HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4068RESOLUTION NO. 4068
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 17144 TO SUBDIVIDE A 131-ACRE
SITE INTO 12 NUMBERED LOTS AND 28
LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS,
OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC STREETS, AND FLOOD
CONTROL FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE
CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDED BY BARRANCA
PARKWAY ON THE SOUTH, RED HILL AVENUE
ON THE WEST, WARNER AVENUE ON THE
NORTH, AND ARMSTRONG AVENUE ON THE
EAST.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17144 was
submitted by Tustin Legacy Community Partners to subdivide a
131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the
purpose of development of commercial business, open space, and
public streets, and flood control facilities. The site is bounded by
Barranca Parkway on the south, Red Hill Avenue on the west,
Warner Avenue on the north and Armstrong Avenue on the east;
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map
on November 13, 2007, by the Planning Commission;
C. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin
General Plan land use designation of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and
the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which designates the project sites
(Planning Areas 9-12) as commercial business which provides for
development of offices, retail and service commercial, public and
institutional, and light industrial uses;
D. As conditioned, the map would be in conformance with the State
Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision
Code);
E. That the Public Works Department has reviewed the map and
determined that it is technically correct;
F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed intensity and type
of development;
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 2
G. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements
proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems;
H. That the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat;
That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
J. That any discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an
existing sewer system would not result in violation of existing
requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Santa Ana Region, pursuant to Division 7 of the
Water Code of the State of California.
K. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3,
2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an j
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and
Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a
program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the
potential environmental impacts associated with development on
the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin; and,
L. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for
Tentative Tract Map 17144, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The
Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does
not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial
changes, or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously
identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has
surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
approve Tentative Tract Map 17144 for the subdivision of an
approximately 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for
the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public
streets, and flood control facilities, subject to the conditions contained in
Exhibit B attached hereto.
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission held on the 13th day of November, 2007.
JOHN IELSEN
Chairperson
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4068 duly passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of November,
2007.
EL ZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4068
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(71 ~) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin
This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of
an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation
evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s): Concept Plan 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map 17144.
Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573.-3115
Project Location: Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC
130 Yantis, 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 Council:
on January 16, 2001 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on April 3, 2006.
B.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
^Land Use and Planning
^Population and Housing
^Geology and Soils
^Hydrology and Water Quality
^Air Quality
^Transportation & Circulation
^Biological Resources
^Mineral Resources
^Agricultural Resources
^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 I) 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
~a
Date: 11-01-07
Willkom, Senior Planner
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Date 11-Q 1-07
See Attachment A attached to this Checklist
EVALUATION OF ENVII20NMENTAL IMPACTS
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the azea?
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) prepazed 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 maybe 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
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
a ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
D ^
^ ^
^ ^
[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
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an azchaeological 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 SO[LS: -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d)' Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
G_
s
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
'adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of toss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands aze adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
-or azea, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
ierosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoffl
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard azea as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
a ^
a ^
^ ^
a ^
^ ^
a ^
^ ^ ®~
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
a ^
^ ^
D ~
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
No Substantial
New More Change From
Sign cant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ~ ~ ~
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fve protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
'XIV. RECREATION-
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be acFelerated?
b) Dces the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? '
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
~ Result in inadequate parking capacity?
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
a o
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
o ^
^ ^
^ ^
o ^
^ ^
o ^
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CONCEPT PLAN 06-001
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144
NEIGHBORHOOD E OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the
Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the EIS/EIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the
Navy (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy (NEPA). The FEIS/EIR analyzed the environmental consequences
of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and
the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental
impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to
implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIlZ 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 Addendur to the FEISS/EIR.
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed amulti-year
development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed, the agency is required to examine individual activities to
determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The agency can
approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum if the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA
Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental
document is required. For the proposed Concept Plan 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map 17144
project, the City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided
below to determine if the project is within the scope of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and if new
effects would occur as a result of the project.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Property is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan also known as Tustin Legacy. Concept
Plan (CP) 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 consists of approximately 1,267,324
square feet of land at Tustin Legacy and is located within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan (Planning Area 9-12).
Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin within the
City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for
nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined
surplus to federal government needs and was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 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
Conceat Plan 06-001
Background
Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, a concept plan shall be prepared
and submitted for Zoning Administrator Approval concurrent with a new development proposal,
reuse project, or Sector B level map.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 3
The purpose of the concept plan is to document and ensure that:
1. The necessary linkages are provided between the development project and the Planning.
Area/Neighborhood in which it is located;
2. The integrity of the Specific Plan and purpose and intent of each Neighborhood is
maintained; and
3. Applicable consideration of City requirements other than those spelled out in the Specific
Plan are identified and satisfied.
Description of the Concept Plan
The Concept Plan for Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan includes Planning
Areas 9-12. The following are components of the Concept Plan:
• Land Use (development uses and parks/open spaces)
• Circulation
• Design Guidelines
• Landscape Elements
• Infrastructure
The Land Use component of Neighborhood E includes a total of 1,267,324 square feet of non-
residential uses and encompasses Phases 1 and 2 of Neighborhood E. Phase 1 includes a total of
x;18,600 square feet of general office uses and 287,000 square feet of R&D Flex/Light Industrial
uses. Phase 2 includes 319,675 square feet of general office uses; 93,920 square feet of R&D
Flex/Light Industrial use; 229,997 square feet of office park use; and, 18,132 square feet of
neighborhood commercial (mixed) use.
A total of 38.6 acres of open space is also included and is to contain the following types of open
space:
• Linear Park (private)
• Focal bark (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 [mpacts
CP o6-001 and TTM I ~ 144
Page 4
The Infrastructure component identifies backbone infrastructure based upon the master roadway
network and Local Infrastructure system. This infrastructure component includes conceptual
plans for domestic water, well sites, reclaimed water, sewer, and storm drainage and water
quality.
Tentative Tract Map 17144
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 is a proposal to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered
lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space,
public streets, and flood control facilities. TTM 17144 is a Sector B Map which is a subdivision
map that divides a larger parcel into additional parcels (development units) that will facilitate
conveyance of the property by a master developer to vertical merchant builders or other parties.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the
Environmental Analysis' Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not directly cause aesthetic impacts. Development activities proposed by
the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable
negative aesthetic effect on the site.
There are no designated scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed Concept
Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista. Although the project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated state
scenic highway, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that the loss of both historic
blimp hangars would be a significant visual impact, the loss of only one hangar would be
less than significant. The proposed Concept 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
i
~ 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/EIIZ for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
t- prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. The project site was leased as
interim agriculture sites. All agricultural activities on the site and Navy out leases were
terminated in phases by the Navy prior to the closure of MCAS Tustin in July, 1999.
Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously
considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been
found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project.
The physical impact area for the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map is the
same as that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Implementation of the proposed
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 6
project would continue to impact areas mapped (though not used) as Prime Farmland.
Designated Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Specific Plan area is outside of
the Master Developer footprint and is located north of Barranca Parkway, west of Harvard
Avenue, and east of Jamboree Boulevard. Additionally, there are no areas subject to a
Williamson Act contract, and conservation of farmland in this area was deemed
unwarranted by NCRS. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the
impact conclusions presented in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The loss of Prime
Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and
unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEIS/EIR are still
infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with
the loss of mapped/designated farmland.
There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would
reduce the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to
urban uses. Mitigation options identified in the FEIS/EIR determined to be infeasible are
still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant.
There would not be a substantial increase in the severity ofproject-specific and cumulative
impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum;
however, these impacts would continue to be sigruficant unavoidable impacts of the
proposed project. The Tustin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council
adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that
impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation
is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10)
Resolution No. 00-90
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established 6y the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Evaluation o€ Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 7
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not directly cause Air Quality impacts. Development activities proposed by
the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects,
nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects
occur as a result of the proposed project.
Consistent with the conclusion reached in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, the proposed
project would result in significant short-term construction air quality impacts. Because the
proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map only involve a conceptual design
development and subdivision of land within the threshold of the Specific Plan and the
previously approved FEIS/EIlZ and its Addendum, the project would not substantially
increase the type or severity of construction related air quality impacts from those identified
in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations for. the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City
Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long-term, and
cumulative air quality impacts.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the
Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for operational and
construction activities. However, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum also concluded that the
Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully
mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the
Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90). No new mitigation
measure is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 8
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143
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). T'he
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 Envirorunental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 9
plant or animal species; however, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum determined that
implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed
project site) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern-pond turtle,
which is identified as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation
measures were included in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR to require the relocation of the
turtles and establishment of an alternative off-site habitat, and to require the applicant to
obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary for areas on the project
site affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. The Master
Developer has obtained these permits and is subject to conditions listed in the respective
permits.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-
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 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 10
Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin
had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological
site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have
been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or
paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading
and construction activities. With the- inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the
MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural
resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance.
There is no new technology or methods available to reduce the identified significant
unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts to historical resources associated with
the removal of Hangars 28 and 29 to a level considered less than significant. Although
these unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts would not occur with
implementation of the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map (affects
Neighborhood E only), the future development of the Master development footprint could
present impacts to these resources. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address potential
significant unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from the removal of both
blimp hangars. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed
in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
MitigationlMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City
Council in the FEIS/EIIt; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. No refinements need to be made
to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-
74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40
through 5-45)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
VI. GEOLOGY AND SO[LS -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 11
• 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 1&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/EIIt and Addendum
indicate that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan
and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local
settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows)
and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking,
ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with
dam failure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that
compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established
engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of
significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for
development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
avoid the creation of potential impacts. No new mitigation is required.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 12
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-
97, 4115 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 hazazdous 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 hazazdous 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/EIIZ 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 fox future
residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger azea.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Implementation of activities and development at the
project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be
required by law. No new or modified mitigation is required for the project.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3-
117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49
through 5-55)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14,
and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41
Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas
1, 2, 3,and4
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)
Tustin General Plan
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 14
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative
Tract Map will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. Development
activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within
the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no
demonstrable negative hydrology and water quality effect on the site. The project site is
located within the Barranca Channel Master Drainage Area. A master drainage hydrology
study (San Diego Creek Flood Control Master Plan, Barranca Channel Update, dated
September 28, 2007) was prepared and approved by the Orange County Flood Control
District (OCFD). The study 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 I"CM 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 surface proposed for
construction would not change substantially; therefore, analysis and conclusions in the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater
levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially. In addition, no change to the
backbone drainage system is proposed; therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to
drainage patters, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the
implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of
insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage
were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS
Tustin and Addendum; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project or as conditions of approval for the project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/E1R for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-
I O5, 4124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56
through 5-92)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The project being evaluated involves an
amendment to the Original DDA, a new Development Agreement, and modifications to
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 16
parking standards. The proposed project would not alter the land uses proposed for
development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the Specific
Plan area, rather minor adjustments to development phases are proposed. The project site
area is surrounded by existing development and development on-site would not physically
divide an established community. Although the project only involves conceptual
development proposal, the implementation of this Concept Plan would result in the
continuation of similar uses.
Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Implementation of activities and development at the project
site could be subject to subsequent environmental. review under CEQA as may be required
by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
MitigationJMonitoring 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/E1R
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
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
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
XI. NOISE -Would the project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
I 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 squaze 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 standazds, 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 PlanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
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 additional housing are proposed with the Concept Plan
and Tentative Tract Map consistent with the approved Specific Plan and previously
approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Similar to the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR,
the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not have an adverse effect on
population and housing.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Because no significant impacts were identified, no
mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum related to population housing. The
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 19
proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not change the conclusions of the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum and no new mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4-
14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-1 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 T"iM 17134
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,
TUSD, 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/EIlt, 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.
MitigationlMonitoring Required: The FEIS/EIIZ 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 3-51, 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 480, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b)
Tustin General Plan
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level- of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 22
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm. equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build
out of the Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at
18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/EIR for a complete list) and the levels
of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no-project condition.
The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and
Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips.
The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each
neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential
development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity
exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed Concept
Plan and Tentative Tract Map would result in a reduction in daily trip generation of 14
percent than the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
No Significant changes to on-site circulation would occur with the proposed project. Austin
Foust Associates, Inc. has prepared the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy, Neighborhood E
Internal Circulation Analysis -July 2007 (Exhibit A) to identify and evaluate how the traffic
impacts from the proposed project differ from the analysis presented in the approved Tustin
Legacy Park traffic analysis (March 6, 2007, Legacy Park of Tustin ,Legacy Traffic
Analysis, Austin Foust Associates, Inc), FEIS/EIR, and Addendum. The study has shown
that the proposed Concept Plan, Tentative Map, and arterial circulation changes within the
Neighborhood E have not resulted in new significant impacts that would require mitigation.
The proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance
with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer also has
reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the revised analysis.
MitigationlMonitoring 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 PlanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust
Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the prroject from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to
utilities and service systems. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of
Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin
and Addendum. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed new off-site and on-site backbone
utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed
development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable
television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEIS/EIR and Addendum,
the applicant is required to pay a fair share towards off-site infrastructure and installation of
on-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and
local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and off-site,
and water availability. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, no unavoidable
significant impacts would result. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map
would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the
FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 24
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. ~-90) for
issues relating to aesthetics, cultural .and paleontological resources, agricultural
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 06-001 and TTM 17144
Page 25
resources, and traf~'ic/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 5-11)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-
70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137)
and Addendum
Resolution No. 00-90
Tustin General Plan
CONCLUSION
The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS
Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be
required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project
that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
t
r
CITY OF TUSTIN
LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY
•
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis
July 2007
~,~~AUST/~FOYl6T ASSOCUTfS, /~14~
r
r
r
r
D
JUL 2 0 2001
TUSTIN PUBLIC WQRKS QEPT.
