Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-F. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 16-59 (ENVIRONMENTAL)ATTACHMENT F City Council Resolution No. 16-59 RESOLUTION NO. 16-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE FINAL JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MCAS TUSTIN FEIS/EIR), AS AMENDED BY SUPPLEMENT AND ADDENDUMS, IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2016-001, CONCEPT PLAN 2016-001, SUBDIVISION 2016-02/VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18003, DESIGN REVIEW 2016-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 2016-01; 2016-02; 2016-015; 2016-023, MINOR MODIFICATIONS 2016-01 AND 2016-02 AND DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 870,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL MIXED USE PROJECT WITHIN PORTIONS OF PLANNING AREA 9-12 OF NEIGHBORHOOD E OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That proper application has been submitted by Flight Venture LLC for the development of an 870,000 square foot commercial mixed use project on an approximately 38 -acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin within a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of the MCAS Tustin Specific plan. B. That the development application includes the following requests: 1. 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. 2. Concept Plan 2016-001 to develop a new 870,000 square -foot commercial mixed use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center and ensure necessary linkages are provided 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. 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18003 to subdivide an approximately 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. 4. Design Review 2016-001 for the design and site layout of Phase 1 Lots 1-10 of VTTM 18003 of a commercial mixed-use project with a retail use (food hall) and conference center. City Council Resolution No. 16-59 Page 2 5. Conditional Use Permit 2016-001, 2016-002 and Conditional Use Permit 2016-015 and 2016-023 for the establishment of on-site alcohol consumption, joint use parking, live entertainment and the projection of mechanical equipment. 6. Minor Modification 2016-001 for the allowance of a 10% parking reduction for Phase 1 of the project site and Minor Modification 2016- 002 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 (SP1) within a portion of Planning Area 9-12 of Neighborhood E; and designated as MCAS Tustin 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 a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on September 27, 2016, by the Planning Commission. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 4320 through 4324 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on October 18, 2016, by the City Council. The City Council continued the item to November 1, 2016. F. 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, Tustin. 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. City Council Resolution No. 16-59 Page 3 G. That in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the checklist has been considered and found to be complete and adequate prior to approving the project as proposed. II. The City Council hereby finds that the project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/FEIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15168 (c) and 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 1St day of November, 2016. JOHN NIELSEN MAYOR ATTEST: ERICA N. RABE CITY CLERK City Council Resolution No. 16-59 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 16-59 ERICA N. RABE, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 16-59 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1St day of November, 2016, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: ERICA N. RABE, CITY CLERK Exhibit A Environmental Checklist 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): Flight at Tustin Legacy Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Erica H. Demkowicz Phone: 714-573-3127 Person: 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 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 ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation & Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Agricultural Resources C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Noise ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ 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. 0 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 D. 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 project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use`? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract`? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following 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`? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ p 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan'? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ x❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 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? 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? 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 ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ I] ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ I] Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Flight at Tustin Legacy Page 10 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? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII. POPULATION, AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either 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? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities'? XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑ ❑ p 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? No Substantial Change From New Significant More Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 0 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? ❑ ❑ ❑x 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? ❑ ❑ ❑x 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)? ❑ ❑ ❑x c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑x 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 WAS 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? 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 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. 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? 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 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? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 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 MCAS 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 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 9331d (1)(b) Tustin General Plan 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 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. 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 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 Exhibit B Shared Parking Study Access Analysis Noise Analysis SLSA ASSOGIA'CES, INC. 