HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3894RESOLUTION NO. 3894
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AS ADEQUATE THE FINAL
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 16527, AND ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN
REVIEW 03-0~15 AND FINDING ALL FEASIBLE MITGATION
MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCOPORATED AS REQUIRED BY
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That Design Review 03-015 and Tentative Tract Map 16527 are
considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California
Environmental Quality Act;
A draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project and distributed for public review. The
draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated the
implications of the project; and,
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Director and
other interested parties with respect to the subject draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
A Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has
been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The
Planning Commission has received and considered the information
contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 16527 and approving Design Review
03-015 and found that it adequately discusses the environmental effects
of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments
received during the public hearing process, the Planning Commission
finds that there will not be a significant effect as a result of the project. In
addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project involves no
potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on
wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game
Code.
Resolution No. 3894
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 13th day of October, 2003.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
' ~NDAC. JENN/J~S ~
"Chairperson (~/
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution
No. 3894 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of October, 2003.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Tkle:
Design Review (DR) 03-015 and Tentative Tract Map 16527
Project Location: 1123 Warner Avenue, Tustin, County of Orange
Project Description:
A request by the Voit Development Company to construct the "Tustin Gateway Business
Park", consisting of nineteen (19) new industrial buildings on the remaining vacant 14.9
acres of the former Steelcase property at the northeast corner of Warner Avenue and
Pullman Avenue. The buildings will range from approximately 3,800 to 37,000 square
feet in size. The application also includes Tentative Tract Map 16527 to subdivide Parcel
2 of Parcel Map 2002-237 into seven (7) parcels, one (1) of which will contain thirteen
(13) of the nineteen (19) buildings offering future owners fee title to the land underneath
the building and an undivided interest in the common area (parking lots, drive areas, and
landscape areas); the remaining six (6) buildings will be located on fee simple lots.
Project Proponent: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Matt West
Telephone: (714) 573-3118
The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance
with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
and on the basis of that study hereby finds:
[] That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans
and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial
Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community
Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this
Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and
extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review
period may be extended if deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS AT 4:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 13, 2003.
Date September 23, 2003 ~J.~~~,--~'.
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
INITIAL STUDY
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Tustin Gateway Business Park
Lead Agency:
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person:
Matt West Phone: 714/573-3118
Project Location: 1123 Warner Avenue
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Voit Development Company
26 Corporate Plaza, Suite 260
Newport Beach, CA 92660
General Plan Designation: Industrial
Zoning Designation:
Planned Community Industrial (PC-1ND)
Project Description: A request to construct the "Tustin Gateway Business Park", consisting of nineteen
(19) new industrial buildings on the remaining vacant 14.9 acres of the former Steelcase property. The
buildings will range from approximately 3,800 to 37,000 square feet in size. The application also
includes Tentative Tract Map 16527 to subdivide Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 2002-237 into seven (7)
parcels, one (1) of which will contain thirteen (13) of the nineteen (19) buildings offering future owners
fee title to the land underneath the building and an undivided interest in the common area (parking lots,
drive areas, and landscape areas); the remaining six (6) buildings will be located on fee simple lots.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Industrial/Warehouse
South: Industrial/Warehouse
East: Industrial/Warehouse
West: IndustriaFWarehouse
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
[] Orange County Fire Authority []
[] Orange County Health Care Agency []
[] South Coast Air Quality Management []
District
Other:
City of lrvine
City of Santa
Orange County
EMA
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.
[] Aesthetics
[] Air Quality
[] Cultural Resources
[] Hazards & Hazardous Materials
[] Land Use/Planning
[] Noise
[] Public Services
[] Transportation/Traffic
[] Mandatory Findings of Significance
[] Agriculture Resources
[] Biological Resources
[] Geology/Soils
[] Hydrology/Water Quality
[] Mineral Resources
[] Population/Housing
[] Recreation
[] Utilities/Service Systems
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATiVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that although the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated impact" 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 in the attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
I find that although the proposed projeCt could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR OR NEGATiVE
DECLARATION'pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR OR NEGATiVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and no further documentation is required.
f~,~4/.~.g~i_ _ _./~-~~ Date September 23~2003
Elizabeth Binsack
Community Development Director
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Directions
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level,
indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and E1R is
required.
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EII~ or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
The explanahon of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and,
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
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 sun-oundings?
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 determthLng
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
Califorma Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Fan, land, Unique Farmland, or Farm/and
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 ~vith 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 sigmficance
criteria established by the applicable ak quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Resuk 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
ofneoDIe?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
Nolmpact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial~adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifiqations, 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 ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial'adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not 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 minatory 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 potty or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Narmral Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the proj ect:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defured in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alqnist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence ora known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Sl~ecial Publication 42.
ii) SU'ong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
enviroranent 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?
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 envirmwnent?
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,
~vould the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the pro ect area'?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
Nolmpact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
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 them 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 ora
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 nmoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polhited runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Potentially impact stormwater nmoff from construction
activities?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially ~Vith
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
1) Potentially impact'stormwater runoff from post-
construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge ofstormwater
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 hahn?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site
or surrounding areas?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
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
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Significant
Impact
Nolmpact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or petiodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess anise 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 replacemem housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SER¥ICES
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XIV. RECREATION-
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regiqnal 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
m/ght have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
veh/cle 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 siginficant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
conslruction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
Nolmpact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f') Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaiinng levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
ammal 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which w/Il
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
~V~th
Mitigation
Incorporation
Significant
Impact
No Impact
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
, DESIGN REVIEW 03-0'15 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP '16527
1123 WARNER AVENUE
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located in an urbanized area of the city developed with industrial
buildings and uses. The property is bordered by buildings generally over 100,000
square feet with warehousing, distribution, and research and development uses. The
site is currently vacant, previously containing approximately half a one million square
foot industrial building complex for the use of Steelcase, Inc. Steelcase, Inc. recently
completed a demolition and remodeling project, which included the demolition of
approximately half the complex, which was located on the newly created Parcel 2 of
Parcel Map 2002-237 where the proposed project is located.
