HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3897RESOLUTION NO. 3897
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE FINAL
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR
DESIGN REVIEW 03-009, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNClL ADOPT T HE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 03-001, ZONE CHANGE 03-001, AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16506, 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 General Plan Amendment 03-001, Zone Change 03-001, Tentative
Tract Map 16506, and Design Review 03-009 are considered "projects"
pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared
for this project and distributed for public review. The Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the proposed
development.
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and determined that with incorporation of the mitigation
measures, the project would not have a significant effect on the
environment.
Il.
A Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto a s Exhibit A, h as 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 approving Design Review 03-009 and
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 03-001, Zone Change 03-
001, and Tentative Tract Map 16506 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.
The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
for Design Review No. 03-009 and recommends that the City Council adopt the
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 03-001, Zone
Change 03-001, and Tentative Tract Map 16506. In addition, the Planning
Commission finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resoumes as defined in Section 711.2
of the Fish and Games Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ~of.~e ~ustin.~//n~ommis~sion, held
°nthel0~hday°fN°vember'2003' ,.~ ~~ -~/o
~..,¢~.~/~ .4~,~ ~~.~ Chairperson ~/'
ELI~BETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secreta~
Resolution No. 3897
Page 2
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. 3897 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the
10th day of November, 2003.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3897
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(Zl4) 57~-3100
INITIAL STUDY
BACKGROUND
Project Title:
General Plan Amendment 03-001, Zone Change 03-001, Tentative Tract Map
16506, and Design Review 03-009
Lead Agency:
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency
Contact Person:
Justina Willkom
Phone: (714) 573-3174
Project Location:
14552 Newport Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780
Project Sponsor's
Name and Address:
The Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway #400, Seat Beach, CA 90740
General Plan Designation: Public and Institutional (P&I)
Zoning Designation:
Commercial General (CG)
Project Description: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Public and Institutional
to High Density Residential, a Zone Change to change the zoning designation t~om Commercial General (CG) to
Multiple Family Residential (R-3), a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the existing lot into a condominium Wac't, and
a Design Review to construct sixty-threc (63) condominium units. The project will also include the execution of a
Housing Assistance Agreement by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency and the site
developer (The Olson Company) which will authorize the issuance of Redevelopment Agency's loan in the in the
amount not to exceed $2,119,960 to assist in the creation of ten (10) affordable units for a period of not less than
forty-five (45) years.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Shopping Center
South: Hospital
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
[]
[]
[]
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Care Agency
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
Other
East: Multi-family Residential
West: Newport Avenue
Developments
[] City of Irvine
[] City of Santa Ana
[] Orange County
EMA
and Commercial
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.
I-]Land Use and Planning
[-']Population and Housing
~]Geological Problems
[-']Water
[-]Air Quality
[--]Transportation & Circulation
['"]Biological Resources
[--]Energy and Mineral Resources
[-']Hazards
['-]Noise
['-]Public Services
[-]Utilities and Service
Systems
[--]Aesthetics
[-]Cultural Resources
[?']Recreation
[~Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze, only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
[] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
[] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparer: Justina Willkom
Elizabeth A. Binsack. Community Development Director
Title Associate Planner
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
D. EVALUATION oF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Directions
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impac? 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 projecI 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, 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
them are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR 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 EIIL or other CEQA process, an.effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures IncOrporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or ref'med from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies am 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 explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and,
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
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?
IL 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
~nservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
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 cona'act?
e) 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 siginflcance
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?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
iteria 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Vgith
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
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, polinias, 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 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?
D Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan. or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
Nolmpact
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 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 siismic 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, lateial spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil; aa defined in Table 18-1-B
the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial
;ks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wa~ste 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 ~he 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?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
'~--azardous.materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
lode Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
ignificant 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?
t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the pro act result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the ~rqiect area"
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] · []
[] [] [] []
[] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildiand 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 ora
s~eam 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 con~bute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure ora
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] -0 [] []
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activities?' [] [] [] []
1) Potentitilly 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
--- surrounding areas?
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Confiict with any applicable laud 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-
'ould 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 groundbome noise levels?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially . With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
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 affport 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 airslrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels7
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?