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE `200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 August 3, 2016 Krys Saldivar Public Works Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 FRESNO RIVERSIDE 949.513.0666 TL UERKELEY PALM SPRINGS ROCKLIN 949.553.807Fi FAX CARLSBAD YT. RICHMOND SAN LUIS OUISYO 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 Aston/Barranca Parkway, a right-in/right-out driveway at Park Way/Barranca 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:\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking LetterTdocxo PLANNING I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DESIGN Len !4 SS 11 r: IA 'I", INr. Table A: Specific Plan Parking Requirements Parking Rates per MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.13.5, Land Use Table 3-6 Project Parking Requirements Size Unit PaOffice 1 s ace er 250 sf 374,917 sf Restaurant 1 s ace er 100 sf 11,970 Sf Conference/Assembl 1 space per 35 sf 3,553 Sf TOTAL 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. 8/3/16 <P:\LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking LetterTdom> t.S.n ASSnr'r%r'eS. 1','(:. 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 of parking demand for 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 of parking spaces which may be credited against the requirements for the structures or uses involved shall not exceed the number ofspaces 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 eP:1LPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking Letter7.docx» ;.s,nAss,Ici;�Trs, .rzc. 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. 1 Anthony Petr is 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 aPAPC1501\Parking Study\Shared Parking LetterTdom> 4 LSA re NO SCALL L:LPC1501\G\Phase-I Bldg&Parking LocationsAr(7i14,•'2016) FIGURE 1 Fli lit at Tustin Le�raev Phase t Building and Parking Locations LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AUGUST 1016 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 i P:ALPC1501APanting Study\Shared Parking LetterTdoex 49/03/16» LSA ASSOCIA"IES, INC. 20 EXECU"FIVE PARK, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 9'2614 A � July 22, 2016 Krys Saldivar Public Works Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 FRESNO RIVERSIDE 049.553. 0l.Gti BERKELEY PALM SPRINGS ROCKLIN 949. 55ft.tl07 C, FAX CARLSBAD PL RICHMOND SAN LUIS ORISPO 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:ALPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» PLANNING I ENVIRONMEN"IAL SCIENCES I DESIGN L_A AS5QistAi 1— INI ;. 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 (91h 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) a 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 1,522 71 58 129 71 47 118 Conference Center 3.553 TSF 33 5 1 6 l 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, 9h 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:ALPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» LVA ASS 1>1;1 A11:9. 1til;. 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:ALPC1501\Access AnalysisMe Flight Access Analysis3.docx» LSA ASS01;IA1 ES, IN(:. Levels of Service Unsignalized Intersection Dela (seconds) A <10.0 B >10.0 and <15.0 C > 15.0 and <25.0 D >25.0 and <35.0 E >35.0 and <50.0 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]). 7/22/16 ,P:ALPC1501\Access AnalysisMe Flight Access Analysisldocx» 4 L. AASSOCIAi E: , Table B: Peak -Hour Signal Warrant Analysis Aston/Barranca Parkwav Street Name Approach' Movement Plus Pro'ect 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 3,994 4,136 Signal Warranted? No Yes Armstrong Avenue/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 1 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:ALPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» L9A ASSO,:IA;.. P:9, 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 Parkway 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 ArmstrongAvenue/Main Street 0.36 A 0.35 A 5 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 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 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:ALPCl50RAccess AnalysisMe Flight Access Analysis1docx» 6 LS AssocIA_rs, .y�:. 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 Parkway/Barranca Parkway SBL 5 28 - 180 WBR 4 0 - 150 3 Armstrong Avenue/Barranca 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 1 Parkway/Private Drive NBL 30 1 5 180 EBL = eastbound left NBL = northbound lett BR W EBR = eastbound right SBL = southbound left WEIR = westbound shared through -left lane ft = feet/foot WBL = westbound left W=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 Parkway/Barranca 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:\LPCl50RAccess Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx» 7 LIA !: SOIJ 1AI hS. !NC. 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 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 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 AstonBarranca Parkway can be accommodated. The on-site roadway system can accommodate vehicular circulation with a one -lane internal drive. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Tony Petro 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 «P:\LPCl50RAccess Analysis\The Flight Access AnalysisIdocx» L S A LEGEND FIGURE I XX/YY - A MTM Peak Hour Volumes ti 0 - Study Area Intersections - Trip Distribution Percentage NO SCALE 1ALPC 150 1 \GTroject Volumes. cdr (7/1912016) T-1i,,,ht at Tustin Lega(' Project Traffic VOILline JL 2/1 19/99 021 29149 220/51 79/18– 27/6.–# —172/40 14/73 tm= 26/6 19/4 52/37 29/7— — 3217 3116 64115 56/284, 3071 �16 --1 f fw ... .... . . ... eq 122 41 4/19 3/14-1 4/21 F s, i8 �4 J �'L-52/14 236/54 4 0 —62/313 83/121 -*-298/59 269/02--1 271/269— 228/52–J 228/52 43/217— L S A LEGEND FIGURE I XX/YY - A MTM Peak Hour Volumes ti 0 - Study Area Intersections - Trip Distribution Percentage NO SCALE 1ALPC 150 1 \GTroject Volumes. cdr (7/1912016) T-1i,,,ht at Tustin Lega(' Project Traffic VOILline L S A LEGEND FIGURE XX/YY - AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 0 - Study Area Intersections NOSCALE V,LPC1501\GTorecast Volummedr (71119/2016) Fli-lif at Tustin Legaev Forecast Traffic VOILline A� "'P^ -411, 2/11 19/99 29/149 11 14M—j 0 t— 25/6 t — 79/18 2i37 2917 52616 27!6 172/40 241124 3217 56184,--V 58/290 0 - � 31/26 I 1 54/15 309[71 50 f7 —8 1 t r 4,122 3/14 4/21 !11� A 62/14 236/54 2015/1732 932,12286 1932; 2286 269/52--J 19/67 2109/2223 0 f-282/161 228/127 1596/1641— 1563/1879 1163/1603— 16/66-4 i t r 15411/100 --1 1 t r L S A LEGEND FIGURE XX/YY - AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 0 - Study Area Intersections NOSCALE V,LPC1501\GTorecast Volummedr (71119/2016) Fli-lif at Tustin Legaev Forecast Traffic VOILline L S A 00 NO SCALE 1:\LPC1501\G\Queac Lerigths.cdr (7.121/2016) FIGURE 3 Flight at Tnstin Legac), Queue Lengths 0 1O' —# L S A LEGEND 0 - Study Area Intersections +— - Lane Geometry - Existing Storage Length j—.—� - Proposed Storage I.xngth NO SCALL I: •IPCI501\GTroposed Geornetrics.cdr (,7!2112016) - Signalized Intersection - All -Way Stop -Controlled Intersection - Stop Sign FIG URE 4 Flip hi at Tustin Legac.v Proposed Geometries LA ASSOCIATES, INC. M( Y 2016 ACCESS ANALYSIS FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE. CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A TRAFFIC FORECASTS P:ALPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx x07/22/16» 29 . Aston St. at Barranca Pkwy. 2035 No -Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 54 .03 110 .06* NET 1 1700 93 .09* 71 .09 NBR 0 0 53 79 SBL 1 1700 93 .05* 205 .12 SET 1 1700 9 .06 108 .23* SBR 0 0 98 287 EBL 1 1700 277 .16* 138 .08* EBT 3 5100 1434 .28 1405 .28 EBR 1 1700 19 .01 74 .04 WBL 1 1700 21 .01 68 .04 WET 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 NET 2 3400 54 .03 218 .13* NBR 0 0 61 .04 339 .20 SBL 1 1700 131 .08 228 .13* SET 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* WET 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 55 .03 106 .06* NET 1 1700 74 .07* 56 .07 NBR 0 0 41 .04 69 .20 SBL 1 1700 71 .04* 182 .11 SET 1 1700 5 .06 78 .21* SBR 0 0 95 .08 281 .07 EBL 1 1700 299 .18* 140 .08* EBT 3 5100 1468 .29 1589 .31 EBR 1 1700 16 .01 66 .04 WBL 1 1700 19 .01 67 .04 WET 4 6800 1870 .28* 1973 .29* WBR d 1700 267 .16 114 .07 Clearance Interval Turn Adjustment .