ITY OF
C 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
` No. 123
#\ exc 1-01 ~~
July 20, 2007
Table of Contents
t Section
Pa e
Introduction ........................................... .............................
......................................
...................................1
M Land Use and Trip Generation ..............
Circulation System .......................
.......... ...............................
.......................................................................1
.....................................................................................................1
Intersection Capacity ............................. ...................
..................................................................................7
Signalization ...........................................
Traffic Control Measures ........................ .........................................................
.........................................18
.................................................................................................
.2s
Recommended Turn Pocket Lengths ......
Effects of Circulation Changes ................ ................................
.................................................................................................25
Conclusions ...............................
~ ............... .....................................
............................................................31
Appendix: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets
i~
U~
i~
i~
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of'rustin Legacy
Neighbortwod E Internal Ccculation Analysis i Austin-Foust Associates, Inc,
922004rptg,doc
List of Figures
^ Fieur e Page
'~
'
~
'
'
'
s 1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
~ 11
12
13
14
IS
16 Tustin Legacy Master Developer Footprint ..................................................................................2
Neighborhood E Concept Plan ...........................................................4
..........................................
Neighborhood E Access Plan .......................................................................................................5
Neighborhood E Circulation System ............................................................................................6
Armstrong Avenue Lane Configuration Alternatives ...................................................................8
Year 2025 ADT Volumes (OOOs) -Alternative 1 .........................................................................9
Year 2025 ADT Volumes (OOOs) -Alternative 2 ....................................................................... l0
Ycar 2025 AM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 1 ..................................................................11
Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 1 ..................................................................12
Year 2025 AM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative 2 ..................................................................13
Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes -Alternative.2 ...................................................................14
Intersection Lane Configurations ........15
Intersection Location Map .................................................................................................. .17
.......
Peak Hour Signal Warrants (Higher Speeds/Rural Areas) .........................................................19
Peak Hour Signal Warrants (Lower Speeds/Clrban Areas) .........................................................20
Traffic Control Measures ............................................................................................................26
')
i A-1 Intersection Location Map ....................................................................................................... A-S
~
~~ List of Tables
'~ Table
Page
1 Neighborhood E Land Use and Trip Generation Summary .........................................................3
2 Year 2025 Neighborhood E Buildout ICU Summary .................................................................16
3 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Peak Hour Signal Warrant Summary ...............................................21
4 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Peak Hour Signal Warrant Summary ...............................................23
5 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended Left-Turn Storage Lengths.---•.-..-.,•......••-... ••.-,,,--,,,27
6 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended Left-Turn Storage Lengths . ,,,,-,-„28
7 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended Right-Turn Pocket Lengths .....................................29
8 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended Right-Turn Pocket Lengths 30
I ~ .....................................
9 Armstrong Avenue Intersection Analysis Summary ..................................................................32
Cary of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-fioust Associates, Lx.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis ri 922004rptg.dac
1~
CITY OF TUSTIN -LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis
INTRODUCTION
I
t
This report summarizes the access and internal circulation analysis for proposed development in
') Neighborhood E of the Legacy Park master developer footprint within the Tustin Legacy (see Figure 1),
and provides a more detailed analysis of the roadway needs within Neighborhood E than the recently
' ~ approved traffic study dated March 6, 2007, for the entire Legacy Pazk of Tusiin 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 GENERATION
The development within Neighborhood E is comprised ofnon-residential uses such as office and
industrial uses as well as park and recreational land uses. Table 1 s»*n~ri~Ps 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 refinements on traffic in
Neighborhood E and sun ounding circulation system.
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
I~
Figure 3 shows the roads and proposed accts 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
r
designated as a secondary arterial, and "C" Street between Barranca parkway and "A" Street is a two-lane
local collector. The remaining roadways within Neighborhood E, "H" 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 Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Assoc'
Neighborhood E interval Circulation Analysis ~ ~• ~:
92?0041ptg.doc
r
''
'~
~~
~~
~~
~~
IF
m
~ r N
r
~ ~ ~ N
~a ~a 0° aa. ~aa. Qa
~ ~
i s
~~
al
1~$
~~~~~
i~~~
.~
~~
~~
.~
N
~#
C
a
~~
~~
a
r
'~
~~
i~
~A
i~
i~'
Table I
NEIGHBORHOOD E LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
AM Peak Hoer PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units In Out Tots! In Ont Total ADT
Buildont
Nei borhood Commercial 18.13 TSF 30 19 49 86 92 178 2 028
Generai Office 638.27 TSF 1 053 146 1 199 197 950 1 147 8 470
Officc Park E 230 TSF 178 56 234 92 164 256 2 944
Li ht IndustriaURBt:D 379.72 TSF 391 81 472 62 348 4l0 3 081
Park 26.3 Acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
S its Panic 8 Acre 0 0 0 27 33 60 430
Total nildout 1 652 302 1 954 464 1 587 2 OSI 17 085
Total evious
' 1 739 340 2079 560 1 695 2 55 19 982
Difl
erenex -87 -38 -125 -96 -108 -204 -2 897
Dilierena -5% -11°/. -6% -17°/. -6% -9% -14%
Trt Rates
Nei borhood Commercial TSF 1.63 1.05 2.68 4.68 5.06 9.74 111
82
General Office TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 .
9145
Office Park TSF .77 .24 1.02 .40 .71 1.11 12
80
Li t IndustriaVR&D TSF 1.03 .21 1.24 .16 .92 1.08 .
8
11
Park Acre .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 .
5
00
S its Park A . .
cre .Ol .00 .Ol 3.40 4.10 7.50 53.80
Notes:
1) Office Park equation is based on 91.89 TSF.
2) Trip Rau Sources - MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR dated December 1999, and 1TE Trip Generation Manual, 7'~
Edition.
3) The land use-based trip razes for Otlce Park uses are based on the following equation:
LN(T)-AxLN(X}*B where X~land use amount aad T=daily trips;
- AM Peak Hour - ---- PM Peak Hour ---
Coefficient~ Pk/ADT Pk/ADT
Land Use Type Units A B Ratio In Out Ratio ~ Out
Office Perk TSF .768 3.654 .080 76•/. 24% .087 36°/. 64%
Abbreviations: ADT -average daily trips
DU -dwelling unit
(E~ -Equation based trip rates used.
City of ?latiq - I.egscy Par1c of Tustin Legary Austin-Foust Associua, hu.
Neighborhood E Internal Cimilation Analysis 3 922004~ptg.doc
~'
t
i~
~~
r
~~,
is
i
~~
i~
i~
p;
~r
W.
-,.~.i, ' --~
s f"
_= 1'~ ~
Sour+x: I2BF . ~ ~
1.7f i
+a r
~ 5•ewFS
~o~corv ~~ ~~ ~'y
- _~~~.-.
.~ .m ` `'
uw
~i ~~
~4n.N~
1
~_~~ r - y.
._ «~ ..~
~_
~ ~ ~~' `f
~-
~,
+~ t
r
_
'
p ~
`
~
~
s ~... 3.y..ic_.~ Yr~
~T
t
:
~~/~/r//
+ .JT. { ~
t
~ ~/ \
/f
l
, , \
a. r / ~
~ ~~
"~
'' ar •
~
• r i~r t ' .at•~
s
yS
~-7~f ~ ~~
~ J
LT N
?CT•
TpA K!W ;
-.
~
r tur= M .
~ •~
~
~_ -
~ 1110
u
.~i ~~
i
=
Via- s .. ~~ ~ ~t7!
:l 4Y ~s7~ •
r u r u r
/
_. -
~~
Figure 1
NEIGHBORHOOD E CONCEPT PLAN
City of Tustin - legary Park of Tustin legacy Auatin-Foust Aaaociatea InC.
Neightwrdood E Internal Cirwlation Analysis t 92?A04rptBFigZ.dwt
J
,i
F
LI
0
CJ
ii
i~
ie
I~
Legend
- y~,~+,~
- • • ~' Arterial
Figure 3
- Secondary Arterial
~ Local Colleceot NEIGHBORHOOD E ACCESS PLAN
~ Local Street
City of 75raCin • Lcgary Park of T~atin Legacy Auatin.Fouat Associates, Inc.
Neighborlwod E Intertul Circulation Analysis 5 922004tpt8Fig3 dwg
7
7
~~
P
I~
1~
I'
I~
I~
I~
Ir
~ ~
6 6
WARNQR AV 6
00
N v
OWY 0
f ~'
~
s 'ti
'~
i r y >
00 r
W 0
N W
& ti q~ ti
.,
~
~
4 2 ,r
A 5T 4~ ~~ 1r
Y S
1 ~~ ~
~
~ 4
~ ~
^~ 4
4
4
sj
00 ~
8 8
BARRANCA
PKWY
i
1
~g~ Figure 4
X ~~~ ~~ NEIGHBORHOOD E
- CIRCULATION SYSTEM
City of Tustin • Legacy Part of Tustin kB~' Austin-Foust ~atea, Inc.
Neighborhood E Internal (Srculatioa MaFyae 6 g22004~ptgF-~g4 dig
~~
~~
~1
~1
~I
~~
IS
Avenue via "B" Street and "C" Street/"I" Street, and Barranca Parkway at "C" Street. Driveway D on
Red Hill Avenue (located north of Carnegie AvenueJ"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 Batranca 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" Stnet/"I" Street and
"E" Street have two intersections signalized and two unsignalized (see Figure S). In cacti 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" Streed"I" Street. With a stop control at "C" Street/"I" Street, the movements are restricted to
right-turns out on "C" Street and "P' Street and all turn movements are allowed on Armstrong. Avenue.
Alternative 2 features a signalized intersection at "C" 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
are allowed on Armstrong. Avenue.
Figures 6 and 7 show the buildout ADT volumes for key roadway link locations within
I~
iL
A
Neighborhood E for Alternatives 1 and Z, respectively. Figures 8 through 11 show the cornsponding AM
and PM peak hour volumes, respectively, for key intersection locations within this area for Alternatives 1
and 2. The volumes shown here will be slightly different than the March 6, 2007, traffic study because of
the addition of the restricted driveway along Red Hill Avenue and the conversion of three intersections on
Armstrong Avenue (`B" Street, "C" Street/"I" Street and "E" Street), which wen previously restricted to
certain turn movements, to full access (Alternatives 1 and 2). Then an minor volume differences on "C"
Street and "A" Street between Alternatives 1 and 2.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY
The intersection lane geometry for the access locations analyzed ben is presented in Figure 12.
The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for Alternatives 1 aad 2 are presented in Table 2 for the
intersections shown in Figure 13 for year 2025 conditions. By practice the ICU methodology assumes
that intersections are signalized. The results of this analysis are consistent with the March 6, 2007, 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 differences occur between Alternatives 1 and 2.
City of Tustin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Font Associates, Inc,
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Aaalysia 7 922d04tpt8 ~
r
i~
i
i~
i~
i~
i~
i~
~4
~'
ALTERNATIVE 1
k
ALTERNATIVE 2
~y~
~~
k
""i~ ~lgllrC s ,
Stop Control ARMSTRONG AVENUE LANE CONFIGURATION
~ Signal Control ALTERNATIVES
City of Tustin -Legacy Put of TLstin Legscy Anatin-Foust Aa~ociates, InG
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 8 ~~~~.~
h
~I
f
~I
1~
I~
I~
I~
I~
r
P~ 6
TEAR 1,025 ADT VOLUMES (OOOy)
-ALTERNATIVEI
City of Tustia - Lsgary Perk of Tustin Ltgary Awtin-Foust Associates, Ins,
Ncighborhood E Internal Caailation Analysis 9 ~ 922004rpt8Fig6.dws
J
0
r
i~
i~
I~
i~
J
57
WARNER AV
S1 43
H+
N V
owr o &
2 ~''
F ,~
5
~ N 0
oW
W
K N
ti 4 ~y.•
~
12 12 ~ ~'~
~ sr ~ b
,y ~4
y~ r ~.
~
jf G
O
.O
A
11 W
10
A 5S
BARRANCA PI(WY
Figure 7
YEAR 2025 ADT VOLUMES (OOpy)
-ALTERNATIVE 2
City of Tustin - Lcgaq Park of Tustin uB~Y AustiaFowt As~ate; Iac,
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analyse 10 92200grpt8Fig7 d~vg
~~l
fl
i~
I~
L
1
Figure 8
YEAR 2025 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
-ALTERNATIVE 1
i
i
City of Tustin • Legacy Park of Tustin Legsg .
Neighborhood E lntemal Circulatioa Analysis 11 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
922004rptgFigg.dw~g
M
d
iL
d
°R
~nu'
~ ~ i 1650
~,
~
~a~
.
~
2 260
-
WAR ~ .. r 2039
-- t 6 `~IIN^ i 120
~~~ 1285
t530-- t ~ NER A V j
29 1 Y
t80-L oc~
~rnr
i.
2024~ 186_
1392
~
o ^
' 2 ~
~
n
N
N
j
1..130
OtNY 0 (7
&
r~', o r 466 ,M'(
2 „
tP j~4
F t
11
a 6
,9~ i ~ ` SS
i
,nj, 'ti~O m~
g~
-
~i,? d ~'
~ 0 s ~ ,1'1
0
`~
~ s
1 :'
,a
,~
~~~y
~
~'Lf h
a,
~ ~~ cs
o_ o i ~
1'M
}'y y ~
230 Y ~ 6
f ~5
/
/~
~
~
~
~~
A 1 g- } (~ i'~
~1- ~~ Y
~b }
~ 5
~O
y ~`
~
, w~
16~'1
tO
OZ ~, n J
O
y
~ 1 /
~(.
