OF TUSTIN -LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis
Prepared by:
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
2223 East Wellington Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92701-3161
(714) 667-0496
c No. 1123 ~
* exu 1-01
July 20, zoo?
i
Table of Contents
Section
Pa e
Introduction .........................................
....................
....................................................................................1
Land Use and Trip Generation ............. .............
irculation System ............................... ...
............................................
...........................................1
..............
.......
..................................................................................1
Intersection Capacity ............................ ................
..........................7
Signalization ......................................... .....
Traffic Control Measures ...................... ...........................................................................................
....18
.....
.......
........................................................................................25
Recommended Turn Pocket Lengths ..... .........................
............................ .............25
..
Effects of Circulation Changes .............. .................
.....
.............................................................................25
~~ Conclusions ............................................ .............................................
............. .....................................31
APP~~~~ Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets
( City of'Tustin -Legacy Parr of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Cvculation Analysis Austin-Fount Asaociatea ~.
i
922004rptg.doc
~~ List of Figures
Fi Pa e
'
'j
II 1
2
3
4
5 Tustin Legacy Master Developer Footprint ............................................................................
Neighborhood E Concept Plan ...............................................................................................
Neighborhood E Access Plan .................................................................................................
Neighborhood E Circulation System ......................................................................................
Armstrong Avenue Lane Configuration Altematives ............................................................. ......2
......4
......5
......6
......8
'
1
'
'
~ 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Yeaz 2025 ADT Volumes (OOOs) -Alternative 1 .........................................................................9
Year 2025 ADT Volumes (OOOs) -Alternative 2 .......................................................................10
Year 2025 AM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 1 ..................................................................11
Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 1 ..................................................................12
Yeaz 2025 AM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 2 ..................................................................13
Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 2 ..................................................................14
Intersection Lane Configurations ............................................................................................... I S
Intersection Location Map ..................................................................................... .......17
..............
Peak Hour Signal Warrants (Higher Speeds/Rural Areas} .........................................................19
Peak Hour Signal Warrants (Lower Speeds/Urban Areas) ............. ............20
................................
Traffic Control Measures ............................................................................................................26
f A-1 Intersection Location Map ....................................................................................................... A-5
'~
~~
List of Tables
'~ Table p ~~
~
~ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Ncighborhood E Land Use and Trip Generation Summary .........................................................3
Year 2025 Neighborhood E Buildout ICU Summary .................................................................16
Year 2025 (Alternative I) 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 Left-Turn Storage Lengths ......................................28
Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended Right-Turn Pocket Lengths .....................................29
Year 2025 (Alternative 2} Recommended Right-Turn Pocket Lengths .....................................30
Armstrong Avenue Intersection Analysis SummarY .....................................•••.••.••....................32
City of Tustin - Lcgacy Panic of Tustin t.eB~Y Auatin-Fount Aswcuta, Inc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis ii 922004rpt$ doc
0
CITY OF TUSTIN -LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis
1'
INTRODUCTION
I
t
This report summarizes the access and internal. circulation analysis far 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
f
approved traffic study dated Mazch 6, 2007, for the entire Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy. Information
provided includes site access designations, the type of intersection traffic control measure (i.e., based on
' ~ traffic signal warrant analyses), intersection approach lane requirements, and recommendations for left-
turn and right-turn pocket design features.
' ~ LAND USE AND TRIP G
ENERATION
I The development within Neighborhood E is com 'sed of non-res'
Fri rdentral uses such as office and
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 Neighborhood E have been
refined since the March 6, 2007, traffic study, which results in a reduction in daily trip generation of 14
percent. This report will present an analysis that shows the effect of the land use refinem
ents on traffic in
Neighborhood E and surrounding circulation system.
I~
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
I~
Figure 3 shows the roads and proposed access locations for Neighborhood E. Figure 4 illustrates
the midblock lanes on the roadways. The circulation system 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
' designated as a second
azy 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, aze all two-lane local streets.
Neighborhood E development traffic loads directly to the arterial system at several locations.
These include full access at Red Hill Avenue via "A" Street, Warner Avenue at Road G, Armstrong
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of'rustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Intcmal Circulation Analysis 1 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rptg.doc
r
i~
i~
i~
i~
x
m
r N
r
t~ GO ' ~ ~ ~
~a Da ~a ~a ~a
a~
~~ ~ ~
~~
~A
!'
~~
~~
I~~
~ ~.
~~
N
~~
•~
~~
~W
~~
'~ $
a
I
~'
,~
,~
1
,~
'~
'~
Is
~W
l0
I~
Table 1
Land Use
Buildout
Neighborhood
General Office
Total (Prevl
DilTereace
Differen~
Trip Rates
Neighborhoc
General Offi~
Office Pazk
Park
Stwrts Park
NEIGHBORHOOD E LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
AM Peak Honr _ PM Peak 1
Units In Out Total In T - pnt
nercial 18.13 TSF 30 19 49 86 92
638.27 TSF 1 053 146 1 199 197 950
230 TSF
~ 379.72 TSF 178
391 56
81 234
472 92
62 164
348
26.3 Acre 0 0 0 0 0
8 Acre 0 0 0 27 ~~
1652 302 1,95
1 739 340 2 07<,
_ -87 _
-38 -12"
-5% -11 % -6%
TSF 1.63 1.05 2.68
TSF 1.65 .23 1.88
TSF .77 .24 1.02
TSF 1.03 .21 1.24
Acre .00 .00 tl(1
464 1
560 1
-96 -
_ 17°/
4.68 5.06
.31 1.49
.40 .71
.16 .92
.UO .00
3.40 4.10
178 2 02F
147 8 47C
256 2 944
410 3,081
17.
9.74 111.82
1.80 9 145
1.11 12.80
1.08 8.11
.(10 5.00
Notes:
1) Office Park equation is based on 91.89 TSF.
2) Trip Rate Sources - MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR dated December 1999, and ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7`6
Edition.
3) The land use-based trip rates for Office Park uses arc based on the following equation:
LN(T~AxLN(X}+B where X=land use amount and T=daily trips
---- AM Peak Hour ---- --- PM Peak Hoot -----
Coefficient:~ PWADT Pk/ADT
Land Use T Units A B Ratio In Out Ratio In Out
Office Park TSF .768 3.654 .080 76% 24% .087 36% 64%
Abbreviations: ADT -average daily trips
DU -dwelling unit
(E~ -Equation based trip rates used.
Ciry of Twtin - Legacy pack of Tustin Legacy
Neighborfiood E Interval Circulation Analysis 3 Austin-Foust Associatq, Inc.
922004rpt8.doc
f
1
1
1
I
F
~i
1~
I'
1~
I~
~,
~r
C CAT - ~ ~
7 3pL~p SNE!/7Z '
.._.
T,_.. ~ - -- --
~- -~~~ -
~ ~~. ~" ~ ....r.~w. T'- ~„~a3r
r- ~ ~ ~_~.
w
jj ys ~ ~}_
,tllt) ij ' ~ warms ~,~+~~
r~+a~o~
I ~~ ~~ ~ ~
~1 LT 1 o~rru~
H ..s
n i~~~j~.