The proposed project consists of constructing nineteen (19) new industrial buildings on
the remaining vacant 14.9 acres of Parcel 2. The buildings will range from
approximately 3,800 to 37,000 square feet in size and accommodate a range of uses
such as offices, warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, and research and
development. The application also includes Tentative Tract Map 16527 to subdivide
Parcel 2 into seven (7) parcels, one (1) of which will contain thirteen (13) of the nineteen
(19) buildings offering future owners fee title to the land underneath the building and an
undivided interest in the common area (parking lots, drive areas, and landscape areas);
the remaining six (6) buildings will be located on fee simple lots. An initial study was
prepared to determine if the new structures would have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment.
1. AESTHETICS
Items c & d - Less Than Significant Impact:
The project includes construction of nineteen (19) new industrial/office buildings on
the remaining vacant 14.9 acres of the former Steelcase property. The site spans
from Warner Avenue to Bell Avenue between the remaining parcel of the former
Steelcase property and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way. The site is surrounded
by buildings generally over 100,000 square feet with warehousing, distribution, and
research and development uses. The buildings will be located in approximately the
same location as the previous building area. The new buildings will have similar
large massing and appearance to nearby development along Warner Avenue and
Bell Avenue. While the proposed project consists of nineteen (19) buildings, they
will be configured to appear as a large building mass. The buildings will also have
similar building colors and wall articulations as other developments and dense
perimeter and parking lot landscaping.
In addition, the project will include new freestanding light standards with shielding as
necessary and building-mounted lighting at 90-degree angles. The lighting will not
create, a new source of substantial light or glare affecting day or nighttime views in
the area. The proposed appearance, placement of the new buildings, landscaping,
and lighting will reduce potential impacts related to the visual character of the site
and area to a level of insignificance.
Attachment A
DR 02-031
Page 2 of 12
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Field Inspection
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Items a, & b - No Impact:
The site is surrounded by buildings generally over 100,000 square feet with
warehousing, distribution, and research and development uses. The subject
property is not located on a scenic vista and will not disturb any trees, rock
outcroppings, or historic buildings located on a State scenic highway.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Field Inspection
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a, b & c - No Impact:
The property is currently a vacant, graded parcel not used for a farming or
agricultural use; the site was previously developed with approximately 500,000
square feet of industrial building area. The new buildings will have no impacts on
any Prime or Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor will it conflict
with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed
project will not result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
3. AIR Q!UALITY
Items a, b, c, d & e - Less Than Siqnificant Impact:
The project will temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the area
due to grading of the property and construction activities. Since the site is relatively
flat, only minor grading will be required. The project is below the thresholds of
significance established by Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the Air Quality Management
District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The Air Quality Management District's CEQA
Air Quality Handbook is intended to provide professional guidance for analyzing and
Attachment A
DR. 02-031
Page 3 of 12
mitigating air quality impacts of projects when preparing environmental documents.
The construction of less than 1,102,520 square feet of building, the grading of less
than 177.00 acres, and the operation of less than 276,000 square feet of industrial is
not considered a significant impact. Since the total building area will be 266,324
square feet on 14.9 acres of land and is less than the threshold, no impact is
anticipated. Less than significant short-term emissions associated with grading,
construction, and operation of the proposed project will comply with the regulations
of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading
Manual, which includes requirements for dust control.
As such, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any
applicable air quality plan, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria
pollutant as applicable by Federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor
affecting a substantial number of people.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations
City of Tustin Grading Manual
Project Application
Field Inspection
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Item e - Less Than Significant Impact:
The property is currently a vacant 14.9-acre lot. The site is located between Warner
Avenue and Bell Avenue generally between the remaining parcel of the former
Steelcase property and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way and is surrounded by
buildings generally over 100,000 square feet with warehousing, distribution, and
research and development uses. To fulfill an existing contractual agreement with
the City of Tustin, the property owner will need to install new sidewalks in locations
where sidewalks do not currently exist. Installation of sidewalks along Bell Avenue
will cause the removal of a few mature eucalyptus trees. While these trees are not
unique and there is no tree preservation policy, the project will include the planting of
replacement trees and landscape materials in accordance with the Tustin
Landscape and Irrigation guidelines, implementation of the proposed project will
reduce any impacts related to the removal of trees to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Field inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
A~tachment A
DR 02-031
Page 4 of 12
Items ia, b, c, d, & f- No Impact:
The property is currently a vacant 14.9-acre site surrounded by buildings generally
over ,100,000 square feet with warehousing, distribution, and research and
development uses. The site is not inhabited by any sensitive or special status
species of animals. The proposed project will have no impacts on animal
populations, diversity of species, or migratory patterns. The project will include the
planting of new trees and landscape materials, which will be provided in accordance
with the Tustin Landscape and Irrigation guidelines. No impacts to any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will occur as a result of this proposed project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
5. CULTURALRESOURCES
Items a, b, c, & d - No Impact:
The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical, archaeological, or paleontological resource since none are known to exist
on the project site and the site is not located in an area of high paleontological
sensitivity. There are no unique geologic features on the site.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin Zoning Code
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Historical Resources Survey Report
6. GEOLOGY & SOILS
Items a-ii, a-iii, & d - Less Than Significant Impact:
The proposed building will be located on expansive soil and is located within an area
that may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-
related ground failure including liquefaction. However, a soils report is required to
be submitted prior to building permit issuance per the 2001 Uniform Building Code to
demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills
for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate
construction techniques to ensure seismic stability.