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .69 2035 With -Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .68 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .67 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 60 .04* 234 .14 NET 2 3400 46 .03 259 .15* NBR 0 0 64 .04 348 .20 SBL 1 1700 136 .08 168 .10* SET 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* WET 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 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JULY 2016 ACCESS ANALYSIS FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN. COUNTY OF ORANGE. CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B LOS WORKSHEETS P:\LPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx «07/22/16» 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 o) 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 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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II----- 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 ---------------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 HCM Unsignalized "Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 Lane Configurations ttt ttM Traffic Volume (veh/h) "" " ::: 0 . 1663_,'i 2106 '::' 286 0 41, " Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1663 2109 236 0 41 Sign Gonial " free " , Frei . ". ' - Stop" Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 "". 0.92 ". 0,92" , ",0.62 0,92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1808 2292 257 0 45 Pedestrians" Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed(ftfs " Percent Blockage Right tum flare' (veh): Median type None None Median storage veh), Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 pX, platoon unblocked = 0.73 0.83 0.73 vC, conflicting volume 2549 3023 702 vC1, Stage 1 conf vol" vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu:,unblocked,vol" 1270 638 0', ' tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) '- tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 '100 94,,,:, cM capacity (veh/h) 396 338 791 D" 3' Volume Total 603 603 603 655 655 655 584 45 Volume Left .'- o' .:. 0 0 ' " '.. 011 0 0, 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 45 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 '"1700;,,1704 1700 791 Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 0 0 0- 0" 0 5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.8 Approach LOS A, Average Delay,' 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) ' 15: _ 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 o) 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 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 ---------------------------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---- 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 O1 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 o) 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 ------------------ 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 ---------------------------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 ------------ --------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--------------- Capacity -- -----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 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: 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 ----- --------II---------------II---------------II--------------- Saturation --- --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 HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Parkway & Private Drive 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Interwdon LOS A% Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 0 4 0 29 0 19 0 24 15 124 0 135 80 24 Peak Hou F"rl .. 0.92 0,92' 0.92, 0.92 0.92: 0.92' . 0.92 0,92,,'n` 0.92 0.92 3 0.92 0.92- x.92 OM" : U : 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow ' 0:' 2 0 4 0 32: ' 0 21 :' 0 26 16 135'' 0 147 .. 87 . , 26 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Lanes Conflicting Appro,L"eft SH.-.-" . " . -. : - NH .::�'' .: .: �.�:: W6 Conflicting Lanes Left 1 . Yes . Yesv Cap 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach -,Right Ng, ., ' 2.61 2.761 SB _ Vile' : ` .. EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0.31 HCM Control Delay,, 7.9 1 1 1 HCM t:ontrnEeiay A A A A HCM 95th --tile Q 719.=.. ... 9.2 HCM LOS A A A A Vol Left, %. - 15% 33% 60% 56"!a Vol Thru, % 9% 0% 0% 33% Vol Right, a/©- ' 76% 67% 40% 10% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traf t V61 by Lane 163 ..-_ 6 1 4$, 230.x,-, LT Vol 24 2 29 135 Through Vol 15, a ', 0'. 86 RT Vol 124 4 19 24 Geometry Grp Degree'ofUtil (X) 0.193 0.008 0.069 0.305.. - Departure Headway (Hd) 3.914 4.596 4.75 4.223 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes . Yes . Yesv Cap 921 781 757 839 Service Time 1.92 2.61 2.761 2.305 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.192 0.009 0.069 0.31 HCM Control Delay,, 7.9 i.6 8.1 9.2 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th --tile Q '0.7 0 0.2 1,3 Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 7 HCM 2010 AWSC 7: Private Drive & Main Street 7119/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.3 Intersection LO$' Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 309 3 0 5 58 26 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 10 Peak', Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 Q.92 0.92 0.92 ``. x.92 '0.92 0.92 0 92. 0.92 ; 0.92 ' 0,92" 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 21 .. 336. 3 0 ' " 5 . 63 28 0 , .: .. 0. 1 0 0 0 1: Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Lift SB NB EB'. W Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right . NB SB l; B B Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 9.8 7.6- 7.7' 7.4 HCM LOS A A A A WNEWS Vol Left, % ' S0% 6'%a;'.' 61la: 0'/©' Vol Thru, % 0% 93% 65% 0% Vol Right Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol -by Lane' 2 331 89 10. , LT Vol 1 19 5 0 Through Vol 0 309 58 0 - RT Vol 1 3 26 10 Lane Flow Rate 2360 . 97 : 11 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Utit:(X) 0.003 , 0.403. 0.109, 0,013 r Departure Headway (Hd) 4.719 4.036 4.061 4.305 Convergence,Y/i-� 'Yes Yes Yes . Yee' Cap 763 892 872 836 Service Time 2.72 2.063 2.139 2.305 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 0.404 0.111 0.013 HCM Control Delay 7.7 9.8 7.6 7.4 . HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM '95th-tile`,Q 0 2 04. 0— Tustin Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 8 HCM 2010 AWSC 8: Parkway & Main Street 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LOS A»; Future Vol, veh/h 0 52 31 26 0 64 29 79 0 40 44 6 0 15 63 34 Peak, Hour Factor ...: -"' e.92" 0.92 `: 0.92 0.92 " 0.92 ' 0:92 0.92 "..0.92 0.92 0.92 041,` ' 02"" 0.92 0.92 U2' 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow, ":;'," 0 '" 57 34 28 0...70 32:" ..:86;;: 0 � 43 ' 48 ." :: 7 ", 0 16 68' 37 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approas2t VVS .SB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left '"S8 , .. = ..... N@ ; ""..