. ~~,.
s: ,~ s
~_~, ~ ~ ~~
.~ « ~ .tom
i ~ {~ 1 ~ ; ~...
uw a
:rte
~ _ -- '° ~ t~ ~ '~
:..ar ! +. t ~ ~ ~
a.~Lk ~
~ . .s /
~. `
~.
apt fC
,' _
w
' ~ •~ i~ ~l
~ s
* t i ~T.~ 4
,d ~ = ~ --~ -~-
--- ~ _ .~ _
.:w - , - r- ___ --
Source: RHF , i - ~
Figure 2
NEIOF~OI2HOOD E CONCEPT PLAN
City of Tustin - Legary Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Aasodates, Inc.
Neight~ordood E Internal Circulation Anatysu 4 92?A04rptBFigZ.dwg
i
i
i~
r
r
j
I•
l0
~~,
I Legend
® Major A~terlal
Primary Atteria-
~~
~~ Arterial Figure 3
~ Local t.olleaor NEIGHBORHOOD E ACCESS PLAN
~~~ Local Street
City of 7lutin - Legary part of 1lntin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis g Austin-Foust Aaaociatea, ipe.
922004rpt8Fig3.dwg
C
C
';
r
i~
i~
I'
~Y
I~
I~
iP
00 v
6 6
WARNER qy 6
op
tV v ~
0
DWY D ~
0'-r
~
f y1
S ~
1 ~
t r 5
J 0
'~. N
S
tV w
s
,~, Q by
7,P p
4 2 isA
A ST ~ pCJ ti
y
c S
S
1L F.
?
~
~ G
~ ~
ti Y
'ti 4
4
4
5
00 '~
g
BARRANCA
PKWY
Legend Figure 4
j X Midblock Lana NEIGHBORHOOD E
- CIRCULATION SYSTEM
! City of Tustin - Le6acy Park of Tustin Legary Austin-Fourt As~ociata, Ins
Neigbbarhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 6 922004rptgFig4.dwg
i
~~
I
Avenue via "B" Street and "C" Strect/"I" Street, and Barranca Parkway at "C" Street. Driveway D on
M Red Hill Avenue (located north of Carnegie Avenue/"A" Street) is introduced as a project access point
~~ that is restricted to right-turns in and right-turns out only.
'~ The on-site circulation system for Neighborhood E features four intersections along the future
section of Armstrong Avenue to be constructed between Warner Avenue and Barranca Parkway. Two of
~ the four intersections (at "C" Street/"I" Street and at "E" Street) will be examined in two alternatives with
'!
respect to signalization and lane deployment. The two alternatives analyzed at "C" Street/"I" Street and
' ~ "E" Street have two intersections signalized and two unsignalized (see Figure S). In each alternative, "A"
Street is assumed to be signalized with all turn movements allowed. Also, "B" Street is assumed to be
'' unsignalized with all movements allowed. Alternative 1 has a traffic signal at "E" Street and stop control
at "C" Street!"I" Street. With a stop control at "C" Street/"I" Street, the movements are restricted to
' ~ right-turns out on "C" Street and `T' Street and all turn movements are allowed on Armstrong. Avenue.
Alternative 2 features a signalized intersection at "C" Streetl"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
' I are allowed on Amrstrong. Avenue.
-~ Figures 6 and 7 show the buildout ADT volumes for key roadway link locations within
Neighborhood E for Alternatives 1 and 2, res etivel Fi
`` ~ Pe y gores 8 through I I 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 hers will be slightly different than the March 6, 20(37, 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 were roviousl
P y restricted to
certain turn movements, to full access (Alternatives I and 2). There are minor volume differences on "C"
Street and "A" Street between Alternatives 1 and 2.
I ~ INTERSECTION CAPACITY
The intersection lane geometry for the access locations analyzed here is presented in Figure 12.
The intersection c aci utilization C
aP tY (I U) values for Alternatives 1 and 2 aze 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 aze consistent with the March 6, 2007, traffic
~ study and show that all intersections under year 2025 conditions operate at an acceptable level of service
"D" or better, and that only minor difTerences occur between Alternatives 1 and 2.
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis ~ Austin-Foust Associates, Lx.
922004rptg.doc
~~
~'
~''
~~
~~
~`
~~
~~
ALTERNATIVE
k
~h
~~
ALTERNATIVE 2
~~~~
1
k
L~g~nd Figure s
~ Stop Control ARMSTRONG AVENUE LANE CONFIGURATION
~ Signal Control ALTERNATIVES
City of Tustin - Legary Park of Tustin Legacy Auatm-Foust
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 8 922004~t~~
~~~ g
r
i
u
~I
~~
~~
S
i
J
~`
E
Figure 6
YEAR 2025 ADT VOLLTI-~S (000's)
-ALTERNATIVE I
City of Tustin - I.e6acy Park of Tustin Legary
Neighborhood E Internal Cirailation Analysis 9 Austin-Foust Assgcistes, Inc.
9220(143tpt8Fig6.dwa
0
0
i
~~
i~
r
r
~Y
I~
it
57 .r
wARNeR Av
51 43
N v ~
t
1~
owY a ~
2
0~''
F ~
S
< s,,f 5~ J.
~
N e ,~
=
o ~
y~ W
ti ~~ ryy~ ~p
;~
~
12 12 ~'
`~
~
A ST "~ C (
`
1J
7~ p
~
v !j v
O
~ ~
w
10
11 sz
A
BARRANCA PKWY
t-
i
Figure 7
YEAR 2025 ADT VOLUMES (000'ij
-ALTERNATIVEZ
!~ City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Asaroaatet, Inc,
Neighborhood E Internal Cuculation Analysis 10 922004rpt8Fig'I ~
ti
,~
0
_i
i
i
U
~~
,.
i
i~
t
Figure 8
PEAR 2025 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMF,S
-ALTERNATIVE I
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legary
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis
Austin-Foust Associates, ~
922004tpt8Fig8.dwg
r
i4
ie
i
°°
Pn~' t 670
f t65O
260
'~'
Y - i 43
~ocav
NN^ !_ 170
2801
• A
WARNER ~- 2039
r 16 I ~ i x-1285
1~ Y
1530 --
180 -L 1 I qy 29 ~,
_
20
_ . ,-
l
1
Yp~N 24-> ^`~^ n
n
3922
o ~
N
it30 ~
rn~ X46
•
oO F 64~ h~
N 9~
wJO ` St
~
= N s~ ~~ / f 'p ,~~
s'Dy J rr/
o
K W ~ ~ \ \ le. "\~
(C
\
~ f ~
op
~s
~
° °_
O
2 ~ ^
^ s
4 ,~ y~ ,,~ o
~b s
9
M
II
Y ~ ~-
0
230 ~- 36
ti
b
~ ~ 15 ~ ~
~l ~
90
30--
~~
q 58
126-- ~
6) 4~
} Y c g
~~ ~ ~6,1~
~
O ~ /
i3 N ~i3'~ 1
~~ ~\
Sr hw1,ti G Q J$,~J
!
l
~
J
Ary9f~y `~~`t~
~
N~~ i 289
4'ry
j t 30 ~ ~ 160
J~ `s2~ ~~ht
st
~ 0
268-+~~~ ,
243 rn cn a
~uc
O_Op
N
16-Z U..W .1v
OO
"~ i 40 S
'^'' N i
7
.~~b`-
1
eZS 1
d~4
BARRANCA PKWY i6 O-"- ~,
}}
~) 1650--- ~
~
~_a' 0
~ p p
~_~ ONO
ASTON
I
Figure 9
YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
I ~ - AL"fERNATTVE 1
( City of 7listin - Legaq Park of Tustin Legacy Auatim•Foust Ae~ociates, Inc.
i ~ Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Amlysis 12 g~004~tg~ ~
r
r
M
Fy
7
1~
~~
w
i~
Figtue 10
PEAR 2Q25 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
- ALTERNATIVE 2
City of Tustin - Legary Part of Tustin Lcgacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 13
Austin-Feist As~ociatq, Inc.