N *lLt~
JJ ~~
~O ~~
`r
l
~~; 4 O J~~p~
/
~
J?J~J
" \
O ~L
7 ~~, o
~ ~.
~ry
~ ~? ~°
~ ^' ~
~ 492
I
Y ~ r 5~ ~ j 160
'
,1 0 St
6
~ ~ 166 ~
243 aui
0o 2
8 -+
t6~' u-.u n c+v
.-~b'-te o d~4 ,~
BARRANCA PI(WY 40
166~0~ ~~ ta~~
ASTON
Figure 9
YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
- ALTERNATIVE 1
City of Turtin - I.egaer Park of Twtin Lcgacy Austin-Fowl Aewciates, Inc,
Neig6borltood E Internal Circulation Analyr<is 12 92~04~g~ ~
r
M
d
M
u
N OO1 Q
~'N ~ i 600
~- 1380
260 N^'
i 134
~ NNm
n.rn
1670-i
WARNER
~- 2106
Ay r 59 ~ ~ ~ i 136
f 1;58
230-x . ~o~ 1994 1701
p 83 ~Nn 1290---
557- n°c°OV°i
~ N~
N
42 V
+i t2
i~
t DWY 0 ~ ~°~'~•' S pW't
f1
`
`r F A ~~~
2/,y Sl
> ~
fr i~N
4
5
. ~
~~~ y, .
_
0
f ~ ~
~
00 ~ s~>
eJr
n o
~ 1 SOO o ~-
.r
~ 282 ~
~ ;~0 `' O
110
~ ~ ti
T07 r
f/
~P9
20
~
A 249
2 ~
~ ~
}
~
~ ~
L
i
~
~
3pZ bo
a ~ n 1. \ ~
~
''~ ~
~ ,
S
R/
6
~3, C
J ,~
d
`v
61
,, ~
.1`p `ti}9 G G ~+~j
~/~
.?
?
)
d
1~/
~~ ~t
~
,
0
1
l
,9
~
r
~
1 ~ `~ ~~
ti
w i 127
17 ~~
A 209-- ~ ~ ~ SZ t03-'~
40 + 4'~
NN 5S-i U~Oi
i 160 Y~j~C
d~~-•-1fi o J~4 ;
BARRANCA
PKWY 300
1780--- ~ 7
150- 1J~~ $~~
ASTON
Figure 10
YEAR 2025 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUI~S
• ALTERNATIVE 2
City of 711stin -Legacy Park of Tustin Legscy Austin-Foust
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 13 ~OR1tp' Inc`
922~rptBFiglO.dwg
~i
,)
I~
I~
I~
I
I''
I~
~'W
'.1
'~.
°~
~~~
~~ 'i 670
~ 1650
260
~i~ i 43
NN`=
1530
~ ~
W'4RN~
A ~.- 2039
r 15 'L 171
~ j (~ ~'-' 1284
-a
180- +
$ V 2020..1 186
~
24-7 ^r.^ _
1392 "'L ~~ao
o ~ ~"~ n
N
f t ` 26 p~M'I
~ ~ 1
o
o
~o F w
9~ \~
g
<
~~'
ry6~ 1
6
x'120
~ ,
s
~f ~
rc/
~~ ~
6
W Z `~$
l
~L .~~
,r
o
~~
~$
t 280
f ~_
~
i
~ 4 ~ o ~,~~
48 ,0 w;g `~
230 tJ ~ ~S g f ~
~
~~
i~
A 1 e-~
~(~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ti1 ~,
ht ~ c~c
ti~~ ~
~ 5f
N
^
~eJ o.;
6
~
r~ ~
t ~ ~
, ~
~
o
1
J ~
`
j O
~Of/'~ `t ~O
~ +
~ N
oN
~ i 281
A =
~ `
t ~- 221
f 518
~ ~ r 11
9s
h
5T
A ~ ~ ~
254 y .
243 n4v
00 16Z u~u
r~!
f ON~
,e o
.~l4 ~~b 17
BARRANCA PKWY 40 •
1660--- 61
30-"a
16~ i g
N
ASTON
Fuutt 11
' YFaR ZOZS PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
i -ALTERNATIVE 2
City of T~ -Legacy Puk of Tustin Legsry Alntia-Foust Asrociatp, Inc,
Neighborhood E Internal CSrculation Analyaia 14 922004r}>LgFgl1 d~
r
i.
is
i~
iA
r
L,cgend Figure 11
~ De-facto Right Tuna WIFRSECTION LANE CONFIdURATlONS
i
j City of Tltstin - I.egary Puk of Tustin L,egag Austin-Foust
Neighborhood E lntental Circulation Aaal~tis 15 922004rpt~8F~~,~g
r
~i
li
1~
IA
ie
r
i
8~
1~
~~
a
~o
~~
~t
0
~'
~~
I W
O
U a
I
li
1'
1~
~,
I~
I~
i~
Figtue 13
IN'I'ERSECIlON LOCATION MAP
1
Citq o[ Tustin - Lagac7~ Part of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Aasociata, Ltc,
Neighborhood E Internal CacuLtion Analysis 17
922004rpt8Fig13.d~vg
r
i
i
ii
i~
i~
i
i~
i~
r
SIGNALIZATION
Traffic signal warrants based on peak hour volumes as adopted by the Federal Highway
Administration and Caltrans were used here to determine the need for signalization. In applying this
warrant, the volumes of both the major and minor street must meet or exceed those shown on the curves
in Figures 14 and 15 under rural and urban conditions, respectively.
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
vohune leg. The highest volume for either the AM or PM determines the minor approach for both peak
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 areas,
the speed on the major street is 35 mph or lower. Speeds along Armstrong Avenue, Warner Avenue and
Red Hill Avenue are expected to be 40 mph or higher therefore the signal warrant analysis for the
intersections along these major roadways is based on rural. Speeds along "A" Street, "B" Street and "C"
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 vohumes 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.
Ciry of Tustin -Legacy Perk of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associate, Inc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 18 922004tpt8.doe
'~
t~
i~
i~
I~
I~
I~
n
W
i~ O ~~
O
r~ =
~ <
~ ~ W
o ~~
~~
~--' N
_ < Z
~
~
r. ~
O
~ O ~
~ W ~ vi
W
o -
z
`~ ~ .- = ~ ~
v z
~ N Q
O F W
~
W W Q O ~ I
~
Q
W
O ,~0
~~ ~ F
'
~ O ~ ~
k
~
N
~ m
c~
N ~ ~ O v O
~ ..i
~ ~ ~ ~
~ J ~
W W O
u J
~~ W
v1 O Q Z
~ O L~
g ~~ z > ;~~
~~
t
O '" W
O W o
h ~` p~
O
N
~
~
(~ ~
N ~
W ~
~ ~
~ ~
R
W
a p
~ ~
~~~
J C ~
O
~ ~
O W <
~ N
~ N~~
~
O O
O O O O
0 O p ~
r
(H~d021ddb' 3Wn~On H~IH) ~ $ o
Hdn 133~11S 2~ONIW
00
z z
a~
z
c~
~ h
0.
li
~Y
~~
'~
~~
o.
ti
~f
a~
~,~
w
~~
w
7z
W
N d
0 h.. ~
~ W =
~ ~
~, S
o
0
< ~
~ <
O W
~ z
~ ~ J
~ ~
j
O (
= °~{
O .V o
~
~ O ~
O ~ a
M ~ ~W
r a v
~ ~ W
OO
~ F--
p ~ F. ~
~
O ~ W W F
~
N
O ~
~ J
a = ~ O
~ f
- m ~ as
~ ~ y~~ <
W ~ W
~ ~ j -'
~ W Z ~ _~
~ ~ ~
N
o
r ~ ~ ~~
~
~ ~ 0
o
~ 4
8
~
O ~
W
~ N
~ W
~
~ ~
N J ~ ~
~
d
~ ~io
O O O O D O p va ~`'
1~ tD ~ d M N .- ~ ~
~
(HOb021ddb 3Wf110~ HJIH) ~"
`
Hd/1 133b1S bON IW i
O
Z
~
w ~2
~
z Z .,.
J ~ W
Z
J
2
~ J
~
~~
'~
N ~
~ ~o
N
a ,~
~
a
~ .~
W ~ o
Z
W Q < ~
Z J ~ W
W
Z
~
Z
J
W Q
Q
~
N ~ d'
N
W
a
~ 3~
x
~~
~~
~i
~~
0
a~
w
`o
t7 ~
1~
1'
'~
n
r
i~
i~
Table 3
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Directioa AM Peak Aour PM Peak Hour
S. 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 Warrant i er S eds/Rural ? ya
Y~
6. Armstrong & A St
Major Approach Northbound 536 _
Southbound 227 _
Total 763 _
Minor Approach Westbound 435 _
Satisfies Warrant i S oral 7 y~
Major Approach g,~ _
457
Westbound _ 941
Total
Minor Approach Southbound --
- 1,398
471
Satisfies Warrant er S oral ? l,~
16. Armstrong 8c C Sbt St
Major Approach Northbound 57? (~1
Southbound 723 741
Total 1,300 1,402
Minor Approach Westbound 83 127
Satisfies Warrant i er S eds/Rural ? ya Yes
18. Armstrong & E St
Major Approach Northbound 586 489
Southbound 502 599
Total 1,088 I
088
Minor Approach Westbound ,
130
42
Satisfies Warrant (Higher Specds/Rural)? v„Q 3
21. Armstrong 8c B St
Major Approach Northbound 638 781
Southbtmd 806 677
T~ I>~ 1,458
Weed 18 _
Minor Approach Eastbound - 143
Satisfies Warrant i er S eds/Rural ? No y~
22. Rd G & Warner
Major Approach Eastbound 2,433 2,337
Westbound 2,299 2,098
Minot Approach Total
Southbound 4,732
131 4,435
SS4
Satisfies Warrant i er S eeds/R ? ya y~
23.ESt&ASt
Major Approach Eastbound 533 190
Westbound 508 430
Total 1,041 620
Minor Approach Southbound 78 297
Satisfies Warrant er S eds/Rural ? Yes Y~
City ofTustin - Legacy Park of Twtia e~gky Austin-Fount Aaaocistes, Inc.
Neighborfiood E Inteanal Ciriculuion Aaaiyau 2] 922W4rptg.doc
~'
1'
i~
11
~'
Table 3 (cont.)
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUIvIIvIARY
Intersection N/S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Aour PM Peak Rour
24.BSt&ASt
Major Approach Eastbound 303 367
Westbound 457 407
Total 760 774
Minor Approach Southbound SS 30
Satisfies Warrant wer S eeds/Urban ? No No
25.CSt8cASt
Major Approach Eastbound 305 372
Westbound 216 625
Total 52I 997
Minor Approach Northbound 462 103
Satisfies Warrant wet S roan ? Yea No
26.FSt&BSt
Major Approach Eastbound 2 ~ _
Westbound 309 _
Total 311 _
Minor Approach Southbou~i 8 __
Satisfies Warrant Lower S rban ? No
Major Approach Southbound - 147
Minor Approach Westbound - 50
Satisfies Warrant wer S rban ? - No
114.DSt8tASt
Major Approach Eastbound 441 3 I4
Westbound 257 563
Total 698 877
Minor Approach Southbtnuld 42 229
Satisfies Warrant wer S rba~a ? No No
115.DStdtCSt
Major Approach Eastbound 61 _
Westbound 4S _
Total 106 _
Minor Approach Northbound 23 _
Satiafies Warrant Lower S eeds/Urban 7 No _
Major Approach Northbound _ ~
Minor Approach Westbound - 4S
SatisSea Warrant wer S eeds/Urban ? _ No
Abbreviations:
N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road
City of Tustin - C.egacy Park of Tustin Legary Austin-Foust Associate, Itsc.
Neighbodwod E Internal Circulation Analysis 22 922004rpta.doc
i
i
Table 4
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Ditecdoa AM Peak Honr PM Peak Hoar
5. Armstrong & Warner
Major Approach Eastbound 2,017 2,276
Westbound 1,996 1,525
Total 4,013 3,801
Southbound 492
Minor Approach Northbound - 870
Satisfies Warrant i her S cds/Rural ? Ya ~,~
6. Armstrong 8c A St
Major Approach Northbound 536
Southbound 2I S -
Total 7S]
-
Minor Approach Westbownd 446 -
Satisfies Warrant i er S oral ? Yea _
Major Approach Eastbou
d
n - 438
Westbound ~ 1,001
T°~
Minor Approach Southbound 1,439
Satisfies Warrant er S edc/Rural ? - 401
16. Armstrong & C SUI St Yes
Major Approach Northbound
375
6,48
Southbound 719 729
Total
Minor Approach Westbound 1,294
95 1,377
Satisfies Warrant (Higher Sneertc/RurnnT 1 S3
18. Armstrong & E St
•••,
z es
Major Approach Northbound 583 471
Southbound Sl0 606
Ivtmot Approach Total
Westbound 1,093
108 1,077
Satisfies Warrant er S cds/Rural ?
No 267
2l. Armstrong & B St y~
Major Approach Northbrnmd 643 802
Southbound gpl ~4
Total 1,446 1,466
w 18
Minor Approach Eastbound - 134
Satisfies Warrant r S oral ? No y~
22. Road G & Warner
Major Approach Eastbound 2,433 2,337
Westbound 2,299 2,09'7
Minor Approach T~
Southbound 4,732
131 4,434
Satisfies Warrant i er S eds/Rural ?
