Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 07-77RESOLUTION NO. 07-77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZONE CHANGE 06- 002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-020, A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP AN EXISTING 60-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH A NEW 77- UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. The applicant (Sun-Cal Browning LLC) has requested to rezone and subdivide a 4.1 acre (net area) property currently developed with 60 apartment units for development of a new 77-unit condominium project. The properties are located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue; B. That the requested zone change, conditional use permit, tentative tract map, and design review are considered a "project" subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.); C. That City staff prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 that concluded, with mitigation measures, potential significant impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared; D. That a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available fora 20-day public review and comment period from August 3, 2007, to August 22, 2007, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines; E. Public comments were received and a Final Negative Declaration with response to submitted comments was prepared; F. That the City Council is the final authority for the project and will consider the MND prior to action on Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096; Resolution No. 07-77 Page 2 G. The Planning Commission held public hearings on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007. A petition in opposition of the project with 94 signatures in addition to 40 letters and 23 public comments were received in opposition of the project. The residents of the adjacent communities expressed that the density, height, and traffic impacts were not addressed with the proposed project and not adequately analyzed in the MND. The Planning Commission considered the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, and did not find it sufficient for the proposed Zone Change 06-002, Conditional Use Permit 06-024 Tentative Tract Map 17096, and Design Review 06-020; H. The City Council held a public hearing on the project on November 6, 2007; I. The City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. II. The City Council hereby adopts Final Mitigated Negative Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit A and Mitigation Monitoring Report attached hereto as Exhibit B for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 for the subdivision and development of 77 condominium units on properties located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 6th day of November, 2007. JERRY AMANTE Mayor Protem PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Resolution No. 07-77 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 07-77 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of November, 2007, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Amante, Davert, Palmer (3) COUNCILMEMBER NOES: Kawashima (1) COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: Bone (1) COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None (0) PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Hampton Village (TTM 17096) Zone Change 06-002 Conditional Use Permit 06-024 Design Review 06-020 Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact Person: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Project Description: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way . Tustin, California 92780 Minoo Ashabi Phone: (714) 573-3126 1972 Mitchell Avenue 142 S 1-143 S 1 Browning Avenue SunCal-Browning LLC c/o Southwind Realty Group 18301 Von Karman, Suite 710 Irvine, CA 92612 High Density Residential Existing -Suburban Residential (R-4) Proposed -Multiple Family Residential (R-3) A request to demolish an existing apartment complex containing 60 units on a 4.1-acre (net area) site and redeveloping the site with 77 three story condominium units Surrounding Uses: North: Residential (R-2} East: Residential {R-1 } & MHP South: Residential (R-1) West: Residential (R-1) Other public agencies whose approval is required: ^ Orange County Fire Authority ^ City of Irvine ^ Orange County Health Care Agency ^ ~ City of Santa Ana ^ South Coast Air Quality Management ^ Orange County District EMA ^ Other 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 Signif cant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ^Land Use and Planning ^Population and Housing ^Geological Problems ^Water ^Air Quality ^Transportation & Circulation ^Biological Resources ^Energy and Mineral Resources ^Hazards ^Noise ^Public Services ^Utilities and Service Systems ^Aesthetics ^Cultural Resources ^Recreation ^Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERNIINATION: 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 IlVIPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and Z) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or .mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Minoo Ashabi Title Associate Planner Date 8-2-08 Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director 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) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determination. 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 standazd (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 nunnber of people? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Signi, ficant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ D IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a} Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, oa 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 intemiption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement o.f 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 ~ordinancc? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation .plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ~^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ 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 (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water 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 hazazdous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazazdous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazazdous 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 hazazd for people residing or working in the project azea? Less Than Signi, ficant ~, ~; Potentially With Less Than " Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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 foes, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a} Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater rechazge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff watcr which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ~ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazazd area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j} Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Tha>s Significant Mitigation Significant Impact .Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ o ® a ^ D ® ^ ^ ^ ^ a a o ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ D D ^ ^ ^ ® ^ 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? ' p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? 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? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important rruneral 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? Less Than ,S1gnlfiCant ,~*,. Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impacr o a ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ a o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ 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? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either duectly (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? XIII. PUBLIC SERVI~E3 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which . could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact o a ® ~~ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ o D D D ^ ^ ^ ^ D ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ D ® D a a ® ~~ ^ ^ ® Cl XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFF'IC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate pazking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c} Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant ~:.. Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ a ® ^ ^ D ® ^ a ® ^ a ^ ^ ^ D ^ ^ ^ a a ^ ^ ^ ®~ ^ D ® O ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 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 fcdcral, 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 raze 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)? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o a o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? S:~Cdd~M1NOO~Red HiU CmdorlRad FGU TowoLoms- ioidal ~dy.doe DRAFT EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT 06-024 ZONE CHANGE 06-002 HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWN HOMES BACKGROUND The property is located within the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district and High Density Residential land use designation. The project site is located at the southwest comer of Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue and surrounded by single family residential units on the south and west, Browning Avenue, single family residential units and a mobile home park to the east and Mitchell Avenue, and duplexes and. apartment units to the north. The proposed 4.9-acre site (gross .area) is currently developed with a 60-unit apartment complex known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. All existing units at the site aze proposed to be demolished. The existing zoning designation would allow a maximum of 71 units on the existing 4.9 acre (gross) site that includes property to be dedicated to the City for a street right-of--way. The applicant has requested a zone change to rezone the property to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to redevelop the site with 77 condominium units. As previously indicated, the proposal would also include dedication of property along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue, which would reduce the net site area to 4.1 acres. The proposed rezone would allow development of the site with a density of 18.8 dulacre, consistent with the current general plan High Density Residential designation of 15-25 du/acre.. In addition, for subdivision and development of the site a tentative tract map, design review, and conditional use permit applications are required. Approval of the design review would address the site and architectural design of the site. Approval of a conditional use permit is required to construct structures over 20 feet in height adjacent to single family residential uses (Tustin City Code Section 9226c). This analysis evaluates the environmental impact of the proposed 77-unit condominium project in comparison to the existing 60-unit apaztrnent complex. The site is proposed to include one 6-plex, eleven 5-plex buildings, and four 4-plex buildings designed as town homes with gazage access through private alleys. Ten of the 5-plex buildings are connected with a covered breezeway. Units along Mitchell Avenue have direct access to the street by raised stoops and the units located along Browning Avenue aze accessed by the breezeway from the street and from the interior green courts. The units aze designed as three stories and two stories with a loft and include 2-3 bedrooms that range in size from 1,803 square feet to 2,068 squaze feet. The main entry drive to the project curves to the south as it provides access to the private alleys. The pool and recreation area are nestled between buildings located south of the project entrance on Browning Avenue. I. AESTHETICS Items a, & b - No Impact: The subject property is not located on a scenic vista. The property is a 4.1-acre parcel currently developed with one story apartment buildings and is surrounded by developed parcels. Significant landscaping in the form of mature pine trees exists along the Mitchell Avenue right-of-way that will continue to be maintained. Additional trees are Hampton Villagc Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 2 proposed along the perimeter and interior of the site with emphasis at the corner and project entry. For redevelopment of the site, the existing on-site trees are proposed to be removed and new landscaping will be installed. The proposed project would not disturb any rock outcroppings or historical buildings, and the site is not located on a State scenic highway. Items c & d -Less than Significant Impact: The project would involve construction of new three-story and two-story with loft structures that would change the visual character of the area. The existing one-story apartments were developed in the 1960s and appeaz dated; therefore, redevelopment of the site would enhance the visual chazacteristics of the area with new contemporary structures and new landscaping. The project is designed to adhere to the Multiple Family Residential development standards with respect to setbacks, height, parking standards, and landscaping guidelines and the City's Private Street Improvement Standards. Although the project proposes three-story structures to replace existing one-story structures, the proposed buildings have been designed to be sensitive to the existing neighboring residences. The site abuts a single family residential neighborhood on two sides. The applicant has placed the buildings 10 feet from the westerly property line and 16 feet from the southerly property line. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines have been designed at two stories with a loft that are 2-5 feet lower in height than other proposed units on the site. To provide a green screen, significant landscaping in the form of upright trees is proposed on the westerly and southerly site boundaries. In addition, no balconies will be located within these aeeas and window openings are smaller in -size and carefully placed to minimize intrusion of privacy on the adjacent existing residential properties. The proposed buildings are set back 15 feet from Mitchell Avenue and 10 feet from Browning Avenue. The proposed setbacks meet the minimum development standazds for front and side yazd setbacks; however, since the primary streetscape is oriented along Browning Avenue, the applicant will be required to maintain the same setback on both street fronts to provide for improved streetscape design and better livability of these units with more privacy and fewer noise impacts from Browning Avenue. Additionally, the increased setback would allow for architectural relief and added articulation along the streetscape. The proposed condominium complex would generate new light sources with the installation of new exterior lighting for streets, alleys, .landscape areas, patios, and parking areas. In addition, the developer would be required to install additional street lights on Browning Avenue to meet the City's standards for public streets. However, the new sources of light would not adversely affect day- or night-time views in the area since the number of lights would be compatible with a typical residential project and would be required to comply with the City's security code standards. In addition, all lights would be required to be arranged so that no direct rays would shine onto adjacent properties. