Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 07-92RESOLUTION N0.07-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 TO SUBDIVIDE A 131-ACRE SITE INTO 12 NUMBERED LOTS AND 28 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC STREETS, AND FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF TUSTIN BOUNDED BY BARRANCA PARKWAY ON THE SOUTH, RED HILL AVENUE ON THE WEST, WARNER AVENUE ON THE NORTH, AND ARMSTRONG AVENUE ON THE EAST. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines ~as follows: A. That a proper application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17144 was submitted by Tustin Legacy Community Partners to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, and public streets, and flood control facilities. The site is bounded by Barranca Parkway on the south, Red Hill Avenue on the west, Wamer Avenue on the north and Armstrong Avenue on the east; B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2007, and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4068 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 17144; C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map on December 4, 2007, by the City Council D. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan land use designation of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which designates the project sites (Planning Areas 9-12) as commercial business which provides for development of offices, retail and service commercial, public and institutional, and light industrial uses; E. As conditioned, the map would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code); F. That the Public Works Department has reviewed the map and determined that it is technically correct; Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 2 G. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed intensity and type of development; H. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems; I. That the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat; J. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. K. That any discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing sewer/storm drain system would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, pursuant to Division 7 of the' Water Code of the State of California. L. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a . program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin; and, M. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for Tentative Tract Map 17144, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes, or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. II. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map 17144 for the subdivision of an approximately 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B attached hereto. Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 4th day of December, 2007. LOU BONE Mayor PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK 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. 07-92 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of December, 2007, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Amante, Davert, Bone, Kawashima, Palmer (5) COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None (0) PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION N0.07-92 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Cerrterrnial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573.3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Concept Plan 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map 17144 Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, Califonua 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714} 573-31 I S . Project Location: Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC 130 Vantis, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 General, Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP-1 Specific Plan), Neighborhood E Project Description: Concept Plan 06-OOI for Neighborhood E and Tentative Tract Map 17144 to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities. Surrounding Uses: North: Warner Avenue/vacant lots East: Armstrong Avenue/vacant lots South: Barranca Parkway/Commercial and Business Parks West: Red Hill Avenue/ Business Complexes Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on Apri13, 2006. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ^Land Use and Planning ^Population and Housing ^Geology and Soils ^Hydrology and Water Quality ^Air Quality ^Transportation & Circulation ^Biological Resources ^Mineral Resources ^Agricultural Resources ^Hazards aad Hazardous Materials ^Noise ^Public Services ^Utilities and Service Systems ^Aesthetics ^Cultural Resources ^Recreation ^Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 },has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the eaxiier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2} have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ^ I Fnd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a signif cant 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 DECLARATIGN, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers Date: 11-01-07 Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Date 11-01-07 Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attachment A attached to this Checklist EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d} Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Sits 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 Fernand of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepazed pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agriculturaluse? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a- Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III, AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attaiament under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ~) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial New More Change From Signif cant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOU_ ROES: - Wauld the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ripazian habitat or other sensitive natural cor:~munity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movanent of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildrfe corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V~ SAL R ~ SOURCES: -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 geobgic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? r VI. GEOLOGY AND SO[LS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Sign~eant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ a a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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 resuh in on- or ofI<site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18.1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? YII.HAZARDS AND HAZ~~QU Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ar acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within. one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)' Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Siebstantial New l4lore Chonge From Signifrcant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ a o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ D D ^ ^ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impart Impacts Anolysis adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ^ ^ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ^ ^ VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ^ ^ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ^ ^ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ^ ^ . .d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the r~ or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ^ ^ e) Create or contribute runoff' water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ^ ^ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ^ ^ ® . g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ^ ^ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ^ ^ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ^ ^ Inundatr`on by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? i ^ ^ 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 alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a} Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? , e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project export people residing or working in the project aria 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? XI~.POPU>.~ATION A1VD HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Na Substantial New More . Change from Signifrcant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ a~ a ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ No Substantial New More Change From Srgnifrcant Severe Previous t Impact Impocts Analysis ~ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ^ ^ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborfiood and regional parlGs or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be ~cGelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansioa of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ D D ^ ^ XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections}? ' b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results i in substantial safety risks? j d) Substantially increase hazards due io a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? fj Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks}? XVI. UTILITIE~_AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b} Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufl•icient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a} Dces the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or anQnal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that arc individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ D ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a a ^ ~ ^ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL I1~tPACTS CONCEPT PLAN 06-001 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 NEIGHBORHOOD E OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EIS/EIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the Navy (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy (NEPA}. The FEIS/EIR analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific P1an/Reuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific P1an/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council on January I6, 2001. The: DoN published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEISS/EIR. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed a multY-year development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the MCAS Tustin Spec.~ific Plan are proposed, the agency is required to examine individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEISlETR and Addendum. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum if the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 1 S 183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identifies significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is required. For the proposed Concept Plan 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map i 7144 project, the City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided below to determine if the project is within the scope of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and iii new effects would occur as a result of the project. PROJECT LOCATION The Property is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan also known as Tustin Legacy. Concept Plan (CP) 06-001 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 consists of approximately 1,267,324 square feet of land at Tustin Legacy and is located within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Planning Area 9-12). Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs and was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP Ob-001 and TTM 17144 Page 2 former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana (I-5), Laguna (SR-133) and San Diego (I-405}. Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barranca Parkway on the south. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the ,north providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. PRESENT CONDITION OF_ THE PROPERTY Historically, the Property was used as a Marine Corps helicopter training facility. Currently, the actual footprint of the Property is largely undeveloped land that was previously used for interim agricultural out-leasing by the Marines and also improved with landing strips and tarmac areas. Permits for demolition of abandoned buildings on the Property have been issued and existing facilities are in the process of being removed, with obsolete infrastructure also programmed for removal. The City has nearly completed a Phase I roadway project, the Valencia/Armstrong project, which included some demolition of tarmac areas, landing strips, and demolition of some obsolete utilities. The Valencia/Anmstrong project also included the installation of water and sewer Backbone Infrastructure on a portion of the Property and interim storm drain retention facilities. Interim earth work and mass grading of the Property by the Developer has commenced. PROJECT COMPONENTS The project evaluated in this environmental review includes two components described further in sections below: . • Concept Plan 06-001 • Tentative Tract Map 17144 Concept Plan 06 Background Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, a concept plan shall be prepared and submitted for Zoning Administrator Approval concurrent with a new development proposal, reuse project, or Sector B level map. Evaluation of Environmental Im,~acts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Pagc 3 _ , The purpose of the concept plan is to document and ensure that: 1. The necessary linkages are provided between the development project and the Planning. Area/Neighborhood in which it is located; 2. The integrity of the Specific Plan and purpose and intent of each Neighborhood is maintained; and 3. Applicable consideration of City requirements other than those spelled out in the Specific Plan are identified and satisfied. Description of the Concept Plan The Concept Plan for Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan includes Planning Areas 9-12. The following are components of the Concept Plan: • Land Use {development uses and parks/open spaces) • Circulation • Design Guidelines • Landscape Elements • Infrastructure The Land Use component of Neighborhood E includes a total of 1,267,324 square feet of non- residential uses and encompasses Phases 1 and 2 of Neighborhood E. Phase 1 includes a total of 18,600 square feet of general office uses and 287,000 square feet of R&D Flex/Light Industrial uses. Phase 2 includes 319,675 square feet of general office uses; 93,920 square feet of R&D Flex/Light Industrial use; 229,997 square feet of office park use; and, 18,132 square feet of neighborhood commercial (mixed} use. . A total of 38.6 acres of open space is also included and is to contain the following types of open space: • Linear Park (private) • Focal park (private) • Red Hill and Edge Open .Space (private) • Detention BasinJSports fields (public) The Circulation component provides conceptual improvement plans for the proposed infrastructure (streets, utilities, transportation planning, and traffic and circulation analysis) to support the proposed Concept Plan. The Design Guidelines provide in-depth details and conceptual design elements such as visual character, planning, architecture, landscape, and hardscape. The Landscape Elements component provides conceptual landscape plans for open space areas, streetscapes, multi-use trail system, signage, decorative walls, park furnishings and lightingsr and bridge design. Evaluation of En~~ironmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 4 The Infrastructure component identifies backbone infrastructure based upon the master roadway network and Local Infrastructure system. This infrastructure component includes conceptual plans for domestic water, well sites, reclaimed water, sewer, and storm drainage and water quality. Tentative Tract lisp 17144 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 is a proposal to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities. TTM 17144 is a Sector B Map which is a subdivision map that divides a larger parcel into additional parcels (development units) that will facilitate conveyance of the property by a master developer to vertical merchant builders or other parties. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis' Checklist. I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a} Have a substantial adverse effect on s scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c} Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Substann'al Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause aesthetic impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the site. There are no designated scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Although the project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic .highway, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that the loss of both historic blimp hangars would be a significant visual impact, the loss of only one hangar would be less than significant. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not change the conclusions of the analysis from the FEISIEIR and Addendum relative to these visual changes since the status of the hangars would not be affected by the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Pagc S No changes in original uses identified or permitted in the Specific Plan are being requested; therefore, the types of uses to be developed are consistent and would result in similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEISlEIR far MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable to the project have been implemented with adoption of original Specific Plan. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Submitted Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map Field Observations FEIS/ElR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, ~I-109 through 114} and Addendum (Page S-3 through S-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 74 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer tc+ the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (199'n 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 Farnand of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Reso~rrces Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Aet contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Change frone Previous Analyse The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. The project site was leased as interim agriculture sites. All agricultural activities on the site and Navy out leases were terminated in phases by the Navy prior to the closure of MCAS Tustin in July, 1999. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project. The physical impact area for the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map iy the same as that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Implementation of the proposed Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-OOl and TTM 17144 Page 6 project would continue to impact areas mapped (though not used) as Prime Farmland. Designated Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Specific Plan area is outside of the Master Developer footprint and is located north of Barranca Parkway, west of Harvard Avenue, and east of Jamboree Boulevard. Additionally, there are no areas subject to a Williamson Act contract, and conservation of farmland in this area was deemed unwarranted by NCRS. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the impact conclusions presented in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEISIEIR are still infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with the loss ofmapped/designated farmland. There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would reduce the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to urban uses. Mitigation options identified in the FEIS/EIR determined to be infeasible are still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. There would not be a substantial increase in the severity ofproject-specific and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; however, these impacts would continue to be significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. The Tustin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to ' subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) Resolution No. 00-90 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Pian (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3.104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IIl. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quaUty management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: ej Conlllct with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Evaluation o€ Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and "I'TM 17144 Page 7 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result is a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non•attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial Change front Previous Analysi.~ The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause Air Quality impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Pmgrain FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified sigtficant effects occur as a result of the proposed project. Consistent with the conclusion reached in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, the pro,~osed project would result in significant short-term construction air quality impacts. Because the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map only involve a conceptual design development and subdivision of land within the threshold of the Specific Plan ar~d the previously approved FEIS/EIR and its Addendum, the project would not substantially increase the type or severity of construction related air quality impacts from those identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigatiorr/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for operational and construction activities. However, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum also concluded that the Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted >r~y the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90}. No new mitigation measure is r<quired. Sources: Field Observations Evaluation of Environmental impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 8 . FEiS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through 153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through. 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan [V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identifed as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish .and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act {including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.} through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Substantial Change fronj Previous Analysis The physical impacts resulting from development uses proposed with the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would be similar to those identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Specifically, impacts to on-site vegetation and loss of habitat for the loggerhead shrike, a CDFG species of special concern, would ~be less than significant. It would be noted that project construction activities would be completed in compliance with federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (META). The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Pagt 9 plant or animal species; however, the FEIS/E1R and Addendum determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project site) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern •pond turtle, which is identified as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on jurisdictional waterslwetlands. Mitigation measures were included in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative off-site habitat, and to require the applicant to obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary for areas on the project site affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. The Master Developer has obtained these permits and is subject to conditions listed in the respective permits. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitig4tion/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin Citx Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measwes are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addend~.un pages 5-28 through 5-40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause n substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §IS064.S? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolc~gicai resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or uizique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? No Substan~i'a! Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Ten!:ative Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to cultural resources. Development acti~~ities proposed b}~ the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered withi~i the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 1714 Page 10 Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. There is no new technology or methods available to reduce the identified significant unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts to historical resources associated with the removal of Hangars 28 and 29 to a level considered less than significant. Although these unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts would not occur with implementation of the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map (affects Neighborhood E only), the future development of the Master development footprint could present impacts to these resources. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January lb, 2001, to address potential significant unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from the removal of both blimp hangars. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/E':R; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: ~~ a) Expose people or structures to potentlsl substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 11 t r 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 s known fault? itefer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on s geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or oiff--site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available fc~r the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plata and Tentative Tract Map will not cause any direct impact to geology or soil. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative geology or soil effect on the site. The FEISIEIR and Addendum indicate that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse; Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudilows) and seismic; hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure, However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EI~It for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subj~xt to subsequent +;nvironmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. 'No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EI~2 for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. A~Iitigation/~llonitoring Regicired.• Compliance with existing rules and regulations v~ould avoid the creation of potential impacts. No new mitigation is required. Evaluation of >rnvironmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 1Tt44 Page 12 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4115 through 4- l 23, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create s significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ot, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fares, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? - No Substanh'a! Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not involve the creation of a hazard or hazardous materials. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would result generally in the same types of land uses being developed Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-OOl and TTM 17144 Pagc 13 within the ro'ect area. As identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, these uses would ~ p 1 generate and use small amounts of hazardous materials for operation and maintenance activities. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and then- current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area, The DoN is responsible for planning and executing rnvironmrntal restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the DoN would implemrnt various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Progams that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR and the Addendum, the project site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not propose changes to height limitation included in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose anaircraft-related safety hazard fog future residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitorirrg Required: Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No new or modified mitigation is required for the project. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4130 through 4138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49 through 5-55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 14 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the .local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to s 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, io a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rste Map or other Hood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of s levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Substantr'al Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not catuse direct impact to hydrology and water quality. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative hydrology and water quality effect on the site. The project site is located within the Barranca Channel Master Drainage Area. A master drainage hydrology study (San Diego Creek Flood Control Master Plan, Barranca Channel Update, dated September 28, 2007) was prepared and approved by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFD). The study identifies a detention basin to be located within Lot H of Tentative Traci Map 17144. The detention basin has been included in TTM 17144. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, preparation of a WQMP incompliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 15 development activities to a level of insignificance. Implementation of the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The types of land uses proposed are substantially the same, with minor square footage distribution among planning areas. The amount of impervious surface proposed for construction would not change substantially; therefore, analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed; therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patters, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result front the implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subjrxt to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as maybe required by law. Nv substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/1~lonitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin and Addendum; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4124 through 4129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-Sb through 5-92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b} Conflictt with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Substanfial Change from Previous Analysi.~ The project being evaluated involves an amendment to the Original DDA, a new Development Agreement, and modifications to Evaluation of Envimnmental Impacts C P 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 16 parking standards. The proposed project would not alter the land uses proposed for development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the Specific Plan area, rather minor adjustments to development phases are proposed. The project site area is surrounded by existing development and development on-site would not physically divide an established community. Although the project only involves conceptual development proposal, the implementation of this Concept Plan would result in the continuation of similar uses. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95 ) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result Ia the loss of availability of a known m~interal resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the toss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on s local general plan, speclflc plan or other land use plan? No Substantr'al Change from Previous Analysis The FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicated that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. 11~litigation/Monrtoring Required.• No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP Ob-001 and TTIV1 17144 Page 17 i FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-9 t) and t Addendum (Page 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE -Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambeen# noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has ~ not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ~ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Substantr'al Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract IViap would slightly modify the land use distribution (redistribution among non- residential areas and square footages) within the Specific Plan which would result in a slight redistribution of the traffic generated by the implementation of the project. However, the backbone circulation system identified for the implementation of the project is substantially the same or less than Average Daily Trips as that presented in the original DDA and Specific Plan. Consequently, the severity of the long terns traffic related noise impacts would not be increased more than previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. With respect to the short-term noise impacts, implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would be required to comply with adopted mitigation measures and state and Local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction-related noise impacts. As discussed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of the project site. Based on review of the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the project site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Pagc 18 Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not involve the development of any uses that would expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to noise. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not increase the severity of the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures would be required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3- 162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantia! population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change, from Previous Analysis: The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map provide a similar amount and type of commerciaVbusiness uses as that included in the Specific Plan. No new housing, removal of exisring housing, or displacement of any people to necessitate construction of additional housing are proposed with the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map consistent with the approved Specific Plan and previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Similar to the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not have an adverse effect on population and housing. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monttoring Required.• Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum related to popuIation/housing. The Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page l9 proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map do not change the conclusions of the FEISIEIR and Addendum and no new mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIIt for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-101 through 5-112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-b2, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the pr©vision 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 tlmes, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails; however, new facilities will be provided within the Master Developer footprint to which the applicant will contribute a fair share. Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing C?range County Fire Authority {OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would r~aduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of existing fire stations in the areas surrounding the site and a future fire station proposed at Edinger Avenue and the West Connector Road will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage ofnon-residential uses, etc. Implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 20 The impacts to schools resulting from the implementation of the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would be similar to that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Consistent with SB S0, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation measures that require the Master Developer to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD, IUSD, and SAUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the issuance of building permits (Neighborhood E is located within the SAUSD boundary). The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide ``full and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development of real property on school facilities (Government Code 65995}. SB SO provides that a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development. of real property on the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50. Other Public Facilities [Libraries). Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that will directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area. Developers within the Specific Plan area are required to make a fair share contribution to a portion of the development costs of the library expansion. To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to. meet projected needs as development of the site proceeded. The proposed Concept Play and Tentative Tract Map would not incmase the demand more than what was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no substantial change is expectbd. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services.. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-2I to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-112 through 5-122) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 2l 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 physica! effect on the environment? Impacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would include a relocation of the sports park to Lot 9 of TTM 17144 {southeast of the extension of Carnegie and the linear park). The acreage of open space areas remain consistent with the Specific Plan; thus the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services compared to conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/1t~Ionitoring Required.• The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 480, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin City Code Section 9331 d (1) {b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which Is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (I.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Evaluation of Environmcntal Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 22 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm, equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that trafi'ic impacts could occur as a result of build out of the Specific Plan. The FEIS/E1R concluded that there could be significant impacts at 18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/ETR for a complete list) and the levels of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no-project condition. The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT} generation of 216,440 trips. The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would result in a reduction in daily trip generation of 14 percent than the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendwn. No Significant changes to on-site circulation would occur with the proposed project. Austin Foust Associates, Inc. has prepared the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy, Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis -July 2007 (Exhibit A) to identify and evaluate how the traffic impacts from the proposed project differ from the analysis presented in the approved Tustin Legacy Park traffic analysis (March 6, 2007, Legacy Park of Tustin ,Legacy Traffic Analysis, Austin Foust Associates, Inc), FEIS/EIR, and Addendum. The study has shown that the proposed Concept Plan, Tentative Map, and arterial circulation changes within the Neighborhood E have not resulted in new significant impacts that would require mitigation. The proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the perfornlance criteria applied to the projecK. The City's Traii'ic Engineer also has reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the revised analysis. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Maps than were originally considered by the FEiS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3- 142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5- 127 through 5-147) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP Ob-00 i and TTM 17144 Page Z3 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tusfiin General Plan Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that It has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) ~ Be served by s landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map will not directly cause impacts to utilities and service systems. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed new off-site and on-site backbone utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, the applicant is required to pay a fair share towards off-site infrastructure and installation of on-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and off-site, and water availability. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, no unavoidable significant impacts would result. The proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 24 ,'1~Iitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21 }and Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- ?Othrough 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FIIVDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of s fish or wildlife species, cause s 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 of 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 increments! effects of s project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects ~on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FEIS/EIR and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed Concept Plan and Tentative Tract Map. With the enforcement of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that wilt cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly nor degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90} for issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CP 06-001 and TTM 17144 Page 25 resources, and traf~c/circulation. The project does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-i l ) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3~-137) and Addendum Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/ELR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. l t i t I I CITY OF TUSTIN LEGACY PA.RI~ OF TUSTIN LEGACY Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis July 2007 ~~~Al~S1~F01l~4ST ASS LI1~ ,yid 1 1 1 1 M 1 M ~" I i D `~ JUL 2 0 2001 TUSTIN PUBLtC WQRKS OPT. CITY OF TUSTIN -LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Analysis l~epar+ed ~-: Austln•Foust Associates, Inc. 2223 East Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 9270 1-3 1 6 1 (714) 667-0496 No. l23 ~ E=o • i-o1 July 20, 2007 1 t Table of Contents ' t Pa Introduction .................................... ..... ................... .....................................................................................1 Land Use and Trip Generation ............ ............... ........ ................................................................................1 Circulation System ............................... ............ ...........................................................................................1 Intersection Capacity .......................... . .......................................................................................................7 Si 'nation . .............. gnalZ .... ..................... .....................................................................................................18 Traffic Control Measure= .................... .. . ...................................................................................................25 Recommended Turn Pocket Lengths .... ..................... ..................... ..........................................................ZS Effects of Circulation Changes ....... . .. .... ...................................................................................................25 Conclusions ............................................ ........... ........................................................................................31 I Appendix: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets , 1 f I city of rustis - i.eney Park of r»~ t~epey . Nei~hbo~}~oed E Iatetnd Cscrol~tioo Aoalysb i A~-Fowt Astaciat~ lam 92~OQMNy.doo List of Figures ~g ~.-, Page I Tustin Lcgacy Master Developer Footprint ..................................................................................2 ' Z Neighborhood E Concept Plan .....................................................................................................4 3 Neighborhood E Access Plan .......................................................................................................5 i 4 Ncighborhood E Circulation System ........................... ..b S Armstrong Avenue Lane Configuration AIternativa.. „g ................~............................................. 6 Year 2025 ADT Voh~es (OOOa) -Alternative 1 .........................................................................9 7 8 Ycar 2025 ADT Volumes (000:) -Alternative 2 .......................................................... Yar 2025 AM Peak Hour Vohune: -Alternative 1 ............................................. 9 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Vohnaes -Alternative 1 ..................................................................12 14 11 Year 2025 AM Peak Hour Volutaa - Altermative 2 ..................................................................13 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volunus - Alternative Z ..................................................................14 ' 12 Intersection Lane CooSgundons ...............................................................................................1 S ' 13 14 Intersection Locstion Ma~p ..........................................................................................................17 ...................................................19 Peak Hour Signal Warrant: (Higher Speods/Rural Arras) . t 1 S •.• .. Peak Hour Signal Warrants (bower Speeds/Urban Areas). ...................................................ZO 16 Traffic Control Measures ............................................................................................................26 '~ A-I Intersection Location Map....... ........................................................................ . A-S ' List of Ts blew ~f(j Table Page -~ . I Neighborhood E Land Use and Trip Generation Sumnoary .........................................................3 t I 2 3 Year 2023 Neighborhood E Buildout ICU Suaunah- .................................................................16 Ycar 20ZS (Altcrnat3vc 1 } Pcak Hour S' QVarrant S ..................................... ignal uacmos~ry .......--.21 4 5 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Peak Hoot Signal Warrant Sumnsary ...............................................23 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommended LeR-Turn Storage Ltngtbs :.....................................2~ 6 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended LeR-Turn Storage Lengths ......................................28 7 Year 2025 (Alternative 1) Recommendcd Right-Turn Pocket Lengths .....................................29 8 Year 2025 (Alternative 2) Recommended Right-Turn Pocket Lcngt6s .....................................30 9 Armstrong Avenue Intersection Analysis Summary ..................................................................32 Ciry o[Twcin - Lcsacy P~rlt of Tu~tie Lgacy AustirFourt Assoc ~ tie. Nei~borbood ~ latara~l Ctreuladoe A,aalysi~ ii 9't240MpU.doe . CITY OF TUSTIN -LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEG ' ACY Neighborhood E Internal Circulation Anal sis Y I 1 INTRODUCTION ~i . This report summarizes the access and internal circulation analysis for proposed development in ') Neighborhood E of the Legacy Park master developer footprint within the Tustin Legacy (see Figure 1), and provides a more detailed analysis of the roadway needs within Neighborhood E than ~~ rcc~tiy approved traffic study dated March ti, 2007, for the entire Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy. Information provided inchides site access designations, the type of mterscction traffic control auasure (i.e., based on traffic signal warrant aaalyscs), intersection approach lane requiremenb, and recommendations for left- ' turn and nght-fora pocket design featurns. LAND USE AND TRIP G ENERATION ' ' The development within Nei boyhood E is c 8h ompnsed of non residential uses such as office and I industrial uses as well as park and recreational land uses. Table 1 su*++~*i~ the land use and daily trip j generation for buildout of Neighborhood E (ace Figure 2). The land uses is Neighborhood E have been refined since the March 6, 2007, traffic study, which results in a reduction in dai2y ~ generatioo of 14 percent. This -report will present as sari sis that y shows the effect of the Land use R:f nenuent: on trat8c m Neighborhood E and surrounding circulation system. I CIRCULATION SYSTEM 1 Figure 3 shows the roads and proposed access locations for Neighborhood E, Figure 4 illustrates the midblock lance on the roadways. The circulation stem . sy presented here provide=amore detailed analysis of the roadway needs within Neighborhood E thaw previously presented is the 1Vlarch 6, 2007, traffic study. "A" Street between Rcd Hill Avenue acid Armstrong Avenue with two and four lanes is designated as a secondary arterial, and " C" Street between Barranca parkway and "A" Street is a two-lane Local collector. The rcrnaining roadways within Neighborhood E, "B" Street, "C" Street, "D" Street, "E" Street, `~'" Str+ect and Road G, are all two-lane local streets. Neighborhood E development traffic loads directly to the arterial system at several locations. These include full access at Red Hill Avenue via "A" Street, Warner Avenue at Road G; Armstrong City of Tustin - Gepey Park otTustia t.e~acy Austin-Foust Ataociata, Lac. Nei~6bor4ood E [otetntl Cir+cutatioa At+vyau ~ 92200trpy.doc i y�•yI 1Si�!�y�r'� •rrtr{� •c..r�rt,r.• . ,�iRE�iki y� ttif v i� Yt• k i • y%gtywyta ty �y'ttr ��.• I, • �w�•��ri�/ Cr• • �!•�6 �1.�tiy�l�,i %t' •'r!!R� I/Rif y!� y i O r ttyy 'kid tirr.�.� ryiti•�•�wY•�yit��tii0 •�►i• • �t K ri•,••ttr�t•t�•91,• SEI 6� .y, i !'41{ rl r .R r •t • .�•, i ! • -rt • a■xAAx ■� " Am ' ( rm fir) Fi�rc 1 E=3 renpoaed Mawr Aaa FQM cc T=ft am* DBVFI.+OPLR Prz`JTPRINI` �nooa Cky of Twtb - Lepry Part of lLrin LawNeigfibadood B iwm.tG�wduim A� z A -Pou=t rp++p18•tl.dwgwg ^~~ i 1 ,, E ,~ ~~ i ~+ I I~ ~` ~~ i i s i. Table I NEIGHBORHOOD E LAND. USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMIviARY Land Use Unit: IA Uut Tog1 ••- - ~~w iaYY( L Opt Total ADT Bniidoot Nei boyhood Commercial ! 8.13 TSF 30 19 49 86 92 278 General Office 638.27 TSF 1 OS3 146 1199 197 950 1 147 202! 8 471 Office Panic E 230 TSF 178 S6 234 92 164 236 2 94 L; t IadustriaUR6tD 379.72 TSF 39! 81 .472 62 348 410 3081 Pule 26.3 Acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 13: S its Park 8 Acre 0 0 0 27 33 60 43t Tots1 uildout Total evbw 1 652 302 1954 464 1 S$7 2 OS1 17 08~ Dltrerenes 1 739 340 2079 360 1 695 2 SS 19 98~ /. Difference •87 -S'K -38 -11'iL -125 -6'K -96 -17'ifi -108 -6?4 -204 • -2 897 Tri Rita -9 X. -14iG Nei boyhood Commercial Genera! O~'ice TSP TSF 1.63 1.03 2.68 4.68 5.06 9.74 1 l 1.82 ~~ Pule TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.44 1.80 9145 Li t IndustriaVRdtD TSF .77 1 03 .24 21 1.02 1 24 .40 .71 1.11 12.80 Psiic . . . .16 .92 1.08 8.1 l Acre .00 .00 .00 00 00 S rts Park . . .00 5.00 Acre .Ol .00 .Ol 3.40 4.10 7.50 53.80 Notes; 1) Office Park oquation is bssed on 91.89 TSF. 2) Trip Rate Soureq - MCAS Tustin EISJEIIL dated December 1999. snd TTE Trip Generation Msawi, 7+ Editiao. 3) The load use-based trip rates for OfSce Park uas are based on the foilowia8 equation: LN(T}~AxL,N(X)+B when X!lsad use s:aou~ sad 'I~daitlr trips ' --- AM Peak Hour -- PM Peak Hour -.-_ Coefficient Pk/ADT py~A~ Land Ute Unix A B Ratio Ice Out Ratio. Ice O~ . OfSce Park TSF .768 3.654 .080 76'K 24X. .087 36Y. 64'X. Abbrevistions: ADT-average daily pips DU - dwellin8 unit (Ety -Equation based trip rates used. Ciry of Tnuia - tcpry Put otTustio Lssacy wu~dn-Fowl Aswci Neis6borbood E 1nMaroa! CreuVtioo Aoslysy 3 ~. be. 9Z2004rpts.doc 1 M ~i 1~ 1~ 1~ ~! f I' ~Y I~ ..: i~: I~ r nr°r~ somea w ~ ~. r .. ....... ~ .ar o•-• ~ ~ M A • ~~ 1 !, I .7 i r~ . ! ~ ~ ~Z ~~~ w~ 1 wr= ~wr .ar i rI,!`~ ^1/f C ,~ ~ ~ 4~w -01 • y t~ . ~ y~ ~. /• ,~ ~ ~ ~Y` ~ r ~~~ ~` i 3 I Cf / `1~~ ~\ ~r .s~ •~ ~ \ ~ " ~ !~~ ~ ~ ,r .a ~ ...~ ~. ~ j ' ii'..~ ~ r r .~ t ~ . 1, 1 ~. , , ~ _• ~~ ~ ~~ s+ ~~ ~~ ~~ __ __ _ - lR : ~ ~ ~ .~.~ ii~~ . ~ ~ ti ~ ~,-~--~ r_ r-~ ~.~rsawr. ~a .. _...+~. ~" soures: xHF . (! f ~~ ~~ s NEIGF~QRHOOD E CONC~.PI' PWV Cog of 7'uaia - I.e=s~r Park df'Puuia Lef~7' Aust~-Fount A~od Nei~Dordood E Internal Cfrculstioa Analyw 4 922004 ~~- l~ T ~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1~ ~~ I~ io ~~ ~' r-~ "~s~ Ma jOr ~~~ (, I4ioaq Marial Fitone 3 _ Ssauedary Arterial ~ LO4~ C+ollaoau NEIG>FIBORHOOD E AOCF.SS pi,Mi j •~~ Local sbwt i ~ (dry of 7tium - L,ryary Padt d'tlartio le~- Nei~borbood P Internal C'hrWation Analyab s Aua~-Foust Aiwdate~ 1~ Sn2004rptaFy,3,~ ~i ~i ~i r ~~ ~i 1~ I~ i~ i, i~ i~ i~ it 00 ~ 6 w~Rr~ ~v 6 00 N U ornr o g r ti~1 > s ~ 1' ~ s ~ e N N 4 ~: 4 Z A ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ '` `- ti 00 ? G 4 i N 1 ti 4 ~~ ao ~ st 8 8 ~cwr e~~- 7 i. ~~ Pie ` NEIGt1BORNOOD E i x MJdbiodt Lana ClR('VLA'I70N SYSTEM i ~ Ggr ot'I~+tLa • Lriac7- Pur o! Tuba Leery Awtjn-Foust A~wdata. lr~t Nei=hbabood E In~unal G'~rcvlacoa Ana1!