Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4323RESOLUTION NO. 4323 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN 2016-001, DESIGN REVIEW 2016-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2016-23, MINOR MODIFICATION 2016-01 AND MINOR MODIFICATION 2016-02 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATE 870,000 SQUARE FOOT PHASED COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT WITHIN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREA 9-12 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by Flight Venture LLC for the project, which includes a phased commercial mixed-use project with a retail food hall and conference center consisting of a total of 870,000 square feet to be developed in two (2) phases on an approximate thirty- eight (38) acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin (the City) within a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The development contained within each phase is as follows: 1. Phase 1 — nine (9) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 390,440 square feet 2. Phase 2 — eight (8) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage; 479,560 square feet B. That the development application includes the following requests: General Plan Conformity to determine that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed disposition of an approximate thirty- eight (38) acre site within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for the development of 870,000 square feet of a commercial mixed-use project is in conformance with the approved General Plan. 2. Development Agreement 2016-001 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site within the boundaries of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 3. Concept Plan 2016-001 to develop an 870,000 square -foot commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center and ensure necessary linkages are provided Resolution No..4323 Page 2 between the development project, the integrity of the specific plan and purpose and intent of the neighborhood is maintained, and applicable City requirements are identified and satisfied. 4. Subdivision 2016-02 / Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18003 to subdivide an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site into twenty- one (21) numbered lots for the development of a commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. 5. Design Review 2016-001 for the design and site layout of a thirty- eight (38) acre site into a commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. 6. Conditional Use Permit 2016-001 for the establishment of on-site alcohol consumption in conjunction with the operation of the Food Hall/Conference Center for Building D (Lot 4, 220 & 250 Flight Way). 7. Conditional Use Permit 2016-002 for the establishment of joint - use parking for Lots 1-10 of VTTM 18003 (address range 100- 750 Flight Way). 8. Conditional Use Permit 2016-15 for the establishment of live entertainment in conjunction with the operation of the Food Hall/ Conference Center for Building D (Lot 4, 220 & 250 Flight Way). 9. Conditional Use Permit 2016-23 for the allowance of mechanical equipment to exceed the maximum allowable building height for Building Type A (100 and 350 Flight Way). 10. Minor Modification 2016-001 for the allowance of a ten (10) percent parking reduction for Phase 1 of the project site. 11. Minor Modification 2016-002 for an increase in building height for Building A for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of project site. C. That the site is zoned as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP -1) within a portion of Planning Areas 9-12 of Neighborhood E; and designated as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan by the Tustin General Plan. 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. D. That the project site is currently owned by the City and the City wishes to dispose of an approximate thirty-eight (38) acre site within a portion of Resolution No. 4323 Page 3 Planning Areas 9-12 to accommodate the development a new commercial mixed-use project which includes a creative office campus with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. E. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 4.2.2.A requires the submission of a Concept Plan prior to or concurrent with .the submission of a new development proposal within a portion of Planning Areas 9-12. The project has been found to comply with the requirements of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as amended and Concept Plan review criteria. Specifically, the proposed project depicts: Continuity and adequacy of all circulation systems, such as roads, access points, pedestrian ways, and other infrastructure systems needed to serve the project; 2. Continuity and design quality of architecture proposed, as well as landscape and hardscape theme and treatments; 3. Satisfactory response to the urban design features specified in Chapter 2 and under Planning Areas 9-12 in Chapter 3; 4. Conformity with the Non -Residential Land Use/Trip Budget; and, 5. Compliance with other Specific Plan provisions, as amended. F. That the proposed Phase 1 development comprised of nine (9) separate buildings, one (1) parking garage totaling 390,440 square feet with 1,544 parking stalls. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan requires the provision of 1,722 parking spaces for Phase 1 development. G. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 4.2.6 allows for Minor Modifications to reduce the required amount of non-residential parking (up to a maximum ten (10) percent reduction). The adjusted reduction of parking spaces is a limited deviation from the parking standards in that: 1. The granting of the Minor Modification for parking would not change the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan intent for Planning Area 9-12; 2. The proposed project will not result in the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other, properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated in that a ten (10) percent decrease in required parking is permitted by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; 3. The intent of the parking regulations as stipulated in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is preserved; and Resolution No. 4323 Page 4 4. The parking provided will be sufficient to serve the use intended and potential future uses of the same site as demonstrated in the submitted Flight at Tustin Legacy Shared Parking Analysis dated August 3, 2016. H. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.13.1(B) allows parking facilities be used jointly for uses with different peak hours of operation with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. That the request of the ten (10) percent parking reduction and the establishment of parking facilities to be jointly use within Phase 1 of the Flight of Tustin Legacy will not, under the circumstances of this case, 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 in that: 1. That a Flight at Tustin Legacy Shared Parking Analysis dated August 3, 2016, was prepared by a licensed traffic engineer (LSA Associates, Inc.) in accordance with TCC Section 9264 and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 2. That the Parking Analysis has been reviewed and accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer for methodology and accuracy. 3. That per the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the Phase 1 development would require 1,722 off-street parking spaces; 1,544 parking . spaces are currently proposed; the Parking Analysis determined a peak usage of 1,526 parking spaces; therefore, the Parking Analysis demonstrates that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the proposed uses within Phase 1. 4. That the parking spaces designated for joint -use are located such that they will adequately serve the uses for which they are intended. 5. That the proposed use, as conditioned, will not have a negative effect on surrounding properties, or impact traffic on the ability of parking in that sufficient parking would be available on-site. 6. That a written agreement is required to be recorded on each of the affected parcels to ensure the continued availability of the number of parking spaces designated for joint -use and availability of reciprocal access easements. Resolution No. 4323 Page 5 J. That the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan limits building height for Planning Area 9-12 to seventy (70) feet. The proposed project includes buildings that are seventy-seven (77) feet, which is a ten (10) percent increase in allowable height by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Section 4.2.6 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan allows for a Minor Modification which includes up to a ten (10) percent increase in building height. K. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.11.15 states that all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from any abutting street, highway or adjacent use. The mechanical equipment on the proposed building roof will encroach above seventy-seven (77) feet to a maximum height of eighty (80'-6") feet. Section 9271 (d) of the TCC, allows for mechanical equipment to encroach above the maximum allowable height with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. L. That the request of the ten (10) percent increase in building height and the encroachment of mechanical equipment beyond the maximum building height will not, under the circumstances of this case, 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 in that: 1. The proposed project conforms to the Tustin General Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed creative office use campus is conforming to the land use designation; 2. The mechanical equipment will be screened from view and the screening will be architecturally integrated in the building design consistent with the requirement of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 3. Proposed project will not result in the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated in that a ten (10) percent increase in building height is permitted by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The increase in building height would have minimal impact to other properties in the vicinity. M. Pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal 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 making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: Resolution No. 4323 Page 6 i 11. Height, bulk, and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings. 6. Towers and roof structures. 7. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination. 8. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 13. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. N. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on September 27, 2016, by the Planning Commission. O. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station Justin An Environmental Checklist attached hereto as Exhibit A has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. 1 Resolution No. 4323 Page 7 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Concept Plan 2016-001, Design Review 2016-001, Conditional Use Permit 2016- 02 for Joint Use Parking, Conditional Use Permit 2016-23 for mechanical screening, Minor Modification 2016-01 for ten (10) percent parking reduction and Minor Modification 2016-02 for building height increase up to ten (10) percent for the development of an approximately 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use project within portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit B. 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION 4323 Environmental Checklist Shared Parking Study Access Analysis Noise Study COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. - A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact Person: Flight at Tustin Legacy City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Erica H. Demkowicz Phone: 714-573-3127 Project Location: That certain site comprised of approximately 38 acres within Neighborhood E/Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, generally bounded by Aston Street to the northwest, Barranca Parkway to the southwest, Armstrong Avenue to the northeast, and the future Legacy Park on the north, all in Tustin, Orange County, California. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project, Description: LPC West LLC is proposing "Flight at Tustin Legacy," (the "Project") an approximately 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use development. Phase I, which is projected to commence construction in Fall of 2016, will 1 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 2 include up to approximately 390,440 square feet of development, comprised of four office buildings, a small office campus, a retail/conference center and associated parking to be provided on a shared basis, all as depicted on the accompanying site plan. The retail uses may include a food hall, intended to serve local commercial developments. The balance of the Project is expected to be constructed in one future phase, which may be further broken out into two sub -phases. The buildings will range from one to five stories. The Project will be fully consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is within the Specific Plan Planning Area 9-12's authorization of 1,267,324 buildable square feet of commercial floor area. The Project will include biofiltration planter boxes and/or basins placed along the perimeters of buildings and in other appropriate areas throughout the project site in order to detain and treat stormwater. A Modular Wetland System will also be placed along streets to provide for additional biofiltration treatment. Project Approvals will include: vesting tentative tract map; development and, building permits (including, without limitation, grading, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits); conditional use permits for joint -use parking, on- site alcoholic beverage sales / ancillary live entertainment, and added height for screened mechanical equipment; a concept plan; minor modification for reduction in parking and increased building height pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; all required approvals by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of Orange Health Department; a Development Agreement; and a Disposition and Development Agreement. Surrounding Uses: Northeast: Vacant Land Northwest: Future Linear Park (aka Legacy Park) Southeast: Vacant Land Southwest: Light Industrial and Commercial Previous Environmental On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Documentation: Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 3 Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR that reduced overall nonresidential development within the Specific Plan Area, replaced the originally proposed golf course with a linear park system and combined Planning Areas 9-12 so that Neighborhood E would have a single unified trip budget and set of development standards. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Noise ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Public Services ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Transportation & Circulation ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Agricultural Resources 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 4 ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 5 A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the proj ect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proj ect: 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? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 6 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non., attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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 plan's, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p p N p a e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ 0 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? ❑ ❑ ❑D V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑D b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑x c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 7 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: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ (] ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 8 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 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 manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 9 h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑D ❑ ❑ ❑D ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ D —7 L 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 10 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑x 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? ❑ ❑ ❑x XII. POPULATION. AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑x b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ l7 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: ❑ ❑ a) Would the project result insubstantial 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? ❑ ❑ ❑x Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑x Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑x Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑x Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ z 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? ❑ ❑ ❑x 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? ❑ 0 z Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 11 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? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a), Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 1 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ p Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 12 No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ 0 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 br wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ 0 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ 0 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 13 SECTION E EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Flight at Tustin Legacy BACKGROUND On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR and, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a Second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendums and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Supplement, and Addendums analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed; and the FEIS/EIR analyzed, a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, 15168 and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (1-5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (1-405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the northwest, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the northeast, Harvard Avenue on the southeast, and Barranca Parkway on the southwest. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 14 Rail Station is located immediately to the northeast providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. LPC West LLC is proposing "Flight at Tustin Legacy," (the "Project" or "Proposed Project") an approximately 870,000 square foot phased commercial mixed-use development. Phase I, which is projected to commence construction in Fall of 2016, will include up to approximately 390,440 square feet of development, comprised of four office buildings, a small office campus, a retail / conference center and associated parking to be provided on a shared basis, all as depicted on the accompanying site plan. The retail uses may include a food hall, intended to serve local commercial developments. The balance of the Project is expected to be constructed in one future phase, which may be further broken out into two sub -phases. The buildings will range from three to five stories. The Project will be fully consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is within the Specific Plan Planning Area 9-12's authorization of 1,267,324 buildable square feet of commercial floor area. The Project will include biofiltration planter boxes and/or basins placed along the perimeters of buildings and in other appropriate areas throughout the project site in order to detain and treat stormwater. A Modular Wetland System will also be placed along streets to provide for additional biofiltration treatment. Project approvals will include: vesting tentative tract map; development and building permits (including, without limitation, grading, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits); conditional use permits for joint -use parking, on-site alcoholic beverage sales / ancillary live entertainment, and added height for screened mechanical equipment; a concept plan; design review; minor modification for reduction in parking and increased building height; all required approvals by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of Orange Health Department; a Development Agreement; and a Disposition and Development Agreement. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that the Project is within the scope of the previously approved FEIS/EIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. I. AESTHETICS: —Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day.or nighttime views in the area? 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 15 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to permit uses that were previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Therefore, the Project would not change the future development condition that was analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and there would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions (including allowed minor modifications of 10% pursuant to the terms of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards compared to that analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, and the Project will comply with all requirements of the MCAS Specific Plan governing project design. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project. The minor modification and conditional use permit to allow additional building height and mechanical equipment represent de minimis changes that would not be visible from off-site public locations and, additionally, mechanical screening would be screened to further ensure there are no adverse visual impacts. There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and is implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. No new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual quality. The implementation of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses and development. This visual change, as part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development was not a significant impact in the FEIS/EIR. There are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area; therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Project Site is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic blimp hangars from the FEIS/EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project would not affect these hangars. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to` the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 16 and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-58 through 3-67, 4-81 through 4-92), Addendum 1 (Page 5-3 through 5-7), and Addendum 2 (Page 24 through 26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert /Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There were no agricultural uses on the Site in the recent past. There are currently no agricultural uses on the Site. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to agriculture and forest resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 17 regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January 16, 2001 concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83 through 3-87, 4-109 through 114), Addendum 1 . (Page 5-8 through 5-9), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management ,or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 18 The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There would be no change to the allowed development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, other development standards or vehicle trips that would lead to increased air emissions from vehicle trips. An access analysis prepared for the project confirms that the Proposed Project would generate fewer trips than the maximum allowed within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan and that were described and analyzed in Addendum 1. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to air quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality. The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant long-term and/or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 19 and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-143 through 3-153, 4-207 through 4-230, 7-41 through 7-42), Addendum 1 (Page 5-10 through 5-28), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 32) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to biological resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as, proposed in the Specific Plan and previously Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 20 analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to biological resources that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on biological resources. Based on current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that `require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27), Addendum 1 (Page 5-28 through 5-39), and Addendum 2 (Page 33 through 35) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 21 - No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were considered in the FEIS/EIR. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other construction activities. Consequently, future development is required to perform construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural and paleontological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26), Addendum 1 (Page 5-40 through 5-45), and Addendum 2 (Page 36 through 37) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 22 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: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and soils. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to geology and soils that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR as prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS/EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non -seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 23 subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS/EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental ER or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29), Addendum 1 (Page 5-46 through 5-49), and Addendum 2 (Page 38 through 40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: —Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous . or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?_ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 24 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. The FEIS/EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then -current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to (or exceedances of) the maximum 100 -foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 25 consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-106 through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31), Addendum 1 (Page 5-49 through 5-55), and Addendum 2 (Page 44 through 47) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 26 the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post -construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to hydrology and water quality. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the WAS Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 27 Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to hydrology/water quality that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hydrology/water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to hydrology/water quality. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for future development projects on the Project sites in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from development activities to a level of insignificance. The Project has prepared such a WQMP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR. No increase in development intensity is proposed as part of the Project. Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, including FAR and landscaping and would require preparation of a WQMP. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of impervious surface area from the amount that was previously analyzed in the Specific Plan. The Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The drainage pattern and water management systems in the Project Site vicinity would remain consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-98 through Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 28 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30), Addendum 1 (Page 5-56 through 5-91), and Addendum 2 (Page 48 through 51) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to land use and planning. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. Implementation of the Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use, conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 29 measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-3 through 3-17, 4-3 through 4-13, 7-16 through 7-18), Addendum 1 (Page 5-92 through 5-94), and Addendum 2 (Page 52 through 54) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There are no known mineral resources located at the site. The Project would not cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to mineral resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to mineral resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to mineral resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 30 measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91), Addendum 1 (Page 5-95), and Addendum 2 (Page 55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The ambient noise environment on the site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, existing uses, and aircraft noise from flight operations at John Wayne Airport. However, none of these exterior noise sources would impact the project beyond levels analyzed and described by the FEIR/EIS, and the project would be able to achieve the interior noise standards set forth in Section 5.507.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise. There would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation building height restrictions Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 31 (including minor height modifications of less than 10% allowed by the MCAs Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise. The Project would not modify the noise -related land use distribution within the Tustin Legacy site. All proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan. Consequently, long-term traffic -related noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project have previously been identified and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Short-term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified FEIS/EIR; implementation of any future project would be required to comply with applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction -related noise impacts. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-154 through 3-162 and 4-231 through 4-243), Addendum 1 (Page 5-96 through 5-101), and Addendum 2 (Page 57 through 60) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 1 1 1 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 32 XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to housing and any associated population. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal, and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-18 through 3-34, 4-14 through 4-29, and 7-18 through 7-19), Addendum 1 (Page 5-101 through 5-111), and Addendum 2 (Page 61 through 62) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 33 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: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to public services. There would be no change to the permitted levels of development intensity, which would lead to an increased demand for public services. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to public services and facilities that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Fire Protection Fire protection for the Tustin Legacy Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project will be subject to OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS/EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional firefighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the Project and other development within Tustin Legacy. No new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified. Police Protection Police protection for the project site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was previously anticipated in the FEIS/EIR. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 34 Schools The Project will not directly result in any residential development. Therefore, the Project does not generate K-12 students and there is no impact to K-12 schools. Parks Parks for the project site were discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Other Public Facilities The FEIS/EIR concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the Specific Plan proceeded. The FEIS/EIR does identify that the City will require certain conditions for individual future development projects (identified as Implementation Measures on pages 4-67 through 4-70) to be complied with as appropriate. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 through 3-57, 4-56 through 4-80 and 7-21 through 7-22), Addendum 1 (Page 5-112 through 5-122), and Addendum 2 (Page 63 through 65) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 35 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Project will be adjacent to the Linear Park and will facilitate access to the Park by tenants of the mixed-use commercial development, consistent with the levels anticipated by the previously certified FEIR / EIS. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to recreation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to recreation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 through 3-57, 4-56 through 4-80, 7-21 through 7-22), Addendum 1 (Page 5-122 through 5-127), and Addendum 2 (Page 66 through 67) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin City Code Section 9331 d (1)(b) Tustin General Plan J Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 36 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? g) Conflict with adopted policies; plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. More specifically, the MCAS Specific Plan allocates 1,267,324 square feet of non-residential development to Planning Areas 9-12 (Neighborhood E), and allocates a unified trip budget to Neighborhood E of 17,516 average daily trips (ADT). These allowable development square footages and neighborhood trip budgets were previously analyzed in the MCAS Specific Plan Final EIR/EIS and the First Addendum thereto. The 870,000 sf Project is located entirely within Neighborhood E and would utilize only approximately 68% of the developable square footage in Neighborhood E under the MCAS Specific Plan, and would utilize just more than half of the developable area in Neighborhood E under the proposed MCAS Specific Plan Amendment. As documented in an access analysis independently reviewed and approved by the City, the Project would generate 9,484 ADTs, which is less than half of the Neighborhood E Trip Budget under the MCAS Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project is less intense, generates fewer trips, and (as explained further below) would have less effect on the circulation network Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 37 than initially described and analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS and the First Addendum thereto. In short, there are no changes to the land use intensity or density and resulting trip generation. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIR/EIS, Addendums, and Supplement. Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-118 through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42), Addendum 1 (Page 5-127 through 5-146), and Addendum 2 (Page 68 through 73) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62, Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 38 v XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) 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? e) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? f) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? h) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? i) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to utilities/services systems that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to utilities and service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems. :l Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 39 The FEIS/EIR identifies that the City will require certain conditions for future individual development projects identified as "Mitigation" or "Implementation Measures" (pages 4-43 through 4-46) to be complied with as appropriate. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR. for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-35 through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21), Addendum 1 (Page 5-147 through 5-165), and Addendum 2 (Page 74 through 76) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62, Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 40 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project would allow site-specific development of a commercial mixed-use project permitted within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Specific Plan. The Project would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not change development intensity, building height restrictions (including minor height modifications of 10% and 10% reduction in parking allowed by the MCAs Tustin Specific Plan), setbacks, signage, and other development standards. The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementation of the Project. The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS/EIR; there are no new mitigation measures required; and there are no new significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any project -specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of the Project. All feasible applicable mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR are incorporated into the Project approvals. Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to'evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures are included as conditions of entitlement approvals. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans and Studies FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62, Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 41 CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Supplement, and Addendums, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to the Project, as applicable. 102061824.4.DOC 1 1 L I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200 S A IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 August 3, 2016 Krys Saldivar Public Works Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 FRESNO RIVERSIDE 949.553.0666 TEL BERKELEY PALM SPRINGS ROCKLIN 949.553.8076 FAX CARLSBAD PT. RICHMOND SAN LUIS OBISPO Subject: Flight at Tustin Legacy Shared Parking Analysis Dear Ms. Saldivar: LSA Associates Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this analysis of shared parking for Phase 1 of the Flight at Tustin Legacy (proposed project). The project will be constructed on currently vacant land at the northwest corner of Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway. Access is proposed from a new traffic signal at AstonBarranca Parkway, a right-in/right-out driveway at Park WayBarranca Parkway, a new traffic signal at Armstrong Avenue/Main Street, and a new traffic signal at Armstrong Avenue/Park Way. Internally, Park Way and Main Street will be private drive aisles. Phase 1 of the project includes the portion of the property west of Park Way. The project proposes to construct nine buildings and a parking garage under Phase 1. Of the nine buildings to be constructed, eight would exclusively provide office space, for a total of 371,938 square feet (sf). The ninth building would consist of an 11,970 sf food hall space for small restaurants and a conference facility with 3,553 sf of meeting space and 2,979 sf of office/storage space. The proposed project will construct 374,917 sf of office, 11,970 sf of restaurant, and 3,553 sf of meeting space, for a total of 390,440 sf of development. Figure 1 (attached) illustrates the location of the Phase 1 buildings and parking spaces. Parking for the project is located primarily within a 1,158 -space parking garage. A 219 -space parking lot will be located between buildings on the northern portion of the project site. The southern portion of the project site will have a 54 -space parking lot. On -street parking along various internal drive aisles is anticipated to total 113 spaces. Altogether, Phase 1 of the Flight at Tustin Legacy will construct 1,544 parking spaces. This parking analysis estimates the parking demand for Phase 1 and compares it to the proposed parking supply. Because not all uses generate their maximum parking demand at the same time, the analysis accounts for the potential for shared use of parking. Parking Required The parking requirements found in the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, Section 3.13.5, are used for the proposed project. The parking requirements established in the Specific Plan state that offices must provide one parking space for each 250 sf of space, restaurants must provide one parking space for each 100 sf of space, and places of assembly must provide one parking space for each 35 sf of space. Table A shows that straight application of the Specific Plan would require 1,722 parking spaces. Within the Phase 1 parking area, the project proposes to provide 1,544 parking spaces, which is a 10 percent reduction. 8/3/16 aP:\LPC150nParking Study\Shared Parking Lette17.docx» PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. 1 Table A: Specific Plan Parking Requirements Land Use Parking Rates per MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.13.5, Table 3-6 Project Parking Re uirements Required Size Unit Parking Spaces Office 1 space per 250 sf 374,917 sf 1,500 Restaurant 1 space per 100 sf 11,970 sf 120 Conference/Assembly 1 space per 35 sf 3,553 sf 102 TOTAL 1,722 MCAS = Marine Corps Air Station sf = square feet Travel Demand Management The proposed project is located approximately 2.5 miles from the Tustin Metrolink station. The project's proximity to the Tustin Metrolink station provides an opportunity for the operation of vanpools to reduce office parking demand. In the long term, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) StationLink buses similar to Route 472 or Measure M2 Project V internal circulators, which are similar to the recently approved iShuttle Route W, could serve the MCAS Tustin employment centers, including the proposed project. These future travel demand management (TDM) strategies could lead to further reductions in parking demand over and above employee vanpools. Furthermore, the proposed project is conditioned to prepare a Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan will consider the effects of TDM strategies, the location and cost of parking, variation in parking demand by time of day, and the interaction between uses (i.e., walking between offices and on-site restaurants). LSA applied a 10 percent reduction in parking demand for offices and restaurants to account for these factors. As a result, the estimated parking demand for office use would be reduced to 1,350 parking spaces and the estimated parking demand for restaurant use would be reduced to 108 parking spaces. The total site parking demand, therefore, is 1,560. The total site parking demand will also be reflective of the operational details/characteristics of the site. Combinations of different land uses, whose maximum parking demands occur at different times of the day, can result in a parking demand that is lower than would be calculated for freestanding facilities. That is, a mixed-use campus results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak parking requirements. Based on review of the project design and operational characteristics, the shared parking methodology is appropriate for this site. This is because parking is centrally located so as to provide a short walk between parking areas and the buildings served by the parking. Academic research within the planning profession has identified that a 0.25 -mile walk (1,320 feet) is considered to be an acceptable distance. Within Phase 1 of the Flight at Tustin Legacy, all buildings on the project site are within 750 feet of the parking structure, resulting in an appropriate walking distance. The site also contains a food hall that will naturally attract some of its business from the office tenants. Importantly, restaurant parking demand usually peaks in the evening hours, which is offset with office parking demand. 