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 3 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Section 8103(w)15 Private Street Standazds Tustin Security Ordinance II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a, b & c - No Impact: The project site is currently improved with residential buildings and surrounded by other developed residential buildings. The proposed project will have no impact on any farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project will not result in the conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Field Inspection Submitted Plans III. AIR QUALITY Items a, b, c, d & e -Less Than Significant Impact: The project will temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the azea due to the proposed demolition, grading, and construction activities at the property. Since the site is relatively Aat, only minor grading will be required. Redevelopment of the site would result in 17 additional residential units that are well below the thresholds of significance established by Tables 6-2 (operation thresholds) and 6-3 (construction thresholds) of the Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which notes that construction of fewer than 297 condominium units is not considered a significant impact. In addition, cumulative construction within the area does not exceed the established AQMD thresholds. Less than significant short-term emissions associated with demolition, grading, construction, and operation of the proposed project will comply with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual, which include requirements for dust control. As such, the proposed project will not create a significant impact related to air quality. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook City of Tustin Grading Manual Project Application Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 4 . IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a, b, c, d, e & f - No Impact: The project site is currently improved with residential buildings and surrounded by other developed residential buildings. The site is not inhabited by any sensitive species of animals and would have no impacts on animal populations, diversity of species, or migratory patterns. No wetlands exist within the project site. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Inspection Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a - No Impact: The project site is currently improved with residential buildings built in the 1960s and surrounded by other developed residential buildings. The property is not located in an area where any cultural or historic resources have been previously identified on the site. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Items b, c & d -Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation The proposed project is redevelopment of an existing residential site and is not located in an area with undisturbed land. However, as a standard grading condition of approval, if buried resources are found during grading within the project area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the resource and recommend appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint would be considered during this process. With the mitigation measures listed below, potential impacts to archeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: If buried resources are found during grading within the project area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform .the appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. Hampton Villagc Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 5 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS Items a-ii, a-iii, b & d -Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed buildings will be located within an area of the City that is known to contain expansive soils which may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction. However, a soils report is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits per the 2001 California Building Code to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure seismic stability in sites depending on their soils or geological concerns. No significant impact is anticipated since the project must comply with the 2001 Uniform Building Code related to Chapter 18. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required Sources: Tustin General PIan Tustin Grading Manual 2001 California Building Code Chapter 16 and 18 Items a-i, a-iv, c, & e - No Impact: The project site is not located within an area identified as a fault zone on the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. However, a soils report is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits per the 2001 California Building Code to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure seismic stability in sites depending on their soils or geological concerns. The project will be required to be engineered to withstand unstable soils, possible landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse as they relate to the this specific site. Since all new buildings in the City are required to operate on the existing sewer system, the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be necessary. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code 2001 California Building Code Chapter 16 and 18 California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001 VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 6 Items a, b, c, d e, f, g, and h - No Impact: The proposed project involves construction of 77 condominium units. No storage or transport of hazardous materials is anticipated from the proposed residential development. The project would not result in exposure to hazardous substances other than the possibility of household hazardous waste which residents could properly dispose of at approved County drop-off locations. A residential project is not anticipated to store or emit hazardous materials which could create a hazard to adjacent properties, schools, or the general public if released into the environment. The scope and location of the project has no potential to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The site is in an urbanized area and has no potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk due to wildland fires. All grading and construction is subject to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. As such, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant hazards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Approved Fire Master Plan Mitigation MeasureslMonitoring Required: None Required VIII. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Items a, b, f, g, h, iii, and p - No Impact: The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a relatively flat site with improved site drainage and additional landscaping. A significant amount of stormwater received on-site will percolate into the soil where landscaping is provided and the remaining stormwater will be conveyed through a fossil filter prior to entering a City stormdrain. City stromwater infrastructure is currently available to accommodate storm water from the project. The applicant must provide a drainage and hydrology report to the City and demonstrate that the private storm water drainage system will be able to handle the capacity of any storm water directed into the system. Best Management Practices are required to be implemented during construction to deter water from flowing off-site. Best Management Practices will also be implemented to ensure that, once the project is constructed, storm water leaving the site will be filtered prior to entering the storm drain. As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality in the area. The project by nature would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project is located within Zone X (areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood), as mapped on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. Accordingly, the project will be designed and graded with an appropriate drainage system to avoid any potential flood hazards. The project site will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 7 by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Nor would the project increase significant erosion at the project site or surrounding areas. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code 4900 et al Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map 06059C0281H, February 18, 2004 Items c, d, e, k, 1, m, n & o -Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a relatively flat site with improved site drainage, including drive aisles, curbs and gutters, and additional landscaping. With new construction, there is the potential ~ to impact stormwater runoff from construction and post-construction activities with stormwater pollutants from landscaped areas and trash enclosures. There is also the potential for the discharge of stormwater that could affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters and changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. However, the project is required to comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and most recently adopted NPDES permit (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order R8- 2002-0010), thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Together, these regulations minimize water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into local waters. As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality in the area. Mitigation Measures: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required Sources:. Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Section 4900 et al IX. LAND USE PLANNING Items a & c - No Impact: The proposed project would not divide an established community since it includes construction on an existing site that is already improved with multiple-family residences. The proposed project is not located in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable conservation plan. Item b -Less Than Significant Impact: Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 8 The property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as High Density Residential and is currently located within the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district. The proposed 4.9-acre site (gross area) is currently developed with a 60-unit apartment complex. The existing zoning designation would allow a maximum of 71 units on the 4.9 acre site including the street right-of--way. To redevelop the site with 77 condominium units, the applicant has requested a zone change to rezone the property to Multiple Family Residential (R-3). The proposal would also include aright-of--way dedication along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue, which would reduce the net site area to 4.1 acres. The proposed rezone would allow development of the site with a density of 18.8 du/acre, consistent with the allowable general plan residential density of 15-25 du/acre. If approved, the proposed project would increase the percentage of ownership housing consistent with Goal 3 of the City's Housing Element, the project is accessible through the City's current street system, and the project could be supported with existing transportation and public facilities. Mitigation Measures Required: The development exceeds the allowable number of units under the current zoning requirements. Approval of a zone change by Tustin City Council to rezone the property from Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) is required for development of the proposed project. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code Tustin Zoning Map X. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a & b - No Impact• The proposed project is not located on a mineral resource recovery site. The construction of a condominium project on a lot which is improved with existing apartment buildings will not result in the Loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE Item a -Less Than Signnificant with Mitigation Incorporation The project site is located at the southwest corner of Browning and Mitchell Avenues, and therefore is exposed to significant traffic related noise. The City's noise ordinance requires a maximum 45 dB value for interior noise and 65 dB for exterior noise. The City's General Plan recognizes that residents adjacent to major and secondary arterials are typically exposed to a CNEL over 65 dB. Table N-2 of the Tustin Noise Element Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 9 identifies potential conflicts between the land uses and the noise environment. Per Table N-2, most of the project site falls within Zone A through Zone B. Zone A requires no mitigation measures for noise while Zone B requires minor soundproofing as needed. An acoustical study was submitted by the project proponent, which indicated that the private outdoor living areas along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise of 60.7 CNEL and 59.7 CNEL along Mitchell Avenue. The proposed project would meet the City's noise requirement for outdoor areas; therefore, no mitigation will be required. To meet the interior noise standards, the buildings along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue would require a noise reduction of 15.7 dB to achieve a maximum interior 45 dB value. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reduction of at least 20dB. The noise analysis also indicates that the noise attenuation of a building falls about 12 dB with windows open and recommends mitigation measures to provide adequate ventilation for homes along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue (Exhibit -Noise Analysis). The noise reduction technique recommended by the acoustical analysis would be implemented and required as a condition of approval. With the mitigation measures listed below, potential noise impact would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: All units along Browning and Mitchell Avenue as indicated in the attached noise analysis shall be equipped with air conditioners with a summer switch for fresh air intake to allow adequate ventilation and noise attenuation. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code 4611 et al Tustin General Plan Acoustical Study (Exhibit 1) Items b, c & d- Less Than Significant Impact: Although the grading and construction of the site may result in typical temporary construction noise impacts, the Tustin Noise Ordinance only allows construction activities to occur during the daytime on Monday through Saturday. The proposed project will not create excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create. a permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels beyond the City's established standards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Section 4611 et al Tustin General Plan Item e & f - No Impact: Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 10 The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two (2) miles of a public or private airport/airstrip. The proposed project is three stories in height consistent with the City's maximum height limit and similar to other structures in the vicinity. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a, b, and c - No Impact: The project involves the proposed construction of a condominium project on a site that is currently improved with apartment complexes including 60 units known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. The proposed project would remove and replace the existing 60 units with 77 units that would not result in significant population growth in the area. The existing apartment units are proposed to be rented at market rate (not considered as affordable units) and the existing residents are on a month-to-month lease. While there will be displacement of existing residents as a result of the proposed project, the displacement would not be substantial nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere since the impact could be absorbed by the local rental market. The project is privately financed and no public funds are involved that would trigger relocation pursuant to state law. However, the applicant has submitted a Tenant Leasing and Relocation Plan that indicates that a minimum 120-day notice will be provided prior to vacation of the property, tenants would continue to be on a month-to-month lease basis and the last month's rent would be waived, which should provide the tenants with adequate tune and monetary incentives to relocate. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a -Less Than Significant Irnuact: The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area where fire and police protection aze currently provided. While police patrols to the area maybe needed from time to time to ensure safety, no new additional police protection would be xequired as a result of the proposed project. The Police Department has recommended measures to reinforce safety and effectively patrol the area, which will be included as conditions of approval. The project would utilize existing infrastructure and is not anticipated to increase the need for new streets, public services, or infrastructure. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 11 The proposed project is located within the Tustin Unified School District {TUSD). The proposed. l7 additional units aze not anticipated to cause a significant rise in the number of students served by local schools. The TUSD will receive its statutory school impact fees per Senate Bill SO from the residential developer as a condition of approval for the project prior to issuance of the building permit. Other Public Facilities (Libraries. Implementation of the project would only result in a minor library demand which can be accommodated with the existing library facilities. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code XIV. RECREATION Items a & b - No Impact: The project would include a private community pool recreation area to benefit the residents of the project. However, since the size of the recreation area does not comply with the minimum criteria for parkland dedication, the project would be conditioned to pay in lieu fees for parkland dedication in accordance with Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code. The developer has indicated that they will pay in lieu fees to comply with Tustin City Code. While the residents of the project may use existing City parks, the increased use of these parks would not be such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, nor does the project propose recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment.. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay pazkland in lieu fees based on Tustin City Code Section 9331.d.3 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code XV. TRA.NSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a -Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: A traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the City's Engineering Division (Exhibit 2). The study concluded that the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 737 average daily trips, which in comparison with the existing development, would be an increase of 334 daily trips. The traffic analysis considered the traffic impacts to the Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue intersection and concluded that there is adequate Hampton Village 'Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 12 capacity to accommodate the proposed project under short-term (2008} and long-term (2025) conditions. The project does not create a significant impact under the City of Tustin's performance criteria. The AM and PM peak hour volumes for the entire project are approximately 70 vph, or just a little over one vehicle per minute. Based on the submitted traffic analysis, no delay with entering and exiting the site is expected during any time of day. The internal circulation system for the project is basically a "T" shaped pattern with a single entrance. The main street is 3b feet wide and provides for parking on both sides and the alleys are 25 feet wide with no parking permitted. The site is located near an elementary school with the main entrance off of Browning Avenue. The school's morning drop-off time coincides with the ~ AM peak hour of the project. During that time an additional 17 project vehicles will be traveling southbound on Browning Avenue. 'The traffic study concluded that the proj ect-generated traffic volume is not expected to create significant increase to traffic congestion at the school entrance and no impacts are anticipated in the PM peak hour. For development of the project, the developer will be responsible for implementing roadway improvements on Browning Avenue to provide more accessibility and visibility at the new four-way intersection of the main entrance to the project with Sandfield Place. With incorporation of the following mitigation measures on Browning Avenue, the traffic impacts for this project will be reduced to less than significant: Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: • The traffic signage and striping plan shall incorporate all requirements outlined in the traffic impact analysis, including turning lanes on Browning Avenue and parking restrictions adjacent to the site. • Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a Construction Management Plan, as required under the Traffic Impact- Analysis, for the site to address safety issues, such as regulating construction access to the site during children's arrival and departure from the nearby school. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 2} Items b, c, d, e, and g - No Impact: The project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth, result in changes.to air traffic patterns, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. Seventy-seven units are proposed, which require atwo-car garage per unit and 20 guest parking spaces at one guest parking space for every four units. In accordance with the R-3 requirements, Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 1709b, ZC Ob-002, DR 06-020, CUP Ob-024 Page 13 the project provides 25 on-site parking spaces, which is sufficient parking to comply with current parking requirements for the proposed use. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:. None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Item f -Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: In accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9226, all units include atwo-car garage and 25 guest parking spaces are provided. The on-site street layout results in a short T intersection that may be inadequate for access and circulation of disposal service trucks; therefore, the applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan that includes storing trash and recycling carts within 11 pazking spaces during trash pick up days. To minimize the anticipated parking impact, the plans indicate that the emptied carts arc quickly returned to garage alleys by an employee of the homeowners association. With the submitted plan any temporary impacts to the projects on-site pazking is expected to be reduced an insignificant level. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Residents are required to store their trash and recycling carts within the area designated within the garage. Prior to collection day, the residents need to move the carts to an area immediately outside their garage, where a homeowner association employee will be in charge of relocating them to the designated parking stalls that aze mazked and designated accordingly. The carts shall be placed in the common drives no earlier than noon on the day before scheduled collections and removed within. twelve (12) hours of collection. Any changes or modifications to the approved waste management plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a, b, c, d, e, f & Q - No Impact: The proposed project will not exceed the requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or require ~or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. If approved, the proposed project will utilize the existing sewer and storm drain systems and thus will not require construction of a new storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. The project proponent would be required to submit a hydrology report to ensure proper grading, drainage, and connection of planned sewer systems. The project will be served by the City's existing trash hauler contract, thus will not require a new trash hauler. Adequate water supply from existing resources will be available to serve the proposed project. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 14 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan XVII. MA1~IDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a, b & c - No Impact: The site is located in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district and currently improved with 60 apartment units. The project includes redevelopment of the site with 77 condominium units. The proposed project design, construction, and operation will comply with applicable City codes and regulations. The project, by nature of its location and as designed, does not have the potential to: degrade the. quality of the environment; reduce the habitat of 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. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-term. The proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan S:\Cdd\MINOOWaas~wu ViW~eW~mpWa - ND ~aalysit.dce Exhibit 1 Noise Analysis NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN Report #06-320 December 11, 2006 Prepared For. Sun Cal -Browning, LLC 2392 Morse Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. oQ~O~E$~ Bill Vasquez ~Q~ ~1C A. Mestre Greve Associates c~ ~~ 27812 El Lazo Road ~ ~ 31701 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone (949) 349-0671 FAX (949) 349-0679 ~~~ C~~1. G` t^ `rn Irn *~ .t NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN Report #06-320 December 11, 2006 Prepared For: ` Sun Cal -Browning, LLC 2392 Morse Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Bil! Vasquez Mestre Greve Associates 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone (949) 349-0671 FAX (949) 349-0679 Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Paae 2 of 9 SUMMARY NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION The project must comply with the City's 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. For the exterior living areas which are exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL, some form of noise mitigation is required. An effective method of reducing the traffic noise to acceptable levels is with a noise barrier. Representative cross-sections along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue (see the Appendix for analysis data) were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary noise barrier locations and heights. The results indicate that observers in private outdoor living areas along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 60.7 CNEL. The first floor exterior observers along Mitchell Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 59.7 CNEL. Therefore, the project will meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will not be required along Browning Avenue or Mitchell Avenue. INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units, the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent upon the transmission loss of each element, and the surface area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 3 of 9 Building surfaces along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue wilt be exposed to noise levels of 60.7 CNEL. Therefore, these buildings will require 15.7 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore, all rooms along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue are projected to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades ADEQUATE VENTILATION Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable Uniform Building Code. Adequate ventilation will be required for those homes listed in Table S 1 and shown in Exhibit S 1. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet adequate ventilation requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted. Table S 1 VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BUILDING Along Browning Avenue Units in Buildings 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Along Mitchell Avenue Units in Buildings 8,9 C' C<LO11wlIDOK OIr11t D - i 1 t r I I 1 I I \ I I I I I ! I IE 1 I \ II I * L ;-% iii; /..//. rte... �. �/% % �//i'•,./! /:. �i/ �� a.� t• ai' Iii �� I©=! �f /, i p� i''i t"'y ��, ; 0� � � �0�, a►`.� may.