-si~ 6 g2Zpp4tptaF~4,dwS i ~~ Avenue via "B" Street and "C" Strcet/"r' Street, and Barraaca Parkway at "C" ghat. Driveway D on Red Hill Avenue (located north of Carnegie Avenuel"A" Street) is introduced as a project access point that is restricted to right-turns ui and right•turna out onl . Y The on-site circulation s stem for Nei bor6 ' Y gh ood E features four sntersections alon the 8 future ~ section of Armstrong Avenue to be constructed between Warner Avenue and Bananca PatlCit-ay. Two of f the four intersections (at "C" Strett/"I" Street and at "E" Street) wiU be examined is two alternatives with respect to signalization and lane deployment. The two alteroadvea analyzed at "C" Sheet/'"r' Strut and j "E" Street have two intersections signalized and two unsignalized (see Figure S). In each alternative "A„ Street is assumed to be signalized with all turn movements allowed. Aiao, 'B" Street u assumed to be ' unsignalized with all movements allowed. Alternative 1 has a trsiic signal at "E" Street and stop cont<+ol a: "C" Street/"r' street with a st con op trot at C" Strat/"r' Stmt, the movement= sre restricted to right-loran out on "C" Street and "r' Street and all turn nwvements sre allowed on Armstrong. Avenue. ' Alternative 2 features a signalized intersection at "C" StratJ"r' Strut ands ~ , top control at E Street. j Witb a stop control at "E" Street, only right-turns out are allowed on "E" Street and all turn movements t are allowed on Armstrong. Avenue. Figures b and 7 show the buildout ADT v ohuae: for key roadway link locations withuti i. Neighborhood E for Alternatives 2 and 2, respectively. Figures 8 thr ough 1 I slow the corresponding AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively, for key intersection locations within this area for Alternative: 1 and 2. The volumes shown here will be slightly different than the March 6, 2007, traffic study because of the addition of the restricted driveway along Red Hill Avenue and the conversion of tbree intersecdoat on Armstrong Avenue {`B" Street, "C" StroeU"r' Street and "8" Street), whrch wen previously ratncted to certain turn movements, to full access (Alternatives l sad 2). T6er~e arc minor vohune differences on "C" Street and "A" Street between Al 'v ternatt es 1 and 2. IIYTERSECTION CAPACITY (~ The intersection lane geometry for the access Iocationa analyzed hers is presented in Figure 12. I 7be mtersection capacity utilization (ICt1) values for Alternatives 1 sad 2 are presented in Table 2 for the ` intersections shown in Figure 13 for year 2025 conditions. B Y P~~ the ICU methodology assumes that intersections are signalized. The results of thin analysis arc consistent with the Mar,eb 6, 2007, trafEe i study and show that all intersections under year 2025 conditions operate st an acceptable levtl of service ~ i "D" or better, and that only minor diflrerences occur betwten Alternatives 1 and 2. `, Ciry otratq~ - Clancy Park of ruuio Le~aep Au~ti~-Foust Aswcia Neighborhood E Iaea~aa! Circdatioa Analyau ~ tas„ lee. 92~OWrpea.doe i ~i 1! ~i ~I ~i ~i 1~ I~ i~ ~6 I~ I~ ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ~~I kl~ ~~ ~ Fi~un S '~ S~°P ~~ ARMSTRONG AVENUE UNE CONFIGL-RA'IIOr1 ~ Steal COQ ALTERNAZTVE$ CYt~r ollliaio - Lepry Part d~aam I,e~acp Aram-Fowt Asaopiatr, lac Nei~hbor5ood E ln4ernal C`~rculatiiam Analysis a 92ZOWrptaP'1~.d~ M ~I ~I ~I ~I I~ ~! it i~ i~ F~nne 6 PEAR 2025 AD'Y' VOLU-~.S (000'x) ALT'PRNATIVE l Cary o[T~ssii • Leary Pam d'It~tia Lejary Aartio-Fourt A~opate~ ~ Nei=bborbood E JAtemal Cacalatjoo Anafy~ 9 9~~rpt8Fyy6.d~ ~i 1 I~ 1~ I~ I' I' I~ I~ I~ I~ S7 WARNEI! Ay S1 ... . 43 r+ N C7 to DMIY 0 g Z ~ S1 i ffl ~S1 ~~ 0 a ~ N ~/ 'ti ~ h~ ~ 12 ~ A ST b ~L ti ~ 1f 0 .o r 11 W 10 ~ st A eA~aA++ca- hcwr ____ F~ure 1 YEAR 10ZS ADT VOLUMES (00011) -ALTERNATIVE 2 City d Tim - Leper Park of Trntin Le=scy Nei~borl~ood E Internal~irculatioa Aruly~ia 10 Amtia-Fowt IRsodsts; I~ 9?2001rpt81?'1~7.d~ ~i i i 1~ 1~ ~i I~ I~ i~ i~ i~ r i Fine • f ~ zau ~ re.MC Hour voiu~s - ~-i.~r~xrtwTtvE ~ i f Ciq of 71~ - Legacy Park of Tuui~ Lepop Nei;liborbo~od E lntetaal Cirwlagou q~~ 11 ~-tut~-Font Aaodttat, Ioe. 922004rpt$p M 1 1 M M M d M 1~ i~ 160 ~ .. '~.. 43 `'' g' ~ i t 70 T036 ~ + ~ ~- t2a5 ttlOZ ~ ~ 1 t a ! ~ ~ .. ~N O N a ~O IO N F ~4+1Y h~ oiI J ~ S~ ~q ~~ ~ i `rl ,L6 d 1 b ` '~e~ ~ 'L ~ ~ ,~~ ti~ ~ °~~ Z2° ~~ : x~ 'LM6 ,b is ~ ~l so 30-• -- ~ " tzs s7 ' ~ ~~ ~• ~ Z '' v ,~ g,, - ~L 16~ ,~. l ~ ,oo ~ . ,, '~? a ~ ~. ~ ~t sr ';; ~ o ~ `~,~~~ ~! 14 i J ~ ~ p i ~' ti y s~ ~' ~- 16T ~ i ` A 0 ~ 2sa-- t~ s ~ 2 3 e~"v co t6">r ~i..4 O eat ~w 16~i ~~ 1° -~. $ ASTON ~~ Piptta ~ ' YFJ1R ZOZS PM PPalC HOVIt VOLU!-~.9 II - AL.TERNA7ZVE 1 .~..~ i csq of Ttirtio - L~ Put d ~ Lary Austiu-Fowl Aatodste~ LG ~? Neybbortood E Internal t~rcutat~oa Aaalfw 12 ~ 9TZOO+rp.dat r I~ f ~~ NO S N r 38 1 0 260 NN -- " i 134 NNE H^n i 1 ~ /0 160-. ~ (~ w~,~,P i- 2106 ~v r s~ ~ i (- ~",~se 2307 $^s 1994 !s3 1 1 ` 1 ~ ~ 5t ^.vn S37Z q n ~v a j i .~ ~ ,~ `,~ 1 I owr a g ~o,N 'r ,y pW'~ ~ o ~N F .s ht .. 0 ~ St ~r ti~'r ~ ~~ ~, ' ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .. ~ ^ o ~j e ~ 1 y'~ O ~ e ~ ..- lio ~ ~ ~ io'~ ~ ~ ~~ 2a~ ~O ~~ zss ~ ~ t~ ti ~ ~j ,~ ~ ~ r ` ~ J} 9~y ` G ~~' ~`~~~:' 1 Z ~ ~~ Zti ' r '~° *'l.y/'i `6 ~ ~ 1.127 ~b ~ ~ ~ ~-- 1 ~ ~ ~- 19J 1 S7 ~ ~~ 1, 9 I~ • 4 ~ 209--- I 1 ~ s~ ~0 ~ w k$ NN s ~~ ~~a Si3 1 o ~~~ 1`e3°o - ' ~ ~ a~~1u ~cwr f 17~p••- 1S0"">r ~ 1J~-- ASTON 7 R Fiplrs IO ~ YEA1t 225 AM PEAK HOUR VOWI-~ ~, • AI-TERNAIIVE 2 Qq- d'1lrtilt - Leary Puk of Tustin kinL7 Auriin-Fart Nei6,bbnrbood E learns! Ciradatio~ Maly:b t3 _ ~tOb ~ 92?A0~4rpt6P~lO.ds-~ 1~ ~i 1 ~i ~f I~ I~ i~ i~ ~,~ r' ~~~ .~~, ~~ ~-16'SO 260 h"~ ~ i 43 :a~ c~eQi~ L 171 9 ~ N'ARNEq Ay ~ 2035 1 ~ 1 ~ 1254 r `~ 1 30-- i80••~ gQ ~7 $ 29 ~, 2020 ~ 1695-- ~ i 2~--~~e• ~ 392"L ~ o ~ ~ N N ~ it3o owtt o & a wY ~u' r' e t~ z o ~~ ~ H oiI , J y1 sf' ~° ~1~6 e ~ ,~ ,/ ~ of ~~ ~ c ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ $ N ^ , ,,~ y1 ~ ~ r ~ ..- A, 2a-+ 1 ~ o Z ~ `` 1 ~ ~t •°'~ ~ ~~ . ~'~ ~ J~oo ° ~ ~ ~ ~ i9 ,~ S1 2Sa~ ~ ~ ~49~ Z43 ~~v 0o h ts-z ~_µ N ~ ~~ ~ •~..1e9o ~ h 17 BARNAfIG PI(Ml1f 16 t ~ 6 ~~ b .- 1 Z ~ ASTON '~ I . ~~ 11 ' YF11R 2025 Pl-( PEAK HOUR VOLiJI~$ - AL'IEANATIVP 2 r Cky oiTWda - Leary Fsrlr Of Tustin Lepq Aurtio-Powt Nei~bor6ood E Iateraal C~rculatiep Analysis It ~ ~~' ~` spt8Fi~ll.d~ 1 { ``{ 1 1 I' I~ I~ IA I~ I~ ~~ 1 C ~~ Fi~are 12 "'"'~- De-facto Right Tura Q~Ti7ERSECI7E ON IANE (70NF10URATIONS City o['11~0 - Leary Puk ~ ~tia le~aq Auttia-rte Neiihborlrood E ]ntarnai Cirtvlaploo Ataalyw !S Aiodatet, Ia~r: 92200~Irptgjr~2,~ * ai utt�t Tstklrt� l.epcy of T W - Awns -Foust Mwcisim, In. +�bottiood E larmod Cira Mm Aadyak J6 922004g4.4oc Table 2 YEAR 2025 NEIGHBORHOOD E BUILDOUT ICU SUMMARY Intersection AL. ATNE I ALTERNATIVE 2 DIFFERENCE S. A & AM LOS B PM LOS AM LOS PM LOS AM PM 6. Anmstro=&On n & A A SSt t •65 .42 A .66 .48 B A .65 .41 B A .65 B A .00 -.01 -.01 -.01 16. Ammums & C SVI St 18. 6Lm-Owg & E St .33 1 A .32 A .38 A .47 .40 A .05 .08 21. Armmmst & B St .40 •43 A A .38 .35 A A .39 .43 A A .38 A A -.01 .00 22. Rd G & Warner 23. E St & A St .72 C .81 D .72 C .36 .81 D .00 .00 .01 .00 24. B St & A St .35 A A .35 A .35 A .35 A .00 .00 25. C St & A St .35 A .31 A .35 A .30 A .00 -.01 26. F St & B St .41 A .52 A .41 A .53 A .00 .01 103. Red Hill & Warner .23 .80 C .17 .90 A D .23 .80 A C .16 A D .00 -.01 104. Red Hill & Carnegie 106. Aston & Barranca .51 A .57 A .51 A .90 .57 A .00 .00 .00 .00 107. Amut-rong & Bartanca .52 .60 A A .59 .61 A B .52 .60 A A .60 A B .00 .01 114. D St & A St .25 A .38 A .25 A .62 A .00 .01 lM.DSt&CSt .12 A .12 A .12 A .39 .13 A .00 .00 .01 .01 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81- .90 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F * ai utt�t Tstklrt� l.epcy of T W - Awns -Foust Mwcisim, In. +�bottiood E larmod Cira Mm Aadyak J6 922004g4.4oc M 1~ ~I ~1 1~ 1~ i~ i~ i~ i~ FiNe+e 13 1NTERSECIION LOC54TION MAP f I l Gh ~'1~a - Lc~ Parr d Twdo Leiac7- _ _ Nei~hborbood E IntenW C~rcvlaiioo AASlyait 17 Awho- 922004 ~ ~ ~i ' ~ SIGNALIZATION Traf~"ic signal warrants based on peak hour volumes as adopted by the Federal Highway t' Administration and Caltrans were used here to detcrmwe the nexd for s~gnal~zatYOa. In applying th>s warrant, the volumes of both the ma}or and minor street must meet or exceed those shown on the curves 'i in Figures 14 and 15 under rural and urban conditions, respectively. si warrant involves calculatin the numba,• of Determining the mayor street approach for the gnat g vehicles approaching the intersection oo both major street legs. The highest total volume for tither the ' ~ continuous east and west approach or the north and south approach during either AM aid PM is detcrminod to be the major street approach for both peak hours. The minor street peak hour signal warrant volume is the number of peak boor vehicles approaching the inteasection on only the highest vohime leg. The highest volume for either the AM or PM determines the minor approach for both p~ealc hours. Rural or urban classifications are determined by the spend on the major street. Warrants are based on rural when the speed on the major strext is 40 miles per hour (mph) or higher. For urban aresss, i the speed on the major street is 35 mph or lower. Speeds along Armstrong Avcnua, Warner Avenue and ~` Red Hill Avenue are expected to be 40 mph or higher therefore; the signal warrant analysis for the intersections along these major roadways is based on rural. Speeds along "A" Street, `B" Street and "C" w therefore the si warrannt anal 's for the intersections alc- Streit arc expeetod to be 35 mph or to er final ys~ ng these minor roadways is based on urban ~' The signal warrant analysis has been carried out at the intcrscctiosu previously depictod in Figure ' e~ Avenue intersections u Warner Avmue and Carne Avenue and 13 (vvtt6 the exception of the R Hill ~ the intersection of Armstrong Avenue at Bananca Parkway which are currently signalized). The signal warrant anal is for these intersections use the approach volumes previously shown in Figures 8 through I ys 11. The signal warrant volumes are sunnmarized in Tables; 3 sad 4 for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. Based on the application of the warrant and year 2025 forecast volumes, traffic signals should be installed at all the analyzed intersections except for the intersections of "B" Stroet at "A" Street, "F" Street and "}3" Street, and "D" Street intersections at "C" Street and "A"Street. Typically, signals are not iustalled until actual tratlic volumes exceed the warrants. E Ciry o[ Tmtia - I.epry Pstt of Tustin Ls~ary Awtia-Foust Ascocist~s~ lot Nei~hbabad E lntotr~l Cirrulseio~ A-oalysis 1 f 922004rptt.doe 500 = 400' U a= Q > w a. WQ 300 W W 00 200 _Z > U 100 U ouu 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET VPH (TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES) A NOTE: THESE CURVES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR USE N AREAS OF RURAL CLASSIFlCATION (La. POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON THE MAJOR STREET IS 40 * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIESK94M AS THE LO1IrER 7WS40W VOLS FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES. AND 75 VPH AiPM � HIGHER}. LOWER TiIRESHOLD VO THE FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH ONE LANE. APPLIES AS THE Festa 14 PEAK HOUR SIONAL WAPMAL s (KKV= uMARW) > m" Chando. A..bvis 19 Awbw%M Amoc atm Lie, 922W4q*W*Ll/.dwS 700 600 U Q- 0 500 ct` a W Q 400 W 300 00 z = 200 100 --- ---- ....� =Eno ewe a>!■� �� �� ■� � � � ow -T- 2 OR E 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR I LANE 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR MEN MEN wqbbki-- w -6 mob. -mm NFAZON 1 LANE (MAJOR) & I LANE I (MIN MEMNON -*uu Juu our luu UUU 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET VPH (TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES) NOTE: THESE CURVES ARE RECOMMENDED FOR USE IN AREAS OF URBAN CLASSIFICATION (i.e. POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON THE MAJOR STREET IS 35 MPH OR LESS). * NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH Two OR MORE LANES. AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH ONE LANE. )fps 1S PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRAM (LOMM SMEDEA)RMN AREAS) City of TuWa - Lzgaq Perk of TNWG ilepq Austin -Foust Atsocialm Im— NOW60&ood E bumd Chaise= Atnbols 20 92200k ditIS.dws ~i 9 i! 'i 1' ~1 (~ ~~ ~. ii~ i~ r I~ ~I .j Table 3 YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRAN'T' SUMMARY Iatersectlon /S Rd at T:/W Rd Direction AM Peak Aoar PM Pesk Hout S. Armstrong d[ Warner Major Approuh Eastbound 2,018 2,276 westbound 1.998 1,536 Total 4,016 3,812 Southbound 492 Minor Approach Northbound - 854 Satisfies Warrant i r S edslRurat ? Yd Yea 6. Armstroa8 dt A St Major Approach Northbound 536 Southbo+~nd 227 Minor Approach Total Westbound 763 435 ~ Satisfies Warrant i S ural Ye: Major Approach ~~~ wes~o®a - 4s7 94} Minor Appm~ch Total Southbound .. 198 Satisfies Warrant er S urai ? - 471 16. Arraatron8 dic C St/I St Y,ea Major Approach ~ Northbound s77 661 Southbound 723 741 Minor Approach Total Westbo~tud 1.300 83 1,402 Satisfies Wamaat i er S eds/Runl ? Ye= 127 Y« 18. Arasatron8 do fi St Major Approach Northbound 586 489 Southbound SOZ 599 Minor Approach ToW Wesd~a~nd 1,088 130 1,08a 342 SatisSq Warrant i S oral 7 Yes Yes 21. Armstro~ dt B St Major Appcwch Northbound 638 781 Southbound 806 6?7 TOE 1 •~ 1,458 M o A l Weatbo~ntt 18 >n r pproK l Satisfies Warrant i S ? Fastbomd -- No 143 22. Rd G do warner ya ~~ Approach Esatbound 2,433 2,337 westbound 2,299 2,098 Minor Approach ?'~ Soutbbaiod 4,732 131 4,435 Satisfies warrant i er S eds/R ? Yea SS'4 Yea 23. E St do A St Major Approsch Eastbound 533 190 Westbound SOS 430 Minor Approach Total Southbound 1,041 78 620 SadsSes Warrant er S eds/R ? ld 297 Yes City otTusr~ - Lesacy Part otTwtio Lspry Austin-l:owt Asrociata, lnc. Neiat~borliood E lutsraal Cuculation Mah'w y ~ 922Wwptl.doc !!~ ti ') i ~± ii i~ iA i! i~ i~ i~ ~~ Table 3 (coat.) YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL'WAR.RANT SUMMARY . IateraectioA N/S Rd at E/W Rd Direction AM Peak Rour PM Peak Roter 24. B St dt A St Major Approach ~ Eastbound 303 367 Westbound 4S7 407 Total 760 774 Minor Approach Soutbbound SS 30 Satisfies Warrant war eedsJUrban ? No No 2S.CStdtASt Major Approach Eastbound 303 372 Westbound 216 62S Total S21 997 Minor Approach Northbound 462 103 Satisfies Warrant er S rbaa ? Yea No 26. F St dt B St Major Approach Eastbound 2 ~ -. westbound 309 - Totsl 311 - Mina Approach Southbound 8 -- Satisfies Wamiat 'Lower S ? No Major Approach Southbound - 147 Minor Appmsch Westbound - SO Satisfies Warrant Lower S rbaa ? No 114.DStdtASt Major Approach Eastbound 441 314 Westbauad 257 563 Total 698 877 Minor Approach Soudtbouttd 42 229 SatiaSes Warrant war S roan ? No No 11S.DStdtCSt Major Approach Eastbound ~ 61 - Weatbouad 4S - ToW 106 - Mitat Apprwch Nathboamd 23 - SatiaSes Wammt Lower S eeds/[Jrbat ? No 4 Mina Approach Westbaiad -- g SatisSea Wamint war S rbaa ? No Abbreviations: N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road. EasWVest Road E ~ City of Twda - [.epey Patfc of Tustio [.spry Au~tio-Fawt As~ociws. !~ Neiahbortaod E lalatad Citculatton Aaatysi~ M 922004epts.doe ~i ~ ~~ Tabk 4 YEAR 2025 (ALTERNAr1YE 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY ' latersectiea !S Rd at FJW R Directbs AM Ptak Sour PM Pak Sear S. Armsa & warner ' Major Approach F.astbonad w~ 2;017 1,996 2,276 l s2s ~ total 4,013 , 3,801 Southbound 492 i Minor Approach Northbound - 870 Satisfies Warrant i her S eds/Rura[ ? Yes ~'p 6. Armaaon8 dt A St Major Apprnach Northbound S36 Sauthbouod 21 S - Minor Approach roll Westbatad 75.1. 446 . _,. Sati:Sa Warrant i a S urai ? Yes - - Major Approach Eastba d ' m westbound - - 438 1,001 Minor Approsch Total Sonthbouad -- 1,439 Sadafie: Warrant S eda/R ? -- 401 16. Armsaon8 dt C St/I St - Yes Major Approach Northbound s7s 6a8 ~~~ ~ 719 729 + Minor Approach Total Westbo~md ~ 19S 4 1,377 Satisfies Warrant i er S eds/R ? 18. Arntsaona ~ E 3t No 133 y~ ' Major Approach Norrhbormd S83 471 Southbound S l 0 606 Minor Approach yy r~ ~ 1-~ 1 ~ 1,077 sad:yes warrant er S eda~ltunl ? No 267 2I. Mnstr+or~ ~ B 9t Ya Major Approach Nathboaad 64s 802 Southbound 801 664 ToW 1,446 1,466 Minor Approach westbou~,d Eastbo d 18 .,. Satisfies Warrant S unl ? un - No 134 22. Road (3 A Warns Yes I Major Approach Bastbormd 2,433 2,337 t watbanod 2,299 2,097 Minor Approach r~ Southbound a,~3z 131 . 4,434 Satisfies Warrant i a S eds/Rural ? Y s ss4 ~' e Yts { I City dTwos - Ltpry Putt of Twos Lepry Aurtia-Evart Assoe Nei~hbarbood E Isgmrl Circohoiaa Analyiir, 23 ~~ 1aQ- 9220Wrpd.dae '~ 1 ~+ ~! i '~ '~ ~i ~~ i~ i~ i~ i~ ~~ Table 4 (coat.) ~ 2) PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE Iatersecdoa /S Rd at EJW Rd Direction AM Peak Hort PM Ptak door 23.EStdcASt Major Approach Eastbound S33 190 Westbound 508 430 Total l ,041 620 Minor Approach Southbound 78 297 Satisfie: Warrant i er S ecds/Rura1 ? Yea Ye: 24.BStdtASt Major Approach Eastbound 304 369 westbound 4S5 - 412 Total 759 781 ~~ Appr~ Southbound 56 23 Satiafia Wamaat S rban T ~ No No 2S.CStdtASt Major Appro~ Eastbound 306 379 Wettband 215 621 Total 521 1,000 Minor Approach Northbound 462 1 S4 Satiaf~es Warrant wer S eedsRJrban ? No No 26. F St do H St Major Approach F.aatbamd 0 -- Westbarod 310 Total 310 Minor Approach Southbound 7 - SatiaSes Warrant wer S /Urban ? No Major Approach Southboumd - 139 Appmaeh no r M i westbound - 44 _ ` ~ - SatuSea n a~tt tr ~7 ~iG~i3/ V ~ X11 ? '~ No 114.DStdtASt Major Approach Eastbound 437 340 Westbotnd 2S6 S39 Tots! 693 894 Minor Approach Southbound 39 214 Satisfies Wamnt er S ? No No 1 l S. D St do C St ~yj~ ,i-pp~b Eastbound 68 - Westbound 4S - Total 113 - MiaorApproach Northbound 25 -- Satia6es Warrant wer S rhea ? No Major Approach Northbound -- 81 Minor Appmacb Westbound -- 58 Satisfies wamnt wer S rban ? -- No Abbreviations: N/S Rd, E/W Rd - North/South Road, EasWVest Road 1 City of Twin -[.spry Park of Tana Lcpry A~utio-Fowl Asaociata. loo. Nei~brbood E latnad Circulatioe Analyrit 24 9220Wrptt.doe I TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES The recommended on-site tralfte control measures shown in Figure l6 within Neighborhood ~ ' include one-way stop signs and traffic signals. Exc t for the c6an es to the eP g three Amostroag Avenue I intersections previously mentioned, this data is consistent with the March 6, 200'1, tratEc study t:"hanges to the traffic control measures sho h ' wn ere v~nll require subsequent analysis. It should be noted that traffic control measures are not project mitigation measures, Rather they, address the traffic operational needs of 'j the project site depending on individual capacity and include a combination of traffic signals aad sll-wsy and one-way stop signs. RECOMMENDED TURN POCKET LENGTHS ' This suction addrcsscs turn pocket lengths far left turn and right-turn lanes at future signalized ' intersections with exclusive right-turn and left turn lanes. They art basod on vehicle storage requirements, and are there exclusive ' by of transition lengths icall trsnsiti {typ Y, ones are 90 feet for s single lane and 120 to 1 SO feet for a double lane). The recommended taro pocket Ieagths for left-turns are in Tables 5 and 6 for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, and Tables 7 and 8 for ri ght-turns. "° The turn pocket lengths shown here nay be slightly difl"er~ent theses the March 6, 200?, tratlyc a lady because of the changes along Armstrong Avenue and Rod Hilt Avenue which affect trstfic patterns in Neighborhood E. ~~ I E FFECTS OF CIRCULATION CHANGES Several changes to the circulation resew p led m the March 6, 2007, Iraf$ic study are introduced in ~" this report. As part of the plea being subrr~itted for Neighborhood E, Driveway D on Red Hitt Avenue (located north of Carnegie Avcnuel"A" Street) is introduced ss an access int that is po restncted to nght- turns in and right-turns out. The effect of this new driveway on the adjacent intersections especially as it (~ relates to intersection spacing is analyzed, Other changes occur on the periphpy of Nei bor6 Bh nod E along Armstrong Avenue. Three intersections on Armstrong Aveauo ("B" Stmt, "C" Street/`Z" Street f ~ .and "E" Street), which were previously restricted to certain turn movements, are converted to fuU aces I in this traffic analysis. 