Yes 554
y~
City of Tustin - Lsgacy Park of Tustin legacy Austin-Foust Aaaociatp, Inc.
Neig6Nottiootf E Internal Citculuiou Amtysu 23 922004rpt8.doc
i
r
f
i~
iw
i~
iV
i~
~r
Table 4 (cont.)
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
23.ESt&ASt
Major Approach Eastbound 533 190
Westbound 508 430
Total 1,041 620
Minor Approach Southbound 78 297
Satisfies Warrant i er S 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 rban ? No No
25.CSt&ASt
Major Approach Eastbound 306 379
Weatbound 215 621
Total 521 1,000
Minor Approach Northbound 462 154
Satisfies Warrant wer S eeds/CTrban 7 No No
26.FSt&BSt
Major Approach Eastbrnmd 0 -
Westbound 310 -
Total 310 -
Minor Approach Southbound 7 -
Satisfies Warrant wer S eeds/Urban ? No
Major Approach Southbound - 139
Minor Approach Westbawd - 44
Satisfies Warrant er S eeds/fJrban ? - No
114.DStdtASt
Major Approach Eastbtmd 437 340
Westbtwad 256 559
Total 693 899
Minor Approach Southbound 39 214
Satisfies Warrant er S xds/Urbaa ? No No
11S.DSt&CSt
Major Approach Eastbound 68 -
Westbound 45 -
Total 113 -
Minor Approach Nortbbound 25 -
Satisfies Warrant wer S /Urban ? No -
Major Approach Northbound - g 1
Minor Approach Westbound - 58
Satisfies Warrant wer S roan ? - No
Abbreviations:
N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road
City of Tustin -Legacy Puic of Tustin Legacy Austin-Fount Asaociaiea, Ine.
Neig6tartiood E Internal Circulation Aaalyav 24 922041cpt8.doe
~i
TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES
The recommended on-site traffic control measures shown in Figure 16 within Neighborhood E
include one-way stop signs and traffic signals. Except for the changes to the three Armstrong Avenue
` intersections previously mentioned, this data is consistent with the March 6, 2007, traffic study. Changes
' to the traffic control measures shown here will require subsequent analysis. It should be noted that traffic
control measures are not project mitigation measures. Rather they address the traffic operational needs of
'~ the project site depending on individual capacity and include a combination of traffic signals and all-way
and one-way stop signs.
''
RECOMMENDED TURN POCKET LENGTHS
tk°
' This section addresses turn pocket lengths for left-turn and right-turn Ianes at future signalized
i intersections with exclusive right-turn and left-turn lases. They are based on vehicle storage
'( requirements, and aze thereby exclusive of transition lengths (typically, transitions are 90 feet for a single
lase 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 March 6, 2007, traffic study
'~ because of the changes along Armstrong Avenue and Red Hill Avenue which affect traffic patterns in
Neighborhood E.
~ EFFECTS OF CIRCULATION CHANGES
Several chan es to the circula '
8 lion presented in the March 6, 2007, traffic study are introduced in
this report. As part of the plan being submitted for Neighborhood E, Driveway D on Red Hill Avenue
I (located north of Carnegie Avenue/"A" Street) is introduced as an access point that is restricted to right-
I, turns in and right-toms out. The effect of this new driveway on the adjacent intersecdor>s 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
and "E" Street), which wcre previously restricted to certain turn movements, are converted to full access
in this traffic analysis.
City of Tustin -Legacy Part of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associates, Iuc.
Neighbortiood E Internal Circulatiaa Analysis 25 9~2004rpt8.doc
r
i
r
r
r
i~
i
i.
r
i~
i~
i~,
~.
y
r h ,RtI ~~ h
g1'C , , w
L
Ar`TERNATlYE 2
Lcgond Figure 16
Signalized Internectioo TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES
• Stop Sign
City of Tustin - Legary Part of Tustin Legaq Austin-Foust Aasod
Neighborhood E Internal Cirailatron Analysis 26 ~' ~'
9Z2004rpt8Fig16.dw~
~~'a-aokER ~ q ~ -----•--_ _ ~_ --
~~ IQ
i ~~ ~ x
'~
i~
A
I W
i3
~' ~ ~,~
--_-=.1
A
SEE 'NSEn
k
'I
f
'I
'~
'I
Table 5
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) RECOMMENDED LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTHS
Intersection /S Rd at E/W Rd Movement Peak Hour Volume Lsines Volume/i,ane Len
S. Armstrong & Warner SBL PM 124 1 124 1 SO'
NBL PM 56S 2 283 300'
EBL PM 185 1 186 200'
WBL AM ] 04 1 104 150"
6. Armstrong & A St SBL PM 138 1 138 1 SO'
NBL PM 69 1 69 1 SO'
EBL AM % 1 % 1 SO'
WBL PM 160 1 160 2Op~
16. Armstrong & C SdI St SBL AM 190 I 190 200'
NBL AM 14 1 14 1 SO'
18. Armstrong Bc E St SBL AM 297 1 297 300'
WBL PM 77 1 77 1 SO'
21. Armstron & B St NBL AM 220 1 220 2S0'
22. Road G & Warner SBL PM 120 1 120 1 SO'
NBL PM 110 1 110 1S0'
EBL AM 356 1 3S5 400'
WBL AM 59 1 S9 1 SO'
23. E St &. A St SBL PM 167 i 167 200'
NBL PM 28 1 28 1 SO'
EBL AM 24 1 249 250'
WBL AM 107 1 107 1 SO'
2S. C St & A St SBL AM 12 1 12 ISO'
NHL AM 2S4 1 2S4 300'
EBL _ AM 18 t r Q , ~ti
103. Red Hill & Warner
104. Red Hill & Carnegie
i
114. D St & A St
312 _j l J 3
1
1
wt3L AM 17 1 17 1 SO
1 IS. D St & C St WRi. es.~ ~o _..
Abbreviations:
N/S Rd, FJW Rd-North/South Road, East/West Road
Notes: The turn pocket length for left-turn lanes is determined tom the highest AM or PM peak hour forecast vohrme
per lane with a minimum of 150' and rounded into increments of SO'. Only intersections with dedicated left-turn lases
aze analyzed here.
City of Tustia - Legrcy Pant of Tuat~ I.esecy Austin-Foust Associates, ine.
Neighbotiiood E interne! Circulation Analysis 27 9220Wrpt$.doc
I~
I~
C'~
i
Table 6
YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) RECOMMENDED LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTHS
Intersection /S Rd at E/R' Rd Movement Peak Hour Volume Lanes Volume/Lane Len
5. Armstrong & Warner SBL PM 126 1 126 150'
NBL PM 565 2 283 300'
EBL PM 186 I 1$6 200'
WBL AM 102 1 102 ISO'
6. Armstrong & A St SBL PM 139 1 139 150'
NBL PM 69 1 69 150'
EBL AM 93 1 93 1 SO'
WBL PM 229 1 229 250'
16. Armstrong 8c C SdI St SBL AM 190 1 190 200'
NBL AM 14 1 14 l SO'
EBL PM 38 1 38 1S0'
WBL AM 11 1 1l 150'
18. Armstro dt E St SBL AM 294 1 294 300
21. Armstron & B St NBL AM 221 1 221 250'
22. Road G & Warner SBL PM 120 1 120 ISO'
NBL PM I10 1 I10 150'
EBL AM 356 1 3S6 400'
WBL AM 59 1 S9 150'
23. E St & A St SBL PM 167 1 l67 200'
NBL PM 28 1 28 ISO'
EBL AM 249 1 249 250'
WBL AM 107 1 l07 I50'
25. C St & A St SBL AM 12 1 12 1 SO'
NHL AM 253 1 253 300'
EBL PM 22 1 22 1 SO'
WBL PM 311 1 311 350'
103. Red Hill & Warner SBL AM 600 2 300 350'
NBL PM 480 2 240 .250'
EBL PM 280 2 l40 1 SO'
WBL AM/PM 260 2 130 1 SO'
104. Red Hill & Carnegie SBL AM S00 2 250 250'
NBL AM 120 1 120 150'
EBL PM 90 1 90 1 SO'
WBL PM 230 1 230 250`
114. D St 8c A St EBL AM 173 1 l73 200'
WBL AM 17 1 17 1 SO'
1 l S. D St & C St WBL AM 28 1 28 150'
Abbreviations:
N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road
Notes: The turn pocket Icngth for left-turn lanes is determined from the highest AM or PM peak hour forecast volume
per lane with a minimum of 150' and rounded into increments of 50'. Only intersections with dedicated left-turn lanes
are analyzed hen.
City ofTustin - Legary Park of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associates, lne.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 28 922004rpt8.doc
~'
r
r
ii
i~
i~
i.
i~
i~
F-oooo$go
~' ~ N N N N r1 f+1 N
a~°a as
.~
a
(,.„~OON~ov~.. 00
~f O~ ~1 ~O P~1 ~ ~ N 00
a+ ~ N M~ N~ N N N N
M
a a ,..
.-.
a
~7 CT M~D
[~ N cn .,••~ N.
a
w
w ._. 7Y
go
o
o
c~ u
w '~
hN N N N ~ ~"`
C
a •o c
o ~
~ ` ~.
a. ~
~ ~
•$ ~ F
~ ~~
~~
~
~O g o~o ~ ~
'~
p '~ .. .. ^ ~
G
~
~~
h
h
N
F
U
~'' 3 ooao o
<g~~~MO~ $00~~
a~~<
N N .•. r. ~
a~aa~aaa~ ~a as
,,
o~F~~"',,,~~ppFpp~F~qq
'~v~ W ~~tnW W ~ WFF"F
~
~~
, W
~
Fr o'P~O~~a~~~
~~v~w~~v,ww ~Wp~~~pp~o0paC
v~
Zw3Z
~ u
~ •~
~
~~
oG ~ W
a
~
3
~
ro. b y° .Vp ~ ''~'' x
~~ ~a w a a
inih ~N N O
~ •~ s
~O~
3N0 ~i ~ v
.~
:a s
~ ~qHt~
7 N ~ ~ •t3
.~
a
y~S ~ ~
.~ vi ~ 3 ~ ~
C6r~ ~ ~
•a° a
c
o ~'
N ~
N ~ ~, ~
a a o •~
a.+
~ ~ •~ v ~ ~
°` ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ o
w~~~ ~~
Q~ ~-~
A ~ o ~, ~ ~ ~
z
~ ~~ ~ A ~
~ ~~~ F~
~ -. 3 e .. a i ~ ,.. oG
a z.~ ~ z<~.~za>
g
•~
~a
w
N
~~
~'
..~~o
4U
~~
,W
~' •a
UZ
u
~i
r
a V~N~NININ~M~NI~I7 ~ v'~ N N N N
a m°la Ia I~la
o ~oo ,e°+°I~
oG oINI°~I^IRININ
f/]
~ F" °° r,
a ,~ .. ., ., r, ,
~
(
aG o
~ 00 N ~O .-+ ~
~ e
~+ N M M~ N N ~
a
f"~ _ i ~p
H
(~) ~ ~ O ~O O
O R1 n h e
W
w ~ ,o tt
.C
a
~
~
a
~ $ ~~',
~ ~
u
,.
°° t ~ ~ $ .
~.
~
`. ~
,~ _
?S
c.0~000~~0pp0 '~
Nb V~.-~N.r ~'~
°~ $
/1 h h P'1 ~p V
~~
s
.~
~QO
a
F
O
e
O
eN.~r+ N
N
V
~aa~aa
a
~~
, ,
~
F
~~
b' aar~i,w
a °v~icr~pp
`:~ 3 wrii
~
i
a
~
~ °~
v y ~
~~
~
a ~
w
v1
N ~;
N ~
~ ~ O
b
>o~ o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~°
Q
'aa~aa ~ •u
0
3~~3~ ~•
~ •~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~a
$ ~ `~ ~
.~
w ~ ~ ~~
.~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
A ~ o
3 ~ ~~ z
i g
$ x ~~ 3. ° ., aZ
x~ z.8 ~ z~~3za>
~~
nn
.~
~a
.~
0
.~
~~
..~~o
aU
~~
~W
0
''
The addition of a driveway north of Carnegie Ayenue/"A" Street alleviates traflYC conditions at
the adjacent intersections, Red Hill Avenue at Warner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue at Carnegie
~ Avenue/"A" Street. Review of the spacing of Driveway D from Warner Avenue and Carnegie
~,
i Avenue/"A" Street on Red Hill Avenue shows that there is sufficient spacing between intersections based
' r on the northbound right-turn pocket needs at Warner Avenue and at Driveway D intersections. Therefore
the proposed location of Driveway D is adequate (approximately 1,000 feet south of Warner Avenue and
i
1,200 feet north of Carnegie Avenue!"A" Street).
` The signal warrant analysis presented earlier for Neighborhood E concluded that cacti of the four
intersections along Armstrong Avenue between Warner Avenue and Banranca Parkway would meet a
(~ signal warrant. A signal progression analysis was conducted for this scenario which concluded that no
adverse conditions would occur. However, whether signals are needed at all four, particularly if some
movements could be eliminated (e.g., exiting left turns at non-signalized intersections) were further
I ~ examined. As mentioned previously, two aitematives aze analyzed for the intersections of Armstrong at
"C'/"I" Street and at "E" Street with respect to signalization and lane deployment. The analysis showed
~ minor volume differences along "C" Street between "A" Street and Armstrong Avenue, "A" Street
I'
between "C" Strcet 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 undo Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 would not experience adverse conditions with the exception of "B" Street with forecasts
showing that the eastbound left-turn move from "B" Street could experience . a delay of up to 65.1
seconds.