►p r •% vg U 6114q, Vp:10 �I-.VDiI IVp:J til ;i��� O �� • t �� 1 t �� 1b �� /01 ----------�\------------- ------------------------------------------ I ` ' I I I I I I Buildings Requiring Adequate Ventilation Exhibit S1 - Ventilation Requirements MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 4 of 9 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of the "Hampton Village Townhomes" Project with the noise related `Conditions of Approval' placed on the project by the City of Tustin. The project calls for the development of multi-family homes. The project is located in the City of Tustin, as shown in Exhibit 1. The project will be impacted by traffic noise from Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. In addition, aircraft noise from the John Wayne Airport will be addressed. This report specifies any mitigation measures necessary to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. Site plan and grading information was obtained from the grading plans for "Site Plan T.T. No. 17096 for Condominium Purposes" by Hunsaker & Associates, December 4, 2006. Building construction details were obtained from the architectural drawings for the project by the KTGY Group. Inc., December 5, 2006. 2.0 CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE STANDARDS The City of Tustin specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits. for traffic noise levels at residential land uses. Both standards are based upon the CNEL index. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour time weighted annual average noise level based on the A- weighted decibel. A-weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain noise-sensitive time periods is given more significance because it occurs at these times. In the calculation of CNEL, noise occurring in the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by S dB, while noise occurring in the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.} is weighted by 10 dB. These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while sleeping, eating, and relaxing. The City of Tustin has adopted an exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL and an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL for residential. -9~i~O ~ ~~\~G PJ~ ~~~~' ~~! ~~ ~ tiF 0 ~~~ << ~~O 9L~ G S 0~~~ ~'~s~." ~9~~'G~, ~~ PR E 9LF L Tl N ~0• G~ ~P~ ~~ J~ Exhibit 1-Vicinity Map Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 5 of 9 3.0 METHODOLOGY The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway .Traffic Noise Prediction Model", FHWA-RD-77-108,. December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level". A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm} is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the observer. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the noise source and the observer is interrupted by the barrier. As the distance that the noise must travel around the noise barrier increases, the amount of noise reduction increases. 4.0 NOISE EXPOSURE The existing traffic volumes for Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue were obtained from Mr. Terry Lutz at the City of Tustin on December 5, 2006. The projected (year-2026) traffic volumes were calculated from the existing (year-2006) ADT's using an overall 10% growth factor. The traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and roadway grades used in the CNEL calculations are presented below in Table 1. Table 1 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SPEEDS, AND ROADWAY GRADES ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED GRADE Browning Avenue Mitchell Avenue 4,840 6,160 35 <3% 30 <3% The traffic distributions for Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue that were used in the CNEL calculations are listed below in Table 2. This arterial traffic distribution estimate was compiled by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and is based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the Orange County area. Arterial traffic distribution estimates can be considered typical for arterials in Southern California. Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 6 of 9 Table 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile 75.5 I 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck i.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are listed in Table 3 in terms of distances to the .60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 3 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may affect the roadway noise exposure. Table 3 DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS DISTANCE TO CONTOUR (F'T) ROADWAY -70 CNEL- -65 CNEL- -60 CNEL- Browning Avenue RW 26 56 Mitchell Avenue RW 24 51 RW -indicates noise contours falls within Roadway right of way * -Contour distances in this table are based on the centerline of the roadway representing the noise source. The site plan (Exhibit 2) indicates that exterior observers along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 60.7 CNEL. The exterior observers along Mitchell Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 59.7 CNEL 0 oOK owns , ------r------------1 ------ MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES C .-------------------------- r I I I L---------- Exhibit 2 - Site Plan Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 7 of 9 4.1 Aircraft Noise Exposure The project is located northeast of the John Wayne Airport. The future CNEL noise contours were acquired from the "EIR 508/EIS -John Wayne Airport and Land Use Compatibility Program". The project is located 5 miles from the John Wayne Airport and 3 miles from the 60 CNEL contour. Analysis of the project location indicates that worst-case aircraft noise levels at the project site will be far less than 60 CNEL. Therefore, aircraft noise will not significantly impact the project site. 5.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION The project must comply with the City's 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. For the exterior living areas which are exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL, some form of noise mitigation is required. An effective method of reducing the traffic noise to acceptable levels is with a noise barrier. Representative cross-sections along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue (see the Appendix for analysis data) were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary noise barrier locations and heights. The results indicate that observers in private outdoor Living areas along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 60.7 CNEL. The first floor exterior observers along Mitchell Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 59.7 CNEL. Therefore, the project will meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will nvt be required along Browning Avenue or Mitchell Avenue. 6.0 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units, the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent upon the transmission Loss of each element, and the surface area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 8 of 9 Building surfaces along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of 60.7 CNEL. Therefore, these buildings will require 15.7 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to. indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore. all rooms along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue are projected to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building up rg_ades. 7.0 ADEQUATE VENTILATION Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable Uniform Building Code. Adequate ventilation will be required for those homes listed in Table 4 and shown in Exhibit 3. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet adequate ventilation requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted. Table 4 VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BUILDING Along Browning Avenue Units in Buildings 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Along Mitchell Avenue Units in Buildings 8,9 KA Ml _LI f1_;1DJ' `VDD , 11 ti 1. ell ~' 14T �1 ------------------------------------------------------ i 1 1 I Buildings Requiring Adequate Ventilation Exhibit 3 - Ventilation Requirements MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 9 of 9 APPENDIX CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS DATA USED TO DETERMINE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS awning Townhomes, Tustin : Sully Group - Karen Sully 714-665-1101 ext 103 PORT 0064M ED I BILL; December 2006 Date Soft Hard J2-4- ►r; Roadway Name 39.7 A -14 (h. -If Ave. Vehicles Per Day '3,1 6, Irv) Speed (mph) 54,5 ;u Grade Adj. (dB) 61.5 0.00 dB Vehicle Noise Red (dB) 1.5% lair Roadway Grade I 54 59.7 This is the CNEL at l Sm Mitchell Asti, CNEL WORKSHEET - CALVENO - (NO MACRO) - 5-24-95..t1 From: BarrCalc CNEL MASTER. Standard Arterial Mix Soft Hard Auto 58.5 39.7 Medium Truck 51.6 '3,1 Heavy Truck .533 54,5 Total 60.3 61.5 Mitchell Asti, CNEL WORKSHEET - CALVENO - (NO MACRO) - 5-24-95..t1 From: BarrCalc CNEL MASTER. Standard Arterial Mix To get other noise levels (CNEL), out in other distances (ft) Dist. Soft Hard P Eve Night Equiv Auto -ay 75.51% 12.57% 934% 208.6% MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 3.7% HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% 1.5% To get other noise levels (CNEL), out in other distances (ft) Dist. Soft Hard 25 64.7 6" 30 63.5 634 35 62.5 6" 40 61.6 694 45 60.9 6" 50 60.2 6" 54 59.7 6A 60 59.0 604 65 58.5 6" 70 58.0 6" 75 57.5 5W7 80 57.1 JM4 90 56.4 3 l00 55.7 3i1c4 77.711.1 12.6u14 9.6111 To get other distances (ft), 1wt in other noise levels CNEL Soft Hard 57 81 4a9 58 70 4" 59 60 88 60 51 as 61 44 56 62 38 44 63 32 35 64 28 38 65 24 33 66 20 48 67 18 68 t5 44 69 13 9 70 11. 7 97.42'4 I .K4q u.741; Unit KOW Elevation Distance Base Of Distance Pad Observer Wall ---- Barrier Reduction ------ Traffic Noise Aircraft TOTAL To Wall Wall To Observer Elevation Height Wight Auto MT HT Soft Hard Noise NOISE no mu with ►vall 0 S4 0.0 S4 0.0 S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 no mit+ i i l 59.7 no mit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 W4 59.7 10 mit with wall 0 54 0.0 54 0.0 S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 no mit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 59.7+ 5.5 BarrCalc CNEL Browning Mitchell Exhibit 2 Traffic Analysis i i i i i ~: e i 0 i Draft ~ ~ - BRQWN~N~ 8i M~~cHEEL, ~Q`'~l'~T HQIWIE PRQJEcT Traffic Analysis June 2007 . ~ ~~~AUST/N-/~Ol/ST ASSOC/ATES /NC, ~. Draft CITY OF TUSTIN ~.~ BROWNING & MITCHELL TOWN HOME PROJECT Traffic Analysis 1`? .: t Prepared by: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 2223 East Wellington Avenue Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 (714) 667-0496 ~.. I ! June 14, 2007 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ .. 1 PERFORMANCE CRTI'ERIA .................................................................................................................. .. 4 PROJECT DESCRIP'I'ION ....................................................................................................................... .. 4 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDI'I'IONS .......:.............................................................................................. .. 8 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. .. 8 PROJECT ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION ..................................................................... 19 SCHOOL IlVIPACTS ................................................................................................................................. 21 CMP ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 23 PARI~ING ......................................................................................................................................... ... 24 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 24 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 25 APPENDICES A: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets B : Delay Calculation Worksheets LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2 2 Proposed Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... . 3 3 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes - 2006 ..................................................................................... . 9 ~ 4 Project Distribution .................................................................................................. ............... 11 5 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes -Project-Generated ............................................................... 12 b Peak Hour Intersection Volumes -- 2008 No Project .................................................................. 14 ~ 7 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes - 2008 With Project ............................................................... 15 ..3 8 O PIO~ect ................. Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 2025 N ~ 17 9 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes - 2025 With Project ............................................................... 18 LIST OF TABLES ` ~ Page 1 ....... Level of Service Descriptions -Signalized Intersections ............................ .......................... 5 2 City of Tustin Performance Criteria .................................................................... .......................... 6 3 4 Land Use and Trip Generation Summary -Proposed Project ............................ Level of Service (LOS) Summary -Existing ..................................................... .......................... 7 ........................ 10 5 Level of Service (LOS) SumIIiary - 2008 No Project and With Project ............ ........................ lb 6 Level of Service (LOS) Summary - 2025 No Project and With Project .................................... 20 7 Traffic Delay and Queuing Survey Results - W.R. Nelson Elementary School ::::::::::...::::::::::: 22 24 ~, 8 Parking Code Criteria ...................................................... ... BROWNING & MITCHELL TOWN HOME PROJECT Traffic Analysis This report presents the results of a traffic analysis performed for the proposed construction of 77 residential town homes in the City of Tustin. It has been prepared for submittal to the City in support of the project application and proposed zoning amendment (to allow two and three-story town home products). The report contains documentation of the methodology and assumptions used in the analysis, and presents the results and findings of the traffic impacts of the proposed project. INTRODUCTION The proposed project is located on a 4.1-acre site in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue in the City of Tustin. The project location is illustrated in Figure 1 and the proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. The site is currently occupied by the Rancho Sierra Apartment complex, which contains 60 residential units. The proposed project consists of redevelopment of the site with 77 residential town homes. Access to the project will be via a driveway on Browning Avenue around 500 feet south of Mitchell Avenue. ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The study area consists of the intersections of Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue, and Browning Avenue at Sandfield Place. Intersections beyond these locations would not meet the one percent impact criteria used by the City for traffic studies such as this. Existing (2006} peak hour intersection turn movement volumes are first presented. The project is then analyzed under two time frames, a short-range representing project buildout and a ion -ran e representing City General Plan buildout. The short-range time frame used in this analysis represents the amount of growth that is projected to occur by the time the proposed project is built out in the next two years, and is referxed to as year 2008. Year 2008 .No Project volumes were formulated using the 2006 traffic volumes as a base, and applying a one percent annual growth factor for two years (two percent total}. Project-generated traffic was then added to the 2008 No Project volumes, resulting in the 2008 With Project traffic volumes. Browning 8t Mitchcll Towne Home Project 1 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 2067001rpt.doc i I t i' ~( 1 ., i 1 fL0 ~.. i 1 '~^~ ~~ s ti3 ~,~ ~y \ ~o Q N W 2 y4 ~~ ,g1 BRYAN ~~ REAL ~O G EL I-3 MITCHELL a Project ~ ~ Location sAN~FxL.o .f~`~ WALNUT s ~ srcAUalE e ch'ons Inte . EDINCEit ~~~ VALENQA MOFFE'TT ~! Z Figure 1 PRO~GT LC}CATION Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project ~ 2 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001-5gl.dwg _~x Lar LOT r..a+. w+oF�r wrutrr .�►�+r-- � �wr rr�,r .a�a. ■s-1 co• W9430 .r.er,. ,rk r sawIMMWrwr-----�� Source: Hunsaker & Associates as -004. MAK10 Lar Ina" da a�rw•a -�-�—L--------------------------- ------------- 4wa" aw+wr• aa.rra .�ew►ar ,�,�,,r� .ar r►ar Figure 2 PROPOSED S= PLAN Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001-fig2.dwg 9 4 t 1 s ~ Buildout (2025) volumes without the proposed project were derived from 2025 Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (TTAM) ADT forecasts and assume the southward extension of Tustin ~ Ranch Road to Barranca Parkway southeast of the project (see Reference 1). Project-generated traffic. volumes were then added to these volumes to give the 2025 With Project volumes. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA d The traffic analysis utilizes a set of performance criteria for evaluating intersection capacity to ~ determine potential project impacts. Traffic level of service (LOS) is designated "A" through "F" with ~..~ LOS "A" representing free flow conditions and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. Table 1 summarizes the general LOS descriptions. The intersection capacity analysis examines AM and PM peak hour volumes and intersection t ,L capacity utilization (ICU) values at the intersection of Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Since this intersection is currently signalized, ICU methodology is used. The methodology used at the intersection w' Hi hwa Ca acit Manual (HCM) of Browning Avenue and Sandfield Place is consistent nth g y p y procedures for unsignalized intersections. The performance criteria for each is summarized in Table 2. . T stin has determined that Level of Service "D" is the minimum acceptable level of service The City of u for peak hour operation. ~~i PROJECT DESCRIPTION t~ The proposed project is located on a 4.1-acre site in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue in the City of Tustin. The site is currently occupied by the Rancho Sierra Apartment complex, which contains b0 residential units. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of the site with 77 residential town homes, resulting in a net increase of 17 residential units. Table 3 summarizes the existing and proposed land uses and the corresponding tnp generation ~ estimates. As shown, redevelopment of the project site results in a net increase of 334 average daily trips r l (ADT), with 27 of these occurring in the AM peak hour and 40 occurring in the PM peak hour. This increase has been used for the impact analysis results presented here. Browning.& Mitchell Town Home Project 4 Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc Table 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS -SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS DESCRIPTION DELAY PER VOLUME-TO- VEHICLE CAPACITY (secs RATIO A LOS "A" describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per < 10 0 - .60 vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. B LOS "B" describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 10 - 20 .61- .70 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS "A", causing higher levels of delay. C LOS "C" describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 20-35 .71 - .80 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both, Individual cycle failures may begin to appeaz at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D LOS "D" describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 35-55 .81 - .90 55 seconds per vehicle. At LOS "D", the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures aze noticeable. E LOS "E" describes operations with control delay greater than SS and up to 55-80 .91- 1.00 80 seconds per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures aze frequent. F LOS "F' describes operations with • control delay in excess of 80 seconds > 80 > 1.00 per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable io most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Reseazch Board, National Reseazch Council Browning d~ Mitchell Towa Home Project 5 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc Table 2 CITY OF TUSTIN PERFORMANCE CRITERIA V/C Calculation Methodology (Signalized Intersections) Level of service to be based on peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values calculated using the following assumptions: Saturation Flow Rate: 1,700 vehicles/hour/lane Delay Calculation Methodology (Unsignalized Intersections) Level of service to based on peak hour intersection delay (seconds per vehicle) based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Ideal Saturation Flow Rate: 1,900 vehicles/hour/lane Performance Standard Level of Service "D" Signalized Intersection Peak hour ICU less than or equal to .90. Unsignalized Intersection Peak hour delay less than or equal to 35 seconds. Project Impact Signalized Intersection -Project causes an increase in ICU of greater than .01, when the "With Project" ICU is more than .90 (LOS "E" or "F"}. Unsignalized Intersection -Project causes an increase in delay of greater than 2 seconds, when the "With Project" delay is more than 35 seconds (LOS "E" or "F"). Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 6 Austin-roust Associates, inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc i, t f? Table 3 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY - Proposed Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT Tri Generation Town Home Project) 77 DU 15 43 58 49 28 77 737 A artment (Existin Use) 60 DU 6 25 31 24 13 37 403 Increase 17 DU 9 18 27 25 15 40 334 Tri Rates Town Home DU .1? .SO .67 .45 .33 .78 7.89 A artmen DU .10 .41 .51 .40 .22 .62 6.72 Sin a-Fami1 Detached DU .19 .56 .75 .64 .37 1.01 9.57 SITE Land Use Category 231. (Criven as a reference only. The Single-Family Detached trip rate was used to calculate the project trip generation. ZITE Land Use Category 220 3Town Home ADT rate was interpolated between the ITE Single-Family Detached (land use category 210) and Apartment (land use category 220) ADT rates. 4ITE Land Use Category 230 SBecause of the size of the town home product type, the project trip generation was calculated using the higher Single-Family Detached trip rates to assume aworst-case scenario. Browning dt Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc i t. ' EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 1 The existing arterial highway system in the vicinity of the project consists of Browning Avenue, Mitchell Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Browning Avenue is a two-lane secondary roadway in the project vicinity and carries approximately 4,500 vehicles per day. Walnut Avenue is a four-lane secondary arterial located south of the project and currently carries approximately 19,500 vehicles per day. Existing (2006) peak hour volumes are illustrated in Figure 3, and the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values and delay (for the highest stopped leg) for these volumes are summarized in Table 4. ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix A and Delay calculation worksheets can be found in Appendix B. The target LOS for intersections is LOS "D". According to this criteria, the study area intersections are well below the target LOS for existing conditions. Traffic volumes at the school driveway are not being analyzed as part of this analysis but are included in the graphics to give the reader a complete understanding of the intersection volumes north and south of the school entrance that are part of the analysis. For purposes of this analysis, traffic volumes at ~. the school were estimated based on an elementary school of about 300 students using TI'E tnp generation rates. (A discussion on "School Impacts" is provided later in this document.) ((ll PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS Ir'~ Distribution of project-generated traffic was based on prevailing traffic patterns at the study area intersections and is illustrated in Fi ure 4. The project-generated traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure g .., 5 and are representative of the "net increase" of 17 units on the project site as discussed earlier. However, the "total" project-generated volumes are given at the project driveway to calculate capacity. Short-Range (2008) Project Impacts The short-range time frame used in this analysis represents the amount of growth that is projected to occur at the time this project is built out in the next two years, and is referred to as year 2008. Year 2008 No Project volumes were formulated using the 2006 traffic volumes as a base, and applying a one Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 8 Austin-Foust Associates Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc ~. e i 1 1 MITCHELL AVE ; " f ~ ' / .' ~' / ~' ' ~ ,• ~' ' ' z !, / ~ / / /, ~ ,. % / o i i' i ~ i ' ' ~O / ~ ~'fi ,~ 22 SANOFIELD PL ~~ .M d ~ N K'1 ~ ~~ i28 .t-29 SCHOOL ENTRY ~~ M - M O N N ~ i 228 - f- 787 WALNUT AVE 148._?' 7oa -.~ AM MITCHELL AvE ~ ~ ' f % . . ~`' ' ~ ~ c~ z i ' / i O i !i ~ i'~ / ~ ~ m i / ~ ~ ~.N . ~~ ~ '~. ~ ~. r 14 SANOFIELO PL N ~O M ~ ~- t-0 .c- o r ~ SCHOOL ENTRY ~o N t~ n ~n n - r ~ 4 t.183 •- 937 WALNUT AVE 65 1 662 -~ PM Legend (~'~~ Project Location Figure 3 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLiJMFS - 2006 ~ Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 9 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc, Traffic Analysis 1067001-fig3.dwg i. k it^~ L 1 r Table 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY - Existing AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Brownin Ave. & 'Walnut Ave. .53 A .48 A AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Dela LOS Dela LOS 2. Browning Ave. & Sandfield 19.2 ~ C 12.3 B PlacelPro'ect Drivewa Note: 'Seconds per vehicle average. Abbreviations: ICU -intersection capacity utilization LOS -level of service Level of service ranges (ICUs}: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .S1 - .90 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F Level of service ranges (Delay): <10 A 10--15 B 15 - 25 C 25-35 D 35 - 50 E > 50 F Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 10 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc Iji U ~ -,' f; MITCHELL AVE ~ ~ % ~ , '~ ' ~' ~ ~ :' ,' ,' , ,' , ~ z / ~ ~o ; ~ ~ ~ I ! ' m , ,' • ,~ : ' ~~ , 57. ~' 957:7. ~ SANDFIELD PL et u~ rn rn SCHOOL ENTRY K of ~H ~N ~- L 649. WALNUT AVE 357. S AM MITCHELL AVE ~ ~ : /' ' ~- // ~ t . . _Z f i i % / ~ O m / f ~ / j • 5y ~' ~ SANDFIELD Pl: 957.7. ~ o- K rn • ~ SCHOOL ENTRY • K to K K o~ O~ cv n WALNUT AVE 209.1 PM Legend ~; ~ ; Project Location Figure 4 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 11 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-6g4.dwg i { t it MITCHELL AVE ,~ ,% ; ' ! ~ , :' / l ' v z_ ~ I /jam / ! a m / / I I . ~ / . ~ % l /~ / / / 2) ~' (41} Z ~ SANDFIELD PL .. v ~_ SCHOOL ENTRY ao ao rn 4 '!_ 5 WALNUT AVE 3 -S AM MITCHELL AVE ~ /~ ~' / ~ ~ i i / i / i ~ i C7 z ~ ' f ~ ' f i ; /f~ ,~ (2 )Z ~ SANDFIELD PL t v r SCHOOL ENTRY N ~ ~_ t 19 WALNUT AVE 5 -~' PM Legend ~, l; , Project Location 19 Net Project Increase (19) Total Project Volume Figure S PEAK HOUR ~]'IBRSECTION VOLUNiE.S - Project-Generated Browning 8+c Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 12 Austin-Foust Associates, Ina 1067001-figS.dwg percent annual growth factor for two years (two percent total). The 2008 No Project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 6 and include the existing use on the site (60 apartment units). i Project-generated volumes, representative of the net increase of 17 units on the project site, were 1 then added to the 2008 No Project traffic volumes resulting in the 2008 With Project volumes. These are illustrated in Figure 7. Table 5 summarizes the corresponding peak hour ICU values at the intersection of Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue. As shown, the intersection operates at an acceptable level of 1 service under both scenarios. ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix A and Delay calculation ~ worksheets can be found in Appendix B. Buildout (2025} Project impacts Peak hour buildout (2025) volumes without the proposed project were derived from 2025 Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) ADT forecasts and assume the southward extension of Tustin Ranch Road to Barranca Parkway southeast of the project. Growth factors, derived from base year (2000) and 2025 ITAM forecasts at the three mid-block approaches to the study area intersection, were applied to the 2006 volumes used in this analysis to represent a 2025 time frame. The ADT volumes show no increase on Browning Avenue, and an increase from 26,240 to 27,000 between 2006 and 2025 (three percent) on Walnut Avenue. The 2025 No Project volumes are illustrated in Figure 8 and include the existing use on the site (60 apartment units). Project generated volumes, representative of the net increase of 17 units on the project site, were then added to the 2025 No Project traffic volumes resulting in the 2025 With Project volumes. These are illustrated in Figure 9. Buildout of the proposed project has been assumed in both the 2008 and 2025 analysis. As such, 2008 and 2025 project-generated traffic volumes entering/existing the site are the same. Likewise, no future development is anticipated in the existing Sandfield Place residential neighborhood and volumes entering/exiting the neighborhood are also the same in both time frames. Browning 8t Mitchell Town Home Project 13 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc i Lit A (~ 1 r MITCHELL AVE ~~ ~ ' '~ ' ' ' " ~ ~ < ,. , ; . ,.; / I ~ i ill i /~ / ~ m /~ i / ~iJ Q ~ ~ lT /~i / i / ~~ i1 / r 22 SANDFIELO PL rn a~ ~ d d M j ~ i 28 .