1 t~ :! City of Ttitsti~ - Lepcy Ptulc of Tustin I.e~ary A~_P~ ~~. NeisYbwhood E taatad Cincvlatiao Attaiysia _u ales, bc. . 92ZOOMpi.doc i i' i. r i i~ i~ i~ I '~ ~~ ~.• ~~~ ,•} I' I ~ , ,= f ----•- { ~ r '~ ~ ~o ` ~, I ~ ~ ~ .f. ~~ ~ f 0 r ~ ~ `~ ~ t V I.rt I I~ r ~`"4 +"~ 1 I ~ 7i ~ \ SEE 'NSETS 4 G J N y _ r St A . _ 1 e~+wu- v~~w i~ ~G Leland .. sty s;~ h ~~ h 4~'C , .. ,~ ALTERNATIVE Z \ FSpas i6 nzw~lc ooxiROL M~-svius City dTustis -1.epry Put o[Tustin Le~sop Austin-Fast AaodsMs. bc;. Nei~Dborhaod E Inuraa! CincuJstion Asv1yW 26 922004cp8Pf~16.d~ ~i t 1 'f ~~ ~1 ~i I~ i~ i '~ I i i~ i~ ,r i~ jJ I! City ot71~ - Lapry Pant otTuats Legacy Awtin-Foavt Auurcia4aa. lee. Nei~bahood E Iataoai Circulation Aoalytia 27 9220Q1rpd.dot ~I f i~ i~ i~ i r it i~ ~+ Table 6 YEAR 1025 (ALTERNATIVE 2) RECOMMENDED LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTHS lntersectio^ /S Rd at l+'JW R Moveaneot Pak Hotir Volume Lattq Volume/Lane Led S. Armstrong dt Warner SBL PM 126 1 126 130' NBL PM S6S 2 283 300' EBL PM 186 1 186 200' WBL AM !02 1 i02 1S0' 6. Armstrong dt A 5t SBL PM 139 1 139 1 SO' NBL PM 69 1 b9 i SO' EBL AM 93 1 93 1 SO' WBL PM 229 1 229 250' y I b. Armstrong 8t C SUI St SBL AM 190 i 190 200' NHL AM 14 1 14 1 SO' EBL PM 38 1 38 1S0' WBL AM 11 1 l l 1 SO' 18. Armstro ~ E St SBL AM 294 1 294 300r 21. A do B St NBL AM 221 l 221 2S0' 22. Road G dt Warner SBL PM 120 1 120 1 SO' NBL PM 1 l0 1 110 1 SO' EBL AM 3S6 1 3S6 400' WBL AM 54 1 59 1 SO' 23. E St dk A St SBL PM 167 1 167 200' NBL PM 28 1 28 1 SO' EBL AM 249 1 249 230' WBL AM 107 1 107 1 SO' 2S. C St ~ A St SBL AM 12 1 12 130' NBL AM 253 1 253 300' EBL PM 22 l 22 1 SO' _.___.- WBL PM 311 1 311 3S0' 103. Red Hill do Warner SBL AM 600 2 300 3S0' NBL PM 480 2 240 230" EBL PM 280 2 l 40 1 SOS WBL AM/PM 260 2 130 1 SO' 104. Red Hilt dt Carnegie SBL AM ~ S00 2 250 2S0' NBL AM 120 1 120 1 SOr EBL PM 90 1 90 1 SO' WBL PM 230 1 230 2S0' 1 l4. D St 6t A St EBL AM 173 1 173 200' WBL AM 17 1 17 1 SO' 115. D St do C St WBL AM 28 1 28 150- Abbreviations: N/S Rd, FJW Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road Notes: Tlu lion pocket length for tcft-turn tsnes is determined from the lugleest Alb! or PM peak bout forecast volume per laac with a minimum of l SO' and rouaded into increments of SO'. Ocily intersections with dedicated left-tom laaa are aaalyzad her+a. . City of Twtio - I.epry Pads of T~utio L,c~acy Au~ao-Four Aswciatp~ tac. Neit6bodwod E Ialaraal Cirsnla4oo AaaFjnu 2 f yn00,4~ ~ a;erseetlsm /S Rd at • Anaatrong do Warner l,gdi:ESt 22. Road G d. Warn 23. EStdcASt 103. Red Hill do W,� 104. Rod Hill & Cam YEAR 2025 (ALTERNATIVE 1) RECOTable 7 MMENDED RIGHT SBT AM PM 1904 Elm, 548 220 1 -TURN POCKET LENGTHS 1980 1670 RT Kaye Adj Move Peak Hour Ad Vol Adj Lamp PM 1.650 3 557 SSO Adj Vol/Lu RT Vol RT Las RT SBR EBR SBT EBT PM PM 204 2 l02 248 1 Van 248 WBR �T AM .1698 1758 3 1 566 392 I 392 WBR WBL Em 77 1 S86 136 1 136 SBR SBT 31 77 265 1 265 EBR EBT 2 020 3 3 673 431 24 i 431 EBR EST AM 255 1 255 I 24 29 I 29 SBR NB E SBT AM PM 1904 Elm, 548 220 1 EBR EB 2sa 1980 1670 4 3 49S 28Q 1 WBR _W PM 1.650 3 557 SSO 230 1 NBR NBT PM50 .35 4 S63 670 1 SO EBR OVER EBT WBT PM 301 1 30 100 1 280 400' 230 670 S00' 50 .57 PM 25a PM 20 100 250' "ed Hill do Drivewa D• NBR NBT PM 2 610 420 280 1.5 187 259 6S3 10 1 10 2S0• Now: The tum pocket length for right -pun hm is & minW Roan the bout with a minimum of 250' orad rounded into of S9. esttMAW q� lcngm of the highest adjacent through and/or highest ICU in the AM or PM peak e OWY immroctices that are adicipatod to be signdized into dedicated right -turn lanes are analyzed here. With as aninteanptad northbound mo veined (i.e., not ai9"'* ed or ) ugh qum Y �°� Pfd laagth u required atop�coatrolled no expected Oo hinder the right -tum move. Therefore only the Abbreviations: N/S Rd, E/W Rd — North/South Road. EtmdWeat Road Adj — Adjacent ICU — lmaso dm Capacity Utilization Ln(s) — Lane(:) N/S Rd, E/W Rd — Nares Road. EmMest Road RT — Right -Tura Vol — Volume City MaiOfia � �hric °l7lwao L,cpKY Cpm Aasbmim 29 Again -Foust A&Wiaw Inc. 9220Q4cp4a.doc Peak RT [CU Elm, Len t .66 PM 259 2sa 250' .40 PM 259 .81 PM 309 3W .35 AM/ 25V PM •90 1 PM 400' 280 400' 230 670 S00' 50 .57 PM 25a PM 20 100 250' "ed Hill do Drivewa D• NBR NBT PM 2 610 420 280 1.5 187 259 6S3 10 1 10 2S0• Now: The tum pocket length for right -pun hm is & minW Roan the bout with a minimum of 250' orad rounded into of S9. esttMAW q� lcngm of the highest adjacent through and/or highest ICU in the AM or PM peak e OWY immroctices that are adicipatod to be signdized into dedicated right -turn lanes are analyzed here. With as aninteanptad northbound mo veined (i.e., not ai9"'* ed or ) ugh qum Y �°� Pfd laagth u required atop�coatrolled no expected Oo hinder the right -tum move. Therefore only the Abbreviations: N/S Rd, E/W Rd — North/South Road. EtmdWeat Road Adj — Adjacent ICU — lmaso dm Capacity Utilization Ln(s) — Lane(:) N/S Rd, E/W Rd — Nares Road. EmMest Road RT — Right -Tura Vol — Volume City MaiOfia � �hric °l7lwao L,cpKY Cpm Aasbmim 29 Again -Foust A&Wiaw Inc. 9220Q4cp4a.doc Tabk 8 YEAR 2023 (ALTERNATIVE 2) RECOMMENDED RIGHT -TURN POCKET LENGTHS Iatenecd"/S Rd RT Adj )�./W Rd Move Move Pak Hoar Ad Vol Adj Lues Adj RT RT Peak RT S' Arnc�trong Wer SBA SBT PM 202 VORA RT Vol Las VoVLa ICU Hoar Len th EBR EBT PM 1,699 2 3 101 566 248 392 1 1 248 .65 392 PM 250' 250' WBR WBT 22. Road G A do Waw SHR AM 1.752 1 586 136 1 136 250' SBT EBR EBT 23.E A St PM PM 3 29 020 1 3 3 673 431 24 I 1 431 .81 24 PM 250' 300 EBR EBT w 103. Rod Hill do Warnes SBR SBT AM AM 255 1 255 29 1 29 .38 AM 250' NBR NBT PM I 2,190 1980 4 4 548 493 220 280 l 1 220 .90 280 PM 400' EBR EBT �T AM PM 1,670 3 557 230 1 230 400' 400' 104. Red HiR doWBR :� NBR NBT PM 1 6S0 2,250 3 550 670 1 670 500' EBR EBT PM 30 4 1 563 30 50 100 1 1 SO .58 100 PM 250' WBR WBT Red Hill do Drivewa D• PM 20 .5 20 280 1.S 187 250' 25V R NBT PM 610 4 633 1 10 1 10 -- 250' Notes: The tnrn pocw lenA for ri -tum Wm a ddmmd from the estimated hour with a minimum of 2S0' and rwjndW '' of the and/or lint ICU m the AM or PM peals tato .ply aaticipated ic be atgoaltaed Tnth dedicated n&4urn lana are analyzed here. With an unintesruptW nonhbowW tnovemjW (i.e., ant Agaaliaed or minimum pod UA jeno is required. wV'controlkd) ao ihrou8h queue is expected to hinder the right -turn move. Therefore only the Abbreviations: N/S Rd. E/W Rd — Nm* Sowh Road, EuMest Road Adj — Adjacent ICU — IaeOUWAion Capacity Utiu,ation LA(s) — Lane(:) NUS Rd, E/W Rd — Nm WSouth Rad, Ea:t/Wast Rood RT — Right-Twn Vol — Volume CRY of 7L - Lewy ]put of 71ud. LOpr N40bal>ood E `6mw QmWwim Ambvis 30 AWtim-foat Anoci m,, 9 t. The addition of a driveway north of Camcgie AvcnueJ"A" Street alleviates traffic conditions at the adjacent intersections, Red Hill Avenue at Warner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue at Carnegie i Avenue/"`A" Street. Review of the spacing of Driveway D from Warner Avenue and Carnegie ` Avenue/"A" Street on Rcd Hill Avenue shows that there is sufEcient spacing between intersections based i on the northbound right-turn pocket needs at Warner Avenue and at Driveway D intersections. Therefore the proposed location of Driveway D is adequate (approximately 1,000 feet south of Warner Avenue and i 1,200 feet north of Carnegie AveaueJ'"A"Street). } Tbc signal warrant analysis presented earlier for Neighborhood E concluded that cacti of the four intersections along Armstrong Avenue between Warnes Avenue and Batraacit Parkway would meet a signal warrant. A signal progression analysis was conducted for this scenario which concluded that no adverse conditions would occur. However whether si gnat are needed at all four, particularly if soma movements could be eliminated (e.g., exiting left turns at son-sigrnalized intersections) were further examined. As mentioned previously, two aiter'natJVea arc analyzed for the intersections of Anmstr ong at "C'/"I" Street and at "E" Street with respect to sigaalizadon and lace deployment. The analysis showed ` ! minor volume differences along "C" Street between "A" Street and Armstrong Avenue, "A" Str~oet between "C" Street and Amutrong Avenue and on Armstrong Avenue between "B" Street and "A" j ~ Street. Intersection performance is further evaluated here us' the Hi ~ Bh~Y Capacity Manual (HCM) ' procedure for stop-controlled intersections and ICU procedure for signalized intersections, T'abk 9 lists I ~ the level of service (LOS) results. A: can be seen in this table, all intersections under Alternative I and • Alternative 2 would not experience adverse conditions with the exception of "B" Street with forecasts showing that the eastbound left-turn move from "B" Street could experience . a delay of up to 65.1 seconds. 1 coNCLVSYOrrs The intent of this report is twofold. First, a guide is provided to show the n ecds of the roadways (i.e., recommendations for raidblock lanes, intersection lane geometries, signalization, left-turn and right turn pocket lengths) in Neighborhood E and whin implemented would ads uatel s . q y upport traffic within Neighborhood E. Secondly, with minor land use and circulation changes in and around Neighborhood E, the data is consistent with that presented in the March 6, 200'), traffic study for Leguy park, and generally, the traffic conditions are alleviated at the intersections adjacent to the driveway that is added ! sad to the intersections along Armstrong Avenue that arc changed. ~~ s ' . City of Twos - Lc~acy Paris of Twtio Ltpcy AusOa--Fawt Asaocia~aa Nei~hboriwod E lotstsd CiRUlatias Aaui~r~is ~~ • ~• 9220Wrpd.doe i '~ i~ i~ i~ f` i~ ~~ i'"~ Tabk 9 ARMSTRONG AVENUE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Alternative 1 Altera~tlve 2 "B" Strsd Control Side Street Sto Control Side Street S Control Prohibited Movemeata None None AM Dela OS • EBL - 65.1 secs EBL - 62.9 secs PM Dell S • EBL - 42.1 sass EBL - 39.6 secs "C" Str~eet/"I" Street Control Side Street St Control S' Prohibited Movemeatt No EB/WB leR turns None No EB/'WH AM ICU/De4 S 11.1 secs .38 A PM ICU/Dela OS • 11.8 sect .40 A "1C" Street Control Si Side Street S Control Prohibited Movemenb None No exi ' kR-turnt AM ICU/Dela OS • .40 A 11.2 secs PM ICWDeIs OS • ~ .38 A 12.1 sect "A" Street Control Si Si Prohibited Movemenb None None AM ICIJ os .42 w .al A PM ICU S .48 A .47 A • For stop control, the delay sad cornspondiag LOS apply to the side street movement with the highest deLy. Ciry otTwtia - i.etary Park otTustia l.esary Au~tio-Fouk Atsoeialsa, (oe. Nci~hborbood E Intarnal CiRUlatioo AosiysM 32 gu00e~,~ 1 Appendix ' ~ Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICin Worksheets This appendix summarizes information pertaining to the intersection analysis presented in thin ~` traf~'ic report. i ICU Calculation Methodology '~ The ICU calculation procedure is based on a critical movement methodology that shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical movement at an intersection. A capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane is assumed together with a .OS clearance interval A "de-facto" right-turn Lane is used in the ICU calculation for caeca where a curb Lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and right ' turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet or more from curb to outside of througl,-Inns with paridng prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes arc treated the same as striped right-turn laaea during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets us' the letter "d" in 1 ~ pace of a numerical entry for right-tom lanes. i ' The aethodology also incorporates a check for right-pun capacity utilization, Hoth right-hun-on- . grocn (RTOG) and right-dun-on-red (RTOR) capacity availability ar+e calculatod and checked a ~ palnat total right-turn capacity need. If insullicicnt capacity is avaiLble, then an adjustment is made to the total l capacity utilizadon value. The following example shown how thin adjusim~nt is iuade, ilk Exampk for Northbound Rlg6t 1 I ]. R:¢ht-Tom-Oa-Cm`(R„ T[~1 If NBT is critical move, then: f RTOG = V/C (NB'1~ Otherwise, R?OG ~ V/C (NHL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL) Z. Ri¢ht-Ttun-On-Red, TOR ' If WHL is critical move, thee: ~ RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, ~ RTOR s V/C (EHL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT) I ! ' ' City otTwtia - Lepcy Paris of Tustin Le~~cy Auatia-Fouu Aaaciatas. tae. Nciahboriiood E Iata~lnal Cir~ulatiort Aaafysia A-! 92100~kpta.doe i 1 t ' i ' 3. Rie~t-Turn Ovcflap Adj~tr~ If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound leR, adjustments to the ' ~ RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows: RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL) ~ RTOR = RTOR - V1C (WBL) ~ Total Right-Turn CaQacity (~) Availability For NBR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (0'/. for County intrersectioos, 75% for intersections in all other jurisdictions within the study area) '` Right-turn adjustment is then as follows: Additioml ICU = V/C (IVBR) -RTC A zero or ne alive value indicates flat ante c i is av ' g adcq spec ty ailable and no adjustment ~ necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOt3 capacity does not adequately accommodate the right-turn V/C, therefore the right-taro is essentially considec+ed to be a critical movement In such cases, the right-turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in i ~ the total capacity utilization vah~c. When it is determined that aright-turn adjustment is required for more than one right-turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right-turn movement reference, and the right-turn adjustments sre cumulatively added to the total capacity utilizatYOn value. In such cases, fwther operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right-turns would operate simultaneously, and dterefore a right-turn adjuahnent credit should be applied. IW Shared Lane V/C Methodology !' For interacction approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn movement (e.g., left/t>,rough, throughlrig6t, left/through/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated to determine whether dedication of the shared lase is warranted to any ooe given tuna movement. The I fallowing example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: Ezsmpk for Shared LetltrI'hrongb Lane 1. Avcra~e Lane VQlume {Aj~y} ALV = LeR-Turn Volwne + Through Volunx To + Throu Approac es inc u g s are sae Ciry of Tmaa - t.e;aey Farlt of Tuati~ Lepe~- Aattin-Forst As~oci~tw, lac. Nei~hborfiood E ta~erad Circulation M~lri~ A-2 9220o4rptf.doc Vf 2. AL or Each Aporoacb ~ ALV (L,efl) = Left-?urn Volume ~ Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV {Through) = Thmu~h VOI ~mc '' Through Approach Lams (including shared lane) 3. ane Dedi~~tton is Warranted ' f ALV I_ (heft) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left-turn approach is warranted. Left-tum and through V/C ratios for this case are calculated as ' } follows: V/C (Left) _ _______ ___ I ~ •'I' ~•++ Volume Left Approach Capacity (including sisar,ed Igoe) V/C ('Through) • Th*ovgb; Volume M Through Approach Capacity (excluding shrtred lane) Similarly, if ALV (Through) is grater than ALV then full dedication to the through ~f approach is warranted, and left-turn and through V/C ratios are calculated ss follows: t V/C (uft) _ _ Left-Tu_*++ Volume f LeR Approach Capacity (excluding shared Zane) ,. -. V/C (Through) _ . Through Approach Capacity (including shared aatse) 4. Lane Dedication ,~a~Q~ Wanes i If ALY (L.eR) and ALV ('Through) are both less than ALV, the ieR/through lane is assumed to be truly shared and eacis 1cR, left/tbrough or through approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined kfVthrougb V/C ratio is calculated s: follows: V/C L tYI'h h s e ( roug ) Vnh Tots1 Left +'Iluvugh Approach ~p~Y (~~~ shared Lme) This V/C (LeR/'Throu h) rati i i g o s ass gned as the V/C (Through) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU suanmary listin`. k If split Abasing has not bean designated for this approacly the relative proportion of V/C {Through) that is attributed to the leR-turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach bas more than ooc Icft-turn (including shared lane), then; V/C (Left) = V/C (Through) City of 71uoe - Leery P~rit o~ Tinos Lessee Neishborfwod E Iotasal Cu~uWioo Asatysis ~,j Awtis-Fowl As~oci~tr, tee. 9220Wrpt=.doc t If approach bas only one left-turn lase (shared lane), then: V!C (Lefl) • LeR-Tura Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity r i~ ,• i~ iw i~ i~ i~ i~ If this lcft-turn movement is determined to be a critical movcment, the V/C (L.eft} vahu is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. These same steps are carried out for shared throughlright lanes. if full dedication of a . sbansi through/right Zane to the right-turn movement is warranted, the right-tina V/C value calcukted in step throe is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity. When an approach contaitu more than are shared lane (e.g., left/thmugh and throughlright), steps one and two listed above are caRiod out for dre three taro movements combined. Step four is Gamed out if dedication is not warranted for either of dte shared Iancs. If dedic~tioa of one of the shared Lanes is warranted to one movement or anodser, atcp tome is carried out for cht two movcmenta involved, and then steps one through four are rcpeattd for the tvvo movement involved in the other shared lane. Figure A-1 illustrates the intersections that went analyzed in this study, and the AM and PM peulc boor intersection capacity utilization (ICU) worksheets then follow. City of T~ - LspcY Pui~ o[Tut~o Lepry Aa~OS•Fowt Asrocistr, lie. Nei~hbattood E ln~ed Ciocalaooa Ao~1yw A-4 922004tpt~.doe e i I li ~I ~i I~ I~ I~ I' I~ I~ I~ e ~~~ n~rtERS~oN iocaTloN u~ (~- of 71~am • Lepc~- Paei~ of Tmtia Le~sq Aura-Fort A~ociatet~ Ise Neijhbot5ood E lateraa! (~CUlstioa Aaalyi A S 922001[p~gp~ l.dwj .