CONCLUSIONS
j The intent of this report is twofold. First, a guide is provided to show the needs of the roadways
(i.e., recommendations for midblock lanes, intersection lane geometries, signalization, left-turn and right-
turn pocket lengths) in Neighborhood E and when implemented would adequately support traffic within
Neigbborhood E. Secondly, with minor land use and circulation changes in and around Neighborhood E,
the data is consistent with that presented in the March 6, 2007, traffic study for Legacy Park, and
i
generally, the traffic conditions are alleviated at the intersections adjacent to the driveway that is added
l and to the intersections along Armstrong Avenue that are changed.
City of Tustin - Legacy Paris of Tustin Legacy Austin-Foust Associataa, Lx.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 3l 422~~ doe
E
,`
i
Table 9
ARMSTRONG AVENUE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
"B" Street
Control Side Street Sto Control Side Street S Control
Prohibited Movements None None
AM Dela OS * EBL - 65.1 secs EBL - 62.9 secs
PM Dela S * EBL - 42.1 secs EBL - 39.6 secs
"C" Streetl"I" Street
Control Side Strcet Sto Control Si
Prohibited Movements No EB/WB left turns None
No EB/WB thro
AM ICU/Dela OS * 11.1 secs .38 A
PM ICU/Dela OS • 11.8 secs .40 A
"E" Street
Control Si Side Street St Control
Prohibited Movements None No exitin le8-toms
AM ICU/Dela OS * .40 A 11.2 secs
PM ICU/Dela OS * .38 A 12.1 secs
"A" Street
Control Si 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 Legacy Austin-Fouat Associatd, Inc.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis 32 guppq~tg,~
Appendix
' ~ Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets
~ This appendix summarizes information pertaining to the intersection analysis presented in this
traffic report.
~~
ICU Calculation Methodology
The ICU calculation procedure is based on a critical movement mcthodology that shows the
' ~ amount of capacity utilized by each critical movement at an intersection. A capacity of 1,700 vehicles per
hour per lane is assumed together with a .OS clearance interval A "de-facto" right-turn lane is used in the
' ~ ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and right-
tucn 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 and checked against the
total right-turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total
I ~ capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made,
Ezampk for Northbound RIgLt
I 1. Ri¢ht-Tum-On-Green fRTOG)
(~ If IVBT is critical move, then:
RTOG = V/C (NBT)
Otherwise,
RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL)
~. Ri¢ht-Tum-On-Red fRTORI
If WBL is critical move, then:
RTOR = V/C (WBL)
Otherwise,
RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT)
Ciry of Tustin -Legacy Pule of Tustin Legary Awtin-Foust Associates, Inc.
Ncighborftood E [otemal Circulation Analysis A-I 922o04rpt8.doc
i
't
i
'' 3. Riihht-Turn Overlap Adjustment
If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the
RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows:
RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL)
' ~ RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL)
4 Total Right-Turn Capacity (RTC) Availability For NBR
RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR
Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (0% for County intersections,
75% for intersections in all other jurisdictions within the study area)
'f
Right-turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) -RTC
A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is
necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately
' accommodate the right-turn V/C, therefore the right-turn is essentially considered to be a critical
movement. In such cases, the right-turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in
~ the total ca act utilization value. When it is determined Hutt a ri t turn ad ustment is r
I i p ty Bh - j equired for more
than one right-turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right-turn
t movement reference, and the right-turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity
(' utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if
under actual operational conditions, the critical right-toms would operate simultaneously, and therefore a
right-turn adjustment credit should be applied.
Yfi Shared Lane V/C Methodology
' For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one tom
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:
Eiample for Shared Left/'T6rongh Lane
1. Average Lane Volume (ALV2
ALV = Left-Turn Volume + Through Volume
Total Left + Throu Approac es me u g s arc aae
City of Tustin -Legacy Paris of Tuatia Legacy Austin-Foust Anaociud, lac,
Neig6bor6ood E Interaal Cuculatioa Analyait A-1 921004rpt8.doc
i
2. ALV for Each Approach
r ALV (Left) = Left-Turn Volume
' ~ Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane)
' ~ ALV (Through) _ _ 'T'hro tQh Volume
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 are calculated as
^ I follows:
V/C (heft) = Left-Turn Vole
'' Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane)
V/C (Tluough) a Thmu¢h Volume
Through Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane)
Similarly, if ALV (Through) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the through
approach is warranted, and left-turn and through V/C ratios are calculated as follows:
V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume
Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane)
V/C (Through) = T1~rouah Volume .
Through Approach Capacity (including shared bane)
(~
4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted
~ If ALV ft and ALV
I ~ (I.e) (Through) are both Icss than ALV, the left/through lane is assumed W be
truly shared and each left, left/through or through approach lase carries an evenly distributed
volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined lefbthrough V/C ratio is calculated as follows:
I V/C (Lcft/'Through) - Left-Turn Volume + rough Vohi+~
Total Left + Through Approach Capacity (inchufing shared lane)
This V/C (Left/T'hrough) ratio is assigned as the V/C (1"hroug6) ratio for the critical
(~
movement analysis and ICU summary listing.
t If s lit basin has not been dcsi
P P g gnated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C
(Through) that is attributed to the left-turn volume is estimated as follows:
If approach has more than one left-turn (including shared lane), then:
V/C (Left) = V/C (Through)
City of Twtin - Lcgscy Park of Twtia Legacy Austin-Foust Aasxiatea, Ine.
Neighborftoad E Internal Circulation Analysis A-3 922004rptg.doe
I
'+
' ~ If approach has only one left-turn lane (shared lane), then:
' ! V/C (Left) = Lcft-Turn Volume
Single Approach Lane Capacity
I
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 aze carried out for shared through/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared
'~
through/right lane to the right-turn movement is warranted, the right-turn V/C value calculated in step
' three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity. When an approach contains more than one
I shared lane (e.g., left/through and through/right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the
three turn movements combined Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for either of the
shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three
' ~ is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two
movements involved in the other shared lane.
Figure A-1 illustrates the intersections that were analyzed in this study, and the AM and PM peak
hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) worksheets then follow.
r
f"~
I
City of Tustin -Legacy Put of Tustin Lepey Austin-Foust Asaociata, [ne.
Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analyse A-4 922004rptE.doc
[1
~~
i~
I'
i~
i
!r
i
• ~ Fi~ue Ml
INTERSEC'I10N IACATION MAP
City of 7'ostin - I.egary Park of Tustin Legsoy
NciQ6borbood E Interaal Circulation Analysis A-S Austin-Foos[ Associate, tnC.
922004tpt8FgA-l.dw~
i
'!
i~
i~
i~
i
i'
i~
i
i~
r
i
5. Arastroaq i parser
2025 Altarnatiw 1
A!! Px HOUR PH PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 2 3400 27D .08' 565 .17*
NBT 2 3400 124 .04 235 .09
NBR 0 0 9 54
SBL 1 1100 78 .05 124 .01
SB? 2 3400 192 .04' 204 .06'
SBR 1 1700 272 .16 248 .15
EBL 1 1700 110 .10* 186 .11
EBT 3 5100 1288 .25 1698 .33*
EBR 1 1100 560 .33 392 .23
NBL 1 1700 104 .06 81 .05'
NBT 3 5100 1758 .34+ 1285 .25
NBR 1 1700 136 .08 170 .10
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .04'
Clearance Interval .05' .OS*
TOTAL CAPACITY OTILILATIOf .65 .66
6. Arntroag i A St
2025 Altarnativ~ 1
AM Px HOOR PM Px HWR
LANES CAPACITY VOL d/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 .08* 138 .08'
SBT 2 3400 90 .03 331 .10
SBR 0 0 1 2
EBL 1 1700 96 .06* 48 .03'
EBT 2 3400 107 .04 166 .10
EBR 0 0 40 243 .14
NBL 1 1700 115 .07 160 .09
NB? 2 3400 193 .09' 492 .23'
WBR 0 0 127 189
Clearance Interval .OS' .OS*
TOTAL CAPACIlf 0?ILILA?IOM .12 ./!
2025 Altarwtiw 2
AN PK HO(JR PM PR HOOR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 2 3400 210 .08* 565 .17'
NB? 2 3900 128 .04 239 .09
NBR 0 0 9 66
SBL 1 1700 78 .OS 116 .07
SB? 2 3900 142 .04* 202 .06*
5BR 1 1700 272 .16 248 .15
EBL 1 1700 170 .10' 186 .11
EBT 3 5100 1290 .25 1698 .33'
EBR 1 1100 557 .33 392 .23
N8L 1 1700 102 .06 70 .04'
NBT 3 5100 1158 .3!* 1284 .25
FIBR 1 1700 136 .OB 171 .10
Right Tura Adjustment SBR .04*
Clearance Interval .OS* .OS'
TOTAL CAPACITY DTIIIZATIOM .6S .6S
2025 Altaaatiw Z
AA PK HOOA PM PR HOOK
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 64 .04 69 .04
NBT 2 3400 363 .14* 153 .09'
NBR 0 0 109 147
SBL 1 1700 136 .08' 139 .OB'
SBT 2 3900 79 .02 262 .08
SBR 0 0 0 0
EBL 1 1700 93 .05* 36 .02'
EB7 2. 3400 103 .04 149 .09
EBR 0 0 40 243 .14
NBL 1 1700 126 .07 229 .13
VBT 2 3400 193 .09' 491 .13'
MBR 0 0 127 281
Clearance Interval .OS' .OS'
TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOM ./1 .I1
A-6 Legary Park of Tustin Legacy: Neigh E 7/07 922.004
'~
i~
i~
i
i`
i~
21. Atiattonq i B St
2015 Alternative 1
AN PK HOUR PN PK HOUR
Li1NES CAPACITY VOL U/C 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 0
SBT 2 3900 717 .24* 636 .20
SBR 0 0 89 91
EBL 1 1700 5 .00 69 .09
EB! 1 1700 0 .00 0 .OS*
EBR 0 0 2 19
NBL 1 1700 5 .00 26 .02*
NBi 1 1100 1 .O1' 1 .03
NBR 0 0 21 96
Clearance Interval .OS' .05*
TOTAL CAPACITY OTILITATI01 ./3 .35
12. Ad C i xasner
2015 Alternative 1
A!1 PK BOOR Ph PK HOOA
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 7 137
5BL 1 1700 11 .O1* 120 .07'
SB? 1 1700 2 ,00 3 .00
SBR 1 1700 112 .07 931 .15
EBL 1 1700 356 .21' 293 .il+
EBT 3 5100 199l. .39 2020 .90
EBR 1 1700 83 .05 29 .O1
NBL 1 1700 59 .03 16 .O1
NBT 3 5100 2106 .99* 1039 .91'
NBR 0 0 139 93
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .03'
Clearance Interval ,OS+ _05.
TOTAL CAPACTfT OTILILII!'I4 .72 .81
A-8
2025 Alternaitive 2
AH PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 221 .13' 2 .00
NBT 2 3900 392 .12 169 .29'
NBA 0 0 32 31
SBL 0 0 0 1
SBT 2 3900 112 .29' 613 .20
SBR 0 0 89 !0
EBL 1 1100 9 .00 55 .03
EBi 1 1700 0 .00 0 .05'
EBR 0 0 2 79
NBL i 170o s .00 26 .02*
NBS 1 1700 1 .O1' 1 .03
NBR 0 0 12 96
Clearance Interval .05' .OS'
TOTAL CAPACI!! OTILItdlIOM ./3 .36
2025 Alternative 2
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C YOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 19 .O1 110 .06
NBT 1 1100 2 .O1' 7 .08'
~ 0 0 7 137
SBL 1 1100 17 .Oi' 120 .07*
SBT 1 1700 2 .00 3 .00
SBR 1 1700 112 .O1 931 .25
EBL 1 1700 356 .21* 293 .17'
EBT 3 5100 1999 .39 2020 .90
EBR 1 1100 83 .OS 2! .O1
NBL 1 1700 59 .03 15 .01
NBi 3 5100 2106 .94* 2039 .91'
~ 0 -0 139 !3
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .03r
Clearance Interval .05* .OS'
TOTAL CAPACITI OTILIZATIGit .71 .81
Legacy Par1c of 7'us4n Legacy; Neigh E 7/07 922.004
'`
',
'~
'~
'~
'i
~,
I~
t
'i
I~
I~
I~
i
f
f
i
f
25. CStiASt
2025 Alternative 1
AH Px Noun PH ex Noun
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 254 .15* 42 .02'
NBT 1 1700 43 .12 9 .04
NBR 0 0 165 52
SBL 0 0 12 11
SBT 1 1700 5 .02' 47 .06*
SBR 0 0 23 42
EBL 1 1700 18 .O1 11 .O1
EBT 1 1100 265 .17' 251 .21'
EBR 0 0 22 110
NBL 1 1100 36 .02' 312 .18'
NBT 1 1700 180 .il 313 .18
NBR 0 0 0 0
Clearance Interval .OS* .05'
TOTAL CAPACITY iR'ILIZIITICN ./1 .52
26.lStiBSt
2025 Alterwtive i
A!! PK BOUA PN Px HOUR
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 6 141
SB? 1 1700 0 .00' 0 .09'
SBA 0 0 2 5
EBL 0 0 0 0
EBT 1 1700 2 .00 2 .00
EBR 0 0 0 0
MBL 0 0 0 0
NB? 1 1700 53 .18' 24 .03'
NBR 0 0 256 16
Clearance Interval .OS* .OS'
'OlAL CAPACITT 0lILIZAI'ION .23 .17
2025 Altetrutive 2
Ati PR HOUR PN Px NC4JR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 253 .15' 41 .02'
NBT 1 1100 !7 .11 20 .04
NBR 0 0 I61 43
SBL 0 0 12 11
SBT 1 1700 5 .02' 48 .06'
SBR 0 0 23 51
EBL 1 1700 11 .O1 22 .O1
EBT 1 1700 263 .17' 241 .21+
EBR 0 0 22 110
NBL 1 1700 36 .02' 311 .18'
NBi 1 1700 179 .11 310 .18
NBR 0 0 0 0
Clearance Interval .OS' .05'
'OTAL CAPACITT OTILIZATIGf .41 .52
2025 llternatiw 2
A!1 PK SOUR Ph PR BOIJR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 0 0 0 0
NBT 0 0 0 p
NBR 0 0 0 0
SHL 0 0 5 134
S8T 1 1700 0 .00' 0 .08*
SBR 0 0 2 5
EBL 0 0 0 1
EBT 1 1700 0 .00 0 .00
E8R 0 0 0 0
NBL 0 0 0 p
NBT 1 1700 54 .18* IB .03'
NBR 0 0 256 26
Clearance Interval .OS' .OS'
b'TAL CAPACITf OTILIZATION .23 .li
A-10 Legacy Park of Tuedn Legacy: Neigh E 7/07 922.004
'~
'~
'I
i
'~
i
'~
'~
(~
I~
k
E
I~
I
r
i
106. Aatoo i Barraaca
1025 Alternative 1
AM PK dauA Ph P!( HOUR
LAMBS CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 20 .O1 130 .OB
NBT 1 1700 10 .01' 10 .0!*
NBR 0 0 30 50
SBL 1 1100 10 .Oi' 150 .09'
SB1 1 1700 20 .O1 10 .O1
SBR 1 1700 10 .O1 310 .18
BBL 1 1100 300 .18' !0 .02'
BHT ! 6800 1780 .28 1660 .15
B~ 0 0 150 30
MBL 1 noe eo .os 20 .ol
NHT ! 6800 1630 .16' 1890 .28*
MBR 0 0 160 !0
Afght !urn Adjuataieat SBA .11•
Clearance Interval .OS' .05'
TOTAL CAPACITY OlILItJITiOM .52 .5!
