Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 CUP 02-026 DR 02-032ITEM#4 , ..aport to the Planning Commission DATE: MAY 12, 2003 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-026 DESIGN REVIEW 02-032 APPLICANT: THE TUSTIN BARN L.L.C. 13369 VENTURA BLVD. SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91423 ATTN: JEFF KLEIN/DAVID SPIEGEL HMR ARCHITECTS 221 MAIN STREET, SUITE I HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 ATTN: WILLIAM J. RESEIGH PROPERTY OWNER: FRANK P. BOCHARD RANCHES BOCHARD REDHILL CIO JIM MCKENZIE GREENWOOD AND SONS 440 W. FIRST STREET, SUITE 201 TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1621 EDINGER AVENUE ZONING: INDUSTRIAL (M) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) HAS BEEN CALIFORNIA REQUEST: 1) 2) AUTHORIZATION FOR SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 22,208 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER AND A 75,491 SQUARE FOOT SELF STORAGE FACILITY AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH RETAIL USES, RESTAURANT USES WITH A TOTAL OF 123 SEATS, A SELF- STORAGE FACILITY, AND A CARETAKER UNIT WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL (M) ZONING DISTRICT Planning Commission Report CUP 02-026, DR 02-032 May 12, 2003 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt: I , Resolution No. 3871 adopting the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for Design Review 02-032 and Conditional Use Permit 02-026 for development of a 22,208 square foot commercial center and 75,491 square foot self-storage facility; . Resolution No. 3872 approving Design Review 02-032 for site and architectural design of the project; and Conditional Use Permit 02-026 to establish retail uses, restaurant uses with up to 123 seats, and a self-storage facility with a caretaker unit within the Industrial (M) zoning district. BACKGROUND The project includes the development of a 5.164-acre site located at the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue with commercial and self-storage uses. The site was developed with an approximately 11,000 square foot restaurant building known as "The Barn," which was recently demolished. The applicant is requesting approval to develop the site with 22,208 square feet for commercial uses and 75,491 square feet for self-storage uses. The project site is located within the City's Industrial (M) zoning district and Industrial General Plan land use designation. The proposed self-storage facility, retail uses, and restaurant uses require approval of a conditional use permit application and the site layout and building design require approval of a design review application. A conditional use permit is also required for the caretaker living unit proposed for the self-storage facility to provide 24-hour on-site supervision. Site and Surrounding Properties The site is an elongated triangular shaped property with the smallest angle pointing east and is bounded by Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue on the south and east, and the OCTA/SCRRA railroad right-of-way on the north. The commercial buildings are proposed on the west half of the site and the self-storage facility is proposed on the east half of the site. Access to the site would be provided from Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue (Attachment A- Location Map). DISCUSSION Proposed Uses The applicant has proposed to divide the site into two different sections: a self-storage facility on the east and a commercial center on the west. The self-storage facility would include two- and three-stow buildings. The ground floor storage spaces are accessed by roll-up doors and the upper units are accessed by elevators, stairways, and interior corridors. The self-storage facility includes an office and a caretaker unit that would provide 24-hour supervision for the site. Planning Commission Report CUP 02-026, DR 02-032 May 12, 2003 Page 3 The commercial uses include various retail uses on the ground floor including restaurant uses such as sandwich shops and coffee houses for a maximum of 123 seats and office uses on the second floor, in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9242, a conditional use permit is required for all proposed uses. Office uses that occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the gross square footage of a building also require approval of a conditional use permit. However, the proposed office use would occupy twenty (20) percent of the commercial square footage. Conditions related to operation and maintenance of the site are included in Resolution No. 3872 (Attachment C). While the self-storage facility alone would not be appropriate for such a visible corner on two major arterial highways, the mixture of commercial and self-storage buildings and uses will accommodate the existing easements and irregular shape of the site with the narrow portion of the site for passive uses (self-storage) and the larger, more visible corner for active commercial uses. In addition, the location of the commercial buildings and the dense landscaping along the self-storage facility (described later) minimizes the presence of the self-storage buildings and will create an attractive, viable center that provides a variety of services to the community. Site Plan The site is adjacent to Edinger Avenue (a future six-lane major arterial roadway) and Red Hill Avenue (a future six-lane major arterial). The commercial buildings are located on the west half of the site, and the self-storage facility is located on the east half of the site. An existing ten (10) foot gas easement is located thirty-five (35) feet from the northerly property lines and runs through the entire site. The project site would have a main access entry opposite of Parkway Loop from Edinger Avenue, and a secondary right turn only access would be provided from Red Hill Avenue. A third access on Edinger Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of the main driveway, would be provided for emergency access and egress for the storage area that would be secured by a gate and an access keypad (Attachment B- Submitted Plans). One (1) entrance would be provided to the self-storage facility in proximity to the office/caretaker unit with adequate stacking for vehicles. An egress only exit is proposed that connects to the main driveway to the site. The parking area and pedestrian walkways are located in the central portion of the site with buildings along the street to create a pedestrian-oriented center. Lot Coverage/Floor Area Ratio The maximum allowed lot coverage for the site is 100 percent with the exception of required parking and landscaping. The proposed lot coverage is approximately thirty (30) percent. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Industrial Land Use designation in accordance with the Tustin General Plan is 0.6:1 and the proposed FAR is 0.56:1. Development of the site would adhere to standards of Tustin City Code Section 9242 for development in Industrial (M) zoning districts and the Tustin General Plan. Planning Commission Report CUP 02-026, DR 02-032 May 12, 2003 Page 4 Traffic/Circulation Trip Generation The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis (Exhibit 3 of Resolution 3871). The study indicates that the proposed project would result in 1,660 average daily trips. The previous use on the site, an 11,000 sq. ft. high-turnover, sit-down restaurant, generated 1,434 daily trips and 120 trips in the PM peak hour. The proposed use will generate an additional 226 daily trips and 24 PM peak hour trips. When these additional trips are applied to the surrounding arterial roadway system (Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue) the result will not cause deterioration in the current or future traffic levels of service of the roadway links or the Edinger Avenue/Red Hill Avenue intersection. Access Traffic signal warrants for the intersection of Edinger Avenue/Parkway Loop have been prepared as part of the traffic analysis for the proposed project and the Caltrans Traffic Systems Warrant has been satisfied for the proposed project. Based upon the warrant analysis and engineering judgment, it has been determined that the installation of a traffic signal at the Edinger Avenue/Parkway Loop intersection would be beneficial to the proposed project and the adjacent land uses. The traffic signal would provide for gaps in traffic to facilitate full turning movements and minimize vehicle queuing at the intersection. The traffic study also recommended the following: One sixteen (16) foot inbound lane to accommodate ingress truck traffic. Fifteen (15) foot radius curb returns. Two (2) 12-foot outbound lanes providing one shared left-thru lane and one right-turn lane, which would be aligned with Parkway Loop on the opposite side, to ensure no conflicting left turns and through movements. The traffic study concluded that, with the installation of the new traffic signal at the main entry on Edinger Avenue and Parkway Loop, adequate access for the project would be provided and the project would pose no significant impacts to the adjacent roadway systems during the peak hours. Conditions 6.3 and 6.4 of Resolution No. 3872 are included to address the traffic issues discussed above. Truck Circulation The traffic study also evaluated on-site circulation with respect to vehicular movements and concluded that all areas would be adequate for single unit trucks, which are typically used by national retail and restaurant companies for local deliveries. The study recommends that moving trucks entering the southeast end of the storage area should be directed to the exit at the exit-only gated access on Edinger Avenue since turnaround in the storage area may be difficult. Condition 5.16 of Resolution No. 3782 requires that moving trucks be directed to use the Edinger Avenue one way exit on the east of the site. Condition 5.18 requires that the easterly drive on Edinger Avenue be used only for emergency access. Planning Commission Report CUP 02-026, DR 02~032 May 12, 2003 Page 5 Future Roadway Projects The current site configuration has the potential to conflict with City's adopted plans for future roadway widening projects. The General Plan Master Plan of Arterial Highways identifies Edinger Avenue as a future six (6) lane major arterial highway, which is currently constructed as a four (4) lane primary arterial highway. The City is currently preparing plans and specifications for this project and has made a purchase offer to the property owner to acquire sufficient area to accommodate the future widening project, consistent with the Moulton Parkway Smart Street Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This area is shown as a reservation area of a twenty (20) foot wide landscaping along Edinger Avenue on the site plan (Attachment B - Submitted Plans). Condition 6.6 of Resolution No. 3872 requires reservation of this area. In addition, Red Hill Avenue is planned to be elevated to create a grade separation of Red Hill Avenue and the OCTA/SCRRA Railway as identified in the Red Hill Grade Separation Study. To accommodate this project, the plans show an eighteen (18) foot wide reservation area along Red Hill Avenue, and Condition 6.6 requires reservation of this area. When the grade separation is constructed, the proposed Red Hill Avenue driveway entrance will not be affected; however, the at-grade portion of Red Hill Avenue will terminate at the OCTA/SCRRA crossing. From the Red Hill Avenue driveway, only left-turn exits and right-turn entrances to the site will be possible. Condition 6.8 requires the applicant to design and construct the future roadway median to accommodate the ultimate design. Parking As proposed, all required parking would be provided on the site (Attachment B- Submitted Plans). There would be a total of 124 on-site parking spaces to accommodate the commercial uses and self-storage use as shown in the table below: Use Area (Square Feet) Parking Ratio Parking Parking Square feet Required Provided Retail 9,808 1/200 49 Office 4,500 1/250 18 Food 7,900 1 per 3 seats 41 (123 seats) Total 22,208 108 108 Caretaker Unit None N/A Self-Storage 75,491 Office - 4 spaces 12 16 1/10,000 of gross floor area of storage use Condition 5.1 requires that any change to these areas be submitted to the City for review and approval. Planning Commission Report CUP 02-026, DR 02-032 May 12, 2003 Page 6 Architecture Retail Buildings The commercial portion of the site is divided into three buildings, two of which are single- story buildings proposed for retail and restaurant uses along the Edinger Avenue frontage. The largest building with retail on the ground floor and office use on the second floor is located behind the single-story buildings along the north and is separated by a service access road and parking from the railroad right-of-way. All of the buildings feature stucco walls and curved standing seam metal roofing for a contemporary architectural style. Accent ledge stone is proposed for the columns and slate tiles are proposed for the base of the stucco walls. (Attachment B - Submitted Plans). Self-Storage Buildings Three self-storage buildings are proposed. The storage building along Edinger Avenue is two (2) stories with a stucco finish and metal standing seam roofing to complement the commercial buildings to the west. To soften the appearance of the building from Edinger Avenue, a decorative block wall, landscaped berming, and tree clusters are proposed along Edinger Avenue. The central storage building and the majority of the storage building along the railroad right-of-way would be three (3) stories with an overall height of thirty (30) feet. The rear building is adjacent to the OCTAJSCRRA railroad right-of-way and could be visible from the rear yards of residential uses to the north. Since simple concrete block construction with split face accents is proposed for this building, landscaping vines and bamboo plants are proposed to soften the appearance of the block wall from residential properties. An access setback of five (5) feet with short pockets of three (3) feet minimum is proposed to accommodate landscape maintenance on the north side of the building. Conditions 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 of Resolution No. 3872 are included to ensure that adequate landscape screening is provided and maintained. An office and a caretaker unit are proposed to provide 24-hour security for the site. Condition 5.15 of Resolution No. 3872 requires that this unit be only occupied by the caretaker of the self-storage facility. Ground and Roof-Mounted Equipment The buildings are designed with adequate parapet height to screen all roof-mounted equipment. Condition 3.3 of Resolution No. 3872 requires that roof screens be integrated with building design and ground and roof-mounted equipment be adequately screened. Lighting The applicant has submitted a photometric plan that provides minimum security lighting throughout the site with building-mounted and pole-mounted lights (Attachment B- Photometric Study). Specifications for the lighting fixtures and illumination would be Planning Commission Report CUP 02-026, DR 02-032 May 12, 2003 Page 7 reviewed at plan check as required by Condition 2.2. Condition 3.9 of Resolution No. 3872 requires that the lighting be directed on-site with a maximum height of twenty (20) feet for light poles to avoid light and glare on adjacent properties. Landscaping The site currently includes a large quantity of mature eucalyptus trees. As a result of redevelopment of the site, the existing trees would be removed. However, the applicant is proposing a variety of trees along the public right-of-way, on the northerly property line, and within the site, which are as follows: Self-Storaqe Facility Fifteen (15), 36-inch box Nine (9), 24-inch box Six (6), 24-inch box Twenty-four (24), 15 gal. Twenty-four (24), 15 gal. London Plane Trees Aleppo Pine Windmill Palm Alphonse Karr Bamboo Giant Timber Bamboo Along Edinger Avenue Along Edinger Avenue At the main entrance Along the north property line Along the north property line Commercial Buildinqs Sixteen (16), 36-inch box Olive Nine (9), 24-inch box Afghan Pine Eight (8), 24-inch box Windmill Palm Twelve (12), 24-inch box Crape Myrtle Nine (9) ." Date Palms Fifteen (15), 24-inch box Italian Cypress Along Edinger Avenue & interior of the site Along the north property line Along Edinger Avenue Along Red Hill Avenue Pedestrian entry and Interior of the site Along Edinger Avenue The areas of concern regarding landscape screening are along Edinger Avenue and north of the site along the railroad right-of-way. The self-storage building along Edinger Avenue is approximately 310 feet, where nine (9) 36-inch box London Plane Trees, five (5) 24-inch box Aleppo Pines, and one (1) 36- box Olive tree, and twenty-two (22) 5- gallon Sweet Bays are proposed. The trees are proposed in clusters and would result in an average of one (1) tree per twenty (20) lineal feet. A mature London Plane tree has an average spread of 40-50 feet, and the tree canopies would overlap, providing a screening effect. The rear storage building is more than 500 feet long including 375 lineal feet of three- stow wall and thirty (30) feet in height. The majority of the wall area (320 lineal feet) would be screened by forty-eight (48) 15-gallon Giant Bamboo trees for an average of one tree (1) per 6.7 lineal feet. Giant Bamboos have an average spread of 5-6 feet and a typical height of 30 feet. For the remaining areas, nineteen (19) 5-gallon vines with metal trellis are proposed. With the proposed number of plants along the three-stow building, a green wall effect would be fully formed within two to three years. Conditions 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 of Resolution No. 3872 are included to require installation of mature trees, adequate buffering from Edinger Avenue and residential sites, and continuous maintenance of ali landscaped areas. Planning Commission Report CUP 02-026, DR 02-032 May 12, 2003 Page 8 Noise With respect to project noise, a noise analysis (Exhibit 4 of Resolution 3871 - Noise Analysis) was prepared to analyze the potential noise impacts to existing residential uses to the north of the project site and proposed uses on the site. As identified in the analysis, potential noise from train, traffic, or on-site activities such. as trash pickups are not anticipated to negatively affect the residences to the north. The applicant has proposed the following hours of operation: · Self Storage · Food Service · Coffee House 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven (7) days a week 10 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven (7) days a week 6:00 a.m. to 10;00 p.m. Monday through Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sunday The proposed hours are typical for commercial and industrial use in the City; however, the analysis recommends a number of measures that have been included as conditions of approval to ensure intrusive noises are minimized, as follows: · Trash pickups at the project site should not occur during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. All activities at the site should be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Although the applicant has proposed 6:00 a.m. for a coffee house, the noise study recommends 7:00 a.m. for start of operating hours. Condition 5.3 would allow the applicant to submit a revised noise analysis to identify potential noise impacts. If no impacts would occur, the Community Development Department would be authorized to administratively modify the hours of operation. No rooftop or exterior mechanical equipment for the project shall produce a noise level greater than 45 dB(A) when measured at the residential property line. All details related to noise reduction measures shall be submitted to the Community Development Department during plan check for review and approval. · Public address systems and buzzers shall be prohibited. The above measures are included as Conditions 5.2 through 5.5 of Resolution 3782. The noise analysis also considered the potential impacts of train and traffic noise on various proposed uses in the center. The highest impact was to office uses on the second floor of the retail building adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, which may be exposed to exterior noise levels up to 73 dB. Conditions 3.10 to 3.23 of Resolution No. 3872 are included to require adequate construction assembly for the affected buildings to reduce the noise level to an acceptable level, consistent with the Noise Ordinance. These measures are recommended by the submitted noise analysis and would be implemented on the construction drawings. Planning Commission Report CUP 02-026, DR 02-032 May 12, 2003 Page 9 The noise analysis also considered noise impacts to residential properties to the north with respect to train noise reverberation from the self-storage building and traffic noise from Edinger Avenue. Noise levels in the residential area were monitored for 24 hours, and the study concluded that the cumulative existing noise level at the residential site (traffic and train noise) is higher than residential standards; however, construction of the project will reduce the traffic noise from Edinger Avenue to the residential uses and result in a noise increase of one (1) decibel due to train noise reverberation, from the three-story building, which is generally not noticeable and not considered a significant increase. Project Phasing The applicant has proposed to construct the project in one phase, which is also recommended by staff, sinCe the commercial buildings would screen the self-storage use from Red Hill Avenue and provide a variety of services to the area. Condition 1.2 of Resolution No. 3872 is included to ensure that the site is developed in one phase or construction of the retail uses is completed prior to or concurrent with the self-storage facility. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project and was available for public review from April 22, 2003, to May 12, 2003 (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3871). All potential impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation measures, which are included as conditions of approval for the project. Staff has received verbal comments from the Metropolitan Water Agency regarding a pipeline easement through the property. Condition 2.31 of Resolution No. 3872 requires that authorization from all easement holders be provided prior to issuance of a grading permit. ANALYSIS A decision to approve the project may be supported by the following findings: The proposed project complies with the development standards and requirements of the Industrial (M) zoning district and the City's landscape and parking design guidelines. Adequate parking would be provided and dispersed on the site and in proximity to all uses; While the self-storage facility alone would not be appropriate for such a visible corner on two major arterial highways, the mixture of commercial and self- storage buildings and uses will accommodate the existing easements and irregular shape of the site with the narrow portion of the site for passive uses (self-storage) and the larger, more visible corner for active commercial uses. in addition, the location of the commercial buildings and the dense landscaping Planning Commission Report CUP 02-026, DR 02-032 May 12, 2003 Page 10 along the self-storage facility (described later) minimizes the presence of the self-storage buildings and will create an attractive, viable center that provides a variety of services to the surrounding office and light industrial uses and the community. The proposed caretaker unit would be ancillary to the self-storage facility and would only be occupied by the employee of the self-storage for the purpose of providing 24-hour security; As conditioned, the proposed project would be required to meet the noise standards for commercial use, office use, and the caretaker unit with implementation of noise mitigation measures as recommended by the Noise Analysis dated April 21, 2003. Based on the submitted noise analysis, construction of the project will reduce the noise level from Edinger Avenue to the residential uses to the north of the project and result in a noise increase of one (1) decibel due to train noise reverberation from the three story building. The existing noise level at the residential site is higher than residential standards as required by Tustin City Code Section 4614, and the increase of one (1) decibel related to train noise reverberation from the storage buildings would not be noticeable and is not considered significant; As proposed, installation of a traffic signal at the main entry to the project would provide full and uninterrupted access to the site and the second gated access on Edinger Avenue would provide for emergency access and egress for the storage area; The applicant has agreed to reserve a twenty (20) foot wide area along Edinger Avenue and an eighteen (18) foot wide area along Red Hill Avenue to accommodate implementation of the City's future roadway widening projects in accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation System. in addition, the applicant has agreed to provide a temporary construction easement over these areas to facilitate roadway construction; The property owner would be required to bond for reconstruction of the Red Hill median upon completion of the Red Hill/Edinger Avenue Grade Separation Project. Reconstr~Jction of the median would ensure continued access to the site in that the existing condition only provides right-turn in and right-turn out movements to and from the site on Red Hill Avenue and the future condition would provide right-turn in and left-turn out movements which would benefit the commercial uses on the site; As conditioned, adequate on-site and off-site pedestrian facilities will be provided in that the adjacent sidewalks and driveway aprons will be constructed to meet current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; The proposed landscape berming and location, species, quantities, and sizes of proposed landscaping materials would provide adequate screening of the self- storage facility from Edinger Avenue and residential uses to the north of the site. Planning Commission Report cuP 02-026, DR 02-032 May 12, 2003 Page 11 The remainder of the site would be landscaped with complementary materials in accordance with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines; The architectural design of the self-storage facility and the commercial buildings incorporates similar massing, details, and materials to ensure compatibility. The commercial buildings are designed with architectural articulations such as curved metal roofing, decorative brackets, ledge stone columns, and a variety of materials to create a visually interesting and inviting center and the self-storage buildings incorporate simplified building forms in the same materials and colors with significant landscape screening. Min°o AShabi '--- Associate Planner Karen Peterson Senior Planner Attachments: Attachment A- Location Map Attachment B - Submitted Plans Attachment C - Resolution Nos. 3871 and 3872 S:\Cdd\PCREPOR'RThe Barn.doc . · ATTACHMENT A Location Map LOCATION MAP '- PROJECT NO. ADDRESS 1~go.~ eGT MAP SUIdM£R V1LL£ A'~NUE : PAC/F/C 15otl 5o,)1 EDI,(3ER AVENUE ATTACHMENT B Submitted Plans I Zl 3 n N ........ h ¥ 9 9 I H 0 3 B u /ATCH LINE .d t MATCH LINE r ' V':JI:IV ~ .Ld3ONO0 21 ri N ::i ^ V ! , NV'la <c <~ 0 I 0 Z 0 o ¥ 0 z 0 I z 0 0 _(_L_ L_LJ. 'I $ Z !iiltlll}l ~I ~ , U.~.l~ ' Z Z._._ZLIIf /- I'- ~I~- fl fl ,/ · / ,/ ATTACHMENT C Resolution Nos. 3871 & 3872 RESOLUTION NO. 3871 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 02-032 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02- 026 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: !. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A, That Design Review 02-032 and Conditional Use Permit 02-026 are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; Bo A draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and distributed for public review. The draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the project; and, Co The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration. il. A Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to recommending approval of the proposed project and found that it adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public hearing process, the Planning Commission finds that there will not be a significant effect as a result of the project, in addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Games Code. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for Design Review 02-032 and Conditional Use Permit 02-026. Resolution No. 3871 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of May, 2003. LINDA C. JENNINGS Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3871 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of May, 2003. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Attachment A of Resolution No. 3871 Initial Study and Analysis COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN . 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 5 73-3] O0 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Development of a vacant site with office, restaurant, and retail buildings and a self-storage facility. Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Phone: (714) 573-3126 Project Location: 1621 E. Edinger Avenue Project Sponsor's Name and Address: The Tustin Barn LLC 13369 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 General Plan Designation: Industrial Zoning Designation: Project Description: Industrial (M) Development of 22,108 square feet of office, restaurant and retail space and a 75,491 square foot self-storage facility on a four (4) acre site Surrounding Uses: North: Railroad R-O-W & Residential uses East: South: Edinger Avenue & Office/Light Industrial Uses West: Edinger Avenue and Former MCAS Tustin Office, Restaurant & Retail uses Other public agencies whose approval is required: Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other [---] City of Irvine [-'-] City of Santa Aha [--] Orange County EMA D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Directions A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the infonmtion sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2¸) All answers must take into aCcount the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant w/th Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested forrn, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies nmxnally address the questions from this checldist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. [X'] Aesthetics [--] Agriculture Resources ~ Air Quality ~ Biological Resources ~] Cultural Resources [~] Geology/Soils ~ Hazards & Hazardous Materials [-~ Hydrology/Water Quality [-'] Land Use/Planning [--] Mineral Resources ~ Noise [~] Population/Housing ~] Public Services [---] Recreation [1-] Transportation/Traffic [-~ Utilities/Service Systems [-] Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [--] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [~] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [-~ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ['--] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environnaent, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Minoo Ashabi Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Title Associate Planner Date 4-21-2003 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultm'e and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps -~epared pursuant to the Farnzland Mapping and Monitoring gram of the California Resources Agency, to non- oAcultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Fm'mland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable ak 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- attahmaent under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant _oncentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Imflact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Nolmpact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or : regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish 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 linfited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or mfique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Significant Im?act Less Than Sign~cant With Mitigation Incor?oration Less Than Significant Impact No ,j 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 groined shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial. risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of er)tic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where ,ers are not available for the disposal of waste water? gqI.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the enviro~tment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the enviromnent through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Goverm~nent 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, -~ 'here such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a )lic airport or public use airport, would the project result in _ 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] © Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 fn'es, 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 rate or amount of surface runoff in a mariner 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 redkect 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 dana? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: Potentially Significant Ira?act Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impa~ a) Physically divide an established community? ['-] [--] [-'-] [5~ o) 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)? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural conumunity conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important 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 --~xcess of standards established in the local general plan or 'se ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ~oundbome vibration or groundbome 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 lrfiles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either -'",'ectly (for example, by proposing new homes and inesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of .,ads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Imp~ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause siglfificant 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 -~xpanded entitlements needed? 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 conm'fitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, tin'eaten to eliminate a plant or animal conu~unity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project '~ considerable when viewed in cmmection with the effects ~ast projects, the effects of other current projects, and the v~fects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ~ directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REDEVELOPMENT OF 1621 EDINGER AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-026 AND DESIGN REVIEW 02-032 BACKGROUND The project would develop a 5.164-acre site located at the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue with commercial and self-storage uses. The site is an elongated triangular shaped property with the smallest angle pointing east and is bounded by Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue on the south and east, and the OCTA/SCRR~ railroad right-of-way on the north. The site was developed with an approximately 11,000 square foot restaurant building known as "The Barn," which was recently demolished. The proposal includes three buildings for a total of 22,108 square feet of commercial use including retail, restaurant, and office uses, and three self-storage buildings for a total of 75,491 square foot (Exhibit 1 - Plans). The commercial buildings are located on the west half of the site and the self-storage facility is located on the east half of the site. Access to the site would be provided from Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. The site is located within the City's Industrial (M) zoning district and Industrial General Plan land use designation. As such, the proposed self-storage, retail, and restaurant uses require approval of a conditional use permit application and the site layout and building design require approval of a design review application. A conditional use permit is also required for the caretaker living unit proposed for the self-storage facility to provide 24-hour on-site supervision. All requested entitlements are proposed to be processed concurrently. 1. AESTHETICS Items a, b - "No Impact": The project is located in a developed urban area and will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista nor will it substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. There are no historical buildings or a scenic highway in proximity of the site. Items c, d -"Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation:" The project meets the development standards of the zoning district and is designed to create an inviting retail center from Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue with the passive portion of the site for self- storage facility. Retail Buildings The commercial portion of the site is divided into three buildings, two of which are single story proposed for retail and restaurant uses. The largest building with retail on the ground floor and office use on the second floor is located along the north and is separated by a service access road and parking from the railroad right-of-way. Stucco walls and curved standing seam metal roofing is proposed for a contemporary style for the three buildings. The parking area and pedestrian walkways are located in the central portion of the site with buildings along the street to create a pedestrian oriented center. The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 1 of 13 Self-Storage Buildings Three self-storage buildings are proposed. The storage building along Edinger Avenue is two (2) stories with stucco finish and metal standing seam roofing to complement the commercial buildings to the west. To soften the appearance of the building from Edinger Avenue, a decorative block wall, landscaped berming, and tree clusters are proposed along Edinger Avenue. The central storage building and the majority of the storage building along the railroad right-of-way are proposed with three (3) stories for an overall height of thirty (30) feet. The rear building is adjacent to OCTA/SCRRA railroad right-of-way and will be visible from the rear yards of residential uses to the north. Concrete block construction with split face accents is proposed for this building with landscaping vines and bamboo plants to soften the appearance of the block wall from residential properties. Aesthetic impacts of the self- storage buildings to the neighboring properties could be significant with respect to height and massing along Edinger Avenue and the residential uses to the north; however, with the proposed landscape berming and planting, these impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance. Development of the site would adhere to standards of Tustin City Code Section 9242 for development in Industrial (M) zoning districts. The buildings are designed with adequate parapet height to screen all roof-mounted equipment. Lighting on the site is required to be directed on-site with a maximum height of twenty (20) feet for light poles to avoid glare on adjacent properties. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures as conditions of approval, impacts related to aesthetics will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Sources: Submitted Plans Site Observation Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened by a parapet designed as part of the building elevations. The parapet height shall be a minimum of six (6) inches above the height of any roof-mounted equipment. · The overall height of the three-story storage building shall not exceed thirty (30) feet including parapets. Parking lot and building lighting shall be located at a maximum height of twenty (20) feet and designed to provide a minimum one (1) foot candle illumination in accordance with the City's Security Code. The applicant shall provide details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern of light of all proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be designed with the architecture of the building and designed and arranged as not to direct light or glare onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent streets. The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 2 of I 3 A significant visual buffer, including a four (4) foot tall berm, masonry wall, and clusters of 36-inch box and 48-inch box size trees shall be provided parallel to Edinger Avenue to screen the self-storage buildings, subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. There shall be a minimum of a three (3) foot six (6) inch wide landscaping setback with regular intervals of five (5) foot wide landscaping setbacks along the north side of the proposed three-story storage building. Landscaping shall include a minimum of forty-eight (48) 15-gallon giant bamboo plants and forty (40) 15-gallon vines supported by metal trellises. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition and all unhealthy plants shall be replaced within seven (7) working days of notification from the City. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a, b, and c- No Impact: The proposed project will be located in an urban area on a vacant restaurant site. No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated from development of the site. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Source s: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Field Verification 3. AIR QUALITY Items a, b, c, d, and e - No Impact: The proposed retail, restaurant, and office space of 22,108 square feet retail/office building and 75,491 square feet of self-storage is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impacts as set forth in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the Southern California Air Quality District's "CEQA Handbook." Short-term emissions associated with grading, construction, and operation of the proposed project will be mitigated through compliance with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual, which include requirements for dust control. As such, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Southern California Air Quality District's "CEQA Handbook" The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 3 of 13 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a, b, c, d, e, and f-No Impact: The proposed project will be located on a vacant site previously developed with a restaurant building. While mature trees exist on the site and will be removed, the site is not inhabited by any sensitive or special status species of animals. The proposed project would have no impacts on animal populations, diversity of species, or migratory patterns. The project would include the planting' of new trees and landscape materials, which would be provided in accordance with the Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this proposed project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a, b, c, and d- No Impact: The proposed project is not within an area identified as an archaeological, historic, or paleontological resource site, nor will development of the retail, restaurant, and office use and self-storage buildings cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or archaeological resources. The project will not destroy or disturb a unique paleontological resource, human remains, or a unique geological feature. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: . Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans None Required 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a-ii, a-iii, & d- Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located on a vacant site previously developed with a restaurant building. The topography of the site is relatively flat and would require minor grading activity to prepare the site for new construction. The project site is located in an area that is designated as liquefaction zone in a Preliminary Map released on October 15, 1997, by the State Department of Mining and Geology and is kmown to have expansive soils. Structures in this area have the potential to collapse due to the effects of a rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, landslides, or unstable or expansive soil. Construction of the buildings will require preparation of a soils report and structural calculations for the structure in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and other related codes. Compliance with current codes will ensure that the design and construction of the proposed project reduce any potential impacts related to fault ruptures, ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, or unstable soils to a level of insignificance. The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 4 of 13 Items a-i, a-iv, b, c, & e- No Impact: The project site is not located within an area on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Since all new buildings in the City operate on the existing sewer system, there would not be any building area located on soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Sources: Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Grading Manual Uniform Building Code Preliminary Seismic Map Uniform Building Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h- No Impact: No significant use of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous waste is anticipated with development of the project. Development or use of the proposed retail, restaurant, and office buildings and self-storage facility is not anticipated to result in exposure to hazardous substmaces or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. The project is not in close proximity to an airport or airstrip. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Unifonn Building and Fire Codes Submitted Plans 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Item a, b, g, h, i and j -"No Impact": The proposed project is located within an urban area developed with warehouse and office buildings. Project runoff will be directed into existing sewer facilities and is not anticipated to violate water quality standards or discharge requirements. The project does not have the capacity to deplete groundwater supplies. The project site is noted as "Zone X" (FEMA Map 06059C0277H, dated August, 9, 2002) and not located within a flood zone. The project will not place housing near a 100-year flood hazard or expose people or structures to risk of flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Items c, d, e and f: "Less Than Significant Impact": The project site will be graded in preparation for construction and new imperious surfaces will be added to the site to accommodate the parking lot and buildings. There is a potential for stormwater runoff from construction and operation and changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. However, project design, construction, and operation would be required to comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and most recently adopted NPDES permit (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order R8-2002-0010). As such, an erosion control plan and Water Quality Management Plan would be required, thus reducing any potential water quality or discharge impacts to a level of insignificance. The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 5 of 13 Sources; City of Tustin Grading Manual Public Works Department Submitted Plans MitigatimgMonitoring Required: None 9. LAND USE PLANNING Item b - "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation": Given the location, the project has the potential to conflict with adopted plans of the City. The General Plan Master Plan of Arterial Highways identifies Edinger Avenue as a future six (6) lane major arterial highway, which is currently constructed as a four (4) lane primary arterial highway. The City is currently preparing plans and specifications for this project and has made a purchase offer to the property owner to acquire sufficient area to accommodate the future widening project, consistent with the Moulton Parkway Smart Street Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This area is shown as a reservation area on. the site plan. In addition, Red Hill Avenue is planned to be elevated to create a grade separation of Red Hill Avenue and the OCTA/SCRR~ Railway as identified in the Red Hill Grade Separation Study.: To accormnodate this project, the plans show an eighteen (18) foot wide reservation area along Red Hill Avenue. When the grade separation is constructed, the proposed Red Hill Avenue driveway entrance will not be affected; however, the at-grade portion of Red Hill Avenue will terminate at the OCTA/SCRRA crossing. From the Red Hill Avenue driveway, only left-turn exits and right-turn entrances to the site will be possible. To ensure implementation of this project, the following mitigation measure is recommended: Mitigation Measure: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall reserve a twenty (20) foot future right-of-way area adjacent to Red Hill Avenue for future acquisition by the City. The area of reservation shall be landscaped and maintained with groundcover until the City acquires the area. Items a and c - No Impact: The site is located within the General Plan "Industrial" land use designation and "Industrial" zoning district, where self-storage, retail, restaurant, and caretaker uses are conditionally permitted and offices are permitted. Ail development would be contained on the site and would be consistent with the land use designation and zoning regulations for the property. The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, nor physically divide an established community. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and b - No Impact: The construction and operation of the project will not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner nor result in loss of a known The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 6 of 13 mineral resource, or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the General Plan or other applicable land use maps. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code 11. NOISE Item a, c, and d - "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation": Construction activities will create a temporary increase in noise levels on the site; however, all activities would be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance and construction days mad hours, which are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm. All construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. With respect to potential long-term impacts, a noise analysis (Exhibit 2- Noise Analysis) was prepared to analyze the potential noise impacts to existing residential uses to the north of the project site and to future uses on the site that could occur as a result of the project. As identified in the analysis, potential train, traffic, or on-site activities such as trash pickups are not anticipated to negatively affect the residences to the north. However, the analysis recommends a number of measures to ensure intrusive noises are minimized, as follows: · Trash pickups at the project site should not occur during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. · All activities at the site should be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No rooftop or exterior mechanical equipment for the project shall produce a noise level greater than 45 dB(A) when measured at the residential property line. All details related to noise reduction measures shall be submitted to the Community Development Department during plan check for review and approval. · Public address systems and buzzers shall be prohibited. The noise analysis also considered the potential impacts of train and traffic noise on various proposed uses. The highest impact was to office uses on the second floor of the retail building adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, which may be exposed to noise levels up to 73 dB. To reduce the potential impacts identified above to a level of insignificance and ensure compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Mitigation/Monitoring Required: All glazing assemblies used throughout the project shall be well fitted and weather- stripped. Sound-rated doors and windows will be required for compliance with the interior noise standards at the office and residential spaces subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. The following minimum The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 7 of 13 sound transmission class rating (STC) shall be incorporated in the design of the project subject to final review of a qualified acoustical engineer and Community Development Department: Use Window (STC) Residential Use (self-storage facility) 44 Lobby/Office (self-storage facility) N/A Office use (retail/office building) 36 Door (STC) 36 36 36 Ail doors shall be kept closed when not in use. Fresh air intake ducts for ventilation or other openings such as mail slots or vents shall be oriented away from the rail tracks. All such openings for the retail building along Edinger Avenue shall be oriented away from Edinger Avenue. All ducts shall incorporate at least six (6) feet of flexible ducting and at least one 90-degree bend. The roof system at all units shall have a minimum of one-half (1/2) inch plywood sheathing sealed to from a continuous noise barrier. Minimum R-19 insulation shall . be placed in the rafter space. Wall-mounted air conditioners or other noise generating equipment is prohibited. Exterior walls for retail buildings shall be constructed of gypsum wallboard interior with a 7/8-inch stucco exterior, and a minimum R-11 insulation between the studs. All joints shall be well fitted and or caulked to from an airtight seal-. Exterior walls at the residential unit (storage facility) shall be constructed with , gypsum board wallboard interior over RC-1 resilient channels, with 7/8-inch exterior stucco and R-11 minimum insulation between studs. All joints shall be well fitted and/or caulked to form an airtight seal. Carpet and pad shall be installed in all offices on the project site and at the residential unit in the self-storage facility. The carpet shall have a minimum pile height of 1/8 inch. Ail interior walls of the building on the project site shall be of gypsum wallboard construction. A suspended acoustical ceiling shall be installed in all offices. The ceiling tile shall provide a minimum noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of 0.90. Party wall and floor/ceiling separation assemblies shall be designed to provide a minimum STC of 50 including the party wall assembly between the residential unit and the storage and the floor/ceiling assembly between the residential unit and the lobby/office. The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 8 of 13 Penetration or openings in separation assemblies for piping, electrical devices, recessed cabinets, bathtubs, soffits, or heating, ventilation, or exhaust ducts shall be sealed, lined, insulated or otherwise treated to maintain the required rating. The entrance door from the office/lobby to the residential unit (self-storage) together with its perimeter seal shall have a minimum of 26 STC rating. All mitigation measures shall be submitted as part of construction drawings with approval by a qualified acoustical engineer for review and approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. All construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise determined by the Building Official. Item b, e, and f- "No Impact": The project will not create excessive groundbourne vibrations or associated noise levels and the site is not within an airport land use plan, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip that would expose people working in the project area to excess noise levels. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Submitted Noise Analysis 12. POPULATION and HOUSING Items a, b, and c-No Impact: As a commercial development on a vacant site, the proposed project will not induce population growth or displace existing housing. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a- No Impact: The site was previously operated as a restaurant site that has been vacant for more than two years. The proposed retail/office and self-storage buildings will not create a significant increase in demand for government services (fire and police protection, schools, parks, etc.), where construction or alteration of such facilities could cause significant environmental impacts. A 24-hour caretaker would be supervising the self-storage facility. The site design and construction of the proposed building is required to be in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority with respect to access, construction, and fire hydrants. The project design will be required to include all security provisions of Tustin Security Ordinance. No significant impacts to public services is anticipated. The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032,) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 9 of J3 Sources: Tustin Security Code Orange County Fire Authority Tustin General Plan 14. RECREATION Items a and b- No Impact: As a commercial development on a vacant site, the project will not impact existing recreational facilities, increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Item c- "Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation": A traffic analysis has been submitted for the site, which considered traffic impacts regarding trip generation, ingress/egress, and on-site traffic flow (Exhibit 3 - Traffic Analysis). The only potential impact is related to the design of the intersection at Edinger Avenue and Parkway Loop and on-site truck movements. The site is adjacent to Edinger Avenue (a future six-lane major arterial roadway) and Red Hill Avenue (a future six-lane major arterial). The project site would have a main access opposite Parkway Loop from Edinger Avenue, and a secondary right turn only access would be provided from Red Hill Avenue. A third access on Edinger Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of the main driveway, would be provided for emergency access and egress for the storage area that would be secured by a gate and an access keypad. Traffic signal warrants for the intersection of Edinger Avenue/Parkway Loop have been prepared as part of the traffic analysis for the proposed project and the Caltrans Traffic Systems Warrant has been satisfied for the proposed project. Based upon the warrant analysis and engineering judgment, it has been determined that the installation of a traffic signal at the Edinger Avenue/Parkway Loop intersection would be beneficial to the proposed project and the adjacent land uses. The traffic signal would provide for gaps in traffic to facilitate full turning movements and minimize vehicle queuing at the intersection. To provide unrestricted full access to the site, a new traffic signal at Parkway Loop and Edinger Avenue is proposed for the project entry. The study also recommended the following: One sixteen (16) foot inbound lane to accommodate ingress truck traffic. Fifteen (15) foot radius curb returns. Two (2) 12-foot outbound lanes providing one shared left-thru lane and one right-turn lane, which would be aligned with Parkway Loop on the opposite side, to ensure no conflicting left turns and through movements. The traffic study concluded that, with the installation of the new traffic signal at the main entry on Edinger Avenue and Parkway Loop, adequate access for the project would be provided and the project would pose no significant impacts to the adjacent roadway systems during the peak hours. The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 10 of 13 The study also evaluated on-site circulation with respect to vehicular movements and concluded that all areas would be adequate for single unit trucks, which are typically used by national retail and restaurant companies for local deliveries. Moving trucks entering the southeast end of the storage area should be directed to the exit at the exit-only gated access on Edinger Avenue since turnaround in the storage area may be difficult. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: A traffic' signal shall be provided at the main entrance on Edinger Avenue and Parkway Loop to create gaps in traffic to facilitate full turning movements and minimize vehicle queuing at the intersection. The ultimate design of the main driveway on Edinger Avenue shall align with Parkway Loop to facilitate traffic Operations and shall be approved by the Public Works Department. The design shall include, but not be limited to, the following: o One sixteen (16) foot inbound lane to accommodate ingress truck traffic. o Fifteen (15) foot radius curb returns. o Two (2) 12-foot outbound lanes providing one shared left-thru lane and one right- turn lane, which would be aligned with Parkway Loop on the opposite side, to ensure no conflicting left tums and through movements. The easterly driveway on Edinger Avenue shall be used for emergency fire access and right-turn self-storage vehicle egress for large trucks only (through a secured gate with access via a keypad code) since Edinger Avenue is designated as a "Smart Street" with limited access points. If the driveway is to be open for full public access in the future, the driveway shall be improved to the City of Tustin standards for commercial driveways. Items a, b, d, e, f and g- "No Impact": Trip Generation The study indicates that the proposed project would result in 1,660 average daily trips. The previous use on the site, an 11,000 sq. ft. high-turnover, sit down restaurant, generated 1,434 daily trips and 120 trips in the PM peak hour. The proposed use will generate an additional 226 daily trips and 24 PM peak hour trips. When these additional trips are applied to the surrounding arterial roadway system (Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue) the result does not cause deterioration in the current or future traffic levels of service of the roadway links or the Edinger Avenue/Red Hill Avenue intersection. Fmihermore, the additional traffic generated by the proposed use does not meet the minimum significance thresholds for additional mitigation. Parking As proposed, all required parking would be provided on the site. There would be a total of 124 on-site parking spaces to accommodate the commercial uses and self-storage use as shown in the tables below: The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 11 of 13 Use Office Use Required Parking Ratios One (1) parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area Retail Use One (1) parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area Restaurant Use One (1) per three (3) seats Self-storage facility One (1) parking for each 250 square feet of gross office area or at least four (4) spaces One (1) parking space for each 10,000 square feet of gross floor area of storage use Use Area (Square Feet) Parking Parking Provided Required Retail 9,808 49 Office 4,500 18 Food 7,900 41 (123 seats) Total 108 108 Caretaker Unit N/A Self-Storage 75,491 12 16 The proposed office building will not result in a change in air traffic patterns or inadequate emergency access, nor will it exceed a level of service standards established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designed roads or highways or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Project Application 16. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a, b, c, d. e, f, and g - No Impact: The proposed project would not exceed requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, or require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed project would utilize the existing sewer and storm drain systems and thus would not require construction of a new storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. The project would utilize the City's existing trash hauler contract, thus not requiring a new trash hauler. Adequate water supply from existing resources would be available to serve the proposed project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 12 of 13 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a, b, and c-No Impact: The project grading, construction, and operation would comply with the regulations of the City of Tustin, Uniform Building Code, Air Quality Management District, and Orange County Fire Authority and recommended mitigation measures included in the traffic study and noise analysis attached hereto, which reduces any potential impacts related to aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, traffic, and noise to a level of insignificance. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long- term. It does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan S :\CddklvlINOO\The Barn\The Barn- Analysis.doc The Barn Initial Study (CUP 02-026, DR 02-032) Attachment A - Mitigated Negative Declaration Analysis Page 13 of 13 Exhibit 1 of Resolution No. 3871 7 <~7 I I 3 n N A ¥ 9 9 I H O 3 ~ ,~ATCH LIN[ ¥3~V i MATCH LINE i · W , oeo . n N =i A V '1 -I i H C] 3 El V=~I:~? ~¥1:~OJ.~ NV-Icl 099 Nb'~B Nugr'LL ~tI.U.. ! W I :~IDYI:I01$ :r'FJS ONY 'Wlql:l I- W O~ Z ~> LU m © Exhibit 2 of Resolution No. 3871 ACOUSTICAL EVALUA T/ON FOR THE TUSTIN BARN SITE DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF TUSTIN Project File 376-02 February 28, 2003 Prepared for: The Tustin Bam LLC. 2 Park Plaza, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared by: David L. V~eland,~ Principal Consultant Jonathan L. H~i~son, Associate Consultant Wieland Associates, Inc. 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 114 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949/829-6722 Fax: 949/829-6670 www. wielandassoc, com RECEI ED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY Table of Contents PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 NOISE DESCRIPTORS .................................................................................................... 1 DECIBELS ......................................................................................................................... 1 A-WEIGHTING ................................................................................................................. 1 COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) ........................................................... 3 DAYTIME AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL (LEQ 12) ................................................................... 3 SINGLE EVENT NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (SENEL) .......................................................... 3 NOISE STANDARDS ........................................................................................................ 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE STANDARDS ...................................................................... 6 CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE STANDARDS ................................................................................ 6 Transportation Noise Sources .................................................................................... 6 Stationary Noise Sources ............................................................................................ 6 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................ 7 TRAIN NOISE .................................................................................................................... 7 TRAFFIC NOISE ................................................................................................................ 8 CUMULATIVE NOISE ...................................................................................................... 10 FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT PROJECT .................................... 10 TRAIN NOISE .................................................................................................................. 10 TRAFFIC NOISE .............................................................................................................. 1 1 CUMULATIVE NOISE ...................................................................................................... 12 FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT WITH PROJECT ............................................. 12 TRAIN NOISE .................................................................................................................. 12 TRAFFIC NOISE .............................................................................................................. 13 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC AND TRAIN NOISE ..................................................................... 14 ONSITE NOISE SOURCES ................................................................................................ 1 4 Onsite Truck Movements ........................................................................................... 1- 4 Truck Loading/Unloading Activities ......................................................................... 1- 4 Mechanical Equipment ............................................................................................. I5 Parking Lot Noise ..................................................................................................... 1_5 Trash Pickups ............................................................................................................ ! 6 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ........................................................................................ 16 OFFSITE NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................................ 16 Train Noise ................................................................................................................ 1- 6 Traffic Noise .............................................................................................................. 16 Onsite Noise Sources ................................................................................................ 17 ONSITE NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 17 Train Noise ................................................................................................................ 17 Traffic Noise .............................................................................................................. 18 i THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 18 OFFSITE NOISE CONTROL .............................................................................................. 18 ONSITE NO~S~, CONTROL ................................................................................................ 19 PARTY WALL AND FLOOR/CEILING SEPARATION ASSEMBLIES .............. 20 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 21 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Project Site ............................................................. 2 Figure 2. Noise Levels Associated with Common In- and Outdoor Activities ............ 4 Figure 3. Outdoor CNEL at Typical Locations ................................................. 5 Figure 4. Noise Measurement/Modeling Positions ............................................. 9 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I. 24-Hour Noise Measurements Appendix II. Analysis of Existing Traffic Noise Levels Appendix III. Analysis of Future Traffic Noise Levels Appendix IV. Analysis of Project Parking Lot Noise Levels Appendix V. Analysis of Interior Noise Levels TItE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 Project Description The proposed project consists of approximately 22,000 square feet of retail space and 79,500 square feet of self-storage space to be located on a site of approximately 5 acres. The project is to be located immediately east of the intersection of Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue in the city of Tustin, on a site previously occupied by the Tustin Barn restaurant. Figure 1 (page 2) identifies the location of the project site. The site is approximately triangular, bounded on the northwest by Red Hill Avenue; on the northeast by the OCTA Metrolink railroad and, beyond that, existing residential properties; and on the south/southwest by Edinger Avenue. Noise Descriptors The fOllowing sections briefly describe the noise descriptors that will be used throughout tl~is study. Decibe/s Sound pressures can be measured in units called microPascals (~Pa). However, expressing sound levels in terms of ~Pa would be very cumbersome since it would require a wide range of very large numbers. For this reason, sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer resolution, abel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an obse~wer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dB. A-Weighting Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the amplitude of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. In order to THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments, or weighting network, are frequency dependent. The A-scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary'everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. A range of noise levels associated with common in- and outdoor activities is shown in Figure 2 (page 4). The A-weighted sound level of traffic and other long-term noise-producing activities within and around a community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are accomplished by recording values of the A-weighted level during representative periods within a specified portion of the day. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) It is recognized that a given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the duration of exposure experienced by an individual. There are numerous measures of noise exposure that consider not only the A-level variation of noise but also the duration of the disturbance. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). This measure weights the average noise levels for the evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 3 (page 5) indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations. Daytime Average Sound Level (Leql 2) The daytime average sound level, Leql 2, is the A-weighted average noise level measured over the 12-hour period between 7:00 mn and 7:00 pm. Leql2 is most often used to describe noise levels at commercial or industrial properties, which are typically only occupied during daytime business hours. Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) The total amount of sound energy produced by a single noise event is dependent on both the noise level and the duration of the event. Noisy events that occur relatively briefly and that are easily discernable from ambient noise, such as a train passby or aircraft flyover, are typically referred to as "single events". When describing or comparing single events, it is useful to have a single noise descriptor that accounts for the effects of both noise level and duration. The single event noise exposure level (SENEL) describes the A- weighted noise level that would be produced if all the sound energy from a single event was emitted in a 1 second period. THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 Threshold of pain-- --- 120 dB(A) , Disco 110 dB(A) Textile mill Printing plant 100 dB(A) Jackhammer at 50' Power lawn mower at 5' 90 dB(A) Heavy truck at 50' Concrete mixer at 50' i 80 dB(A) ............................ Inside car at 40 mph i i 10 dB change generally iperceived as twice or halt as loud Vacuum cleaner at 10' 70 dB(A) ............................ Car, 60 mph at 100' Conversational speech-- w 60 dB(A) ............................ }5 .~ dB change generally Large transformer at 50' . ........................... }perceived as qmte noticeal>le Urban residence-- -- 50 dB(A) ............................ '.. i3 dB change is generally barely ............................. perceptible Small town residence -- ~40 dB(A) 1 dB change is generally not Soft whisper at 6' ' ............................ noticeal~le 30 dB(A) North rim of Grand Canyon--- ~'-20 dB(A) i 10 dB(A) ! Threshold of hearing : i 0 dB(A) WIELAND Noise Levels Associated with 2 ASSOCIATES, INC. Common In- and Outdoor Activities , , 90 dB Next to freeway Los Angeles, 3/4 mi. from LAX 80 dB Downtown Los Angeles 70 dB Housing on major street /i Common standard for noise exposure level -- -- in exterior residential areas Los Angeles, 8 mi. from LAX Old suburban residential area-- --60 dB Small town cul-de-sac-- --50 dB 11 Common standard for noise exposure level in interior residential areas Farm 40 dB 30 dB }VIELAND Outdoor CNEL at 3 ASSOCIATES, INC. Typical Locations I Noise Standards The following sections describe the State and City noise standards that relate to the proposed project, for both transportation and stationary noise sources. State of California Noise Standards All residential areas of multi-use projects must comply with the State of California's noise insulation standards (CAC Title 24, Chapter 2.5, Section 2-3501). The State' s Title 24 stm~dards specify that the intrusion of noise from exterior sources (such as traffic) shall not exceed a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) of 45 dB within the interior of any habitable space. In addition, the State standards set minimum ratings for the sound and impact transmission of party wall and floor/ceiling separations. This report only provides an evaluation of, and recommendations for, the exterior-to-interior requirements of the State standards. It is the project architect's responsibility to ensure compliance of the party wall and floor/ceiling requirements with the State standards. City of Tustin Noise Standards The following sections describe the City of Tustin's noise standards for both transportation and stationary noise sources. Transportation Noise Sources The City of Tustin has transportation noise standards for a variety of different land uses. The following table identifies the standards that apply to the land uses within the proposed project and in the surrounding area: ttesment~al- Smgle famdy, multifamily, duplex 45 dB CNEL 65 dB:'~EL ' Private offices 45 dB(A) Leql2 N/A 'General offices, reception, clerical, etc. 50 dB(A) Leq 12 N/A Retail store, restaurant 55 dB(A) Leq 12 N/A .... Kitchen, warehousing 65 dB(A) Leq 12 N/A Stationary Noise Sources To control non-transportation noise sources, such as those that will exist on the project site, the City's noise ordinance specifies limits on the amount of noise that may intrude from one property to another. For intrusions onto exterior areas of residential properties, these standards are as follows: THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 30 minutes in any 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) hour (Ls0) 15 minutes in any 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) hour (L25) 5 minutes in any hour .65 dB(A) 60 dB(A) (LB) 1 minute in any hour ?0 dB(A) 65 dB(A) (L2) Any time (Lm~,~) 75 dB(A) 70 dB(A) In the event the alleged offensive noise contains impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the above noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dB. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories described above, the cumulative period applicable to the category is increased to reflect the ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under the category is increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. Existing Noise Environment The existing noise environment was investigated using both noise measurements and noise modeling, as described in the following sections. Train Noise The railway line adjacent to the project is used by three operators: Metrolink, Amtrak and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Based on a review of published train timetables, and on information received from staff at the rail companies, the following data was established for current train operations: Daytime, 7am 24 18 1 43 to 7pm .~ Evening, 7pm 1 2 1 4 i~ to 10pm ~ Nighttime, 6 2 2 10 ~ 10pmto7mu Total 31 22 4 57 Train Speed 79 mph 90 mph 45 mph Train Length 6 cars 5 cars 4,800 feet THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 In order to document the existing noise environment, measurements were taken at an existing residential property adjacent to the OCTA Metrolink railroad across from the project site. The measurement position was in the rear yard of 1632 Greenmeadow Avenue, at a distance of approximately 13 8 feet from the centre of the railway tracks. A 7-foot high block wall separates the yard from the railway; the measurement position was approximately 18 feet from this wall. The measurement position is shown in Figure 4 (page 9). In order to assess the noise impacts at both first and second floor elevations, two sound level meters were operated simultaneously, one with the microphone positioned at a height of 5 feet above the ground and the second with the microphone positioned at a height of 15 feet. Both instruments were calibrated prior to the measurements. Noise levels were monitored for a 24-hour period in order to obtain a CNEL at each elevation. The measurements indicated a CNEL of 67 dB at the ground floor elevation and 71.5 dB at the second floor elevation. Refer to Appendix I for further documentation of the 24- hour noise measurements. The instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Model 820), and an acoustic calibrator (Model CAL250) manufactured by Larson Davis Laboratories. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained tlu'ough a program established by the manufacturer, and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1971. Traffic Noise As indicated in Figure 1 (page 2), the primary sources of traffic noise affecting the project vicinity are Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on these streets were obtained from a traffic study prepared by Austin- Foust Associates, Inc. The following traffic data were then used in our m~alysis of existing traffic noise exposures at the homes to the northeast of the site: Roadway Configuration 6 lanes, with 6 lanes, with median median Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) 18,000 29,000 Posted Speed Limit 45 mph 40 mph , % Medim Tracks 1.84% 1.84% ,, % Heavy Trucks 0.74% 0.74% Based on the above traffic data, it is estimated that the existing unmitigated noise exposure due to traffic on Red Hill, at a distance of 50 feet from the curb, is 69 dB at the existing homes. In order to assess the existing noise impacts from Edinger Avenue, the noise levels were modeled at two locations. This was necessary to account for the varying distance between the residential properties and Edinger Avenue. Modeling position 1 was TIlE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 the measurement position in the rear yard of 1632 Greenmeadow Avenue, described in the previous section, which is adjacent to the southeast end of the project site. Modeling position 2 was located on a residential property adjacent to the northwest end of the project site, approximately 150 feet from Red Hill Avenue and 18 feet back from the rear yard wall. Refer to Figure 4 (page 9) for the location of these modeling poims. The results of our modeling indicate an estimated CNEL of 54 to 56 dB at first floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the northeast side of the project site' and a CNEL of 60.5 to 62.5 dB at second floor elevations. Refer to Appendix II for the full analysis. The 'traffic noise analysis was conducted using the FHWA RD 77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Cumulative Noise The noise modeling points identified in the previous section are exposed to noise both from trains and from traffic on Edinger Avenue. The following table summarizes the noise levels associated with each source and identifies the resultant cumulative noise exposure: 1 Ground Floor 67 dB 56 dB 67 dB 1 Second Floor" 71.'5 dB 62.5 dB 71.5 dB 2 Ground Floor 67 dB 54 dB 67 dB 2 Second Floor 71.5 dB 60.5 dB 71.5 dB Future Noise Environment Without Project The noise environment in the vicinity of the project site will change in the future, whether or not the project is constructed. In the future-without-project case, changes in the noise enviromuent will primarily be due to changes in street and rail traffic that are a normal pm't of growth in the community. The future-without-project noise environment in the vicinity of the project site was estimated using data for future rail and traffic operations, as described in the following sections. Train Noise Based on information received from staff at the rail companies, the following data was established for train operations approximately 20 years int6 the future (2023): 10 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 Daytime, 7am 40 23 2 65 to 7pm ~ Evening, 7pm · lO 8 2 2o ~ to 10pm ~ Nighttime, 12 1 3 16 ~ 10pmto7am Total 62 32 7 101 Train Speed 79 mph 90 mph 45 mph Train Length 8 cars 5 cars 4,800' Using the noise measurements and operational data for existing train operations, it was possible to calculate an SENEL for a hypothetical "average" train pass-by on the railway line adjacent to the project site. This level was then attributed to each train in the future operational schedule, above, in order to estimate the future train noise exposures in the vicinity of the project site. It is estimated that the increase in noise exposure from rail traffic, compared to existing conditions, will be approximately 2.5 dB at the residential locations adjacent to the rail line. At the measurement locations in the rear yard of 1632 Greelmaeadow Avenue this corresponds to an estimated CNEL of 69.5 dB at the ground floor elevation and 74 dB at the second floor elevation. Traffic Noise Data for future-without-project traffic conditions was obtained from a traffic study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. The following traffic data were then used in om' analysis of the future-without-project traffic noise exposures at the homes to the northeast of the site: 6 lanes, with 6 lanes, with Roadway Configuration median median Average Daily Traffic 14,000 43,000 Volume (ADT) Posted Speed Limit 45 mph 40 mph % 'Medium Trucks 1.84% 1.84% ,,, % Heavy Trucks 0.74% 0.74% Based on the above traffic data, it is estimated that the unmitigated future-without-project noise exposure due to traffic on Red Hill, at a distance of 50 feet from the curb, will be 71 dB at the existing homes, an increase of 2 dB relative to the existing levels. In order to assess the future-without-project noise impacts from Edinger Avenue, the noise levels were analyzed at the same two modeling positions as described in the Existing Traffic Noise section, above; refer to Figure 4 (page 9) for the location of these modeling poims. 