922004rpt8Figl0.dw~
t
i
r
i~
i~
'`
tI
^`
~~
It
~~
rn
000
a1n' ~ i 670
~ 1
M
NN t 260 -. t 43
°
~- 2039 NNN !_ 171
2801
t530-~ •
1 ~
K'ARNER
qy
r 15 1 ~ 1 x-1284
Y `-
1802
°m~hm° 29
2020 A
t698--- ~ ~ 1
24-ZO~^ .392-i'^ '°
~
a ~
e
N
j
i
130
V
+N 46
•
,1
I I DWY 0 & ~ ~4 ~ 26 D,M(
0o
^
P S h~
5
N 0~ J c~'~
"I9~' N ~
`
`1'6
Jl, 1
S
,y~
~-
N 0
~
' ~~ 0
it/
' 6
~ ~
%
o s ~
o`
l
~°
°
t 2ao ~_
N
t
~
4s 4 ~ 0 9 ,~,~
",y y ~
f
Y ~
f 230
~ ~ `
s
~ ~ ~~ ~i
~ X15
~~
90
0
~ ~
A S6.!'
126--
~ 6
9 ~
~ ~! ~
o
~
~
jo
~,~ S
0'7.
y~1 ~ ~
n ~ ,
~
,, ~O
s\
0 B rc/
W N ` Tj,1 ~
~v
Z
1
`rl h0,~ G
O
'{p~0
r/
~ ~
ljfjc
r
` ~L
O ~ ~
~j O
Of
'~ `r
° -i
N ~
/
~
ry t 281
k~ j
~ ,~ 30 y } 229
I _I
Y • ~ 518 38 ~ f
,1 30 51
* 149 "~'
243 mcn+
254-- I ~ou.~
00~
N1 16-7 G_.U oC
~N
t~ 40
~ ~ ~- , 690 n
VI
"~ "' , 7
Y
20 ~~~
BARRANCA PKYrY 40
1680-- A
I j
5
30Z
~~ 16
0-+ T
30"7. SNS
ASTON
Figure 11
YEAR 2f)25 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
-ALTERNATIVE 2
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin i-egacy Austin-Foust Aseocutes, Inc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 14 922004rpt8Figll.dwg
0
i
r
i~
i~
i.
is
r
J
~~„
Legend Figure iz
~- De-facto Right Tum INTERSECJTON LANE CONb7C3URATiONS
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy
Ncighbor6ood E internal Circulation Analysis 15
Austin-Foust Associates, lnc.
922004rpt8F>6.12.dwg
n
~'
n
~~
~~
i~
r
i
i~
rW
i~
z a o 0 0 $ o $ $ o 0 0 $ $ o 0 0 0
WW
A4
~ O ~ O ~ S O O 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
~ m d d d d A d d d d A d d oa d d
~G
V
' QQ
V
fr1
c+1
00
M
M
Y1
.~.+ QQ
O~
V1 pp
~O
~O
M
.~
a Q a l d d d d U d d d d U d d d d
~ d a
.~. ~ h
~O
~' 00
f+1 Q~
M K1
V' N
l~ ~/1
M V1
('+'1
'7 (~1
N O
00 r+
V1 N
V1 pp
~O V1
N N
-r
.
N ~
?; W
H o v 1
~aa
a
d
d
d
A
d
a
d
d
A
a
a
w
d
a
0
Z
roll
p
~ ~
Q
~O
/ ~O
00
~
N
t+1
00
M
v1
M
00
v1
t+'1
«.
e~1
N
V'1
~
O
Q~
I~
v'1
O~
Vl
.•
~O
00
M
N
~
V1
N ~
~Oa
Rl
d
d
d
dU
dd
dd
U
d
d
d
<
d
L
a h
~O N
~t f+Y
cry O
~ M N
V' n h V1
to M e+1
V N O
00
V1 N
V1 p
~O v1
N N
.r
w
w
dooU
A
pp
pp
pp
p
~OtO~, 000, ~00
v u
8 ~a t~ oo a,
g
~' _ _ = .
d
3 ~
t, ~
U ~
w ~
W ~ ~
3
~
G4 ~
v, v, v, t;, af~ ela~ ~ g
w ~ ~ b b~
4 dd
~ ~ dal
~ q'+f x7
, C a
p b ~a 3
~i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
''~ Q
~ ~A ~ ~
A
.~
r~ 'n ~ D ~ ~ N Gw
a
N N aoU
N N w
N O O O O
~~
8~
N
a
:°.
~~
~U
.~ w
F
O
~z
n
~'
~~
i
u
i~
is
i
I~
I~
i~
Figure 13
IN't'ERSECIION LOCATION MAP
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E internal Cvculation Analysis 17
Awtin-Foust Associates, Inc,
9221104rpttiFigl3.dMg
~i
' ~ SIGNALIZATION
Traffic signal warrants based on peak hour volumes as adopted by the Federal Highway
t ~ 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.
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 street 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 determines the minor approach for both peak
t hours.
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 azeas,
(~ 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
(~ 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 Barranca 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 volumes are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively.
Based on the application of the warrant and year 2025 forecast volumes, traffic signals should be installed
at all the analyzed intersections except for the intersections of "B" Street at "A" Street, "F" Street and "B"
Street, and "D" Street intersections at "C" Street and "A" Street. Typically, signals are not installed until
actual traffic volumes exceed the warrants.
r
City of Tustin -Legacy Parft of Tustin Legacy Austin-Faust Associates, Inc.
Neighborhood E internal Circulation Analysis 18 922004tpt8.doc
r
~~
i~
r
r
I~
I~
it
W
~~ ~~
O
o
r)
~
N
~ W_
~ ~'
p f- a
O
N w=
~
N
O
O ~ Z
~ <
~
~ ~
z
~- W
~ w
z ~~
Z v ~ _
U ~
~ J
g
N ~ N
.~ w Q
O F" W
~ ~
w
WQ
O ~ i
~~
J W W
~ J
" ~ d ~
~ ~~ O ~ ~
O
OO
~ m ~
a ~
N ~ ~ Q
d Q Q , ~ F- U ~ lal
2
~ J~ ^
~ O ~~~
W W ~ ~ Q~ W
~
~
cn
Z OQ
~ ""~ ~
v O =
O D ~
Q 2 FZ
0 .
o
0 J W
W ~~ p
~
~ ~ cp ~ <~ a1
N ~
Q ~ 2 W
~ O O
~ ~ ~~
Q
o a
?
00
~, ~~
12~ w
,
W r ~
~ N
W
W
O
~ ~ ~
O
O O 00
O OO O ~ °1 z
O v=~
(H~dO~Jddb' 3Wmon H~IH) ~ g o
Hd/1 133 b1S 2~aNiW
i z°
~*
a~
u Z
G7
H
x
~~
av
E
~~
~t °
A ~~
~~
w
.~
d
O~
.-~
.~~
•~
0
~~
Y '~
w
3~
iz
'!