� :" WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 ConflctingAproach F2h#8 :" SIB— EBWB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM'Contralbelay 81 8.6= 8.6', 85 HCM LOS A A A A Vol Left, % 441Y6 -i:,48%, 69% 0% ..13% N_ "'' . Vol Thru, % 49% 28% 31% 0% 56% Vol Right, % 7%',24%,' 0%, 100%- 30°/° Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop " Traffic Vol by Lane ` 96- '109 " "; 93 ": 79� 112. LT Vol 40 52 64 0 15 Through Vol" 44 31 29 0 63; RT Vol 6 26 0 79 34 Lane Flow Rate " 98 .. 118 101 86 122 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util;(X) 0.132 0:156 0.158 0107 ' 0.167 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.859 4.74 5.515 4.465 4.63 Convergence, Y/N . Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye' s ., Cap 736 755 650 801 773 Service Time ' 2.90t, 2.7,81 3.253 2.202 1669 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.133 0.156 0.155 0.107 0.158 HCM Control Delay 8:6 8.7 9.3 7.7 8:5: " HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0.5 " ' 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 HCM 2010 AWSC 9: Private Drive & Main Street 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LOS Al 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 ; U2,1',0.92:. 1 0.92 0.92 0.02 0.921. 0.92: 0:92 0.92 0:92 0.92 0.92" 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flo�i: = 0 29 26 0' A, - 35 187 .: 289; 0 0 Q 8 0 42 0',-, 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting"Approach t eft' ' " SB ER WB, . Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Righf ; 'NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay . 8 8.7 7,5 8.5 . . HCM LOS A A A A Vol Left, % 0% 5311/0, 1V/o 0% 100"fo Vol Thru, % 0% 47% 84% 0% 0% Vol Right, % - ' 1000' '00/0 ; 0s/o 100% , 0%.: .' Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic, Vol by Lane - : 7' 51:.. 204, 220 39 LT Vol 0 27 32 0 39 Through Vol 0 24' -172 0 0 RT Vol 7 0 0 220 0 Lane low Rafe' 8°.55 . 222 239 , 42- ..- .. . , Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2. Degree of Util (X) U%, 0:072 0.291' 0.262 0:06.1 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.431 4.678 4.729 3.95 5.182 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes; Yesj , Yes ' Yes Cap 811 769 754 902 695 Service Time 2A3t 2.684 2.493' 1.713 3.186 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 0.072 0.294 0.265 0.06 HCM Control Way 7.5 8 9.4 1 8.1 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 & Private Drive 7/19/2016 Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Lett - .; ` SH NB � ' � � 1rR°^� WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflldng Approach"Right "' NB ��.. S'. '," W6 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM?Control Delay,,-,--- `- 7.7 8.5 f5 HCM LOS A A A A 0 Intersection LOS A 192 0 0 0 34 . RT Vol 33 3 0 4 29 Lane: Flow Rate 257 8 4 4 88 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Vfit (X) 0.282 0.01 0.007 0.006 U97 Trafflo Vol, vettlt 0 4 0 3 0 " 4 0.: , ' 4 0 11 '. 192 "' 33 0 18' 34. 29 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, 0.92 0.92 0.92',:, 0;92 0". , 0.92; 0.92� 0.92 (. ` i1.92 0.92' 0.9 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt, Flow .. 0 4 ,. ` 0. ; " ;" 3 0. ;4 0 4 0 12=, 209' 36 0 20 3T,3 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Lett - .; ` SH NB � ' � � 1rR°^� WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflldng Approach"Right "' NB ��.. S'. '," W6 EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM?Control Delay,,-,--- `- 7.7 8.5 f5 HCM LOS A A A A Vol Thru, % 81% 0% 0% 0% 42% Vol Right,,A/ 14% 43% 0% 100%- 36% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic V61 by -Lane 236 7 4 4 81 LT Vol 11 4 4 0 18 Through Vol 192 0 0 0 34 . RT Vol 33 3 0 4 29 Lane: Flow Rate 257 8 4 4 88 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Vfit (X) 0.282 0.01 0.007 0.006 U97 Departure Headway (Hd) 3.954 4.632 5.773 4.565 3.984 Convergence, 1W Yes. Yes " Yes Yes Yes., Cap 908 777 624 789 891 Service Time'. 1,985 2.633 3.473 2.265 2.045 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.099 HCM Control Delay : ' ., 8.5 73 8.5 . 7.3 7.5 '. . HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM'95th-tileQ 1.2 Q Q 0 0.3 " Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 11 Two -Way Stop -Controlled Alternative HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Future Vol, veh/h 29 9 85 353 512 166 Confricting Peds, #/hr ', OF 0 "" : a," ' 0 0', 0.3 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT C'hahheNaecF: " Done None None ..'' Storage Length 0 300 100 100 Vehr in Mediad Stere; # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak, Hour Pactor...:; 92 92 92;," 92" 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt,Ftow.: "' 32 10 92" "' 384 557 180 Conflicting Flow All 934 278 557 0 - 0 4 Stage 1,557"" Stage 2 377 - Critic.("Hdw 6.84":.."' 6:94: 414 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - Critical Hd* Stg 2 _ .5.84' _ Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver; 264 719, " 1010' - Stage 1 537 - - - Stage 2', 664', Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -!"Maneuver"" 240 719" " 1010 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 240 Stage 1 537 - - - - - Stage 2 603 HCM LOS C HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 - 0.131 0.014 - - HCM' Control" Delay (s}; 8.9 - 22.3 10.1 HCM Lane LOS A C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.4." Q Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 O1 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---------------11---------------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 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 14 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 ---------------------------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 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II-- 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7/18/2016 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1879 2223 54 0 208 Sign Control Free Free " : Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2042 2416 59 0 226 Pedestrians"" Lane Width (ft) "Speed Walking, (ftls) Percent Blockage Right'turnflare (yo)- Median type None None Medleir storage vett] � "!:,,; Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 pX; platoon, unblocked,., : ,." 0,77' 0.88 0,77' ;- vC, conflicting volume 2475 3126 634 vC1, stage,# confvot vC2, stage 2 conf vol VCu, unblocked " - 1401 728 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stere (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free %... 100 _ 100 73 cM capacity (veh/h) 371 314 831 C} °11 Volume Total 681 681 681 690 690 690 404 226 Volume Left " 0, " "0"", 0, 0 0 " 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 226 cSH ': 1700"=""1700, 1700 1700' 1700,". '1700" 'i 1700 831 Volume to Capacity 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.24 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) "' 0 "" Q] " : 0 0 0 " ';. " a' 0 28 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Lane LOS-, B .' " Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.9 Approach LO Average Delay 0.5" Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 1 "... . Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 O1 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 o) 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---------------11---------------II---------------11--------------- Control: -------------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---------------H---------------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 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- Saturation --- --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---------11---------------11---------------II--------------- Capacity ---------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 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 ------------ --------------- il---------------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 ---------------------------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 O1 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 o) 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 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 0 394 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 ------------ I---------------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 HCM 2010 AWSC 6: Parkway & Private Drive 7/18/2016 ESS ,�:, •. +,yr.. .' 9 F Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8 Intersection LOS A; 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 11 149 31 0.92 ': 0.32. 092-" 0.97;""0.92"" 1& 0.92'. 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt;Flowi, 0 12 0 23:' " . 0 :. 162 : ", " 0: 108 0,1:, , 5 77"' ". 32 0... 34 20' 5 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Lanes Vol Thru, % _ 68% 0% 0% 33% . Vol Right,,% " ; 28%,:: 66% 40%' 9% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by,Lane;" 1"05 ;" 32 248' 54 LT Vol 5 11 149 31 Through Vol ". 71 0 0' 1& RT Vol 29 21 99 5 Lane Flow.Rate'" = " 114'35 270' 59 , Geometry Grp 1 1 1. 1, Degree, of Utif (X)"" 0.144 0.042 0.319°; 0.078, Departure Headway (Hd) 4.529 4.307 4.262 4.809 Convergence, Y/hl .. "„ _ Yes Yes Yes" yes Cap 792 831 844 745 Service Time =" 2.553.2.334 2.281' 2.837 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.144 0.042 0.32 0.079 HCM Control Delay " 8.3 , " 75 9.3' 8.2 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th -tile 0 0,5 01 . 1.4 " " 0.3',. 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 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9 Intersection LOS A,, Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 71 1 0 1 290 6 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 49 Peak, Hour Facet - - '0:92 0.92 0 �2 0.92 U.92 .0.92 '0.92 0!92 0.92 - 0.92' ft 92.:°, 0,92. 92 0.2_ . 0.92 U:9 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvrnt Flow 0-: , 4 77 1 0 1_ : ` 315 7 0 . 4 , a _ 4 _ 0 _ . " Ef .. ; 0 Yes Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Lanes Vol Thru, % 0% 93% 98% 0% Vol Rig'htr °la X50% ,::"J*Xa ,2% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traifrc Val by Lan�;. _ 8-- :76 297 49 LT Vol 4 4 1 0 Through Vol 0 71 290: 0 RT Vol 4 1 6 49 Lane' Flow Rate,,—, 9' 83 323 53' Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util:(X) - 0;011 0.101 0.367 0.063 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.683 4.393 4.093 4.228 Convergence;Y/N ; �, -, ; Yes lies Yes Yes Cap 767 819 872 851 Service Tirhe,' 2;692.2.399, 2.150 2.233: " HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 0.101 0.37 0.062 HCM Control Delay 7.7 7.9 9.5' 7.5 - . HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tileQ 0 0.3 1,7 0.2 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 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.9 intersectloh LO $,_ Future Vol, veh/h 0 37 26 6 0 15 7 18 0 103 50 30 0 74 95 29 Peals Hour Factor "'; ".. ',0.92 0'.92,"';" 0.92 0,92. 0.92- 0.92. 0.92 " 0.92 0:9z 0 92;= 0,:92 :- 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 U2 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow-' . ; 0 40�` 28 7 0: 16". 8 20 U 112 '54 :;.',33, 0, :;. 80' 103.. 32 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach ' -: " W15""' "',. " " " EB SB ,.a . ;.. -:.-. ". ". `.. "" NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left : SB NB EB" '" WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB W6"" EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay 81 . 8.4 9.1. HCM LOS A A A A Vol Left, % , 56% 54%: 68/o: 0°Ja.."; 37% Vol Thru, % 27% 38% 32% 0% 48% Vol Rightr°/a " Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol" by, Lane 183..;: - G9 "" 22 . " 16,- 198 LT Vol 103 37 15 0 74 Through V61,1 _ 50 , ` 26 7 " " . 01" ,' 95 RT Vol 30 6 0 18 29 _ Lane Flow Rate199`" _ 75 24' 20' 215.- Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Will (X) 0,248. 0.106 0.039' 0.026 U66: - Departure Headway (Hd) 4.492 5.092 5.904 4.853 4.449 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes' Yes Yes ....." Cap 800 703 606 736 807 Service Time 2.517 3.13 3.644'' 2.593 2.473. HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.249 0.107 0.04 0.027 0.266 HCM Control Delay 9 8.7" 8.9 " 7.7 9.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th4lie Q " . 1 0.4 0.1' 0.1 1.1 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 Future Vol, veh/h 0 6 124 0 0 7 40 51 0 0 0 34 0 199 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 0.92 0.92 0.92 ON-' 0,92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt'Flow 0,- :":. ?. 135. 0 0 & 43" 55.:`.: 0 0' 0 37 0 21 0, 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 A' u k Opposing Approach W11 EB., SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Confli(thg ApproacK LefL.. .: :'SR-. ' NB-” EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right , Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay' 84..:" :: 8.1 " 7.4 9:7 HCM LOS A A A A L'r Vol Left, % 0% 5% 15% 00/91, 100% Vol Thru, % 0% 95% 85% 0% 0% Vol Right, c -''100%0%0°/Q �00?/0', Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 34; 130 ; 47' 51 199 LT Vol 0 6 - 7 0 199 Through Vol 0 124 40" 0 0 RT Vol 34 0 0 51 0 Lane Flow Rate 37 141 51' 55 216.: Geometry Grp, 2 5 7 7., 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.043 0.188 0.076 0,071 'U86 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.197 4.79 5,361 4.58 4.767 Convergence, Y/N Yes.. Yes Yes Yes is Yes Cap 850 749 668 781 753 Service Time 2.239 2.824 3.096' 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 6.5 , 7.7 9.7 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 96th -tile Q 0.1 0,7 .. D.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, s/veh 8.1 Intersection LOS .; _ _ A Future Vol, veh/h 0 22 0 14 0 21 0 19 0 3 44 8 0 4 171 6 Peak Hour Factor, 92`; i1r92 0;92 0.9 0.92' 92' "'0.92 "0;92 f392', 0,92 :' 0.92 0,9 " 0;92 .0.92' 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow-, ' a "= 24 0 15' � �0' 23'" 0,,; "�21 �.. ,..3 :� 48" '._ 9 " � 0�:"." _4�:� 18f�?... Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Aii Opposing Approach WBS:: .. NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting"Approh Lift SB - NBA E:; " : "� .: 1lB"..'' Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting ApproaQit flight N 6,_ :' SB " W�? EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM: Control Delay 7.8--,,' " = . " " ` 8 8.4 HCM LOS A A A A Vol Lift, °lo 2%O, Vol Thru, % 80% 0% 0% 0% 94% Vol Fight, % 15%a'` 39%5: 0% 100%, 3%, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vot by Lane 55 36 21" 19;',: 181 LT Vol 3 22 21 0 4 Through Vol 44 0 0 0 171. RT Vol 8 14 0 19 6 Lane Flow Rate 60 39 23 21 197 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.071 0.049 0.036 0.025' 0.224" Departure Headway (Hd) 4.261 4.548 5.64 4.433 4.104 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes, Yes Yee Cap 845 792 638 811 862 Service Time "" 2.265 2.552 3.344 2.138 2.191 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 0.049 0.036 0.026 0.229 HCM 'Control Belay 7.6 7,8 U 7.3 8AHCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th -file 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 Two -Way Stop -Controlled Alternative HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 HCM LOS HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.531 0.063 - HCV CdntmI Delay (s) ,: 8.3 - 29.7' Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 HCM Lane LOS A D A HCM 95th %tile.Q(veh)'', ' X0,1 - 2.9€ -02, Traffic VoL veh/h. 147 . 46 20 665 .: Future Vol, veh/h 147 46 20 665 394 38 Conflicting Peds,#lhi;= 0 0 0= Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None -None Storage Length 0 300 100 100 Veh i€j Median Storage: #: 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor ` 9292' 92:. , 92 92= 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2.. Murat FtoW 160 50' " . 723 428 ='' 4t W:t 10-g Conflicting Flow All 833 214 428 0 0 Stage 1 ` 428 Stage 2 405 - - Critical Hdw ,: - 6.84 6.94' 4.14.; Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - Critical Hdwy�St0.2: 5.84 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - Pot Cap -,T Maneu'v'er,' 307 791' 11126-11,' - Stage 1 625 _ Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 301 7911 1128. - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 301 Stage 1 625 - - Stage 2 629 - - - HCM LOS HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.531 0.063 - HCV CdntmI Delay (s) ,: 8.3 - 29.7' 9.9 HCM Lane LOS A D A HCM 95th %tile.Q(veh)'', ' X0,1 - 2.9€ -02, Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. JULY 2016 ACCESS ANALYSIS FLIGHT AT TUSTIN LEGACY CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C QUEUING WORKSHEETS I'MPC1501\Access Analysis\The Flight Access Analysis3.docx «07/22/16» Queues 1: Aston & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 --'0 ---W -'V "(- 4% t I'* t Lane Group Flow (vph) 292 1843 17 21 2100 67 60 45 47 27 vlo Rate" 0 6 . ; Q,53 0.02 0,116,"1" ,. 0,727 , 0,09 0.53 O1fr", Control Delay 41.8 8.8 0.0 41.3 21.6 0.9 58.5 1.3 58.1 1.0 Queue Delay,: 0.0:. " , 0,0 0,0 0.0 " 0.01'11z"' " 0.0 0.0 0.0 ": : 0.4 0.0 Total Delay 41.8 8.8 0.0 41.3 21.6 0.9 58.5 1.3 58.1 1.0 Queue Length 50th :', 156"" " " 141 :""-, °. 01 :: '" 11 271 " ,: - 0 34. 0 zi 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #274 279 0 34 315 7 #84 0 #68 0 Internal, ink Ret (ik) >? 1095" 630 839 473 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 315 145 325 Base Cattacity'(vphj , "_ 428 3� 1127" `" 13U 2919 783 ' 114 ° . ";;"450 9$ 431' Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillbaek,Cap Reducta : ; 0;; ., 0" . "' tt ;:'= " 0 0 6 " ' 0 " : - 0,; '': 0 ..:; a, Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced" v/c Raba-' 6.68 0.51.. " 0,02 " , 0,16 0.72 O.bqi' ; 0 53 (t:1ik . 448:" U6 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 .,* � � A, \1' Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1663 2109 236 0 41 Sign Control-. Free:" " Free" Stop," Grade 0% 0% 0% PeakHour. Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 " 0.92" " . 0,92 " " Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1808 2292 257 0 45 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (#/s) Percent Blockage Right tum "flan (vest) Median type None None Median storage veh} Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 pX, ptatoon unblocked 0.73 0.83 0.73 vC, conflicting volume 2549 3023 702 vC1,'stage '�' cant vol, vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu,'unblodiedwbl 1270. ":. 638 0 tC single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tG, 2'stJe:(s)�' tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 PQ queufre''Ya 100.:.' 100 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 396 338 791 Volume Total 603 603 603 655 655 655 584 45 Volume Left" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 45 cSH : " " 1700 1700 . ;.1700 1700 1706. ; :'1700 1700 791 Volume to Capacity 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.06 Queue" Length 9 (ft}' `" Q 0 . > " 0 0 ' . 0" 0 0 5,:" - "- Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.8 Appraaefr LOS A AN -VON". Average Defy.. 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Apalysis,Perlod (min) 15. Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 Queues 3: Armstrong Avenue & Barranca Parkway 7/19/2016 -,, --* -,�, 4- 4\ Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 1264 167 307 2190 215 65 120 148 319 v/c R"atio" 0.78 0.48 0.19 6.68 :" " 0,73 0.25 0.89 0.45" " 0,64 0.51 Control Delay 64.4 20.9 5.1 57.0 29.1 3.9 135.5 29.8 61.2 27.7 Queue Delay 0:0 0.0 0,0 0.0 , .":` QA-: ' 0.0 0.0 17:0 010 0.0 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 (ftp-,' " " ." 183 223"8: 118 395 0 51 "° 20 110. 66 Queue Length 95th (ft) 273 322 53 160 509 49 #140 50 173 104 Internal Lint"Dist (f :.. ". X40, 1065 ` j 461: " . " .: ".. 591 Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 25 265 1000 175 150 Base, Capacity.(vph) 336:" , 261&.. " 885:...;507: 3000 855 .. 73. _ 622 . ' 240. ","_ 905.""; Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductme `:" 0'' 0" 0 � : O 0 0_. " " 0 " _ 0, :.. (T ..... 0: -: Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced ulc Ratite;.. ( 74...r. 4 4 4.19 l3 6 t "U.73 0.25 r 089 0:19 0.62 " .' 0.35" 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 � � # Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 61 371 461 477 89 Wo, Ratio 4.05 0,20:. 0.68 0.19..:.0.44: 0.16" Control Delay 18.2 8.4 24.9 2.7 13.4 4.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0. Q,0 . '. 0,0'' 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.2 8.4 24.9 2.7 13.4 4.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)>;, 3 - 0 .:: 82' 17 51 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 25 #236 35 87 22 Internal Link Dist (ft) 29�k r ,- 591 1050, Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 100 Base''Capacity (vptr) 82t, . 76 ,,_547 3227 1962 ,', 917 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0, 0. 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Ratio X0,02 '0,08 0.68 OJ4,-"` 0.24"' 0.10 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst- NP Page 3 Queues 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 10 92 384 557 180 v/c Ratio " 0131, 0.04 0.41 0,13 0.23' 0.16 Control Delay 16.8 10.2 23.6 2.1 6.2 2.4 Queue Delay �' 0.0" " " 0:0. 0,0 . ," 0,17 AD .. _ 0.0 Total Delay 16.8 10.2 23.6 2.1 6.2 2.4 Queue Length 50th (ft}" 6"" Q: 17. 0 20 "" " 6 ""- Queue Length 95th (ft) 24 9 55 28 79 26 Internal Link Dist (ft) " 366 1050 443 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 100 Base Capacity (vph) 727 656 ' " 222. 