Attachment A
DR 02-031 '
Page 5 of 12,
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
2001 Uniform Building Code
Project Application
Field Evaluation
Items a-i, a-iv, b, c, & e - No Impact:
The project site is not located within an area on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map. The project will not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, and will not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
or collapse. Since all new buildings in the City are required to operate on the
existing sewer system, the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems will not be necessary.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
2001 Uniform Building Code
Project Application
Field Evaluation
7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Items a, b, c, d, e, f, ,q, & h - No Impact:
The project includes construction of nineteen (19) new industrial/office buildings on
an existing vacant 14.9-acre site and is not anticipated to result in exposure to
hazardous substances or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. The
applicant is not proposing to transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, and
future tenants of building will be required to comply with current regulations before
transporting, using, or disposing of hazardous materials. The project area is not
located on any potential impact zones identified for John Wayne Airport and not
adjacent to wildland areas that would be subject to fires. All grading and construction
is subj,ect to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. As
such, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant hazards.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes
Submitted Plans
Tustin General Plan
A~achment A
DR 02-031
Page 6 of 12
8. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Items a, bI CI dI e, k, I, m, n & o - Less Than Si.qnificant Impact:
The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a
relatively flat site with improved site drainage, including roads, curbs and gutters,
and additional landscaping. There will be new construction and there is the potential
to impact stormwater runoff from construction and post-construction activities or
stormwater pollutant from loading docks and delivery areas. There is also the
potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving
waters and changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. However,
the project is required to comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and most
recently adopted NPDES permit (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) Order R8-2002-0010), thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of
insignificance. Together, these regulations minimize water pollution by regulating
point sources that discharge pollutants into local waters. As such, the project will not
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade
water quality in the area.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001
Items f, .q, h, i, j, & p - No Impact:
The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a
relatively fiat site with improved site drainage and additional landscaping that will not
result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. The project will not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge
resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level.
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Flood Insurance Rate Map, nor is the project located within a lO0-year flood hazard
area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows. The project site will not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of
the fail!ure of a levee or dam, or by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Federal Insurance Rate Map
Attachment A
DR 02-031
Page 7 of 12
9. LAND'USE PLANNING
Items a, b & c - No Impact:
The subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Industrial
and zoned Planned Community Industrial (PC-IND). The proposed project will be
consistent with the applicable land use and zoning regulations. The proposed
project will not divide an established community since it includes construction on an
existing site completely surrounded by other similar industrial buildings in an
urbanized area. The proposed project is not located in a conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan area.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Map
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
Items a & b- No Impact:
The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant site; however, the site was
recently paved and had approximately 500,000 square feet of industrial building
area. Construction on the site will not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource and is not located in a mineral resource recovery site.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
11.NOISE
Items a, b, c & d- Less Than Si,qnificant Impact:
The project includes construction of approximately 266,000 square feet of industrial
and office building area on an existing vacant site. Although, the grading and
construction of the site may result in typical temporary construction noise impacts,
the Tu~stin Noise Ordinance only allows construction activities to occur during the
daytime on Monday through Saturday to eliminate construction noise during the
nighttime hours.
A~tachment A
DR 02-031
Page 8 o£ 12
Long-term noise in the area is not anticipated to increase significantly since activities
will take place in enclosed buildings and the amount of on-site and off-site traffic is
typical'of an industrial development and not considered to be significant. The site is
also located near the SR-55 Freeway, which generates significantly more noise than
is anticipated for the proposed project. The proposed project will not create
excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a permanent increase in the existing
ambient noise levels beyond the established standards.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Item e & f- No Impact:
While the project is located within the airport land use plan for John Wayne Airport, the
typical aircraft noise level in the area is approximately 65dBA CNEL and the Noise
Ordinance allows noise levels up to 70dBA for industrial sites. Also, standard building
techniques will provide sufficient insulation to prevent people working in the buildings
from being exposed to excessive noise.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Code
12. POPUiLATION & HOUSING
Items a, b, and c- No Impact:
The proposed industrial project will not induce substantial population growth in the
area and will not induce substantial population growth wherein new streets or new
public services will need to be created. Since the site was recently improved with
approximately 500,000 square feet of industrial building area, the construction of the
new buildings will not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Soumes: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Attachment A
DR 02-031
Page 9 of 12
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a - No Impact:
The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area where fire and police
protection are currently provided. No increase in population is anticipated. The
project ~will not create demand for an alteration of or addition to government facilities or
services (i.e. fire and police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities).
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
14. RECREATION
Items a & b - No Impact:
The project is not located in proximity to recreational facilities. As an industrial
development, the project will not increase the use of existing parks or contribute to a
substantial deterioration of park facilities, nor will the project include recreational
facilities that will have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No parkland
dedication will be required as a result of this project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Item a and d- Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation:
The traffic analysis for this project is contained in a document prepared by LSA
Associates Inc. ("LSA") (Attachment B). Intersection analyses were performed for
the two critical intersections (Warner Avenue/Pullman Street and Red Hill Avenue/
Bell Avenue) to determine if any significant traffic impacts would result from the
project. The Red Hill Avenue/Bell Avenue intersection is presently at Level of
Service ("LOS") A, which is the best level (LOS A through D are considered
acceptable). LOS A is maintained with the addition of the proposed project. While
the project will not impact the LOS of the Red Hill Avenue/Bell Avenue intersection,
the project traffic will comprise approximately seven (7) percent of the traffic volume
at the intersection once the project is finished. To minimize cumulative impacts, the
applicant should be required to participate in a Capital Improvement Program project
to signalize the Red Hill Avenue/Bell Avenue intersection and provide a
proportionate share toward the cost of constructing the traffic signal. The Warner
Avenue/Pullman Avenue intersection was also analyzed at LOS D or better and
acceptable operations are maintained at this location for project conditions and
Attachment A
DR 02-031
Page 10 of 12
cumulative conditions. This intersection also serves as a project access, and the
proposed volume at this location will not have a significant impact.