XIlI. 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?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
Less Than
· Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
XIV. RECREATION-
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
-'trice standard established by the county congestion
anagement 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 dubstantial 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 wastawatcr treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
~ Require or result'in the construction of new water or
'astewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
tcilities, 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?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact
No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
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 permiRed capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVIL 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 considerable7 ("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 proj eot have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] []
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 03-001, ZONE cHANGE 03-001, TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 16506, AND DESIGN REVIEW 03-009
THE OLSON COMPANY
TUSTIN PLACE
14552 NEWPORT AVENUE
BACKGROUND
The property is currently improved with a commercial masonry business (Tustin Block) and is
surrounded by apartment complexes to the East, a local hospital to the South, Newport Avenue
and commercial developments to the West, and a shopping center to the North.
The project includes the construction of a sixty-three (63) unit condominium complex, of which ten
(10) units will be set aside for affordable housing, a General Plan Amendment to amend the
existing land use designation fi.om Public &. InStitutional (P&I) to High Density Residential to
provide for residential development on the project site, a Zone Change to change the zoning
designation fi.om Commercial General (CG) to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to provide for
multiple family residential development, a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the site into
condominium tract, and a Design Review for the review of building design, site planning, and
site development. The project will include the construction of 103,320 square feet of residential
development. Two floor plans are proposed. Plan 1 will be 1,457 square feet and Plan 2 will be
1,640 square feet for Plan 2.
The project will also include the execution of a Housing Assistance Agreement by and between
the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency and the site developer (The Olson Company)
which will authorize the issuance of a loan in the in the amount not to exceed $2,119,960 to
assist in the creation of ten (10) affordable units for a period of not less than forty-five (45)
years.
1..AESTHETICS
Items a & b - No Impact:
The property is 3.23 acres occupied by a commercial masonry business and is surrounded by
developed parcels. The property is not located on a scenic vista or within a State scenic
highway, thus would not damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or
historical buildings within a State scenic highway.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Item c - Less Than Si~,,nificant Impact
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 2 of 12
The property is currently improved and occupied by a commercial masonry business. The
construction of a three-story housing project would change the visual character of the site and
its surroundings. However, the impact would be less than significant since the site is
surrounded by a four-story medical plaza to the South, two-story apartment complexes to the
East, a shopping center to the North, and the project would be designed in a residential style
that is consistent with the design, development standards, and landscaping standards for the
area. The proposed building heights of two stories along the front elevations and three
stories along the rear or garage elevations are compatible with the four-story medical
plaza/hospital and the two-story apartments to the rear of the lot. The earth tones exterior
colors and the craftsman design are consistent with other structures in the vicinity in that
wood sidings used to complement the shopping center to the north of the site.
Item d - Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed new condominium complex would generate new light sources with installation
of new exterior lighting for landscape areas, patios, and parking areas. However, the new
sources of light would not adversely affect day- or night-time views in the area since the
amount of lights would be commensurate with a typical residential project and would be
required to comply with the City's security standards and all lights would be arranged so that
no direct rays would shine onto adjacent property.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
At building plan check the applicant shall submit a photometric study for buildings and
common area lighting and shall ensure that lighting be ora typical residential level and
shall be arranged so that direct rays do not shine on adjacent properties, subject to the
review and approval of the Community Development Director.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a. b & c - No Impact:
The proposed project will be located on a site that is currently improved and occupied by a
masonry business and surrounded by developed residential apartment buildings, hospital and
medical office buildings, and a shopping center. The proposed project is not located on a
property designated as Prime farmland, Unique farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, nor is it located within a property zoned for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract; therefore, the project 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 Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 3 of 12
Tustin City Code
3. AIR QUALITY
Items a, b, c, d & e - Less Than Significant 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 (operation thresholds) and 6-3 (construction thresholds) 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 mitigating air quality impacts of projects when preparing environmental
documents. The construction of fewer than 1,309,000 square feet of building, the grading of
fewer than 177.00 acres, and the operation of fewer than 297 condominium units is not
considered a significant impact. Since the total building area will be 103,320 square feet on
3.23 acres of land and the project would have a total of 63 units, which is less than the
opemtioual threshold of 297 units, 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 include 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 Tnstin Grading Manual
Project Application
Field Inspection
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a, b, c, d, e & f- No Impact:
The site is improved and occupied by a commercial masonry business and is surrounded with
commercial and residential properties developed with pavement and structures. The site is
not inhabited by any known species of animals and would have no impacts on animal
populations, diversity of species, or migratory patterns. The project would include the
removal of twenty-six (26) local trees (mostly eucalyptus trees) to accommodate the
development and be replaced with 166 new trees. All new trees and landscape materials will
be provided in accordance with the Tustin Landscape and Irrigation guidelines. No impacts
to any unique, rare, or endangered species of ptant or animal life identified in local or regional
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 4 of 12
plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a, b, c & d ~ No Impact:
The property is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District, nor are
there any identified cultural, historic, or archaeological resources identified on or around the
site. The site is not located in an area of high paleontological sensitivity as illustrated in the
City's General Plan. The project would have no impacts on cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin Zoning Code
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
6. GEOLOGY & SOILS
ltems 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 reta'ming structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure
seismic stability.