11 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 F The results of our modeling indicate an estimated CNEL of 53 to 55 dB at first floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the northeast side of the project site, and a CNEL of 59 to 61.5 dB at second floor elevations. These levels are 1 dB lower than those due to existing traffic on Edinger Avenue. Refer to Appendix II for the full analysis. The traffic noise analysis was conducted using the FHWA RD 77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Cumulative Noise The noise modeling points are exposed to noise both from trains and from traffic on Edinger Avenue. The following table summarizes the noise levels associated with each source and identifies the resultant cumulative noise exposure: :, ~ n :~ummafi:ve,'~ Ground Floor 69.5 dB 55 dB 69.5 dB Second Floor 74 dB 61.5 dR 74 dB Ground Floor 69.5 dB 53 dB 69.5 dB Second Floor 74 dB 59 dB t 74 dB These cm~ulative levels are 2.5 dB higher than those for the existing environment. Future Noise Environment With Project If the project is constructed, it will introduce new noise sources into the area. These will include on-site activities such as operations at the self-storage facility and parking lot activities. Traffic volumes in the area will also change as customers and staff of the businesses on the project site use the surrounding streets to access the project. The project is not anticipated to have any direct effect on the train operations in the area. The buildings constructed on the project site will effect the noise environment, particularly at the homes to the northeast of the project, where they will act as barriers for traffic noise on Edinger Avenue and reflectors for train noise. The following sections discuss the future-with-project noise enviro~unent. Train Noise As indicated in the previous section, Future Noise Environment 147ithout Project, the estimated CNEL at the existing homes to the northeast of the project site will be 69.5 dB at ground floor locations mhd 74 dB at second floor locations. The walls of the buildings to be constructed on the project site, particularly the northeast elevation of the self storage building, will create a long continuous surface that may act to reflect noise from passing trains back to the adjacent homes. This reflected noise may increase the train noise exposure at the residential properties to the northeast of the railway line. Accounting for such noise reflection, as well as the barrier effect of the train 12 THE TUSTrN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 itself between the reflecting fagade and the residential properties, it is estimated that the train noise exposure levels will increase by approximately 1 dB, relative to future- without-project conditions. At the measurement locations in the rear yard of 1632 Greenmeadow Avenue, this corresponds to an estimated CNEL of 70.5 dB at the ground floor elevation and 75 dB at the second floor elevation. The planned project includes various land uses. Across the project site, the train noise exposure will vary depending on the distance from the train tracks and the barrier effects of intervening buildings. The following table summarizes the range of train noise exposures estimated at the different land uses within the project site: Self-Storage Site - Residential Area 81.5 dB CNEL - Lobby/Office Area 73 dB(A) Leql2 - Warehouse 62 - 78 dB(A) Leql2 Restaurant/Kitchen 63 - 73 dB(A) Leq 12 Office Space 71 - 73 dB(A) Leql2 Retail 62 - 73 dB(A) Leql2 Traffic Noise Data for future-with-project traffic conditions was obtained from a study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. The study indicates that the future average daily traffic volumes (ADTs) will be the same with or without the project. However, the project will affect traffic noise levels at the homes to the northeast because the new buildings will act as noise barriers between Edinger Avenue and the homes. At modeling point 1 noise levels from traffic on Edinger will be reduced by approximately 5 dB, and at modeling point 2 noise levels will be reduced by approximately 4 dB. Refer to Figure 4 (page 9) for the location of these modeling points. This results in an estimated CNEL of 49 to 50.5 dB at first floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the northeast side of the project site, and a CNEL of 55.5 to 56.5 dB at second floor elevations. These levels are between 5 mhd 6 dB lower than those due to existing traffic on Edinger Avenue. The planned project includes various land uses. At each building on the project site the traffic noise exposure is different, depending on the distance to the adjacent streets mhd the barrier effects of intervening buildings. The following table summarizes the range of traffic noise exposures estimated at the differem land uses within the project site: Self-Storage Site - Residential Area 63.5 dB CNEL 59 dB CNEL - Lobby/Office Area 61 dB(A) Leql2 63 dB(A) Leql2 - Warehouse 59 - 62 dB(A) Leql2 61 - 67 dB(A) Leql2 Restaurant/Kitchen 63 - 68 dB(A) Leql2 61 - 67 dB(A) Leql2 Office Space 64 - 67 dB(A) Leql2 61 - 62 dB(A) Leql2 Retail 62 - 68 dB(A) Leql2 61 - 67 dB(A) Leql2 13 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 Refer to Appendix III for the full analysis. The traffic noise analysis was conducted using the FHWA RD 77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Cumulative Traffic and Train Noise The noise modeling points are exposed to noise both from trains and from traffic on Edinger Avenue. The following table summarizes the noise levels associated with each som'ce mud identifies the resultant cumulative noise exposure: Ground Floor 70.5 dB 50 dB 70.5 dB Second Floor 75 dB 56.5 dB 75 dB Ground Floor 70.5 dB 49 dB 70.5 dB Second Floor 75 dB 55 dB 75 dB - These cumulative levels are 3.5 dB higher than those for the existing noise environment, mad 1 dB higher than those for the future-without-project case. Onsite Noise Sources The operation of the proposed project will introduce several new noise sources that may imPact the neighboring homes. Each of these noise sources is discussed in the following sections: ongite Truck Movements Trucks will enter and exit the project site from Edinger Avenue or Red Hill Avenue. These will include trucks an'lying and departing from the self-storage facility and delivery trucks for the businesses on the site. There are no large loading dock areas on the site; therefore it has been assumed that only medium trucks will be used. Based on published data, a medium truck generates a noise level of up to 76 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. The minimum distance between the homes and the onsite driveways that may be used by trucks is 190 feet. At this distance the estimated maximum noise level at the homes is 64 dB(A) at second floor elevations; at first floor elevations the existing block wall will reduce the noise levels by 4 to 6 dB. Much of the truck activity, particularly inside the self-storage facility will be shielded by the project buildings and therefore will not present a significant noise level at the neighboring homes. Some of the homes will have direct line of site to the driveway that leads in and out of the storage facility; however, the occurrence of trucks entering mad leaving the site will be sporadic in nature and their trips will generally be brief, resulting in low average noise levels. Truck Loading/Unloading Activities The noise sources typically associated with medium truck deliveries and pickups include truck doors slamming, lifts on the rear of the trucks, warning beepers (for lift operation or 14 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 while trucks back up) and general impact noise as goods are moved in and out of the truck. Based on previous noise measurements of truck delivery activity, maximum noise levels are around 70 dB(A) at 50 feet. When deliveries are made to the rear of Building A, trucks may be as close as 200 feet from the neighboring homes. At this distance the estimated maximum noise level is 58 dB(A). These activities will happen sporadically and are usually of short duration, resulting in low average noise levels. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems may produce significant noise levels. Structural designs and acoustical baffling are easily implemented in new construction to reduce mechanical equipment noise, but are normally difficult and expensive to apply after the fact. In order to estimate noise levels at the existing homes adjacent to the project site due to mechanical equipment at the project site, manufacturers' published noise data was used. Kitchen extractor fans used at the restaurants are likely to represent the noisiest mechanical equipment on the site. These fans may produce noise levels of up to 60 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet and may run continuously for extended periods of time. At the nearest homes, approximately 230 feet away, the estimated noise level is 47 dB(A) at second floor elevations. Parking Lot Noise The predominant noise sources associated with parking lot activities include car doors slamming; cars starting; cars accelerating away from the parking stalls; car alarms; and people talking, shouting and laughing. To characterize the parking lot noise sources, measurements data obtained as part of a previous study were used. The results are summarized below: Car alarm People shouting/laughing Car door slamming 80.5 dB(A) 64.5 dB(A) 62.5 dB(A) Car idling 61.0 dB(A) Car starting 59.5 dB(A) Car accelerating 54.5 dB(A) People talking 41.0 dB(A) Parking lot activities will be sporadic in nature. Referring to trip generation data provided by a traffic study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., 140 trips will be generated during the peak hour of operation at the site. During this hour 80 cars will enter the site and 60 will exit. Using this data, a "worst case" daytime operational scenario for the parking lot was estimated. The average distance from the parking lot to the nearest homes is approximately 280 feet. Using this distance and the estimated operational scenario, an analysis was carried out to estimate the noise levels that will be experienced at the neighboring homes. The operational scenario and analysis can be found in Appendix IV. The results of the analysis indicate that the average noise level generated by the parking 15 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 lot activities will be about 45 dB(A) at the second floor of the neighboring residences and maximum noise levels will be up to 66 dB(A). At first floor elevations the existing block wall will reduce the noise levels by 4 to 6 dB(A). Trash Pickups Trash pickup and compacting vehicles are also a source of noise that will be associated with the project. These vehicles use hydraulic equipment to raise and lower the metal trash bins and to compact their contents. Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at 50 feet during the raising, lowering and compacting operations. A typical trash pickup takes approximately three minutes. The higher noise levels occur during about one-half of the operation. The closest trash bins to the homes adjacent to the project site are about 185 feet away. At this distance noise levels will range from 69 to 74 dB(A) at second floor elevations; at first floor elevations the existing block wall will reduce the noise levels by 4 to 6 dB(A). ASsessment of Impact The following sections assess the noise impacts that will occur in the project vicinity, relative to the City standards. The offsite noise impacts at the neighboring homes are discussed first, followed by an assessment of the impacts on the project site itself. Offsite Noise Impacts The following sections assess the offsite noise impacts at homes to the northeast of the project due to transportation noise sources and onsite noise sources: Train Noise Measurements and analysis indicate that existing nOise exposure at the homes to the northeast of the project due to rail traffic are already in exceedance of the City standards, and that they are set to increase in the future whether or not the project is built. The introduction of the project buildings at the site may further increase future noise levels at the homes by around 1 dB due to reflection. A difference in sotmd level of 1 dB is generally considered to be undetectable to the average listener; therefore no impact has been assessed for this noise source. Traffic Noise The future estimated ADTs for the streets in the project vicinity are the same for both the future-with- and future-without-project alternatives. Noise levels fi'om traffic on Edinger Avenue at the homes to the northeast of the project will, in fact, be reduced by the barrier effects of the project buildings. Therefore, no significant traffic noise impacts are assessed for the project. 16 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 Onsite Noise Sources Referring to the City noise standards and the estimated noise levels for the various noise sources on the project site, the following table provides an assessment of the impacts of the proposed project on the existing homes adjacent to the project site: Onsite Truck Movements Not significant. Truck Loading/Unloading Not significant. Mechanical Equipment Not significant for daytime operations. May create a significant impact between 10 pm and 7 am. Parking Lot Activities Not significant for daytime activities. May create a significant impact for activities occurring between 10 pm and 7 am. Trash Pickup and Compacting Not significant if restricted to the hours of 7am to 10pm. It is noted that even noise sources for which no significant noise impact has been assessed may be audible at times at the neighboring homes. This is particularly true' during lulls in traffic and under certain atmospheric conditions. Onsite Noise Impacts Buildings on the project site will be exposed to significant noise levels as a result of traffic on the neighboring streets and, in particular, trains on the track adjacent to the site. The impacts of these noise levels are discussed in the following sections. Train Noise The impact of the train noise on the project buildings depends on the exact location of the building and on its intended use. The following table identifies maximum noise exposure levels caused by the trains for each intended land use, the interior noise standard for that use, and the noise reduction required by the building construction in order to. meet the standard: Self-Storage Site - Residential Area 81.5 dB CNEL 45 dB CNEL 36.5 dB - Lobby/Office Area 73 dB(A) Leql2 50 dB(A) Leql2 23 dB - Warehouse 78 dB(A) Leql2 65 dB(A) Leql2 13 dB Restaurant 73 dB(A) Leql2 55 dB(A) Leql2 18 dB Kitchen 73 dB(A) Leql2 65 dB(A) Leql2 8 dB Office Space 73 dB(A) Leql2 45 dB(A) Leql2 28 dB Retail 73 dB(A) Leql2 55 dB(A) Leql2 18 dB A minimum noise reduction of 20 dB is usually achieved with standard construction tectmiques. Therefore, the impact of train noise will be significant at the proposed office 17 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 spaces, and at the manager's unit (both residential and lobby/office areas) at the self- storage site. Traffic Noise The impact of the traffic noise on the project buildings depends on the exact location of the building and on its intended use. The following table identifies maximum traffic noise exposure levels that will be experienced at each intended land use, the interior noise standard for that use, and the noise reduction required by the building construction in order to meet the stm~dard: Self-Storage Site - Residential Area 63.5 dB CNEL 45 dB CNEL 18.5 dB - Lobby/Office Area 63 dB(A) Leql2 50 dB(A) Leql2 13 dB - Warehouse 67 dB(A) Leql2 65 dB(A) Leql2 2 dB Restaurant 68 dB(A) Leql2 55 dB(A) Leql2 13 dB Kitchen 68 dB(A) Leql2 65 dB(A) Leql2 3 dB Office Space 67 dB(A) Leql2 45 dB(A) Leql2 22 dB Retail , 68 dB(A) Leql2 55 dB(A) Leql2 13 dB A minimum noise reduction of 20 dB is usually achieved with standard construction techniques. Therefore, traffic noise will generate a significant impact at the proposed office spaces. Recommendations The proposed project will require a number of noise control measures in order to achieve compliance with the City's noise stm~dards. Our recommendations are provided in the following two sections. The first section deals with measures required for compliance with the standards at the homes adjacent to the project site, and the second deals with measures required for compliance with the standards at the project site itself. Off'site Noise Control The following recommendations are provided for compliance with the City's noise standards at the homes to the northeast of the project site: 1. Trash pickups at the project site should not occur during the nighttime hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. 2. All activities at the site should be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. 3. No rooftop or exterior mechanical equipment for the project should produce a noise level greater than 45 dB(A) when measured at the residential property line. This may be achieved by procurement of quiet equipment and/or the use of various techniques 18 THE TUST1N BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 . including construction of rooftop parapets, equipment enclosures or the use of silencers. The need for, and design of, such noise control features should be determined as part of the final engineering design of the project. Public address systems and buzzers should not be used outside the confines of the buildings. Onsite Noise Control The following recommendations are provided for compliance with the City's interior noise standards at the onsite project buildings: , , o o All glazing assemblies used tlm'oughout the project should be well fitted and well weather-stripped. In addition, sound-rated doors and windows will be required for compliance with the interior noise standards at the office and residential spaces on the site. The following table identifies the estimated minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings that will be required for doors m~d windows on the project site: Self-Storage Site - Residential Area 44 36 - Lobby/Office Area N/A 36 Office 36 36 The exact STC ratings required at each location on the project site should be determined by a qualified acoustical consultant during the final design phase of the project. All doors at the buildings on the project site should be kept closed when not in use. The interior noise standards are to be met in all buildings with windows and doors closed. Therefore, ventilation is needed in order to provide a habitable environment. Any fresh air intake ducts or other openings (such as mail slots or vents) should be oriented away from the rail tracks. At buildings A mud B, they should als° be oriented away from Red Hill Avenue. At buildings B and C, they should be oriented away from Edinger Avenue. All ducts should incorporate at least 6' of flexible fiberglass ducting and at least one 90° bend. The roof system at all units should have minimum ~/2" plywood sheathing that is well sealed to form a continuous barrier to the noise. Minimum R-19 insulation batts should be placed in the rafter space. Wall mounted air conditioners should not be used at any of the project buildings. Exterior walls at buildings A, B m~d C should be constructed with gypsum wallboard interior, 7/8" stucco exterior, with minimum R-11 insulation batts between the studs. ' All joints should be well fitted and/or caulked to form an airtight seal. Exterior walls at the residential building should be constructed with gypsum wallboard interior over RC-1 resilient chmmels, 7/8" stucco exterior, with minimum R- 11 insulation between the studs. All joints should be well fitted and/or caulked to form m~ airtight seal. 19 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 , In order to ensure adequate sound absorption, the following should be inCluded in the project's design: a. Carpet and pad should be installed in all offices on the project site and at the self- storage facility residence. The carpet should have a minimum pile height of ~A inch. b. Ali interior walls of the buildings on the project site should be of gypsum wallboard construction. A suspended acoustical ceiling should be installed in all offices on the project site. The ceiling tiles should provide a minimum noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of 0.90. Co All recommendations should be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant during the final engineering stage of the project in order to verify compliance with the City' s noise standards. Party Wall and Floor/Ceiling Separation Assemblies The residence at the self-storage facility is in the same building as spaces to be used for commercial purposes. Therefore they must comply with the State's noise insUlation standards (Title 24). These standards specify minimum sound ratings for party wall and floor/ceiling separation assemblies as follows: Party wall and floor/ceiling separation assemblies shall be designed to provide a minimum sound transmission class (STC) of 50. "The following are considered to be separation assemblies and, therefore, are required to provide a minimum STC of 50: a. The party wall assembly between the residential areas and the storage building. b. The floor/ceiling assembly between the residemial areas and the lobby/office. 3. Penetrations or openings in separation assemblies for piping, electrical devices, recessed cabinets, bathtubs, soffits or heating, ventilation or exhaust ducts shall be sealed, lined, insulated or otherwise treated to maintain the required ratings. 4. The entrance door from the office/lobby to the residential portion of the building, together with its perimeter seal shall have an STC rating of not less than 26. Such tested doors shall operate normally with commercially available seals. Solid core wood slab doors 1-3/8" thick minimum or 18 gauge insulated steel slab doors with compression seals all arom~d, including the threshold, may be considered adequate without other substantiating information. 5. Sound control specifications and sound-rated separation assembly details shall be prepared by the architect and included in the project drawings. 20 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 Conclusion Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels of noise as a result of rail and street traffic. The project also has the potential to create noise levels that will exceed the City's noise standards at the neighboring properties. However, it is concluded that the project, as recommended herein, will comply with the City's noise exposure standards. The acoustical design, as recormnended above for compliance with the interior noise standards, is to be met for the average sound level in any habitable space within the project at the central position of the space and at least 5' from windows or exterior doors. It is further recommended that a qualified acoustical consultant review the final design of the project to verify compliance with the City and State noise standards. 21 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 References 1. "The Tustin Barn Development, Redhill and Edinger: Northeast Corner", Site Plan & Architectural Drawings; prepared by HMR Architects; December 20, 2002. 2. Draft, "City of Tustin, Tustin Bm-n Project" Traffic Analysis; prepared by Austin- Foust Associates, Inc. 22 THE TUSTIN BARN LLC. Project File 376-02 APPENDIX I 24-Hour Noise Measurements Table 1. Measured Hourly Noise Levels and Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: Location: Date: Tustin Barn Site 1632 Greenmeadow Avenue, Rear Yard, Ground Floor Elevation February 18/19, 2003 [:.:.:.:.2.:.2.:.Z.:.7.j.C.CCZCCZCZ:¥2225 222 : 7 227 2 : ::.X.Z.X.X2......:.....-... ZiJ'C':.Z.X.Z.:.X.X.C.:.:.: '.ZC¥1Z:¥Z'.C2CZ::: C 2 COy ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... !.2 . . ! . 2 ! . . .... "'" ...... **' ..... ' ....... '"'"'"'"'""' '" '"'"'"" '"'""'"'"'"'"'"'"'""" ...... ". ".' .... ' ' i'-*''~'~' '"'i'"' ..... ,....r......,. 12:00 am- 1:00 am 45.0 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm 57.6 1:00 am - 2:00 am 43.0 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 58.7 2:00 am - 3:00 am 47.2 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 59.5 3:00 am - 4:00 am 65.9 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm 66.0 4:00 am - 5:00 am 53.5 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 61.0 5:00 am - 6:00 am 57.8 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 64.8 6:00 am - 7:00 am 60.5 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 57.8 7:00 am - 8:00 am 67.2 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 65.7 8:00 am - 9:00 am 66.6 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 55.3 9:00 am - 10:00 am 65.8 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 52.0 10:00 am-11:00 am 55.0 10:00 pm- I1:00 pm 63.0 11:00 am- 12:00 pm 57.6 I1:00 pm- 12:00 am 50.9 CNEL : 6 7. 0 7O 65 60 55 50 45 ~ 4o~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --'----'--'----'----'----'----'----'----'----'----'--'----'--'----'--'----'----'----' .... T .... 'r-- I I t I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I~ I I I I~lJJ~"JJJ~li~.- I I I I I I . I I I I I t I I - -, - - ~ - -, ~ ~ - -,- -, - -!- .r - -,--X, - - ~- -, - - ~ - ~ - - ~/~ - - ~-,- - ,-A- - - ~- - -,- - ~ - - ' ' '!%' ' ' J~ ' ' ~' ~ ' ' ~ / % /%, ~/~,, , - ~ - - r- - ""t -T - -'- -~" -'- ' * - -~- - %- -r- - '-, - -,-- ~ r- - ~ - - ,- - -,%--/,,- - -X" - ',' - -,t A',' - - _ '__'_ I '% Jr' ' ' ' ' '%~,,~_ ,__, _ ,__,_ ,__, ~,_-_,__,_X , ~__'~ _ ! I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i I I Time of Day WIELAND ASSOCIA TES, INC. Table 2. Measured Hourly Noise Levels and Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: Tustin Barn Site Location: 1632 Greenmeadow Avenue, Rear Yard, 2nd Floor Elevation Date: February 18/19, 2003 12:00 am- 1:00 am 50.6 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm 63.3 1:00 am - 2:00 am 48.3 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 63.8 2:00 am - 3:00 am 53.2 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 66.0 3:00 am - 4:00 am 69.0 3'00 pm - 4:00 pm 69.9 4:00 am - 5:00 am 59.7 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 65.0 5:00 am - 6:00 am 62.5 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 71.9 6:00 am - 7:00 am 66.7 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 62.7 7:00 am - 8:00 am 73.3 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 69.5 8:00 am - 9:00 am 71.3 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 59.1 9:00 am- 10:00 am 69.9 9:00 pm- 10:00 pm 55.9 10:00 am-11:00 am 59.1 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 67.0 11:00 am- 12:00 pm 62.3 ll:00pm- 12:00 am 56.3 CNEL : 71.4 75 70 65 6o 55 50 45 40 Time of Day WIELAND ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX II Analysis of Existing Traffic Noise Levels ,,1'! ii/ ,I, ii b ::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:::::::; ::;~: ~ ~l~l~J~ ;.,;.::::;;::>:; ::t:;;;;;;..: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~lUl~l : :::: :::':: :. ;...::::.: .....,.... ..... :::;::;;:'. ?;.;.;..,.:.:.;.:.;.;.;.;:;~;; :.:.:::::: : :~::::: ::: ;:::'::::::~: ....... . ..::. ,.:.;...: . . ....,.:-,:: : ~:~:: I' :::: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::;:::' ::'::.:::: ':':' ::: ':';'::':' ........ ...................... ~.:~ :::::~: :~: :~: ~: ~; .,.,......, .. .......... ..,..... ............. :.:............. ::::::::::::::::::::: ;:.:.;:::: .,.. :...:, .......,.: .,:,: ::.: ,.: .... ..... :.:i ::;: ;.'... ::: :.:: ::::::;:: :::::;:::::::;:~ ::::::::~?~ ::~::~:::::::. : ..... ;,:,:. :~ .... ~ ....... ::::::::: ~: :::: :~:;:i: :~:]:~:~ ~::::':::~::~ ~::::~::~::~?:~?: :::: ,.::;: ::::::: ;:: :::::::;:; ~ Table Id. Estimated Exterior CNEL from Edinger, at Modeling Position 1, 1st Floor 07:00-08:00 am 55.0 08:00-09:00 am 55.0 09:00-10:00 am 55.0 10:00-11:00 am 55.0 11:00-12:00 pm 55.0 12:00-01:00 pm 55.0 01:00-02:00 pm 55.0 02:00-03:00 pm 55.0 03:00-04:00 pm 55.0 04:00-05:00 pm 55.0 05:00-06:00 pm 55.0 06:00-07:00 pm 55.0 07:00-08:00 pm 52.4 08:00-09:00 pm 52.4 09:00-10:00 pm 52.4 10:00-11:00 pm 47.2 11:00-12:00 am 47.2 12:00-01:00 am 47.2 01:00-02:00 am 47.2 02:00-03:00 am 47.2 03:00-04:00 am 47.2 04:00-05:00 am 47.2 05:00-06:00 am 47.2 06:00-07:00 am 47.2 CNEL: 56.2 ZZZ oo :ii:: iii ~ i~ .::.~! i:i:i~:':: .......... ~:. ................................. ':':':':': ~ ~{~ ::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ~'::; :::..'. ...... ;.'.::: :~:.:~ , .; .:,:.,..:. .:.:4.: ;4.:.;.;. .:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:-:.;-: .......... .... ?..~.... :~::~:~~:.:~ ~: ~:.~:~' ............... · .......-, ~v...- -,- -...-,..... ~.:.x: ............ :~:::~:~: I ,,......., ~.. ,... :~:' :::~:::::.:~: :: ::: E:~:~: ;.~: :~:~::::::::~: :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: Table 2d. Estimated Exterior CNEL from Edinger, at Modeling Position 1, 2nd Floor 07:00-08:00 am 61.3 08:00-09:00 am 61.3 09:00-10:00 am 61.3 10:00-11:00 am 61.3 11:00-12:00 pm 61.3 12:00-01:00 pm 61.3 01:00-02:00 pm 61.3 02:00-03:00 pm 61.3 03:00-04:00 pm 61.3 04:00-05:00 pm 61.3 05:00-06:00 pm 61.3 06:00-07:00 pm 61.3 07:00-08:00 pm 58.8 08:00-09:00 pm 58.8 09:00-10:00 pm 58.8 10:00-11:00 pm 53.5 11:00-12:00 am 53.5 12:00-01:00 am 53.5 O1:00-02:00 am 53.5 02:00-03:00 am 53.5 03:00-04:00 am 53.5 04:00-05:00 am 53.5 05:00-06:00 am 53.5 06:00-07:00 am 53.5 CNEL: 62.6 ZZZ 0 0 Table 3d. Estimated Exterior CNEL from Edinger, at Modeling Position 2, 1st Floor 07:00-08:00 am 52.9 08:00-09:00 am 52.9 09:00-.10:00 am 52.9 10:00-11:00 am 52.9 11:00-12:00 pm 52.9 12:00-01:00 pm 52.9 01:00-02:00 pm 52.9 02:00-03:00 pm 52.9 03:00-04:00 pm 52.9 04:00-05:00 pm 52.9 05:00-06:00 pm 52.9 06:00-07:00 pm 52.9 07:00-08:00 pm 50.2 08:00-09:00 pm 50.2 09:00-10:00 pm 50.2 10:00-11:00 pm 45.0 11:00-12:00 am 45.0 12:00-01:00 am 45.0 01:00-02:00 am 45.0 02:00-03:00 am 45.0 03:00-04:00 am 45.0 04:00-05:00 am 45.0 05:00-06:00 am 45.0 06:00-07:00 am 45.0 CNEL: 54.1 ::::::::::::::::::::::: Table 4d. Estimated Exterior CNEL from Edinger, at Modeling Position 2, 2nd Floor 07:00-08:00 am 59.1 08:00-09:00 am 59.1 09:00-10:00 am 59.1 10:00-11:00 am 59.1 11:00-12:00 pm 59.1 12:00-01:00 pm 59.1 01:00-02:00 pm 59.1 02:00-03:00 pm 59.1 03:00-04:00 pm 59.1 04:00-05:00 pm 59.1 05:00-06:00 pm 59.1 06:00-07:00 pm 59.1 07:00-08:00 pm 56.5 08:00-09:00 pm 56.5 09:00-10:00 pm 56.5 10:00-11:00 pm 51.2 11:00-12:00 am 51.2 12:00-01:00 am 51.2 01:00-02:00 am 51.2 02:00-03:00 am 51.2 03:00-04:00 am 51.2 04:00-05:00 am 51.2 05:00-06:00 am 51.2 06:00-07:00 am 51.2 CNEL: 60.3 0 :~:~ ......... ~:~ .: .:: ::: ;': :: .~:::.::: :..:,:.. ~:~:~:~:~ ~:~:~:~:~: ::::::::::::::::::::::: Table 5d. Estimated Exterior CNEL, 50' from Redhill Avenue 07:00-08:00 am 67.9 08:00-09:00 am 67.9 09:00-10:00 am 67.9 10:00-11:00 am 67.9 11:00-12:00 pm 67.9 12:00-01:00 pm 67.9 01:00-02:00 pm 67.9 02:00-03:00 pm 67.9 03:00-04:00 pm 67.9 04:00-05:00 pm 67.9 05:00-06:00 pm 67.9 06:00-07:00 pm 67.9 07:00-08:00 pm 65.1 08:00-09:00 pm 65.1 09:00-10:00 pm 65.1 10:00-11:00 pm 60.0 11:00-12:00 am 60.0 12:00-01:00 am 60.0 01:00-02:00 am 60.0 02:00-03:00 am 60.0 03:00-04:00 am 60.0 04:00-05:00 am 60.0 05:00-06:00 am 60.0 06:00-07:00 am 60.0 CNEL: 69.1 APPENDIX !11 Analysis of Future Traffic Noise Levels · '-.',: '..7:.:, 1 : · ~ :- · ::. ...... ., ...'.::: 7:.:: :::'z .:. :: :: ::::::::::.~,: ::::::::::::::::::::::: .:,:.:.:.:.:.~:,:,:,:, .... .. ..........,........., :~ ::..::7: . '.. :: .~:: .:?:~ :~ '~:.. : ::: :~:~:~:~:~ ::::::::::::::~: ~ ....... ::::::::::::::::::::: :~:~::::::~:~:~ .! ::::::::::::::::::::: ::?.i~i)~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :.:.:::::~ ::::':::::::7:::: · .... ..... 0 0 · · . , :~.~ :~'::~.~ 0 :,.. :] , ~ ; :, ;:: ::~; ?::,]:::.:,;,.: ,,. :~::::::-~:: 0 ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::: .:: ::.:: ::::.:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: . . ,,;.:~ ::~ ~;~i:;::.~: ~:;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ::::: ::.:::.~: . . ..... ~:~:;:~:~:::~:~:[~: ~ ~ :~ °~o°o . . · ~:~; ::> : . , . ~:..:::::::::~:.~ ~ ~i ~, ~.,.~: :,..