. ~
N
W
,n a
* * ~ ~ a
W =
~ ~ ~
`^ o
O
Q
w
~ ~ w
Q
J
¢
'
~
Q
r ~
W
p
,
Q = (~
0
Q 0
~ a g
~
v ~W
M
Q
.
• ~ `
ZO
~ f= 6 Z
~
o
N
V F-
-
.
m ~'" W F=-
~ N
N
=
0 J
~ J Z
Z ~
~ IQ- m ~ a
O ~ ~ ~a
v 4. ~ W
o
W
~
~ > ~ jjJ q
Z
O w Zpj
J
~ LY ~ O <
~
~ W
?~? W
F W
O O
Z
Q
W
0
O ~ ~ ~
Q
1
W
z G
7
W r =
~ ~ N W
O
`
to
~ ~
ANN
N W
N J 4 ~
O
d ~
e
O O
O
O
O
d
O ~
O
a W
~
W
rn ~
I~ ~D If ) d r7 N .- ~
(HOd oddd d 3wm on H OIH) ~ '
`
H dn 13 3b1S bONIW o a
z z
Z
~ d'
~ O
~
W Z
O
Z
J Z
~ N
w
~ Q J
J
~ ~
~~
°~
N
~
.7j ~ O
O N
7
~ ~
Q
~
N Q ~
0
Z
N Z Q ~
Z J ~ W
0 J
W Q
~ J
~ ~
~
O c~ O O
N Q
W
Z
Q
r
3~
~~
~ ~~
O `n
x~
~..1
~~
~~
o
u,
N
~~
0
~~
~~
~5
w
0
az
~i
l
n
'`
r
i~
i~
is
i~
i~
,..
Table 3 '
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SI.IMMARY
Intersectlon /S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
5. Armstrong & Warner
Major Approach Eastbound 2,018 2,276
Westbound 1,998 1,536
Total 4,016 3,812
Southbound 492
Minor Approach Northbound -- 854
Satisfies Warranty er S eds/Rural ? Yes Yes
6. Armstrong & A St
Major Approach Northbound 536 _
Southbound 227
T~ 763
Minor Approach Westbound 435
Satisfies Warrant i er S oral 7 y~ _'
Major Approach Eastbound - 457
Westbound - 941
Total
Minor Approach Southbound -- 1,398
Satisfies Warrant er S oral ? -- 471
16. Armstrong & C St/I St __ Yes
Major Approach Northbound 577 661
Southbound 723 741
Total
Minor Approach Westbound 1,300
83 1,402
Satisfies Warrant Hi er S eds/Rural 7
Yes 127
18. Armstrong & E St Yes
Major Approach Northbound 586 489
Southbound 502 599
Total
Minor Approach Westbound 1,088
130 1,088
Satisfies Warrant er S eds/Rural ?
Y 342
~I a.,,,atr,,,,o .e• n c~ es yes
--.. _....,..,..6 .~ ......
Major Approach
Northbound
638
781
Southbound 806 677
Total 1,444 1,458
Westbound 18
Mtnor Approach Eastbound -- 143
Satisfies Warrant i er S eds/Rural ? N
22. Rd G & Warner o y~
Major Approach Eastbound 2,433 2,337
Westbound 2,299 2,098
Minor Approach Total
Southbound 4,732
131 4,435
Satisfies Warrant i er S eeds/Rural ?
y~ 554
23.ESt&ASt y~
Major Approach Eastbound 533 190
Westbound 508 430
Minor Approach Total
Southbound 1,041
78 620
Satisfies Warrant er S eeds/Rurai ? 297
Yes Yes
City of Tustin -Legacy Putt of Tustin Legacy Austin-Fount Associates, Inc.
Neighbo~ood E Internal Circulation Amlysis 21 922W4rpt8.doc
~~
i
i~
r
ii
i~
i~
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.BSt&ASt
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 3 I 1 --
Minor Approach Southbound 8 --
Satisfies Warrant Lower S /Urban ? No --
Major Approach Southbound -- 147
Minor Approach Westbound - 50
Satisfies Warrant wer S rban ? -- No
114.DSt8t:ASt
Major Approach Eastbound 441 314
Westbound 257 563
Total 698 877
Minor Approach Southbound 42 229
Satisfies Warrant Lower S rban ? No No
115.DSt&cCSt
Major Approach Eastbound 61 -
Westbound 4S --
Total 106 -
Minor Approach Northbound 23 --
Satisfies Warrant Lower S rban 7 No -
Major Approach Northbound - fib
Minor Approach Westbound -- 48
Satisfies Warrant wer S eeds/Urban ? - No
Abbreviations:
N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, EastlWest Road
~ City of Tustin - Legacy Park of'Tustia Legacy Austin-Fount Associates, Inc.
NcighborUood E Internal Circulation Aaalyais 22 9220Q4rpt8.doe
i
~~
i
~`
i
i~
~A
if
i~
i~
i~
Table 4
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM peak Hour PM Peak Hour
5. Armstrong & Warner
Major Approach Eastbound 2,017 2,276
Westbound 1,996 1,525
Total 4,013 3,801
Minor Approach Southbound
Northbound 492
Satisfies Warrant i her S edslRura! ? __
Ye 870
6. Armstrong & A St s Yes
Major Approach Northbound 536 _
Southbound 215 _
Minor Approach Total
Westbound 751
446
Satisfies Warrant i er S oral ? l,~ -"
Major Approach Eastb
d
oun -- 438
Westbound - 1,001
Minor Approach Total
Southbound -- 1,439
Satisfies Warrant er S eds/Rural 7 -- 401
16. Armstrong & C SdI St Yes
Major Approach Northbound 575 648
Southbound 719 729
Minor Approach Total
Westbound 1,294
95 1,377
Satisfies Warrant i er S
eds/Rural ?
No 153
18. Armstrong & E St y~
Major Approach Northboumi 583
471
Southbound 510 606
Minor Approach Total
Westbound 1,093
108 1,077
Satisfies Warrant er S
oral ?
No 267
21. Armstrong & B St y~
Major Approach Northbrnmd
643
802
Southbound 801 664
Total 1,446 1,,~
Minor Approach Westbound
Eastbound 18
Satisfies Warrant er S
eds/Rural ? --
No 134
22. Road G & Warner y~
Major Approach Eastbound 2,433 2,337
Westbound 2,299 2,097
Minor Approach Tote!
Southbound 4,732
131 .
4,434
Satisfies Warrant Hi er S
eds/Rura1 ? 554
les v,.~
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy
Ncig6borhoott E Internal Circulation Analysis 23 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rpt8.doc
i
i
i~
i~
i
i~
iV
i~
,~
Table 4 (cont.)