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:
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 5 of 12
The project site is not located within an area on the Alqnist-Pri61o Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map. The project will not be located on a geolog/c 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 throu~,h h- No Impact:
The proposed project involves the construction of a sixty-three (63) condominium complex.
No storage or transports of hazardous materials are anticipated from the proposed residential
development. The proposed project is designed with proper emergency evacuation and
response systems; therefore, the project will not interfere with other emergency response or
evacuation. 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 subject 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
8. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Items a, b, c, d, e, k, 1, m, n & o - Less Than Significant Impact:
The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a
relatively fiat 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 with stormwater
pollutants from the maintenance of landscape areas and the trash enclosures. 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.
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 6 of 12
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001
Items f, K, h, i, [ and p - No Impact:
The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a
relatively flat 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 100-year flood hazard area structure
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 failure of a levee or
dam, or by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sourcesi
Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. LAND USE PLANNING
'Items a, b & c - No Impact:
The property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Public and Institutional
(P&I) and zoned Commercial General (CG). The proposed project would require a change in
land use designation and zoning of the property to High Density Residential and Multiple
Family Residential (R-3), respectively. With these changes, the proposed use would be
consistent with the applicable land use and zoning regulations. These changes are consistent
and compatible with other residential uses located to the east of the site and Land Use Policy
1. t of the Tustin General Plan which permits compatible multi-family development to meet
regional housing needs where best suited from the standpoint of current development,
accessibility, transportation, and public facilities. Since the project would increase
percentage of ownership housing consistent with Goal 3 of the Housing Element, the project
is accessible through the City's current street system, and the project could be supported with
existing transportation and public facilities; the proposed zone change and general plan
amendment could be supported. In addition, the project also includes the creation of ten (10)
affordable housing units, consistent with Housing Element General Plan Policy No. 1.1
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 7 of 12
which promotes the construction of additional dwelling units to accommodate Tustin's share
of regional housing needs.
The proposed project would not divide an established community since it includes
construction on an existing site completely surrounded by other similar residential and
commercial buildings in an urbanized area. The proposed project is not located in the
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed project would not
conflict with any applicable conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources:
Submitted Plates
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Map
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
Items a & b - No Impact:
The proposed project is not locatedon a mineral resource recovery site. The construction of
a sixty-three (63) unit condominium complex on a lot which is improved with a commercial
masonry business will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
11. NOISE
Item a - Less .Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
The project will be constructed within an area with exteribr Community Noise Equivalent
(CNEL) contours that range from 60 dB to 70 dB (Figure N- 1 of Tustin Noise Element). The
provision of the State of California Noise Insulation Standards and the City of Tustin Noise
ordinance limits the indoor noise levels for multifamily residential living spaces to not
exceed 45 dB and exterior noise level to 65dB. Table N-2 of the Tustin Noise Element
identifies potential conflicts between the proposed land uses and the noise environment. Per
Table N-2, the proposed project falls within Zone A through Zone C. Zone A implies no
mitigation measure will be needed, Zone B implies minor soundproofing may be needed, and
Zone C implies noise mitigation such as construction of noise barriers or building sound
insulation will be necessary. Since the buildings along Newport Avenue will be located
within Zone C, the applicant will be required to provide a detailed analysis of noise reduction
requirements and needed noise insulation features in the design.