The trarrfic analysis also concludes that the project will not generate a significant
traffic impact on the surrounding street system. While the project is identified to
have an impact on the volume of the Red Hill Avenue/Bell Avenue intersection, the
project impacts are not considered significant as a whole, in addition, the analysis
shows 'that the trip generations for the current project are consistent with the
operations of the former Steelcase facility.
The proposed project will share a common drive aisle with the property owner
immediately to the west of the subject property. The shared drive aisle will be
located at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Pullman Avenue and will have
potential vehicle conflicts if not appropriately mitigated. The LSA analysis provides
an on-site recommendation so that acceptable project access will be provided.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
Mitigation Measure 1:
The applicant shall pay an "in-lieu" traffic impact mitigation fee of $14,000 to the
City' of Tustin prior to issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the
proposed project. The "in-lieu" fee shall be based upon the proportionate share
of the cost to mitigate traffic impacts that are a direct result of the proposed
project, based upon the traffic study prepared by LSA, dated September 12,
2003, for the project. The study indicates a seven percent (7%) proportionate
share for the project impacts at the Red Hill/Bell intersection, which translates to
$14,000 (7% x $200,000 improvement cost). The City shall apply the "in-lieu" fee
to projects in the vicinity of the proposed project that provide traffic relief. The
"in-l,ieu" fee shall relieve the applicant of any further traffic mitigation obligations.
Mitigati;on Measure 2:
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, the applicant shall install
a minimum of two (2) stop signs at the internal, east/west and north/south drive
aisles of Lot 7, at the Warner Avenue/Pullman Avenue entrance, to control traffic
entering the common drive aisle shared with the property at 1123 Warner
Avenue.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Attachment B - "Tustin Gateway Traffic Analysis" by LSA Associates, Inc.
(Dated September 12, 2003)
Item e - Less Than Significant Impact:
The proposed project will result in nineteen (19) new buildings. Six (6) of the largest
buildings will be on fee simple lots with reciprocal driveways and access. Since the
Attachment A
DR 02-031
Page 11 of 12
three (3) north/south drive aisles will exceed the maximum distance for a drive aisle
without a turn-around as required by the Orange County Fire Authority, emergency
access'vehicle gates will be installed at the terminus of each drive aisle to ensure
adequate access across the development.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Items b, c, f & g - No Impact:
The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth wherein the
project will not result in changes to air traffic patterns, or conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle
racks. The project includes sufficient parking on-site to comply with current parking
requirements for the proposed use. As such, no impacts to parking are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Parking Analysis
16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a, b, c, d, e, f & g - No Impact:
The proposed project will not exceed requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board or require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed project will utilize the existing sewer and
storm drain systems and thus will not require construction of a new storm water
drainage facility or solid waste facility. The project will utilize the City's existing trash
hauler contract, thus not requiring a new trash hauler. Adequate water supply from
existing resources will be available to serve the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a, b & c - No Impact:
The project grading, construction, and operation are not anticipated to result in any
significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology
Attachment A
DR 02-031
Page 12 o£12
and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and
traffic. ' The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment nor achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the
long-term It does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable or that will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
S:~Cdd~MA3~Design Review~DR 03-015 (Gateway Bus. Park)',ENV~DR 03-015-ND Attachment A.doc
ATTACHMENT B
Tustin Gateway: Revised Traffic Analysis
LSA
949.553,0666 TEL
949,553.8076 ~'AX
September 12, 2003
Mr. James Camp
Voit Development Company
26 Corporate Plaza, Suite 260
Newport. Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Tustin Gateway: Revised Traffic Analysis
Dear Mr. Camp:
In response to comments raised by the City of Tustin on August 27, 2003, LSA Associates, Inc.
(LSA) has revised the original August 1, 2003, technical analysis of the trip-making potential of the
proposed Tustin Gateway project. The original August 1 technical analysis responded to a City of
Tustin request that the previous January 14, 2003, trip generation estimation be updated to reflect the
new project and that the access locations be evaluated based on this new trip generation
(Comment # 19). Additionally, Tustin staff requested that the intersection of Warner Avenue/Pullman
Street be evaluated for level of service (LOS) impacts with the addition of project-related traffic
(Comment #21).
City of Tustin Engineering staff reviewed the original August I submittal and responded with eight
comments and a request for revision. This technical analysis provides that response and revision.
Figure 1 illustrates the Tustin Gateway site plan. The Tustin Gateway project, along with the recently
approved tile/building material use, constitutes the entire site previously occupied by Steelcase. For
purposes of this analysis, an existing setting is presented that evaluates the current operations
adjacent to the site without either the proposed or approved project. Project related traffic is then
added to the existing traffic base to determine direct project-related impacts. Finally, the potential
traffic contribution from the approved, but unoccupied tile/building materials use is added to the
existing plus project condition to establish a "cumulative" traffic base for use in the evaluation of
project access and traffic signal warrants
Access to Buildings 1 through 6 will occur primarily via Bell Avenue through a new internal roadway
that terminates in a cul-de-sac at the project entry. Additional access to Bell Avenue is provided at
two driveways to the east and west of the internal roadway. Buildings 7 through 19 will take access to
the arterial street system via Warner Avenue at the intersection at Warner Avenue/Pullman. The
project entry/exit creates the northerly leg of this intersection. A minor driveway is also planned
along Warner Avenue to the east of Pullman Street.