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
23. E St & A St
Major Approach Eastbound 533 190
Westbound 508 430
Total 1,041 620
Minor Approach Southbound 78 297
Satisfies Warrant i er S eeds/Rural ? Yes Yes
24.BSt&ASt
Major Approach Eastbound 304 369
Westbound 455 - 412
Total 759 781
Minor Approach Southbound 56 23
Satisfies Warrant wer 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/CTrban ? 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 er S eeds/LJrban ? -- No
114.DSt8cASt
Major Approach Eastbound 437 340
Westbound 256 559
Total 693 899
Minor Approach Southbound 39 214
Satisfies Warrant er S eeds/Urban ? No No
115.DSt&CSt
Major Approach Eastbound 68 -
Wcstbound 45 -
Total 113 -
Minor Approach Northbound 2S -
Satisfies Warrant wer S eeds/Urban ? No -
Major Approach Northbound - 81
Minor Approach Westbound -- 58
Satisfies Warrant Lower S eeds/[Jrban ? -- No
Abbreviations:
N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road
City otTLstin -Legacy Puic of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
Neightw[fiood E Internal Circulation Analyse 24 9221N}4rptg.doe
~i
TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES
'j The recommended on-site traffic control measures shown in Figure 16 within Neighborhood E
II include one-way stop signs and traffic signals. Except for the changes to the three Am~strong Avenue
intersections previously mentioned, this data is consistent with the March 6, 2007, traffic study. Changes
' to the trafTc 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-turn and nght-turn lanes at future signalized
'~ intersections with exclusive right-turn and left-turn lanes. They are based on vehicle storage
requirements, and are thereby exclusive of transition lengths (typically, transitions are 90 feet for a single
lane and 120 to 150 feet for a double lane). The recommended turn pocket lengths for left-turns are
~'
summarized in Tables 5 and 6 for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, and Tables 7 and 8 for right-turns.
The turn pocket lengths shown here may be slightly different than the Mazch 6, 2(1(17, traffic study
because of the changes along Armstrong Avenue and Red Hill Avenue which affect traffic atterns in
P
Neighborhood E.
I~
EFFECTS OF CIRCULATION CHANGES
Sev
era( changes to the circulation presented in the March 6, 2007, traffic study are introduced in
I ~" 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
I ~ relates.. to intersection spacing is analyzed. Other changes occur on the periphery of Neighborhood E
along Armstrong Avenue. Three intersections on Armstrong Avenue ("B" Street, "C" Street/"I" Street
f and "E" Street), which were previously restricted to certain turn movements, are converted to full access
in this traffic analysis.
r
City ofTustin - [.egacy Park of Tustin uBacY
Nmghlwrhood E Internal Circulation Analysis ZS Austin-Foust Associate, lac.
912004rpt8.doc
i
r
i
i
i
r
i~
i~
i
i
I~
IV
I
_-~- NA4MER ~ A v --•__~-~_ _ _ _
'' _~ ~4
try
Z
,~
sr
i `~~
0
~~
~~~ ~
yti~ ~:
v
~4 \
SEE NSEi'S
_ ,~ 5i
A
i
BAHRANCA Rf Wtl
k
~, y
4L
ALTERNATIVE i
,y~.
fj~~
I~ ~
1 ~}y
~'`4
ALTERNATIVE Z ~`°~.
Legend Figure 16
Sianatiud Intersection TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES
• Stop Sign
City of Tuatin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Aiutin-Foust Aasociatea, Inc.
Neighborhood E Iatemal Circulation Analysis ~ 921A04rpt8Figlb.davs
i
~`
t ~ Table S
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) RECOMMENDED LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTHS
~
' Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Movement Peak Hour Volume Lanes Volume/Lane L
t
S. Armstrong & Warner SBL PM 124 1 en
I
NBL
PM
565 124
2 283 1S0'
300'
'r EBL PM 186 1 186 200
6. Armstrong & A St WBL
SBL AM
PM ]04 1 104 1S0'
NBL
PM 138
69 1 138
1 1 SO'
EBL
AM
96 69
1 96 150'
'
16. Armstrong & C St/I St WBL
SBL PM
AM 160 1 160 1 SO
200'
'
NBL
AM 190
14 I 190
1 200'
I8. Armstrong & E St
SBL
AM
297 14
1 150'
21. Armstron & B St
WBL
NBL
PM
77 297
1 77 3~,
1 SO'
' :-
22. Road G & blamer
SBL AM
PM 220 1 220 250'
NBL
PM 120
110 1 120
1 150'
EBL
AM
3S6 110
1 356 ISO'
400
23. E St & A St
BL AM
PM S9 I 59 1 SO'
r
NBL
PM 167
28 1 167
1 200
~`
EBL
AM
249 28
1 249 1 SO'
250'
25. C St & A St SBL ~ 127 i 107 150'
NBL
EBL ,qM
254 12
1 254 150'
300'
AM 18 1 18 1 SO'
103. Red Hill & Warner ~VBL
SBL PM
AM 312 1 312 3S0'
'
I`1BL
PM 600
480 2 300
2
240
350'
250'
EBL PM 280 2
140 '
104. Red Hill & Carnegie WBL
SBL PM 260 2 I30 150
1SO'
' AM S00 2 250 250'
NBL AM 120 1 120 150'
EBL PM 90 1 90 150'
114. D St & A St WBL
EBL PM 230 1 230 250'
I AM 173 1 173 200'
11 S. D St & C St WBL
WBL AM 17 1 17 150'
AM 28 1 28 150'
i
Abbreviations:
N!S Rd, EJW R,i - Notth/South Road, Eas dWest Road
~
' Notes: The turn pocket length for left-turn lanes is determined from the hi
ghost AM o
PM
peak hour forecast vohmne
r
per lane with a minimum of 1 SO' and rounded into increments of SO'.
Only intersections with d
di
d
~i aze analyzed here.
e
cate
left-turn
lanes
f
City of Tustin -Legacy Pant of?uatia Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 27 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rptS .doc
n
i
I~
v
Table 6
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) RECOMMENDED LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTHS
Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Movement Peale Aour Volume Lanes Volume/Lane Len 6
5. Armstrong & Warner SBL PM 126 1 126 150'
NBL PM 565 2 283 300'
EBL PM 186 1 186 200'
WBL AM 102 1 102 150'
6. Armstrong & A St SBL PM 139 1 139 150'
NBL PM 69 1 69 150'
EBL AM 93 1 93 150'
WBL PM 229 1 229 250'
16. Armstrong & C SdI St SBL AM 190 1 190 200'
NBL AM 14 1 14 l50'
EBL PM 38 1 38 150'
WBL AM I1 1 11 150'
18. Armstro & E St SBL AM 294 1 294 300'
21. Arffistron & B St NBL AM 221 l 221 250'
22. Road G & Warner SHL PM IZO 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 28 150'
EBL AM 249 1 249 250'
WBL AM 107 I 107 150'
25. C St & A St SBL AM 12 1 12 150'
NBL AM 253 1 253 300'
EBL PM 22 1 22 150'
WBL PM 311 1 311 350'
103. Red 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 1 120 150'
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 R.d, 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
aze analyzed here.