~,:~:~ , .. ,,... :: .; : ::::::;:~*: Table ld. Estimated Exterior CNEL from Edinger, at Modeling Position 1, 1st Floor 07:00-08:00 am 53.9 08:00-09:00 am 53.9 09:00-10:00 am 53.9 10:00-11:00 am 53.9 11:00-12:00 pm 53.9 12:00-01:00 pm 53.9 01:00-02:00 pm 53.9 02:00-03:00 pm 53.9 03:00-04:00 pm 53.9 04:00-05:00 pm 53.9 '05:00-06:00 pm 53.9 06:00-07:00 pm 53.9 07:00-08:00 pm 51.3 08:00-09:00 pm 51.3 09:00-10:00 pm 51.3 10:00-11:00 pm 46.1 11:00-12:00 am 46.1 I2:00-01:00 am 46.1 01:00-02:00 am 46.1 02:00-03:00 am 46.1 03:00-04:00 am 46.1 04:00-05:00 am 46.1 05:00-06:00 am 46.1 06:00-07:00 am 46.1 CNEL: 55.1 Table 2d. Estimated Exterior CNEL from Edinger, at Modeling Position 1, 2nd Floor 07:00-08:00 am 60.2 08:00-09:00 am 60.2 09:00-10:00 am 60.2 10:00-11:00 am 60.2 11:00-12:00 pm 60.2 12:00-01:00 pm 60.2 01:00-02:00 pm 60.2 02:00-03:00 pm 60.2 03:00-04:00 pm 60.2 04:00-05:00 pm 60.2 05:00-06':00 pm 60.2 06:00-07:00 pm 60.2 07:00-08:00 pm 57.7 08:00-09:00 pm 57.7 09:00-10:00 pm 57.7 10:00-11:00 pm 52.4 11:00-12:00 am 52.4 12:00-01:00 am 52.4 01:00-02:00 am 52.4 02:00-03:00 am 52.4 03:00-04:00 am 52.4 04:00-05:00 am 52.4 05:00-06:00 am 52.4 06:00-07:00 am 52.4 CNEL: 61.5 0 Table 3d. Estimated Exterior CNEL from Edinger, at Modeling Position 2, 1st Floor 07:00-08:00 am 51.8 08:00-09:00 am 51.8 09:00-10:00 am 51.8 10:00-11:00 am 51.8 11:00-12:00 pm 51.8 12:00-01:00 pm 51.8 01:00-02:00 pm 51.8 02:00-03:00 pm 51.8 03:00-04:00 pm 51.8 04:00-05:00 pm 51.8 05:00-06:00 pm 51.8 06:00-07:00 pm 51.8 07:00-08:00 pm 49.2 08:00-09:00 pm 49.2 09:00-10:00 pm 49.2 10:00-11:00 pm 43.9 11:00-12:00 am 43.9 12:00-01:00 am 43.9 01:00-02:00 am 43.9 02:00-03:00 am 43.9 03:00-04:00 am 43.9 04:00-05:00 am 43.9 05:00-06:00 am 43.9 06:00-07:00 am 43.9 CNEL: 53.0 0 ZZZ Table 4d. Estimated Exterior CNEL from Edinger, at Modeling Point 2, 2nd Floor 07:00-08:00 am 58.0 08:00-09:00 am 58.0 09:00-10:00 am 58.0 10:00-11:00 am 58.0 11:00-12:00 pm 58.0 12:00-01:00 pm 58.0 01:00-02:00 pm 58.0 02:00-03:00 pm 58.0 03:00-04:00 pm! 58.0 04:00-05:00 pm 58.0 05:00-06:00 pm 58.0 06:00-07:00 pm 58.0 07:00-08:00 pm 55.4 08:00-09:00 pm 55.4 09:00-10:00 pm 55.4 10:00-11:00 pm 50.2 11:00-12:00 am 50.2 12:00-01:00 am 50.2 01:00-02:00 am 50.2 02:00-03:00 am 50.2 03:00-04:00 am 50.2 04:00-05:00 am 50.2 05:00-06:00 am 50.2 06:00-07:00 am 50.2 CNEL: 59.2 0 0 o 0 0 0 Table 5d. Estimated Exterior CNEL, 50' from Redhill Avenue 07:00-08:00 am 69.6 08:00-09:00 am 69.6 09:00-10:00 am 69.6 10:00-11:00 am 69.6 11:00-12:00 pm 69.6 12:00-01:00 pm 69.6 01:00-02:00 pm 69.6 02:00-03:00 pm 69.6 03:00-04:00 pm 69.6 04:00-05:00 pm 69.6 05:00-06:00 pm 69.6 06:00-07:00 pm 69.6 07:00-08:00 pm 66.9 08:00-09:00 pm 66.9 09:00-10:00 pm 66.9 10:00-11:00 pm 61.7 11:00-12:00 am 61.7 12:00-01:00 am 61.7 01:00-02:00 am 61.7 02:00-03:00 am 61.7 03:00-04:00 am 61.7 04:00-05:00 am 61.7 05:00-06:00 am 61.7 06:00-07:00 am 61.7 CNEL: 70.8 , APPENDIX IV Analysis of Project Parking Lot Noise Levels Table 1. Estimated Operational Scenario at Project Parking Lot ................ ...-.......... , · . .... ... ....... ~.Bu: a: .... ., ... ......... . .... .......-, · '.'-'.'.' .... : : X.:':':':':':' ':'.~.~.' *.~.'~.~.':~:.~..~::'.. ~'.:.: X.?:'.?.'~.'.~'.'.'. ...... .'.'.'.'.'..X- · :: :.:.'.' :.:.:.:.'.~.:.:':-: .... ~' ':'.'..' - '.'.'.'.' '.:-~.' Car Alarm 1 5 5 80.5 People Shouting 7 2 14 64.5 Car Door Slamming 182 0.5 91 62.5 Car Idling 140 15 2100 61.0 Car Starting 60 2 120 59.5 Car Accelerating 140 4 560 54.5 People Talking 28 60 1680 , 41.0 Table 2. Estimated Noise Levels Generated by Activities at the Proposed Parking Lot :::::::.:::.:.: .... :.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.: :.:.....:............:.:.............:.:.:..:.~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...;...:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:. i:.Ni~l~i~ :Des~:~ip.l~6~.*.i: ~~q..~'.'.'.'.'.', ~ .... - ............................ Lmax 81 66 L2 63 48 L~ 62 47 L25 60 45 Ls0 60 45 Distance from Parking Lot 50 280 (Centroid), ft. * Ln is the sound level exceeded for n% of the time period under consideration (1 hour) Lmax is the maximum sound level during the time period. APPENDIX V Analysis of Interior Noise Levels Table Ia. Calculation of Interior Noise Levels Client: Tustin Barn Case: Bedroom Rear Wall ABSORPTION: Type Area 3 131 17 13I 17 352 16 20 35 50 Material Carpet, 1/8" Pile Height 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 24 oz. Glass Operable Windows (Closed) Padded Furniture Project No. Date: 367-02 February 26, 200'_ PAR TITION ELEMENTS: Element Wan Operable Fixed Door Wall A/C Type 4 Ale2 I10 NOISE SOURCE: Source # Source Name Arterial Noise EXTERIOR LEVEL: INTERIOR LEVEL: 82.0 Freq. Exterior Trans. Room Noise Level Absorption, Loss, Correction, dB(A) Sabins dB(A) dB(A) Interior Noise Level, dB(A) I00 I-Iz 58.8 64 35.0 5.4 29.2 125 Hz 62.6 64 35.0 5.4 33.0 160 Hz 64.9. 64 41.0 5.4 29.3 200 Hz 67.5 64 50.0 5.4 22.9 250 Hz 69.5 64 49.0 5.4 25.9 315 HZ 70.5 64 53.0 5.3 22.8 400 Hz 71.0 65 55.0 5.3 21.3 500 Hz 71.6 65 58.0 5.3 18.9 630 Hz 71.8 69 58.0 5.0 18.8 800 Hz 72.5 73 58.0 4.8 19.3 1000 Hz 72.6 77 58.0 4.5 19.1 1250 Hz 72.2 81 59.0 4.3 17.5 1600 Hz 70.9 85 59.0 4.1 16.0 2000 Hz 69.8 89 60.0 3.9 13.7 2500 HZ 67.2 93 58.0 3.7 12.9 3150 Hz 64.1 96 57.0 3.6 10.7 4000 Hz 61.3 100 60.0 3.4 4.7 5000 Hz 57.4 100 64.0 3.4 0.0 STC Manu. Partition Elements are: Wall 57 Description 0 Stucco wood stud wall, R-I 1 insulation, resilient channels * Analysis procedure based on FHWA-EWR method per E966-99, Section 9:72, with 3 dB correction for room center. Table lb. Calculation of Interior Noise Levels Client: Tustin Barn Case: Bedroom Side Wall ABSORPTION: T~e Area 3 131 17 131 17 352 16 20 35 50 Material Carpet, 1/8" Pile Height 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 24 oz. Glass Operable Windows (Closed) Padded Furniture Project No. Date: 367-02 February 26, 2003 PAR TITION ELEMENTS: Element Wall Dbl. Window Fixed Door Wall A/C Type 4 142 _.fid'ca 56 2O NOISE SOUR CE: Source # Source Name Arterial Noise EXTERIOR LEVEL: INTERIOR LEVEL: 79.0 J Freq. Exterior Trans. Noise Level Absorption, Loss, dB(A) Sabins dB(A) 100Hz 55.8 125 Hz 59.6 160 Hz 61.9 200 Hz 64.5 250 Hz 66.5 315 Hz 67.5 400 Hz 68.0 5O0 Hz 68.6 630 Hz 68.8 800 Hz 69.5 1000 Hz 69.6 1250 Hz 69.2 1600 Hz 67.9 2000 Hz 66.8 2500 Hz 64.2 3150Hz 61.1 4000 Hz 58.3 5000 Hz 54.4 Partition Elements are: STC Manu. Wan 57 Dbl. Window 44 Milgard Room Interior Correction, Noise Level, dB(A) dB(A) 64 30.5 3.8 29.1 64 28.9 3.8 34.4 64 35.7 3.8 29.9 64 36.6 3.8 31.6 64 36.6 3.8 33.7 64 40.6 3.7 30.6 65 44.5 3.7 27.2 65 49.3 3.6 22.9 69 50.2 3.4 22.0 73 53.5 3.2 19.2 77 53.5 2.9 19.0 81 53.7 2.7 18.2 85 52.9 2.5 17.5 89 53.1 2.3 16.0 93 52.7 2.1 13.6 96 53.9 2.0 9.2 100 52.2 1.8 7.9 100 56.2 1.8 0.0 Description 0 Stucco wood stud wail, R-11 insulation, resilient channels 3/4" Dual glazed, 2.5" air space, 3/16" monolithic, Model 7120 * Analysis procedure based on FHWA-EWR method per E966-99, Section 9.72, with 3 dB correction for room center. Table 2a. Calculation of Interior Noise Levels Client: Tustin Barn Case: Starbucks Side Wall ABSORPTION: Type .Area 12 1407 17 1407 17 312 15 204 Material Linoleum, Asphalt Tile on Concrete Floor 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 1/4" Glass, Sealed, Large Panes Project No. Date: 367-02 February 26, 200.3 PAR TITION ELEMENTS: Element Wall Operable Fixed Dual Door Wall A/C TYpe 61 Area 312 204 NOISE SOURCE: Source # Source Name Arterial Noise EXTERIOR LEVEL: INTERIOR LEVEL: 72.0 Freq, Exterior Trans. Room Noise Level Absorption, Loss, Correction, dB(A) Sabins dB(A) dB(A) Interior Noise Level, dB(A) 100 Hz 48.8 210 24.6 6.9 31.1 125 Hz 52.6 210 21.6 6.9 37.9 160 Hz 54.9 202 25.1 7.1 36.9 200 HZ 57.5 194 25.0 7.2 39.8 250 HZ 59.5 186 22.0 7.4 44.9 315 Hz 60.5 168 20.0 7.9 48.4 400 Hz 61.0 150 24.0 8.4 45.4 500 HZ 61.6 132 28.0 8.9 42.5 630 Hz 61.8 121 30.9 9.3 40.2 800 HZ 62.5 109 34.8 9.7 37.4 1000 Hz 62.6 98 36.6 10.2 36.2 1250 Hz 62.2 99 38.5 10.2 33.9 1600 Hz 60.9 99 40.5 10.2 30.5 2000 Hz 59.8 100 40.7 10.1 29.2 2500 Hz 57.2 95 41.6 10.4 25.9 3150 Hz 54.1 89 41.6 10.6 23.1 4000 Hz 51.3 84 32.0 10.9 30.2 5000 Hz 47.4 84 34.0 10.9 24.3 STC Manu. Partition Elements are: Wall 46 Description 0 3-coat stucco wood stud wall with R-11 insulation 1/8" glass, 1/2" air space, I/8" glass, Model 63 I0 Fixed Dual 28 Milgard * Analysis procedure based on FHWA-EWR method per E966-99, Section 9.72, with 3 dB correction for room center. Table 2b. Calculation of Interior Noise Levels Client: Tustin Barn Case: Starbucks Rear Wall ABSORPTION: .Type 12 17 17 15 Area Material 1407 Linoleum, Asphalt Tile on Concrete Floor 1407 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 312 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 204 1/4" Glass, Sealed, Large Panes Project No. Date: 367-02 February. 26, 2003 PAR TITION ELEMENTS: Element Wan Operable Fixed Entry Door Wan A/C Type 1 18 Area 382 20 NOISE SO UR CE: Source # Source Name Arterial Noise EXTERIOR LE VEL: INTERIOR LEVEL: 73.0 Exterior Trans. Room Interior Noise Level Absorption, Loss, Correction, Noise Level, Freq. dB(A) Sabins dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) 100 Hz 49.8 210 25.0 5.8 30.6 125Hz 53.6 210 25.0 5.8 34.4 I60 Hz 55.9 202 29.7 6.0 32.2 200Hz 58.5 194 38.0 6.2 26.7 250Hz 60.5 186 38.6 , 6.4 28.3 315Hz 61.5 168 39.3 6.8 29.0 400 Hz 62.0 150 39.0 7.3 30.3 500 Hz 62.6 132 38.1 7.8 32.3 630 Hz 62.8 121 37.3 8.2 33.7 800Hz 63.5 109 36.5 8.7 35.6 1000Hz 63.6 98 36.4 9.1 36.3 1250 Hz 63.2 99 38.3 9.1 34.0 1600 Hz 61.9 99 41.9 9.1 29.1 2000 Hz 60.8 100 43.9 9.0 26.0 2500 Hz 58.2 95 45.3 9.3 22.2 3150Hz 55.I 89 46.0 9.5 18.7 4000Hz 52.3 84 47.3 9.8 14.8 5000I-Iz 48.4 84 49.4 9.8 8.8 Partition Elements are: STC Manu. Wall 46 Enlry Door 28 Eggers Description 0 3-coat stucco wood stud wall with R-11 insulation 1-3/4" mineral core fire door, swinging w/o threshold * Analysis procedure based on FHWA-EWR method per E966-99, Section 9.72, with 3 dB correct/on for' room center. Table 3a. Calculation of Interior Noise Levels Client: Tustin Barn Case: Office West Wall ABSORPTION: Type 3 17 17 15 Area Material 6767 Carpet, 1/8" Pile Height 6767 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 3566 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 741 1/4" Glass, Sealed, Large Panes Project No. 367-02 Date: Februm PAR TITION ELEMENTS: Element Wall Operable Fixed Door Wall A/C TYpe t NOISE SO UR CE: Source # SourCe Name Arterial Noise EXTERIOR LEVEL: INTERIOR LEVEL: Exterior Trans. Room Interior Noise Level Absorption, Loss, Correction, Noise Level, Freq. dB(A) Sabins dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) 100 Hz 48.8 1409 25.0 -5.6 18.2 125 Hz 52.6 1409 25.0 -5.6 22.0 160 Hz 54.9 1335 30.0 -5.4 19.5 200 Hz 57.5 1261 42.0 -5.2 10.3 250 Hz 59.5 1187 41.0 -4.9 13.6 315 Hz 60.5 1194 44.0 -4.9 11.6 400 Hz 61.0 1201 43.0 -5.0 13.0 500 Hz 61.6 1208 45.0 - -5.0 11.6 630 Hz 61.8 I365 45.0 -5.5 11.3 800 Hz 62.5 1521 46.0 -6.0 10.5 1000 Hz 62.6 1678 45.0 -6.4 11.2 1250 Hz 62.2 1906 46.0 -7.0 9,2 1600 Hz 60.9 2134 48.0 -7.4 5.5 2000 Hz 59.8 2362 50.0 -7.9 1.9 2500 Hz 57.2 2585 50.0 -8.3 0.0 3150 Hz 54.1 2808 50.0 -8.6 0.0 4000 Hz 51.3 3031 55.0 -9.0 0.0 5000 Hz 47.4 3031 58.0 -9.0 0.0 Partition Elements are: STC Manu. Wall 46 Description 0 3-coat stucco wood stud wall with R-11 insulation * Analysis procedure based on FHWA-EWR method per E966-99, Section 9.72, with 3 dB correction for room ce~ Table 3b. Calculation of Interior Noise Levels Client: Tustin Barn Case: Office East Wall ABSORPTION: Tvc_e Area 3 6767 17 6767 17 3566 15 741 Material Carpet, 1/8" Pile Height 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted I/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 1/4" Glass, Sealed, Large Panes Project No. Date: 367-02 February 26, 2003 PARTITION ELEMENTS: Element Wall Operable F/xed Door Wall A/C Type 1 Area 429 NOISE SO UR CE: Source # Source Name Arterial Noise EXTERIOR LEVEL: INTERIOR LEVEL: 72.0 .Freq. Exterior Noise Level Absorption, dB(A) Sabins 100Hz 48.8 125I-!z 52.6 160Hz 54.9 200Hz 57.5 250Hz 59.5 315I-Iz 60.5 400I-Iz 61.0 500 Hz 61.6 630I'-I2 61.8 800Hz 62.5 1000 Hz 62.6 1250Hz 62.2 1600 Hz 60.9 2000Hz 59.8 2500Hz 57.2 3150Hz 54.1 4000Hz 51.3 5000I-Iz 47.4 Partition Elements are: STC Manu. Wall 46 Trans. Room Interior Loss, Correction, Noise Level, dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) 1409 25.0 -2.2 21.6 1409 25.0 -2.2 25.4 1335 30.0 -1.9 23.0 1261 42.0 -1.7 13.8 1187 41.0 -I.4 17.1 1194 44.0 -1.4 15.1 i201 43.0 -1.5 16.5 1208 45.0 -1.5 15.1 1365 45.0 -2.0 I4.8 1521 46.0 -2.5 14.0 1678 45.0 -2.9 14.7 1906 46.0 -3.5 12.7 2134 48.0 -4.0 8.9 2362 50.0 -4.4 5,4 2585 50.0 -4.8 2.4 2808 50.0 -5.2 0.0 3031 55.0 -5.5 0.0 3031 58.0 -5.5 0.0 Description 0 3-coat stucco wood stud wall with R-11 insulation * Analysis procedure based on FHWA-EWR method per E966-99, Section 9.72, with 3 dB correction for room center. Table 3c. Calculation of Interior Noise Levels Client: Tustin Barn Case: Office North Wall ABSORPTION: Type Area 3 6767 17 6767 17 3566 15 741 Material Carpet, 1/8" Pile Height 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 1/4" Glass, Sealed, Large Panes Project No. Date: 367-02 February 26, 200~ PAR TITION ELEMENTS: Element Wall Operable Fixed Dual Enlry Door Wall A/C Type 1 7I 18 Area 785 231 4O NOISE SOURCE: Source Source Name Arterial Noise EXTERIOR LEVEL: INTERIOR LEVEL: 73.0 Freq. Exterior Trans. Room Interior Noise Level Absorption, Loss, Correction, Noise Level, dB(A) Sabins dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) 100Hz 49.8 1409 25.5 1.7 26.0 125Hz 53.6 1409 24.5 1.7 30.8 160Hz 55.9 1335 28.6 2.0 29.3 200Hz 58.5 1261 30.9 2.2 29.8 250Hz 60.5 1187 29.2 2.5 33.8 315Hz 61.5 1194 27.4 2.5 36.6 400 Hz 62.0 1201 31.0 2.4 33.4 500Hz 62.6 1208 34.0 2.4 31.0 630Hz 62.8 1365 35.5 1.9 29.2 800 Hz 63.5 1521 36.2 1.4 28.7 1000Hz 63.6 1678 36.8 1.0 27.8 1250Hz 63.2 1906 38.3 0.4 25.4 1600Hz 61.9 2134 40.7 -0.1 21.1 2000Hz 60.8 2362 41.8 -0.5 18.5 2500Hz 58.2 2585 43.0 -0.9 14.3 3150I-I7. 55.1 2808 43.3 -1.2 10.6 4000I-I7. 52.3 3031 43.1 -1.6 7.6 5000Hz 48.4 3031 45.1 -1.6 1.7 Partition Elements are: S,TC..manu. Wall 46 Fixed Dual 33 Milgard Entry Door 28 Eggers Description 0 3-coat stucco wood stud wall with R-11 insulation 7/32" laminated, 3/8" air space, 1/8" glass, Model 6310 I-3/4" mineral core fire door, swinging w/o threshold * Analysis procedure based on FHWA-EWR method per E966-99, Section 9.72, with 3 dB correction for room center. Table 3d. Calculation of Interior Noise Levels Client: Tustin Barn Case: Office Small Side Wall ABSORPTION: 3 17 17 15 Area Material 6767 Carpet, 1/8" Pile Height 6767 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 3566 1/2" Gypsum Board, Painted 741 1/4" Glass, Sealed, Large Panes Project No. Date: 367-02 February 26, 2003 PARTITION ELEMENTS: Element Wail Operable Fixed Entry Door Wall A/C _Type 18 Area 20 NOISE SOURCE: Source # Source Name Arterial Noise EXTERIOR LEVEL: INTERIOR LEVEL: 72.0 Exterior Trans. Room Interior Noise Level Absorption, Loss, Correction, Noise Level, Freq. dB(A) Sabins dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) 100 Hz 48.8 1409 25.5 -12.6 10.7 125 Hz 52.6 1409 25.5 -12.6 14.5 160 Hz 54.9 1335 27.5 -12.4 15.0 200 HZ 57.5 1261 29.7 -12.2 15.6 250 HZ 59.5 1187 31.6 -11.9 16.0 315 HZ 60.5 1194 30.7 -11.9 17.8 '400 HZ 61.0 1201 30.7 -11.9 18.3 500 Hz 61.6 1208 28.8 -12.0 20.8 630 Hz 61.8 1365 27.8 -12.5 21.5 800 Hz 62.5 1521 26.8 -13.0 22.7 1000 Hz 62.6 1678 26.8 -13.4 22.4 1250 Hz 62.2 1906 28.8 -13.9 19.4 1600 Hz 60.9 2134 32.8 -14.4 13.7 2000 Hz 59.8 2362 34.8 -14.9 10.1 2500 Hz 57.2 2585 36.7 -15.3 5.2 3150 Hz 54.1 2808 37.7 -15.6 0.8 4000 Hz 51.3 3031 37.8 -16.0 0.0 5000 Hz 47.4 3031 39.8 -16.0 0.0 Partition Elements are: STC Manu. Wall 46 Entry Door 28 Eggers Description 0 3-coat stucco wood stud wall with R-11 insulation 1-3/4" mineral core fire door, swinging w/o threshold * Analysis procedure based on FHWA-EWR method per E966-99, Section 9.72, with 3 dB correction for room center. Table 4. Calculation of Interior Noise Levels Client: Tustin Barn Case: Storage ABSORPTION: Type Area 1 512 1 220 1 220 Project No. Date: 367-02 February 26, 200: PAR TITION ELEMENTS: Material Element Brick, Unglazed Wall Brick, Unglazed . Operable Brick, Unglazed Fixed Door Wall A/C Type 1 Area NOISE SOURCE: Source # Source Name Arterial Noise EXTERIOR LEVEL: INTERIOR LEVEL: 83.0 Freq. Exterior Trans. Room Interior Noise Level Absorption, Loss, Correction, Noise Level, dB(A) Sabins dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) 100 Hz 59.8 29 25.0 7.5 42.3 125 Hz 63.6 29 25.0 7.5 46.1 160 Hz 65.9 29 30.0 7.5 43.4 200 Hz 68.5 29 42.0 7.5 34.0 250 Hz 70.5 29 41.0 7.5 37.0 315 Hz 71.5 29 44.0 7.5 35.0 400 Hz 72.0 29 43.0 7.5 36.5 500 Hz 72.6 29 45.0 7.5 35.1 630 Hz 72.8 32 45.0 7.0 34.8 800 Hz 73.5 35 46.0 6.6 34.1 1000 Hz 73.6 38 45.0 6.2 34.8 1250 Hz 73.2 41 46.0 5.9 33.1 1600 Hz 71.9 44 48.0 5.6 29.5 2000 Hz 70.8 48 50.0 5.3 26.1 2500 Hz 68.2 54 50.0 4.7 22.9 3150 Hz 65.1 60 50.0 4.2 19.3 4000 HZ 62.3 67 55.0 3.8 11.1 5000 Hz 58.4 67 58.0 3.8 4.2 Partition Elements are: STC Manu. Wall 46 Description 0 3-coat stucco wood stud wall with R-11 insulation * Analysis procedure based on FHWA-EWR method per E966-99, Section 9.72, with 3 dB correction for room center. Exhibit 3 of Resolution No. 3871 Final City of Tustin TUSTIN BARN PROJECT Traffic Analysis Prepared by: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705-7827 (714) 667-0496 April 21, 2003 No. 1123 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION ................................................ 1 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ............................................... 4 TRANSPORTATION SETTING ..................................................... 9 RED HILL AVENUE AND EDINGER AVENUE ANALYSIS .......................... 12 SITE IMPACT ANALYSIS ......................................................... 17 ON-SITE IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................... 22 RED HILL AVENUE OVERCROSSING ............................................ 23 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 25 APPENDICES: A: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets B: Traffic Counts LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES 1 Project Site .................................................................. 2 2 Site Plan ................................................................... 3 3 Project Trip Distribution ...................................................... 6 4 Existing Conditions ...................................................... .... 10 5 Short-Term ADT Volumes (000s) ............................................. 11 6 Long-Term ADT Volumes (000s) ............................................. 13 7 Short-Term Intersection Lane Configuration & Peak Hour Volumes ................ 14 8 Long-Term Intersection Lane Configuration & Peak Hour Volumes ................ 15 9 Assumed Project Access Locations ............................................ 18 10 Project,Only Traffic Volumes and Buildout Lanes ............................... 19 11 Traffic Signal Warrants ...................................................... 20 12 Project-Only Traffic Volumes - With Red Hill Avenue Overcrossing ................ 24 TABLES 1 Land Use and Trip Generation Summary ........................................ 5 2 Level of Service Descriptions - Signalized Intersections ............................ 8 3 ICU Summary ............................................................. 16 City of Tustin TUSTIN BARN PROJECT Traffic Analysis INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a traffic analysis to determine short-term and long-term impacts as a result of development at 1621 Edinger Avenue and 14982 Red Hill Avenue. The project site, which is comprised of two different addresses, is located' in the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue in the City of Tustin. The project includes demolishing the existing (and closed) The Barn restaurant and constructing retail, office and self-storage development on the site. The traffic analysis has been prepared for submittal to the city in support of the project application for this development. Supporting material for the findings is contained in the overall traffic analysis and the related technical appendix accompanying this summary. PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION The project location can be seen in Figure 1. Regional accessibility will be via the SR-55 and I-5 Freeways and arterial components of the re~onal transportation system such as Edinger Avenue. Providing direct access to the project are Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue (both six-lane major arterials). The proposed project site is located just north of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Tustin. Full project access is provided by Driveway 1 located on Edinger Avenue opposite Parkway Loop, and an access restricted to right-turns in and right-turns out is provided at Driveway 2 located on Red Hill Avenue (see project site plan on Figure 2). Driveway 1 (currently existing) is located approximately 470 feet east from the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue, and Driveway 2 is located approximately 200 feet north from the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue. A third access on Edinger Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of Driveway 1, is designated as an exit-only for the storage area and is secured by a gate that can on/y be opened via a keypad access code. City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd CAMINO ~ ~,--,. ¥~~-,..,,~so,.,, :-~. ~~ ',_~ ~ ~ ,' / ,,' ~ ..Z,~~ "bX : / ~ ~ ~ -~ < ~~ ........ / / X I ~ ~ ........................... BARRANCA Legend Figure 1 Future Roadway ......... City. Boundary PROJECT SITE City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpffigl.dwg A study prepared bythe Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in 1998, as a joint project with the City of Tustin, assumes an overcrossing of Red Hill Avenue over Edinger Avenue, the railroad crossing and the Santa Fe Channel. The design ofthis overcrossing would eliminate Driveway 2. The effect of this potential closure is also discussed in this report. Land Use and Trip Generation A land use and trip generation summary for the project is given in Table 1. The proposed prOject is forecast to generate 1,660 vehicles per day with six and nine percent of these trips occurring in each of the AM and PM peak hours (100 and 144). For informational purposes, the trip generation projections for an alternative with office uses on the site are also summarized. Because the trip generation for the proposed project is higher in the PM than for the office alternative (it is similar in magnitude for the AM), the "worst case" conditions for the site are analyzed in this traffic report. Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the proposed project is shown in Figure 3. Given here is the average daily traffic (ADT) trip distribution which reflects the characteristics of the project land use and the specific location of the project. These percentages also reflect the circulation patterns and in,ess/egress from the site. The project traffic is distributed directly to and from the project site via Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH Short-term and long-term traffic forecast data for the analysis have been taken from the MCAS Tustin Disposal and Reuse Traffic Study assuming 2005 Reuse Alternative 1 conditions for short-term and 2020 for long-term (see Reference 1). Traffic forecasts in that traffic study are based on projections from the Central County Traffic Model (CCTM). This traffic analysis addresses buildout of the proposed project and the potential impact at Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue under short-term and long-term conditions. Access to the project site is also analyzed which includes an evaluation of project site driveways, internal circulation and trip City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd Table 1 LAND USE A_ND TRIP GENERATION S~Y' L~nd Use Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Units In Out Total In Out Total PROPOSED PROJECT 1. Retail 2. Food Service 3. Storage Facility 4. Office TOTAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ADT 9.81 TSF 6 4 10 18 19 37 421 7.90 TSF 38 35 73 52 34 86 1,030 79.52 TSF 5 5 10 7 7 14 159 4.50 TSF 6 1 7 1 6 7 50 4. Office TRIlP RATES 55 45 100 78 66 144 1. Retail (ITE #820) 2. Food Serrice (ITE #832) 3. Storage Fadlity (SANDAG) 4. Office ~ #710) 65.5 TSF 90 12 102 16 81 97 1,660 721 TSF .63 .40 1.03 1.8 1.94 3.74 42.92 TSF 4.82 4.45 9.27 6.52 4.34 10.86 130.34 TSF .06 .06 .12 .09 .09 .18 2.00 TSF 1.37 .19 1.56 .25 1.24 1.49 11.01 ITE - Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual Sixth F_xtition (1997) SANDAG - San Diego Assoc/ation of Governments Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (July 1998) City of Tustin Tustl n Barn Proj eot Traffic g,,~ ~.y~;~ Austin-Foust Associates, h'~ 8200Uliu.sumods 4/9/63 L X,~G ~J %0~_~~- IAION.--~ %09--~ 000 Ld e.___ ~;o L q-llH G3~ 0 Z Z 0 assignment and distribution. It should be noted that the site access findings in this report apply to both short-term and long-term conditions since project trip generation and trip distribution are expected to remain unchanged between both settings. The analysis includes recommendations to mitigate project impacts as necessary. Performance Criteria This traffic analysis utilizes the same set of performance criteria for evaluating capacity knpacts used in the MCAS Tustin Disposal and Reuse Traffic Study (see Reference 3). Sections of the performance criteria discussed in that report applicable only to this traffic study are followed and are briefly discussed here. The performance criteria specify desired performance standards on the arterial roadway system and use these performance standards in defining impact thresholds of sign/ficance and mitigation requirements. Traffic levels of service (LOS) are designated "A" through "F," with LOS "A" representing free flow conditions and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. Various operating LOS standards have been established in Orange County which serve both as a guideline for evaluating observed traffic conditions and as a target or goal when evaluating future development plans and circulation system modifications. The performance criteria used in this traffic analysis are based on peak hour intersection volumes. The general LOS descriptions for intersections are summarized in Table 2. While traffic impact analyses are sometimes based on 24-hour ADT volumes on roadway links, the use of peak hour data provides a more detailed evaluation of traffic conditions. For this reason, ADT link analyses are not used for impact analysis (ADT volumes are however provided for use in air quality and noise impact analyses). Inherent in the performance criteria are the specific LOS thresholds for satisfactory performance. The City of Tustin has established LOS "D" (intersection capacity utilization (ICU) ratio not greater than .90) as the desired performance standard for the roadway system. It should be noted that traffic impact analysis for Tustin essentially follows CMP/GMP guidelines. City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd Table 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Levels of service (LOS) for signalized intersections are defined in terms of control delay as follows: LOS DESCRIPTION DELAY PER VEHICLE (secs) A LOS A describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to Iow delay values. < 10 LOS B describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS A, causing higher levels of delay. 10 - 20 LOS C describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level.. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 20 - 35 LOS D describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. 35 - 55 At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. 55 - 80 LOS F describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high delay levels. > 8O Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd TRANSPORTATION SETTING This section describes the transportation setting for the proposed project. Existing conditions are described followed by a discussion of the short-term and long-term circulation system assumptions. Existing Conditions The ex/sting arterial highway system in the project vicinity is illustrated in Figure 4. Shown here are the current midblock lanes and ex/sting ADT volumes observed between September and November 2001. Edinger Avenue, which makes up the southern boundary of the project site, is not yet built to ultimate conditions and is currently four lanes. Red Hill Avenue, which makes up the western boundary of the project site, is built to ultimate conditions as a six-lane majOr arterial. Fig~u:e 4 also presents the current AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes and the intersection lane configurations for Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue. The existing AM and PM peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for this intersection is.73 and.85, respectively. Sh°rt'Term Conditions The short-term analysis contained in this report includes traffic forecasts and levels of serv/ce for an interim year. It represents a five to seven year time frame for development on the project site and in the surrounding area. The information is used to show the type of transportation improvements that could be needed to support buildout of development on the site in this general time frame. The circulation system for the short-term analysis derives from the committed network described in the MCAS Tustin Traffic Study and includes those projects anticipated to be completed in this time frame. See Figure 5 for the assumed circulation system and ADT forecast volumes adjacent to the project site for short-term conditions with and without the project. Edinger Avenue on the south side of the project site and west of Red Hill Avenue is improved from four lanes to its ultimate facility designation of a s/x-lane major arterial including the associated improvements to Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue intersection resulting in dual left-turn lanes, triple through lanes and a dedicated right- City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis Aust/n-Foust Associates, Inc. ADT 22 (4) 18 (4) Legend XX Average Daily Traffic Volumes (000s) (Y) Midblock Lanes Lanes oo r'") u") ~N '~- C~I '~'*.