1 8/3/16 (IP:\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking LetteC.docx» 2 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Shared Parking Because of different hours of operation and different offsetting parking activities, not all uses at the site require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. LSA used methodologies found in Shared Parking, 2nd Edition (Urban Land Institute 2005) to identify the daily variations in parking demand for each of the site's land uses. The time -of -day factors found in Shared Parking are based on empirical studies and results from multiple parking accumulation counts. A detailed table outlining the parking reductions and shared parking analysis (Table B) is provided as an attachment to this report. The variation in parking needs reflects uses that are not fully utilized at the same time. LSA modified the time -of -day factors for restaurant use to account for 100 percent utilization during the 12:00 p.m. -1:00 p.m. lunch period. With this modification and accounting for the effect of TDM, Table B identifies a peak parking demand for 1,526 parking spaces. This total parking demand includes full utilization of the conference facility. This total parking demand could be accommodated by the 1,544 parking spaces proposed on the site. Findings Section 3.13 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan allows for joint use of parking areas if five requirements are met. This analysis addresses the first three of those requirements. 1. A parking study prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer or civil engineer experienced in the preparation of such study shall be submitted by the applicant demonstrating that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours ofparking demandfor the uses for which joint use is proposed. The methodology to be used in preparing the study shall be that promulgated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); This parking study was prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer and demonstrates that at the period of peak demand (2:00 p.m.), a maximum of 1,526 parking spaces would be required out of the 1,544 parking spaces proposed on the site. The parking study was prepared based on Urban Land Institute shared parking methodology. 2. The number ofparking spaces which may be credited against the requirements for the structures or uses involved shall not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be available during different hours of operation; This parking study examined parking demand and parking supply for all uses in the proposed project based on different peak hours of parking demand for each use and estimated maximum parking demand for 1,526 parking spaces out of a parking supply of 1,544. 3. Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they will adequately serve the uses for which they are intended; Academic research within the planning profession has sought to identify an average person's acceptable walking distance variables that may affect the acceptable distance. The state of the practice considers 0.25 mile (1,320 feet), or a 5 -minute walk, to be an acceptable distance (although longer distances are acceptable in certain circumstances). All buildings in the proposed project are within 750 feet of the parking structure. Therefore, the parking spaces in the structure are located so that they will adequately serve the uses for which they are intended. 8/3/16 «P:\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking LetterUocxn LSA ASSOCIATES. INC„ 4. A written and recorded agreement shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Community Development Director and executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of the number of parking spaces designated for joint use and availability of reciprocal access easements. The adequacy of the reciprocal parking agreement is not addressed by this study. 5. Planning Commission review and approval is required for joint -use parking. This study is being included in a request for review and approval. Conclusion LSA examined parking at the proposed Flight at Tustin Legacy. Parking requirements in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would require 1,722 parking spaces. LSA prepared a parking analysis to estimate total on-site parking demand accounting for TDM and the variable parking demand for each of the site's uses. A maximum parking demand for 1,526 parking spaces is anticipated for the site, including full use of the conference space. This parking demand could be accommodated within the 1,544 parking stalls provided on site. The methodology and conclusions of the parking study are consistent with the requirements of City Municipal Code Section 9264 and Section 3.13 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The analysis of shared parking appears to support a 10 percent reduction in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan parking requirement. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Anthony Petr s Principal Donson Liu, TE Transportation Engineer Attachments: Figure 1: Phase 1 Building and Parking Locations Table B: Weekday Time -of -Day Parking Requirements for Flight at Tustin Legacy, Phase 1 8/3/16 aP:\LPCISOI\Parking Study\Shared Parking Lettef/.docxo 1 1 1 1 1 � f § w c: t i4 ;; .. QW, , e AN In x a ��,,',P} D+ e Jf 5 R e x _v s�f p c] tf irA #1581 11aM E 111,111 11 , t 7 ?f im i7't 4 VA ��n�4ll. J�p �-e`i_����ff,._...,_'"Y� ci.!-: �" § .=Y"".., �T".. ���i ..:' � •I��� L S /' \ FIGURE 1 *\(E� NO SCALE 1:\LPC1501\G\Phase-1 Bldg&Parking Locations.cdr (7/14/2016) Flight at Tustin Legacy Phase 1 Building and Parking Locations LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AUGUST 2016 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA Table B: Weekday Time -of -Day Parking Requirements for Flight at Tustin Legacy, Phase 1 Time -of --Day Facto's referenced from Shared Parking, Edition, Urban Land Institute (2005), with modifications to account for higher lunchtime restaurant demand. 2 Parking Requirements are per the Marine Corps Air Station Tustin Specific Plan. . ' - P.\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking Letter7.docx «08/03/16» Tustin Circulation Shared Parking Requirements Time -of -Day Factors' 6:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 .m. 1:00 .m 2:00 .m 3:00 .m. 4:00 .nL 5:00 .m. 6:00 .m. 7:00 .m. 8:00 .m. 9:00 m. 10:00 .m. 11:00 .m. Office Visitor 0% 1% 20% 60% 100% 45% 15% 45% 100% 45% 15% 10% 5% 2% 1% 0/ 0% 0% Employee 3% 30% 75% 95% 100% 100% 90% 90% 100% 100% 90% 50% 25% 10% 7% 3% 1% 0% Restaurant Customer 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 40% 100% 100% 65% 40% 50% 75% 95% 100% 100% 100% 95% 75% Employee 0% 20% 50% 75% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 75% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% Convention Visitor 0% 0% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 50% 30% 1 30% 10% 0% 0% Center Employee 5% 1 30%1 33% 33% 100% 100% 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 70% 1 40% 25% 1 20% 20% 5% 0% Time -of -Day P rking Demand Total Demand Use Gross Net Office 1,500 1,350 38 378 960 1,249 1,350 1,298 1,144 1,172 1,350 1,298 1,144 637 319 127 89 38 13 0 Restaurant 120 108 0 3 8 12t28 51 106 106 74 49 58 85 103 108 108 108 103 82 Conference Center 102 102 5 28 35 39 102 102 102 102 102 92 73 41 26 21 19 5 0 TOTAL 1,722 1,560 43 409 1,003 1,300 1,451 1,352 1,380 1,526 1,449 1,294 795 463 261 218 165 1 121 82 Time -of --Day Facto's referenced from Shared Parking, Edition, Urban Land Institute (2005), with modifications to account for higher lunchtime restaurant demand. 2 Parking Requirements are per the Marine Corps Air Station Tustin Specific Plan. . ' - P.\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking Letter7.docx «08/03/16» 1 Ls ^ LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. � \ 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SVITE 200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 July 22, 2016 Krys Saldivar Public Works Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 FRESNO RIVERSIDE 949.553.0666TEL BERKELEY PALM SPRINGS ROCKLIN 949.553.8076 FAX CARLSBAD PT. RICHMOND SAN LUIS OBISPO Subject: Flight at Tustin Legacy Access Analysis Dear Ms. Saldivar: LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this access analysis for build out of the Flight at Tustin Legacy (project) located in Neighborhood E, currently vacant land at the northwest corner of Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway in the City of Tustin (City), County of Orange, California. The purpose of this analysis is to assess the feasibility and strategy of allowing vehicles to travel into and out of the project site at full build out. The project proposes construction of 19 buildings and 2 parking garages in two phases. As analyzed in the Shared Parking Analysis, Phase 1 consists of 390,440 square feet (sf). This analysis addresses traffic volume at build out. Phase 2 consists of 479,560 sf. The proposed project would construct 854,477 sf of office space, 11,970 sf of restaurant space, and 3,553 sf of meeting space, for a total of 870,000 sf of development. The Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Specific Plan allocates 1,267,324 sf of nonresidential development to Planning Areas 9-12 (Neighborhood E), and allocates a unified trip budget to Neighborhood E of 17,516 average daily- trips (ADT). The MCAS Specific Plan Amendment, which would reallocate land uses between all Planning Areas throughout the Tustin Legacy site, allocates 1,588,000 sf of developable area and 17,832 ADTs in Neighborhood E. These allowable development square footages and neighborhood trip budgets were previously analyzed in the MCAS Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and the First Addendum thereto. The current site plan for the project has four access points into the project site: a signalized full -access driveway on AstonBarranca Parkway, an unsignalized right-in/right-out driveway along Barranca Parkway, and two signalized full -access driveways along Armstrong Avenue. In an effort to document the circulation operation at each of the four access points, LSA developed internal volumes through the project site, analyzed level of service (LOS) for year 2035 plus project conditions at the access points and internal intersections, and performed a queuing analysis at the access points. Based on the analysis of internal volumes, LOS, and queuing data, access through the project is feasible with no significant effects with the proposed geometrics. 7/22/16 ((P;\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docxn PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I DESIGN LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation calculations for the proposed project were based on the daily and peak -hour trip rates taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9h Edition, 2012) and directed by City staff. The proposed project includes the construction of 854,477 sf of office use, 11,970 sf of food hall space for small restaurants, and a conference facility with 3,553 sf of meeting space. Project trip generation is presented in Table A. The proposed project will generate approximately 9,484 trips per day, including approximately 1,467 trips in the a.m. peak hour (1,249 inbound and 219 outbound) and approximately 1,387 trips in the p.m. peak hour (287 inbound and 1,102 outbound). Table A: Flight at Tustin Legacy Trip Generation Land Use (Land Use Code) Size Unit ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates' Office (710) 2 TSF 9.28 1.37 0.19 1.56 0.25 1.23 1.48 High -Turnover Restaurant TSF 127.15 5.95 4.86 10.81 5.91 3.94 9.85 Phase 1 Office A 147.436 TSF 1,368 202 28 230 37 181 218 Office B 74.636 TSF 693 102 14 116 19 92 110 Office C 110.366 TSF 1,024 152 21 172 28 136 163 Office D 2.979 TSF 27 4 0 4 1 4 5 Offices E—J 39.500 TSF 367 54 7 62 10 49 58 Food Hall D 11.970 TSF 11522 71 58 129 71 47 118 Conference Center 3.553 TSF 33 5 1 6 1 4. 5 Subtotal 390.440 TSF 5,034 590 129 719 167 513 677 Phase 2 Office A . 294.872 TSF 2,736 405 55 460 74 362 436 Office B 149.272 TSF 1,385 205 28 233 38 183 221 Offices E—G 35.416 TSF 329 49 7 55 9 44 52 Subtotal 479.560 TSF 4,450 659 90 748 121 589 709 Total 9,484 1,249 219 1,467 288 1,102 1,386 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9 Edition (2012) for base office equivalency identified by the City of Tustin. 2 Trip rates calculated from regression equation for 425,000 square feet of office use. ADT = average daily trips TSF = thousand square feet 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501Wccess Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» 2 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. METHODOLOGY The analysis evaluates typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Trips were distributed based on regional travel patterns and assigned based on the location of parking spaces. These volumes represent proposed full build -out conditions of the project. The internal traffic volume turning movements are shown on Figure 1 (all figures attached). External through volumes traveling east - west along Barranca Parkway and north -south along Armstrong Avenue were taken from the 2035 plus project scenario from the MCAS Specific Plan, provided in Attachment A. The volumes from the MCAS Specific Plan were utilized for the northbound left and right movements, the eastbound through and right movements, and the westbound left and through movements at Aston/Barranca Parkway. The volumes from the MCAS Specific Plan were utilized for the northbound left and right movements; the southbound left, through, and right movements; the eastbound through and right movements; and the westbound left, through, and right movements at Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway. The external volumes traveling north and south along Armstrong Avenue were developed from Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway turn movements upstream and downstream. To determine the peak -hour operations at signalized intersections within the study area, the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology was used. The ICU methodology compares the volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums these critical conflicting v/c ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of LOS, where LOS A represents free-flow activity and LOS F represents overcapacity operation. Parameters set by the City for ICU calculations, including lane capacity, right -turn treatment, and clearance intervals, are included in the analysis. According to the City Circulation Element, LOS at an intersection or roadway is considered to be unsatisfactory when the ICU exceeds 0.90 (LOS D). The relationship of ICU to LOS is demonstrated in the following table. Level of Service ICU A 0.00-0.60 B 0.61-0.70 C 0.71-0.80 D 0.81-0.90 E 0.91-1.00 F > 1.00 ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 unsignalized intersection methodology presents LOS in terms of total intersection delay for all -way stop -controlled intersections and approach delay of the major and minor streets for two-way stop -controlled intersections in seconds per vehicle. The resulting delay is expressed in terms of LOS. The relationship of delay to LOS for unsignalized intersections is demonstrated in the following table: 7/22/16 <<P:\LPC150l\Access Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdom) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Levels of Service Unsignalized Intersection Dela (seconds) A <10.0 B >10.0 and 515.0 C >15.0 and <25.0 D >25.0 and 535.0 E >35.0 and 550.0 F >50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2010). Turn -pocket storage lengths were analyzed to see if adequate storage can be provided for the southbound and eastbound left turns at Aston/Barranca Parkway, the southbound and eastbound left turns at Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway, the northbound and eastbound left turns at Armstrong Avenue/Eastern Access, and the northbound and eastbound left turns at Armstrong Avenue/Northern Access. The queuing analysis has been conducted based on the HCM 2010 to show additional details on how much left -turn storage is available and provided for the access points. Queueing analysis has also been conducted to show if vehicles queued from internal intersections will not back into Armstrong Avenue and Barranca Parkway. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS The peak -hour signal warrant is generally intended for use at locations where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor street (i.e., Aston) suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street (i.e., Barranca Parkway). Peak -hour signal warrants were conducted for the intersections of Aston/Barranca Parkway, Armstrong Avenue/Main Street, Armstrong Avenue/Parkway, and Parkway/Main Street. The signal warrant analyses results are summarized in Table B. The major and minor street volume requirements for major streets with speeds above 40 miles per hour are depicted in this table (per Figure 4C-4 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [CA MUTCD]). 1 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» 4 1 i I.SA ASSOCIATES, INC. Table B: Peak -Hour Signal Warrant Analysis Aston/Barranca Parkway Street Name Approach' Movement Plus Project AM I PM Minor (2 Lanes) Aston NBL 55 106 NBT 0 0 NBR 41 69 SBL 43 217 SBT 0 0 SBR 25 126 Total' 96 343 Major (3 Lanes) Barranca Parkway EBL 269 62 EBT 1,696 1,641 EBR 16 66 WBL 19 67 WBT 1,932 2,286 WBR 62 14 Total 4,136 Signal Warranted? E3,994 No Yes ArmstrourAvenue/Main Street Street Name Approach Movement Plus Project AM PM Minor (1 Lane) Main Street EBL 14 73 EBT 0 0 EBR 56 284 Total 70 357 Major (2 Lanes) Armstrong Avenue NBL 341 79 NBT 424 612 NBR 0 0 SBL 0 0 SBT 439 394 SBR 82 38 Total 1,286 1,123 Signal Warranted? No Yes Armstrong Avenue/Parkway Parkway/Main Street Street Name Approach Movement Plus Project AM PM Minor (1 Lane) Parkway EBL 29 147 EBT 0 0 EBR 9 46 Total 38 193 Major (2 Lanes) Armstrong Avenue NBL 85 20 NBT 353 665 NBR 0 0 SBL 0 0 SBT 512 394 SBR 166 38 Total 1,116 1,117 Signal Warranted? No Yes Street Name Approach Movement Plus Project AM PM Minor (1 Lanes) Parkway WBL 64 15 WBT 29 7 WBR 79 18 Total 172 40 Major (1 Lane) Main Street NBL 40 103 NBT 44 50 NBR 6 30 SBL 15 74 SBT 63 95 SBR 34 29 Total 202 381 Signal Warranted? No No Northbound minor approach volume used for the AM peak hour total. Southbound minor approach volume used for the PM peak hour total. EBL = Eastbound left SBL = Southbound left EBR = Eastbound right SBR = Southbound right EBT = Eastbound through SBT = Southbound through NBL = Northbound left WBL = Westbound left NBR = Northbound right WBR = Westbound right NBT = Northbound through WBT = Westbound through Based on the results of this peak -hour signal warrant analysis, a traffic signal is warranted for the projected p.m. peak hour at Aston/Barranca Parkway, Armstrong Avenue/Main Street, and Armstrong Avenue/Parkway. Traffic signals are proposed at these intersections. The internal intersection of Parkway/Main Street does not warrant a signal. 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docxn 5 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Although Armstrong Avenue/Parkway is anticipated to meet Signal Warrant 3 based on peak -hour volume, it is less likely to meet the 4 -hour and 8 -hour signal warrants. Armstrong Avenue/Parkway would operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour) as a two-way stop -controlled intersection. Given the close spacing with the other proposed traffic signals along Armstrong Avenue, the City could consider not installing a traffic signal at this location to preserve progression along Armstrong Avenue. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS To determine the 2035 plus project condition LOS, traffic generated by the proposed project was added to the modeled volumes from the MCAS Specific Plan along Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. The 2035 plus project volumes are shown on Figure 2. As shown in Table C, all access points and internal intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS of D or better in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The LOS worksheets are provided in Attachment B. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a significant intersection impact. Table C: 2035 Plus Project Intersection LOS Summary # Intersection ICU/Delay (seconds) 2035 Plus Project LOS ICU/Delay AM (seconds) PM 1 Aston/Barranca ParkwayT 0.49 A 0.54 A 2 Barranca Parkway/Parkway Parkway/Parkway 9.8 A 10.9 B 3 Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway 0.55 A 0.67 B 4 Armstrong Avenue/Main Street 0.36 A 0.35 A 5 1 Armstrong Avenue/Parkway' 0.22 A 0.28 A 6 Parkway/Private Drive (north) 8.6 A 8.8 A 7 Private Drive (west)/Main Street 9.3 1 A 9.0 A 8 Parkway/Main Street 8.6 A 8.9 A 9 Private Drive (east)/Main Street 8.6 A 9.0 A 10 Parkway/Private Drive (south) 8.2 A 8.1 A ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service 1 Signalized Intersection The on-site internal intersections are forecast to operate at a satisfactory level under a one -lane internal drive. Generally, roadway capacity of 800 to 1,200 vehicles per hour will warrant the need for a two-lane internal drive. However, the proposed capacities at the internal intersections do not meet these criteria. Therefore, the project site can operate under a one -lane internal drive with no significant effects. QUEUING ANALYSIS The queue lengths were compared to existing storage lengths and new storage lengths were recommended based on the queuing analysis, as shown in Table D. The queuing worksheets are 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx» 6 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. provided in Attachment C. Queue lengths for the internal intersections on the project site are forecast to be 50 feet (ft) or approximately two car lengths or shorter. Therefore, the queue lengths for the internal intersections are considered satisfactory with one lane of internal drive. Table D: Queue Lengths # Intersection 2035 Plus Project Queues Queue (ft) Existing Storage Movement AM PM Length (ft) Recommended Storage Length (ft) 1 Aston/Barranca Parkway SBL 68 349 - 350 EBL 274 74 - 275 WBR 7 0 350 350 2 ParkwayBarranca Parkway SBL 5 28 - 180 WBR 4 0 - 150 3 Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway SBL 173 233 - 250 EBL 273 259 600 600 4 Armstrong Avenue/Main Street NBL 236 53 - 250 EBL 16 43 - 180 EBR 25 46 - 180 5 Armstrong Avenue/Parkway NBL 55 22 - 100 EBL 24 79 - 150 9 Private Drive/Main Street WBTL 30 5 - 180 WBR 28 5 - 180 10 Parkway/Private Drive NBL 1 30 5 1 - 180 EBL = eastbound left NBL = northbound left EBR = eastbound right SBL = southbound left WBTL = westbound shared through -left lane ft = feet/foot WBL = westbound left WBR =westbound right The queue lengths for inbound and outbound left turns are illustrated on Figure 3. All of the anticipated queue lengths can be accommodated with some modifications. The intersection of AstonBarranca Parkway does not yet exist in full; there is no north leg and the eastbound left -turn lane does not exist. A utility pole is within approximately 130 ft west of AstonBarranca Parkway on the raised median. In order to accommodate -an eastbound left -turn pocket of 275 ft and a taper length of approximately 90 ft, the proposed alignment for the eastbound left -turn pocket on AstonBarranca will imitate the eastbound left -turn pocket on Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road -Von Karman AvenueBarranca Parkway. The eastbound left -turn pocket on these intersections is adjacent to the median that houses the utility poles and, therefore, leaves the utility poles untouched. The back-to-back queues between ParkwayBarranca Parkway and Parkway/Private Drive, Armstrong Avenue/Main Street and Private Drive/Main Street, and Armstrong Avenue/Main Street and Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway can be accommodated with the recommended storage lengths based on HCM 2010 analysis. The anticipated queue lengths are illustrated on Figure 3. The proposed storage lengths and geometries are shown on Figure 4. 