TRIP GENERATION
The potential trip generation for the Tustin Gateway project is illustrated in Table A (attached). Table
A also includes the trip generation for the previous Steelcase facility (now vacant) and the recently
approved tile/building material use. This is the format for trip generation that was included in the
January 14~ 2003, materials. The proposed Tustin Gateway project is a collection of office/warehouse
O~/l 2/03<~P \VCO330\teciq_analysis doc>
operations totaling 266,324 square feet. As noted in Table A, 95,792 square feet of the project are
considered office use. Approximately 45,781 of those square feet are in mezzanine and could be
storage ~or warehouse. However, to present as a worst-case trip generation estimate, this mezzanine
space is considered to exhibit the higher trip generation potential of office use.
The project, then, is estimated to generate approximately 2,290 average daily trips (ADT), of which
303 would occur in the a.m. peak hour and 315 would occur in the p.m. peak hour. Based on the
layout of the buildings and the adjacencies of access, Buildings 1 through 6 are presumed to use Bell
Avenue as access, while Buildings 7 through 19 will use Warner Avenue. Buildings I through 6 have
the potential to generate approximately 1,570 ADT, of which 208 would occur in the a.m. peak hour
and 216 would occur in the p.m. peak hour. The remaining 720 ADT, 95 a.m. peak hour, and 99 p.m.
peak hour trips are attributable to Buildings 7 through 19. This calculation is based on the square
footages of each portion of the project applied to the total trip generation.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Project trips are assigned to the adjacent streets based on probable origins/destinations of employees
and patrons. The SR-55 Freeway provides regional circulation to the project. Red Hill Avenue and
Warner Avenue are the most proximate and direct north/south and east/west routes, respectively. For
Buildings t through 6, 100 percent of the trip generation will enter/leave the site via Bell Avenue and
travel to Red Hill Avenue. At Red Hill Avenue, 70 percent will move to/from the north and onto the
SR-55 and/or I-5 freeways, while 30 percent will move to/from the south and the SR-55 and/or I~405
freeways. For Buildings 7 through 19, the distribution of east/west travel was split evenly (45 percent
in each direction), with a minor 10 percent to/from the south along Pullman Street. Figure 2 illustrates
the trip assignment at the driveways based on this trip distribution.
A trip assignment that includes the potential traffic contribution from the approved tile/building
materials use to the proposed Tustin Gateway project is prepared. For purposes of this analysis, the
approved project is assigned to the local streets, 70 percent via Warner Avenue and 30 percent via
Bell Avenue. The remaining trip distribution for the approved tile/building materials use is the same
as the proposed Tustin Gateway project. That is, once to Red Hill Avenue, 70 percent will move
to/from the north, while 30 percent will move to/from the south. Figure 3 illustrates the trip
assignment for both the approved and proposed projects.
ANALYSIS
Levels of service (LOS) have been identified for the intersections of Warner Avenue/Pullman Street
and Red Hill Avenue/Bell Avenue. Existing midweek a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts were
collected at these intersections in July 2003. LOS was determined based on the existing geometrics
and these traffic volumes using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for Warner
Avenue/Pullman Street. The Highway Capacity Manual, Unsignalized Intersection methodology was
used to determine LOS at Red Hill Avenue/Bell Avenue, as this is a stop controlled (Bell Avenue)
intersection. Project-related peak hour traffic volumes are added to the existing condition to
determine the project's incremental effect on LOS at these intersections. Both the traffic counts and
the lCU and HCM worksheets are provided as attachments to this letter.
The tables below present the resulting existing and the existing plus project LOS.
Warner Avenue/Pullman Street LOS Analysis
! A.M. PEAK P.M. PEAK
CONDITION ICU LOS ICU LOS
Existing Condition 0.28 A ' 0.45 A
Existing Plus Project Condition 0.30 A 0.49 A
Existing Plus Project Plus
Approved Conditions 0.32 A 0.59 A
As seen in the table, the intersections currently operate at satisfactory LOS during both peak hours.
Warner Avenue/Pullman Street operates at LOS A during both peak hours. This represents a free
flow non-congested operation at this location. The intersection is forecast to continue to operate at
LOS A when the project traffic is added to the existing traffic base. Addition of Tustin Gateway
project-related traffic will not adversely affect the operation of Warner Avenue/Pullman Street.
Red Hill Avenue/Bell Avenue LOS Analysis
A.M. PEAK P.M. PEAK
CONDITION LOS LOS
Existing Condition B C
Existing Plus Project Condition C D
Existing Plus Project Plus
Approved Condition C r D
Red Hill Avenue/Bell Avenue operates with levels of service below the LOS E threshold. Levels of
service C and D will prevail at the unsignalized intersection with the proposed project, and the
approved and proposed project. Red Hill Avenue traffic is unaffected by the traffic control (i.e., the
stop sign) or the addition of project related traffic. The stop sign on Bell Avenue means the minor
street traffic wishing to turn left onto northbound Red Hill Avenue must wait for adequate gaps in
traffic to negotiate this movement. This delay is expected at this type of intersection and does not
adversely affect the overall level of service with or without the proposed project.