- 7o(2~ o) 340(120) 170(60) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes Note: Intersection count volumes rounded to lO's & ADT volumes rounded to 1000%. Figure 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 10 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rptfig4.dwg 36 (6) ADT (NO-PROJECT) 31 (6) 37 (6) ADT (WITH-PROJECT) w r~ 31 (6) ED,.~ Legend XX Average Daily Traffic Volumes (000s) (Y) Midbtoek Lanes Note: 1) Bio-Project volumes are taken from MCAS Tusfia Reuse Traffic Study, Nov. 1999. 2) ADT volumes rounded to Figure 5 SHORT-TERM ADT VOLUMES (000s) City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 11 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rptfigS.dwg turn lane on all approach legs. The major improvement that can potentially affect the distribution of project trips is the extension of Newport Avenue from Sycamore Avenue to Valencia Avenue with ramp access improvements to the SR-55 Freeway. Long-term conditions as depicted in the City of Tustin General Plan are discussed in the next section. Long-Term Conditions For the long-term circulation system, full buildout of the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) is assumed. Along the periphery of the project site, MPAH roadways Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue are assumed built to its ultimate facility designation under short-term conditions. These facility types are based on the City of Tustin General Plan and correspond to the County MPAH. See Figure 6 for the assumed circulation system and ADT forecast volumes adjacent to the project site for long-term conditions with and without the project. The major improvement in the project vicinity which significantly affects traffic patterns in the area is the north-south connection provided by Tustin Ranch Road which will be extended from Walnut Avenue to Barranca Parkway as a six-lane major arterial. For example, the ADTvolume on Red Hill Avenue north of Edinger Avenue decreases by 5,000 ADT compared to short-term conditions. RED HILL AVENUE AND EDINGER AVENUE ANALYSIS Figures 7 and 8 present the AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes and the intersection lane configurations assumed for Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue with and without the project for short-term and long-term conditions, respectively. The major improvements affecting traffic patterns at this intersection are the extension of Newport Avenue from Sycamore Avenue to Valencia Avenue with ramp access improvements to the SR-55 Freeway in the short-term and the addition in the long-term of a north-south connection provided by Tustin Ranch Road which will be extended from Walnut Avenue to Barranca Parkway as a six-lane major arterial. Implementation of these improvements causes a reduction in peak hour north-south volumes along Red H/Il Avenue for the short-term and long-term compared to existing conditions. Table 3 presents the corresponding AM and PM peak hour ICU results. As can be seen in this table, the project does not cause any deficiencies or cause any location to become deficient. City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 12 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd ADT 61 (6) (NO-PROJECT) 55 (6) EDINGER 62 (6) ADT (WITH-PROJECT) 55 (6) EDINGER Legend XX Average Daily Traffic Volumes (000s) (Y) Midblock Lanes Note: 1) No-Project volumes are taken from MCAS Tustin Reuse Traffic Study, Nov. 1999. 2) ADT volumes rounded to 1000's. Figure 6 LONG-TERM ADT VOLUMES (000s) City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rptfig6.dwg J w EDINGER Lanes ,..o ~ c,,4 [ ,,,~._. 290(570) 450(,300) 410(.950) 220(420)--"~1o o o EDINGER AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes No-Project 170(560)--~' 420(960)--~ 220(420)--~, % 290.(570). ~-- 151 o(J o4q) .,¢-- 470(320) 4] f ¢ EDINGER 00o AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes With-Project Note: 1) No-Project volumes are taken from MC. AS Tustin Reuse Traffic Study, Nov. 1999. 2) Peak hour volumes rounded to 10%. Figure 7 SHORT-TERM INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATION & PEAK HOUR VOLUMES City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 14 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rptfig7.dwg EDINGER Lanes ~o~ 170(620). / / / ~1650(202p) ~ V ~,~-- 630(310) 4-0.(460) I~ ~ ~ EDINGER 60(1640) I/// 11480(590)~l~ AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes No-Project Note: 1) No-Project volumes are taken from MCAS Tustin Reuse Traffic Study, Nov. 1999. 2) Peak hour volumes rounded to 10's. rq~ ~ 170(620), ¢-- 650(,330) , 50(480 ~ 480(59 o)-~ Io'8"8'~ 00 O ,~- A~ (PM) Peak Hour ¥olume$ With-Project Figure 8 LONG-TERM INTERSECTION lANE CONFIGURATION & PEAK HOUR VOLUMES City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 15 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rptfig8.dwg Table 3 ICU SUMMARY SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM I:~)CATION NO-PROJECT WITH-PROJECT NO-PROJECT WITH-PROJECT # INorth-South (NS) Road at East-West (EWI Road AMI PM AM PM AMI PM AM PM 1 I IRed ~till & Edinger 0.70I 0.87 0.71 0.87 0.83I 0.93 0.83 0.93 Ci~, of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Analysis !6 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 82000iicu_sum.xls SITE IMPACT ANALYSIS This section provides the specific site access information to support the project application. The subjects covered include driveway access, lane geometry, left-turn storage requirements, and right-turn channelization. Access Full project access is provided by Driveway 1 located on Edinger Avenue, and an access restricted to right-turns in and right-turns out is provided at Driveway 2 located on Red Hill Avenue (see Figure 9). Driveway I (currently existing) is located approximately 470 feet east from the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue, and Driveway 2 is located approximately 200 feet north from the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue. A th/rd access on Edinger Avenue, approx/mately 500 feet east of Driveway 1, is designated as an exit-only for the storage area and is secured by a gate that can only be opened via a keypad access code. It should be noted that Driveway 1 makes up the fourth leg of the intersection of Parkway Loop and Edinger Avenue. Parkway Loop mainly serves an existing mix of office and support retail type uses but it also allows the opportunity for cut-through traffic from Red Hill Avenue northbound to eastbound Edinger Avenue. CUrrent signage prohibits eastbound left-turns into the project site at Driveway 1 between 3:00 and 6:00 PM. Figure 10 shows AM and PM peak hour approach volumes for each driveway. The corresponding lane configurations are also illustrated in Figure 10. Additional access review and analysis maybe performed in conjunction with subsequent permit applications if variations to the access plan are proposed. Review of the driveway approach volumes indicates the rate of entry and exiting of vehicles is relatively low -- i.e., less than one vehicle per minute at each driveway. Such low driveway volumes are not anticipated to create any significant delay into and out of the site. According to Caltran's Traffic Manual, the systems warrant (see Warrant 7 in Figure 11) would be satisfied at the intersection of Driveway I/Parkway Loop and Edinger Avenue. The existing volume approaching the intersection is 1,990 vph which fulfills the minimum volume requirement of 1,000 vph City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt. wpd .. 30~ Trip Distribution 20~ ~-- 20~ r, Dwy 2 0 NOM 30% ,~"- 30~ 0 Z 20%. Dwy 2 ~ "~.- NO.M (N OM) |1-,~-- 20(20) ~1¢'- 20(20) 10(20)-,..~1 & ~ O(lO)--~l/.LL /i° Project-Only Volumes ~°~°>~I f 0 0 Z Of 20~ PROJECT TRIPS (ROUNDED) IB OB TOTAL AM 50 50 100 PM 80 60 140 ADT .... 1,660 Lane Configurations ~ Legend ['~ Average Daily Traffic Volumes N OM Nominal YY(ZZ) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Note: Proiect trips are multiplied by thepercentages shown for each intersection and then rounded to 10's. Figure 10 PROJECT-ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND BUILDOUT LANES Cit3, of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 19 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rptfig10.dwg Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 Figure 9.2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable [] See School Crossings Warrant Sheet [] WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES [] NO [] MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N ~ ft, S ~ ft, E __ ft, W ~ft. YES [] NO [] ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM [] [] WARRANT 6- Accident Experience SATISFIED YES [] NO [] REQUIREMENTS WARRANT ~/ FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED '~R- ....... ' .................... 80% WARRANT 2- INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ~ NO [] SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW [] [] ,, ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY [] [] ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR >_ $500 DAMAGE ' · MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS , 5 OR MORE [] [] ~INARRANT 7- Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES [] NO [-1. MINIMUM VOLUME . REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES v/ FULFILLED · DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR. I ~, ~)~)0 VEH/HR X lOOO VEH/HR . _ OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5HRS. OFASAT. AND/ORSUN.~VEH/HR YES [~ NO[] cHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. ,, HWY. SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC ~x~ X RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY X APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN X ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS [] [] ,,, ,, The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way asslgnmnent must be shown, · . Source: Caltrans' Traffic Manual Figure I1 TR.kFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Cig, of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 20 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rptfigll.dwg for the warrant. In addition the City of Tustin has determined that a signal at the intersection would be beneficial to the project and Parkway Loop land uses. This would also eliminate the need for the current restriction of eastbound left-turns into the site between 3:00 and 6:00 PM on Edinger Avenue. This restriction was implemented as a safety measure to reduce accidents of left-turns that are made through a line of queued up vehicles. A new signal installation would provide for safe gaps in the westbound traffic and allow left-turns to be completed on a green arrow. We have evaluated the project driveway as a signalized intersection and recommend that the following design features be included: 1) One 16 foot inbound lane for adequate entering truck traffic 2) 15 foot radius curb returns 3) Two 12 foot outbound lanes providing one shared left-thru lane and one right-turn lane which would be properly aligned with Parkway Loop on the opposite Side. Similar lane geometrics would be anticipated on Parkway Loop as a safety measure to ensure no conflicting left-turn and through movements Left-Turn Storage An on-street left-turn lane into the project is only provided at Driveway 1. The County of Orange Environmental Agency (EMA) Highway Design Manual (see Reference 6) was used to establish the required on-street left-turn storage length. According to this document, when the peak hour left-turn volume is less than 150 vehicles the recommended minimum single turn lane storage length is 150 feet for public roadways. Also when the left-turn volume exceeds 150 vehicles, the recommended storage length is based on one foot per left-turn volume (highest of the AM or PM peak hour) and rounded to increments of 10. This criteria for pocket length is generally used throughout Orange County, and has proven to accommodate the storage requirements at intersections. Based on the forecast project peak hour left-turn volumes, the following on-street left-turn lane storage lengths are recommended to accommodate the peak hour volumes: City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 21, Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd ON-STREET LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS (Project Driveway) LOCATION VOLUME LANES VOL/LANE LENGTH Driveway 1 & Edinger Ave. EBL 30 PM Note: First street of intersection description is oriented north/south 1 30 150' Review of the site plan shows that the on-street left-turn storage length into Driveway 1 meets or exceeds the above requirements. Right-Turn Lane Analysis All project driveways are examined for the need of separate right-turn lanes into the site. Due to low AM and PM peak hour right-turn volumes at Driveway 1 on Edinger Avenue (10 vph in the AM and 20 vph in the PM) and at Driveway 2 on Red Hill Avenue (20 vph in the AM and 30 vph in the PM), the need for a separate turning lane into the site cannot be established (less than one vehicle per hour). In addition, the curb lane is sufficiently wide enough to accommodate a bicycle and/or a right- turning vehicle outside the actual travel lane. ON-SITE IMPACT ANALYSIS Truck templates on the site show that the cloclc~se circulation within the storage area and the truck circulation within the entire project site (including the retail and restaurant area) would be adequate for single unit trucks. Single unit trucks entering the southeast end of the storage area would be directed to exit at the exit-only gated access on Edinger Avenue because turnaround would be difficult. This exit-only gate can only be opened via a keypad access code similar to the one at the main entrance and exit locations. National "chain" retail and restaurant companies utilize local delivery trucks such as SYSCO whose fleet consists of single-unit or WB40 trucks. City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 22 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt. wpd RED HILL AVENUE OVERCROSSING The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in 1998, as a joint project with the City of Tustin, prepared a study in wkich an overcrossing of Red Hill Avenue over Edinger Avenue, the railroad crossing and the Santa Fe Channel is built. The design of this overcrossing would not allow a project access on Red Hill Avenue and would eliminate Driveway 2. Figure 12 shows the revised driveway access volumes for this scenario. While all project trips would access off of Edinger Avenue at a new signalized intersection, the redistribution of entering and exiting traffic would not change any of the conclusions made for the site which were preSented on pages 17, 21 and 22. For example, the left-turn storage of 150 feet into the project site on Edinger Avenue is still adequate with a projected left-turn volume of 60 trips in the PM peak hour. Projected low driveway volumes are not ant/cipated to create any significant delay into and out of the site. As previously indicated, the City of Tustin has determined that a signal at Driveway 1/Parkway Loop and Edinger Avenue intersection would be beneficial to the project and Parkway. Loop land uses and also would lift the current restriction of left-turns/nto the site between 3:00 and 6:00 PM on Edinger Avenue. The right-turn analysis on page 22 of the traffic analysis applies to conditions with the Red Hill Avenue Overcrossing as well which states the low volumes entering the site at Edinger Avenue do not establish the need for a right-turn lane. The right-turn volumes into the site on Edinger Avenue are the same as conditions assuming the Red Hill Avenue/Edinger Avenue at-grade intersection previously presented. In addition, the curb lane is sufficiently wide enough to accommodate a bicycle and/or a right-turning vehicle outside the actual traVel lane. Lastly and most importantly, the installation of a signalized intersection on Edinger Avenue effectively eliminates the need for any driveway on Red Hill Avenue. City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 23 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd 30% 30%---~ 20% ~ 20% ~ 30% ~-- 30~ . 30% Trip Distribution 20(20) --'~" --- oOol 20(20,) 20(20.) Project-Only Volumes 10(20) PROJECT TRIPS (ROUNDED) IB OB TOTAL AM 50 50 100 PM 80 60 140 ADT .... 1,660 Legend [~ Average Daily Traffic Volumes N OM Nominal Y¥(ZZ) AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Note: Project trips are multiplied by the percentages shown for eacl~ intersection and then rounded to 10%. Figure 12 PROJECT-ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUM2ES - WITH RED HILL AVENUE OVERCROSSING City of Tustin Tusfin Barn Project Traffic Analysis 24 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rptfig12.dwg CONCLUSIONS The on-site circulation and site access driveway locations proposed to serve the Tustin Barn retail, office and self-storage development were analyzed. The design characteristics of the driveways proposed to serve the site were evaluated based on projected entry and exit volumes. From this evaluation, it is concluded that the ex/sting and proposed project access driveways with the new sisal at Driveway i/Parkway Loop and Edinger Avenue will have adequate carrying capacity for the projected demand and pose no significant impact to the adjacent roadway system during the peak hour. City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd APPENDIX A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) WORKSHEETS Peak hour intersection volume/capacity (V/C) ratios are calculated by means of intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The procedure is based on the critical movement methodology, and shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical move. A "de facto" or unstriped right-turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both thru and right-turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet from curb to outside of thru-lane with parking prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped right-turn lanes during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in place of a numerical entry for right-turn lanes. When a free right-turn is designated, the V/C ratio for that right-turn movement is ignored during the critical movement analysis calculations, and a special notation is made on the output printed ICU calculation worksheet where the letter "f' is used in place of a numerical entry for right-turn lanes. The methodology also incorporates a check for right-turn capacity utilization. Both right-turn- on-green (RTOG) and right-turn-on-red (RTOR) capacity availability is calculated and checked against the total right-turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made. Example For Northbound Right 1. Right-Turn-On-Green (RTOG) If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG = V/C (NBT) Otherwise, RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT)- V/C (SBL) City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis A-1 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt. wpd 2. Right-Turn-On-Red (RTOR) If WBL is critical move, then: RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT) 3. Total Right-Turn Capaci _ty (.RTC) AvailabiliW For NBR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = .75 (to reflect lower saturation flow rate for RTOR) Right-turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) - RTC .A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately accommodate the right-turn V/C, therefore the right-turn is essentially considered to be a critical movement. In such cases, the right-turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that a right-turn adjustment is required for more than one right-turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right-turn movement reference, and the right-turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right-turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a fight-mm adjustment credit should be applied. Shared Lane V/C Methodology For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn movement (e.g., left/thru, thru/right, left/thru/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated to City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis A-2 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. following example demonstrates how tkis evaluation is carried out: The Example for Shared Left/Thru Lane 1. Average Lane Volume (ALV) ALV = Left-Turn Volume + Thru Volume Total Left + Thru Approach Lanes (including shared lane) 2. ALV for Each Approach ALV (Left) = Left-Turn Volume Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV (Thru) = Thru Volume Thru Approach Lanes (including shared'lane) 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left-turn approach is warranted. Left-turn and thru V/C ratios for this case are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane) V/C (Thru) = Thru Volume Thru Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) Similarly, if ALV (Thru) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the thru approach is warranted, and left-turn and thru V/C ratios are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left:Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) v/c (Thru) = Thru Volume Thru Approach Capacity (including shared lane) City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis A-3 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 820001rpt.wpd 4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted If ALV (Left) and ALV (Thru) are both less than ALV, the left/thru lane is assumed to be truly shared and each left, left/thru or thru approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left/thru V/C ratio is calculated as follows: V/C (Left/Thru) = Left-Turn Volume + Thru Volume Total Left + Thru Approach Capacity (including shared lane) This V/C (Left/Thru) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Thru) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU summary listing. If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Thru) that is attributed to the left-turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left-turn (including shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = V/C (Thru) If approach has only one left-turn lane (shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity If this left-turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. These same steps are carried out for shared thru/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared thru/right lane to the right-turn movement is warranted, the right-turn V/C value calculated in step three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity availability if the option to include right-turns in the V/C ratio calculations is selected. If the V/C value that is determined using the shared lane methodology described here is reduced due to RTOR and RTOG capacity availability, the V/C value for the thru/right lanes is posted in brackets. When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., left/thru and thru/right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out City of Tustin ~ usun ~arn Project Traffic Analysis A-4 Austin-Foust Associates, !nc. 820001rpt.wpd if dedication is not warranted for either of the shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved in the other shared lane. ICU CALCULATION SETTINGS The following outlines the ICU calculation settings for intersection analyses in the City of Tustin which are consistent with the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines. Saturation Flow Rate: 1,700 vehicles/hour/lane Clearance Interval: .05 Right-Turn'On-Red (RTOR) Allowed: Yes~ RTOR Saturation Flow Factor: .75 No minimum volume/capacity assumed "Unofficial" de facto right-turn lane is used in the ICU calculation if 19 feet from edge to outside of thru-lane exists and parking is prohibited during peak periods. City of Tustin Tustin Barn Project Traffic Analysis A-5 Austin-Foust _~so~ate. s, !nc. 820001rpt.wpd 1 · RED HILL & EDINGER Short-Term No-Project AM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C PM PK HOUR VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 170 .05* t30 .04 NBT ' 3 5100 680 .13 1430 .28* NBR I 1700 100 .06 760 .45 SBL 2 3400 240 .07 180 .05' SBT 3 5t00 1550 .30* 1060 .21 SBR 1 1700 570 .34 170 .10 EBL 2 3400 160 .05* 340 .10' EBT 3 5100 410 .08 950 .19 EBR 1 1700 220 .13 420 .25 WBL 2 3400 450 .i3 300 .09 WBT 3 5t00 1290 .25* 1020 .20* WBR 1 1700 290 .17 570 .34 Right Turn Adjustment Multi .!9' Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .87 Long-Term No-Project AM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C PM PK HOUR VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 1BO .05* 330 .t0 NBT 3 5100 250 .05 1510 .30* NBR 1 1700 300 .t8 690 .41 SBL 2 3400 510 .15 130 .04* SBT 3 5100 1510 .30* 610 .12 SBR ! 1700 350 .21 60 .04 EBL 2 3400 40 .01 460 .14' EBT 3 5100 1160 .23* 1640 .32 EBR ! 1700 480 .28 590 .35 WBL 2 3400 630 .19' 310 .09 WBT 3 5100 1650 .32 2020 .40* WBR 1 1700 170 .10 620 .36 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01' Clearance Interval .05* · 05* Short-Term w/Project AM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C PM PK HOUR VOL NBL 2 3400 170 .05* !30 ,04 NBT 3 5100 690 .14 1450 .28* NBR 1 1700 1t0 .06 770 .45 SBL 2 3400 250 ,07 200 ·06* SBT 3 5100 1550 .30* 1060 .21 SBR 1 1700 570 .34 170 .10 EBL 2 3400 170 .05* 360 .11' EBT 3 5100 420 .08 960 .19 EBR ! 1700 220 .13 420 .25 WBL 2 3400 470 .14 320 .09 WBT 3 5100 1310 .26* 1040 .20* WBR 1 1700 290 .17 570 .34 Right Turn Adjustment Clearance Interval .05* Multi .17' .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 ,87 Long-Term w/Project AH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C PM PK HOUR VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 180 .05* 330 .10 NBT 3 5100 260 .05 1530 .30* NBR 1 1700 310 .18 700 .4! SBL 2 3400 520 .15 150 .04* SBT 3 5100 1510 .30* 610 .i2 SBR I 1700 350 .21 60 .04 EBL 2 3400 50 .01 480 .!4' EBT 3 5100 1170 .23* 1650 .32 EBR I 1700 480 .28 590 .35 WBL 2 3400 650 .19' WBT 3 5100 1670 .33 WBR 1 1700 170 .10 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01' Clearance Interval .05* 330 .10 2040 .40' 620 .36 · 05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .93 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .93 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC COUNTS TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION :OOE 09101.R16 LOCATION - EDINGER-BTN RED HILL/SR-55 AVERAGED VOLUHES FOR - TUESDAY 11/27/01 TO WEDNESDAY 11/28/01 TIME EB WB TOTAL TIME EB WB TOTAL 12:00 - 12:15 8 30 38 12:00 - 12:15 167 186 353 12:15 - 12:30 11 18 29 12:15 - 12:30 133 184 317 12:30 - 12:45 ? 12 19 12:30 - 12:45 129 188 317 12:45 - 1:00 2' 28 16 76 18 104 12:45 - 1:00 153 582 184 742 337 1324 1:00 - 1:15 8 12 20 1:00 - 1:15 154 183 337 1:15 - 1:30 3 13 16 1:15 - 1:30 145 197 342 1:30 - 1:45 6 7 .13 1:30 - 1:45 126 17'/ 303 1:45 - 2:00 1 18 9 41 10 59 1:45 - 2:00 145 570 197 754 342 1324 2:00 - 2:15 2 12 14 2:00 - 2:15 119 162 281 2:15 - 2:30 4 4 8 2:15 - 2:30 123 171 294 2:30 - 2:45 · 6 5 11 2:30 - 2:45' 116 224 340 2:45 - 3:00 3 - 15 9 30 12 45 2:45 - 3:00 145 503 187 744 332 1247 3:00 - 3:15 6 9 15 3:00 - 3:15 134 . 226 360 3:15 - 3:30 4 3 7 3:15 - 3:30 119 228 347 3:30 - 3:45 13 11 24 3:30 - 3:45 130 270 400 3:45 - 4:00 16 39 12 35 28 74 3:45 - 4:00 160 543 274 998 434 1541 4:00 - 4:15 .23 8 31 4:00 - 4:15 119 316 435 4:15 - 4:30 28 7 35 4:15 - 4:30 157 275 432 4:30 - 4:45 44 21 65 4:30 - 4:45 161 296 457 4:45 - 5:00 45 140 19 55 64. 195 4:45 - 5:00 181 618 322 1209 503 1827 5:00 - 5:15 37 32 69 5:00 - 5:15 173 300 473 5:15 ~ 5:30 68 29 97 5:15 - 5:30 17'/ 287 464 5:30 - 5:45 158 58 216 5:30 - 5:45 189 290 479 5:45 - 6:00 112 375 53 172. 165 547 5:45 - 6:00 207 746 291 1168 498 1914 6:00 - 6:15 105 68 173 6:00 - 6:15 150 252 402 6:15 - 6:30 142 117 259 6:15 - 6:30 124 247 371 6:30 - 6:45 164 119 283 6:30 - 6:45 125 156 281 6:45 - 7:00 156 567 195 499 351 1066 6:45 - 7:00 115 514 122 777 237 1291 7:00 - 7:15 165 276 441 7:00 - 7:15 .98 93 191 7:15 - 7:30 161 294 455 7:15 - 7:30 73 96 169 7:30 - 7:45 160 342 502 . 7:30 - 7:45 74 85 159 7:45 - 8:00 179 665 382 1294 561 1959 7:45 - 8:00 61 306 74 348 135 654 8:00 - 8:15 155 341 496 8:00 - 8:15 54 83 137 8:15 - 8:30 151 357 508 8:15 - 8:30 60 42 102 8:30 - 8:45 133 324 457 8:30 - 8:45 56 55 111 8:45 - 9:00 147 586 280 1302 42? 1888 8:45 - 9:00 49 219 53 233' 102 452 9:00 - 9:15 166 205 371 9:00 - 9:15 56 43 99 9:15 - 9:30 130. 190 : 320 ' 9:15 - 9:30 58 50 108 9:30 - 9:45 104 146 250 9:30 - 9:45 52 52 104 9:45 - 10:00 100 500 148 689 248 1189 9:45 - 10:00 ' 42 208 43 188 85 396 !0:00 - 10:15 104 149 253 10:00 - 10:15 28 53 81 10:15 - 10:30 99 149 248 10:15 - 10:30 31 43 74 10:30 - 10:45 119 153 272 10:30 - 10:45 29 46 75 10:45 - 11:00 118 440 123' 574- 241 1014 10:45 - 11:00 32 · 120 41 183 7'5 303 11:00 - 11:15 124 150 274 11:00 - 11:15 21 49 70 11:15 - 11:30 .114 124 2.38 11:15 - 11:30 13 25 38 11:30 - 11:45 176 137 ' 313 11:30 - 11':45 10 19 29 11:45 - 52:00 155 569 150 561 . 305 1130 11:45- 12:00 21 65 16 109 37 174 TOTALS 3,942 5,328 9w270 4w994 7,453 12,447 ADT'S' ' ' ' 8,936. 12,781 ,717 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 09101.015 LOCATION -. EDINGER-BTN JAMBOREE/REDHILL AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - WEDNESDAY 9/19/01 TO THURSDAY 9/20/01 T ! ME EB WB TOTAL T I ME EB WB TOTA. 12:00 - 12:15 10 12:15 - 12:30 4 12:30 - 12:45 4 12:45 - 1:00 10. 1:00 - .1:15 7 1:15 - 1:30 10 ,1:30 - 1:45 6 1:45 - 2:00 1 14 24 '12:00 - 12:15 124 6 10 12:15 - 12:30 108 8 12 12:30 - 12:45 .98 7 .17 i2:45 - 1:00 108 24 25 49 411 6 13 1:00 - 1:15 102 5 15 1:15 - 1:30 108 6 12 1:30 - 1:45 '103 8 9 1:45 - 2:00 98 111 235 119 227 112 210 130 238 910 1.25 114 122 111 472 227 222 225 209' 88.3 2:00 - 2:15 2:15'- 2:30 2:30 - 2:45 2:45 - 3:00 3:00 -'3:15 3 3:15 - 3:30 4 3:30 -' 3:45 10 3:45 - 4:00 4 4:00 - 4:15 8 4:15 - 4:30 20 4:30 - 4:45 27 4:45 - 5:00 5:00 - 5:15 20 5:15'- 5:30 39 5:30 - 5::45 94 5:45 - 6:00 64 12 21 '' 78 217 3 7 2:00 - 2:15 84 6 9 2:15 - 2:30. 