Tustin Piace
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 8 of 12
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a noise analysis to
identify needed insulation features to ensure the interior noise level of living areas and
exterior noise level within patio areas do not exceed 45 dB and 65 dB, respectively, and
shall incorporate these features into the construction drawings. The noise analysis shall
be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of
a building permit.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tnstin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Code
Items b, c & d- Less Than Significant Impact:
The project includes construction of sixty-three (63) condominium units on an existing
commercial site. Although the grading and construction of the site may result in typical
temporary construction noise impacts, the Tustin Noise Ordinance only allows construction
activities to occur during the daytime on Monday through Saturday to eliminate construction
noise d~uring the nighttime hours.
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:
The site is not located within an airport land use plata or within two (2) miles of a public or
private airport. The proposed project is three (3) stories in height. Although the project is
not located within the John Wayne Airport flying path, it is in close proximity to the
incoming flights over the State Route 55 freeway to John Wayne Airport. The City, County,
and State criteria for Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) for exterior residential uses is 65
dB consistent with the Tustin Noise standards. In accordance with the California Airport
Noise Standards, John Wayne Airport performs quarterly noise monitoring at several
locations. Based on the quarterly noise abatement reports, the project is not located within
the 65 CNEL area/noise impact area. As a result, no specific method of construction would
be required to mitigate the unanticipated aircrafl noise impacts. The project, however, would
be conditioned to meet City's noise standards.
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 9 of 12
MitigatiOn Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Code
12. POPULATION & HOUSING
Items a, b, and c - No Impact:
The proposed project would construct Sixty-three (63) condominium units and increase the
density in the area. The increase~ however, would not be substantial in that new public
streets or new public services would need to be created.
The project site is currently improved and occupied by a commercial masonry business and
the construction of a new condominium complex on the site would not displace existing
housing or displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Sources ~
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a - No Impact:
The proposed project would construct sixty-three (63) condominiums. The proposed project
is in an existing urbanized area where fire and police protection are currently provided.
Although the project would increase the density within the area, no new streets, public
services, or infi:astmcture would need to be created.
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. The project would not
increase the use of existing parks such that substantial deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated, nor would the project include recreational facilities that would have
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
page 10 of 12
an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, in accordance with Section 9331 of
the Tustin City Code, the project would be conditioned to dedicate parkland or pay in lieu
fees for parkland dedication.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a minimum of .0065
acre per dwelling unit for parkland or pay fees in lieu of parkland dedication. The value
of the amount of such fees shall be based upon the requirements of Section 933 l.d.3 of
the Tustin City Code.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Items a & b - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation:
The Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies Newport Avenue as a Modified Majo~
arterial highway which calls for an ultimate six (6) lane highway. Newport Avenue is
currently improved with four lanes of traffic and since the project includes the subdivision of
the site for condominium purposes, Section 9331 of Tustin City Code authorizes the
requirement, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, for a dedication of land within the
subdivision needed to bring Newport Avenue into a six (6) lane highway. Therefore the
applicant will be required to dedicate a ten (10) foot,strip of land and construct street
improvements along the project frontage such that the distance from centerline to the
property line is sixty (60) feet.
The traffic analysis for this project is contained in a document prepared by Kunzman
Associates (Attachment B). The project is anticipated to generate approximately 369 daily
vehicle trips (see Attachment 1 - Traffic Impact Analysis). The project would generate
twenty-seven (27) AM peak hour trips and thirty-four (34) PM peak hour trips. For existing
plus project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to
operate at Level of Service B or better during peak hours. For existing plus project traffic
conditions, the roadway links in the vicinity of the site are projected to continue to ?perate
within acceptable Levels of Service.
However, for year 2020 with project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity are
projected to operate at Level of Service D during the peak hours, with the connection of
Newport Avenue to Edinger Avenue. The roadway links for year 2020 are projected to
operate within acceptable Levels of Service except on Newport Avenue at the project
entrance intersection, which will operate at Level of Service F. To mitigate the traffic
impacts at this location for year 2020, the applicant has agreed to contribute a fairshare fee
towards the construction of a raised median along Newport Avenue. This raised median
would prohibit left turns from the project site and maintain the Newport Avenue level of
service at an acceptable level.