10?. Atartrooq i Da:raoca
2025 Altesaatiw 1
AM PR 80011 PM PR NOOK
LANLS CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 60 .0! 100 .06
MB! 1 1700 20 .O1' 10 .O1'
IIBI 1 1]00 30 .02 80 .OS
SBL 1 1700 BD .OS• 3i0 .20+
SBt 1 1700 30 .02 10 .Oi
SHl 1 1700 1!0 .0/ 370 .21
BBL 1 1700 370 .21' 180 .11*
E8T ! 6800 1310 .11 1650 .25
E8A 0 0 90 30
NBL 1 1700 170 .10 !0 .02
NBT ! 6800 1680 .27' U80 .2!'
NBA 0 0 150 170
Clearance Interval . OS' OS'
TOTAL CAPACITY UlILIZAl10/ .60 .61
A-12
1025 Alternatfn 2
AFI PR NOUR PM PK HOUA
LANBS CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 20 .01 130 .O8
NBT 1 1700 10 .01* 10 .0!'
NBR 0 0 30 50
SBL 1 1100 20 .O1• 150 .09'
SBT 1 1700 20 .O1 10 .O1
SBR 1. 1100 20 .O1 310 .1B
B8L 1 1700 300 .18* !0 .02+
~ ! 6800 1180 .28 1660 .25
~ 0 0 ISO 30
MeL 1 i709 eo .os 20 .oi
N$T ! 6800 1630 .16' 1810 .18+.
NBA O 0 160 !0
Right Turn Adjuat~ent SBR .11'
Clearance Interval .05' .OS•
ivrar caF11CITY OlILIfATIDw .52 .5!
2025 iiteeo~tiw 2
AM PI BOOR Ph P1< 80UR
LAMBS CAPACITY VOL V/C VQL Y/C
NBL 1 1700 60 .0! 100 .06
MBf 1 1700 10 .O1* 10 .O1'
1~ 1 1700 30 .01 80 .05
SBL 1 i100 80 .OS* 350 .11*
SBT 1 1700 30 .01 10 .O1
S8A 1 1700 1!0 .08 370 .12
EBL 1 1700 370 .12' 180 .I1'
B8T ! 6800 1370 .11 1650 .15
~ 0 0 ~ 30
N8L I 1700 170 .10 !0 .02
N8T ! 6800 1680 .27* 1l80 .2!'
NBA 0 0 150 370
Clearance Interval .05' .OS'
TOTAL CAPACITY 0lILIZATIDr . W .62
Lepey Park of Tustin Lepey: Nei~b E 7/07 922.004
EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION N0.4068
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION N0.4068
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 Approval of Tentative Tract Map 17144 is contingent upon the applicant
returning to the Community Development Department a notarized
"Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing
and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of
Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms
shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and
evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development
Department.
(1) 1.2 The subdivider shall comply with all applicable requirements of the State
Subdivision Map Act, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan, the Tustin City Code, applicable City of Tustin
guidelines and standards and applicable mitigation measures identified in
the certified FEIS/EIR, DDA 06-01, and other agreements with the City of
Tustin unless otherwise modified by this Resolution.
(1) 1.3 Prior to Final Map approval, DDA 06-01 (Master Developer) shall remain
in full force and effect without defaults, and all construction and completion
of obligations identified in DDA 06-01 shall be satisfied, as applicable.
(1) 1.4 All approvals noted in Zoning Administrator Action 07-008 and Resolution
No. 4068 shall become null and void in case of default or termination of
DDA 06-01 by Developer prior to Final Map approval or issuance of
building permits, including but not limited to, the City's approval of any
final maps not completed at the time of default or termination.
(1) 1.5 The final tract map shall be recorded in accordance with submitted maps
date stamped November 13, 2007, and all applicable requirements of the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Tustin City Code, and applicable policies and
guidelines. All conditions of approval herein, as applicable, shall be
satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or as specified herein.
(1) 1.6 The applicant is required to prepare and record final map(s) within 24
months from tentative map approval. The applicant shall record with
appropriate agencies, final map(s) prepared in accordance with
subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State
Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless
an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the Tustin
Municipal Code.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 2
(1) 1.7 The applicant shall execute subdivision and monumentation agreement(s)
and furnish improvement and monumentation bond(s) prior to recordation
of the Final Map(s) for the estimated costs of all Tustin Legacy Backbone
Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure costs.
(1) 1.8 Prior to approval of the final tract map, the applicant shall file a petition for
the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) or Assessment
District (AD) for the project area. The district may include the acquisition
and construction or portions of the backbone infrastructure the applicant
wishes to have funded through CFD or AD funding as well as the
mandatory required imposition of a service special assessment tax for
maintenance of public open space, landscape improvements such as
backbone infrastructure medians, and other eligible public service items
including street sweeping, traffic signal maintenance, landscape and park
maintenance, lighting, flood and storm drain protection, police and ire
protection, ambulance and paramedic services, recreation program
services, other services and facilities at Tustin Legacy consistent with the
CFD or AD Act.
In the event that a district is not established prior to issuance of the first
building permits, maintenance of items which would have been otherwise
covered by imposition of a special service assessment tax, shall be the
responsibility of a community association until such service tax is in place.
The applicant shall acknowledge and agree pursuant to provisions
contained in Section 8.11 of the DDA that the City shall have the right to
determine, in its sole discretion, to fund any of the sub-divider's Tustin
Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Work through imposition of an
Community Facilities District (CFD) or Assessment District (AD).
(1) 1.9 Upon recordation of the final map(s) or issuance of building permit(s),
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit new addresses for
corresponding future buildings.
PLANS AND SUBMITTALS
(1 j 2.1 Prior to approval of any design review application for development within
the tract, the applicant shall provide trip reduction facilities pursuant to
Section 9904 of the Tustin City Code. Prior to issuance of building
permits, the applicant shall submit a Trip Reduction/Transportation
Demand Management Strategy Plan to the Public Works/Engineering
Department in conformance with the Tustin City Code Section 9901 et al
and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.13.1.C.
(1) 2.2 All infrastructure shall comply with the City of Tustin Standard Drawings
and Design Standards for Public Works Construction.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 3
(1) 2.3 All wet utilities, dry utilities, other utilities, and other facilities shall be
provided underground and in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan, unless otherwise approved by responsible agencies or noted in this
resolution.
(1) 2.4 The design of driveways, sidewalks, trails, and pathways shall comply with
the provisions of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
(1) 2.5 All final development plans, improvements plans and maps shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in
computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file
format is AutoCAD having the extension DWG.
The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are
approved and updated CADD files reflecting "record drawing" conditions
shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. The
subdivision bonds will not be released until the "record drawing" CADD
files have been submitted.
The Final Map(s) should be tied to County of Orange control points (latest
revision). Refer to Specifications of Digital Submission as maintained by
the Surveyor's Office of the County of Orange for specific requirements for
individual submittals.
(1) 2.6 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, Encroachment Permit(s) shall
be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works
Department.
GRADING
(1) 3.1 The applicant shall submit grading plans for review and approval. The
submittal package shall include, at the minimum, the following:
A. Technical details and plans for all utility installations including
telephone, gas, water, and electricity.
B. Six (6) copies of the latest Soil Report(s) prepared by a California
Registered Geotechnical Engineer (less than one (1) year old).
Expanded information regarding the levels of hydrocarbons and
ground water contamination found on-site shall be provided in the soil
report.
C. All site drainage shall be handled on-site and shall not be permitted to
drain onto adjacent properties.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 4
D. Three (3) sets of the Hydrology & Hydraulic Report(s) prepared by a
California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and
approval.
(1) 3.2 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the applicant shall prepare
sediment and erosion control plan(s) for all work related to this
development.
(1) 3.3 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits, infrastructure construction
plans, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be
required for all private on-site construction.
(1) 3.4 Grading bond(s) will be required prior to permit issuance. The engineer's
estimated cost of the grading, drainage, and erosion control shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval.
(1) 3.5 The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of
Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State, and Regional
Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations for development of this
site.
(1) 3.6 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the applicant shall submit a copy of
the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that the
NOI has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. In
addition, the applicant shall include notes on the grading plans indicating
that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide
Permit for General Construction Activities.
(1) 3.7 A project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of grading permit. The WQMP shall be prepared
using the City of Tustin Guidance for Preparing Project WQMPs.
Applicant shall be responsible for certifying that all structural Best
Management Practices (BMP) described in the WQMP have been
constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and
specifications and shall demonstrate that adequate copies of the approved
WQMP are available on-site for future building owners or tenants
(1) 3.8 Prior issuance of the first rough or precise grading permit and for any
subsequent grading permit involving excavation to increased depth, the
applicant shall provide letters from an archaeologist and/or paleontologist
stating that individuals are on calf during grading and ground disturbing
activities. Written recommendations specifying procedures for
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 5
cultural/scientific resource surveillance as required by the FEIS/EIR
mitigation requirements shall be submitted for review and approval of
Community Development Department. Should any resources be
discovered, no further grading shall occur in the resource area until the
Department of Community Development is satisfied that adequate
provisions are in place to protect the resource.
(1) 3.9 Prior to issuance of precise grading permits or building permits for
development within tract, screening shall be provided behind the curb
along all public streets. The screening shall be in the form of temporary
opaque fencing. Temporary screening shall be modified as necessary to
accommodate infrastructure improvements, but shall remain in place until
the ultimate improvements are installed in accordance with streetscape
plans approved under the Concept Plan for Neighborhood E.
(1) 3.10 Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1
development, landscape within the streetscape setback area shall be
installed.
(1) 3.11 Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
groundwater survey of the Neighborhood E site subject to the grading
permits. The analysis shall be prepared by a geotechnical engineer and
versed in groundwater analysis and shall include the following information
and analysis:
A. Potential for perched groundwater intrusion into shallow groundwater
zone upon build-out.
B. Analysis of relief of groundwater buildup and properties of soil
materials on-site.
C. Impact of groundwater potential on building and structural
foundations.
D. Proposed site measures to avoid potential for groundwater intrusion
within five feet of the bottom of footings.
DRAINAGE
(1) 4.1 The proposed Tustin Legacy Backbone, Local and Private Infrastructure
storm drain system be designed per the applicable Orange County Flood
Control District's (OCFCD) and City of Tustin's standards and shall also
incorporate the requirements of the Tustin Legacy Runoff Management
Plan (ROMP) and the Barranca Channel Update Study. Public and
private drainage collection systems shall be designed for a minimum 25-
year storm frequency. Regional drainage facilities shall be designed for a
minimum 100-year storm frequency.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 6
(1) 4.2 The applicant shall provide drainage study for 100-year storm frequencies
showing the maximum water surface area in all sump locations and
secondary overflow discharge locations for review and approval by the
City Engineer. For all sump conditions, secondary drainage outlet
discharge points shall be provided and shown on the plans per the
applicable Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) and City of
Tustin's standards.
(1) 4.3 Detailed hydrology and hydraulic analysis for 25-year and 100-year storm
frequencies shall be provided for both the existing and proposed
conditions to determine any requirements for on-site storm water
retention/detention and facility sizing.
(1) 4.4 The applicant shall be required to accept any upstream storm water that
would historically cross the property and detain/retain on the property such
upstream water so that the release of said water into downstream regional
flood control systems does not exceed historical flow rates or the
downstream capacity of such systems.
(1) 4.5 All Tustin Legacy Backbone, Local and Private Infrastructure storm drain
ay~~Ci i i NiPC si ian ue r~eir ~ic.n ceU ~~ncrete ripe trc~.r J ana the minimum
s
size shall be 24-inch, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer.