82 3 5 2:30 - 2:45 96 2 14 5 26 2:45 - 3:00 128 107 112 136 162 517 7 10 3:00 - 3:15 117 ' 160 6 10 3:15 - 3:30 120 150 6 16 3:30 '- 3:45 134 208 7 ' 26 11 47 3:45 - 4:00 146 517 263 781 - 4 12 4:00 - 4:15 143 256 9 29 4:15 - 4:30 '176 9 36 4:30 - 4:45 210 182 20 42 43 120 4:45 - 5:00 235 764 204 876 309 203 319 186 292 210 250 1170 167 766 i3 33 5:00 - 5:15 14 53 5:15 - 5:30 35 129 5:30 - 5:45 37 99 . 101 316 5:45 o 6:00 191 194 232 29O 9O7 277 270 342 409 1298 399 410 392 439 1640 .512 417 1c' 6:00 - 6:15 75 6:15 - 6:30 108 6:30 - 6:45 114 6:45 - ~:00 122 7:00 - 7:15 111 7:15 - 7:30 118 7:30 - 7:45 117 7:45 - 8:00 159 8:00 - 8:15 116 8:15.- 8:30 118 8:30 - 8:45 102 8:45 - 9:00 '88 9:00 - 9:15 64 9:15 - 9:30 80 9:30 - 9:45 78 9:45 - 10:00 90 10:00 - 10:1~ 10:15'- 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 10;45 - 11:00 419 5O5 .424 312 52 127 6:00 - 6:15 101 209 6:15 - 6:30 126 240 6:30 - 6:45 188 467 310 886 6:45 - 7:00' 236 347 7:00 - 7:15 304 422 7:15 - 7:30 .412 529 7:30 - .7:45 426 1378 585 1883 7:45 ~ 8:00 412 528 8:oo - 8:15 364 482 8:15 - 8:30 308 410 8:30 - 8:45 258 13.42 346 1766 8:45 - 9:00 169 2~3 9:00 - 9:15 137 217 9:15 - 9:30 128 206 9:30 ' 9:45 96 530 186 ~,2 9:45- 10:00 230 141 188 160 152 102 106 676 62 465 85 74 62 52 56 60 49 42 40 2O 68 100 168 I0:00.- 10:15 27 81 92 17'5 10:15 - 10:30 19 76 107 183 10:30 - 10:45 28 74 299 70 369 144 668 10:45 - 11:00 21 273 248 67 52 35 198 137 151 134 ' $0 29 40 95 11o 33 33 22 22 371 254 '168 1141 179 141 114 8? 521 88 79 97 71 335 84 72 69 60 285 .60 52 5O 43 205 11:00 - 11:15 86 86 172 11:00 - 11:15 12 30 " 42 . ., 11:15.- 11:30 112 90 202 11:15 - 11:30 12 15 27 11:30 -11:45 118 94 212 11:30 - 11:45 13 9 22 11:45 - 12:00 114 430 88 358 202 788 11:45 - 12:00 15 52 18 .72 33 124 TOTALS 2,769 ' 4,685 7,454 5,135 5,050 10,. .. ADT'S . 7;904.. 9,735 17,63Y TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 09101.112 LOCATION - RED HILL-BTN EDINGER/WALNUT AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - TUESDAY 10/9/01 TO ~EDNESDAY 10/10/01 TIME NB SB TOTAL TIME NB S~ TOTAL 12:00 - 12:15 26 13 39 12:00 - 12:15 310 213 52_3 12:15 - 12:30 16 7 2~ 12:15 - 12:30 264 251 515 12:30- 12:45 16 9 25 12:30- 12:45 248 255 503 '12:45-. 1:00 13 71 11 40 24 111 1.2:45- 1:00 250 '1072 314 1033 564 2105 1:00 - 1:15 10 8 18 1:00 - 1:15 232 256 488 1:15 - 1:30 14 '9 23 1:15 - 1:30 216 259 475 1:30 - 1:45 6 11 17 1:30 - 1:45 222 232 454 1:45 - 2:00 10 40 3 31 13 71 1:45 - 2:00 214 884 214 961 428 1~+5 · 2:00 - 2:15 6 10 16 2:00 - 2:15 249 200 449 2:15 - 2:30 5 4 9 2:15 - 2:30 222 194 416 2:30 - 2:45 13 2 15 2:30 - 2:45 262 254 516 2:45 - 3:00 7 31 12 28 19 59 2:45 - 3:00 '294 1027 211 859 505 1886 3:00'- 3:15 10 6 16 3:00 - 3:15 308 ' 193 50I 3:15 - 3:30 7 9 16 3:15 - 3:30 304 217 521 3:30 - 3:45 13 15 28 3:30 - 3:45 306 220 526 3:45 - .... 4:00 "14 44 '"21 51 ........ 35 95 ~' 3:45- 4'~00 338 ..... 1256 i8~ 819 527 2075 4:00 - 4:15 10 18 28 4:00 - 4:15 404 216 620 4:15 - 4:30 14 25 39 4:15 - 4:30 332 218 550 4:30 - 4:45 24 44 68 4:30 - 4:45 406 201 607 4:45 - 5:00 20 68 40 127 60 195 4:45 - 5:00 428 1570 230 865 658 2435 5:00 - 5:15 8 44 52 5:00 - 5:15 452 225 677 5:15 - 5:30 27 56 8~ 5:15 - 5:30 549 223 772 5:30 - 5:45 54 126 180. 5:30 - 5:45 457 176 633 5:45 - 6:00 50 139 145 371 195 510 5:45 - 6:00 405 1863 196 820 601 2583 6:00 - 6:15 63 138 201 6:00 - 6:15 351 178 529 6:15 - 6:30 69 192 261 6:15 - 6:30 286 142 428 6:30 - 6:45 72 236 308 6:30 - 6:45 230 132 362 6:45 - 7::00 120 324 327 893 447 1217 6:45 - 7:00 216 1083 17'2 624 388 1707 7:00 - 7:15 124 348 472 7:00 - 7:15 178 152 330 7:15 - 7:30 174 451 625 7:15 - 7:30 154 117 271 7:30 - 7:45 166 541 707 7:30 - 7:45 104 86 190 7:45 - 8:00 159 623 572 1912 731 2535 7:45 - 8:00 89 525 83 438 172 963 8:00 - 8:15 184 517 701 8:00 - 8:15 104 80 184 8:15 - 8:30 132 494 626 8:15 - 8:30 .88 68 156 8:30 - 8:45 160 365 525 8:30 - 8:45 84 68 152 8:45 ' 9:00 145 621 402 177'8 547 2399 8:45 - 9:00 66 342 88 304 154 646 9:00 - 9:15 126 253 379 9:00 - 9:15 i24 74 198 9:15 - 9:30 122 214 336 9:15 - 9:30 78 65 143 9:30 - 9:45 127 168 295 9:30 - 9:45 66 41 107 9:45 - 10:00 · 114 489 174 809 288 1298 9:45 - 10:00 72 340 43 223 115 563 10:00 - 10:15 1.47 1'70 317 10:00 - 10:15 62 46 108 10:15 - 10:30 144 140 284 10:15 - 10:30 54 42 96 10:30 - 10:45 126 '148 274 10:30 - 10:45 45 34 79 10:45 - 11:00' 146 563 158 616 304 1179 . 10:45 - 11:00 .34 195 28 150 '62 345 11:00 - 11:15 170 165 '335 11:00 - 11:15 46 37 83 11:15 - 11:30. 183 177 360 11:15 - 11:30. 32 24 56 -- 11:30 - 11:45 288 186 '474. 11:30 - 11:45 36 14 50 11:45 - 12:00 215 856 192 720 407 1576 11:45 - 12:00 26 140 13 88 39 228 · . TOTALS 3,869 7,376 11,245 10,297 7,184 17,481 ADT'S ,~, ' ' ' 14,1~ 14,560 ' 28.726 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. .LOCATION COOE 09101.111 LOCATION - RED HILL-BTM VALENCIA/EDINGER AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - TUESDAY 10/9/01 TO WEDNESDAY 10/10/01 TIME NB SB TOTAL TIME NB SB TOTA. 12:00- 12:15 28 8 36 12:00- 12:15 255 170 425 12:15 - 12:30 '21 5 '26 12:15 - 12:30 216 209 425 12:30 - 12:45 13 2 15 12:30 - 12:45 173 191 364 12:45- 1:00 12 74 9 24 21 98 12:45- 1:00 183 827 257 827 440 1654 1:00 - 1:15 10 8 1:15 - 1:30 14 1:30 - 1:45 8 6 1:45 - 2:00 4 36 4 2:00 - 2:15 13 2:15 - 2:30 8 2:30 - 2:45 16. 2:45 - 3:00 10 3:00 - 3:15 11 3:15 - 3:30 5 3:30 - 3:45 10 3:45 -; 4:'00 .... 16 4:00 - 4:15 10 4:15 - 4:30 13 4:30 - 4:45 18 4:45 - 5:00 12 47 .9 7 14 31 18 2O 14 24 8 60 642 870 ~1:00 - 1:15 162 262 424 1:15 - 1:30 152 210 362 1:30 - 1:45 ' 181 195 376 1:45'- 2:00 147 203 350 1512 14 61 890 664 O3 18 11 18 14 20 12 ... 47 . 3O 68 2:00 - 2:15 '196 186 382 2:15 - 2:30 193 153 346' 2:30 - 2:45 238 180 418 2:45 - 3:00 263 145 408 1554 3:00 - 3:15 286 ' 153 3:15 - 3:30 287 186 3:30 -3:45. 298 1'56 3~45 - 4:00 345 i216 '~4~ 20 4:00 - 4:15 400 156 31 4:15 - 4:30 347 167 50 4:30 - 4:45 455 171 80 4:45 - 5:00 413 1615 162 644 53 181 94 656 439 475 454 .... 494 'i 860 556 514 626 575 2271 5:00 - 5:15 5:15 - 5:30 5:30 - 5:45 5:45 - 6:00 12 12 34 33 30 42 5:00 - 5:15 524 168 67 79 5:15 - 5:30 622 i54 119 153 5:30 - 5:45 480 148 91 177 393 210 484 5:45 - 6:00 423 2049 131 601 692 776 628 554 2f 6:00-, 6:15 6:15 - 6:30 6:30 - 6:45 '6:45 - 7:00 7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 7:30 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - '9:00 9:00 - 9:15 9:.15 ~ 9:30 9:30 - 9:45 9:45- 10:00 57 36 61 64 67 70 76 100 82 85 78 97 92 109 220' 345 133 190 6:00 - 6:15 342 116 167 203 '6:15 - 6:30 239 79 207 268 6:30 - 6:45 216 80 274 781 340 1001 6:45 - 7:00 154 951 70 265 1699 1964 179 288 407 462 542 352 7:00- 7:15 142 64 474 7:15- 7:30 108 44 526 7:30- 7:45 93 38 '612 7:45 - 8:00 55 398 33 552 628 8:00 - 8:15 71 35 550 650 8:15 - 8:30 64 40 426 508 8:30 - 8:45 56 28 386 1914 471 2257 8:45 - 9:00 52 243 34 343 137 300 378 9:00- 9:15 69 24 203 300 9:15 - 9:30 58 24 - 188 280 · 9:30. - 9:45 42 21 376 183 874 292' 1250 9:45 - 1.0:00 50 219 20 89 458 318 296 224 1296 206 152 131 '88 577 106 104 84 86 380 93 63 70 308 10:00 '- 10:15 10:15- 10:30 10:30- 10:45 10:45'- 11:00 11:00- 11:15 11:15 -' 11:30 11:30- 11:45 11:45- 12:00 108 109 108 132 135 144· · 220 206 457 1038 88 245 262 270 234 2?2 154 161 126 140 581 , . · 116 136 150 164 .566 10:00 - 10:15 47 28 10:15 - 10:30 40 20 10:30 - 10:45 48 14 10:45 ' 11:00 22 .i57 26 75 6O 62 48 705 1271 55 251 11:00 ' 11:15 52 18 70 280 11:15 - 11:30 27 15 42 370 11:30 - 11:45 22 10 32 370 11:45 - 12:00 30 131 12 42 186 TOTALS . 2,709 7,112 · 9,821 9,338 5,155 14,~ . ADT i S . . 12,047 12,267 24,314 Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNI-NG MOVEMENTS N/S STREET- RED HILL E/W STREET: AVE DATE: 4/30/02 DAY: TUESDAY 15 Min Northbound Southbound Period EDINGER AVE CITY: TUSTIN FILENAME- 0422501A Eastbound Westbound Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES- 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 I 6:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 7:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 8:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 9:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 10:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 12 49 10 28 291 100 30 55 38 51 131 10 805 23 64 11 22 321 91- 23 60 32 74 179' 13 913 18 80 13 25 335 120 57 67 39 92 195 14 1055 25 89 14 4'9 496 197 63 85 43 96 187 13 1357 26 82 12 41 487 111 36 87 39 104 189 11 1225 27 81 15 20 420 91 48 53 40 75 185 21 1076 38 89 13 48 471 124 37 84 46 66 187 23 1226 24 56 16 35 291 83 28 61 34 68 176 14 886 ~-Peak Hr Beg ins at 745 VOLUMES : 116 341 54 158 1874 523 184 309 168 341 748 68 4884 COMMENTS- Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULA'R SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNI'NG MOVEMENTS N/S STREET' RED HILL E/W STREET: EDINGER AVE AVE DATE: 4/25/02 DAY: THURSDAY . CITY: TuSTIN FILENAME: 0422501P 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period Beg inn ing NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 3 I 2 2 '1 2:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 3:00 'PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 4:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 5:00 PM 1'5 PM 30 PM 45 PM 6:00 PM 1'5 PM 30 PM 45 PM 84 412 62 13 102 59 64 89 20 46 201 54 1206 60 383 54 24 122 52 63 88 22 44 182 40 1134 62 434 76 20 116 61 66 83 10 25 164 37 1154 '83 412 68 22 118 69 84 103 23 2'3 142 34 1181 71 531 110 25 115 51 83 145 17 38 I77 55 1418 73 528 76 18 99 55 85 137 8 32 165 60 1336 87 566 95 29 107 59 58 105 11 25 175 63 1380 67 493 86 22 131 65 80 154 19 24 147 35 1323 'PM Peak Hr Begins at 1700 VOLUMES = 298 2118 367 94 452 230 306 541 55 119 664 213 5457 COMMENTS: Resolution No. 3872 RESOLUTION NO. 3872 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TUSTIN APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 02-032 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-026 AUTHORIZING SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 22,208 SQUARE FOOT'COMMERCIAL CENTER AND A 75,491 SQUARE FOOT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF RETAIL USES, RESTAURANT USES WITH UP TO 123 SEATS, AND SELF-STORAGE WITH A CARETAKER UNIT LOCATED AT 1621 EDINGER AVENUE The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A, That a proper application for Design Review 02-032 and Conditional Use Permit 02-026 was filed by Tustin Barn L.L.C. requesting authorization to construct a 22,208 square foot commercial center and a 75,491 square foot self-storage facility and establish retail uses, restaurant uses with up to 123 seats, and self-storage with a caretaker unit uses at 1621 Edinger Avenue, also known as (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map recorded on October 29, 1974, for subdivision of Lot 67 in Block 10 of lrvine Subdivisions). Bo That the proposed uses are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that the property is designated as "Industrial" which provides for the establishment of light industrial and commercial uses. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub- Element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-Element. C, The project is located within the Industrial "M" zoning district where office uses (less than 50 percent of gross floor area) are permitted and retail, restaurant, and self-storage uses and caretaker units are conditionally permitted in accordance with Section 9242 of the Tustin City Code. Do That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said -application on May 12, 2003, by the Planning Commission. E, Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin City Code, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole in that the building location, height, massing, and scale, and the proposed architectural design and site amenities are consistent with the existing retail buildings of the shopping center with the use of an arched veranda, keystones at the parapet, a matching storefront, and Resolution No. 3872 Page 2 features which are compatible with the setting and similar to other commercial uses in the area. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items' , 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. , 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Height, bulk, and area of buildings; Setbacks and site planning; Exterior materials and colors; Type and pitch of roofs; Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings; Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae; Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination; Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation; Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure; Location and method of refuse storage;- Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood; Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares; Proposed signage; and, Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. That the establishment of the proposed retail uses, restaurant uses, offices, self-storage facility, and caretaker unit, under the circumstances of this case, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin in that:~ The proposed project complies with the development standards and requirements of the Industrial (M) zoning district and the City's landscape and parking design guidelines. Adequate parking would be provided and dispersed on the site and in proximity to all uses; , The mix of proposed uses is appropriate for the location of the site, which is on a prominent corner site at the intersection of two major arterial highways. While the self-storage facility alone would not be appropriate for such a visible corner on two major arterial highways, the mixture of commercial and self- storage buildings and uses will accommodate the existing easements and irregular shape of the site with the narrow portion of the site for passive uses (self-storage) and the larger, more visible corner for active commercial uses. In addition, the Resolution No. 3872 Page 3 , location of the commercial buildings and the dense landscaping along the self-storage facility (described later) minimizes the presence of the self-storage buildings and will create an attractive, viable center that provides a variety of services to the surrounding office and light industrial uses .and .the community. The proposed caretaker unit would be ancillary to the self- storage facility and would only be occupied by the employee of the self-storage for the purpose of providing 24-hour security; Al As conditioned, the proposed project would be required to meet the noise standards for commercial use, office use, and the caretaker unit with implementation of noise mitigation measures as recommended by the Noise Analysis dated April 21, 2003. Based on the submitted noise-analysis, construction of the project will reduce the noise level from Edinger Avenue to the residential uses to the north of the project and result in a noise increase of one (1) decibel due to train noise reverberation from the three-story building. The existing noise level at the residential site is higher than residential standards as required by Tustin City Code Section 4614, and the increase of one (1) decibel related to train noise reverberation from the storage buildings would not be noticeable and is not considered significant; , As proposed, installation of a traffic signal at the main entry to the project would provide full and uninterrupted access to the site and the second gated access on Edinger Avenue would provide for emergency access and egress for the storage area; , The applicant has agreed to reserve a twenty (20) foot wide area along Edinger Avenue and an eighteen (18) foot wide area along Red Hill Avenue to accommodate implementation of the City's future roadway widening projects in accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation System. In addition, the applicant has agreed to provide a temporary construction easement over these areas to facilitate roadway construction; , The property owner would be required to bond for reconstruction of the Red Hill median upon completion of the Red Hiil/Edinger Avenue Grade Separation Project. Reconstruction of the median would ensure continued access to the site in that the existing condition only provides right-turn in and right-turn out movements to and from the site on Red Hill Avenue and the future condition would provide right-turn in and left-turn out movements which would benefit the commercial uses on the site; Resolution No. 3872 Page 4 II. , As conditioned, adequate on-site and off-site pedestrian facilities will be provided in that the adjacent sidewalks and driveway aprons will be constructed to meet current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; , The proposed landscape berming and location, species, quantities, and sizes of proposed landscaping materials would provide adequate screening of the self-storage facility from Edinger Avenue and residential uses to the north of the site. The remainder of the site would be landscaped with complementary materials in accordance with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines; 10. The architectural design of the self-storage facility and the commercial buildings incorporates similar massing, details, and materials to ensure compatibility. The commercial buildings are designed with architectural articulations such as curved metal roofing, decorative brackets, ledge stone columns, and a variety of materials to create a visually interesting and inviting center and the self-storage buildings incorporate simplified building forms in the same materials and colors with significant landscape screening e. That the Planning Commission has approved a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act by adopting Resolution No. 3871. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review 02-032 and Conditional Use Permit 02-026 to construct a 22,108 square foot commercial center and a 75,491 square foot self-storage facility and establish retail uses, restaurant uses with up to 123 seats, and self-storage with a caretaker' unit at 1621 Edinger Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 12th day of May, 2003. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary LINDA C. JENNINGS Chairperson Resolution No. 3872 Page 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3872 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of May, 2003. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary GENERAL EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION 3872 MAY 12, 2003 (1) 1.1 (1) 1.3 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped May 12, 2003, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check or conditions of approval if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code. This approval shall become null and void unless substantial construction is underway within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. The project, including the commercial buildings and self-storage buildings, shall be implemented in one (1) phase, as proposed by the applicant. Building permits for the commercial buildings shall be issued prior to or concurrent with the building permits for the self-storage facility, and all inspections for the commercial buildings shall be completed prior to completion of inspections for the self~-storage buildings. In addition, the Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the commercial buildings shall be issued prior to issuance of the Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the self-storage buildings. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. Approval of Design Review 02-032 and Conditional Use Permit 02-026 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. SOURCE CODES (~) (2) (3) (4) STANDARD CONDITION CEQA MITIGATION UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTIONS (s) (6) (7) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 2 As a condition of approval of Design Review 02-032 and Conditional Use Permit 02-026, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (***) 1.6 Conditional Use Permit 02-026 may be reviewed annually or more often, if deemed necessary by the Community Development Department, to' ensure compatibility with the area and compliance with the conditions contained herein. PLAN SUBMITTAL (3) 2.1 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the latest adopted codes, City Ordinances, and State and Federal laws and regulations. The City is currently using the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), 2001 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2001 California Plumbing Code (CPC), 2001 California Electrical Code (CEC), California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations, and Title 24 Energy Regulations. (1) 2.2 Building plan check submittal shall include the following: (7) sets of construction plans, including drawings for · Seven mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. · Two (2) copies of structural calculations. · Two (2) copies of Title 24 energy calculations. · Elevations that include all proposed dimensions, materials, colors, finishes. · Roofing material shall be fire rated class "B" or better. · Note on plans that no field changes shall be made without prior approval from the Building Official and architect or engineer of record. · Rooftop equipment shall be installed and maintained at least six (6) inches below the parapet so the equipment is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. · Details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated pattern of light distribution of all proposed fixtures. · A letter of acceptance from Federal Disposal for location of the proposed trash enclosures. All trash enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard detail and the requirements of Federal Disposal and shall be adequately screened. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 3 (3) 2.3 (3) 2.4 (3) 2.5 (3) 2.6 (3) 2.7 (3) 2.8 (3) 2.9 (1) 2.10 The plans submitted shall indicate that restrooms are accessible to persons with disabilities as per State of California Accessibility Standards (Title 24). Plumbing fixture units are required to comply with the 2001 California Plumbing Code Chapter four (4) Table 4-1 as per type of group occupancy, or as approved by the Building Official. Openings in exterior walls are not permitted less than five (5) feet from property lines, 2001 California Building Code (Table 5A). Escape and rescue windows shall be provided in all sleeping rooms of the care-taker unit in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code (Section 310.4). The caretaker unit shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a temperature of 70 degrees at a point three (3) feet above the floor in all habitable rooms, 2001 California Building Code (Section 310.11). Vehicle parking, primary entrance to the building, the primary paths of travel, cashier space, sanitary facilities, drinking fountain, and public telephones shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. Parking for disabled persons shall be provided with an additional five (5) foot loading area with striping and ramp; disabled persons shall be able to park and access the building without passing behind another car. At least one (1) accessible space shall be van accessible served by a minimum 96- inch wide loading area. An area analySis shall be submitted for all buildings (residences and garages). Submitted plans shall demonstrate compliance with allowable floor areas based on 2001 California Building Code Chapter 5, Table 5-B. Four (4) sets of final grading plans consistent with the site and landscaping plans as prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted and shall include the following: Technical details and plans for all utility installations including telephone, gas, water, and electricity. Three (3) copies of a precise soils report (less than one (1) year old) provided by a civil engineer. Expanded information regarding the levels of hydrocarbons and ground water contamination found on-site shall be provided in the soils report. All pavement "R" values shall be in accordance with applicable City of Tustin standards. · All site drainage shall be handled on-site and shall not be permitted to drain onto adjacent properties. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 4 · Two (2) copies of Hydrology Report. (1) 2.11 The engineer of record shall submit a final compaction report to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2.12 The engineer of record shall submit a pad certification to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2.13 A surety/cash bond will be required to assure work is completed in accordance with approved plans prior to permit issuance. The engineer's estimated cost of the grading, drainage, and erosion control shall be submitted to the Building Official for determination of the bond amount. 2.14 Prior to issuance of building permits, all information to ensure, compliance with requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority shall be submitted including fire flow and installation of fire hydrants, subject t° approval of the City of Tustin Public Works and/or Irvine Ranch Water District. (1) 2.15 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures specified detailing implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the project; the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. (1) 2.16 Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the applicant shall submit a deposit of $2,700 for the estimated cost of review of the WQMP to the Building Division. The actual costs shall be deducted from the deposit, and the applicant shall be responsible for any additional review cost that exceeded the deposit prior to issuance of grading permits. Any unused portion of the deposit shall be refunded to the applicant. 2.17 Prior to issuance of any permits, the property owner shall record a Notice of Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with the County Clerk Recorder on a form provided by the Community Development Department to inform future property owners of the requirement to implement the approved WQMP. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12,2003 Page 5 (1) 2.18 (1) 2.19 (1) 2.20 (1) 2.21 (1) 2.22 The Community Development and Public Works Departments shall determine whether any change in use requires an amendment to an approved Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOi) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that the NOI has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. in addition, the applicant shall include notes on the grading plans indicating that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Building Official prior to issuance of grading permits. A variety of best management practices including BMP Nos. I through 23 as identified in the City's Best Management Practices Handbook and devices such as desilting basins, check dams, cribbing, rip rap, watering, and other methods shall be included on the plan, implemented, and maintained on an ongoing basis to control water and wind-related erosion and prevent sedimentation from entering the storm drain system, adjacent properties, or rights-of-way. A variety of best management practices including BMP Nos. 1 through 18 as identified in the City's Best Management Practices Handbook shall be implemented on an ongoing basis during construction to protect surface waters and prevent wastes or pollutants from moving off-site during a storm. Potential pollutants include, but are not limited to, paints, stains, sealants, glues, fuels, oils, lubricants, fertilizers, etc. Disposal of such materials shall occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential storm water run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. All sloped areas should be planted and treated for erosion control in the form of revegetation mats or hyroseed to minimize erosion and control run-off in accordance with the City's Grading Manual and subject to approval of the Building Division of the Community Development Department. Erosion control measures shall be in place on all slopes immediately following completion of grading on each slope as recommended by a soils engineer and landscape architect and approved by the Building Division. Hydroseeding/vegetation and planting methods shall be suitable for soil and climatic conditions and validated by a landscape architect and soils engineer. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 6 (1) 2.23 (1) 2.24 (1) 2.25 (1) 2.26 (1) 2.27 (1) 2.28 (3) 2.29 (3) 2.30 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall post with the Community Development Department a minimum $2,500 cash deposit or letter of credit to guarantee the sweeping of streets and clean-up of streets affected by construction activities, in the event this deposit is depleted prior to completion of development, an additional incremental deposit will be required. Earth, sand, gravel, rock, stone, or other excavated material or debris may not be deposited or moved so as to cause the same to be deposited upon or roll, blow, flow, or wash upon or over any public place or right-of-way or the premises of another without the express written consent of the owner. When loading or transporting any earth, sand, ground, rock, stone or other excavated material or debris, such material shall be prevented from blowing or spilling onto the public right-of-way or adjacent private property. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining public rights-of-way in a condition reasonably free of dust, earth, or debris attributed to the grading operation. If any debris is deposited within the right-of-way or adjacent property, the applicant shall be responsible for removing the material immediately. A note shall be provided on final plans that a six (6) foot high chain link fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages. A nylon fabric or mesh shall be attached to the temporary construction fencing. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles. Pursuant to the City of Tustin's Security Ordinance and the Uniform Fire Code, street numbers shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be no less than six (6) inches in height and shall be of contrasting color to the background to which they are attached and illuminated during hours of darkness. The applicant shall comply with all City policies regarding short-term construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed 15 miles per hour. All new glass doors and windows, in or adjacent to doors, shall be tempered in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code Section 2406.4. Approval of the Orange County Fire Authority regarding access, fire lanes, fire hydrants, sprinkler system, and hazardous materials shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 7 (***) 2.31 Authorization of all easement holders shall be provided prior to issuance of a rough grading permit. ARCHITECTURE (4) 3.1 All exterior treatments shall be consistent with the submitted color/material samples and noted on all construction plans and elevations submitted for Building Permit Plan Check, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department at final inspection. (4) 3.2 Exact details of the exterior door/storefront, building parapet, and cornices shall be provided on the construction plans. (4) (4) 3.3 3.4 All ground and wall-mounted mechanical and electrical fixtures and equipment shall be adequately and decoratively screened. All roof- mounted equipment shall be 6" below parapet height. The screen shall be integrated with the architectural design of the building. All telephone and electrical boxes shall be indicated on the building plans and shall be completely screened. Electrical transformers shall be located toward the interior of the project, maintaining sufficient distance to minimize visual impacts from the public right-of-way. All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be painted to match the building. (4) 3.5 No exterior down spouts or roof scuppers shall be permitted. All roof drains shall utilize interior piping, but may have exterior outlets at the base of buildings. (4) 3.6 A master sign plan for the site shall be submitted prior to issuance of any sign permit. (4) 3.7 Sign permits shall not be issued until completion of the project and a tenant obtaining zoning clearance and a business license. (2) 3.8 The overall height of the three-story storage building shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, including parapets. (2) (2) 3.9 3.10 Parking lot and building lighting shall be located at a maximum height of twenty (20) feet and designed to provide a minimum one (1) foot candle illumination in accordance with the City's Security Code. The applicant shall provide details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated distribution pattern of light of ali proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be designed with the architecture of the building and designed and arranged as not to direct light or glare onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent streets. In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, all glazing Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 8 assemblies used throughout the project shall be well fitted and weather- stripped. Sound-rated doors and windows will be required for compliance with the interior noise standards at the office and residential spaces subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. The following minimum sound transmission class rating (STC) shall be incorporated in the design of the project subject to final review of a qualified acoustical engineer and Community Development Department: Use Window (STC) Residential Use (self-storage facility) 44 Lobby/Office (self-storage facility)N/A Office use (retail/office building) 36 Door (STC). 36 36 36 (2) 3.11 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, fresh air intake ducts for ventilation or other openings such as mail slots or vents shall be oriented away from the rail tracks. All such openings for the retail building along Edinger Avenue shall be oriented away from Edinger Avenue. All ducts shall incorporate at least six (6) feet of flexible ducting and at least one 90-degree bend. (2) 3.12 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, the roof system at all units shall have a minimum of one-half (1/2) inch plywood sheathing sealed to form a continuous noise barrier. Minimum R-19 insulation shall be placed in the rafter space. (2) 3.13 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, wall- mounted air conditioners or other noise generating equipment is prohibited. (1) 3.14 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, exterior walls for retail buildings shall be constructed of gypsum wallboard interior with a 7/8-inch stucco exterior, and a minimum R-11 insulation between the studs. All joints shall be well fitted and/or caulked to form an airtight seal. (2) 3.15 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, exterior walls at the residential unit (storage facility) shall be constructed with gypsum board wallboard interior over RC-1 resilient channels, with 7/8- inch exterior stucco and R-11 minimum insulation between studs. All joints shall be well fitted and/or caulked to form an airtight seal. (2) 3.16 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, carpet and pad shall be installed in all offices on the project site and at the residential unit in the self-storage facility. The carpet shall have a minimum pile height of 1/8 inch. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 9 (2) 3.17 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, all interior walls of the building on the project site shall be of gypsum wallboard construction. (2) 3.18 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, a suspended acoustical ceiling shall be installed in all offices. The ceiling tile shall provide a minimum noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of 0.90. (2) 3.19 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, party wall and floor/ceiling separation assemblies shall be designed to provide a minimum STC of 50 including the party wall assembly between the residential unit and the storage and the floor/ceiling assembly between the residential unit and the lobby/office. (2) 3.20 (2) 3.21 (2) 3.22 In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, penetration or openings in separation assemblies for piping, electrical devices, recessed cabinets, bathtubs, soffits, or heating, ventilation, or exhaust ducts shall be sealed, lined, insulated, or otherwise treated to maintain the required rating. In accordance with the Noise Study dated February 28, 2003, the entrance door from the office/lobby to the residential unit (self-storage) together with its perimeter seal shall have a minimum of 26 STC rating. Conditions 3.12 through 3.22 shall be implemented as part of construction drawings with approval by a qualified acoustical engineer for review and approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. LANDSCAPING (1) 4.1 Complete landscape and irrigation plans that comply with the City of Tustin LandscaPe and Irrigation Guidelines shall be submitted at plan check. (1) 4.2 An irrigation plan shall be submitted which shows the location and control of backflow prevention devices at the meter, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing, and coverage details for all equipment including efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the amount of water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems shall be used to increase irrigation efficiency. (1) 4.3 All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy and vigorous condition, typical to the species, and shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, support structures (trellis, etc.), trimming, mowing, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of dead or diseased dying plants. Unhealthy or Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 10 dead trees shall be replaced within seventy-two (72) hours upon notification by the City. (2) 4.4 A significant visual buffer, including a minimum four (4) foot tall landscaping berm, a masonry screen wall, and a minimum of one (1) tree per 20 lineal foot of building length (including at a minimum nine (9) 48- inch box London Plane trees, five (5) 36-inch box Aleppo Pines, and one (1) 36-inch box Olive) shall be provided parallel to Edinger Avenue to screen the self-storage buildings, subject to review and approval and final field inspection by the Community Development Department. If necessary, additional trees shall be installed to provide sufficient screening. (2) 4.5 There shall be a minimum of a three (3) foot six (6) inch wide landscaping setback with regular intervals of five (5) foot wide landscaping setbacks along the north side of the proposed three-story storage building. Landscaping shall include a minimum of forty-eight (48) 15-gallon giant bamboo plants and forty (40) 15-gallon vines supported by metal trellises for a ratio of one (1) tree per ten (10) feet of lineal wall subject to field inspection by the Community Development Department. If necessary, additional trees shall be installed to achieve sufficient screening. (2) 4.6 All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and vigorous condition and all unhealthy plants shall be replaced within seven (7) working days of notification from the City. USE RESTRICTION (***) 5.1 The project shall provide a minimum of 120 parking spaces dispersed to accommodate the self-storage, office, and commercial use (retail, office and restaurant) as follows: Use Area Parking Parking (Square Feet) Required Provided Retail 9,808 1/200 = 49 Office 4,500 1/250 = 18 Food 7,900 1 per 3 seats (123 seats) 41 Total 22,208 108 108 Caretaker N/A Unit Self- 75,491 4 spaces for office 16 Storage 1/10,000 for self- storage 8 Project 97,699 120 124 total Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 11 Any change to the uses, square footage, or number of seats shall be submitted to Community Development Department for review and approval. (2) 5.2 Trash pickups at the project site shall not occur during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (2) 5.3 All activities at the commercial site shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the hours of operation for the self-storage facility shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. For any changes to the hours of operation recommended in the submitted noise study, a site-specific noise analysis shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. (2) 5.4 (2) 5.5 (2) 5.6 No rooftop or exterior mechanical equipment for the project shall produce a noise level greater than 45 dB(A) when measured at the residential property line. All details related to noise reduction measures shall be submitted to the Community Development Department during plan check for review and approval. Public address systems and buzzers shall be prohibited. Ail doors shall be kept closed when not in use in accordance with the Noise Study dated February 18, 2003. 5.7 Outdoor seating is prohibited. Outdoor seating areas may be established in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2490, and upon approval of a conditional use permit. 5.8 In accordance with the distance requirements' of Tustin City Code Section 9242(b), off-site alcoholic sales are not permitted. On-Site alcoholic sales in conjunction with restaurant uses are subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 5.9 Exterior storage of any materials, recreational vehicles, boats or trailers, campers, or auto anywhere on-site is prohibited. Storage of hazardous materials, building material, inoperable vehicles, or other similar industrial materials is prohibited. 5.10 The self-storage facility shall obtain from each self-storage tenant a signed release acknowledgement that storage of perishable goods, toxic/and or hazardous materials, and explosive or other dangerous items are prohibited. The applicant shall keep the signed release forms on file during the period of rental space tenancy and make the forms available to the City for review. 5.11 If in the future the City determines that a parking or circulation problem exists, the applicant shall be required to submit a new traffic/parking study Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page t2 and implement immediate interim and permanent mitigation measures upon review and approval by the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. (1) 5.12 s. 3 (1) 5.14 (***) (2) 5.16 (1) 5.17 (***) s. 8 The installation of any exterior, freestanding vending machines, such as, but not limited to, beverage or soda machines, candy, magazine racks, and any other retail product, is prohibited. Exterior public pay telephones shall be prohibited, and any interior public pay telephones shall be programmed to prevent incoming calls. No outdoor storage shall be permitted except as approved by the Director of Community Development. The caretaker unit of the self-storage facility shall be occupied only by the 24-hour superintendent and not be leased for residential purposes. To facilitate on-site circulation, the self-storage operator shall notify and direct the moving trucks to exit at the exit-only gated access on Edinger Avenue. All construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5'00 p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise determined by the Building Official. The easterly driveway on Edinger Avenue shall be used for emergency fire' access and right turn self-storage vehicle egress only (through a secured gate with access via a keypad code), in the future, if the driveway is to be open for full public access, the driveway shall be improved to the City of Tustin standards for commercial driveways. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (1) 6.1 A separate 24-inch by 36-inch street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, will be required for all construction within the public right-of-way. Construction and/or replacement of any missing or damaged public improvements will be required adjacent to this development. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: · Curb and gutter; · Sidewalk, including curb ramps for the physically disabled; · Drive aprons; · Street lighting; · Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connection to existing storm drain system; · Domestic water facilities; Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 13 Sanitary sewer facilities; · Landscape/irrigation; · Underground utility connection; and, · Traffic signal plan. (1) 6.2 In addition, a 24-inch by 36-inch reproducible construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation, will be required. Prior to issuance of a rough grading permit, preparation sedimentation and erosion control plan for all work related development will be required. of a to this 6.3 As proposed, the applicant shall provide a traffic signal at the Edinger Avenue and Parkway Loop intersection. In addition, the project driveway shall align with the Parkway Loop access on the south side of Edinger Avenue. The estimated cost of this signal including design, construction, etc., is approximately $200,000.00, and the applicant shall pay 100 percent of the cost of this signal. Submittal of a Bond, satisfactory to the City Attorney, in the amount of $200,000.00 prior to issuance of any building permit is required. (*'k~) 6.4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the design of traffic signal equipment shall be submitted for review and approval along with a maintenance easement provided to the City at the Parkway Loop entrance at the project site. 6.5 Left-turn access for the site to and from Edinger Avenue shall be restricted to the locations shown on the approved "Smart Street" plan (Capital Improvement Project No. 7147). With the exception of full access at Parkway Loop Drive with installation of a traffic signal, ali other access at the project site on Edinger shall be restricted to right-in and right-out only, due to the raised landscaped median on Edinger Avenue. 6.6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall reserve a twenty (20) foot future right-of-way area adjacent to Edinger Avenue and an eighteen (18) foot future right-of-way along Red Hill Avenue for future acquisition by the City. The area of reservation shall be landscaped and maintained with groundcover until the City acquires the area. Legal descriptions and sketches as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer or California Licensed Land Surveyor shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. 6.7' Since the project site is adjacent to Edinger Avenue and Red Hill Avenue, which will undergo future roadway improvements, the applicant shall provide to the City of Tustin, at no cost and prior to issuance of a building permit, a Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) for all on-site construction adjustments and transitions associated with the Edinger Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 14 Avenue widening project (CIP No. 7147) and the City's future Red Hill Avenue Grade Separation project (ClP No. 7175). The limits of the TCE for Edinger Avenue shall be as described in the TCE document prepared by RBF Consulting dated October 24, 2001, and revised November 7, 2OO2. (***) 6.8 (1) 6.9 (***) 6.' o (1) 6.11 The City's Red Hill Avenue over-crossing Project will ultimately eliminate at-grade through traffic on Red Hill Avenue across the railroad tracks. The applicant shall be required to design and construct the future median to accommodate the ultimate design. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, the applicant shall post a bond to ensure reconstruction of the median. The bond shall be accompanied by an engineer's estimate for the cost of the reconstruction. All drive aprons shall be designed in accordance with the current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The maximum cross slope of the sidewalk shall be two (2) percent and the maximum ramp slope of the drive apron shall be ten (10) percent. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, a complete hydrology study and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, preparation of plans for and construction of the following shall be required: A, B, .All sanitary sewer facilities shall be submitted as required by the City Engineer and local sewering agency. A domestic water system shall be designed and installed to the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District or City of Tustin Water Services Division. Plans shall also be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Authority for fire protection purposes. The adequacy and reliability of water system design and the distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated. The water distribution system and appurtenances shall also conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department. Any required reclaimed water system shall meet the standards as required by the City of Tustin Water Services Department. Release/approval from East Orange County Water District shall be obtained prior to receiving water service. (1) 6.12 Prior to issuance of precise grading permit, preparation and submittal of a final grading plan showing all pertinent elevations as they pertain to the public right-of-way along with delineating the following information is required: Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 15 (1) 6.13 (1) 6.t4 (2) (1) 6.15 (1) 6.16 (1) 6.17 (1) 6.18 a) b) c) Final street elevations at key locations. Final pad/finished floor elevations and key elevations for all site grading. All pad elevations to be a minimum of 1.0 foot above base flood elevation as defined by FEMA. All flood hazards of record. Existing sewer, domestic water, reclaimed water, and storm drain service laterals shall be utilized whenever possible. Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities shall be repaired before acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development on any parcel within the subdivision. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. Both horizontal and vertical intersection sight lines shall be submitted per City of Tustin Standard No. 510 for all affected streets. The site lines need to be shown on the grading plan, site plan, and landscape plan. Ail landscaping within the limited use area will need to comply with City of Tustin Standard No. 510. In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final development plans including, but not limited to: parcel maps, records of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans are also required to be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file format is AutoCad Release 14 or 2000 having the extension DWG. Likewise, layering and linetype conventions are AutoCad-based (latest version available upon request from the Engineering Division). The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. The subdivision bonds will not be release until the "as built" CADD files have been submitted. The Project Applicant/Contractor shall submit and obtain approval from the Public Works Department of a Project Recycling Plan prior to the issuance of any grading, encroachment, or building permit. The Project Recycling Plan shall demonstrate recovery and recycling of at least fifty 50 percent of the total waste generated by the project and shall consist of the following components: Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 16 (1) 6.t9 · In a narrative form, describe efforts which will be utilized to minimize the generation of waste during project construction; · Provide an estimate of the total amount of waste to be generated for the entire duration of project construction; · Provide an estimate of the total amount of reCyclable materials generated by project construction, identified by recyclable material type; · Identify waste hauler(s) to be utilized during project construction. Please note that the City has an exclusive waste collection franchise with Federal Disposal Service of Santa Aha. No other haulers are to be utilized pursuant to City Code Section 4322; · Identify recyclable material processing facilities which will be utilized to process materials generated by project construction; · Demonstrate that no waste generated by the project will be sent directly to any landfill; · Prior to the final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, submit a final report to the Public Works Department detailing actual quantities of the items listed above as well as a narrative summary of the recycling efforts implemented during the project; · Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant is required to submit recycling plans to the Public Works Department for each project tenant which demonstrates recycling or diversion from landfills of at least fifty (50) percent of the total waste anticipated to be generated by each tenant; and, · Prior to issuance of any grading, encroachment, or building permit, applicant is required to submit waste trash enclosure plans to the Public Works Department which demonstrate the provision of the adequate physical space to accommodate all planned tenant recycling programs. This development 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. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (5) 7.1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit a fire hydrant location plan to the Fire Chief for review and approval. /5) 7.2 Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Use and Occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the hydrant location on the street as approved by the Fire Chief and must be maintained in good condition by the property owner. Please contact the Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 17 OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website for a copy of the "Guideline for Installation of Blue Dot Hydrant Markers." (5) 7.3 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The "Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection" form shall be signed by the applicable water district and submitted to the Fire Chief for approval, if Sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available, an automatic fire extinguishing system may be required in each structure affected. (5) 7'.4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for any required automatic fire sprinkler system in any structure to the Fire Chief for review and approval. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 to request a copy of the "Orange County Fire Authority Notes for New NFPA 13 Commercial 'Sprinkler Systems." (5) 7',5 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, this system shall be operational in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. (5) 7.6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and City staff of plans for all public or private access roads, streets, and courts. The plans shall include plan and sectional views and indicate the grade and width of the access road measured flow-line to flow-line. When a dead-end street exceeds 150 feet or when otherwise required, a clearly marked fire apparatus access turnaround must be provided and approved by the Fire Chief. Applicable CC&Rs or other approved documents shall contain provisions which prohibit obstructions such as speed bumps/humps, control gates, or other modifications within said easement or access road unless prior approval of the Fire Chief is granted. Please call OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access." (5) 7'.7 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit plans and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for fire lanes on required fire access roads less than 36 feet in width. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbs and signage and include a detail of the proposed signage including the height, stroke, and colors of the lettering and its contrasting background. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access Roadways and Fire Lane Requirements." (5) 7.8 Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Use and Occupancy, the fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the approved fire lane plan. The CC&Rs or other approved documents shall contain a fire lane map, provisions which prohibit parking in the fire lanes, and a method of enforcement. (5) 7.9 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall obtain the Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 18 approval from the Fire Chief for the construction of any gate across required fire department access roads. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for · Design and Installation of Emergency Access Gates and Barriers." (5) 7.10 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for combustible construction, the builder shall submit a letter on company letterhead stating that water for fire-fighting purposes and all-weather fire protection access roads shall be in place and operational before any combustible material is placed on-site. Building permits will not be issued without OCFA approval obtained as a result of an on-site inspection. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744- 0499 to obtain a copy of the standard combustible construction letter. (5) Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief a list of all hazardous, flammable and combustible liquids, solids, or gases to be stored, used, or handled on-site. These materials shall be classified according to the Uniform Fire Code and a document submitted to the Fire Chief with a summary sheet listing the totals for storage and use for each hazard class. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guideline for Completing Chemical Classification Packets." (5) 7.12 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Chief, if required, per the "Orange County Fire Authority Plan Submittal Criteria Form." Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 for a copy of the Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans prior to submittal. FEES Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a) Building Division plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. b) Orange County Fire Authority plan check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. c) Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 Sewer Connection Fees to the Tustin Public Works Department at the time a building permit is issued. The current fee is $1,600/1,000 square feet for shopping center with restaurants and $110/1,000 square feet for a warehouse. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3872 May 12, 2003 Page 19 d) East Orange County Water District fee, as established by the district for single family residential. Proof of payment shall be provided to Tustin Public Works Department (Water Division) prior to domestic · water connection. d) Payment of the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the Public Works Department at the time a building permit is issued. The current fee is $3.30 per square foot of building. e) Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP) Benefit Area "B" fees in the amount of $3.31 per square feet of new or added gross square floor area of construction or improvements to the Community Development Department. f) School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the applicant. The current fee for commercial development is $0.33 per square foot. g) New development fees in the amount of $0.10 per square foot of gross floor area paid to the Community Development Department. h) Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of forty-three dollars ($43.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty- eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.