City of Tuatin -Legacy Pule of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associates, tne.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 28 922004rpt8 doe
r
i~
i~
1
~..
s
a
N
N
N
pp p o p
O O O N ~~ S
ppp
~
~
'~,
s N N N N y
~ C
~
p
_, b O
~~~
a
~ °
a
.
a:m"' a i
a a `"
r~~ ~ H
~ ~
U `a ~ oo ~
a vni. i
. [ `a~
>
N
~ ~
Q
00 N ~D h 0D •:•
~+ ~ N 4 i M N VM N N
" p
N N N~ h O OHO O .~ -~ SOU
'C
.
i ~ T1
z ~
_ h ~ .~ b
a a a r. ~ ~ r3 s
o p ~ ~q}
~~
A+ ("~ ('`~ M e+7 N MV N N N ~ ~ ~ h S 000 O ~ O~0 -t
a N N ~O .-+ N^ aq y
;~ s ~
b ~ ~a C
"' a N ~O ~O to v1 00 h t~ O M ~''~ `"" ~
C~ O ~ vii ^ tY'f b N h C v~-~ v~1 h M N~ C a O
w ~~ ~
n ~ ~
G
., %t ~ ~ ,~
~~ 43 ~ c
O .o 0
(T~ Q ~ ,tt~,
GYy 00 00 O O C O O QQ"
,.. 9 ~ tp l~ n ~''~ O N C1 Obi ~ V,OI h `O N `p ~ Ei
(~ Q N N .~ .-~ N N ~.~ G
Q ~
p~°7„~aa~aaa~ ~a aaaa~,n~. 'go
~ $
o~ F F.,,.~ FF H F E, H F E.~E-a~ E.. ~
N ~ ~33~~r~ y~~~~~~~ ~~.~ ~ ~ a
a~~r~pp~gqppaaa~~~ ~paq~a~~~a ~g
~ 3 d~~ w ~ z w~ z~ w~ z
b
a ~b ~~ ~ ~
~o ~-~ ~ ~ ~
c~ ~ $ ~
~, 3 w ~ 3 c~ ~ X ~ ~ ;, z c~ z
4 A g Q '~ L~ ~ d ~ m IBC u
.gib ~~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ D ~~~~~H~
o ~._ ~ ~ o
rQ.i Vi ~ N N 0 O ai O Q ~~ ~ N .~^~ _~ y ~ ~
a z.~ ~ Q z~~.~za>
e
~N
ea
.~
N
0
~v
~~
.~ W
~~
F
0
Z, ,'~
vx
i7
u
~~
I~
I~
I~
~r
E-~~ocoo"QoogQggoobo ~~;
a ,y N N N N M N Q ~rFF ~ v'i N N N N ~~ .~
a
~ ~ o` ~,
ax a ~a a
Q ~ ~
V~ oo M S vaoi_ t ~~ d
.. ~ ~ 6
H r
G ~ ~ .L~
txr ~ N tv1 ~ V' N N N N N ~p O g ~ O ~ ' (". ' [
y O ~ ~
N ~ .+ '~
x ~ •~
-°70
v
a C~'C,a..,..~.. ....~.."'.. ~ ~ 3
~ a ~~p~ ~
,'ioON~0 d. ~OOOOOgOO '~ t~ -~
a HNMM~ NNNNN~'^~.N ~~v"Z
a s ~
:~
~ ~ ~.
H '+ m ~o ~o en v~ oo v~ t~ o ~n ri w ~, t~7p
~ 'fl~O~OOOe*it~~n vO~vi•n~pOOv-. O~ O"
~ ~~ ~
~ ~ffi ~~ ~
H ~ O
b
~ o ~ ~.
N e N ~ ~ ~ ~ M N ~ ~ . ~ y
N N ^+ ~--~ N N ~~ O
yry ~
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o .~
W
as as a aars.aa y
m pq pp pq pq ~ a 'g
O -+~E-+Lf-~~~E+mFHF"Z W~Z W ~~ ~ ~ ~ a
N d ++
~ ~~~a~ ~~~~a~pAqG~ppa~q~vq ~ ~ 5~
~~v~w~v~c~r. w~n~u~~zw3z ~ ~ ~ a
.~ ~ ~ .~ ~
~ ._~
a w~ ~~
~ ~~
~ ~ -' ~
u ~ N ~ ~ vii
'v u A y o Q, Q~ o ~'
"~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ w ~~ ~ ~
,3 ~ 3
mffi ~ Qx ~ ~ ~~ ~~ o ~~~ ~'~
r~ w ~ ~~ w ~ I I ,.. 04
e~ I
~vi N ryC i~: z.°n r Q zQ~,9zx>
~'
a
0
M
T .,
~~
.~ '~
~~
aV
~~
,~ w
0
~~
~z
r
The addition of a driveway 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
i ~ Avenue/"A" Street. Review of the spacing of Driveway D from Warner Avenue and Carne 'e
81
Avenue/"A" Street on Red Hill Avenue shows that there is sufficient spacing between intersections based
' ~ 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 Avcnue 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
f
intersections along Armstrong Avenue between Warner Avenue and Barranca Pazkway would meet a
signal warrant. A signal progression analysis was conducted for this scenario which concluded that no
adverse conditions would occur. However, whether signals are needed at all four, particularly if some
movements could be eliminated (e.g., exiting left turns at non-signalized intersections) were further
(~ examined. As mentioned previously, two alternatives aze analyzed for the intersec '
bons of Armstrong at
"C'/"I" Street and at "E" Street with respect to signalizarion 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)
procedure for stop-controlled intersections and ICU procedure for signalized intersections. Table 9 lists
the level of service (LOS) results. As can be seen in this table, all intersections under Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 would not experience adverse conditions with the exception of "B" Street with forecasts
1.,, showing that the eastbound left-turn move from "B" Street could experience a delay of up to 65.1
WI seconds.
CONCLUSIONS
P"'
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, signali7ation, left-turn and right-
turn pocket lengths) in Neighborhood E and when implemented would adequately support traffic within
Neighborhood E. Secondly, with minor Land use and circulation changes in and around Neighborhood E,
the data is consistent with chat presented in the March 6, 2007, traffic study for Legacy Pazk, 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.
F
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Intarnal Circulation Analysis 31 Austin-Foust Asaoeiates, Inc.
922004rptg.doc
~,
I
I~
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
PM Dela OS * EBL - 42.1 secs EBL - 39.6 secs
Control Side Street Sto Control Si
Prohibited Movements No EB/WB left turns None
No EB/WB throu
AM ICU/Dcla OS * 11.1 secs .38 A
PM ICU/Dela OS * 11.8 sacs .40 A
"E" Street
Control Si Side Street St Control
Prohibited Movements None No exitin leR-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
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 Lcgscy Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 32 922004rpt8.doc
7
r
~~ Appendix
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICI Worksheets
~'
' ~ This appendix summarizes information pertaining to the intersection analysis presented in this
traffic report.
'~
ICU Calculation Methodology
i
~`
The ICU calculation procedure is based on a critical movement methodology that shows the
' ~ amount of capacity utilized by cach 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 enou to
' gh 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 place of a
numerical entry for right-tum lanes.
~~
The methodology also incorporates a check for right-turn capacity utilization. Both right-turn-on-
I green (RTOG) and right-turn-on-red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated aad checked against the
total right-tum 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 Right
I 1_ Riot-Turn-On-C~cen (RTOG)
~'"` If NBT is critical move, then:
1 RTOG = V/C (NBT)
Otherwise,
RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SB'1~ - V/C (SBL)
Z. Right-Turn-On-Red (RTOR)
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 Par1c of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E [ntemal Circulation Aoalyais A_ 1 Austin'Foust Aaaociatea, Inc.
922004rpt8,doc
7
3. Right-Turn Overlap Ad1ustment
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 Ri t-Tum Capacity (RTC) Availability For NBR
RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR
Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (0% for County intersections,
~ ~ 75% for intersections in all other jurisdictions within the study area)
Right-tum 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
necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately
' accommodate the right-turn V/C, therefore the right-turn is essentially considered to be a critical
movement. In such cases, the right-turn adjustment is ttoted oa 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, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if
under actual operational conditions, the critical right-turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a
right-turn adjustment credit should be applied.