The storm drain system angle of confluence between main line and lateral
shall not exceed 45 degrees.
(1) 4.6 The applicant shall be responsible for design and construction of any
interim or permanent retention facilities on-site, within Neighborhood E,
which may be needed to retain on-site water from the project, based upon
a hydrology and hydraulic analysis. Any interim or permanent retention
facilities on property not yet owned by the applicant are subject to the
Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department review and
approval and will require issuance of license agreement(s) between the
applicant and the City.
(1) 4.7 The applicant shall design and construct the permanent retention basin
and appurtenant flood control facilities for the Barranca Channel from Red
Hill Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road, in accordance with the City's Run-off
Management Plan for Tustin Legacy (ROMP) and the Barranca Channel
Update Study. This work shall include intersection enhancements at
Barranca Parkway/Armstrong Avenue and at Barranca Parkway/Red Hill
Avenue.
(1) 4.8 The applicant shall provide written approvals and obtain permits from the
OCFCD for any connections and improvements to existing OCFCD storm
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 7
drain facilities prior to the City approving the proposed storm drain
improvements for the project.
(1) 4.9 Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the applicant shall submit for
approval by the City a Basin Maintenance and Operations Program,
annual estimated maintenance cost, and a Faithful Performance Bond
equivalent to 1-year of estimated maintenance cost. The City will maintain
the inlet, OCFCD will maintain the outlet and the Master Association will
maintain the landscape elements.
TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE, LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE
AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITIONS
(1) 5.1 Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private
Infrastructure improvements shall comply with the City of Tustin General
Plan, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, City development standards and
guidelines, and all conditions contained herein.
(1) 5.2 The applicant shall submit 24" by 36" mylar improvements plans, other
public improvements, and private improvements, as prepared by a
California Registered Civil Engineer for review and approval.
The improvements plans shall include, but not limited to the following:
A. Grading plans.
B. Catch basins, retention/detention facilities, storm drain lines and
laterals, or connections to the existing storm drain system.
C. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
D. Curb ramps for the physically disabled.
E. Drive aprons.
F. Street paving.
G. Signing/striping plans.
H. Traffic signal plans.
I. Street lighting.
J. Domestic water facilities.
K. Reclaimed water facilities.
L. Sanitary sewer facilities.
M. Fire hydrants.
N. Landscape and irrigation.
O. Underground dry utility facilities and connections.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 8
P. All private streets,
consistent with th
improvements.
drive aisles, and curb return radius shall be
e City's design standards for private street
(1) 5.3 The applicant shall provide a Geotechnical Report, Pavement Analysis,
and Design Report for all required Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure,
Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure improvements required in
the Tentative Tract Map.
(1) 5.4 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits for any parcel within the
tract, the applicant shall construct the full width improvements of all
roadways listed as required roadways to be constructed for Tentative
Tract Map, whether Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure or Local
Infrastructure shall include all master planned systems including the
streets, sidewalks, bikeways (Class I and Class II), landscaped medians,
street lighting, traffic signals, bus turn-outs, landscaping and irrigation,
domestic water lines, gas, storm drainage, telephone, electricity, cable TV,
sewage and reclaimed water, telemetry, any necessary
telecommunication systems as shown in the Specific Plan, Irvine Ranch
Water District (IRWD) Sub Area Master Plan for Tustin Legacy as
approved by the City and responsible utility providers, and as required by
the DDA 06-01.
Intersection enhancements shall include the creation or extension of left
turn lanes, additions or modifications of signal apparatus including loops
and interconnects, signing and striping. modifications as necessary, and
restoration of landscape medians impacted by left-turn enhancements or
median modifications, all of which shall be carried out in accordance with
City standards.
(1) 5.5 The applicant shall also include the design and construction of dry utility
conduits and pull boxes for future City use in the backbone system
throughout the project.
(1) 5.6 The applicant shall design and construct all transitional components of the
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program that are determined by
the City to be necessary to construct and operate the project, protect the
public health and safety, and/or ensure logical and orderly future phasing
of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, which are to be connected to
the applicant's Local Infrastructure improvements, consistent with DDA
06-01, including, but not limited to, such items as roadway striping and
signing, modifications to traffic signals, curbs and gutters, and medians.
(1) 5.7 Prior to approval of the first Final Map and Pursuant to provisions of DDA
06-01, the applicant shall submit an off-site traffic mitigation cash payment
fee in an amount based on the methodology identified in the Amendment
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 9
to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Tustin and
City of Santa Ana regarding the Tustin-Santa Ana Transportation System
Improvement Authority for Grand Avenue/Edinger Avenue and Grand
Avenue/Dyer Road intersection improvements which is currently estimated
at $9,282,979, and which will be adjusted based on written agreement and
confirmation between the City of Tustin and City of Santa Ana.
TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND SUBMITTALS
(1) 6.1 Roadways identified in Table 4-4 of the Amended Specific Plan including
the north side of Barranca Parkway from Red Hill Avenue to Tustin Ranch
Road, the eastside of Red Hill Avenue from Barranca Parkway to 1,000
feet north of Valencia Avenue, Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to
Armstrong Avenue and Armstrong Avenue from Warner Avenue to
Barranca Parkway shall be constructed as part of the Neighborhood E
Tentative Tract Map 17144 required improvements.
(1) 6.2 For all design and construction within the public right-of-way for Backbone
Infrastructure improvements funded by CFD or AD, separate plan
packages shall be provided, which include all plans, specifications, and
estimates necessary to conduct a public bid process.
(1) 6.3 The applicant shall design and construct all Tustin Legacy Backbone
Infrastructure improvements in the first phase of development as identified
specifically in and required by DDA 06-01.
(1) 6.4 The applicant shall design and submit 24" by 36" reproducible construction
area traffic control plans, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic
Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation for
review and approval.
(1) 6.5 The applicant shall revise the Barranca Parkway off-street bicycle path
along the north side of the street to ten (10) feet as previously requested.
The sidewalk should be no closer than five (5) feet to the curb and eight
(8) feet from the Property line to allow for adequate planting. Also the
length of sidewalk curb adjacent should be the absolute minimum required
to promote a safer pedestrian experience. The sidewalk and off-street
bicycle path can be combined in certain locations (not at street
intersections) where any public works and safety concerns are addressed
subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
(1) 6.6 The applicant shall design and construct full-width street improvements for
Armstrong Avenue between Warner Avenue and Barranca Parkway,
including the intersection improvements at Armstrong Avenue/Barranca
Parkway and Armstrong Avenue/Warner Avenue.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 10
(1) 6.7 The applicant shall design and construct half-width street widening and
improvements along the eastside of Red Hill Avenue including roadway
rehabilitation between Barranca Parkway and 1,000 feet north of Valencia
Avenue.
(1) 6.8 The applicant shall design and construct a landscaped raised median with
the Red Hill Avenue improvements and any improvements on the west
side of Red Hill Avenue necessary to construct the median on Red Hill
Avenue in order to ensure orderly development. The median
improvements are not an applicant requirement under DDA 06-01,
consequently, the design and construction of said improvements shall be
specifically identified as an eligible direct reimbursement to applicant by
the City or the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency as part of any
Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement required under DDA 06-01, prior
to Final Map(s) approval. The City agrees that they will provide provisions
for reimbursement that will permit the applicant to receive reimbursement
of segments of the project, including design.
(1) 6.9 The applicant shall design and construct the full north-side widening and
improvements to Barranca Parkway between Tustin Ranch Road and Red
Hill Avenue including modification to the median and any improvements
along the south side of Barranca Parkway necessary to re-construct the
median.
(1) 6.10 The applicant shall identify, design and construct the bus turnout and pad
locations along the east side of Armstrong Avenue, similar to that shown
for the north side of Warner Avenue.
(1) 6.11 The applicant shall design and construct the full width improvements of
Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue including
intersection improvements to the intersection of the Warner Avenue/Red
Hill Avenue, and to the intersection of Warner Avenue/Armstrong Avenue.
Pursuant to Attachment 28, Section 1.8 (a) of DDA 06-01, the applicant
shall be responsible for the cost of a second west-bound left turn lane at
Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue and second west-bound right turn
at Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue.
(1) 6.12 The applicant shall design and construct traffic signals and signal
interconnect systems at the intersection of Barranca Parkway/Armstrong
Avenue, at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue/Warner Avenue, at the
intersection of Armstrong Avenue/South Loop Road, and at the
intersection of Warner Avenue/Armstrong Avenue.
(1) 6.13 Additional traffic signals and measures will be required as determined
necessary by the Director of Public Works, which will be applicant
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 11
requirements with all cost to be solely borne by the applicant, but will not
be included in the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program
Improvements, consistent with DDA 06-01.
(1) 6.14 The applicant shall design and construct the median on Warner Avenue
from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and the improvements on the
north and south side of Warner Avenue. The applicant shall be
responsible for grading the right-of-way and stabilizing any finished grades
within the right-of-way areas in conjunction with the Warner Avenue street
improvement.
(1) 6.15 The applicant shall design and construct a pedestrian bridge across
Armstrong Avenue at the Linear Park. Prior to approval of the first final
map, the applicant shall submit for City approval a Pedestrian Bridge
Maintenance and Operations Program and annual estimated maintenance
cost. The pedestrian bridge will be owned and maintained by the City.
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITIONS
(1) 7.1 All design and construction of improvement work shall incorporate
applicable conditions contained within DDA 06-01 and shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with the applicable portions of the City of
Tustin's "Grading Manual" and "Construction Standards for Private
Streets, Storm Drain and On-Site Private Improvements."
(1) 7.2 Roadways identified in Table 4-4 of the Amended Specific Plan including
Carnegie Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and Aston
Street from Barranca Parkway to Carnegie Avenue shall be constructed
as part of the Neighborhood E Project.
(1) 7.3 All private improvement work shall be performed in accordance with the
applicable portions of the City of Tustin's "Grading Manual" and
"Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drain and On-Site
Private Improvements."
(1) 7.4 Sanitary sewer facilities, domestic water systems, and reclaimed water
systems shall be designed and constructed to the Irvine Ranch Water
District (IRWD) standards. These improvements plans shall be reviewed
and approved by IRWD.
The domestic water system improvement plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for fire protection
purposes.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 12
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND SUBMITTALS
(1) 8.1 The applicant shall design and construct Carnegie Avenue between Red
Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue as a four lane secondary road and
Aston Street ("C" Street) between Barranca Parkway and Carnegie
Avenue as a two lane local collector road and shall be part of the Public
Infrastructure improvements (not Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure
improvements).
In addition, certain additional identified modii'ications to the Tustin Legacy
Backbone Infrastructure improvements due to applicant's project shall be
the applicant responsibility. Any incremental increases in costs to make
changes required by Attachment 28, Section 1.8 (a) of the DDA 06-01
shall be considered as applicant's cost not as fair share costs (i.e. second
west-bound left turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue,
second west-bound right turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Warner
Avenue, Aston Street extension).
(1) 8.2 The applicant shall design and construct the full-width improvements of
"A" Street (Carnegie Avenue), "B" Street, "C" Street (Aston Street), "D"
f
Street, "E" Street, "F" Street and "G" Street as local public streets,
€ including but not limited to landscaped and raised medians.
(1) 8.3 The applicant shall provide a cross section on the improvement plans for
"E" Street, "F" Street and "G" Street that indicates the location of the
sidewalks in relation to parked vehicles in areas where the sidewalks will
be adjacent to parking. A minimum five (5) foot clear sidewalk shall be
provided along the aforementioned streets.
(1) 8.4 Traffic signals, control devices, and signal interconnect systems for the
intersection of: Red Hill Avenue/Carnegie Avenue, Armstrong Avenue/"A"
Street, Armstrong Avenue/"C" Street, Barranca Parkway/"C" Street,
Warner Avenue/Lot "G", "A" Street/Lot "E" and "A" Street/"C" Street shall
be designed and installed by the applicant as identified in the approved
traffic analysis for the project dated July 2007.
(1) 8.5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, improvements plans, as prepared
by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for the
following private improvements:
A. Street lighting. The private street lighting system shall be reviewed
and approved by the City of Tustin and Southern California Edison.
B. Landscape/irrigation.
C. Trash facilities. The applicant shall provide for commercial trash
collection and obtain approval from the Engineering Division for the
location, size, and number of trash enclosures.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 13
COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED AGENCIES GENERAL CONDITIONS
(1) 9.1 The applicant shall obtain permission from and coordinate with affected
property owners, jurisdictions, and resource agencies for all public and
private improvements, including, but not limited to, the following:
A. The applicant shall obtain permission, approvals, or temporary
easements from affected property owners as necessary.
B. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the
applicable municipal agencies for work within the agencies' City
limits. All infrastructure improvements in the City of Irvine and the
City of Santa Ana shall be coordinated with the City of Irvine and the
City of Santa Ana and shall comply with Irvine's and Santa Ana's
applicable standards respectively.
C. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the
applicable Regional Resource Agencies including, but not limited to:
the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), the Army Corps
of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc. for work within the
open channels.
D. The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of the bus
stop locations with the Orange County Transportation Authority.
E. The applicant shall obtain written approval/permits from the
applicable utility companies.
(1) 9.2 The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of all utilities
with the utility providers and the City. The applicant shall also include the
design and construction of dry utility conduits and pull boxes for future City
use in the arterial streets backbone system throughout the project subject
to review and approval of City Engineer.