~- 29 SCHOOL ENTRY ~~ M ~~ ~~ j i 233 Y f-- 803 WALNUT AVE 151 -~' 714 --- AM MITCHELL AVE ~/ ' % . ~ ~ z / / ~~ o m '~ f of /N % / t., ,- j-14 SANOFlELD PL N N N ~ O N ~~- t 0 ra SCHOOL ENTRY ~o N ~~ . r ~- i 187 x=956 WALNUT AVE 66 ~---?' 675 --r PM Legend r',-',= . ~1 Project Location Figure 6 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLi7MFS - 2008 No Project Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 14 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-Sg6.dwg I ~J t~~ ;, 1 i~ 1 MITCHELL AVE j / ~ '~ ,~ ' ' w ~ , . ! ' ~ z / ~ ~ ; m ' ' n+'O ~ ; ' .~, L 1 / ~/ ~ 0 ~' ~ ~~ ,~ 22 0 {~ ~ ~ SANDFIELD PL ~ 41 "~ ~ M ao ~ cD M ~M ~ ~~ t- 28 .~-29 • ~ SCHOOL ENTRY ~ r~%i n ~~ N N Iff Y Y L 23B ~- 803 WALNUT AVE 154 ~ 714 -~ AM MITCHELL AVE / % % ' , / / / ~ t ~ ,~ ' / z ~ ~ o ' m ; i N r. ~ ~ i N ! O j .x-14 ~ ~ ~ SANDFIELD PL 0 -~- 27 Z ~o `~ c ~r N ~o N ~ ~- ~- O .~-o SCHOOL ENTRY no N .- N t0 ~ II Y '~-- 206 f- 956 WALNUT AVE 71 S 675 -- PM Lcgcnd '~ Project Location Figure 7 PEAR HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES • 2008 With Project Browning & 1ltitchcll Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 15 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 106001-fig7.dwg i. ~: 1 1 Table 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SZJMMARY - 2008 No Project and With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Brownin Ave. & Walnut Ave. No Project .53 A .50 A With Fro'ect .55 A .50 A Increase Due to Project .02 -- .00 -- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Dela LOS Dela LOS 2. Brownin Ave. & Sandfield P1aceJPro'ect Drivewa No Project 19.7 C 12.4 B With Project 22.3 C 14.1 B Increase Due to Project 2.6 -- 1.7 -- Note: Seconds per vehicle average. Abbreviations: ICU -intersection capacity utilization LOS -level of service Level of service ranges (ICUs): .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F Level of service ranges (Delay): <l0A 10 -15 B 15 - 25 C 25 - 35 D 35 - 50 E > 50 F Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 16 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc i. Ij~. L P 1 !~, 1 MITCHELL AVE ~' ,' ~ ~ ~ ,. . - - - ~< ,, , ~ ~ - ~,-, .-~ : - Z ~ ,, o , ,- , ;- , - ~ m , , ;~ . ~o - ~. ; .~,. , . , it A SANDfIELD PL l rn ao r~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~- i 28 r2s t r~ SCHOOL ENTRY ` ~ ~ r7 ~~ N N I i 233 `- f-- 811 WALNUT AVE 151 ~' 721 --~ AM MITCHELL AVE f j ' i i i < ~ / ~ ~~ i J ~ Z i i !! ~ i i i ~ ~ i i O m i ~ // i i / ~~ %~~ i1 ~1 SANDFIELD PL N N ~ O N} N ~ i0 ~ - r~ SCHOOL ENTRY ~o N ~~ I ^ ~ 'x.187 r - ~-- 965 WALNUT AVE 66 1 682 --- PM Legend ~,~%;~~ Project Location Figure 8 PEAK HOUR iN'TERSECTTON VOLUMES - 2025 No Project Browning & Mitchell Town Hame Project Traffic Analysis 17 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-fig8.dwg 1 E. MITCHELL AVE ,~ ~ ' ' / ,~ , ,~ f ~/ c~ z_ ~ ' / / ~ / ~~ ,~ ~, m :' ' ~ r- coo ,~ ~% , ~ ; ~ i ~~~ ,~ L 1 f 0 r 22 O ~ ~ ~ ~ SANDFIELD PL - - 41 Z ~~ao • ~ ~ m~ ~ j~ L 28 .r29 SCHOOL ENTRY ~ M M ~ N N N ~ '~- 238 - f 811 wALNUT AVE 154 --~" 721 -- AM MITCHELL AVE , / ~ j f l ' ~ / / ~ ~ z J~ ~, ~ ~ ~ f m • ~ i N .- f~- ~ / N ~L 1 .~ 14 O i {~ t ~ SANDFlELD PL 27 -~. SON N r'7 O t1') N ~~r ''~- 0 ro SCHOOL ENTRY h O N ~ N ~D 01 I^ r ~- L206 f- 965 WALNUT AVE 71 1' 682 -- PM Legend - ,! - . Project Location Figure 9 PEAK HOUR IN'IZ~RSECTION VOLUMES - 2025 With Project Browning & Mitchell Towa Home Project Traffic Analysis 18 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-6g9.dwg i l Because the TTAM ADT volumes used to derive the future peak hour intersection volumes for this analysis showed no increase (see discussion above) and because of the built-out nature of the adjacent land uses, no increase is assumed for the through volumes on Browning Avenue. The through volumes + on Walnut Avenue, however, were increased three percent based on the TTAM ADT volume increase f between 2000 and 2025 at this location. Table 6 summarizes the peak hour ICU values for the 2025 No Project and With Froject conditions and shows that the intersection of Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue operates at an acceptable level of service under both scenarios. ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix A and Delay " calculation worksheets can be found in Appendix B. PROJECT ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION The existing apartment complex on the proposed protect site has vehicular access to both Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue: Sole access to the proposed project will be taken via a driveway on Brownin Avenue located around 5 g 00 feet south of Mitchell Avenue opposite Sandfield Place. The total project-generated volumes at this intersection were given previously in Figure 9. Since this intersection does not meet a signal warrant with the inclusion of ro'ect- enerated traffic the drivewa will o rate as P J g ~ Y Pe an unsignalized full movement access point. With an ADT volume of 4,500 and most project driveway movements being right turns, no significant delays to existing traffic on Browning Avenue or Sandfield Place are anticipated. Currently, Browning Avenue is striped as a two-lane roadway with left turn lanes in the center median. Upon completion of the project with its new entrance driveway oriented directly opposite Sandfield Place, the existing double-double yellow median should be converted to a. left turn lane to ., accommodate Left turns into the project. Virtually all project traffic (about 95 percent) is expected to utilize the segment of Browning Avenue southerly of the site to Walnut Avenue. This will result in a j northbound left turn volume entering the main driveway of 14 vehicles per hour (vph) in the AM peak ( hour and 47 vph in the PM peak hour. Conversion of the existing double-double yellow median south of Sandfield Place to a left turn lane will effectively provide a 200-foot long left turn storage lane on Browning Avenue at the project entrance which will be more than adequate to accommodate a maximum I peak arrival of 47 vph northbound on Browning Avenue. The AM and PM peak hour volumes for the entire protect are approxunately 70 vph, or Just a little over one vehicle per minute. With such limited Browning dt Mitcholl Town Home Project 19 Austin-Foust Associaccs, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc ~, 1 W i. Table 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUNIMARY - 2025 No Project and With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Brownin Ave. ~ Walnut Ave. No Project .54 A .50 A With Project .55 A .50 A Increase Due to Project ~ .O1 -- .00 -- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Dela LOS Dela LOS 2. Brownin Ave. &. Sandfield Place/Pro'ect Drivewa No Fro'ect 19.7 C 12.4 B With Pro'cct 22.3 C 14.1 B Increase Due to Project 2.6 -- 1.7 -- Note: 'Seconds per vehicle average. Abbreviations: ICU -intersection capacity utilization LOS -level of service Level of service ranges (ICUs): .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F Level of service ranges {Delay): <10 A 10 -15 B 15 - 25 C 25 - 35 D 35 - 50 E > 50 F Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 'I~affic Analysis 20 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc 1 traffic there is not expected to be any delay associated with entering ox exiting the site during any time of the day. The internal circulation system for the project is basically a "T" shaped pattern with a single t entrance off the stem of the "T". In effect, the circulation plan is essentially a main cul-de-sac street with shorter cul-de-sacs along the main spline. The main street is 3b feet wide with 25-foot wide "alley" type ~ driveways each serving about four or five residential units. Parking is permitted on the main 36-foot wide l spline, but no parking is permitted on the 25-foot alley driveways. With a total peak hour two-way volume of less than 70 vph at the entrance and progressively less as one proceeds into the development, ao traffic safety, circulation or delay issues are anticipated. The internal traffic situation ~,vill be calm with virtually no opportunity for excessive speeds or congestion as long as cars are not parked on the 25- foot wide alleys. SCHOOL IMPACTS An existing public elementary school is located nearby the proposed project in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The main entrance to the school is ~. , located on Browning Avenue and serves pedestrians, and those amving by car or bicycle. The school s morning drop-off time for students coincides with the AM peak hour on the adjacent circulation system Dunng that time, an additional eight project vehicles will be traveling northbound on Browning Avenue, and an additional 17 project vehicles will be traveling southbound on Browning Avenue. These project- enerated volumes are not ex ected to create an si 'ficant increas to tr is con t e c o g p y gni a aff gestion a th s h of entrance and the public safety requirements related to schools already enforced at this location will apply *.o the project traffic as well. No impacts are anticipated in the PM peak hour. During the construction phase, a Construction Management Plan should be implemented that would address safety issues. This would give the City the ability to regulate construction traffic by limiting (or prohibiting) access to the project site during the time frames when children are arriving at and departing the school. A traffic delay and queuing survey was conducted in May 2007 to document the operational ' characteristics of traffic on Browning Avenue in the project vicinity during the school's morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times. The results are summarized in Table 7. i Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 21 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001 t.doc Table 7 TRAFFIC DELAY AND QUEUING SURVEY RESULTS - W.R. NELSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES ON BROWNING AVENUE Mornin Observation Results Afternoon Observation Results Variable School starts: 8:00 AM School dismissal: 2:14 PM Total Peak Total Peak Surve Time 7:30 am - 8:20 am 7:40 am- 8:00 am 1:30 m - 3:00 m 2:00 m- 2:30 m Surve Duration 50 minutes 20 minutes 90 minutes 30 minutes Min. stacked vehicles 0 7 0 0 Max. stacked vehicles 24 24 14 14 Av .stacked vehicles 7 1 b 4 10 WESTBOUND VEHICLES EXITING SANDFIELD PLACE Mornin Observation Results Afternoon Observation Results Variable School start s: 8:00 AM School dismis sal: 2:14 PM Total Peak Total Peak Surve Time 7:30 am - 8:20 am 7:40 am- 8:00 am 1:30 m - 3:00 m 2:00 m 2:30 m Surv~+ Duration SO minutes 20 minutes 90 minutes 30 minutes Vehicles Exitin Sandfield Place 44 23 53 29 Maximum Dela 40 seconds 40 seconds 40 seconds 40 seconds Maximum Dela Occurrence 3 times 3 times 3 times 3 iimes Avera a Dela 11 seconds 15 seconds 9 seconds 8 seconds Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 22 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc The distance between the Browning Avenue crosswallc north of the school's exit-only driveway to the centerline of Sandfield Place is approximately 250 feet. The total number of vehicles traveling ~~ southbound on Browning Avenue and "stacking" from the crosswalk to beyond Sandfield Place (interfering with that neighborhood's ability to exit) were counted in five minute increments during the school's peak periods. The number of veiucles exiting Sandfield Place, and the delay in seconds, was also observed. As indicated, the worst-case maximum number of vehicles stacked on southbound Browning ii~ beginning at the crosswalk is 24 in the morning, with an average of about 16 vehicles during the school's 1... peak traffic period (7:40 AM - 8:00 AM). However, it should be recognized that this traffic "queue" was, in reality, a "rolling" or "creeping" queue whereby most simply slowed to a crawl speed and proceeded to ;~ creep past the school. Motorists existing the side streets were able to enter this rolling queue or turn across it with little delay encountered. During the same peak traffic period for the school, 23 vehicles exited the Sandfield Place neighborhood. The maximum delay experienced by any driver was 40 seconds due to the southbound traffic queue on Browning Avenue and this only occurred three times. The average delay for motorists exiting Sandfield Place was 15 seconds. As stated earlier, the proposed project will add 17 southbound vehicles to Browning Avenue in the AM peak .hour. Because the PM peak hour of residential uses occur much later than the afternoon dismissal time for a school onl y mvaimal project tnps will affect the afternoon school-related congestion. It can be anticipated that approximately half of the 17 project-generated trips (nine) would occur prior to the school-related congestion which begins at approximately 7:40 AM and half (nine) would occur durin g the school-related congestion. It can be concluded that he addition of nine project-generated vehicles to the southbound traffic queues will not produce any measurable increase in delay to vehicles exiting Sandfield Place. CMP ANALYSES State legislation creating the Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires that Iocal governments analyze the impacts of their land use decisions on the regional transportation system The Orange County CMP requires that land use projects analyze their traffic impacts to any intersection identified on the CMP Highway System. Projects with the potential to create an impact of more than three percent of LOS "E" capacity on CMP .Highway System links, or generate .2,400 or more daily trips Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 23 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc I are re aired to prepare a CMP analysis. If a project has direct access to a CMP link, the threshold is q t reduced to 1,600 or more daily trips. The proposed project does not meet these requirements, there are no CMP intersections in the project study area and therefore no CMP analysis is required. y PARKING The City of Tustin has established parking space requirements to ensure that new developments provide adequate parking for their use. They vary by land use type and number of units, and the criteria is summarized in Table $. e 1 Table 8 PARKING CODE C'F;TI'ERIA T e Cit Re uirement Pro'ect Re uirement Resident S ace 2 s aces r unit 154 Visitor S ace i s ace r 4 units 20 Total 174 As shown, based on the proposed project's occupancy of 77 units, a