Shared Lane V/C Methodology
For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one tum
movement (e.g., left/through, through/right, left/through/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated
to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The
following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out:
Example 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 Twtin -Legacy Park of Twtin Legacy AwtiaFowt Associates, Inc.
Neighborhood E internal Circulation Analysis A-2 9220o4rptg.doc
n
r
2. ALV for Each Approach
ALV (Left) = Left-Turn Volume
i Left Approach Lanes (including shazed lane)
~ ALV (Through) = Thro ugh Vol Mme
' ~ Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane)
' ~ 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted
If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left-turn
approach is warranted. Left-turn and through V/C ratios for this case aze calculated as
follows:
'~
V/C (Left) = L.~ft-Turn Volume
' ~ Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane)
V/C (Through) = Thro tvh 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 (Loft) = Left-Turn Volume
Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane)
~;
V/C (Through) = ro Volume
Through Approach Capacity (including shazed lane)
4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted
(~ If ALV (Left) and ALV (Through) aze both less than ALV, the leftlthrough lane is assumed to be
truly shared and each left, lefUthrough or through approach lane carries an evenly distributed
volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined Ieft/through V/C ratio is calculated as follows:
I V/C (Left/T'hrough) _ _ V + V
Total Left + Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane)
f This V/C (Left/Through) ratio is assigned as the V/C Throu
movement analysis and ICU summary listing. ( !~) ratio for the critical
e
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 Iane), then:
V/C (Left) = V/C (Through)
City of TS~stin - Legacy Puic of 7Lstin Legacy
Neighborfiood E Internal Cireolatioo Analysis A_3 Ausfia-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rptg.doc
If approach has only one left-turn lane (shared lane), then:
V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume
Single Approach Lane Capacity
If this left-turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is
'~
posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout.
~ ~ These .same steps are carved out for shared through/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared
' through/right lane to the right-tum movement is warranted, the right-turn V/C value calculated in step
' ! three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity. When an approach contains more than one
I shared lane (e.g., left/through and through/right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the
' throe turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for either of the
shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three
~ ~ is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two
movements involved in the other shared lane.
1 Figure A-1 illustrates the intersections that were analyzed in this study, and the AM and PM peak
hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) worksheets then follow.
(I
~~
i
r
~~~,
City of Tustin - Legacy Panic of Tustin Legacy Auatia-Foust Associate, Inc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis A-4 922004rpe8.doc
i
r
i~
i~
i~
~`
4
I
W
t
i
Figure A-I
INTERSECTION LOCATION hiAP
City of Tustin -Legacy Paris of Tustin Legacy
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analyait A-5
Austin-Foust Aseoduea, Inc.
922004rpt8FigA-I.dwg
'F
t~
'`
i
i~
i~
r
r
i~
i~
i~
i~
r
5. Arastroaq i Wasatr
I',~ 2025 Altunatiw 1
AH PK HOUR PH PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 2 3400 270 .08* 565 .17*
NB? 2 3400 124 .04 235 .09
HBR 0 0 9 59
SBL 1 1700 78 .05 124 .07
SB? 2 3400 192 .04* 204 .06*
SBR 1 1]00 272 .16 248 .15
EBL 1 1700 170 .10* 186 .11
EB? 3 5100 1288 .25 1698 .33*
EBR 1 1700 560 .33 392 .23
WBL 1 1700 109 .06 B1 .OS*
MB1' 3 5100 1758 .34* 1285 .25
WBR 1 1700 136 .OB 170 .10
Riqht ?urn Adjustment SBR .09*
Clearance Interval '.05* .05*
TO171L CAPACITT UTILIZATION .65 .66
6. Arntronq i A St
2025 Altunativ~ 1
AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 64 .04 69 .04
NBT 2 3400 363 .14* 153 .09*
NBR 0 0 109 147
SBL 1 1700 136 .OB* 138 .08*
SBT 2 3400 90 .03 331 .10
SBR 0 0 I 2
EBL 1 1700 96 .06' 48 .03*
EB? 2 3900 101 .09 166 .10
EBR 0 0 40 243 .14
NBL 1 1700 115 .07 160 .09
WB? 2 3900 193 .09' 491 .23*
~ WBR 0 0 121 289
Clearance Interval .OS* .05'
2025 Altuaatiw 2
AH PK HWR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C UOL V/C
NBL 2 3400 270 .OB* 565 .17*
NBT 2 3900 128 .04 239 .09
NBR 0 0 9 66
SBL 1 1700 78 .05 126 .01
SBT 2 3400 142 .04* 202 .06*
SBR 1 1700 272 .16 298 .15
EBL 1 1700 170 .10* 186 .11
EBT 3 5100 1290 .25 1698 .33*
EBR 1 1700 557 .33 392 .23
NBL 1 1700 102 .06 70 .09*
NBT 3 5100 1758 .34* 1284 .25
WBR 1 1700 136 .08 171 .10
Riqht Turn Adjustment SBR .04'
Clearance Interval .OS* .05*
TOTAL GPI6CITY UTILISATION .65 .65
T025 Alteraatiw 1
AM PK NOUR PN PK 110UR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
N8L 1 1700 64 .04 69 .04
NBT 2 3400 363 .14* 153 .09*
NBR 0 0 109 147
5BL 1 1700 136 .08* 139 .08*
SBT 2 3400 79 .02 262 .08
SBR 0 0 0 0
EBL 1 1700 93 .05' 36 .02*
EBT 2 3400 103 .04 149 .D9
EBR 0 0 40 243 .14
WBL 1 1700 126 .07 229 .13
FiBT 2 3400 193 .09* 991 .23*
WBR D 0 127 281
Clearance Interval .OS' .OS*
TOTAL CAPACITf UTILIZATIgI .IZ 1! TOTAL CAPACI!! OTILIt]ITICM .I1 .17
A-h Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy: Neigh E 7/01922.004
i
i
r
i
r
U
I~
I
I~
I'
21. Arastrong t 8 St
2025 Alternative i
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL VjC VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 220 .13* 8 .00