DEDICATIONS/RESERVATIONS/EASEMENTS GENERAL CONDITIONS
(1) 10.1 The applicant shall satisfy dedication and reservation requirements as
applicable, including but not limited to, dedication of all required street and
flood control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer
easements and water easements, parkland and open space easements
defined and approved as to specific locations by the City Engineer,
Redevelopment Agency and other agencies as applicable. The locations
and dimensions of all existing and proposed easements shall be shown on
the Final Map(s) and plans, unless otherwise indicated that separate
instruments are required pursuant to this resolution. All storm drain and
utility easement widths shall be dimensioned and labeled on the final
maps and plans.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 14
The applicant shall submit to the City an offer of fee dedication of the
twenty (20) foot right-of-way area for future flood control purposes along
the north side of the existing Barranca Channel per separate instrument.
The legal description and plat of the dedicated area, as prepared by a
California Registered Civil Engineer and/or California Licensed Land
Surveyor, shall be submitted to the Redevelopment Agency and Public
Works Department for review and approval.
The applicant shall maintain the property as legally described in the offer
of dedication area defined in this condition along the north side of the
existing Barranca Channel until acceptance of any offer of dedication by
the City.
(1) 10.2 Reciprocal ingress and egress, parking, and pedestrian access shall be
provided between all lots, where applicable.
(1) 10.3 The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with
the City of Tustin for maintenance of all parkway improvements within
public rights-of-way and for any non-backbone median islands.
(1) 10.4 The applicant shall enter into any public easements necessary for
maintenance access to any traffic signal equipment and detector loops in
conjunction with any proposed signalized intersections proposed within
the tract.
(1) 10.5 Any easement that lies within or crosses public right-of--way proposed to
be deeded or dedicated to the City shall be subordinated to the City prior
to acceptance of the rights-of-way, unless otherwise exempted by the
Redevelopment Agency or Public Works Department.
(1) 10.6 All public access easements outside of the existing or proposed street
rights-of-way shall be clearly shown and labeled on the plans and street
sections.
(1) 10.7 The subdivision includes land required as private parkland and open
space under DDA 06-01 which shall be privately maintained. The
applicant shall design and construct private parkland and open space as
shown on the Tentative Tract Map consistent with time restrictions
contained in DDA 06-01. The applicant shall be required to dedicate
perpetual easements and public access for public use across all open
space parcels as identified in the Concept Plan, on the Tentative Tract
Map, and pursuant to DDA 06-01.
The perpetual easement and public access agreement shall be separate
from map notations and shall be by separate instrument in favor of the
City in a form and substance approved by the Redevelopment Agency and
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 15
Community Development Department for the benefit of the public
providing in perpetuity and at no cost to the City.
The easements shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. The right of the general public to use the open space and park
facilities.
B. The provision of public park access to and from the said facility.
C. The maintenance of the open space and park facilities by the
applicant and its successors and assigns including a future
community association in compliance with the provisions of the DDA.
Prior to exoneration of any security on the tract map, the copy of the
recorded instrument reserving in perpetuity of the private parkland and
open space, as required by the Concept Plan, Tentative Tract Map and
DDA 06-01.
(1) 10.8 Prior to recordation of Phase 2 Final Map(s), the City in consultation with
the applicant agrees to provide Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) with an
interim license on Phase 2 property within Neighborhood E for IRWD to
undertake pilot drilling testing of the three (3) well sites which are shown
on the Tentative Map to determine their feasibility for permanent well
locations. Upon provision of the test results to the City and the applicant,
IRWD shall either confirm the original three (3) well sites or shall request
minor modifications of the three (3) well sites within Phase 2 of
Neighborhood E. IRWD may also request that one of the three (3) well
sites be expanded to approximately 40,000 square feet to be a
combination well site and treatment facility.
In conjunction with City's confirmation of the IRWD submitted results and
any request by IRWD for a combination well and treatment facility, the City
shall authorize minor modifications on the Phase 2 Final Map(s) to the
original general locations of the three (3) well sites as originally shown on
Tentative Tract Map 17144 (Lots K, L and M).
IRWD in making the request for the treatment facility shall also reconsider
and inform the City in writing that they no longer have need for the fourth
required well site originally anticipated in Neighborhood D and as originally
requested by IRWD in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The applicant upon
City's receipt of such written notice from IRWD, shall be released from
such future obligation in Neighborhood D. The revised well site locations
in Neighborhood E shall be deeded sites to the City by a separate grant
deed instrument which form and content shall be approved by the
Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department.
Upon finalization of the revised sites, the City will appraise the well sites
and/or the combination well and treatment facility and will enter into a
written Agreement with IRWD for IRWD reimbursement to the City of the
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 16
`. market value of any expanded ground lease area necessary to
accommodate the combination well and treatment facility. The City will
then grant a restricted easement(s) to IRWD for well(s) and/or well and
treatment facility and access easements for public utility purposes only
and subject to MCAS Tustin development standards, all Neighborhood E
Legacy Park Design Guidelines and final approval by the Redevelopment
Agency and the Public Works Department.
CC&RS
(1) 11.1 All organizational documents for the project including any covenants,
conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to and approved
by the Community Development Department, Redevelopment Agency City
Attorney's Office, and Special Counsel. Costs for such review shall be
borne by the subdivider. The approved CC&Rs shall be recorded with
County Recorder's Office at the same time as recordation of the Final
Map. A copy of the final approved and recorded documents shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department after recordation.
(1) 11.2 No parcel or unit in the development shall be sold or a Certificate of
Occupancy issued, unless a community property owners association has
been legally formed with the right to assess all these properties which are
jointly owned or benefited to operate and maintain all other mutually
available features of the development including, but not limited to, open
space, amenities, landscaping, or slope maintenance landscaping, private
streets, and utilities. No parcel or unit shall be sold unless all approved
and required open space, amenities, landscaping, or other improvements,
or approved phases thereof, have been completed or completion is
assured by a development agreement or financing guarantee method
approved by the City, and Redevelopment Agency. The CC&Rs shall
include, but not be limited to, the following provisions:
A. The City shall be included as a party to the CC&Rs for enforcement
purposes of those CC&R provisions in which the City has interest as
reflected in the following provisions. However, the City shall not be
obligated to enforce the CC&Rs.
B. All requirements mandated by Section 12.1, 12.2 of the DDA.
C. All requirements as mandated by Section 8.3.8 of the DDA requiring
inclusion of adopted Design Guidelines for the master developer
footprint and Neighborhood E to be part of the CC&Rs.
D. All requirements as mandated for maintenance of private parkland
and open space contained in Section 8.15.3 of the DDA, and
common areas under the control of an Association.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 17
E. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use,
repair and maintenance and maintenance standards of ali common
areas and facilities including landscape easement areas and lots,
private parks, walls, fences, private roadways (walks, sidewalks,
trails and paseos).
F. The requirement that association bylaws be established.
G. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use,
repair, and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including
recreational buildings and amenities, landscaped areas and lots,
walls and fences, private roadways (i.e., walks, sidewalks, trails),
parking lot, parkland facilities and bikeways, and open space areas.
H. Membership in the property owners association shall be inseparable
from ownership in individual units.
I. Architectural controls shall be provided and may include, but not be
limited to, provisions regulating exterior finishes, roof materials,
fences and walls, accessory structures such as patios, sunshades,
trellises, awnings, exterior mechanical equipment, television and
radio antenna, consistent with the Tustin City Code and the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan.
J. Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed
in Section G above in CC&Rs. Examples of maintenance standards
are shown below.
1. All common area landscaping and private areas visible from
any public way shall be properly maintained such that they are
evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, debris,
and weeds. All trees and shrubs shall be trimmed so they do
not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Trees shall be
pruned so they do not intrude into neighboring properties and
shall be maintained so they do not have droppings or create
other nuisances to neighboring properties. All trees shall also
be root pruned to eliminate exposed surface roots and
damage to sidewalks, driveways, and structures.
2. All private roadways, parking areas, sidewalks, and open
space areas shall be maintained so that they are safe for
users. Significant pavement cracks, pavement distress,
excessive slab settlement, abrupt vertical variations, and
debris on travel ways should be removed or repaired promptly.
3. Common areas shall be maintained in such a manner as to
avoid the reasonable determination of a duly authorized
official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by
the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be
detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 18
K. Community property owners association approval of major exterior
improvements requiring a building permit shall be obtained prior to
requesting a building permit from the City of Tustin Community
Development Department and Redevelopment Agency. All plans for
exterior improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by the
City and the CC&Rs.
L. Park land and open space areas within the tract shall be considered
private open space and shall be illustrated on a "Private Open Space
Exhibit" and shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall specify those
portions of the common open space area that are allocated for
private use and public use and access rights in perpetuity. The
CC&Rs shall include a separate 8'/2 inch by 11 inch dimensioned site
plan for each unit that is allocated private open space.
M. The approved site plan showing the public portion of the park site
and associated public easements that will be accessible to the public
and provisions for maintenance of these areas by the Property
Owners Association.
N. The approved "Parking and Circulation Exhibit" shall be made part of
the CC8~Rs and shall be enforced by the property owners
association. In addition to the exhibit, provisions regarding parking
shall be included in the CC&Rs, including the following:
1. All buildings are required to maintain the required number of
parking spaces based on Table 3-6 of the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan.
2. The property owners association shall be responsible for
monitoring and enforcing all parking and traffic regulations on
private streets. The proposed CC&Rs shall include provisions
requiring the association to develop and adopt an enforcement
program for parking and traffic regulations within the
development which may include measures for fire access and
enforcement by a private security company.
O. Maintenance of lettered and numbered Lots (including but not limited
to Lots A, B, C, D, H, I, and J), containing all common areas, public
and private park open space, edge open space, drives, alleys,
walkways, paseos, the Retention Basin, etc. shall be by the
community property owners association.
P. Television and radio antennas shall be installed in accordance with
the requirements of the Tustin City Code.
Q. All utility services serving the site shall be installed and maintained
underground.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 19
R. The community properly owners association shall be required to file
the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one
member of the association Board and, where applicable, a manager
of the project before January 1st of each year with the City of Tustin
Community Development Department for the purpose of contacting
the association in the case of emergency or in those cases where the
City has an interest in CC&R violations.
S. The community property owners association shall be responsible for
establishing and following procedures for providing access to public
utilities for maintenance of their facilities within the project area,
subject to those agencies' approval.
T. The approved "Trip Reduction/Transportation Demand Management
Strategy Plan" shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall be
enforced by the community property owners association.
U. No amendment to alter, modify, terminate, or change the property
owners association's obligation to maintain the common areas and
the project perimeter wall or other CC&Rs provisions in which the
City has an interest, as noted above, or to alter, modify, terminate, or
change the City's right to enforce maintenance of the common areas
and maintenance of the project perimeter wall shall be permitted
without the prior written approval of the City of Tustin Community
Development Department.
BUYER NOTIFICATION
(1) 12.1 Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider shall submit to the
Community Development Department for review and approval a buyer
notification document that includes the notifications listed below. The
notification document shall be signed by each buyer prior to final
inspection and occupancy, and a copy of the signed notification shall be
provided to the Community Development Department prior to final
inspection and/or issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy.
A. A notice for roadway, trail, and train noise that may impact the
subdivision, including roadway noise associated with Red Hill
Avenue, Baranca Parkway, Warner Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, and
train noise associated with the rail corridor north of the project. The
notice shall indicate the current number of trains per day (59) and the
estimated increase to over 100 trains on a 24-hour basis by the year
2020. The notice shall indicate that additional building upgrades may
be necessary for noise attenuation. This determination is to be made
as architectural drawings become available and/or where field-testing
determines inadequate noise insulation.
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 20
B. A notice indicating that public use of a portion of the park site, to be
maintained by the property owners association, will be allowed noting
public ingress and egress through the subdivision will be provided for
access to the park.
C. A notice explaining the easements, facilities, amenities, and
dedications that will be provided on lettered lots and indicating all on-
site streets, rive aisle, paseos, and common areas are to be
maintained by the property owners association.
D. A notice, to be approved by the City Attorney, indicating that neither
the site, nor the project, nor any part thereof, nor any street or
sidewalk, drive aisles, or paseos thereon shall be privately gated,
provided however that any fitness/spa facility within the common area
and any indoor common area improvements, including any fitness
center and bathrooms, may be gated or locked and made available
solely to employees of the project and their guests.
E. A notice indicating that surrounding properties may be developed in
accordance with City ordinances in a manner which may partially or
totally obstruct views from the owner's unit and that the City of Tustin
makes no claim, warranty, or guarantee that views from any unit will
be preserved as development of surrounding properties occurs.
F. A notice explaining and providing a copy of a "Private Open Space
Exhibit" and separate 8'/2 inch by 11 inch dimensioned site plan for
each parcel or unit, as applicable, that is allocated private open
space within the common area.
G. A notice explaining and providing a copy of the approved "Parking
and Circulation Exhibit" and related CC&Rs provisions.
H. A notice explaining the phasing of construction within the subdivision
and that activity may be disruptive.
I. The Developer shall notify all buyers that future
Assessment/Maintenance Districts may affect the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
(1) 13.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits within the tract, a final acoustical
analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures
and sites to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be
submitted along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound
attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical reports are
incorporated into the design of the project. Evidence prepared under the
supervision of an expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall be
provided. At least a preliminary analysis at the subdivision level and prior
to building permits should evaluate whether or not mitigation other than
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 4068
TTM 17144
Page 21
building construction will permit achievable compliance with required
minimum General Plan interior noise standards.
(1) 13.2 Prior to the first final map recordation (except for financing and re-
conveyance purposes) or building permit issuance for development within
the City of Tustin portion of the site, the project developer shall provide
evidence of compliance with all requirements and standards of the City of
Tustin Park Code.