total of 174 parking spaces are required under the City's parking code. The proposed project will provide 154 parking garages and 26 open parking spaces (total of 180 spaces) to fulfill these requirements. Also, I1 on-street parking spaces are provided on Mitchell Avenue (but do not count towards meeting the on-site parking requirements). No on-street parking will be allowed on Browning Avenue along the protect frontage. This entire section should be red-curbed to comply with the City of Tustin's sight distance standards. CONCLUSIONS The study area intersection, Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue, has adequate capacity to accommodate the ro osed ro'ect land use under short-term (2008) and buildout (2025) conditions, and P P P J the proposed project does not create a significant impact at this location under the City of Tustin's performance criteria. To fulfill the City's parking code requirements, the proposed project will also provide 154 parking garages and 26 open parking spaces. i Browning d~ Mitchell Town Home Project 24 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc r ~ The project will be responsible for implementing roadway improvements on Browning Avenue that will provide increased visibility and accessibility at the new four-way intersection with Sandfield Place (project driveway). These consist of striping changes and additions that will provide both a southbound right turn lane and a northbound left turn lane into the project. r Currently, Browning Avenue is striped as a two-lane roadway with Left turn lanes in the center median. The project will convert the existing double-double yellow median to a left turn lane to accommodate left turns into the project. Conversion of the existing double-double yellow median south ot~ Sandfield Place to a left turn lane will effectively provide a 200-foot long left turn storage lane on .. Browning Avenue at the project entrance which will be more than adequate to accommodate a maximum peak arrival of 47 vph northbound on Browning Avenue. The project will also provide a southbound right turn lane on Browning Avenue into the project ' driveway. Approximately 100-110 feet of on-street parking will be eliminated to accommodate this improvement. REFERENCES 1. "City of Irvine Planning Areas 30 and 51, Heritage Fields GPA/Zone Change, Traffic Study", September 2006. 2. "2005, Orange County, Congestion Management Program," OCTA, November 2005. 3. "Highway Capacity Manual 2000," Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2000. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 25 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 106700Irpt.doc Appendix A Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICi~ Worksheets i ' This appendix summarizes information pertaining to the intersection analysis presented in this traffic report. ~ ICU Calculation Methodology ~r . The ICU calculation procedure is based on a cntical movement methodology that shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical movement at an intersection. A capacity of 1,700 vehicles per "de-facto" ri t-turn lane is used in the hour per lane is assumed together with a .OS clearance interval. A gh ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and right- turn traffic icall with a width of 19 feet or more from curb to outside of through-lane with parking (tYP Y 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-turn lanes. The methodology also incorporates a check for right-turn capacity utilization. Both right-turn-on- green (RTOG} and right-turn-on-red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the total right-turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made. Example for Northbound Right 1. Ri~,ht-Turn-On-Green SRTOG If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG = V/C (NBT) Otherwise, RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL) 2. Rig~it-Turn-On-Red RTOR) If WBL is critical move then: RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT) Browning dt Mitchell Towe Home Project Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis A-1 1067001rpt.doc 3. Right-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} r RTOR = RTOR - V/C {WBL) I 4. Total Right-Turn Capacity,~RTC) Availability For NBR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (0% for County intersections, j 75% for intersections in all other jurisdictions within the study area) l ~~~ 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 capacity utilization value. When it is determined that a right-turn adjustment is required for more than one nght-turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual~right-turn ' movement reference, and the right-turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right-turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right-turn adjustment credit should be applied. Shsred Lane V/C Methodology For intersection approaches where shared usa a of a lane is ermitted b more than one turn g P Y movement (e.g., lef~Jthrough, through/right, left!through/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated A to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: Example for Shared Left/Through Land 1. Average Lane Volume (ALV~ ~~ ALV = ~ Left-Turn Volume + Through Volume Total Lc + ou Approac anes me u mg s are ane) Browning dt Mitchell Town Home Project Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis A-2 1067001rpt.doc r 2. ALV for Each Approach ALV (Left) _ Left-Turn Volume Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV (Through) = Throu h 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 follows: n V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane} V/C (Through} = Through Volume Through Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) Similarly, if ALV (Through) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the through approach is warranted, and left-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) = Through Volume , Through Approach Capacity {including shared lane) 4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted If ALV (Left) and ALV (Through) are both less than ALV, the left/through lane is assumed to be truly shared and each left, left/through or through approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left/through V/C ratio is calculated as follows: V/C (LefIJ'I'hrough) = Left-Turn Volume + Through Volume Total Left + Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane). This V/C (LeffiJ1'hrough) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Through) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU summary listing. If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Through) that is attributed to the left-turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left-turn (including shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = V/C (Through) Browning dt Mitchel! Town Home Project Traffic Analysis A-3 Austin-Foust Associates, inc. 1067001 rpt.doc If approach has only one left-turn lane (shared lane), then: V/C (Left} = Left-Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity If this left-turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. ~..i f ', 1 '~, These same steps are carried out for shared through/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared through/right lane to the right-turn movement is warranted, the right-turn V/C value calculated in step three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity. When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., lef~lthrough 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 carved out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved m the other shared lane. Browning 8t Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis A-4 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001 rpt.doc 1. Brorming Ave i Walnut Ave Existinq Count (1006) • AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL l 1740 290 .19* 177 .10* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1700 243 .I4 57 .OS EBL 1 1700 198 .09* 65 .OS* E8T 2 3900 700 .21 662 .19 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3900 787 .30* 937 .33* WBR 0 0 228 183 2008 No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 295 .19* 181 .11* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1700 298 .15 58 .05 EBL 1 1100 151 .09* 66 .05* EBT 2 3900 714 .21 675 .20 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3900 803 .30* 956 .39* WBR 0 0 233 187 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .98 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .50 2008 With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 - 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 259 .15* 192 .11* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1700 256 .15 61 .OS EBL 1 1700 159 .09* 71 .OS* EBT 2 3900 719 .21 675 .20 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3900 803 .31* 956 .34* WBR 0 0 238 206 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .50 2015 No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 295 .19* 181 .11* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1100 296 .15 58 .05 EBL 1 1700 151 .09* 66 .05* EBT 2 3400 721 .21 682 .24 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 4 0 0 0 wBT 2 3900 811 .31* 965 .39* WBR 0 0 233 187 TOTl1L CAPACITY UTILIZATION .5~ .50 A-S 1. Broxning Ave ~ Walnut Ave 2025 With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 D 0 SBL 1 1700 259 .15* 192 .11* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1700 256 .15 61 .OS EBL 1 1100 159 .09* 71 .05* EBT 2 3900 721 .21 682 .20 EBR 0 0 D 0 WBL 0 0~ 0 0 WBT 2 3900 811 .31* 465 .34* WBR 0 0 238 206 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .50 A-6 i 1 1 i. s Appendix B Delay Calculation Worksheets Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis B-1 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 10600 lrpt.doc 2006 - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning .~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~-~ t ~ `- 1 ~ i. 1 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT W8R NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ '~ Sign Control. Stop Stop., Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh}~ 0 0 0 22: 0 1 - 0 361.. 8 0 46.6... 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 23 0 1 0 380 8 0' 491 ` 0 Pedestrians Lama 1Nldth .(ft)- Walking Speed (ft/s) PerEent .Bla~kag~ - Right tum flare (veh) - Me:~iam.t~~e-~ ~ N~i~n~~. None -~ ~ - Median storage veh} U~pstr~~r~n si~9~?~`(~} - ~ ~ - .. pX, platoon unblocked vC, ~~fltc~~-:v©luc~~ 872 879, 491 875- :.. 875 -' 384- .: ~49~1~.- ~ ~. -388- vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2., stake 2 emrxf~~at~ - ~ - : .. .. ~. ~ ~ - ~ ~~ vCu, unblocked vol 872 879 491 875 875 384 491 388 tC, singles (s}:.. 7.1 ~'.5-` 6 2~" ~. 7.1; . 6~~,~:~ ~ ~. G 2 4.1:: ~1 ~~ tC, 2 stage (s) tF" ;: ~ . 3 ~;°.; . . - p0 queue free % 100 100 100 91 100 100 100 100 cM'capacity{kyeh~M:}~ ;~ 2,7~1~ ~ 286. ~ 57$~~ ; 270' ~F~B , fi~i3- : 1aZ~~ . _1'1.~~ ,, Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volun~e~Tota,l 0 2~- c0`~ 3$8 0. 491'°~ - Volume Left 0 23 - 0 0 0 0 Volume-Right. 0 1. ~ 0: ~ ~~ -0:: - ~: 0= . cSH 1700 277 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume. to Capacity 0.00 p:Og~ 0.:00 0:2~3~ 0.00 ~ 0:29 Queue length 95th (ft) D 7 0 0 0 0 Controt- Delay..(s;}; 0 .Q~ ~~~~:2 O.Q~ 0:0? ~ ~, 0:0 (3:0 - Lane LOS A C Approach ~E~eh~-y (s~,: 0.0: ~ 19~~~. ~, O~a=~- 4s0~ . - . Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection° Capacity tJti lizatian 34:5%:. . IGU Lev,eh of service: ~ ~ , Analysis Period (min) - 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project {1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [6614] H-2 2006 - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfieid & Brownin i. 1 1 ~~ l~' f' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ '~ _ ~ Sign Contro4 Stop:. Stop: f=ree ~.. ~ f=~ee:._ Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (yeh/f~~ 0 .0 .. 0 14 0 1 . - 0 _ 225: `.25~ - ~ ` 1 ~ -` 220:. 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourfy~ flov+E rate- (vph) 0 U 0 15 0 1- 0 2~5 2~; _1: 232 0 Pedestrians - Lane Width {ft). :.. - - .. Walking Speed {ft/s) - Percent Bt©~t~age : . Right tum flare (veh) Media'r~: typ'e`: None None- .: ~ ~ - : .~ Median storage veh) ._ - pX, platoon unblocked - vC;.conflicti~ng:.volums 4fi9 49~~ ~ 2~2'': 482 - 482:- . 248' 232;- ~ .~6~1..-" vC1, stage 1 conf vol .. vC2-, -s~a~e~2 coinf:-Vok ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ~ ~ .. .. - .:, . vCu, unblocked vol 469 495 232 482 482 248 232 261 tC, single (s)- 7.:1 6.v ' 6~.2 - .7.1 6:5 - 6.~ -41 4~1 tC, 2 stage (s) .. ~ tF (s-)': 3.5 -:4..0: 3~:3: ::35: . 4:0` - 3 3- ~ : - - ~2~ -.. ~ 28~.. - p0 queue free % 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 cf~t~c~apacity.~(weh~h:).. 5t?a.: -- ~~6;:: 80& -'49~ ' ~ 4$4 79`1`. ~- 13~36~ ; ; - : ~. ~ : 13x3• .. .- . Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Left 0 15 0 0 1 0 VoJunie~~Right- 0.. .. : a, .., 0: _ 2g .,0': ... 0.. . ~ . cSH 1700 507 1700 1700 1303 1700 - Volgkne to' Capacity. O:QO, ~ .: 00~ - ~ ~ f?OQ~ ' . -0::1 i - 0:00° ,0.:14 ~ . :. .. - Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 0 0 0 0 Co~t~olr. s ~ ~ a 0~ - 1#2 1 0~€i~ 4 0~'~ : - - ~~. _ .. ~ .. :. Lane LDS A B A Approach LDS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection. rapacity tJtiliz~tion 23:3% ~ fCIJ~ LeVei of SeNice= A~ Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [8614] B-3 2008 No-Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfreld & Browning Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ . ~ '~ ~ Sign Control. Stop Stop... Free Free- Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% i Volume (veh/h~) 0 0 0~ 22 0 1' 0 369 8` 0~ ~ ~ 47.5. 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly~:flow-rate. (vph) 0 0 0 23 0~ , 1 0' 388 8~ 0 501 0 Pedestrians Lane Widthi~.{ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent~Bl©ckage ~ ~ . Right turn flare (veh) ~ ~ Median type . None ~ None . Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked vC, ca~fltcbag=.vol4m®~ . 891 . , 89&.~.~<, ~ SQ1 .8.~~~ ~ .8.94: :393: 50~; 1 3g~ . vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 s,~ige~2~ao~f,vot~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :. '• vCu, unblocked vol 891 898 501 894 894 393 501 ~ 397 tC, single(s).. ~ 7. a: . ~.5 ~ ':fi.2.. ~ 7.1' 6:~. ~ 6:~~ : 4~1 ~~~ ~ . 4:1~ : , . tC, 2 stage (s) tF ~s}: 3,5~ . •4.~ . 3:3 =. ~ . ~3.5~: 4:0:: .. 3 ~. ~ 2:2~ . ' ' ~. 2.2` : . p0 queue free % 100 100 100 91 100 100 100 100 cM capedi~ (veh/h.) . ~ 263 .~ ~79~ : . ~5~7~ ~ . ~6~2. ~ 281. ~56~ _ .:1U63~ ~ , = 1"k62:; ~ :; :. Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Vol:uhne;:To~af., a 2?~ ,.. Q~ ~g~. 