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 11 of 12
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate in fee title, a ten (10)
foot additional street right-of-way along Newport Avenue. The applicant shall
construct street improvements along the project frontage on Newport Avenue such that
the distance from centerline to property line is sixty (60) feet.
The applicant shall pay an "in-lieu" traffic impact mitigation fee of $19,780 to the City
of Tustin prior to issuance of a building permit 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
Kunzman Associates, dated October 7, 2003, for the project. The in lieu fee will be
used towards the construction of a raised median along Newport Avenue to bring the
level of service on Newport Avenue at the project entrance to an acceptable level.
Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall install a "STOP" sign to control outbound
traffic from project access driveway.
Items c, d, e, f& g -No Impact:
The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth wherein the project
will not result in changes to ak traffic patterns, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle rocks. 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.
Sources1
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Traffic Impact Analysis
16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a, b, c, d, e, f& ~-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 facihty or solid waste facility. The
project will utilize the City's existing trash hanler 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 Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 12 of 12
Tustin General Plan
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a, b & c - No Impact:
The project design, construction, and operation will comply with the regulations of the
Community Development Department. The project, by nature of its location and as
designed, does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the
habitat of 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. The project does not have the potential
to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-term. It does not
have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause
substantial adverse impacts on human beings.
Sources;
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
coMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tusfin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3]00
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Project Location: 14552 Newport Avenue, Tustin, Orange Cour)ty, California.
Project Description: A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Public and Institutional to High
Density Residential, a Zone Change to change the zoning designation from Commercial General (CG) to Multiple Family
Residential (R-3), a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the existing lot into a condominium tract, and a Design Review to
construct sixty-three (63) condominium units. The project will also include the execution of a Housing Assistance
-~greement by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency and the site developer (The Olson Company)
hich will authorize the issuance of the Redevelopment Agency's loan in the in the amount not to exceed $2,119,960 to
sist inthe creation often (10) affordable units for a period of not less than forty-five (45) years.
Project Proponent: The Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway g400, Seal Beach, CA 90740-2751
Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom
Telephone: (714) 573-3174
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
--}evelopment Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this
legative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and
~xtends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review
period may be extended if deemed necessary.
REVIEW PER]OD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 5, 2003
Date October17, 2003
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF TUSTIN
TUSTIN PLACE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED)
Prepared by:
Carl Ballard and
William Kunzman, P.E.
April 28, 2003
October 7, 2003 (Revised)
KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES
t111 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 34
ORA~, CA 92868
PHONE: (714) 97'3-8383
F~.X: (714) 97~-838B
EMAIL: MA IL~TRAFFIC-E~I NEER.COM
WEB: WWW.TRAFF IC-ENGINEER.COM
2732
Table of Contents
1. Findings ......................................................................................................... 2
Existing Traffic Conditions .......................................................................... 2
Traffic Impacts ............................................................................................ 2
Recommendations ..................................................................................... 3
2. Project Description .................................................................................... 6
Location ...................................................................................................... 6
Proposed Development .............................................................................. 6
3. Existing Traffic Conditions ..................................................................... 9
Surrounding Street System ........................................................................ 9
Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls ........................................ 9
Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ........................................... 9
Existing Volume to Capacity Ratios ........................................................... 9
Existing Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) .......................................... 10
Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways ................................................ 11
Transit Service ......................................................................................... 11
4. Project Traffic ............................................................................................ 21
Traffic Generation .................................................................................... 21
Traffic Generation Comparison ................................................................ 21
Traffic Distribution and Assignment .......................................................... 21
Project-Related Traffic .............................................................................. 22
5, Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions .......................................... 29
Existing Plus Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ..................... 29
Existing Plus Project Volume to Capacity Ratios ..................................... 29
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) ...................... 29
6. Year 2020 Traffic Conditions ................................................................ 3S
Method of Projection ................................................................................ 35
Year 2020 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ..................................... 35
Year 2020 Volume to Capacity Ratios ..................................................... 35
Year 2020 intersection Levels of Service (LOS) ...................................... 35
Project Traffic Contribution ....................................................................... 36