A traffic signal warrant has been conducted at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue/Bell Avenue to
determine whether a traffic signal is an appropriate traffic control device to address right of way for
the existing and existing plus project conditions. The Caltrans Traffic Manual, Chapter 9 presents
traffic signal warrants to be used when considering the installation of a traffic signal. These eleven
warrants are frequently used by municipal and regional agencies as a guide to determine the need for
a traffic signal. As the Caltrans manual states, the use of proper engineering judgement, not the
results ora traffic signal warrant, should be the ultimate indicator of the feasibility and suitability ora
traffic signal at a particular location. LSA used the Peak Hour warrant to determine whether a traffic
signal may be warranted.
09/I 2/03(<P:\VCO330/tech_ anaivsis cloc>
3
Figure 4 illustrates this warrant. The traffic signal is not warranted in the existing condition, but may
be warranted due to the increase in p.m. peak hour traffic on Bell Avenue with the addition of trips
generated by either the approved or proposed project. The City of Tustin should monitor the actual
volume of traffic at this intersection subsequent to the construction and/or operation of the approved
tile/building materials use and the proposed Tustin Gateway to determine whether the peak hour
forecasts materialize and whether the traffic signal is warranted. The project traffic as indicated in the
trip generation and assignment comprises approximately seven (7) percent of the traffic volume in the
existing plus project condition at this intersection. The project's peak hour traffic volume contribution
to the intersection should also consider the cumulative contribution of all traffic in the area including
the MCAS Tustin Reuse project.
The site plan has been coordinated with the architect to conform to the City requirements and
guidelines for parking dimensions and provision, aisle widths, trash enclosures, etc. Turn radii are
included on the site plan to illustrate the ability to maneuver on site with double unit trucks (see
Figure 1). All driveways and connections to Bell Avenue, Warner Avenue at the minor ingress/egress
and the proposed road should be stopped controlled and signed and striped as such.
At the Warner Avenue access, the internal east/west double loaded parking aisle should be stopped
controlled at the access throat to allow for unimpeded movements from Warner Avenue into the site.
This will facilitate the movement of vehicles to/from the approved tile/building materials use. Based
on the trip assignment in Figure 3, the Warner Avenue access will serve up to 200 vehicles per hour
in the morning and evening peak hour from the approved use. Therefore, a predominant movement
will be along the internal east/west drive aisle to the intersection. All other movements should be
considered subordinated to the east/west drive aisle and should yield right-of-way in order to keep the
intersection of Warner Avenue/Pullman Street clear. The internal double loaded parking aisles
east/west adjacent to Warner Avenue and north/south along the westerly project border should be
stopped controlled to allow unimpeded movements to/from the drive aisle serving the approved
tile/building materials use. This will also allow for vehicle queuing into the site away from the
Warner Avenue access throat.
This concludes our analysis in response to City of Tustin comments. Please feel free to contact me
with any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
L~A ASSOCIATES, 1NC.
Cr~.~hc~aY/etr~
Attachments
09/I 2/03<<P:\VCO330\tech_anaiv sis doc> ~
Table A - Tustin Gateway Business Park Trip Generation Estimate
Land Use
Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size Units ADT In Out Total In Out Total
'revious Steelcase Site Uses
~ee 56.680
Trip Rate~
Trip Generation
lanu£aeturing 921.897
Trip Rate~
Trip Generation
Total Previous Steelease Site Trip Generation
Approved & Operational Tile/Material Uses
Warehouse 410.723
Trip Rate~
Trip Generation
}ffice 44.310
Trip Rate~
Trip Generation
retail 14.870
Trip Rate~
Trip Generation
!otal Tile/Material Tri~ Generation
7uture Uses (14.9 Acre Site)
Warehouse 170.532
Trip RateI
Trip Generation
,ffice 95.792
Trip Rate~
Trip Generation
otal Proposed Tustin Gateway Trip Generation
Total Site Trip Generationz
Residual Trips from Previous Uses
TSF
15.00 1.87 0.23 2.10 0.33 1.62 1.95
850 106 13 119 19 92 111
TSF
5.00 0.43 0.17 0.60 0.26 0.49 0.75
4,609 396 157 553 240 452 691
TSF
TSF
TSF
TSF
TSF
5,460 502 170 672 258 544 802
5.00 0.43 0.17 0.60 0.26 0.49 0.75
2,054 177 70 246 107 201 308
15.00 1.87 0.23 2.10 0.33 1.62 1.95
665 83 10 93 15 72 86
50.00 3.84 4.16 8.00
744 57 62 119
3,462 317 142 458
3.42 2.58 6.00
51 38 89
172 311 484
5.00 0A3 0.17 0.60 0.26 0.49 0.75
853 73 29 102 44 84 128
15.00 1.87 0.23 2.10 0.33 1.62 1.95
1,437 179 22 201 32 155 187
2,290 252 51 303 76 239 315
5,75¥ " 569 193 762 248 550 798
-292 -67 -23 -90 10 -7 A
TSF - Thousand Square Feet
Trip Rates from Tustin General Plan Traffic Analysis, January 16, 2001.
Warehouse and Manufacturing rates are based on General Industrial category.