~ r '` r t~ 1' 1~ IA I' I~ I~ I~ I~ .~ 5. l-tastsag i llatAet 1425 Alteraatiw 1 111! PK NOUR P!! PK NOOR LANLS CAPACITY YOL Y/C YOL YIC MBL 2 3400 170 .01' S6S .17• NB? 2 3100 121 .01 235 .09 MgR 0 0 4 54 SBL 1 1700 7/ .OS 121 .07 SBT 2 3100 111 .01' 101 ,06• SBR 1 1700 272 .li 111 .1S SSL 1 1700 170 ,10' 166 .11 EB! 3 5100 1111 .1S 1691 .33' BBII 1 1700 Si0 .33 392 .13 MBL 1 1700 101 .Oi /1 .OS' MBT 3 3100 1751 .31• 1115 .25 Belt 1 1700 13i .0/ 110 .10 Right Tnrn Adjustaeat salt .01' Clearance Interval .OS• .OS' l+OT>!L CAT>1CIlt 0?ILIfdlIDt .iS .ii i. 1lrartronq i J< it 2023 u trnati.. 1 ~ ~ eouA ~ PlI BOOR LANES CItPACITY VOL Y/C VOL Y/C IIBL 1 1700 i/ .01 69 .0/ IiBT 2 3100 363 .11' 153 .09* pelt Q 0 109 117 S6L 1 1700 13i .oe• 13e .oe• SB'r 1 3100 90 .O7 331 .10 SBA 0 0 I 2 EBL 1 1700 96 .Oi' /1 .03' EB! 2 3100 10? .01 lii .10 EBA 0 0 40 213 .11 MBL 1 1700 115 .07 160 .09 NBT 2 3100 193 .09' 192 .23' MBA 0 0 127 119 Clearance Interval .05' .OS' 1025 ltltuaatiw 2 AN PE NOOK P!l P1c b00R LANES C1tP11CI1Y YaL Y/C YOL Y/C 1f8L 2 3400 170 .01* 565 .17• l03T 1 3400 i28 .04 239 .04 NBR 0 0 9 6i SBL l 1700 7/ .05 126 .01 SBT 2 3406 142 .01' 282 .06' SBA 1 1700 272 .li 211 .15 EBL 1 1700 170 .10' 116 .11 SB! 3 5100 1290 .2S 1691 .33` L9A 1 1700 SS7 .33 392 .23 ileL 1 1700 102 .Oi 70 .01• MllT 3 5100 1151 .31• 1211 .25 MBR 1 1700 136 .0/ 111 .10 j Aight Tusa lla juat.ent SBR .01' Clearance Interval .OS* .OS' taro c~rlrc>3r vrniu:tar .a ~.is i 2025 uterastiw T AM elc ~'A >!~+ PR MOWt 4ANE3 C11PJtCITY YOL V/C VOL V/C NSL 1 1700 61 .OJ 69 .0/ NBT 2 3100 363 .11' 153 .09' MBR 0 0 109 117 SBL 1 1700 13i .O/' 13! .01' Sl? 2 3100 79 .02 2i2 .01 sBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1 1100 93 .OS' 36 .02' EBT 1. 3100 103 .81 119 .09 68R 0 0 40 113 .11 MBL 1 1700 I26 .07 129 .13 MBT 2 3100 143 .09• 491 .23' MBA 0 O 127 211 Cleuance Interval .OS` OS' C>1P><CIlY OrILIi>1TIDx . fZ ,11 SO'rRL Ca1BCIlr OT3LIl,AlIOM ./l ,/1 A~ L.gsry Part of Turaa Inacy: I1si=h E 7K17 922.OOi I '' I '' '' '+ t '~ ~~ I t ~1 r 21. lltarttonq i f St 2025 Illtesnatiw i AM PK HWA PN PK HOOK L11MFS GPACITY VOL V/C VOL V1C NHL 1 1700 220 .13* 8 .00 NBT 2 3100 386 .12 713 .13* NHR 0 0 32 30 SHL 0 O 0 0 SHT 2 3100 7I7 .21* 636 .20 SBR 0 O 89 ~1 EBL 1 1700 S .00 61 .01 eBT 1 1700 0 .00 0 .OS' tJlt O O 2 7~ NBL 1 1700 S .00 26 .02' N8! 1 1706 1 .OI' 1 .03 NBR 0 0 II ii Clearance Interval .05' .OS* rota GPIlC13)r o>zLlsl-tra . ~~ . ~ 22. ~a c : Vainer ears lucun.csw 1 kl R HOUA PM PR HODR I.AIfCS C1lPACIlY VOL Y/C YOL V/C NBL 1 1700 19 .Ol 110 .06 Md! 1 1700 2 .O1' 7 .08* NHR 0 0 7 137 58L 1 1700 11 .O1* 120 .OT' Sdt 1 1700 1 .00 3 .00 SB8 1 1700 111 .O7 131 .15 [HL 1 1700 3S6 .II' 293 .17~ EHT 3 5100 199 .39 2020 .10 EHR 1 1700 63 .OS 2~ .O1 NBL I 1700 59 .03 16 .O1 NBT 3 Si00 2101 .11' 2039 .4I' M81: 0 0 13~ ~3 Right Turn Mjuat~ent S~ .03' Clearance Interval .OS• .OS' l+OrJiL GIPRCIlT 0lILIL>tlI01 .72 . tl A-~ 2025 IIi ternatiw 2 A!I PK HOUR P!! PR HOUR LIMES GPACI77 VOL Y/C WL V/C NHL 1 1700 221 .I3' 2 .00 NET 1 3100 342 .12 769 .2~• ~ 0 0 32 3l SHL 0 0 0 1 SHT 1 3400 712 .2!' 623 .20 SHR O 0 89 ~0 ~L 1 1700 1 .00 SS .03 ~ 1 1700 0 .00 0 .OS• EdR 0 0 2 79 AOL 2 1700 5 .00 26 .02' NHT 1 1700 1 .O1' 1 .03 N$1t 0 0 12 +6 Clearance Interval .OS• OS• >~ cu>rc><tr ornlsl-tia . ~3 .3i , 2025 Ill teinatiw 2 llq PK HOUR PM PK NOUI! WIGS CIIFIICITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 19 .O1 110 .06 ~' 1 1700 2 .O1' 7 .oe' ~ 0 0 7 137 S!L 1 1700 17 .O1' 120 .07' S8! 1 1700 2 .00 3 .00 s~ 1 1700 112 .07 131 .25 LHL 1 1700 3Si .21' 293 .17• EB? 3 5100 199 .39 2020 .I8 EHR 1 1700 13 .OS 11 .O1 NHL 1 1700 59 .03 15 .O1 NB! 3 5100 2106 .~~• 2039 .II* NBR 0 0 13~ 13 Right Turn Jrdjuataent SHA .03' Clearance Intetv~! .OS' .OS• TO'!J<L CIIP>iCIlY 0l7LItl1lIG/ .72 .81 Le,Bacy Pert of Tust~o LaOary: Neil $ 7/07 922.001 '~ 'I '4 i~ i~ `~ I I `' f i I ZS. C St i A St 2025 ]11t~raatiM 1 J1M1 PK HOUR PN P!( fiOUR LANES CAPIICI?Y VOL V/C YOL V/C N8L 1 1700 251 .15' !1 .02' NB? 1 1700 13 .12 9 .01 NBIt 0 0 165 52 SBL 0 0 12 11 SB! 1 1740 5 .02' 17 .Oi' SBR 0 0 23 12 LBL 1 1700 18 .OI 11 .O1 EBT 1 1700 165 .i7' 251 .22' EBR 0 0 22 lI0 NBL 1 1700 36 .02* 312 .28' N'B'! 1 1700 180 .lI 313 .18 Noll O 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .OS• .OS' i0'!>+L C1tP1VCITi 1TlILILilItYr .Il .52 2c. t at i s st 2025 111ternatln 1 1W !1( YOUR P!! PK YOU11 LA11Y.4 CAPACITY YOL V/C VOL Y/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 Yt~R 0 0 0 0 SBL 4 ~ 0 6 111 SBT 1 1700 0 .00* 0 .09+ SBA 0 0 2 5 EBL 0 O 0 0 EBT I 1100 2 .00 2 .00 ®R 0 0 0 0 MBL 0 0 0 0 N8? 1 1700 53 .18' 14 .03' MBR 0 0 256 26 Clearance Intsnal .OS' .OS' 2025 lllbrnatiw 2 N! PR HOUR Pil PK HOUR LANES GPIVCITY NOL V!C VOL V!C NBL 1 1700 253 .l5• 11 .02' NBT 1 1100 17 .12 TO .01 NBR 0 0 162 13 SBL 0 0 12 11 SB! 1 1700 S .02' 1t .06' SBR 0 0 23 S1 EBL 1 1?00 21 .U1 22 .O1 E8! 1 1700 263 .1.7' 217 .2.1' E8R 0 0 12 110 1~1. 1 1700 3i .02' 31I .18' tD! 1 1700 179 .11 310 .18 N8R 0 0 0 O Clearance Interval .OS' _.. _ .OS' l'0'AL CAlACIlT OTILISAlIOr ./l .SS eau ut.~.tsr. s 1W PX HOUR PK PR 80118 LAiYtS C#PACI?Y VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 6 0 0 0 N6T o 0 0 0 NBR o 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 S 131 S!T 1 1100 0 .00+ 0 .Ot' SBR 0 0 2 S LBL 0 0 0 1 EB! 1 1700 0 .00 0 .00 taR a o 0 0 MBL 0 0 0 0 MB! 1 1700 S1 .18* 18 .03' IlBR o a 2si 26 Clearance Interval ,OS' OS' ~0lAL C1kPACITf DlILIT~lIO>A .T3 .17 1bT>!L CAPACIT! iTt'tZlfallOi .2) .Ii A- I O L.e~acy P~rl~ of Tuseio Le=scy: Neigh E 7107 922.00 i i t t 1 t '~ '~ i '~ I I~ i I 1 i 10i. eta 6 ilarswea 2o2s utr~atiw i AN Pl[ NOOa P!! Pf Nql» LlI1RS C1IPACIl7 VOL V/C VOL V/C NDL 1 1700 20 .Ol 130 .01 N8T 1 1700 10 .02• IO .01* NHR 0 0 30 SO SDL 1 1700 20 .OI• 150 .0!* SBT 1 1700 20 .Ol 10 .O1 S811 1 1700 20 .O1 310 .II RadL 1 11a 300 .li• !0 .02• D'! 1 c101 17N .2i 16i0 .2S LIB 0 0 1S0 30 n~ 1 1101 io .05 20 .Ol 1~T 1 cta 1c30 .2c• 1i90 .2r 11la 0 1 li0 10 aigl<t Tura Sdju~t...t S111 .11• Clwr~nce Interval .OS• .OS• rose ca>r~ crSLrs~ .52 .5! 101. lV~tso^! i Oassrca 20ZS Dltarcaatlw i 11M K ~ !M !~ i00D L~YRi C11tACIlT v~ V/C vr7L Y/C ~ I 17a 60 • .a Ioo ./c reT 1 11a 20 .il• 2a .al• >a>o 1 i7ot 30 .02 is .as saL 1 i7a N .os• 3/0 .20• seT 1 1700 30 .02 20 .oi SB)! 1 1700 110 .01 371 .22 ®L 1 1700 370 .21• 110 .I1* 8YT 4 6100 1310 .I1 1650 .2S E8D 0 0 !0 30 MaL 1 1700 I70 .10 10 .02 M9T / 6100 1610 .27• 1110 .21• 1181! 0 0 ISO 170 Cleuinct Interval .pS• OS• roTU CJI}!<CIlr olILIUTIa . f1 . <1 A•12 2025 ltlbrwtfw 2 f11 PK IIOQR pM pD b00"D LAS C1tP)rC1TY WL V/C NOL V/C 1lsL 1 1700 20 .O1 130 .Oi MBt 1 1700 10 .O2• 10 .01• ~ 0 0 30 SO SDL 1 17a 20 .O1• 150 .0!• SDT 1 1700 20 .O1 10 .O1 SOa 1. 1700 20 .01 310 .11 ~ 1 17a 300 .ti• to .ot• D! 1 f101 1710 .2i 1K0 .2S OR 0 / lS0 30 +~ 1 1701 u ~ .os to .ol MeT 1 1100 1c31 .2c• lill .1i• 10Di 0 0 160 10 . aight ?urw 11djn:trot S8R 11• Claraup Iat~nral .OS* . . .OS* c~rrr vra.I~ .u .5! 20ZS ut~saatiw 2 R N 1001 Li11~ CJIJs71CITr ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I7o1 e0 .ol 100 .oc reT 1 1701 2e .ol• 20 .11• ~ 1 I7o1 30 .02 e1 .05 sea 1 1700 10 .OS• ;SO ,21. ~'T 1 1780 30 .O2 20 .02 ~ I 1700 110 .01 370 .2I PaL 1 1700 370 .22• 110 .I1• DT 1 6f00 1370 .11 1650 .25 ~ 0 0 90 30 NDL I 1700 170 .10 10 .02 MIT 1 6100 1610 .27* 1110 .21• ~ 0 0 1S0 170 Claranca Interval .OS• .OS• rota car~lcmr aTUS>usnolr . W . u Lgaty tic +of Twoa 1,e~•ry: ~~ B 7/07 92T.004 EXHIBIT B TO RESOLUTION N0.07-92 EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 07-92 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 Approval of Tentative Tract Map 17144 is contingent upon the applicant returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.2 The subdivider shall comply with all applicable requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the Tustin City Code, applicable City of Tustin guidelines and standards and applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified FEIS/EIR, DDA 06-01, and other agreements with the City of Tustin unless otherwise modified by this Resolution. (1) 1.3 Prior to Final Map approval, DDA 06-01 (Master Developer) shall remain in fu11 force and effect without defaults, and all construction and completion of obligations identified in DDA 06-01 shall be satisfied, as applicable. (1) 1.4 All approvals noted in Zoning Administrator Action 07-008 and Resolution No. 07-92 shall become null and void in case of default or termination of DDA 06-01 by Developer prior to Final Map approval or issuance of building permits, including but not limited to, the City's approval of any final maps not completed at the time of default or termination. (1) 1.5 The final tract map shall be recorded in accordance with submitted maps date stamped December 4, 2007, and all applicable requirements of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Tustin City Code, and applicable policies and guidelines. All conditions of approval herein, as applicable, shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or as specified herein. (1) 1.6 The applicant is required to prepare and record final map(s) within 24 months from tentative map approval. The applicant shall record with appropriate agencies, final map(s) prepared in accordance with ~. subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the Tustin Municipal Code. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 2 (1) 1.7 The applicant shall execute subdivision and monumentation agreement(s) and furnish improvement and monumentation bond{s} prior to recordation of the Final Map(s) for the estimated costs of all Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure costs. {1) 1.8 Prior to approval of the final tract map, the applicant shall file a petition for the creation of a Community Facilities District {CFD) or Assessment District (AD} for the project area. The district may include the acquisition and construction or portions of the backbone infrastructure the applicant wishes to have funded through CFD or AD funding as well as the mandatory required imposition of a service special assessment tax for maintenance of public open space, landscape improvements such as backbone infrastructure medians, and o#her eligible public service items including street sweeping, traffic signal maintenance, landscape and park maintenance, lighting, flood and storm drain protection, police and fire protection, ambulance and paramedic services, recreation program services, other services and facilities at Tustin Legacy consistent with the CFD or AD Act. In the event that a district is not established prior to issuance of the first building permits, maintenance of items which would have been otherwise covered by imposition of a special service assessment tax, shall be the responsibility of a community association until such service tax is in place. The applicant shall acknowledge and agree pursuant to provisions contained in Section 8.11 of the DDA that the City shall have the right to determine, in its sole discretion, to fund any of the sub-divider's Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Work through imposition of an Community Facilities District (CFD) or Assessment District (AD). (1) 1.9 Upon recordation of the final map(s) or issuance of building permit(s), whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit new addresses for corresponding future buildings. PLANS AND SUBMITTALS (1) 2.1 Prior to approval of any design review application for development within the tract, the applicant shall provide trip reduction facilities pursuant to Section 9904 of the Tustin City Code. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Trip Reduction/Transportation Demand Management Strategy Plan to the Public Works/Engineering Department in conformance with the Tustin City Code Section 9901 et al and IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.13.1.C. (1) 2.2 All infrastructure shall comply with the City of Tustin Standard Drawings and Design Standards for Public Works Construction. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 3 (1) 2.3 All wet utilities, dry utilities, other utilities, and other facilities shall be provided underground and in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, unless otherwise approved by responsible agencies or noted in this resolution. (1) 2.4 The design of driveways, sidewalks, trails, and pathways shat! comply with the provisions of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (1) 2.5 All final development plans, improvements plans and maps shall be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file format is AutoCAD having the extension DWG. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved and updated CADD files reflecting "record drawing" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. The subdivision bonds will not be released until the "record drawing" CADD files have been submitted. The Final Map(s) should be tied to County of Orange control points (latest ~ °~; revision). Refer to Specifications of Digital Submission as maintained by the Surveyor's Office of the County of Orange for specific requirements for individual submittals. (1) 2.6 Prior to any work in the public right-of--way, Encroachment Permit(s) shall be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. GRADING (1) 3.1 The applicant shall submit grading plans for review and approval. The submittal package shall include, at the minimum, the following: A. Technical details and plans for all utility installations including telephone, gas, water, and electricity. B. Six (6) copies of the latest Soil Reports} prepared by a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer. (less than one (1) year old). Expanded information regarding the levels of hydrocarbons and ground water contamination found on-site shall be provided in the soil report. C. All site drainage shall be handled on-site and shall not be permitted to drain onto adjacent properties. D. Three (3) sets of the Hydrology & Hydraulic Report(s) prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 4 (1) 3.2 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the applicant shall prepare sediment and erosion control plans} for all work related to this development. (1) 3.3 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits, infrastructure construction plans, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for all private on-si#e construction. (1) 3.4 Grading bond(s) will be required prior to permit issuance. 'the engineer's estimated cost of the grading, drainage, and erosion control shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. (1) 3.5 The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State, and Regional Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations for development of this site. (1) 3.6 Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the applicant shall submit a ~;opy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that the NOI has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. In addition, the applicant shall include notes on the grading plans indicating that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities. (1) 3.7 A project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of grading permit. The WQMP shall be prepared using the City of Tustin Guidance for Preparing Project WQMPs. Applicant shall be responsible for certifying that all structural Best Management Practices (BMP) described in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications and shall demonstrate that adequate copies of the aE~proved WQMP are available on-site for future building owners or tenants {1) 3.8 Prior issuance of the first rough or precise grading permit and 'For any subsequent grading permi# involving excavation to increased depth, the applicant shall provide letters from an archaeologist andlor paleortitologist stating that individuals are on call during grading and ground disturbing activities. Written recommendations specifying procedures for culturallscientific resource surveillance as required by the FEISIEIR mitigation requirements shall be submitted for review and approval of Community Development Department. Should any resources be Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 5 discovered, no further grading shall occur in the resource area until the Department of Community Development is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect the resource. (1) 3.9 Prior to issuance of precise grading permits or building permits for development within tract, screening shall be provided behind the curb along all public streets. The screening shall be in the form of temporary opaque fencing. Temporary screening shall be modified as necessary to accommodate infrastructure improvements, but shall remain in place until the ultimate improvements are installed in accordance with streetscape plans approved under the Concept Plan for Neighborhood E. (1) 3.10 Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1 development, landscape within the streetscape setback area shall be installed. (1) 3.11 Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, the applicant shall submit a groundwater survey of the Neighborhood E site subject to the grading permits. The analysis shall be prepared by a geotechnica! engineer and versed in groundwater analysis and shall include the following information and analysis: A. Potential for perched groundwater intrusion into shallow groundwater zone upon build-out. B. Analysis of relief of groundwater buildup and properties of soil materials on-site. C. Impact of groundwater potential on building and structural foundations. D. Proposed site measures to avoid potential for groundwater intrusion within five feet of the bottom of footings. DRAINAGE (1) 4.1 The proposed Tustin Legacy Backbone, Local and Private Infrastructure storm drain system be designed per the applicable Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) and City of Tustin's standards and shall also incorporate the requirements of the Tustin Legacy Runoff Management Plan (ROMP) and the Barranca Channel Update Study. Public and private drainage collection systems shall be designed for a minimum 25- year storm frequency. Regional drainage facilities shall be designed for a minimum 100-year storm frequency. (1 j 4.2 The applicant shall provide drainage study for 100-year storm frequencies showing the maximum water surface area in all sump locations and Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 6 secondary overflow discharge locations for review and approval by the City Engineer. For all sump conditions, secondary drainage outlet discharge points shall be provided and shown on the plans per the applicable Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) and City of Tustin's standards. (1) 4.3 Detailed hydrology and hydraulic analysis for 25-year and 100-year storm frequencies shall be provided for both the existing and pr~~posed conditions to determine any requirements for on-site storm water retention/detention and facility sizing. {1) 4.4 The applicant shall be required to accept any upstream storm water that would historically cross the property and detain/retain on the property such upstream water so that the release of said water into downstream regional flood control systems does not exceed historical flow rates or the downstream capacity of such systems. {1) 4.5 All Tustin Legacy Backbone, Local and Private Infrastructure storm drain system pipe shall be Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP} and the minimum size shall be 24-inch, unless approved otherwise by the City Er~gineer. The storm drain system angle of confluence between main line and lateral shall not exceed 45 degrees. (1) 4.6 The applicant shall be responsible for design and construction of any interim or permanent retention facilities on-site, within Neighborr~ood E, which may be needed to retain on-site water from the project, basEd upon a hydrology and hydraulic analysis. Any interim or permanent r~;tention facilities on property not yet owned by the applicant are subject to the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department review and approval and will require issuance of license agreement(s) betwE;en the applicant and the City. (1) 4.7 The applicant shall design and construct the permanent retention basin and appurtenant flood control facilities for the Barranca Channel from Red Hill Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road, in accordance with the City's Run-off Management Plan for Tustin Legacy (RC)MP) and the Barranca Channel Update Study. This work shall include intersection enhancements at Barranca Parkway/Armstrong Avenue and at Barranca ParkwaylF~ed Hill Avenue. (1) 4.8 The applicant shall provide written approvals and obtain permits from the OCFCD for any connections and improvements to existing OCFCI~ storm drain facilities prior to the City approving the proposed storm drain improvements for the project. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 7 (1) 4.9 Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the applicant shall submit for approval by the City a Basin Maintenance and Operations Program, annual estimated maintenance cost, and a Faithful Performance Bond equivalent to 1-year of estimated maintenance cost. The City will maintain the inlet, OCFCD will maintain the outlet and the Master Association will maintain the landscape elements. TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE, LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 5.1 Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure improvements shall comply with the City of Tustin General Plan, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, City development standards and guidelines, and all conditions contained herein. (1) 5.2 The applicant shall submit 24" by 36" mylar improvements plans, other public improvements, and private improvements, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer for review and approval. The improvements plans shall include, but not limited to the following: A. Grading plans. B. Catch basins, retention/detention facilities, storm drain lines and laterals, or connections to the existing storm drain system. C. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. D. Curb ramps for the physically disabled. E. Drive aprons. F. Street paving. G. Signing/striping plans. H. Traffic signal plans. I. Stree# lighting. J. Domestic water facilities. K. Reclaimed water facilities. L. Sanitary sewer facilities. M. Fire hydrants. N. Landscape and irrigation. O. Underground dry utility facilities and connections. P. All private streets, drive aisles, and curb return radius shall be consistent with the City's design standards for private street improvements. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 8 (1) 5.3 The applicant shall provide a Geotechnical Report, Pavement Analysis, and Design Report for all required Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure improvements required in the Tentative Tract Map. (1) 5.4 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits for any parcel within the tract, the applicant shall construct the full width improvements of all roadways listed as required roadways to be constructed for Tentative Tract Map, whether Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure or Local Infrastructure shall include all master planned systems including the streets, sidewalks, bikeways (Class I and Class II), landscaped medians, street lighting, traffic signals, bus tum-outs, landscaping and irrigation, domestic water lines, gas, storm drainage, telephone, electricity, cable TV, sewage ,and reclaimed water, telemetry, any necessary telecommunication systems as shown in the Specific Plan, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Sub Area Master Plan for Tustin Legacy as approved by the City and responsible utility providers, and as required by the DDA 06-07 . Intersection enhancements sha11 include the creation or extension of left turn lanes, additions or modifications of signal apparatus including loops and interconnects, signing and striping modifications as necessary, and restoration of landscape medians impacted by left-turn enhancements or median modifications, all of which shall be carried out in accordance with City standards. (1) 5.5 The applicant shall also include the design and construction of dry utility conduits and pull boxes for future City use in the backbone system throughout the project. (1) 5.6 The applicant shall design and construct all transitional components of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program that are determined by the City to be necessary to construct and operate the project, protect the public health and safety, and/or ensure logical and orderly future phasing of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, which are to be connected to the applicant's Local Infrastructure improvements, consistent with DDA 06-01, including, but not limited to, such items as roadway striping and signing, modifications to traffic signals, curbs and gutters, and medians. (1) 5.7 Prior to approval of the first Final Map and Pursuant to provisions of DDA 06-01, the applicant shall submit an off-site traffic mitigation cash payment fee in an amount based on the methodology identified in the Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Tustin and City of Santa Ana regarding the Tustin-Santa Ana Transportation System Improvement Authority for Grand Avenue/Edinger Avenue and Grand Avenue/Dyer Road intersection improvements which is currently estimated Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 9 at $9,282,979, and which will be adjusted based on written agreement and confirmation between the City of Tustin and City of Santa Ana. TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND SUBMITTALS (1) 6.1 Roadways identified in Table 4-4 of the Amended Specific Plan including the north side of Barranca Parkway from .Red Hifl Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road, the eastside of Red Hill Avenue from Barranca Parkway to 1,000 feet north of Valencia Avenue, Wamer Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and Armstrong Avenue from Warner Avenue to Barranca Parkway shall be constructed as part of the Neighborhood E Tentative Tract Map 17144 required improvements. (1) 6.2 For all design and construction within the public right-of way for Backbone Infrastructure improvements funded by CFD or AD, separate plan packages shall be provided, which include all plans, specifications, and estimates necessary to conduct a public bid process. (1) 6.3 The applicant shall design and construct all Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements in the first phase of development as identified specifically in and required by DDA 06-01. (1) fi.4 The applicant shall design and submit 24" by 36" reproducible construction area traffic control plans, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation for review and approval. (1) 6.5 The applicant shall revise the Barranca Parkway off-street bicycle path along the north side of the street to ten (10) feet as previously requested. The sidewalk should be no closer than five (5) feet to the curb and eight (8) feet from the Property line to allow for adequate planting. Also the length of sidewalk curb adjacent should be the absolute minimum required to promote a safer pedestrian experience. The sidewalk and off-street bicycle path can be combined in certain locations (not at street intersections) where any public works and safety concerns are addressed subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. (1) 6.fi The applicant shall design and construct full-width street improvements for Armstrong Avenue between Wamer Avenue and Barranca Parkway, including the intersection improvements at Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue/Wamer Avenue. (1) 6.7 The applicant shall design and construct half-width street widening and improvements along the eastside of Red Hill Avenue including roadway Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 10 rehabilitation between Barranca Parkway and 1,,000 feet north of Valencia Avenue. (1) fi.8 The applicant shall design and construct a landscaped raised median with the Red Hill Avenue improvements and any improvements on the west side of Red Hill Avenue necessary to construct the median on Red Hill Avenue in order to ensure orderly development. The median improvements are not an applicant requirement under DDA 06-01; consequently, the design and construction of said improvements shall be specifically identified as an eligible direct reimbursement to appli~;ant by the Gity or the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency as part of any Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement required under DDA 06-01, prior to Final Map(s) approval. The City agrees that the applicant will provide provisions for reimbursement that will permit the applicant to ~~eceive reimbursement of segments of the project, including design. (1) 6.9 The applicant shall design and construct the full north-side widening and improvements to Barranca Parkway between Tustin Ranch Road and Red Hill Avenue including modification to the median and any improvements along the south side of Barranca Parkway necessary to re-construct the median. (1) 6.14 The applicant shall identify, design and construct the bus turnout and pad locations along the east side of Armstrong Avenue, similar to that shown for the north side of Warner Avenue. (1) fi.11 The applicant shall design and construct the full width improvements of Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue including intersection improvements to the intersection of the Warner Avenue/Red Hill Avenue, and to the intersection of Warner Avenue/Armstrong A~~enue. Pursuant to Attachment 28, Section 1.8 (a) of DDA 06-01, the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of a second west-bound left turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue and second west-bound ric~ht turn at Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue. (1) 6.12 The applicant shall design and construct traffic signals and signal interconnect systems at the intersection of Barranca Parkway/Arrstrong Avenue, at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue/V1/arner Avenue, at the intersection of Armstrong Avenue/South Loop Road, and at the intersection of Warner Avenue/Armstrong Avenue. (1) 6.13 Additional traffic signals and measures will be required as detEnrmined necessary by the Director of Public Works, which will be applicant requirements with all cost to be solely borne by the applicant, but will not Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 11 be included in the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program improvements, consistent with DDA 06-01. (1) 6.14 The applicant shall design and construct the median on Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and the improvements on the north and south side of Warner Avenue. The applicant shall be responsible for grading the right-of--way and stabilizing any finished grades within the right-of-way areas in conjunction with the Warner Avenue street improvement. (1) 6.15 The applicant shall design and construct a pedestrian bridge across Armstrong Avenue at the Linear Park. Prior to approval of the first final map, the applicant shall submit for City approval a Pedestrian Bridge Maintenance and Operations Program and annual estimated maintenance cost. The pedestrian bridge will be owned and maintained by the City. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 7.1 All design and construction of improvement work shall incorporate applicable conditions contained within DDA 06-01 and shall be designed and cons#ructed in accordance with the applicable portions of the City of Tustin's "Grading Manual" and "Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drain and On-Site Private Improvements." (1) 7.2 Roadways identified in Table 4-4 of the Amended Specific Plan including Carnegie Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Armstrong Avenue and Aston Street from Barranca Parkway to Carnegie Avenue shall be constructed as part of the Neighborhood E Project. (1) 7.3 All private improvement work shall be performed in accordance with the applicable portions of the City of Tustin's "Grading Manual" and "Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drain and On-Site Private Improvements." (1) 7.4 Sanitary sewer facilities, domestic water systems, and reclaimed water systems shall be designed and constructed to the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) standards. These improvements plans shall be reviewed and approved by IRWD. The domestic water system improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for fire protection purposes. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 12 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND SUBMITTALS {1) 8.1 The applicant shall design and construct Carnegie Avenue between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue as a four lane secondary road and Aston Street ("C" Street) between Barranca Parkway and Carnegie Avenue as a two lane local collector road and shall be part of the Public Infrastructure improvements (not Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements). In addition, certain additional identified modifications to the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements due to applicant's project shall be the applicant responsibility. Any incremental increases in costs to make changes required by Attachment 28, Section 1.8 (a) of the DDA 06-01 shall be considered as applicant's cost not as fair share costs (i.e. second west-bound left turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue, second west-bound right turn lane at Red Hill Avenue and ~lllamer Avenue, Aston Street extension). {1) 8.2 The applicant shall design and construct the full-width improvements of "A" Street (Carnegie Avenue), "B" Street, "C" Street (Aston Street), "D" Street, "E" Street, "F" Street and "G" Street as local public streets, including but not limited to landscaped and raised medians. {1) 8.3 The applicant shall provide a cross section on the improvement pians for "E" Street, "F" Street and "G" Street that indicates the location of the sidewalks in relation to parked vehicles in areas where the sidewalks will be adjacent to parking. A minimum five (5) foot clear sidewalk shall be provided along the aforementioned streets. (1) 8.4 Traffic signals, control devices, and signal interconnect systems for the intersection of: Red Hill Avenue/Carnegie Avenue, Armstrong Avenue/"A" Street, Armstrong Avenue/"C" Street, Barranca Parkway/"C" Street, Warner Avenue/Lot "G", "A" Street/Lot "E" and "A" Street/"C" Street shall be designed and installed by the applicant as identified in the approved traffic analysis for the project dated July 2007. (1) 8.5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, improvements plans, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for the following private improvements: A. Street lighting. The private street lighting system shall be rEViewed and approved by the City of Tustin and Southern California Edison. B. Landscape/irrigation. C. Trash facilities. The applicant shall provide for commercial trash collection and obtain approval from the Engineering Division for the location, size, and number of trash enclosures. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 13 COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED AGENCIES GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 9.1 The applicant shall obtain permission from and coordinate with affected property owners, jurisdictions, and resource agencies for all public and private improvements, including, but not limited to, the following: A. The applicant shall obtain permission, approvals, or temporary easements from affected property owners as necessary. B. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the applicable municipal agencies for work within the agencies' City limits. All infrastructure improvements in the City of Irvine and the City of Santa Ana shall be coordinated with the City of Irvine and the City of Santa Ana and shall comply with Irvine's and Santa Ana's applicable standards respectively. C. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the applicable Regional Resource Agencies including, but not limited to: the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc. for work within the open channels. D. The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of the bus stop locations with the Orange County Transportation Authority. E: The applicant shall obtain written approval/permits from the applicable utility companies. {1) 9.2 The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of all utilities with the utility providers and the City. The applicant shall also include the design and construction of dry utility conduits and pull boxes for future City use in the arterial streets backbone system throughout the project subject to review and approval of City Engineer. DEDICATIONS/RESERVATIONS/EASEMENTS GENERAL CONDITIONS (1) 10.1 The applicant shall satisfy dedication and reservation requirements as applicable, including but not limited to, dedication of all required street and flood control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements and water easements, parkland and open space easements defined and approved as to specific locations by the City Engineer, Redevelopment Agency and other agencies as applicable. The locations and dimensions of all existing and proposed easements shall be shown on the Final Map(s) and plans, unless otherwise indicated that separate instruments are required pursuant to this resolution. All storm drain and utility easement widths shall be dimensioned and labeled on the final maps and plans. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 14 The applicant shall submit to the City an offer of fee dedication of the twenty (20) foot right-of-way area for future flood control purposes along the north side of the existing Barranca Channel per separate instrument. The legal description and plat of the dedicated area, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer and/or California Licensed Land Surveyor, shall be submitted to the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department for review and approval. The applicant shall maintain the property as legally described in tf~~e offer of dedication area defined in this condition along the north side of the existing Barranca Channel until acceptance of any offer of dedication by the City. (1) 10.2 Reciprocal ingress and egress, parking, and pedestrian access shall be provided between all lots, where applicable. (1) 10.3 The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreem~;nt with the City of Tustin for maintenance of all parkway improvements within public rights-of--way and for any non-backbone median islands. (1) 10.4 The applicant shall enter into any public easements necessary for maintenance access to any traffic signal equipment and detector loops in conjunction with any proposed signalized intersections proposed within the tract. (1) 10.5 Any easement that lies within or crosses public right-of-way prop~~sed to be deeded or dedicated to the City shall be subordinated to the City prior to acceptance of the rights-of-way, unless otherwise exempted by the Redevelopment Agency or Public Works Department. (1) 10.fi All public access easements outside of the existing or proposed street rights-of--way shall be clearly shown and labeled on the plans anti street sections. (1) 10.7 The subdivision includes land required as private parkland and open space under DDA 06-01 which . shall be privately maintained. The applicant shall design and construct private parkland and open s~~ace as shown on the Tentative Tract Map consistent with time restrictions contained in DDA 06-01. The applicant shall be required to dedicate perpetual easements and public access for public use across all open space parcels as identified in the Concept Plan, on the Tentative Tract Map, and pursuant to DDA 06-01. The perpetual easement and public access agreement shall be separate from map notations and shall be by separate instrument in favor of the City in a form and substance approved by the Redevelopment Agency and Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 15 Community Development Department for the benefit of the public providing in perpetuity and at no cost to the City. The easements shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. The right of the general public to use the open space and park facilities. B. The provision of public park access to and from the said facility. C. The maintenance of the open space and park facilities by the applicant and its successors and assigns including a future community association in compliance with the provisions of the DDA. Prior to exoneration of any security on the tract map, the copy of the recorded instrument reserving in perpetuity of the private parkland and open space, as required by the Concept Plan, Tentative Tract Map and DDA 06-01. (1) 10.8 Prior to recordation of Phase 2 Final Map(s), the City in consultation with the applicant agrees to provide Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) with an interim license on Phase 2 property within Neighborhood E for IRWD to undertake pilot drilling testing of the three (3) well sites which are shown on the Tentative Map to determine their feasibility for permanent well locations. Upon provision of the test results to the City and the applicant, IRWD shall either confirm the original three (3) well sites or shall request minor modifications of the three (3) well sites within Phase 2 of Neighborhood E. IRWD may also request that one of the three (3) well sites be expanded to approximately 40,000 square feet to be a combination well site and treatment facility. In conjunction with City's confirmation of the IRWD submitted results and any request by IRWD for a combination well and treatment facility, the City shall authorize minor modifications on the Phase 2 Final Map(s) to the original general locations of the three (3} well sites as originally shown on Tentative Tract Map 17144 (Lots K, L and M). IRWD in making the request for the treatment facility shall also reconsider and inform the City in writing that they no longer have need for the fourth required well site originally anticipated in Neighborhood D and as originally requested by IRWD in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The applicant upon City's receipt of such written notice from IRWD, shall be released from such future obligation in Neighborhood D. The revised well site locations in Neighborhood E shall be deeded sites to the City by a separate grant deed instrument which form and content shall be approved by the Redevelopment Agency and Public Works Department. Upon finalization of the revised sites, the City will appraise the well sites and/or the combination well and treatment facility and will enter into a written Agreemen# with IRWD for IRWD reimbursement to the City of the Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 16 market value of any expanded ground lease area necessary to accommodate the combination well and treatment facility. The City will then grant a restricted easement(s) to IRWD for well(s) and/or well and treatment facility and access easements for public utility purposes only and subject to MCAS Tustin development standards, all Neighborhood E Legacy Park Design Guidelines and final approval by the Redevelopment Agency and the Public Works Department. CC&RS {1) 11.1 All organizational documents for the project including any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department, Redevelopment Agency City Attorney's Office, and Special Counsel. Costs for such review shall be borne by the subdivider. The approved CC&Rs shall be recorded with County Recorder's Office at the same time as recordation of the Final Map. A copy of the final approved and recorded documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department after record~~tion. (1) 11.2 No parcel or unit in the development .shall be sold or a Certificate of Occupancy issued, unless a community property owners association has been legally formed with the right to assess all these properties wr~ich are jointly owned or benefited to operate and maintain all other mutually available features of the development including, but not limited tu, open space, amenities, landscaping, or slope maintenance landscaping, private streets, and utilities. No parcel or unit shall be sold unless all approved and required open space, amenities, landscaping, or other improvements, or approved phases thereof, have been completed or completion is assured by a development agreement or financing guarantee method approved by the City, and Redevelopment Agency. The CC&Rs shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: A. The City shall be included as a party to the CC&Rs for enforcement purposes of those CC&R provisions in which the City has interest as reflected in the following provisions. However, the City shall not be obligated to enforce the CC&Rs. B. All requirements mandated by Section 12.1, 12.2 of the DDA C. All requirements as mandated by Section 8.3.8 of the DDA rEquiring inclusion of adopted Design Guidelines for the master developer footprint and Neighborhood E to be part of the CC&Rs. D. All requirements as mandated for maintenance of private parkland and open space contained in Section 8.15.3 of the DDA, and common areas under the control of an Association. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 17 E. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance and maintenance standards of all common areas and facilities including landscape easement areas and lots, private parks, wails, fences, private roadways (walks, sidewalks, trails and paseos). F. The requirement that association bylaws be established. G. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including recreational buildings and amenities, landscaped areas and lots, walls and fences, private roadways (i.e., walks, sidewalks, trails), parking lot, parkland facilities and bikeways, and open space areas. H. Membership in the property owners association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual units. I. Architectural controls shall be provided and may include, but not be limited to, provisions regulating exterior finishes, roof materials, fences and walls, accessory structures such as patios, sunshades, trellises, awnings, exterior mechanical equipment, television and radio antenna, consistent with the Tustin City Code and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. J. Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed in Section G above in CC&Rs. Examples of maintenance standards are shown below. 1. All common area landscaping and private areas visible from any public way shall be properly maintained such that they are evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, debris, and weeds. All trees and shrubs shall be trimmed so they do not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Trees shall be pruned so they do not intrude into neighboring properties and shall be maintained so they do not have droppings or create other nuisances to neighboring properties. All trees shall also be root pruned to eliminate exposed surface roots and damage to sidewalks, driveways, and structures. 2. All private roadways, parking areas, sidewalks, and open space areas shall be maintained so that they are safe for users. Significant pavement cracks, pavement distress, excessive slab settlement, abrupt vertical variations, and debris on travel ways should be removed or repaired promptly. 3. Common areas shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid the reasonable determination of a duly authorized official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 18 K. Community property owners association approval of major exterior improvements requiring a building permit shall be obtained prior to requesting a building permit from the City of Tustin Community Developmen# Department and Redevelopment Agency. All plans for exterior improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by the City and the CC&Rs. L. Park land and open space areas within the tract shall be considered private open space and shall be illustrated on a "Private Open Space Exhibit" and shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall specify those portions of the common open space area that are allocated for private use and public use and access rights in perpetuity. The CC&Rs shall include a separate 8'/z inch by 11 inch dimensioned site plan for each unit that is allocated private open space. M. The approved site plan showing the public portion of the park site and associated public easements that will be accessible to the public and provisions for maintenance of these areas by the Property Owners Association. N. The approved "Parking and Circulation Exhibit" shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall be enforced by the property owners association. In addition to the exhibit, provisions regarding parking shall be included in the CC&Rs, including the following: 1. All buildings are required to maintain the required number of parking spaces based on Table 3-fi of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 2. The property owners association shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing all parking, and traffic regulations on private streets. The proposed CC&Rs shall include provisions requiring the association to develop and adopt an enforcement program for parking and traffic regulations within the development which may include measures for fire access and enforcement by a private security company. O. Maintenance of lettered and numbered Lots (including but not limited to Lots A, B, C, D, H, I, and J), containing all common areas, public and private park open space, edge open space, drives, alleys, walkways, paseos, the Retention Basin, etc. shall be by the community property owners association. P. Television and radio antennas shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Tustin City Code. Q. All utility services serving the site shall be installed and maintained underground. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 19 R. The community property owners association shall be required to file the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one member of the association Board and, where applicable, a manager of the project before January 1st of each year with the City of Tustin Community Development Department for the purpose of contacting the association in the case of emergency or in those cases where the City has an interest in CC&R violations. S. The community property owners association shall be responsible for establishing and following procedures for providing access to public utilities for maintenance of their facilities within the project area, subject to those agencies' approval. T. The approved "Trip Reduction/Transportation Demand Management Strategy Plan" shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall be enforced by the community property owners association. U. No amendment to alter, modify, terminate, or change the property owners association's obligation to maintain the common areas and the project perimeter wall or other CC&Rs provisions in which the City has an interest, as noted above, or to alter, modify, terminate, or change the City's right to enforce maintenance of the common areas and maintenance of the project perimeter wall shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the City of Tustin Community Development Department. BUYER NOTIFICATION {1) 12.1 Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a buyer notification document tha# includes the notifications listed below. The notification document shall be signed by each buyer prior to final inspection and occupancy, and a copy of the signed notification shall be provided to the Community Development Department prior to final inspection and/or issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy. A. A notice for roadway, trail, and train noise that may impact the subdivision, including roadway noise associated with Red Hill Avenue, Baranca Parkway, Warner Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, and train noise associated with the rail corridor north of the project. The notice shall indicate the can-ent number of trains per day (59) and the estimated increase to over 100 trains on a 24-hour basis by the year 2020. The notice shall indicate that additional building upgrades may be necessary for noise attenuation. This determination is to be made as architectural drawings become available and/or where field-testing determines inadequate noise insulation. Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 20 6. A notice indicating that public use of a portion of the park site, to be maintained by the property owners association, will be allowed noting public ingress and egress through the subdivision will be provided for access to the park. C. A notice explaining the easements, facilities, amenities, and dedications that will be provided on lettered lots and indicating all on- site streets, rive aisle, paseos, and common areas are to be maintained by the property owners association. D. A notice, to be approved by the City Attorney, indicating that neither the site, nor the project, nor any part thereof, nor any street or sidewalk, drive aisles, or paseos thereon shall be privately gated, provided however that any fitness/spa facility within the common area and any indoor common area improvements, including any fitness center and bathrooms, may be gated or locked and made a~~ailable solely to employees of the project and their guests. E. A notice indicating that surrounding properties may be developed in accordance with City ordinances in a manner which may partially or totally obstruct views from the owner's unit and that the City of Tustin makes no claim, warranty, or guarantee that views from any unit will be preserved as development of surrounding properties occurs. F. A notice explaining and providing a copy of a "Private Open Space Exhibit" and separate 8'/~ inch by 11 inch dimensioned site plan for each parcel or unit, as applicable, that is allocated private open space within the common area. G. A notice explaining and providing a copy of the approved "barking and Circulation Exhibit" and related CC~Rs provisions. H. A notice explaining the phasing of construction within the subdivision and that activity may be disruptive. I. The Developer shall notify all buyers that future Assessment/Maintenance Districts may affect the property. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION (1) 13.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits within the tract, a final acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures and sites to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical reports are incorporated into the design of the project. Evidence prepared under the supervision of an expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall be provided. At least a preliminary analysis at the subdivision level and prior to building permits should evaluate whether or not mitigation other than Exhibit B Resolution No. 07-92 TTM 17144 Page 21 building construction will permi# achievable compliance with required minimum General Plan interior noise standards. (1 } 13.2 Prior to the first final map recordation (except for financing and re- conveyance purposes) or building permit issuance for development within the City of Tustin portion of the site, the project developer shall provide evidence of compliance with all requirements and standards of the City of Tustin Park Code.