3021 2425" 1141 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Gap Reductn 0 Q" 0 . " "': 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced A Ratio', 0.04" D OZ", ; : 0.41" 0.13. `: 0.23: "0.16 Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016 012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 9: Private Drive & Main Street 7/19/2016 lrlt 4Ni, v U 4 b Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6 Intersection LAS , , A 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- 0.92: 0.9-2''0.92 EB , 0.92: 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0. 29 26, 0 0':. 35 187" 239 0 ": 0, 0 8, .`� 0• 42 6', ". 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Luft. .: SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB', WB EB , Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCMControl Delay. • ", . ° . 8 8:7" 7.5 8.5 HCM LOS A A A A Vol -Left, o/a :.,:. 0% 53% 16% 010' 100% Vol Thru, % 0% 47% 84% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 100% 0116 - '0% 100%, ..' 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by lane 7 5f''204- ` 220 ' 39',' LT Vol 0 27 32 0 39 Through Vol 0 ; 24' 172 " 0 0 RT Vol 7 0 0 220 0 Lane; Flow Rate 8 55 222 239 42," Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Will (X) 0;009 0.072 0.291 0.262 0.061 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.431 4.678 4.729 3.95 5.182 Convergence, YIN, Yes. Yes". Yes Yes Yes Cap 811 769 754 902 695 Service Time 2.437 2.684 2.493 1.71313.186-. HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 0.072 0.294 0.265 0.06 HCM Control Way 7.5 ' 8 9.4 8.1 - 8.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th -tile Q 0 0.2 A2 1.1 0.2 Tustin Circulation 7/14/2016012035 Plus Project AM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 10 HCM 2010 AWSC 10: Parkway & Private Drive 7/19/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Intersection LOS A , 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; 0.92 Ui 0.92 U2. 0.92,,',0;92::=:.0492 0.92 , 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'Ftow 0< `' ' 4, 0 3 . 0 0 4,."; 0 1211 .. 209. 36 ." 0".. : 20 37'' 32 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 a,^a•' Opposing Approach WB EBS , .. SB' ' NB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left: SB. NB EB W&' Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflicting Approach Right , , NB SB : WBI EB— B "Conflicting ConflictingLanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay. " ',; 7.7 7.9 8.5 HCM LOS A A A A Vol Left, °l° 5% 57% 100% 0%"' "22°fo Vol Thru, % 81% 0% 0% 0% 42% Vol Right, % 14%, " 43% 0% 100% . 36% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lana. 236• .,:.. T k .. 4 81 LT Vol _ 11 4 4 0 18 Through Vol 192. 0 0- , 0 34" .. ". ; RT Vol 33 3 0 4 29 Lane Flow Rate 2578 4 4 881. ., Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X):' 0.282 0.01 0.007 0.006 0.097, Departure Headway (Hd) 3.954 4.632 5.773 4.565 3.984 Convergence, Y/N Yes, Yes Yes, Yes Yes Cap 908 777 624 789 891 Service Time 1.985 2.633 3.473 2.266 2.045' " HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.283 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.099 HCM Control Delay 8.5 77 8.5 7.3 7.5 . HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th -file Q 1.2' 0" , 0 0 . 0.3 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 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile valun>e exceeds capacity, queue may be [onger, Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 La°. Lane Group Flow (vph) 67 1784 72 73 2485 15 115 75 236 137 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.63 ° ..; 0.08, 0 39>'�.. 0.69 0.02 0.86 030 1.86 Control Delay 43.0 16.0 1.1 42.8 16.5 0.0 92.2 4.1 441.9 16.5 Queue Delay O.D 0.0 0;0 0.0 0.0 0,01", ; : 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.0 16.0 1.1 42.8 16.5 0.0 92.2 4.1 441.9 16.5 Queue, Lengthy 50th (it) �' 36 ;. '' 239" : _ 0 39" .'" 277 0 68 Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 357 9 79 398 0 #164 8 #349 54 Internal Link, Disttft) 1095;' 630 889: " "473 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 315 145 325 Base Capacity (vph), 179: 2851 938 "°; ; ,.18$ 3621 944 ;' 133" " : 439 t27'J 434 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn " 0 ;" , _ _ 0 0, 0 0 0: � _ 0" "'. ft ` 0., 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vleRatio 0,137:', :: 0:63" " 0.08 0.39 0.69 0.02 , 6:86" -' 017: "; 1.88"" 0.32 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile valun>e exceeds capacity, queue may be [onger, Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Barranca Parkway & Parkway 7118/2016 'A --,, *- 4-, \1' 4/ Lane Configurations Traffic ifvlume' (uehlh) 0 . 1879 2223', 54' 0 208,' Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1879 2223 54 0 208 Sign Coniroi Free Free Stop " Grade 0% 0% 0% PeakHour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92. Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2042 2416 59 0 226 Pedestdans," Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh} Median type None None Median store veh} Upstream signal (ft) 710 780 pX, platoon unblocked 0.77 0.88 0.77" .." vC, conflicting volume 2475 3126 634 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1404 728 0..:'" " tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC; 2',stage, (s)I tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free ':% 100' 100 73 " cM capacity (veh/h) 371 314 831 Oki W" Volume Total 681 681 681 690 690 690 404 226 Volume Left 0 0 0 0,:` 0, '" 01,111, 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 226 cSH-- 1 700 1700. 1700' 1700:"- 11700 " ' 1700 1700" ' 831 - 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 0 0 0 0 0 28 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.9 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 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 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 311412016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 2 "Group Lane Flow (vph) 138 1742 109 175 1883 " 224 254 660 183 220 v/c Ratio 1.38'5 0.84 0.15 4.83 0.7f' '0:28:. 0.53.: " 0.77-'-`w '0.59 Control Delay 262.2 33.8 1.4 81.8 28.6 3.8 39.9 37.1 72.2 32.7 Queue Delay'. 0.0 0 0. ... 0 0r," 0.0 O.0 O.(} O.it u " " 0.0 ' ' 0:0 . Total Delay 262.2 33.8 1.4 81.8 28.6 3.8 39.9 37.1 72.2 32.7 Queue Length (Ith (ftp;_ -132 397 .` : O 64 315 0 153. 178 " 126" 43"" Queue Length 95th (ft) #259 463 11 #132 362 46 246 247 #233 80 Internal Link Dist"(fk) 700. 1065 461 591 Turn Bay Length (ft) 600 25 265 1000 175 150 BaseCapacity(vph)" M ." 2080 " : ;741 211 2666 70', .`: 475- 877 241 899 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Raductrr,; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0" 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio" 1.38: 0.84 (115 .. 83";0."" 0.71 0.28- , 0:53 " ;: D.75 0.76 0.24 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Tustin Circulation 311412016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 2 Queues 4: Armstrong Avenue & Main Street 7/19/2016 _J* --V 4\ T 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 309 86 665 428 41 We Ratio 0.21. " `0.54 0.26 0.36 0.34 0.07 Control Delay 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 50th (ft) .. 14 " " "' 0 16" 31' 38 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 46 53 70 76 15 Internal Link Dist (ft) 204'. Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 100 Base Capacity'>(Vph) 908 962: " 353 ;" " 3074 " "" 2169. - 986 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 , 0 , 0 ", 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Rats%, 0.09 0.32 0,24, " ' 0.22 0.20 0.04. . Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 3 Queues 5: Armstrong Avenue & Parkway 7/19/2016 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 4 --* -;ilr - I i Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 50 22 723 428 41 v/c Ratio " 0.46 " "" 0,14 0,12 --0.30: 0,19' 0.04 Control Delay 21.1 6.5 21.7 5.0 6.4 3.7 Queue delay " 0.0 0.0" 0,0. .. 0ff�.: U 0.0 Total Delay 21.1 6.5 21.7 5.0 6.4 3.7 Queue Length 50th (it) 38 fl . ':,27: 0" Queue Length 95th (ft) 79 19 22 81 74 14 Internal Link, Dist�tij,:": 368 105: ;' "443':.''` ,- Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 100 Base Capacity tush ;: 652 614, 181 '2417' 2284 1036" Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spiack Cap Reduce; 0': "` 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced We Rant 0.25 0.08- "' 012:::. ;" Q.30 . 0,191-: 0.04 Tustin Circulation 3/14/2016 012035 Plus Project PM Synchro 9 Report LSA Analyst - NP Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 9: Private Drive & Main Street 7/18/2016 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9 Intersec5on LOS, A Future Vol, veh/h 0 6 124 0 0 7 40 51 0 0 0 34 0 199 0 0 Peak Hour Factor Q.92" ; 0.92: 009 9 0.92 ' 0.92 ; ` 0.92, 0.92' 0.92 0.92 0.92 6.92 0.92 0,9Z 0M,-,`,, 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvrnt.Flow ' . 0 :.- , 7 135 w , 0� 8 ;� - 43E. 55 - 0' 0 0 37 0 210 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 781 753 Senlce "l'ime 2.239 2.824 3.096' 2.316 2,798: HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.188 0.076 0.07 Opposing Alpp4oaclhi HCM Control Delay, WB" 8.9 8.5 7.7 : 9.7 HCM Lane LOS A SB A A NB HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 Opposing Lanes 0,2' 2 1.2 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left S ," NB' EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 ConfktJi Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Da 9 -.. 8.1:. 7.4 9.7 ; HCM LOS A A A A Vol Thru, % 0% 95% 85% 0% 0% Vol Right, Ok 100%j 0°ln '- 0°/a 1boo7a" 0%.. . Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop TraffiVolbyLane 34 130 47' 51 LT Vol 0 6 7 0 199 Through Vol. -; 0 124 40' 0 0 RT Vol 34 0 0 51 0 Lan$ Flow Rate. ` '37 , 141 51' 55-- 216 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7 2 Degree of Util (X) 0.043 0.188-0.076,,: 0.071 0.286 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.197 4.79 5.361 4.58 4,767 Convergence, YIN, Yes Yes Yes .YesYes , - Cap 850 749 668 781 753 Senlce "l'ime 2.239 2.824 3.096' 2.316 2,798: 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 -tile 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, s/veh 8.1 Intersection LOS A Future Vol, veh/h 0 22 0 14 0 21 0 19 0 3 44 8 0 4 171 6 Peak',Hour Factor 0.92 0.92. 0:92 0.92. ` 0.92 " 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 "" 0.92' 0.92.. "0 92.-. 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.9 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2" 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt,Flow tl ..',. 24 0' " 15 0,,''- 23 0 21 0,', 3 48 9" G' 4 1186,'- 86,';Number 2.265 Numberof Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 A A A A A HCM 95th-tife 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 OppQstn kpp;oach WB;:. EB', '.. SB Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1 Confloi►g.Approach Left SB NB E6' VIlEi " Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2 Conflciing.Approach Right NB- "- " . SB. " " " " ". '" WB' EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1 HCM Control Delay,,,-",,, . 7.8 8 . " ,.. 7.6 ' 84 HCM LOS A A A A Vol Thru, % 80% 0% 0% 0% 94% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 55 .. " 36' 21: 19 181: LT Vol 3 22 21 0 4 Through Vol 44 0 0 0" 171 RT Vol 8 14 0 19 6 Lane Flow Rate" 60 39 23 21 197 Geometry Grp 2 5 7 7; 2 Degree of Util,(X) 0.071 0.049 0.036 0.025 9.224 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.261 4.548 5.64 4.433 4.104 Convergence, Y/NYes _ " Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 845 792 638 811 862 Service Time 2.265 2.552 3.344 2.138 2.191 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0,071 0.049 0.036 0.026 0.229 HCM Control Detay" 7.6 7.8 8.6 7.3 8.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A A A HCM 95th-tife 0 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 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 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. Page 1 of 15 MIVH Landrum & Brown Page 2 of 15 �Wl.%71,7191 Vicinity Map Page 3 of 15 Exhibit 2 Site Plan Table 1 City of Tustin Exterior and Interior Noise Standards for Various Land Uses Residential - Bingle family, multitauuly, du- I NEL 15 c B I CNEL 65 dBW plex, mobile home Residential - Transient lodging, hotels, motels, I CNEL 4-5 dB I CNEL 6:5 dB4 nursin- homes, hospitals Private offices, church sanctuaries, libraries, board rooms, conference roams, theaters, Leq(12) 45 dB(A) - auditoriums, concert halls„ meeting hulls, etc. pools Leq(12) 45 dB(A) Leq(12) 67 dB(A)5 II General offices, reception, clerical, etc. I Leq(12) 0 dB(A) I - II Bank lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. Leq(12)55 dB(A) II N1 -i ufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, etc. I Leq(12) 65 dB(A) I - II 11 Parks, playgrounds I - I CNEL 65 dB -1 11 Golf courses, outdoor spectator sports., amuse- ment parks CNEL 70 dB5 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 4of15 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 Roadway Barranca Parkway Armstrong Avenue Traffic Volume (ADT) Speed Grade 32,000 50 <3% 7,000 40 <3% Page 5of15 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 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 Distance to CNEL Contours (feet) Roadway 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB Barranca Parkway 117 251 541 Armstrong Avenue 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 6of15 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 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 Distance Noise from Distance Noise from from Barranca from Armstrong Barranca Parkway Armstrong Avenue Building Parkway (ft.) (dB CNEL) Avenue (ft.) (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 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. Page 9 of 15 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 I " insulated fixed glass units, Viracon VEI-2M The I " thick assemblies will consist of % " glass, `Y2 " air gap, and % " 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 I " thick assemblies will consist of `/ " glass, %2 " 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 I " thick assemblies will consist of % " 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 1 " insulated glass units, Viracon VEI-2M. The 1 " thick assemblies will consist of % " glass, `/ " 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 / ERWR=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, M • 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 analysis. 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 ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED Barranca Parkway 6,000 50 Armstrong Avenue 700 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. Page 13 of 15 APPENDIX CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS DATA USED TO DETERMINE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS Page 14 of 15