7/22/16 «P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx» LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Based on the results of this analysis, the feasibility of accommodating the anticipated vehicular circulation at the four access points is acceptable under 2035 plus project conditions with recommendations provided in the analysis. The intersection of Aston/Barranca Parkway does not yet exist in full; there is no north leg and the eastbound left -turn lane does not exist. A utility pole is within approximately 130 ft west of Aston/Barranca Parkway on the raised median. In order to accommodate an eastbound left -turn pocket of 275 ft and a taper length of approximately 90 ft, the proposed alignment for the eastbound left -turn pocket on Aston/Barranca will imitate the eastbound left -turn pocket on Armstrong AvenueBarranca Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road -Von Karman AvenueBarranca Parkway. The proposed turn -lane geometrics for the project site are shown on Figure 3. All storage lengths and lane geometries can be implemented without significant impacts to intersection LOS or queuing. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this assessment, the proposed conditions of the Flight at Tustin Legacy project can accommodate vehicular circulation at the four access points for 2035 plus project conditions, if the proposed geometries and storage lengths were to be applied as recommended, and the eastbound left -turn storage length at Aston/Barranca Parkway can be accommodated. The on-site roadway system can accommodate vehicular circulation with a one -lane internal drive. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES INC. "Petr Principal Attachments: Figure 1: Project Traffic Figure 2: Forecast Traffic Volume Figure 3: Queue Lengths Figure 4: Proposed Lane Geometrics A: Traffic Forecasts B: LOS Worksheets C: Queuing Worksheets 7/22/16 «PMPCISOIWccess Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» 1 1 r °BIIiG; fi �&31 f �H 4 �w I I E I i EI.S b I Cr t31� yci t O ,5/b 52/37 .= Y`ft 4-- r581298 326-x' t F PARKING PL GARAGE � i% 'm __...[ ♦ , l �309171-► ;; 4 .5/1 _ — 26/6 3J1 --i ,,t I 00 I Q e7 b # P p 1 I I t [ 1 "T"'` SLUG,:.€ l I•l1 a PARKING Q': 1 n I �lit};rtts� r�� �tdAuEI�Et�' . 1111 i 1 1 - P P {� ! l.; Ll 4%22 —� .y�' 1 P 1 3%14 -� : 14121 11 1 I :�� I �s tq f I I r . .,.Y ..._i I.E ` �i �l �� w ON 1 L J. — t` i{ J I W 62/14 ' I t— 62/14 � i � 236154 � ; t-198/48 +— 62/313 �— B3i.121 __ -* 298/69 269/62 271/269 —► 228/52—� 228/52--o- 43/217--01 40 LSA NO SCALE LEGEND XX/YY - AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes O - Study Area Intersections - Trip Distribution Percentage 1:\LPC1501\G\Project Volumes.edr (7/19/2016) on FIGURE 1 Flight at Tustin Legacy Project Traffic Volume 1 ---19'32/2286 269/62 1696/1641--► 16/66 --i 1 t I =EM � r 1[i Q 1663/1879 —► ., _, :..w i ; �► 4-198/206 r--2015/1732 2287127=! ©.__.f-282/161 1163/1503-'0' 154/100 1 t r+ a,Uj Q N N O iOQ t0 Q t0 L S A LEGEND FIGURE 2 XX/YY - AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes O - Study Area Intersections Flight at Tustin Legacy NO SCALE Forecast Traffic Volume 1ALPC1501\G\Forecast Volumes.cdr (7/19/2016) 1 1 1 1 10, LSA NO SCALE I:\LPC1501\G\Queue Lengths.cdr(7/21/2016) �'rf'�•g\. �' SSS 4s titt;� r t it�Ll iiAtk ,� kkkkkk .�� 1 PARK1114 "- i GARAGE w ... TM�,30 _ - �45 30' I arae. a �mM � r 1 W. .......,1 x — - Z ��=..;� .. �� _. a _,� _ �.. a__� . _a.. �a75�.�..�,� . �►i 10, - .:.. _ FIGURE 3 Flight at Tustin Legacy Queue Lengths Il.a '.1.111 I 1311)r, A at 11Z jL ,e t}, j .'j ► a � I 1 L ss� -� , r f 'd� L LG.r1 l 7 f PARKING EDIV­ �I a� GARAGE �I W7_- I � �---'- � .�► .- alp � ; j N t4filii, �_ Fu.r g i t I3 '+ttEPC+.0 GARAGxE W f j !la i{ I.! `i II �1 ,... —� l!1A 1, �-; j ,) _f -yam r BIMG. I�I f�i _._ !I �s I t _.., O coI ... .. �. I . _. _275'.,,. f - -- — F --I w L S A LEGEND O - Study Area Intersections N f - Lane Geometry � �--� - Existing Storage Length - Proposed Storage Length NO SCALE IALM501\0\Proposed Geometrics.cdr (7/21/2016) - Signalized Intersection - All -Way Stop -Controlled Intersection -a- - Stop Sign FIGURE 4 Flight at Tustin Legacy Proposed Geometrics 1 1 1 1 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. MAY 2016 ACCESS ANALYSIS FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A TRAFFIC FORECASTS P:\LPC1501Wccess Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx «07/22/16» 29 . Aston St. at Barranca Pkwy. 2035 No -Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .69 30 . Armstrong Av. at Barranca Pkwy. 2035 No -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 45 .03* 213 .13 NBT 2 3400 54 .03 218 .13* NBR 0 0 61 .04 339 .20 SBL 1 1700 131 .08 22B .13* SBT 1 1700 144 .08* 123 .07 SBR 1 1700 96 .06 140 .08 EBL 1 1700 114 .07* 102 .06 EBT 3 5100 1168 .23 1493 .29* EBR d 1700 139 .08 84 .05 WBL 2 3400 287 .08 173 .05* WBT 4 6800 1789 .26* 1647 .24 WBR 1 1700 242 .14 199 .12 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 With -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 54 .03 110 .06* NBT 1 1700 93 .09* 71 .09 NBR 0 0 53 79 SBL 1 1700 93 .05* 205 .12 SBT 1 1700 9 .06 108 .23* SBR 0 0 98 287 EBL 1 1700 277 .16* 136 .08* EST 3 5100 1434 .28 1405 .28 EBR 1 1700 19 .01 74 .04 WBL 1 1700 21 .01 68 .04 WBT 4 6800 1558 .23* 1853 .27* WBR d 1700 309 .18 140 .08 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .69 30 . Armstrong Av. at Barranca Pkwy. 2035 No -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 45 .03* 213 .13 NBT 2 3400 54 .03 218 .13* NBR 0 0 61 .04 339 .20 SBL 1 1700 131 .08 22B .13* SBT 1 1700 144 .08* 123 .07 SBR 1 1700 96 .06 140 .08 EBL 1 1700 114 .07* 102 .06 EBT 3 5100 1168 .23 1493 .29* EBR d 1700 139 .08 84 .05 WBL 2 3400 287 .08 173 .05* WBT 4 6800 1789 .26* 1647 .24 WBR 1 1700 242 .14 199 .12 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2035 With -Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .69 2035 With -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 60 .04* 234 .14 NBT 2 3400 46 .03 259 .15* NBR 0 0 64 .04 348 .20 SBL 1 1700 136 .08 168 .10* SBT 1 1700 165 .10* 90 .05 SBR 1 1700 129 .08 112 .07 EBL 1 1700 99 .06* 127 .07 EBT 3 5100 1163 .23 1603 .31* EBR d 1700 154 .09 100 .06 WBL 2 3400 282 .08 161 .05* WBT 4 6800 2015 .30* 1732 .25 WBR 1 1700 194 .11 206 .12 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .68 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .67 :.: 1 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 55 .03 106 .06* NBT 1 1700 74 .07* 56 .07 NBR 0 0 41 69 SBL 1 1700 71 .04* 182 .11 SBT 1 1700 5 .06 78 .21* SBR 0 0 95 281 EBL 1 1700 299 .18* 140 .OB* EBT 3 5100 1468 .29 1589 .31 EBR 1 1700 16 .01 66 .04 WBL 1 1700 19 .01 67 .04 WBT 4 6800 1870' .28* 1973 .29* WBR d 1700 267 .16 114 .07 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .69 2035 With -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 60 .04* 234 .14 NBT 2 3400 46 .03 259 .15* NBR 0 0 64 .04 348 .20 SBL 1 1700 136 .08 168 .10* SBT 1 1700 165 .10* 90 .05 SBR 1 1700 129 .08 112 .07 EBL 1 1700 99 .06* 127 .07 EBT 3 5100 1163 .23 1603 .31* EBR d 1700 154 .09 100 .06 WBL 2 3400 282 .08 161 .05* WBT 4 6800 2015 .30* 1732 .25 WBR 1 1700 194 .11 206 .12 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .68 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .67 :.: 1 1 Fil 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. ACCESS ANALYSIS JULY 2016 FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN. COUNTY OF ORANGE. CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B LOS WORKSHEETS P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx a07/22/16» O1 2035 Plus Project AM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:45:28 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Aston/Barranca Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.492 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Aston Barranca Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound' Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include - Include Include Include . Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0� 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I . Volume'Module: Base Vol: 55 0 41 43 0 25 269 1696 16 19 1932 62 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. Initial Bse: 55 0 41 43 0 25 269 1696 16 19 1932 62 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 55 0 41 43 0 25 269 1696 16 19 1932 62 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 0 41 43 0 , 25 269 1696 16 19 1932 62 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 55 0 41 43 0 25 269 1696 16 .19 1932 62 ------------I---=-----------I,I---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 1700 0 1700 1700 5100 1700 1700 6800 1700 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module- Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.04 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715.(c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 i HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 ' 4-- 4Q \11 Lane Configurations W f f tT* Traffic volume (yehm) 0 1663 2109 236fr 0 41 YT . _ .®...E... - Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1663 2109 236 0 41 FreeFree v. Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0 92 0`92 X6.92 '1777-, 0 92 * Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1808 2292 257 0 45 Pede`st�ans_. a Lane Width (ft) Walking'Speed (ft/s) . 7, Percent Blockage 777 F77 Right turn flare (veh), Median type None None 77-7 Upstream signal(ft)710 780 _ pX, platoon unblocked''a 073 �._�.n, .�.,77 „.__..._.` vC, conflicting volume 2549 3023 702 uC1 stage 1 corif vol v .._.0 E.� .. vC2, stage 2 conf vol u ' 4 unblocked vol 1270 �r 638 0 r _._... _ _ �- tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 cSH _ 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 °1700 1700 791yt Volumexto—Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.06 m , 77 Queue Length 95th _ .i Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS _~' A _K; Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.8 ntersection;Summa►Y.,,��.� AverageDela�r- Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 IF (s) 2.2 3.5 �3.3 _ p0 queue free % , r _ 1 QO _u cM capacity (veh/h) 396 338 791 a ' � W .,1 :WB 2 WB 3r B ��ZB 1 irection Lane"# EB'j1',EB 2. EB 3 x 1z Fa � °` , Volume Total 603 603 603 655 655 655 584 45 UolumemLeft a _„ _�r 0. ,.�� �0 .._ 0 00��. Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 45 cSH _ 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 °1700 1700 791yt Volumexto—Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.06 m , 77 Queue Length 95th _ .i Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS _~' A _K; Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.8 ntersection;Summa►Y.,,��.� AverageDela�r- Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 01 2035 Plus Project AM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:45:28 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.552 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Barranca Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II--------------- II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228 1163 154 282 2015 198 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228.1163 154 282 2015 198 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228 1163 154 282 2015 198 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228 1163 154 282 2015 198 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 46 64 136 165 129 228 1163 154 282 2015 198. ------------ I-=-------------II---------------II--------------- II --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.12 0.88 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1908 1492 1700 5100 1700 3400 6800 1700 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.23 0.09 0.08 0.30 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 01 2035 Plus Project AM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:45:28 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 Armstrong Avenue/Main Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.363 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Main Street Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II--------------- II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 341 424 0 0 439 82 14 0 56 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 0 3400 1700 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA O1 2035 Plus Project AM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:45:28 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Armstrong Avenue/Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.218 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle:, 29 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 •Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ---------=--1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0 0 Reduct. Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0- 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 85 353 0 0 512 166 29 0 9 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation,Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1..00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 0 3400 1700 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715-(c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Parkway & Private Drive 7/19/2016 7 Intersection77777].. Intersection klay,,s/yo_ 8.6 'in-fe-r-s-ec-fio-n-, LOS A- Tmffic-Vol veh/h 0, 2 "V A 0 :-29 0, '1', 1 0'- 24 � 15 124 0 -- 135 -- -1-3-6 `, - 80 24 Future - ­Vo­l�,' ve-h-/h, 0 2 0 -- 0 29 O 19 --0" ---24 LT Vol 24 0 80 24 Peak Hour Factor -6.9, 2-7-0-.9-2 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 -'0.92 UZ' 0.92 0.92 ��0.92 0.92 0.92, 0.92' 0.92 0.92 Hea 1 1 -0.0-08 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 'Mkfrif�row'- -77 Yes 0 '.4 '0 32-- % O� ervice7ime' 1K 2.61 2.761 135 0 W 87 �t Number of Lanes 0 k6m lmalneLbS'A A 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 Vol Thru, % 9% 0% flk-fing-, ft Approach Le 33% 'NB 7,:7 7�7 ,EB 2-- WB' Conflicting Lanes ft -Right _7 -'_7 "--S—B-, --Stop_ Stop Conflicting Approach ght NB 7-1��' 7-7----1 EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 LT Vol 24 2 29 135 7,6 9. HbIM,LOS- A A A A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 7 14 U Ll I I LU LII IVM LJ L-1 I I OWL.3 I I Vol Left, % 0 0 660� 5�6 2 - Vol Thru, % 9% 0% 0% 33% o Right, 06 /7 360o '67% 40%_', 77, 10 Sign Control --Stop_ Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 163, 6 48 239 LT Vol 24 2 29 135 5 0 0:._ ' 80 RT Vol 124 4 19 24 Larie,'Flow Rate, 177 7 52 260 !;!qpTeq Grp 1 1 -0.0-08 1 1 De req of bfi(( 0.193 0.069,'0.305 Departure Headway 3.914 -Yes 4.596 4.75 'Yes 4.223 qonvergenqe,,VN Yes Yes Cap 921 781 757 839 ervice7ime' 1K 2.61 2.761 2,305 HL CM Lane V[& Ratio 0.192 0.009 0.069 0.31 HCM 1qY1 k6m lmalneLbS'A A A HbM-§-5&f41e-d- 0.7 b 1 Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 7 TrafficVoli veh/h 0 19 ',309 3. O' 5 58 ;'26- Q 1 0'' 1, -0 0 - 0' 1 10 Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 309 3 0 5 58 26 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 10 '0ea'kYou--r-Facfo-r---, 0--.9-2-- 0-.92 -,6.9-2—. 0.92 ---- 0-.92 0.9-2-0.92-,-0.-92---0.92---0.92 Sign Control -L"a-n, Stop Stop ---3-31-- Stop --,--89-,- -0-.92,,-.0.92 --- ' -0-.92 -"",- 0.92--- - -'� 0.92 -" -2 0.92 -,-- He"hicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 LT Vol 2 2 2 2' 2 2- 2 Mvmt Flow O 21 336' 3 0 5 63 28 0 1 0' 1 0 0 0 -11, Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Oppos�ig_Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left coldic'tin-g-A-pproachRight Conflicting Lanes Right HCMnt--I-,b-e4a HCM LOS WB SB __NB 1 A EB NB SB T A SB EB 'WB 7.7 A NB WB EB 7.4 A -777RRff'EBLn1WBLnf$—BG-1 77 Vol Left%0 50% 6% 6% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 65% 0% Vol 1-- -61. 50% -�-I% 29%, 100% Sign Control -L"a-n, Stop Stop ---3-31-- Stop --,--89-,- Stop e--- Traffic V_01 by 2 LT Vol 1 19 5 0 Through' Vol _ 0 309' 58 RT Vol 1 3 26 10 Lane' -Flow -R-ate- 2" 36-0... 97 -11 _ Ng!eoqf 0.403' 0109 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.719 4.036 4.061 4.305 Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 763 892 872 836 ,Servi me 2.72 2.063 2.139 2.305 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 0.404 0.111 0.013 HCM Control Delay---,.' -,9--.8, "J'.6 -----7--.4 HCM Lane LOS A A P, A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 8 Future Vol, veh/h HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Parkway & Main Street 26 0 64 7/19/2016 79 0 40 44 6 0 15 63 34 Peak Hour Factor 0:92 0 92 0 92' 0 92' 0 92 "0 92 u �2 �22 0 "92 0:92 ntersectian f�"6ro+i�'�s'�..:.W" p T 2 2 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 _ Intersection LOS�e�_A Future Vol, veh/h 0 52 31 26 0 64 29 79 0 40 44 6 0 15 63 34 Peak Hour Factor 0:92 0 92 0 92' 0 92' 0 92 "0 92 u �2 �22 0 "92 0:92 0 92 d 0 92 0 9 0.92 0:92 0 92 0 92 0:92 �2 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 ..�-_�aNB __�. __�EB w1 2w 2� 2 2µ 2 2 2 Conflicting Lanes Right 0-7— X32 86 0�� 43� 48 70 7- •" 16 ` ' .68 `- 3 J Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 8:6 8.7 9 3 7 7 kMf Lane LOSu A A A A� A HCM 95th -tile Q ` osin Ah 9._PP.roac :WB "' EB _.. .__ ,S& . _ NB- _P..pO _ Opposing Lanes __...._______ _ _._ _._. 1 1� 1 Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop _2 Co_nflictingAppr cao h`Left_,__.a_ SB Traffc 1/01 _ , WB:� �1 Conflicting Lanes Lefty ___� _ _. 1 ..�-_�aNB __�. __�EB w1 1 2 6 26 0 34 Conflicting Approach Righf NB Conflicting Lanes Right . _ _'_t 1 _ . _�SB.". 1 2 1 Departure Headway (Hd) HCM Control Dela Convergence YM Yes Yeses Yes,,.,-, _Yes. Yes �_�. .. HCM LOS A� A f A A ,.>_..,.._.._.._a..,....s.,..s.....�...�.�>__.a...._.._...A_..._.._n.. _..a..._..._..W.......«,...,.�,h,...,...,-......�..<.....�..,..a..amir�..k...,«...........o.._.._r._..............:..,......,..w.....�.+......a.,.i..«._..G......un..�..,..�_x.,..,�_....�_... ..._._._.._.��..«._..... Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 9 Uol Left, /o 44%0 48% 69% 0% 13%_ _ Vol Thru,% _ <' 49% 28% 3131% 0% 56% —� — Vol Ri ht % 7% 24% 0%.100% : 30% ---1 � F Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffc 1/01 LT Vol 40 52 64 0 15 29 0' _-63 �79� RT Vol 6 26 0 34 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 _ Degree of Util (X) _ 0132 0.— 6 0155 0107 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.859 4.74 5.515 4.465 4.63 Convergence YM Yes Yeses Yes,,.,-, _Yes. Yes �_�. .. Cap 736 755 650 801 773 _ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.133 0.1560.155 0.107 0.158 HCM ControlA61ay 8:6 8.7 9 3 7 7 kMf Lane LOSu A A A A� A HCM 95th -tile Q ` 07777 .5 0.6: 0 5 0 4" - 0 6 _ _. Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 9 Tlafl'io -WB -27 ,24 O '� O_ _32 172 220_ _0()_`0_ 7V 39 <} O Sign Control Stop fl Con icting App Stop Stop Stop pne LT Vol 7 32 0 39 o Departure Headway (Hd) 4.431 4.678 4.729 3.955.182 SqrviceTime 2.437 2.684 2.4931.713 3.186 TuabnQmulabon 7/1412016 012035 Plus Project AN Synohm9Report -WB NR Opposing Lanes 2 Sign Control Stop fl Con icting App Stop Stop Stop pne LT Vol 7 32 0 39 o TuabnQmulabon 7/1412016 012035 Plus Project AN Synohm9Report Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop pne LT Vol 7 32 0 39 o Departure Headway (Hd) 4.431 4.678 4.729 3.955.182 SqrviceTime 2.437 2.684 2.4931.713 3.186 TuabnQmulabon 7/1412016 012035 Plus Project AN Synohm9Report HCM 2010 AWSC 10: Parkway & Private Drive 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Intersection LOS` A x Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 0 3 0 4. 0 4 0 11 192 33 0 18 34 29 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 92 0 92° 0 92 ; U2 ,,,,,,0 .92 092 0 92 0 92 s 0 92 0 92 r 0 92 _ ,2 .. . ;. _ . m .... .w 0 92 0 92 0 92 -0 92 Heavy Vehicles, 2. 2_ % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0 4 0 3 0 4 '0 4 0 12 X209 36 0 "20�' ._ _ W�. a �.d� �_. _ . s_ .. �. Number of Lanes 0 0 1� 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop M per.r,-1K Approach � ��� � s� SEB �� � , WB � � � NB,= 13' Opposir A' roach WB B SBT- PP �9_ _.__ Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 _ 1 —77 CoinoLw .._ -a Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1� 2 Conflicting Appr h. Right NB ' SB WB EB � _ Conflicting Lanes Right � �1. 1�.��.�2n.1a. 4.565 HCM'Control Delay 77 9 8 5 Convergences Y/N _ _... . __ .� _ . - HCM LOS A A A A RT Vol 33 wuW, ur..FruJ;4r.9vuI-.irv,rV nuc, vu LA I. -Is" n "...�VU,e.,:.- I Lane Flow. Rate257 M. �/ol Left,._% .�. ..,._ 5°lu 57%100% Vol Thru, % 81% ^ 0% 0% 0%M ^ 42%° Geometry Grp 2777 5 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 0 01 0 0070 006 0 097 is Traffc VoI by Lane ,_ _ ,� 236. ? _ 4 s 4 81 LT Vol 11 4 4 0 18 3.954 4.632 RT Vol 33 3 0 4 29 Lane Flow. Rate257 M. 4 Geometry Grp 2777 5 7 7 2 Degree wof Util (X) 0 282 0 01 0 0070 006 0 097 is ,._ , , _ _ b Departure Headway (Hd) 3.954 4.632 5.773 4.565 3.984 Convergences Y/N Yes Cap _Yes 908 777 624789 891 Service Time 1 985 2 6333 473 2 265 2045 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.099 HCM Control Dela 8'5 7 7' 8 5 7 3 --'7,5:,, 3 HCM Lane L 0 S A A A A A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 Two -Way Stop -Controlled Alternative 1 1 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 C777 Movement _,.EBLBI. s $ IVB � NBl` �Trafflc Vol, vehlh.9.. 85 353 .�w,. 