0~ 501' ~~ ~ ~ ~. Volume Left 0 23 0 0 0 ~0 V~old~ne F2i-g~it E} ~.. : ~. p . ~ 8' ~ . a ~ . :'0 : : ~ . cSH 1700 2fi9 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to: Capacity 0.00: 0:09' 0.0:0 0:23 ..0.00 0.29~~ Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 7 0 0 0 0 . Cor~tcol•~Detay.~(s) ~ 0:0 'F9~:7 0.0 .00 0~0~ 0.0 . Lane LOS A C Approach:~elay (s)~ 0:0 ~1~97. 0:0 f}:fl ~::. Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 IntersQction Capacity Uiilization~. 35:14/o ICtJ' Level'~of~~ervice ~ A Anal sis Period min Y ( ) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (10fi7.001) Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Traffic Analysis Synchro fi Report (B614j B-a 2008 No-Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfieid & Browning i. ~% ~~ 1 W 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ . ~ '~ ~ '~ Sig,n~ CdntfoF ~ Stop Stop. . Free ~ . . Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (weh/>~} 0 0` 0 ~ 14 0 1~~< 0 2~8. ~ ~ 25~:- ~ 1~.. 225: 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 15 0 ~ " 1. 0 ~ 240 26~ ~ ` .~ 1 . ~ 237 ~ ~ 0 Pedestrians . ., . ^, , . Walking Speed (ftls) . PerEent~~B~ckage• , .. :. ~ .. ~ , Righ# tum flare (veh) Medi'am~=~t~~~~ i~tone~ None , . ~ ... ~ .. - Median storage veh) Upst~ea~.-si ~ R. ~~ ~.. .. ~ .. ~ . . ~.. ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . - pX, platoon unblocked vC;. c3onfli~iirrg~vgl0rtie . 4~$~ . ~5a5- .: 237 .. 492. ~ ~ 49'2" ~ 25~~ ~ ~~ 237~.~ - ~ : ~ ~ ~: ~ : ~6fi.: - vC1,stage 1 conf vol ~ va7; ~atagq~~ ~~~~con~~ v~l ... ~ .. ~ ~ ... ~ : ~ . ~ .. vCu, unblocked vol 480 505 237 492 492 253 237 266 tC,. sirlgle.~~(s,~~: 7.1~ 6.5~` ~ 6.2: 7.1 ~ X6.5 ~ ; ~6 2- ~ . 4:'~ . . 4~:1 . tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s~)~ 3:5 4.Q~ . 3:3: ~ 3:5. 4:0 ~ 3 S : ~~.: 2;2``. : 2:2. p0 queue free % 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 cNt:capaGitar~(W~h'/l) 495 46.9' ; ~: 802° ,. ~ '487' ~ :47~. 78~ ~~~,0~' ~~ .1298":, Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Vadu~e Total ~ .:. 4. ~ .1:6. ~ 0 266:-, ..:.~ ;: . ~~7- .. ~ ~. ~ .; Volume Left 0 15. 0 0 1 0 Votur~i~..Right'• ..,~` .~'t; ~ ~0 ... ~~~ . ~ a`: : ~ ~. , , ,. ~ ~, cSH 1700 499 1700 1700 1298 1700 Volr~me~ fo~ Capacity 0:00 Q:0~~ O~Ofl".,. 0.1:6.. 0~.0~ ~ Q:'1,4t~: , ~ . Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 0 .. 0 0 0 .. Controt..Qelay~(s)~~ ..O:a . '12 ~: f3~.0 ~`~ ~ 0 0~: 7:~:~~ :. d,~~ ~ :. ;. : , ... Lane LOS A B A Approac,~t Qelay. (s) ~ . ~0:0 1:2:4 .. O:A~ ~ . 0~~. ~, .. ~ ~ ~. ' .: Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Ir~te~sectior~ :E~~gcit~~ Ut ilizatlor~ '23,5%~ . LCU :Leven Q#~ S'er~ic~i~~-, :A~~ Analysis Period (min} 15 Browning 8 Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 .Report [8614] s-s 2008 With-Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning t i, e 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~r ~ '~ '~ ~ '~ Sign ControF Stop SCnp 1=r-ee: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ree~ Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Vol~rne .(veh/.h} . 2 0 ~ 41 ~ ~ 22 0 . 1 14 3.63 8 ~~ 0 452 ' 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate .(vph) 2 .0 43 ~ 23 0 1 15 382 8: 0' 476 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft}~ ~ ` Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent ~tockage~ Right tum flare (veh) M~edia~ ~tyPg~< ~ None ~ ~ - None .. ~ _ ~ .~ Median storage veh} pX, platoon unblocked vC,~~coilfiP~trt~~~ velum®-. 889 89~," 476: 9~5-~ . : 893'. ~ ~ ~ 386 4~~7. ~ ~ ,39~ ~. ~ : ~- . ' vC 1, stage 1 conf vol . . vCu, unblocked vol 889 896 476 935 893 386 477 391 ~.g tG, sin "Le:~s~.. . 7.1 .~ - . 6:~' 6 ~~.:: .. ...7.:1: =6~.~ ~ ~ . 6;~~ _ 4.1 . .;: 4.1, _' Y ` tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s}. ~ .~ 3.5~ >4`..Q-" ,3:3. 3.~~,. . 4.0: ,.~t3~. ~ ~2~ .. 2,~, ~'.. p0 queue free % 99 100 93 90 100 100 99 100 cM capa~cty~ (ugh/h~)~ 2t}'~` ~ 2~6~.. .` 5$~' - 22.5 • 2~'7 :~ ~ "ta~1~: ~1m85 . . :~ ., ` ~? 1~6~T"~- . :. ~ , Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 S8 1 SB 2 Voluir~e Total 4~. 24 1~5: ~ ~ 39~'f ~ 0: ~ . 4• ~~7° ~ ~ ~ , . ~ ~. Volume Left 2 23 15 0 0 0 ... Voir~me Right . ~ 43~. ~ ~. 't 0-: ~ 8: 0,:.. ..,:. 1r : . , cSH 556 232 1085 1700 1700 1700 Volume to~Capacity Q~0~8. 0..10 ~ :OQa~ 0.23 O:QQ~ ~ 0:.28 . . •~ . Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 9 1 0 0 0 Cor~tr~t ~Delay:(s). 1 ~0 22:3 . 8:.4 0:0.. 00: 0~~~.. :. ~ ~ Lane LOS B C A . Appcoacl~ pe1.'ay (s) ~ 12:0: ~ '2`,3. Q:3 "Oa3 . `~ . . Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Inters~ction~C~"paeity lat'ilizaXiort ~ ~ 38:5% - lCU Leve~~of'Service~ - ~ . ,4:: Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning ~ Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro fi Report (8614] B-6 2008 With-Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning ii! l:y t! 1 V 0 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ 'fir ~ '~, Sigd,.Control Stop' S#op .:. ~r~~: , Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volgnae (veh/h) 1~ 0 ` ~27: 14 .: ~ ~ ; :. 1: - : 47.:., 2(l5 ~ . 2SY; ~-..: ~:::1 ,`.~:.~12. 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 .0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate. (vph) 1 0 28 . 1 ~ a 1.. 49`~ 21:6, : ~.: 2fi: .: ~, 2:23:.... 2 Pedestrians Land •Wfdth (ft~. ~. , . ,.. ~~ .. ~ ~.: . -~. Walking Speed (ft/s) ~ Percenl:,Bla~kage .. ,: ~~ ~ :~..: ~. ,.. Right turn flare (veh) Median~~pe -' No.ne~ None _ Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked . .. vC, cor~f`tflg vdlum~e ~54~ .. : ~ 5fi~' ~ . 224 :582 5a5:-: ....22'9' X25'. ~~ ~ . - ~ • ~. 2~4~::. . .. : ~. -.. vC1, stage 1 conf vol v~2;; stagea:2:con~ vol. ~ ~ ~ .. . . vCu, unblocked vol 542 567 224 582 555 229 225 242 tC, singles (s~) 7,.1 6.~ fi.2~ ~ . ~ 7.1 ~ 6:5: 62: ~~~ . 41 ~ :... 4~:1'. ,.: tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) ,~ 3.5 ~ 4~:4 ~ . ~ 3;3~ 35.. 4~E~ ~ 3.3~ ~ 2 2',: 22~;~: p0 queue free % 100 100 97 96 100 100 96 100 cti~°:Eaaaci#jE~ (~gf~i~) 43$~ ~ . ~ 4?1~7 . 8~~ 5 . :39,~~ . ~ 42~ , ~~1~0 1,>34`~ ~~ : 't32~{.. Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Vole ~Tota4~~ ~ ~ 2~. . ~ ~ . 4, . 7~2 1~ , . ?2~ ,,.. . Volume Left 1 15 49 0 1 0 VoIt~B~~~:Righ~ ~ 28 .. 1 ~ ~ ~ 0~ , 2~, ~ ~ -. ~0 ~ ~, cSH 791 412 1343 1700 1324 1700 Vofuri~.e~tQ~Eapacity. . q,04~. .0,04 O:Q4 :0.:14. ~ 0:04 Q:13. ~ :~. ~.: Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 3 3 0 0 0 ... Contre~t~ Derry •(s. ~: ~~: 9:7~ . , 14;:1 ~ ~..T.:B. - .. ;.~~ . ~ ,.7:7~ ~- ~ 0:0~ .. ; :: . . ..... ~ ~ . . .. Lane LOS A B A ~ A AppfQ~ch:~~J~~a~~(s): ~ 7 ~ ;1'.4:~'f; . ~.3, ~ .. OQ~ ~ . ~. ~ ~ , Approach LOS A B intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Inters+ecffort,~Capacify~ tJ.tiliatign 33:10'/0 _ ICU Level.cif.Serviee~: ~ A~` . Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning 8~ Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin•Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report jB614] s-~ 2025 No-Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning •- ~ ~ ~ ~ •' ~ ~ t ~ ~* 1 ~ i. 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~r ~ '~ ~ '~, Sign ContcoF Stop Stop Free ~ Free. Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh~ 0 0 0 '22 0~ ~ 1 0 369- ~ $ ~. a.. . 4T6~ , 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow-rate (vph) 0 0 0 23~ 4 ~ 0~ .. 388 ~ 8 ~ a 50~i: 0 Pedestrians Lane V~'/.idth (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent• Blockage ' Right turn flare (veh) Medran..tyPe ~ N.one None.. Median storage veh) . Upstxea~iftsigna~:Cft).~ :, ~ ~ . . _ = ~ . .' pX, platoon unblocked vC',. av!ri~li'ct~ng`vafi~n~e.. .. 89~1'~ . ~. 8~8- ~~.. ~ a1~1~ 8.94. _ 89~ 39~~ . ~d:~~'.~,, :~ ~ ~ 3~9~7 ~ ~: ~ ~ vC1, stage 1 conf vol . .. . vC2';, sager ~' ~or~~f-vc~#~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ .. _ :~ ~, , • vCu, unblocked vol 891 898 501 ~ 894 8 94 393 ~ 501 ~ 397 tC,.singl'e::(~..: 7:1 , . -6:~~ ~~ ~~6.2 7:~'i` . 6.5~~ 6:2-~~ ~4~;1~. ~ . .. 4 1. ~~ . tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s.): 3..5~ ~ . 4~,0. ~:.3 .3:.5 4:~.0 ~. 3 ~~. 2`:~:, ; :: ~ ... 2 2;.. ,; p0 queue free % 100 100 100 91 100 100 100 100 cM~~eap~acity~(vet~YM) ~ 25~` . ' 27~" ..57Q:: .. 26.a.: 28~~f~~ ~~ •G5~: , 1~f:3~ ~'.. ~ :. 1'152:::. Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 .. VoluriiQ-T~otal~ . .. . . ~. , ~ .. Volume Left 0 23 0 0 0 0 ~. 4 ~ 1: :~ 0.. cSH 1700 269 1700 1700 1700 1700 Voluma to Capacity 0;00 0.09! 0:00: 0:23 ~:0p: 0:29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0. 7 0 0 0 0 Cor-itrol~Delay (s~. 0..0 19'.7 ~ 0,0. 0,0~ t~;0 ~ .0.0•. Lane LOS A C Approach~o'glay (s)~ ~ O:Q 1~9:~T O;q ~ _ QQ . ~ .. Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Interse~etion~~Capacity~ Uti lizatioh . : 35:1 °/0~ 1CU' Leuel:~at"~Servi~e'~ ~ ~ . Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchel! Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis s-s Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro fi Report [B614J { i i. ~. 1 l~ 1 i 2025 No-Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfiefd &~ Browning ~. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~r . ~, '~ ~ '~ Sign Control. Stdp Stop ~ ~ Free: ~ ~. ~ Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volufne~ (veh/h). 0 0 0 ~ 14 0 1 0 ~ 228 25 ~ ~ ~ 1 , 225 ~ 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ~ Hourly flow~rate, (vph) 0 0:. ~ 15 a 1 0. 240 26'= ~ -1` ~ 0 ~ 237 Pedestrians ~ . _ Lane'-Vllfidth=(ft) . _ .~ Walking Speed (ft/s) Per~e`~t'~hrckage~ ~ ~ .. ~.. . Right turn flare (veh) M~e~iian- ~lp~ ~. None None ... ~ , Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked _ vE, .cr~n~%c~i~wplr~r.~te~ 480 50!5 2.37 49~,• ~ ~ ~ .4.92. 25~,-;. 23T ~;_. ~:~ ;.2.~C °.: _~ :, . ` vC1, stage 1 conf vol , vCu, unblocked vol 480 505 237 492 492 253 237 266 tC; sirigl~ ~(s~)~ 7. ~ 6.5~ ' . 5:2 ~ ~ ~~ 7::1' 6~:~~ fi 2~~ ~~ ~ 4:1 X4':1 , tC, 2 stage {s) . tF~ (5)~ ~ ~3.5 4:0 3:~ ' 8.5;. 4.a~ 3 ~ 22•:. •- 22.. , - . p0 queue free % 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 cM capaci#y ~(yeh/h) 495 46J~ ~ ~: 802 ~ : 4:8~~` 4,:7.7- •.786:. . 'F330:. ~~- 129.~~ `. Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 vol0r~ae Total:: ~ o .1~6 - o ~. 2s, ~ ~ 1 ~ 2~~. ... Volume Left 0 15 0 0 1 0 ~ Volume,t~ig~t ~ ., Q . ~ , . t) .... :.., 2S",. .,...:,:.:0 ; ....:~~,':: , • : ,,. .. cSH 1700 499 1700 1700 1298 1700 voturile-to capacity o:oo .. o~a~~~ . ,o:oq: 01:6: ~ a~oa o~i4~~.. ~ . Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 0 0 0 0 Co.ntrc~l::D'etay; ~s~:: - E~r~•~: ~ 1~~~4 _ O:A`~ - Op~~ 7.:$: ~~: : ~-afl~ . . , ~ :' ~. ` .. , .... Lane L08 A B A AppFOacfi' ~ef.~y~ (s}: OQ:'.~ '1.2':4 0.0.~ ~ ,0:0 ~ , . .: ~ _ . - . .. Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 .. . Inters~ectib~ri C~~pdcity~tJt iliz~tion. : = ~: .23.5%. ~. IGU,Leve~~o~~~SerVi:Ce: ~ ~ - :A ~ ~.. ~ . . Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [8614] B-9 2025 With-Project ~- AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ '~ '~ '~ Sigh Controt" Stop Stop ~ Free. ~_ F~e~ ' . Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% ~ Volume{veh/h) ~ 2 0~ 41 ~ 22 ' ~ 0' 1.' - 14 ~ ~ 363 8~ ~ 0; ~ 452 1 .Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourfy flow rate (vph) 2 0 43 23 0 1 15 382. ~ 8~ 0~ 476 1 Pedestrians Lane .Width Fft): .. . Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) ~ ~.,. Median ~tYpe~ N:ohe• Nor%e ~ - , Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked vC; conflGctitti~votnme ~ 889: . 89G:~ 476`' ~ ~ 93~~ 89a 386:: ~ 477 ~ ':: ` 3~:~.. . vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,°stag~~ 2~~conf •vpC .: - ~ .. vCu, unblocked vof ~ 889 896 476 935 893 386 477 391 tC, s~ngf$: 4~~ ~ . L~a ~ 6:5" 6.~ ~ T.1 . ~~: fi.5~ ~~- ; 6 ~ 4:1 ~ . 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) ~ tF (s) ...... ~ 3..5 4d`.. . . 3:3~ ., ~ 3~:5~ - ~ 4:a :. 3:~3: ; 2:~, 2 ~' ... .:.. _, , :~.. . p0 queue free % 99 100 93 90 100 100 99 100 cNf- c~a :aci vehlh~ ~ 2.Gh1~ .p , . ~~E~. , . .) 276.: X89` .. ~ 2'2~` .. 2~7`` ~ 6;6~~' 108b ~ ... : 't~1~`8'.': , Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Voli~me.Tof~l~ : 45 24 ~ ~:15. ~ .9T.. ~ 0. 4:~-.> Volume Left 2 23 15 0 0 0 Volume. Right 43 ~ ~ 1: . ; Q' ~ S ~ . .0~~ 1. ~~.. ~ ~ . :. . cSH 556 232 1085 1700 1700 . 1700 Volume~to Capacity 0.08 0:10 ° ~ 0:01. 0:23 6.00, 0:28: queue Length 95th (ft) 7 9 1 0 0 0 Control ~C3~lay:~~s~.:`. 12;0. 22.3 . ~8:4-. a0 4;0° O:.Or - ~ .. ~ _ , Lane LOS B C A Appr~acl~~~.Defay~(s) 12:0 22.~~ 0,3 Q0 .. ~ . , Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 IntersectionC~paEit~ Utilization 38.S~a% IC Ii Level of Service i4~ f+ Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning 8~ Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) S nchro 6 Re ort 8614 y p [ ] Austin-Foust Associates, inc. s-io 2025 With-Project - PM Peak Hour 7: Sandfreld & Browning ~ -i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~- l ~ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR e 1 Vi 1 Lane Configurations ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ Sign Control ,Stop Stop Free:. ` Free. Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/ht}~ ~ 1 0.~ 2'~: 1:4 0' . 1 ' ~ ~47 , 209, 25: ~ - 1~ 2,12:. ~ 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly, flow~.rafe~(vph~) ~ 1,. 0 28 '1~5 ~ 0 1. 49. 216, 26~. ~ 1 '. 223 2 Pedestrians Lane 1,l~idth {ft);. .. ,, . .. . , .. _. Walking Speed (ft/s) Pe~~~n#~~~to~ka~:e ~ ~ ... . Right turn flare {veh) Me~i~r~Yty~pe: ~ ,Norre~ ND~i~ "~.~' ~ ~ : Median storage veh) . . upstF'~tr~ ~i~rr~h~(#~jiw .. ~ s, ,,'::' -', ~ ~~ pX, platoon unblocked vC, ,~iot~i~li'~~:velta~Q~ ' 54~ '. ~vfa~ :..224: .: ~.82'.~ ` ~5~' ~ ~ ,2~9~ °~~ , 225,`' ~ 24~ vC1, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 542 567 224 582 555 229 225 242 tC, sir~gl~e~"(s~)- 7.1 .fi~~~ ;. 6.~ - 7:-1 . 65~ 6 2 4:1 ~ q,:1,:. . . .. . . , tC, 2 stage (s) tF',(s.). ~ . ~ 3;5 4:.©. ~ 3:3 ~ ~ 3'~. 4~:~~: ... 3 3 _ 2 ~2 ~ ~~; . ~ - p0 queue free % 100 100 97 96 100 100 96 100 ciV~capa~i.. -(~~kt1h~. ~ 4~g ~ ... 4,,,t.7 :" 81~~ . 3~8. `42~~~ " 8'40... ~f:'3~43 1~3~:4.:.,.. Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 --~~----a.-~-~, Votu~ta"e ~:at~h~ ~ -2g' ~ . , ~ 1~C~ . _<~~g ~ ~ ~ ~~2q~~ 1~ ~ ~ ' ~2~~..~. .. . - Volume Left 1 15 49 0 1 ~ 0 cSH 791 412 1343 1700 1324 1700 Volume t©:.Eapacity 0:04- 0:04 O~:l}4~ 0:1'4 0:00 ~ 0~1~3~ ~ . :. . Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 3 3 0 0 0 Coni~ol:,beta~t 4~;:~ =: ~ 97 14:1:~. ...~:~:. .0;0~ 7;T"' : ~~A°~ ~ ~ . Lane LOS A B ~ A A , App:~;pa~f~<~.e1~~i ~s~°~ 947. .14 1~ ~ , 1,:.3 0.0:: ... ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . -~ ~ .. - Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Interse~ti'©r.•r: .apa~itx~ l~,tiizatior~~ o ~3~1~%~. . " fC, "... U~ L'dvel•.of:S`~n`r ic~~ . " . ~~A ~' Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [8614] B-i ~