NBT 2 3400 386 .12 793 .23*
NBR 0 0 32 30
SBL 0 0 0 p
SBT 2 3400 117 .24* 636 .20
SBR 0 0 89 ql
EBL 1 1100 5 .00 61 .09
EBT 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 .OS' .OS*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILISATION .93 .35
22. Rd G s warner
1025 uternative 1
AM PR HOUR Ph PR HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 19 .O1 110 .06
NBT 1 1700 2 .Oi* 1 .08*
NBR 0 0 7 131
SBL 1 1700 17 .O1* 120 .07*
SBT 1 1100 2 .00 3 .00
SBR 1 1700 I12 .07 931 .25
EBL 1 1700 356 .21* 293 .11*
EBT 3 5100 1999 .39 2020 .90
EBR 1 1700 B3 .OS 29 .O1
WBL 1 1700 59 .03 16 .O1
WBT 3 5100 2106 .q9* 2039 .41*
WBR 0 0 13! 93
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .03*
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILISAlIO~ .72 .el
A-8
2025 Alternative 1
AM PK HCUR PH PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL I 1700 221 .13' 2 .00
NBT 2 3400 342 .11 769 .24*
NBR 0 0 32 31
SBL 0 0 0 1
SBT 2 3400 712 .29* 623 .20
SBR 0 0 89 40
EBL 1 1700 9 .00 55 .03
EBT 1 1700 0 .00 0 .05*
EBR 0 0 2 79
WBL 1 1700 5 .00 26 ,0Y*
WBS 1 1700 1 .O1* 1 .03
WBR 0 0 12 q6
Clearance Interval .OS* .05*
zvrAi, GIPACITY UlILIZATI~ ./3 .36
2025 Alterrutive 2
A[i PK HOOR P!I PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 19 .O1 110 .06
NBT 1 1700 2 .O1* 7 .O8*
NBA 0 0 7 137
SBL 1 1700 17 .O1* 120 .07*
SBS 1 1700 2 .00 3 .00
SBR 1 1700 112 .01 931 .25
EBL 1 1700 356 .21' 293 .17*
EBT 3 5100 199! .39 2020 .90
EBR 1 1700 83 .05 24 .O1
WBL 1 1700 59 .03 15 .O1
~T 3 5100 2106 .94' 2039 .91*
WBR 0 0 139 !3
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .03*
Clearance Interval .OS' .05*
TOl11L CAPACII7 PIILILJITION . T2 .81
~8u7' Park of Tustin Legacy; Neigh E 7/0'7 922.004
r
r
i
i
i~
i~
i
r
i~
i'~
~~
25. C St i A St
2025 Alternative 1
AH PK HOUR PH PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 254 .15* 92 .02*
NBT 1 1700 93 .12 9 .09
NBR 0 0 165 51
SBL 0 0 12 11
SHT 1 1700 5 .02* 47 .06*
SBR 0 0 23 92
EBL 1 1700 18 .O1 11 .Oi
EBT 1 1700 265 .17* 251 .21*
EBR 0 0 22 110
WBL I 1700 36 .02* 312 .18*
WBT 1 1700 180 .11 313 .16
WBR 0 0 0 0
Clearance Interval .OS* .05"
TOTAL CAPACITY 0?ILIZA?I08 ./1 .52
16.TStiBSt
2025 Alternative 1
AM PK HOUR PN PK HWR
LANES CAPACI?Y VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0
NB? 0 0 0 0
NBR 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 6 192
SB7 1 1700 0 .00* 0 .D9*
SBR 0 0 2 5
EHL 0 0 0 0
EBT 1 1700 2 .00 2 .00
EBR 0 0 0 0
WBL 0 0 0 0
WBT 1 1700 53 .18' 29 .03*
NBR 0 0 256 26
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
OlAL CAPACITY UTILIZATI011 .13 .11
2025 Alternative 2
Ad PK HOUR PH PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NHL 1 1700 253 .15* 91 .02*
NBT 1 1700 47 .12 20 .09
NBR 0 0 162 93
SBL 0 0 12 11
SBT 1 1700 5 .02* 96 .06*
5BR 0 0 23 51
EBL 1 1700 21 .O1 22 .O1
EBT 1 1700 263 .17* 297 .I1*
EBR 0 0 22 110
WBL 1 1700 36 .02* 311 .18*
WB? 1 1700 119 .11 310 .18
WBR 0 0 0 0
Clearance Interval .05* .05*
'OTAI, CAPACITT OTILILATION .41 .52
2025 Alternative 2
AM PE HOOR PM PK HWR
LANES CJIPACI?Y VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0
NBr o 0 o D
NBR 0 0 0 0
SBL 0 0 5 139
SBT 1 1700 D .00* 0 .08'
SBR 0 0 2 5
EBL 0 0 0 1
EBr 1 1700 0 .00 0 .00
EBR 0 0 0 0
MBL 0 0 0 p
WBT 1 1700 59 .18* 18 .03*
WBR 0 0 256 26
Clearance Interval .OS* .OS*
'OTAL CAPACITY OTILITJITION .13 .16
A-10 Legacy Park of Tustln Legacy: Noigh E 7!07 922.004
i
i
r
i
i
i~
i~
i
iti
~r
106. Aston t Barranca
2025 Alternative 1
AH PIf HOUR PH PR HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 ZO .O1 130 .08
NBT 1 1700 10 .02* 10 .09*
NBR 0 0 30 50
SBL 1 1700 20 .O1* 150 .09*
SBT 1 1100 20 .O1 10 .O1
SBR 1 1700 ZO .O1 310 .18
EBL 1 1700 300 .18* 90 .02*
EBT 9 6800 1780 .28 1660 .25
EBR 0 0 150 30
NBL 1 1700 80 .OS 20 .O1
NBT q 6800 1630 .26* 1890 .28*
MBR 0 0 160 qp
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .11'
Clearance Interral ,OS* OS*
TOTAL G-PACITZ 0lILIfATION .52 .59
101. Arautronq i BarraaG
2025 Alternative 1
AM P% ROOR PN PIS HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 60 .Oq 100 .06
NBT 1 1700 20 .O1* 10 .O1*
NBR 1 1100 30 .02 BO .05
SBL 1 1700 80 .OS* 390 .20*
SBT 1 1700 30 .02 20 .O1
SBR 1 1700 190 .08 370 .22
EBL 1 1700 370 .22* 180 .11*
EBT 4 6800 1370 .21 1650 .25
EBR 0 0 90 30
NBL 1 1700 170 .10 90 .02
NBT 9 6800 1680 .27* 1980 .29*
NBR 0 0 150 170
Clearance Interval .05* .OS*
TOTAL CAPACITI OTILIZATIOx .60 .61
A-12
2025 Alterrutive 2
AH PR HIN1R PN PR HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 20 .O1 130 .OB
NBY 1 1100 10 .02* 10 .Oq*
NBR 0 0 30 50
SBL 1 1700 20 .O1* 150 ,09*
SBT 1 1700 20 .O1 10 .O1
SBR 1 1700 20 .O1 310 .18
EBL 1 1700 300 .18* 90 .02*
EBT 9 6806 1180 .28 1660 .25
EBR 0 0 150 30
NBL 1 1700 80 .05 20 .O1
~T q 6800 1630 .26* 1890 .28*
NBR 0 0 160 qp
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .11*
Clearance Interval .OS* .OS*
svrAL GIPACIT! OTILILATIODI .52 .59
2025 Alternative 2
AN PK HOUR PN Pb NWR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 60 .Oq 100 .06
NBT 1 1700 20 .O1* 20 .O1*
NBR 1 1700 30 .02 80 .OS
SBL 1 1100 BO .OS* 350 .21*
SBT 1 1700 30 .01 20 .O1
SBR 1 1700 190 .08 370 ,22
EBL 1 1700 370 .22* 180 .Ii'
EBT 4 6800 1370 .Z1 1650 .25
EBR 0 0 90 30
NBL 1 1700 170 .10 40 .02
~T 4 6800 1680 ,27* 1980 .2q*
NBR 0 0 150 170
Clearance Interval .05* .OS*
TOTAL CAPACITY OTILILI-?ION .60 .62
uBacY Park of Tustin Legacy; Neigh E 7/07 922.004
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 II-10
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 corner 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 othenNise 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 cashier's check payable to
the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file
the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-
eight (48) hour period 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.