512 t 168 M., Future Vol, veh/h 29 9 85 353 512 166 _ ConflicfingPeds,#/hre gip. _r 0 0_ �` _ .._ u.._._...n Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free T Chamnelizedaa . m,u �_ None None Storage Length 0 300 100 - -100 _ Veh injMedian Storage, # .0 sn �.m� Grade, % 0� - 0 _ 0 - Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 22 2 Mvmt Flow X32 10 : 92 3$4 _ 557 180 Conflicting Flow All 934 278 557 0 - 0 55f'' Stage 2 377 - - - - - Critical Hd _r 6 84 6 94 � 14 7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Crttical Hd St 2 5_84 �w Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - PotCad T" w. Stage 1 537..- ` h Platoon blocked, % - _ - - Mov Cap Maneuver 177 7 - a6 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver .__. 240 - - - - - 17 _ Sta9e Stage 2 603_ - - - - - 4 X: . ,.... _....w _ ._......,i:..a..... .,,_._..�.._.._,....s_k._�„"...,a,...Sa,.twa.,...,, .a_-,, HCM LOS C7 777 _ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 - 0.131 0.014 HCM Lane LOS A - C B - - HCM 95th %tile Q veh 0 3 0 4 0 �_ _. _ . - Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 01 2035 Plus Project PM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:48:44 Page 2-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Aston/Barranca Parkway Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.541 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 50 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Aston Barranca Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 14 „ User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 1.4 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 14 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 106 0 69 217 0 126 62 1641 66 67 2286 14 ------------ I---------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane': 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 0 1700 1700 0 1700 1700 5100 1700 1700 6800 1700 ------------1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.32 0.04 0.04 0.34 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 } -+- A, \1, Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1879 2223 54 0 208 Sigri Control, Stop _ ._ .�_ __.. _._...._.__.. Grade 0% 0% 0% Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 pX, platoon unblocked _0:77 _ _�, �u_�� nm_�. 0:88 vC, conflicting volume 2475 3126 634 yC1, stage 1 conf vol a ,._. b�u4 . > a _ vC2, stage 2 conf vol uCu, unblocked vol _u_ b. ._....1401 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 71 _ pO queue 100 00 cM capacity (veh%h) 371 314 831 Volume Total 681 681 681 690 690 690 404 226 Volume Left =0 _. _� . v0 Volume Right 00 0 0 0 0 59 226 cSH 1700 1700_ 1700_ 1700 1200 1700 1700 831 '" _. _ _ _ v. _, Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.24 0.27 y.� Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Lane LOS _B vuw_ , w.' _. Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.9 771 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A AnalysisuPenod(min) w � Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 01 2035 Plus Project PM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:48:44 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Armstrong Avenue/Barranca Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.665 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 68 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Barranca Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 234 259 348 168 90 112 127 1603 100 161 1732 206 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 5100 1700 3400 6800 1700 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.31 0.06 0.05 0.25 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 O1 2035 Plus Project PM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:48:44 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length o) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Armstrong Avenue/Main Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.347 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Main Street Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 79 612 0 0 394 38 73 0 284 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 0 3400 1700 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 ------------ I---------------II----------.-----II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 01 2035 Plus Project PM Mon Jul 18, 2016 16:48:44 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Armstrong Avenue/Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.282 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: A Street Name: Armstrong Avenue Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -• T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0, 1 0 0 0 0 0 - ---=------- I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 665 0 0 394 38 147 0 46 0 0 0. Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 665 0 . 0 394 38 147 0 46 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 20 665 0 0 394 38 147 0 46 0 0' 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 20 665 0 0 3,94 38 147 0 46 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 •1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00, 1.00 MLF Adj: 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1-.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 20 665 0 0 394 38 147 0 46 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II-----=---------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00• .1.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 Final Sat.: 1700 3400 0 0 3400 1700 1700 0 1700 0 0 0 ------------1=--------------II---------------II--=------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.12 '0.02 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c). 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LSA ASSOC. IRVINE, CA 1 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Parkway & Private Drive 7/18/2016 Intersection Delay s/veh 8.8 Intersection LOS A u s.. e.._....... .... .a_ .,.a.. .+r .�... ....- .m ... a+. ..n ..aa:.-i..u..a... , n.�. ,... s..., ....�.a.. _�. �..P: w�.. m.....,�u...vm.+. W...�...: .........r.... _.......... .. s:_ s..:......w...uuv_._..,...au.,...�._ .._ d i..»..._.,_....«i Future Vol, veh/h 0 11 0 21 0 149 0 99 0 5 71 29 0 31 18 5 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 ' 0 92 0 92 " 0 92 �0 92 ,0 92 0 92 0 92 0.92 Oa92 0 92'. 0 92 '0.92- Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.n 2 R_ 2 2 22� 2 Mvmt Flow 0 12 0 23 0 1620 108 0 5 77 X32 0 34IT 20 m5 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Lanes _1 Conflicting Approach Left._. w .SB �_ �. ,. 4 _.A. of NB .�w,�. ..a.Eg Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflic# ng App ach Right max N,B F ,'u ,SB f .... _ ._ .._._..Y. WB _.x .._.,. ... _ EB` Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 -11'RE® . HCM LOS �A A A A Vol Thru, % 68% 0% 0% 33% f 9% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 1D5 32' 248 54 LT Vol 5 11 149 31 RT Vol 29 21 99 5 Lane flow Rate 114 35 t6""' .__ �1 Geometry Grp 1 1� 1 ,z Degreeof Ufil (X)r 0144 0 042 0 319 l) 078 ,., Departure Headway (Hd) 4.529 4.307 4.262 4.809 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes`�Yes ... _ Cap 792 831 844 745 Service Time_ s G 2 553 2 334 M 2 281 2;83 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.144 0.042 0.32 0.079T HCM Control DelaY 8 3 7.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A A Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 7 HCM 2010 AWSC 7: Private Drive & Main Street 7/18/2016 �tersection _ : a:.a „¢» Intersection Delay s/veh 9 Intersection L08' : 7 _M A Traffic Vol, veh/h µ . ., V_e �.. 4._ 71N -_0 _ 290'"?'—_...am 6 " :,:O 4 ,. 0 4 0 � 4�_._ 0 49 Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 71 1 0 1 290 6 0 4� 0 4 0 0 0 49 Peak Hour Factor ,',0.92 0.92 0 92; 0 92 ! 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92_ 0 92 0.92 0.92 s ',OM Heavy Vehicles, % v 2 _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow �' 0 4 77� 0 13157 0 4 0 w in Number of Lanes 0 0 1 _1y 0 0 �0 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 0 QPP_osing Approach ,"VW13 :SB Opposing Lanes _ 1 1 1 _ �._ 1 ConflictingApproach Lefty SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 w_. Conflictn A roach Ri ht N677-----,,-7771--1-" SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 17-7 1 1 � 1 ,. HCM Control Delay 79 r _ _ _ 9 5 _ . _ k . ..._.., 7 7 w.. . _m _ 7 5 xt HCM LOS ..w_ A _. A A A Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Parkway & Main Street 7/18/2016 hterseQtO. .,' �IN .j xo- a a`asr Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.9 Intersection LOS Future Vol, veh/h 0 37 26 6 0 15 7 18 0 103 50 30 0 74 95 29 Peak Hour Factor 0;.92 0 92 0 921 0 92 0 92 0 920 92 0 92 0 92 0 92' 0 920.92 0 92 0 92v! 0 92 '0>92 _ ... Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .2 2 103 32 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 -77 { ,..,. _v, �,1_. .., ,._..... w......_...,. ,_ a.e..�... e. ....,C,.�>.,...»�.,�.._,.,.-......_,�p..�....n...u........,._-, ._......... �..�-..._.p..�..,....,..>-.:�..._�._n_.P.u...__.�,._......._..w......_,.,_>._,_.... ..-._..._ ERA, OpposingApproa_ch WS� Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SBS 'NB WB > e,�. ti � r Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2� Conflicfmg Approach Righf NBy m'.. Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 mEB 1 H_CM_Control Delay 7 �'L w. _ _ _.S HCM LOS A A� �ILI A a Au. ��..., ro>......., ,,,.{=.w _.R,...e ..,- sC. a._.�..n,,:. ...�..G, r...e., ._tx.,� «.....a��.�..._. ,_.._a.«.. :. _......:.an...+.a,..,... ....... e, .a... ..rs.a:.. u.... ...a ... ..v .�._";"e ..._.sm...�.. ,u'I .aiic t,.-,R,,,y,x,k",Aavuct;.�uu�-uruuf,rruu�c.r�ut�ui ;5:w as .r. a.._. pft V"" 54%' Vol Thru, % 27% 38%� 32% 0%0 48% °l 150/c Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol b Lane _ 183 > 69 22 18 _ 198 > LT Vol 103 37 15 0 74 ThroughyVol 50 26� i 77- 770 957,77 RT Vol 30 6 0 18 29 Lane Flow_Rate 199 75 24 20 215 77 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 Degree_of Util E >> .n > 0 248 0106` 0 039 °0 026 0 266 y W Departure Headway (Hd) 4.492 5.092 5.904 4.853 4.449 Convergence Y/N Ye's Yes' Yes Yes yes _ Cap _ 800 703 606 736 807 Service Time644'2 593 2 473 3 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.249 0.107 0.04 0.027 0.266 HCM Lane LOSA A A A A HCM 95th hle 0 1 0 4 01 01 1 1 _ _ .. �..__..�_..-- _. �.... �,�_.m_. ���_�. �� �m w, �w �� Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 9 HCM 2010 AWSC 9: Private Drive & Main Street 7/18/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9 Intersection LOS` A Traffic Vol�yeh/h �a, 0__. 6,:,,'124 NB 0 0'.-' 7 .... _. x . 1 51 Conflictmggpproach Left `� _0 _ 0 v 34 ,.� O= 1.99- 0 '_ �0 . Future Vol, veh%h �m 0 6 ._ 124 0 0 7 _ ..AO 40 _0 51 0 _. 0 0 34 0 199 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0:92 0'92 0 92 0 92 r , 0 92 .0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0.92 0 92 - 0 92 0 92 y OM92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow_ 0 7 135' 0 0 8 43 55. 0 0 :` 0 37 —67' 216- 6 Number of Lanes ....�._..,......_.._._...�..xiW,,...... 0 ,»..R..�._ � �0 .... e,.u.m.,.......,.. 1 _ ,. M �0 . �_.�ma 0� W......-.......—.ox.,...,..._...�....a 0 �1 1 n„«...nn. � 0 ,.n ..,..,..._..... �0� _«... 1 ._.. ...wN�..,_w.m 0 0 a.. .�..., ..,w. �0� «.. ._. _0 1 � e......_._...._..,. 0 ..__..,.. Opposing Approach WB � SB NB o Opposing Lanes .. _. 2 __�a,EB �-�__._ 1 .... _. x . 1 � � �._ 1 Conflictmggpproach Left `� SB =N6 �� EB WB: Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflictin9dAP.Proach,Right NB -S 6 0 0 Conflicting Lanes Right 1 _._ 1 2 1 HCM Controll)el _ 8,9 81 _._ _. _ v_ -_w �7 7 , 7 HCM LOS A A A A M. �z L.. .�.�_..-...e... .... ....._. .. ..+v�._.._...... :m.. z. r;...,_ ...m_�.w�:��....�."a. .r.._ _ ...k._._...m.�...m....u...e�»..............v.._......,..,.�..wa,.�..�..,..d........_.._. ...._,............_.....��......nan._,«.«..... �,...........__... __..._. __. ;!t _5%' 15% 0%00 1% Vol Thru, /o 85% 0% 0% Vol Right, % z , 100% _ 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop n Traffic Vol by Lane�_34 130: 47"51',`199 w wd ._ LT Vol 0 6 7 0 199 Through Uol 0 124 40 0 0 RT Vol 34 0 0 _ 51 0 LaneFlow Rate w 37 _ r Geometry Grp m __. 2 5 7 7 2 Degreeof lJtil (Xj 0 043 0188 0 076 0 071 0286 x w Departure Headway (Hd) 4.197 4.79'-5 361 4.58-4.767 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes' YesYes Yes _ _._ Cap C66' --'--A-9- 668 781 753 Service Time R 2.239--:2-. 824{ 3 096 2 316 2799 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.188 0.076 0.07 0.287 HCM Control Delays 74 898 5� 7 79 y. HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th file Q 0`1 0 7; .0 .2 0 2 1 2 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 10 HCM 2010 AWSC 10: Parkway & Private Drive 7/18/2016 Intersection Delay, sIveh 8.1 vvb - Lb bb Nb Opposing Lanes 2 1 Vol Thru, % 80% - ------ -- NB :EB vof Right-,­%-�- _Left_, Conflicting Lanes Left _39% Sign Control Stop Stop B -Z Stop Conflicting Lanes Right1 Traff i �q_y_ane4� 55 2 Movement -7- --5- 146M'664�01-befi­-' 1 . 'kc EB T"E 7.6 WBRI.-AB U N B L,NBT..': NM SBU SBL=- SBR Traffic Vol veh/h 0 "22 4 14 -0 21 0, 3, 44 9 �O 171 6 Future Vol, veh/h 7 2 Dqgrqe of Util_(X) 0.071 0.049 .0 .036 '0.025 0.224 Headway 4.548 5.64 4 171 6 Peak Hour Fa6i&-�7 - --- ----- 0-.9-2-09-2--'6.§f Yes Yes k— ' ----- ', Yes Cap 845 792 638 0.9 �-' -. 2' olji ­-O.§� Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 22 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2 2 2 2 0.229 kc -M Control Delay 7, 2 - ------7.8- -8,.-6, 7,-,. -3 --- Mvmt Flow 0 --0 �2 --0"'- 0 15 A 2�3 --2.- 0 21 0 —2— 3 -2 48 '9 0 4 umbe'r-of'L-a-n-e's­-- W 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ypposing Approacn vvb - Lb bb Nb Opposing Lanes 2 1 Vol Thru, % 80% oonfliciiR-g Approach 0% NB :EB vof Right-,­%-�- _Left_, Conflicting Lanes Left _39% Sign Control Stop Stop B -Z Stop Conflicting Lanes Right1 Traff i �q_y_ane4� 55 2 1 146M'664�01-befi­-' 1 . 'kc --------- I- --- ---- -- - ' ' 1 -71',' , 8 7.6 ------------ ; a -L-0- S- A A A A '% I 1U"I 1 1, "W"I I I v v'WW I I v v W"I I&e QWW I I Vol Left Vol Thru, % 80% 0% 0% 0% 94% vof Right-,­%-�- 1, 5--%- _39% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traff i �q_y_ane4� 55 19 LT Vol 3 22 21 0 4 Through Vol 44 0 O� 0 -171 RT Vol 8 14 0 19 6 -"'- 39 �­- -23 21 9 7 2 Dqgrqe of Util_(X) 0.071 0.049 .0 .036 '0.025 0.224 Headway 4.548 5.64 4.433 4.104 -Departure '(Hd)_4.261 wK- Yes Yes Yes Yes ----- ', Yes Cap 845 792 638 811 862 Service Time _ -2-.-2"-6--5--,2-.5,-52- -3.3-44-2.3-3-8-- 219 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 0.049 0.036 0.026 0.229 kc -M Control Delay 7, 7--.-6 - - ------7.8- -8,.-6, 7,-,. -3 --- ---- 8-.-4, -7-7--" l4CVLane'[JdS- '- A AA A A — 0,2 -'-0— .2 -- ----- 0.1'� 01 ------ 0.9 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 Two -Way Stop -Controlled Alternative 1 1 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Armstrong Avenue 1, Parkway 7119/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 -7 - 77 ........... Future Vol, veh/h 147 46 .20 665 394 38 Conflicting7 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT None Channelized None 7e Storage Lenath 0 300 100 100 Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak r Fajfor F2 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 Mvmt Flow 160 50 22 723 428 41 Wpp`fWa c hJWWF;?JMVW, E8' NB- OW09A SB HCM Control Delay: S' 25,-,, 0.2 n HCM LOS D Capacity HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0.531 0.063 HCM Lane LOS A DA -7- =717 % CM�g�jk7o/ q Y Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - N P Page 1 Conflicting Flow All_833 214 428 0 0 E i6-42 �F Stage 2 405 Critical Hd_wy 6.8 6'94,- 77-7�-- 414 u Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 :CT-77`77-�,777- -77777-1 Follow-up Hdwy 3.523.32 .22 Pot q@p-..tMaqquNte -7C-777. -i __791, 28 Stage 1 625 t . ...... "A TL Platoon blocked, %- Mqy �p-� ManeL�v 7-730-1 —7 9-1 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 301 --Z'7--TIL---- af 1 77— 62_5 M Stage 2 629 7, Wpp`fWa c hJWWF;?JMVW, E8' NB- OW09A SB HCM Control Delay: S' 25,-,, 0.2 n HCM LOS D Capacity HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0.531 0.063 HCM Lane LOS A DA -7- =717 % CM�g�jk7o/ q Y Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - N P Page 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JULY 2016 ACCESS ANALYSIS FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN. COUNTY OF ORANGE. CALIFORNIA 1 ATTACHMENT C QUEUING WORKSHEETS 1 1 P:\LPC1501Wccess Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx «07/22/16» 1 Queues 1: Aston & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 292 1843 17 21 2100 67 60 45 47 27 u/c Rano ' 0 68 0 02 016 072 w 0 09 0 53 016 0 48 012 r X0.53 _ wr Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 a * 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0.. 0 „ ^ y w a u Control Delay 41.8 8.8 0.0 41.3 21.6 0.9 58.5 1.3 58.1 1.0 Queue Dela 0'0 00 00 x;00 00 00 '00 00 00, Total Delav _00s 41.8 8.8 0.0 41.3 21.6 0.9 58.5 1.3 58.1 1.0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #274 279 0 34 315 7 #84 0 #68 0 InternalLmkDist(ft) 1095 630 X889 „�� Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 315 145 _b 325 �473� 428 11.27 X130 � 29.19 783 114 :450 _ 98 ;3506 p -431 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0.. 0 0 0 0� .ro. Storage Cap Reductn 00 w_ . ,� ��� 0 0 ��- 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced ylc RaEio0 68 0 53 0 X02 a 016 0 72 0`:09 0 53 010 0 48 0 06 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 �--- k Lane Configurations T`'FT iiia ­ 603 „ f' 655 Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 1663 2109 236 Volum40:1- Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1663 2109 236 0 41 0 0 0 _� `Stop__. _ _ -�_ ------ 0 Grade 0% 0% 0% 1700 1700 1700 1700 791 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0 92 0,92 0.92 0 92 0.39 . _. �. � �m Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 a_ 1808 � 2292 257 0 45 0.0 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (ft) Percent Blockage Rig hu Median type 'e None None ,Median Stora veh ,� a ,� �� f Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 _ pX platoon unblocked 0.83 vC conflicting volume--"--' 2549 3023 702 uC1 sta e 1 conf vol vC2 stage 2 conf vol vCu uriblockedvol1270 T 638 0 tC single (s) 41 6.8 6.9 tF (s) 2.2 pQ queue free %' _ 1;00 3.5 100_ 3.3 �t94 = cM capacity (veh/h) 396 338 791 Volume Total 603 603 603 655 655 655 584 45 Volum40:1- Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 45 cSH 9700 1700 '1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 791 Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.39 0 34 0 06 _ v Queue Len th 95th ft - 0 � • �,,.., �, Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.8 r ._Pp _ A roach LOS I _.__ Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A 15__ Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 1 Queues 3: Armstrong Avenue & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 1264 167 307 2190 215 65 120 148 319 v/c Ratio V-4 "'OR, 019_ 0,68 30 73 025 0_89 0_45 0_64 0 51 0 Bpillback Cap Reductn 0 3. X27.7 Control Delay 64.4 20.9 5.1 57.0 29.1 3.9 135.5 29.8 61.2 Queue Delayu 0:0 0 00 00 0 0 k0 00D 0 0 0 0 0 70 _," Total Delay 64.4 20.9 5.1 57.0 29.1 3.9 135.5 29.8 61.2 27.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) ` X1;83 u. 223a 1'18 395 O a51 20 ' _110 66 '` Queue Length 95th (ft) 273 . X322 53 160 509 49 #140 50 173 104 _ Internal l R Dist,"(ft) 70t1 1065 461 4 591 Tum Bay Length (ft) " 600 �25265 ,. _ _u. 1000 175 "y 150 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bpillback Cap Reductn 0 3. .,,.. Storage Cap Reductn _ 0 .s..__..� .. _ _,n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 Reduced v/c"Ratio " 0,74 0 48 0ti19 " " 061 0:73 y Q'25 ' 0 89 019 0 62 "EA 35a s r Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 2 Queues 4: Armstrong Avenue & Main Street 7/19/2016 '\ t � 4 Cane Grouo_ . ,ry . LL.w .,..`EBL "..EBR �mw1VBL.=NBT, SBT.; :SBR .. f,` s a-7777�?: Lane Group Flow(vph) 15 61 371 461 477 89 v/c Rafio �` 0-;05 0.20 068 0:16 0,44 016 Control Delay 18.2 8.4 24.9 2.7 13.4 4.4 Queue!Dela 0.0 0 0 0 0 s Total Delay 18.2 8.4 24.9 2.7 13.4 4.4 Queue Length 96th (ft) 16 25 #236 35 87 22 InternalLmkDist(ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 100 _ _ Base Capacity (vph) A 821 767547 _3227 a 1962 917 �u meM_ �w Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 . Storage Cap Reductn .� 0 _ — 0 0 0 0 y �m 0 Reduced v/c Ratio w0 02 008 e 0 68° 014 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. J Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 3 1 1 1 Queues 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 I# Lane Group Flow NO) 32 -� r 10 92 384 5 557 180 Control Delay 16.8 10.2 23.6 2.1 6.2 2.4 Queue Dela 0 0 _:U 0000 0 0 00 0 Total Delav 16.8 10.2 23.6 2.1 6.2 2.4 Queue Length 95tpjft) 24 9 55 28 79 26 InternalLrnkDisf(ft) 366` 050 443 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 100 Base Capacitywph) 727 656 222 2425 1141 �u a. x3021 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpillbackCap Reductn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 _0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 0 04 0 02 041 013 023 71,0 Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM LSA Analyst - NP Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 9: Private Drive & Main Street 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 _ m A —; Intersection LOS _ _ _ .,._ _ _ _ _ Future Vol, veh/h 0 27 24 0 0 32 172 220 0 0 0 7 0 39 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0 92 0 92;-'-0.92., 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 �0 92 092 0 92 0.92' 0.92 0 92 _,� Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 . , 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 29 26' 0 0 35 187 239 0` 0 0` 8 0 42 0 0 Number of Lanes 0� 0 1� 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 - 0 7 7'% Approach ° 7757—�� ���1 �, QPPosing Approach._ WB : EB SB NB �m _ �_ Opposing Lanes 2 _ �. 1 1 1 Conflicti[f Aroach Left ' SB 9 Pp NB EB WB' ._ .. _.._ . Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2777�- 1 HCM Control Delay 78 7 5 — �__..� �_ HCM LOS ." A., A. A� A UoI Left, % _v" 0% 53% 16% 0% 100% Vol Thru, % 0% 47% 84% 0% 0% 100% _0%W 0% A100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic VoI by Lanae 7 u _ 51 204 020 39_.�� _u _.39m. Oil LT Vol 27 32 0 Throu h Vol 0 24 172 _0 0 _9, �. _ ... v_ __� ._ _.w RT Vol 7 0 0 220 0 Lane Flow Rate r _ _ �8 _ 55T 222 239 '42_" Gr 2 Geomet ry P 5 7 7 2 Deeof009 gre 0 072 0 291 0 262 0061ati_ _.,", ,_ _�rrm Departure Hd) 4.431 P YC Headwa 4.678 4.729 3.95 5.182 es Convergence YIN y6 Yes Yes `_" Yes Yes .,..