2 Cumulative trip generation from tile uses and Tustin Gateway
P/VCO330'Triv gen.xlsX,Gatewav(9/3/O3
0
HclA - HDVO~td,::IV ~tl~flqOA HOIH
1zig'iLS; ~IONIJAI
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N-S STREET: Redhill
E-W STREET: Bell
DATE: 9/3/2003
DAY: WEDNESDAY
LOCATION: City of Tustin
PRO3ECT# 03-1337-001
LANES:
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:1S AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
NORTHBOUND
NL NT NR
3
20 132
21 141
27 158
35 173
27 155
24 140
22 139
13 142
SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
SL ST SR EL , ET ER WL WT WR
3 0 0 1 0
TOTAL ~ NL NT NR
VOLUMES:I 189 1180 0
359 12 2 3
369 15 2 4
408 14 3 2
482 27 1 3
562 23 3 1
490 10 2 6
415 15 3 3
323 9 2 7
TOTAL
528
552
612
721
771
672
597
496
0 3408 125[ 18 0 29 0 0 0114949
AM Peak Hr Begins at:
PEAK
VOLUMES = 113 626
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.888
CONTROL: signalized 1
730 AM
°1°
1942
0.862
74
9 0
0.656
12 I 0 0 0
I
0.000
2776
0.900
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N-S STREET: Redhill
E-W STREET: Bell
DATE: 9/3/2003
DAY: WEDNESDAY
LOCATION: City of Tustin
PRO1ECT# 03-1337-001
LANES:
NORTHBOUND
NL NT NR
3
SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR
3 0 0 1 0
TOTAL
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:t5 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PN
5:00 PN
5:15 PN
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
19 417
17 402
2.2 570
18 568
10 715
11 758
14 679
lO 642
NL NT
121 4751
202 4 15 61
161 11 7 18
244 12 13 18
177 10 6 3!
256 4 11 34
209 3 4 10
210 3 3 7
144 6 7 11
NR
0
SL ST SRI EL ET ER
0 1603 53I 66 0 190
I WL WT
0 0
718
616
879
810
1030
995
916
820
WR TOTAL
0 6784
PM Peak Hr Begins at:
PEAK
VOLUMES = I 45 2794
I
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0.923
CONTROL: signalized
500 PM
0 0
819 16 I 25 0
0.803 I 0.483
62 0 0
0.000
0 I 3761
0.913
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N-S STREET: Pullman
E-W STREET: Warner
DATE: 7/23/2003
DAY: WEDNESDAY
LOCA-FION: City of Irvine
PRO.1ECT# 03-1169-001
LANES:
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR
1 1
7 6
10 10
9 7
6 4
9 10
17 5
10 8
12 6
EL
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
b-I' ER WL VVT WR
2 0 1 2
TOTAL
134 10 9 77 243
136 16 12 87 271
149 14 11 82 272
213 42 7 104 376
184 80 12 94 389
168 55 7 73 325
171 50 7 60 306
149 31 8 87 293
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL VVT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 80 0 56 0 0 0 0 1304 298 73 664 0 2475
AM Peak Hr Begins at:
PEAK
VOLUNES = 42
PEAK HR.
FACTOR'.
745 AM
0 27
0.784
0 0
0.000
736 227 33 331 0 1396
0.912 0.000 0.897
CONTROL: Signalized;
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N-S STREET:
E-W STREET:
LANES:
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:1'5 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
Pullman DATE: 7/23/2003 LOCATION: City oflrvine
Warner DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 03-1169-001
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR
I i 2 0 i 2
TOTAL
29 7 120 15 8 188 367
32 10 126 17 8 194 387
52 10 135 23 11 228 459
69 11 149 18 14 266 527
91 11 153 14 13 281 563
82 11 162 17 7 223 502
91 9 156 13 8 251 528
36 8 161 14 8 239 466'
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL VVT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 482 0 77 0 0 0 0 1162 131 77 1870 0 3799
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 333 0 42 0 0 0 0 620 62 42 1021 0 2120
PEAK HR.
FACTOR: 0,919 0.000 0.953 0,000 0,941
CONTROL: Signalized;
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
INTERSECTION NO.: 1
NORTH/SOUTH: Pullman
EAST/WEST: Warner Avenue
Existing Conditions
Move- Volume V/C Ratio
ment Lane Capacity AM PM AM PM
NBL l 1,700 42 333 0.03 * 0.20 *
NBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
NBR 1 U 1,700 27 42 0.00 0.00
SBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
SBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 *
SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 *
EBT 3 5,100 736 620 0.19 * 0.13
EBR 0 0 227 62 0.00 0.00
WBL 1 1,700 33 42 0.02 * 0.03
WBT 3 5,100 331 1,021 0.07 0.20 *
WBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
q/S Critical Movements 0.03 0.20
:~/W Critical Movements 0.21 0.20
~.ight Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00
;learance Interval 0.05 0.05
[CU 0.28 0.45
Level of Service (LOS) A A
Existing Plus Pro)ect Conditions
Move- Volume V/C Ratio
ment Lane Capacity AM PM AM PM
NBL 1 1,700 42 333 0.03 * 0.20 *
NBT I 1,700 8 3 0.02 0.03
NBR 0 0 27 42 0.00 0.00
SBL 1 1,700 7 33 0.00 0.02
SBT l 1,700 2 8 0.01 * 0.03 *
SBR 0 0 7 34 0.00 0.00
EBL I 1,700 36 11 0.02 0.01 *
EBT 3 5,100 736 620 0.19 * 0.13
EBR 0 0 227 62 0.00 0.00
WBL 1 1,700 33 42 0.02 * 0.03
WBT 3 5,100 331 1,021 0.07 0.20 *
WBR 0 0 35 10 0.00 0.00
N/S Critical Movements 0.04 0.23
E/W Critical Movements 0.21 0.21
Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00
Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05
ICU 0.30 0.49
Level of Service (LOS) A A
ICU - Intersection Capa¢i~ Utilization
V/C - Volume to Capaei~ Ratio
Right Turn Conditions:
P - Protected right turn movement
U - Unprotected right mm movement
N - No right turn on red
F - Free right turn lane
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
INTERSECTION NO.: 1
NORTH/SOUTH: Pullman
;AST/WEST: Warner Avenue
Existing Conditions
Move- Volume V/C Ratio
ment Lane Capacity AM PM AM PM
NBL I 1,700 42 333 0.03 * 0.20
NBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
NBR I U 1,700 27 42 0.00 0.00
SBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
SBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 * 0.00
SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
EBT 3 5,100 736 620 0.19 * 0.13
EBR 0 0 227 62 0.00 0.00
WBL 1 1,700 33 42 0.02 * 0.03
WBT 3 5,100 331 1,021 0.07 0.20
WBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
N/S Critical Movements 0.03 0.20
~/W Critical Movements 0.21 0.20
Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00
~learance Interval 0.05 0.05
CU , 0.28 0.45
~evel of Service (LOS) A A
Existing Plus Project Plus Approved Conditions
Move- Volume V/C Ratio
ment Lane Capacity AM PM AM PM
NBL I 1,700 42 333 0.03 0.20 *
NBT 1 1,700 30 15 0.03 * 0.03
NBR 0 0 27 42 0.00 0.00
SBL 1 1,700 49 115 0.03 * 0.07
SBT I 1,700 11 30 0.04 0.09 *
SBR 0 0 49 115 0.00 0.00
EBL 1 1,700 118 60 0.07 0.04 *
CBT 3 5,100 736 620 0.19 * 0.13
EBR 0 0 227 62 0.00 0.00
WBL 1 1,700 33 42 0.02 * 0.03
WBT 3 5,100 331 1,021 0.09 0.21 *
WBR 0 0 118 59 0.00 0.00
N/S Critical Movements 0.06 0.29
E/W Critical Movements 0.21 0.25
Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00
Clearance Interval 0.05 0.05
ICU 0.32 0.59
Level of Service (LOS) A A
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization
V/C - Volume To Capacity Ratio
Right Tun~ Conditions
P - Protected right turn movement
U - Unprotected right turn movement
N - No right mm on red
F - Free right turn lane
Redhill Ave & Bell Avenue HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Existing Conditions AM 3: Bell Avenue & Redhill Avenue
Lane Configurations ~.~
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (fi/s)
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
pX, platoon unblocked
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2414 2831 684 1511 2868 209 2016 626
tC, 2 stage (s)
pO queue free % 23 100 97 100 100 100 59 100
Volume Left 9 113 0 0 0 0 0 0
cSH 26 279 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Queue Length (ft) 63 47 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane LOS F D
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 3.5
P:\VCO330~AM Exisitng Conditions.sy6 LSA Associates, Inc
LSAASSIRVI-ST51
Redhill Ave & Bell Avenue HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Existing Conditiqns PM 3: Bell Avenue & Redhill Avenue
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (fids)
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
pX, platoon unblocked
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1848 3711 281 3219 3719 931 835 2794
tC, 2 stage (s)
pO queue free % 43 100 91 100 100 100 94 100
Volume Left 25 45 0 0 0 0 0 0
cSH 133 794 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Queue Length (ft) 88 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane LOS F A
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 1.8
P:\VCO330\PM Exisitng Conditions.sy6 LSA Associates, Inc
LSAASSIRVI-ST51
Redhill Ave & Bell Avenue HCM UnsignaIized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Existin,9 Plus Proiect AM 3: Bell Avenue & Redhill Avenue
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Pedestrians
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, 2 stage (s)
pO queue free %
2578 2996 745 1625 3093 209 2137 626
0 100 94 100 100 100 34 100
Volume Le~ 34 165 0 0
cSH 10 250 1700 1700
Queue Length (fi) Err 105 0 0
Lane LOS F E
0 0 0 0
1700 1700 1700 1700
0 0 0 0
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 190.1
P:\VCO330~AM Exisitng Plus Proj.sy6 LSA Associates, lnc
LSAASSIRVI~ST51
Redhill Ave & Bell Avenue HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Existing Plus Proiect PM 3: Bell Avenue & Redhiil Avenue
Lane ConfiguratiOns ~ ~ '~'~'~ '~'~
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00
Pedestrians
Walking Speed
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
pX. platoon unblocked
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1898 3761 299 3300 3787 931 871 2794
tC, 2 stage (s)
pO queue free % 0 100 84 100 100 100 92 100
Volume Left 140 61 0 0 0 0 0 0
cSH 68 770 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Queue Length (ft) Err 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane LOS F B
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 631.2
P:\VCO330\PM Exisitng Plus Proj .sy6 LSA Associates, In¢
LSAASSIRVf-ST51
Redhill Ave & Bell Avenue HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Existin,9 Plus Proiect Plus Approved AM 3: Bell Avenue & Redhill Avenue
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (fi/s)
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 2668 3085 778 1694 3216 209 2204 626
tC, 2 stage (s)
pO queue free % 0 100 90 100 100 100 18 100
Volume Left 64 193 0 0 0 0 0 0
cSH 5 235 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Queue Length (fi) Err 157 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane LOS F F
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 321.1
P:\VCO330~AM Exisitng Plus Proj Plus Approved.sy6 LSA Associates, Inc
LSAASSIRVI-ST51
Redhill Ave & Bell Avenue HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis
Existing Plus Proiect Plus Approved PM 3: Bell Avenue & Redhill Avenue
Lane Configurations
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Facter 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (fi/s)
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
pX, platoon unblocked
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, 2 stage (s)
pO queue free %
2044 3907 317 3456 3951 931 907 2794
0 100 80 100 100 100 83 100
Volume Left 205 125 0
cSH 46 746 1700
Queue Length (fi) E~ 15 0
Lane LQS F B
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 825.2
0 0 0 0 0
1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
0 0 0 0 0
P:\VCO330\PM Exisitng Plus Proj Plus Approved.sy6 LSA Associates, lnc
LSAASSIRVI-ST51