�. Cap 811 769 754 902 695 SerwceTime2 437 2 --,2A93:- X1713 3 186 ` 3....._ __._.�. HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 0.072 0.294 0.265 0.06 HCM ControlDelay 75 8` 9 4 81,8 5 HCM Lane LOS_ A A A A _A Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 10 HCM 2010 AWSC 10: Parkway 11 Private Drive 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Intersecflon.a...n. Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 11 192 33 0 18 34 29 Peak Hour Facfor , ry ,0 92 0 92 0 92' 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 92 v 0 92 Ou92 0 92 ;0 92 , Q92 092 0 92 `v 0 92 0 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2, 2 .2 2 2 2 w 2 u_ 2. 2 _ _.2 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 _'o RT Vol 33 3 0 4 29 Geometry Grp _2 5 7 7 2 De ree of Utll X 0 282 0 01 ' 0 007 0 006 0 097 ti Departure Headway (Hd) 3 954 4 632 5 773 4 565 3.984 Convergence, Y/N r _ es Yes' Yes Yes Yes y_ a Cap 908 777 624 789 891_ Servlce;Time 1 985 2 633 3 473 '2.2 2045 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.099 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A 7-7 HCM 95th tele Q T'2 �0 0 0 0 3 a Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 Vol Left,°lo 5% 57%100% Vol Thru, % 81% 0% 0% 0% 42% V01 RI ht % 14% 43%' 0% -100% 36% 9 _ _ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop 7 71 Traffic Vol b Lane " 236 7m 4 4 81 LT Vol 11 4 4 0 �18 Through��Uol _ �.R_ _.�,.A am 192 mb 0 0 RT Vol 33 3 0 4 29 Geometry Grp _2 5 7 7 2 De ree of Utll X 0 282 0 01 ' 0 007 0 006 0 097 ti Departure Headway (Hd) 3 954 4 632 5 773 4 565 3.984 Convergence, Y/N r _ es Yes' Yes Yes Yes y_ a Cap 908 777 624 789 891_ Servlce;Time 1 985 2 633 3 473 '2.2 2045 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.099 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A 7-7 HCM 95th tele Q T'2 �0 0 0 0 3 a Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 Queues 1: Aston & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 } I �:ar%e:Group _' < < z i" `EBL« °LLEBT EBR �1jBL 1NBT T V1lBR,. .,NBL'. NBT SBL SBff,7 . m Lane Group Flow (vph) 67 1784 72 73 2485 15 115 75 236 137 plc Ratio 0 37 Q 63 U8 0`39 0:69 x.02 0 86 0 30 -1 86 �0 55 w_ n� _ w �. e Control Delay 43.0 16.0 1.1 42 8 16.5 0.0 92.2 41 441.9 16.5 µ e la 010 00 QueuDe _Y __ 00 00 _ 00 00 a. 00 00 Total Delay 43.0 16.0 1.1 42.8 16.5 0.0 92.2 41 441.9 16.5 Queue Length 50th (1� r 36 239 0 ^39 277 0 66 0 206 rt 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 357 9 79 398 0 #164 8 #349 54 Internal:LmkDist:(ft)1095 630 R 7r<889 fi473 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 315 145 325 Base Capacity (vph) 179 2851 938 X188rt944 N-133 s _ 439 127 434 M W� y m .., m Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn0 �0 0 _ 0 0 _..w 6'. �.� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Rat'io ", 0 37 0 63 0 08 0-:39 0 69 0:02 0 86 017 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th,°percentile volumeexceeds2capacity, queue maybe Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.„ 1 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016.012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 'A --*. * — A,,, 1,W ./ Lane Configurations ttt iiZT.) TraffcVolumeveh/h , 1879 X2223 =54 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1879 2223 �54 208 Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0:92 --0. 0.92 0:92 0:92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2042 2416 59 0 226 Lane Width (ft) WalkingSpeed(?t/s) Percent Blockage Righttilm_fla_re,(veh)___ Media"pe _ None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 _ pX ja atoort unblocked 0:77 vC, conflicting volume 2475 3126 634 vC2, stage 2 cont vol tC, single (s) - 4.1 6.8 �6.9 tF (s) 2.2 _ 3.5 3.3 p0 queueTfree %�. YR .v 100 ___.. _ T100 cM capacity (veh/h) 371 314 831 irectiori,>Lane #` . �, _ EB10� WME94M, EB ,",xWB WWB;2 973-I IN WB:4 .> SB 1tiMM Volume Total _ 681 681 681 690 690 690 404 226 Uolume,,Left .j�..x - "0 0 .w. 0 ." _ 0 .; . . . _� 0 �x 7 Volume Right _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 2261 cSH Y 1700 700 1700 1700 " 9700 9700 1700 ,x'831 m _ _ Volume to Capacity 0 40 0 40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.24 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft)� __.__. _ 0 ._ 0 y0 .'.. 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 �0.0 �0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Lane -LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 v0.0 _ 10.9 _ ntersection,Summa AverageDelay_,.�_�a- Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A '777- _ T _ '__77 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 Queues 3: Armstrong Avenue & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 EBLw,�',%, ;EBRZVg- p WBT, =UVBR . NBL hNBT z. SBL SBT Lan"Gr up Flow (vph) __ 138 1742 109 _ 175 1883 224 254 660 183 220 v/c Ratio H .1.38 - _ 0.84 0.15 .. _ '0.83 _ w,_.. 0.71 _ 0.28 0 53 _ 0 77 _ 0 80 6 59 _- Control Relat 262.2 33.8 1.4 81.8 28.6 3.8 39.9 37.1 72.2 32.7 - 70 0 M 0.6""°.0 0 0 0. 0 00 0 0 OPV _ 0.0. Total Delay 262.2 33.8 14 81.8 _ 28.6 1 w ._ 3_.8 39.9 37.1 _ 7.2.2 -j2.7 _ Queue Length 501h (ft)_ _ -1.32 M1`397 ^^0 ; 64 315 . 0 153-178 126.P� _ 43 Queue Length 95th (ft) #259 463 11 #132 362 46 246 247 #233 80 IntemalLink Dist" ft 7,00 1065 _ 461 591 Tum Bay Length (ft)_ 600 265 1000 175 150 Base Capacity_(vph) 100 2080 _25 ,741 - 211 ;2666 789 _. 475 877 --- 241 _ 899: _ Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,�_.�. _.�. S illback Ca 0 -� ._. .�� _ �.u. �� � _Reductn Storage Cap Reductn_0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio _ 1.38 O 84 0.15 0:83 0.71 0 28 0 53 0 75 0 76 0.24 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. F -I Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 2 1 1 1 Queues 4: Armstrong Avenue & Main Street 7/19/2016 } 4/ Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 309 86 665 4.28 41 0 VL Ratio ��.-0�. w 0 21 x 0 54 0 26 036 Control Delav 15.0 6.4 17.7 5.8 11.3 5.1 Total Delay 15.0 6:4 17.7 5.8 11.3 5.1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 46 53 70 76 15 'Reiri'a-fUnkbiist ft 294 X91 1.050 _ Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 100 Base Ca aci h 908 962 353 3074 2169_ 986 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 _0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 ReducedvlcRatio 0'09 032 024022 020 004 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM LSA Analyst - NP Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Queues 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 � � 4\ Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 50 22 723 428 41 4 vIc Ratto :u 0.46 0,14 0:12 0 30 X019 0 04 v w� Control Delay 21.1 6.5 21.7 5.0 6.4 3.7 Q eu ue pelay 0.0 `0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Total Delay 21.1 6.5 21.7 5.0 6.4 3.7 Queue Length 5Qth (ft) 38 a 0 5 �A 22 �0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 79 19 22 81 74 14 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 100 Base Capacity (vph) �.,_r:652 ,� ,,,614 181 2417 2284 1036 _, __. Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 6 0 0 Spillbacl Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� 21 _W- Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 m Reduced v/c Rabb 0 25 4.,90-4- 0.12 0`30 019 0 04 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM LSA Analyst - NP Synchro 9 Report Page 4 1 1 1 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 9: Private Drive & Main Street 7/18/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9 _,_ r _u. Future Vol, veh/h �Uol Leftti°/u . _. 0 6 124 0 0 7 40 51 0 0 0 34 0 199 0 0 Peak Hour Factor92 . w 0 92 ` 0 92 ` 0 92 U 92 0 92 0 92 a,. 0 92 0 92 0 92 o2 _s2 0.92 0 92 0 92 �2 0 92w 0.92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2.u. 2a.� 2_ 22 RT Vole 34 0 0 51 0 2. 2. 2rt 2 2 Mvmt Flow " 0 7 135.' 0 0 8 43 55 0 0 0 37 D 21 & 0 o Number o Lanes a_ 0 —0 1 0 ,_ �_ 0 _ ._ 0 1 1 w. 0 _ 0 1 0 a.. 0 6 _0 1 0 HCM_ Control Delay 7 4 8 9 8 5. 7 7 9 7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th tele Q„ ._ 0 1 0 7 0 2- 0 21 2' Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 10 701 0/ 5lu ° 15°l0 0%u 100°l0 Vol Thru, % 0% 95% 85% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 100% 0%r 0% 100% �0 . _... Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lariep 34 130 x'47 51 X199 m.. LT Vol 0 6 7 e.a� 0 199 TA0 0:v 124 RT Vole 34 0 0 51 0 Lane Flow Rate_a 37 51 -77 w ,141 w. Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree hof Utilµ(X)`r 0.04 0188 0 076 77 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.197 4.79 5.361 4.58 4.767 _ Convergence Y/NYes_ Yes Yes Yes as _ Cap 850 749 668 _ 781 753 Service_Tirne 2 -2-3"9",',-2:'824—,,3.0-9-6-> 2 316 2 799 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.188 0.076 0.07 0.287� HCM_ Control Delay 7 4 8 9 8 5. 7 7 9 7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th tele Q„ ._ 0 1 0 7 0 2- 0 21 2' Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 10 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 22 0 14 0 21 0 19 0 3 44 8 0 4 171 6 Future Vol, veh/h 0 22 0 14 0 21 0 19 0 3 44 8 0 4 171 6 Peak _Hour Factor 6.92- -0.92---0-.92- A 0._92_ -0-.92- 0.92 0.92 _0:92 _0._92 --0,.-9-,2- 0_.9_ 2, ---- 0.9-2---- -0.92- _-0.92- 0.9_2 0-.92' Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 --,0---- 2 2 , 2 2 2 -9 2 2 2 2 I Mvint, Flow, 0 ,"-24 0.071 0.049 0- 23 0,224 21 01— 3- 4.548 —- __ 0_. _ 4-- 186 J Number __111 0 0 1 __.15 0 0 -.11 1 1 0 0 0 862 1 0 0 0 1 0 Oppo.sinlg,Approach, ------,.-..-WB EB SB I ---------- - NB Opposing Lanes Vol Thru, % 80% 0% Conflicting_Apploach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes left-- - 1 1 --'SB,' 1 2 i qA OA,qtt� pp Mb-- 7 Stop WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HGM Control Delay 7.8 8 7.6 8.4 HCM LOS A A A A Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 61% '100% 0% 2% Vol Thru, % 80% 0% 0% 0% 94% Vol Right, % 15°Io M.' 100016, Sign Control Stop Stop -Stop -Stop Stop Traffic "Vol by Lane- 55 36 21 r 19 181 LT Vol 3 22 21 0 4 Th-ro-64h 44 0 0 0 ..... . 171,, RT Vol 8 14 0 19 6 Lane Flow Rate' 60 39 D 21 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util_(X) 0.071 0.049 0.03-61 01.01251-- 0,224 ------- Departure Headway (Hd) 4.261 4.548 5.64 4.433 4.104 vergence, 'Yes,. Jes, Yes-, I- Yes'- qap845 -Yes,- _1265 - 792 638 811 862 Service Time 2.552 3.344- 2138 2:1,91 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 0.049 0.036 0.026 0.229 HCM Control beI _Lane -LOS _ -''7--.,8'-8,-.-6- 7.3. 4.4 HCM A A A A A HCM 95th tale Q 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 1 Interior Noise Analysis and CalGreen Analysis for "Flight" at Tustin Legacy City of Tustin, California Project #572901-0100-B May 31, 2016 Prepared For Lincoln Property Company 114 Pacifica, Suite 370 Irvine, CA 92618 Prepared By.- Ted y. Ted Lindberg, INCE Bd. Cert. Mike Holritz, INCE Landrum & Brown 19700 Fairchild Road, Suite 230 Tustin, CA 92612 949-349-0671 1 Interior Noise Analysis and CalGreen Analysis for "Flight" at Tustin Legacy City of Tustin 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this report is to determine the noise exposure levels at the planned "Flight" commercial project and determine any potential effects of traffic noise on the proposed project. The project calls for the development of nine commercial buildings, including offices, 'a conference hall, and a conference hall/food hall. The project is located in the City of Tustin, California, as shown in Exhibit 1. The site plan is shown in Exhibit 2. The project will be impacted by noise from traffic on Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. The project is also exposed to aircraft noise from flight operations at John Wayne Airport. This report determines, the noise exposure levels at each building and specifies which buildings will require a future report in order to determine any building upgrades that may be necessary to meet the interior noise standards. Site plan and grading information was obtained from the overall site plan for "Flight at Tustin Legacy" and the "Architectural 100% DD" drawings by Rios Clementi Hale Studios, dated February 8, 2016. 2.0 Noise Standards The City of Tustin specifies exterior and indoor noise limits for commercial land uses. The noise standards were obtained from Table N-3 of the City of Tustin Noise Element of the General Plan (November 20, 2012). The standards are based upon the Leq(12) and CNEL metrics. Leq(12) is a 12 -hour average noise level based on the hourly average noise levels between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour time -weighted annual average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain noise -sensitive time periods is given more significance because it occurs at these times. In the calculation of CNEL, noise occurring in the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by 5 dB, while noise occurring in the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) is weighted by 10 dB. These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while sleeping, eating, and relaxing. The noise standards applicable to this project are shown below in Table 1. For typical traffic distributions such as those on the roadways impacting this project, Leq(12) levels are slightly less than the CNEL levels. 1 Page 1 of 15 s� �F1:fN�TtiT'9;v e. ,$ 'T ,r f A Ay- ®� M Project Site . ; 2a, x owt « r ,,IwE . 41 . �. bIH Landrum & Brown Page 2of15 Exhibit 1 I Vicinity Map Page 3 of 15 1 1 L 1 Table 1 City of Tustin Exterior and Interior Noise Standards for Various Land Uses NOTES: 1. CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Leq(12): The A -weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a 12 -hour period (usually the hours of operation). 2. Noise standard with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment. 3. Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets and corridors. 4. Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes, multi -family patios and balconies (with a depth of 6' or more) and common recreation areas. 5. Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic areas, and other areas of frequent human use. For typical traffic distributions such as those on the roadways impacting this project, Leq(12) levels are slightly less than the CNEL levels. Therefore, this report will use CNEL as the comparison metric. With this adjustment to the metrics used, the interior noise standard for private offices and conference rooms is 45 dBA Leq(12). The interior noise standard for offices is 50 CNEL. The interior noise standard for restaurants is 55 CNEL. The City of Tustin does not have any exterior noise standards that would apply to this project. Page 4 of 15 �XToise Statida ds". ` Land' LFse -- Intetio� �e E eitoi Residential - Single fancily, multifamily, du- CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dB; Alex, mobile hone Residential - Trinlsient lodging, hotels, motels, CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dBW lllu'Slllg homes, 110Sp1talS Private offices, church sanctuaries, libraries, board rooms, conference rooms, theaters, Leq(12) 45 dB(A) - auditor]ttns, concert halls, meeting halls, etc. Schools Leq(12) 45 dB(A) Leq(12) 67 dB(.A)3 General offices, reception, clerical, etc. Leq(12) 50 dB(A) - Batik lobo retail store restaurant tj ln- y' T' Leq(12) 55 dB(A) - pool, etc. Manufacturing, kitchen, iva ehousing, etc. Leq(12) 65 dB(A) - Parks, playgzotulds - CNEL 65 dB5 Golf courses, outdoor spectator sports, auutse- _ CNEL 70 dB5 uient parks NOTES: 1. CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Leq(12): The A -weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a 12 -hour period (usually the hours of operation). 2. Noise standard with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment. 3. Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets and corridors. 4. Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes, multi -family patios and balconies (with a depth of 6' or more) and common recreation areas. 5. Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic areas, and other areas of frequent human use. For typical traffic distributions such as those on the roadways impacting this project, Leq(12) levels are slightly less than the CNEL levels. Therefore, this report will use CNEL as the comparison metric. With this adjustment to the metrics used, the interior noise standard for private offices and conference rooms is 45 dBA Leq(12). The interior noise standard for offices is 50 CNEL. The interior noise standard for restaurants is 55 CNEL. The City of Tustin does not have any exterior noise standards that would apply to this project. Page 4 of 15 3.0 Methodology The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level'. A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the observer. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight' between the noise source and the observer is interrupted by the barrier. As the distance that the noise must travel around the noise barrier increases, the amount of noise reduction increases. 4.0 Noise Exposure 4.1 Traffic Noise Impacting Project Site The future (year -2025) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue were obtained from Ms. Krys Saldivar at the City of Tustin on September 30, 2015. The speeds used are the posted speed limits obtained during the site visit. The traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and roadway grades used in the CNEL calculations are presented below in Table 2. The traffic distribution that was used in the CNEL calculations is listed below in Table 3. This arterial traffic distribution estimate was compiled by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and is based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the Orange County area. Arterial traffic distribution estimates can be considered typical for arterials in Southern California. Table 2 Future Traffic Volumes, Speeds, and Roadway Grades Traffic Volume Roadway (ADT) Speed Grade Barranca Parkway 32,000 50 <3% Armstrong Avenue 7,000 40 <3% Page5of15 Table 3 Traffic Distribution per Time of Day in Percent of ADT Vehicle Type Day Evening Night Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 L Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are listed in Table 4 in terms of distances to the 60 dB, 65 dB, and 70 dB CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the centerline of each roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 4 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may affect the roadway noise exposure. Table 4 Distance to Noise Contours for Future Traffic Conditions Roadway Barranca Parkway Armstrong Avenue Distance to CNEL Contours (feet) 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB 117 251 541 19 41 89 The buildings will be exposed to traffic noise from both Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. The buildings will be located from 105 feet to 828 feet from Barranca Parkway, and from 376 feet to 980 feet from Armstrong Avenue. The noise levels at the southern building faces due to noise from Barranca Parkway will range from 54.5 dB to 68 dB CNEL, while the noise levels on the eastern building faces due to noise from Armstrong Avenue will range from 44.3 dB to 50.6 dB CNEL. The worst case noise levels from both roadways at each of the buildings are listed in Table 5. As a worst case projection, noise mitigation of traffic noise due to shielding from intervening buildings was not taken into consideration. 4.2 Aircraft Noise Impacts The standard approach corridor for John Wayne Airport is located over one-half mile west of the project site. As a result, the project will be subject to noise from flight operations associated with the airport. John Wayne Airport publishes annual CNEL noise contours, and the latest set of contours available from the Airport's website is for 2013. A copy of those noise contours is Page 6 of 15 presented in Exhibit 3 along with the location of the project site. The aircraft noise level projected at the project site is expected to be about 55 dB CNEL. Table 5 Distances and Traffic Noise Levels for Each Building Building Distance Noise from from Barranca Barranca Parkway Parkway (ft.) (dB CNEL) Distance from Armstrong Avenue (ft.) Noise from Armstrong Avenue (dB CNEL) Al - Office Building 761 57.8 665 46.9 A2 - Office Building 160 67.9 1,033 '44.0 B - Office Building 688 58.4 906 44.9 C - Office Building 172 67.5 1,328 42.4 D2 — Conference Hall 858 57.0 1,080 43.7 E - Office Building- 1,,172 55.0 645 47.1 F - Office Building 1,247- 54.6 541 48.2 G - Office Building 1,081 55.5 515 48.5 H - Office Building 1,258 54.5 412 50.0 4.3 Total Noise Exposure The project will be exposed to the combination of traffic noise and aircraft noise. The projected the noise levels from the two noise roadways and the aircraft have been combined and the results are presented in Table 6. The individual levels are combined on a logarithmic basis to produce the resulting total noise levels impacting the project site. The results of these calculations shows that the buildings within the project site will be exposed to total noise levels ranging from 58.5 dB to 68.2. dB CNEL. 5.0 Noise Impacts 5.1 Exterior Areas As previously mentioned, the City of Tustin does not have any exterior noise standards that would apply to this project. Therefore, no noise mitigation measures to protect the exterior areas are required or recommended. Page 7 of 15 1 1 1 1 Project Site MI 1 JOHN WAYN"E AIRPORT 2013 ANNUAL 60, 65 70, AND 75' CNEL NOISE CONTOURS Iteatra GraeeAssodates: a fliwzion i MIDE Landrum& Brown 1 Exhibit 3 I John Wayne Airport Noise Contours Page 8 of 15 Table 6 Combined Traffic and Aircraft Noise Levels for Each Building Noise from Noise from Barranca Armstrong Noise from Total Noise Parkway Avenue Aircraft Level Building (dB CNEL) (dB CNEL) (dB CNEL) (dB CNEL) Al - Office Building 57.8 46.9 55 59.8 A2 - Office Building 67.9 44.0 55 68.2 B - Office Building 58.4 44.9 55 60.2 C - Office Building 67.5 42.4 55 67.7 D2 - Conference Hall 57.0 43.7 55 59.2- E - Office Building 55.0 47.1 55 58.3 F - Office Building 54.6 48.2 55 58.3. G - Office Building 55.5 48.5 55 58.7 H - Office Building 54.5 50.0 55 58.4 5.2 Interior Areas The project will need to comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 dB as listed previously in this report. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor -to -indoor building attenuation in order to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor -to -indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. The critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, and insulation. The noise exposure level at each specific area of the project, the noise level standard, the noise reduction needed in order to meet the interior noise level standard for that use, and a conclusion regarding whether additional studies are needed for that area, are presented in Table 7. The data in Table 7 shows that in order to meet the applicable interior noise standards, one of the buildings would require approximately 23 dB of noise reduction. The construction details used in determining exterior -to -interior noise transmission loss are presented below. These construction details were taken from the architectural drawings prepared for the project by House and Robertson Architects, dated February 8, 2016. 1 Page 9 of 95 Table 7 Combined Traffic and Aircraft Noise Levels for Each Building Building Total Noise Level (dB CNEL) Land Use Interior Noise Standard (Leq (12)) Noise Reduction Required (dB) Conclusion Al - Office Building 59.8 General Offices 45 dBA 14.8 No Mitigation A2 - Office Building 68.2 General Offices 45 dBA 23.2 No Mitigation B - Office Building 60.2 General Offices 45 dBA 15.2 No Mitigation C - Office Building 67.7 General Offices 45 dBA 22.7 No Mitigation D2 — Conference Hall 59.2 Conference Rooms 45 dBA 14.2 No Mitigation E - Office Building 58.3 General Offices 45 dBA 13.3 No Mitigation F - Office Building 58.3 General Offices 45 dBA 13.3 No Mitigation G - Office Building 58.7 General Offices 45 dBA 13.7 No Mitigation H - Office Building 58.4 General Offices 45 dBA 13.4 No Mitigation The roofs are. flat, with single layer of plywood roofing membrane over tapered rigid insulation over concrete over corrugated metal pan. Minimum concrete depth of 3 ". This roof/ceiling assembly was estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=48 /EWNR=44. Exterior walls will be constructed with aluminum framed curtain wall system using 1 " insulated fixed glass units, Viracon VEI -2M. The 1 " thick assemblies will consist of '/ " glass, % " air gap, and '/a " glass. The walls were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=36 /EWNR=32. The roll -up doors will be made of 1 " thermally broken, insulated sectional door panels with insulated glazing unit, Viracon VEI -2M. The 1 " thick assemblies will consist of '/ " glass, %" air gap, and % " glass. The doors were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=36 /EWNR=32 The operable doors will be aluminum framed doors with 1 " insulated glass units, Viracon VEI -2M. The 1 " thick assemblies will consist of '/a " glass, % " air gap, and '/ " glass. The doors were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=34 / EWNR=30. The operable windows will be aluminum framed doors with I " insulated glass units, Viracon VEI -2M. The I " thick assemblies will consist of %" glass, '/z " air gap, and '/ " glass. The windows were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=34 /EWNR=30. Page 10 of 15 The fixed windows will be aluminum framed doors with I " insulated glass units, Viracon VEI-2M. The I" thick assemblies will consist of % " glass, % " air gap, and '/ " glass. The windows were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least STC=36 / EWNR=32. The project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 dBA Leq(12). To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor -to -indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The project building surfaces nearest to Barranca Parkway will be exposed to a maximum noise level of 68.2 CNEL and, therefore, will require at least 23.2 dB of noise reduction in order to meet the 45 dBA Leq(12) interior noise standard. Based upon the construction details and the EWNR values listed above, the exterior -to -interior noise reduction was calculated for a number of offices in the project. Calculations indicate that the worst-case offices will achieve an outdoor -to -indoor traffic noise reduction of at least 28 dB. This exceeds the required reduction of 23.2 dB. Therefore, all offices are projected to meet the 45 dBA Leq(12) interior noise standard without building upgrades. 6.0 CalGreen Analysis 6.1 Introduction The purpose of this section of the report is to demonstrate compliance of the project with the noise related requirements of CalGreen as enforced by the City of Tustin. The site will be exposed to noise from traffic on Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. This section specifies any mitigation measures necessary to meet the CalGreen acoustic standards for traffic noise. 6.2 Noise Standards The CalGreen acoustical requirements are called out in Section 5.507.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) and in the supplement effective July 1, 2012. These requirements are applicable to the commercial portion of this project. This project experiences traffic noise that regularly exceeds 65 dBA, and therefore, is subject to specific requirements called out in Section 5.507.4 of CalGreen. The following exterior building element criteria are contained in CalGreen: The roof must meet an STC 50 rating, the exterior walls must achieve an STC 50 rating, and the windows must have an STC 40 rating, • The interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hour of Page 11 of 15 operation. This approach is referred to as the "performance method" (see Section 5.507.4.2 of CalGreen). The performance method has been used for this anal 6.3 Methodology The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level". 6.4 Noise Exposure The future (year -2025) average. daily traffic (ADT) volumes for Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue were obtained from Ms. Krys Saldivar at the City of Tustin on September 30, 2015. The peak -hour traffic volumes were estimated to be 10% of the ADT's. The speed limits for the roadways were obtained and used in the noise analysis. The peak -hour traffic volumes and vehicle speeds used in the CNEL calculations are presented below in Table 8. Table 8 Future Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes and Speeds The traffic distribution that was used in the CNEL calculations is listed previously in Table 3. Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The two buildings closest to Barranca Parkway are the A2 Office and C Offices. The nearest building faces will be located approximately 160 feet from the roadway centerline and will be exposed to a peak -hour traffic noise level of 68.5 dBA Leq. The building face nearest Armstrong Avenue is approximately 1,033 feet from the roadway centerline, and will be exposed to a peak -hour traffic noise level of 44.6 dBA Leq. At the worst-case corner of the building, the combined noise level will be 68.5 dBA Leq. 6.5 CalGreen Traffic Noise Requirement for Commercial Spaces The project must comply with the CalGreen indoor noise standard of 50 dBA (peak -hour Leq). To meet the interior noise standard, the building must provide sufficient outdoor -to -indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor -to -indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a Page 12 of 15 ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED Barranca Parkway Armstrong Avenue 6,000 700 50 40 The traffic distribution that was used in the CNEL calculations is listed previously in Table 3. Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The two buildings closest to Barranca Parkway are the A2 Office and C Offices. The nearest building faces will be located approximately 160 feet from the roadway centerline and will be exposed to a peak -hour traffic noise level of 68.5 dBA Leq. The building face nearest Armstrong Avenue is approximately 1,033 feet from the roadway centerline, and will be exposed to a peak -hour traffic noise level of 44.6 dBA Leq. At the worst-case corner of the building, the combined noise level will be 68.5 dBA Leq. 6.5 CalGreen Traffic Noise Requirement for Commercial Spaces The project must comply with the CalGreen indoor noise standard of 50 dBA (peak -hour Leq). To meet the interior noise standard, the building must provide sufficient outdoor -to -indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor -to -indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a Page 12 of 15 characteristic transmission loss. The critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, and insulation. Exterior building surfaces at the worst-case location will be exposed to a peak -hour Leq noise level of about 68.5 dBA, and therefore, interior areas at this location will require at least 18.5 dB exterior -to -interior noise reduction in order to meet the CalGreen 50 dBA peak -hour interior noise standard. Based upon the construction details and the EWNR values listed above, the exterior -to -interior noise reduction was calculated for a number of offices in the project. Calculations indicate that the worst-case offices will achieve an outdoor -to -indoor traffic noise reduction of at least 28 dB. This exceeds the required reduction of 18.5 dB. Therefore, all offices are projected to meet the CalGreen 50 dB Leq interior noise standard without building upgrades. 1 1 Page 13 of 15 1 1 1 APPENDIX CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS DATA USED TO DETERMINE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONCEPT PLAN (CP) 2016-001, DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2016-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2016-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2016-23, MINOR MODIFICATION 2016-01 AND MINOR MODIFICATION 2016-02 PLANNING AREA 9-12, NEIGHBORHOOD E (.FNFRAI (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped September 19, 2016, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. Phase 1 consist of nine (9) buildings and one parking garage with a total of 390,440 square feet. Phase 2 consist of two (2) sub -phases with eight (8) buildings and one (1) parking garage with a total of 479,560 square feet. Altogether the proposed project would construct 854,477 square feet of office space, 11,970 square feet of restaurant space and 3,553 square feet of meeting space for a total of 870,000 square feet of development. CP 2016-001 includes the proposed development within Phase 1 and illustrative development potential within Phase 2. DR 2016-001 approval comprises the proposed development within Phase 1 only. Proposed development within Phase 2 would require future submittal of a Site Plan and Design Review to the Community Development Department for review and approval. Any changes in the approved project and/or phasing shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department. The Director of Community Development may approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the TCC. (***) 1.2 Except as otherwise provided by the Conditions of Approval, the Development Agreement and/or the Subdivision Map Act, the subject project approval shall become null and void unless one or more permits are issued and substantial construction is underway prior to the later of i) the deadline for Developer Completion of construction of the Phase 1 Horizontal Improvements and Minimum Phase 1 Vertical Improvements (as such deadline may be extended by Force Majeure Delay) set forth in SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) BUILDING CODE (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement (Cornerstone 1); and (ii) the expiration of the Phase 1 Term of Development Agreement 2016-001 (as such expiration date may be extended by Force Majeure Delay). Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.4 Approval of the proposed project 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. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) 1162(a). (1) 1.6 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. Within ten (10) working days after approval, the applicant shall pay any outstanding fees to reimburse the City for costs related to Code Enforcement activity. (1) 1.7 CUP 2016-02 may be reviewed on an annual basis, or more often if necessary, by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with CUP 2016-02, or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding tenants or neighborhood, the Community Development Director shall impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts, or may initiate proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. (1) 1.8 If in the future the City's Community Development Director, Police Chief, and/or Public Works Department determine that a parking, traffic, or noise problem exists on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the facility, the Community Development Director, Police Chief, and/or Public Works Department may require that the applicant prepare a parking demand analysis, traffic or queuing study, or noise analysis and the applicant shall Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy bear all associated costs. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic or noise problem, the applicant shall be required to provide mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, Police Chief, and/or Public Works Department. Said mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Adjust hours of operation. b. Provide additional parking. c. Engage parking attendants. (1) 1.9 As a condition of approval of the project, 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) 1.10 All activities shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. (***) 1.11 The applicant shall comply with executed Development Agreement 2016- 00.1 and associated Disposition and Development Agreement. (***) 1.12 A sidewalk shall be installed on both sides of Flight Way for Phase land only on the north side of Flight Way for Phase 2. (***) 1.13 Street lights shall be installed along both sides of the private drive aisles (Flight Way and Airship Avenue). (1) 1.14 The proposed project shall comply with the City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance as identified in Section 9265 the TCC. TDM program plans shall be prepared for the proposed project and shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. (1) 1.15 The applicant shall make the required deposits for plan check and permit issuance in accordance with the City's most recent fee schedule, or as otherwise required by Development Agreement 2016-001. (1) 1.16 All new structures shall provide adequate radio coverage for City emergency service workers operating on the 800 MHz Countywide Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy Coordinated Communication System. Further, the applicant/owners or tenants shall maintain a reasonable standard of reliable radio communication within their buildings and structures once a certificate of occupancy is issued or a final inspection is conducted. For the purposes of this section, adequate radio coverage shall include those specifications in the City of Tustin Public Safety Radio System Coverage Specifications set forth in Chapter 10, Section 8958 of the TCC, even if the project is exempt from Section 8958. (City of Tustin Public Safety Radio System Coverage Specifications). STREET IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (***) 2.1 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of full width improvements to the public portion of Flight Way from Barranca Parkway to the entrance of the Property including utilities, curb adjacent sidewalks on both sides of the street, and street lights along both sides of the street. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property between Barranca Parkway and the Food Hall Building shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. (***) 2.2 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of the public portion of Flight Way and Barranca Parkway. Intersection enhancement shall include the creation of left turn lane on Barranca Parkway to Flight Way, additions of signal apparatus including loops and interconnects, signing and striping modifications as necessary, and restoration of landscape medians impacted by left -turn enhancements or median modifications. (***) 2.3 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to Barranca Parkway from the public portion of Flight Way to Armstrong Avenue. Developer shall design and construct the decelerating and accelerating lane and meandering sidewalk on Barranca Parkway along project frontage from Armstrong Avenue to Flight Way. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property along Barranca Parkway from Flight Way to Armstrong Avenue as approved for Phase 1 of the Project from back of curb to landscape set back limits shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. (***) 2.4 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to Armstrong Avenue from Legacy Park to Barranca Parkway, including curb adjacent sidewalks adjacent to the Property. Developer shall also provide final/finish surface course Asphalt Rubber Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy Hot Mix (ARHM) paving on Armstrong Avenue from Warner Avenue to Barranca Parkway, traffic striping and raise any manhole to grade. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property along Armstrong Avenue from Legacy Park to Barranca Parkway as approved for Phase 1 of the Project from back of sidewalk to landscape set back limits shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. Developer shall additionally construct the curb adjacent sidewalk along' the west side of Armstrong Avenue from Legacy Park to Warner Avenue. Developer shall install signal conduit, pull boxes and cable for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Airship Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. (***) 2.6 Developer shall be responsible for the design and . construction of landscape and irrigation system along Armstrong Avenue adjacent to the property. (***) 2.6 . Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of a four- way traffic signal, including loops, interconnects, and radar detection system at the intersection of southerly project entrance and Armstrong Avenue. (***) 2.7 Developer shall design and construct the public storm drain system, wet utilities, and dry utilities along Flight Way connecting to and crossing Legacy Park (Tract No. 17144, Lots "AA" and "BB"), and the public storm drain system along the north side of Phase 1 adjacent to the Food Hall Building in the locations required pursuant to the DDA and the Entitlement Approvals. Developer shall provide the necessary utility. and access easement to the City. (***) 2.8 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to Airship Avenue between Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue, including utility improvements, street lighting and curb adjacent sidewalks in the locations required pursuant to the DDA and the Entitlement Approvals. Developer shall also provide final/finish surface course ARHM paving, traffic striping and raise any manhole to grade. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property as approved for Phase 1 of the Project shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 2.9 Developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the improvements to the private portion of Flight Way between the entrance of the Property and Armstrong Avenue, including utility improvements, street lighting and curb adjacent sidewalks, except that between Airship Avenue Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy and Armstrong Avenue sidewalk improvements need only be constructed on the north side of Flight Way. Developer shall also provide final/finish surface course ARHM paving, traffic striping and raise any manhole to grade. The landscape and irrigation system adjacent to the Property as approved for Phase 1 of the Project shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 2.10 Construction of interim landscaping on Phase 2, as more specifically set forth in the DDA and the Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement, as and when required thereby. Such landscaping shall be completed or completion shall otherwise be assured through the provision of bonds, guarantees, cash collateral, or other instruments or means satisfactory to the City Community Development Director. 2.11 All public improvements itemized in the Development Agreement for Phase 1 and Phase 2 shall be completed in accordance with the timing specified in the Agreement. (1) 2.12 Separate twenty-four (24) by thirty-six (36) inches from the street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for all construction within the public right-of-way along "A" Street, Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue, as applicable. All improvements itemized in the Development Agreement shall be installed consistent with the timeframes set forth in the Development Agreement. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Curb and Gutter b. Sidewalk, including curb ramps for the physically disabled c. Underground utility connections d. Signing/striping plan e. Traffic signal f. Street lighting g. Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connection to existing storm drain system h. Domestic water facilities i. Reclaimed water facilities j. Sanitary sewer facilities k. Landscape/irrigation In addition, a twenty-four (24) by thirty-six (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 may be required. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy (***) 213 The proposed landscaping material along "A" Street, Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue shall be consistent with the Tustin Legacy Backbone Street Plant Palette, Legacy Park Plant Palette, or as approved by the Community Development Director and/or the City Engineer. (1). 2.14 Developer shall provide a Geotechnical Report, Pavement Analysis, and Design Report for all required Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, Local Infrastructure and Private Infrastructure improvements required in the Tentative Tract Map. (1) 2.15 Preparation of plans for and construction of: a. All sanitary sewer facilities shall be submitted as required by the City Engineer and local sewer agency. These facilities shall include a gravity flow system per the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. b. A domestic water system shall be designed and installed to the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Improvement 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 Irvine Ranch Water District. (1) 2.16 Existing sewer, domestic water, reclaimed water and storm drain service laterals shall be utilized whenever possible. (1) 2.17 Any damage done to existing public street improvements and/or utilities shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development. (1) 2.18 All utility lines shall be placed underground by the developer. (1) 2.19 Current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements shall be met at all driveways and sidewalks adjacent to the site. City of Tustin standards shall apply, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (1) 2.20 A street lighting system shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of Tustin and Southern California Edison. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy (1) 2.21 Class II Bike Lanes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan requirements and approved street improvement plans. (***) 2.22 The minimum pipe diameter for all public storm drains shall be twenty-four (24) inches. (1) 2.23 Developer shall be responsible for abandoning and removing all existing utilities within the current and proposed roadway sections. (1) 2.24 Developer shall be responsible for connection of the project to new backbone utility systems. The applicant shall provide applicable easements for any new utilities on private property. (1) 2.25 As part of the final design process and to comply with the Final EIR/EIS requirements for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, the applicant shall submit detailed 100 -year storm event hydrology calculations for the existing pre -project condition and for the project condition. As part of the study, the project's contribution to the overall increase in stormwater runoff from the redevelopment of MCAS Tustin shall be estimated and the potential design and construction costs to mitigate the increase stormwater discharge contribution from the project shall be determined. (1) 2.26 Developer shall enter into a Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement with the City of Tustin for the construction, maintenance, repair and replacement of the landscaping described in the Developer Agreement for the maintenance of parkway improvements within public rights-of-way adjacent to the project along "A" Street, Barranca Parkway and Armstrong Avenue. (1) 2.27 CADD Requirements - In addition to the normal full-size map and plan submittal, all final maps and plans including, but not limited to, tract maps, parcel maps, right-of-way maps, records of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format to the Satisfaction of the City Engineer. a. The standard file format is AutoCAD Release 2009, or latest version, having the extension "DWG". All layering and linotype conventions are AutoCAD -based (latest version available upon request from the Public Works Department). Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy b. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time plans are approved, and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. No project bonds will be released until acceptable "as built" CADD files have been submitted to the City. SITE & BUILDING DESIGN (4) 3.1 Project materials shall substantially comply with those identified in the approved plans (as such plans may be modified pursuant to the Conditions of Approval). Additional color and material samples may be requested by City staff at the time of plan check. Substitutions to the approved materials may occur subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Enhancements to the architectural detailing may be required at the time of plan check based on the proposed materials. (4) 3.2 - All roof access shall be provided from the inside of the building. (4) 3.3 No exterior downspouts shall be permitted. All roof drainage shall utilize interior piping and may have exterior outlets into landscaped areas at the base of the building. Any roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so that overflow drainage will not stain the walls. (4) 3.4 All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be painted to match the building. (4) 3.5 All rooftop mounted equipment shall be installed at a minimum height of six (6) inches below the top of the parapet so as not to be visible from the public right-of-way and parking lot areas. No rooftop mounted equipment shall be visible from Armstrong Avenue or Barranca Parkway which may require adjustments to equipment and/or the parapet to meet this condition. (4) 3.6 Utility meters located outside of the building shall be screened with landscaping to the greatest extent possible. Electrical transformers shall be located in areas with room for landscape screening to be planted outside the required access space. (4) 3.7 Backflow devices and double detector checks shall be painted to match surrounding landscaping when in planters or painted to match the building when located adjacent to. Landscaping shall be utilized to screen the devices where possible. (1) 3.8 No outdoor storage shall be permitted except as approved by the Community Development Director. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy (1) 3.9 At plan check, trash enclosures shall be designed with roofs/covers that are architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings. (1) 3.10 Freestanding walls and fencing shall be treated with graffiti -resistant coating. LANDSCAPING (1) 4.1 Landscape plans shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Ordinance No. 1457, regarding the water conservation requirements stipulated in the Governor's Executive Order B-29-15 and the City's Water Management Plan. (1) 4.2 All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy and vigorous condition typical to the species in accordance with the approved landscape plan. Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition, which includes, but is not limited to trimming, mowing, weeding, litter removal, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of diseased or dead plants. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — JOINT USE PARKING (***) 5.1 In accordance with the Shared Parking Analysis prepared by LSA Associates (dated August 3, 2016), Phase 1 of the proposed project shall include the construction of a total of 1,544 parking spaces; a 1,158 space parking garage, a 219 -space parking lot located on the northern portion of the project site, a 54 -space parking lot located on the southern portion of the project site and 113 on -street spaces along various internal drive aisles within the project. Any changes of on-site parking, parking lot and/or circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. (***) 5.2 A Parking Management Plan shall be prepared for the project and reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Said plan shall describe how the parking will work within the project, including to the extent appropriate, the number of parking spaces assigned per building and/or tenant. If parking impacts are identified on-site or iri the immediately adjacent park areas during either Phase 1 or Phase 2, the Community Development Department shall have the ability to re-evaluate the plan and request that the applicant modify it accordingly to mitigate any impacts identified. (1) 5.3 Applicant shall not lease parking lot(s) and/or parking structure(s) within the project site for off-site uses. (1) 5.4 Applicant may charge separately for parking for employees and/or Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy customers and guests to the project subject to the approval of a Parking Management Plan by the Community Development Department. (1) 5.5 Installation of gates across certain private drives to facilitate payment and enforcement of parking requirements shall be subject to approval of a Parking Management Plan by the Community Development Department. (1) 5.6 A written and recorded agreement shall be required assuring the continued availability of the number of stalls designated for joint use and availability of reciprocal access easements. Said agreement shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development. MASTER SIGN PLAN (1) 6.1 Applicant shall submit a Master Sign Plan for the project that is in accordance with MCAS Specific Plan/Reuse Plan and/or the TCC. Said plan shall be designed in accordance with both documents and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development and/or Planning Commission. The Director of Community Development may approve modifications to the master sign plan that are consistent with the intent of the Tustin City Sign Code. Such modifications shall be accompanied with findings to support said decision. (1) 6.2 A sign permit shall be applied for and obtained from the Community Development Department prior to constructing, erecting, altering, replacing, moving, or painting any sign, except for signs exempt from a permit according to the Tustin Sign Code. Permit applications shall be accompanied by information as required for a standard sign plan or master sign plan, pursuant to the Tustin Sign Code. (1) 6.3 All signs shall conform to the approved Master Sign Plan and revert to the City of Tustin Sign Code for any issues that remain silent in said Plan. (1) 6.4 All signs shall be structurally safe and maintained in good condition at all times. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to order repair, replacement, or removal of any signs which constitute a hazard or nuisance to the safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, or obsolescence. (1) 6.5 All signs shall be constructed of a non -corrosive, rust -resistant finish so as not to degrade in adverse weather conditions. (1) 6.6 The locations for any signs shall comply with the City of Tustin Guidelines for Determining Sign Location Visual Clearance and Public Safety Areas. Signs shall not be placed in a manner that will obstruct or inhibit sight Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy distance or visibility for the motorist. At plan check submittal, all signs shall be clearly identified on plans as to the exact locations. Any signs in proximity to the public right-of-way that could impact driver sight shall be shown at a larger scale that will be adequate for plan check purposes. (1) 6.7 Center Identification monument signs to The Flight at Tustin Legacy shall include the Tustin Legacy community name where text is applied. BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 7.1 Except as provided in the Development Agreement, at the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the latest edition of the codes (building codes, Green Building Code), City Ordinances, State, Federal laws, and regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City of Tustin. (1) 7.2 Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit, Developer shall install chain link fence with green screen along Phase 2 boundary along Armstrong Avenue, drive aisles, and Barranca Parkway. (1) 7.3 A photometric drawing of the parking structure showing compliance with the City's required lighting levels will be required at the time of plan check submittal. (1) 7.4 All private on-site design and construction of improvement work shall be designed and performed in accordance with the applicable portions of the City of Tustin's "Grading Manual" and "Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drain and On -Site Private Improvements," except as otherwise approved by the Building Official. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Sidewalks and paths of travel, including curb ramps for the physically disabled; all sidewalks and pathways shall comply with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act; b. Drive aprons; c. Signing/striping plan; d. Street lighting; e. Street and drive aisle paving; all private streets, drive aisles, and curb return radius shall be consistent with the City's design standards for private street improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Official, and all roadway and driveway Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy widths and parking area widths (and lengths where appropriate) shall be dimensioned on the plans; f. Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connections to the public storm drain system with approval of the City of Tustin; g. Sanitary sewer facilities: All sanitary sewer facilities must be submitted as required by the Building Official and IRWD. These facilities shall be consistent with the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District; h. Underground utility connections: All utility lines shall be placed underground by the developer; i. Fire hydrants; Telecommunications facilities including, but not limited to, telephone and cable television facilities. Developer is required to coordinate design and construction of cable television facilities with a City -franchised system operator and shall not place an undue burden upon said operator for the provision of these facilities. (1) 7.5 The applicant shall submit a Noise Study for Phase 2 that determines the attenuation measures required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. GRADING AND DRAINAGE CONDITIONS (1) 8.1 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a final grading plan, prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted and approved. The grading plan shall be consistent with the approved site and landscaping plans. (1) 8.2 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a grading bond (on a form acceptable to the City) will be required. The engineer's estimate, which covers the cost of all work shown on the grading plan, including grading, drainage, water, sewer and erosion control, shall be submitted to the City for approval. (1) 8.3 The entire Phase 1 site shall be rough graded at one time prior to the construction of Phase 1. 1 Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy WATER QUALITY (1) 9.1 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. (1) 9.2 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). The WQMP shall identify Low Impact Development (LID) principles and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to retain storm water and treat predictable pollutant run-off. (1) 9.3 The Priority WQMP shall identify: the implementation of BMPs, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessees, etc.), and reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. (1) 9.4 Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the applicant shall submit a deposit of two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,700.00) to the Public Works Department for the estimated cost of reviewing the WQMP. (1) 9.5 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall record a "Covenant and Agreement Regarding O & M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality BMPs, Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification" with the County Clerk -Recorder. (1) 9.6 This document shall bind current and future owner(s) of the property regarding implementation and maintenance of the structural and non- structural BMPs as specified in the approved WQMP. (1) 9.7 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, 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 Quality Control Board. COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND AGENCIES (1) 10.1 Developer shall obtain permission from and coordinate with affected property owners, jurisdictions, and resource agencies for all public and private improvements, including, but not limited to, the following: Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy a. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. b. The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of the bus stop locations with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). c. The applicant shall obtain written approval'and/or permits from the applicable utility companies, including but not limited to Southern California Edison, The Gas Company, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), AT&T, Cox Communications, Time Warner, etc. d. The applicant shall coordinate the design and construction of all utilities with the utility providers and the City. e. Street improvement plans and signal plans along Barranca Parkway and Aston Street shall be submitted to the City of Irvine for review and approval, as these improvements directly affect traffic operations in the City of Irvine. SOLID WASTE RECYCLING CONDITIONS (1) 11.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Reduction Plan (WRRP). a. Developer/contractor is required to submit a WRRP to the Public Works Department. The WRRP must indicate how the applicant will comply with the City's requirement (City Code Section 4351, et al) to recycle at least fifty (50) percent of the project waste material or the amount required by the California Green Building Standards Code. b. Developer will be required to submit a fifty dollars ($50.00) application fee and a cash security deposit. All commercial projects shall submit a security deposit in the amount of five (5) percent of the project's valuation as determined by the Building Official, rounded to the nearest thousand, or two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), whichever is greater. In no event shall a deposit exceed twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000). c.' Prior to issuance of any permit, Developer shall submit the required security deposit in the form of cash, cashier's check, personal check, or money order made payable to the "City of Tustin". (1) 11.2 Facility Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Plan. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy a. The applicant, property owner, and/or tenant(s) are required to participate in the City's recycling program. b. Waste and Recycling collection facilities shall be equally and readily accessible by the property owner(s) or tenant(s). c. Waste and Recycling collection facilities must be placed in a location that can be easily and safely accessed by the solid waste hauler while utilizing either front loader or side loading equipment. d. Adequate collection capacity shall be provided to insure that collection frequency shall not exceed four times per week for commercial customers. e. All trash enclosures shall utilize the City's standard enclosure designed with roof to accommodate at least two (2) 4 -yard bins, with at least one (1) bin reserved for recyclable materials. f. Businesses that will be large generators of organic waste such as food scraps shall also provide space for a sixty (60) gallon cart as part of the State required organics diversion program. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS (1) 12.1 Prior to Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) clearance of a final map, a fire master plan is required to be submitted to OCFA for review. (1) 12.2 Prior to concealing interior construction, a sprinkler monitoring system plan and fire alarm system plan must be prepared and submitted to OCFA for review. (1) 12.3 Emergency Access Easements: Irrevocable reciprocal access easements for emergency access purposes to the benefit of the City shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or, where no final map is required, prior to approval of the fire master plan. (1) 12.4 Lumber -drop inspection: After installation of required fire access roadways and hydrants, the applicant shall receive clearance from the OCFA prior to bringing combustible building materials on-site. Call OCFA Inspection Scheduling at (714) 573-6150 with the Service Request' number of the approved fire master plan at least five (5) days in advance to schedule the lumber drop inspection. (1) 12.5 Emergency Responder Digital Radio System: Evidence of compliance with emergency responder digital radio system performance criteria shall be Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy provided prior to occupancy. Refer to OCFA Guideline E-03 or the local jurisdiction's emergency responder radio ordinance, as applicable, for requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL (1) 13.1 All mitigation measures related to the project that are required by the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the MCAS Tustin, identified in this exhibit and in other related project entitlements, shall be implemented. Additional measures related to development of this project as noted in the adopted EIS/EIR and are not previously identified in this exhibit as a condition of approval are required as follows: a. Prior to issuance of any permits, the developer shall retain a County -certified archaeologist. If buried resources are found during grading within the reuse plan area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. b. The developer shall comply with the requirements established in a Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) prepared for the site, which details the methods to be used for surveillance of construction grading, assessing finds, and actions to be taken in the event that unique paleontological resources are found. C. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Community Development Department that a County -certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct salvage excavation of unique paleontological resources if they are found. d. Prior to issuance of any permit, the developer shall provide traffic operations and control plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. The plans shall address roadway and lane closures, truck hours and routes, and notification procedures for planned short-term or interim changes in traffic patterns. Such plans shall minimize anticipated delays at major intersections. Prior to approval, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall review the proposed traffic control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction. e. The applicant shall comply with all City policies regarding short- term construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site Exhibit 13 - The The Flight at Tustin Legacy and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed fifteen (15) miles per hour. f. The developer shall coordinate with the Tustin Police Department to ensure adequate security provisions are implemented. FEES (1) 14.1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, 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 plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. b. Engineering plan check and permit fees to the Public Works Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. c. OCFA plan check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. d. Payment of Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the Tustin Public Works Department are required at the time a building permit is issued. e. Water and sewer connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District. f. Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), Benefit Area "B" fees based upon the most current rate of new or added gross square floor area of construction or improvements to the Community Development Department. g. New construction fee in the amount often cents ($0.10) per square foot. h. School facilities fee in the amount as required by Tustin Unified School District. i. Other applicable Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program fees. Exhibit B The Flight at Tustin Legacy (1) 14.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of final approval of the project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period 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. 1