Internal Circulation .................................................................................. 49
Site Access .............................................................................................. 49
Sight Distance .......................................................................................... 49
Parking ..................................................................................................... 50
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Glossary of Transportation Terms
Traffic Count Worksheets
Explanation and Calculation of Intersection
Utilization (ICU) and Intersection Delay
City of Tustin Improvement Standard No. 510
Capacity
LiSt of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Summary of Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) ................................... 5
City of Tustin Roadway Capacities ........................................................ 12
Existing Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) ....................................... 13
Project Traffic Generation ................................................... i ................. 23
Traffic Generation Comparison ............................................................. 24
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) ................... 30
Year 2020 Without Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) .......... 38
Year 2020 With Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) ............... 39
Project Traffic Contribution .................................................................... 40
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Project Location Map ........................................................................... 7
Site Plan ............................................................................................... 8
Existing Through Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls .................. 14
Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ................................... 15
Existing Volume to Capacity Ratios ................................................... 16
Existing Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement
Volumes ............................................................................................. 17
Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement
Volumes ............................................................................................. 18
City of Tustin General Plan Circulation Element ................................ 19
City of Tustin General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections ....................... 20
Project Traffic Distribution .................................................................. 25
Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes .................................... 26
Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement
Volumes ............................................................................................. 27
Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement
Volumes ............................................................................................. 28
Existing Plus Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ............... 31
Existing Plus Project Volume to Capacity Ratios ............................... 32
Existing Plus Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning
Movement Volumes ............................................................................ 33
Existing Plus Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning
Movement Volume§.,.'i ........................................................................ 34
Year 2020 Without Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ...... 41
Year 2020 With Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ........... 42
Year 2020 Without Project Volume to Capacity Ratios ...................... 43
Year 2020 With Project Volume to Capacity Ratios ........................... 44
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Year 2020 Without Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning
Movement Volumes ............................................................................ 45
Year 2020 Without Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning
Movement Volumes ............................................................................ 46
Year 2020 With Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning
Movement Volumes ............................................................................ 47
Year 2020 With Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning
Movement Volumes ............................................................................ 48
Circulation Recommendations ........................................................... 51
Sight Distance Requirements on Newport Avenue for Project
Driveway ............................................................................................ 52
City of Tustin
Tustin Place
Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised)
This report contains the revised traffic impact analysis for the Tustin Place project.
The project site is located east of Newport Avenue between Walnut Avenue and
Sycamore Avenue in the City of Tustin.
The traffic report contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, traffic
generated by the project, distribution of the project traffic to roads outside the
project, and an analysis of future traffic conditions. Each of these topics is
contained in a separate section of the report. The first section is "Findings", and
subsequent sections expand upon the findings. In this way, information on any
particular aspect of the study can be easily located by the reader.
Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report
clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to
transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A.
1. Findings
This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, and
the proposed mitigation measures.
Existinq Traffic Conditions
a. The project site is currently occupied with the Tustin Block Company.
Table 1 shows the existing Levels of Service (LOS) at the study area
intersections.
The intersections in the vicinity of the site currently operate at Level of
Service A during the peak hours.
The roadway links in the vicinity of the site currently operate within
acceptable Levels of Service.
Traffic Impacts
The project site is proposed to be developed with 63 condominium dwelling
units. The proposed project will have access to Newport Avenue.
The project site is projected to generate approximately 369 daily vehicle
trips, 27 of which will occur during the morning peak hour, and 34 of which
will occur during the evening peak hour.
Table 1 shows the existing plus project Levels of Service (LOS) at the study
area intersections.
For existing plus project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of
the site are projected to operate at Level of Service B or better during the
peak hours.
For existing plus project traffic conditions, the roadway links in the vicinity of
the site are projected to continue to operate within acceptable Levels of
Service.
Table 1 shows the Year 2020 without project Levels of Service (LOS) at the
study area intersections.
For Year 2020 without project traffic conditions, the intersections in the
vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better
during the peak hours, with the connection of Newport Avenue to Edinger
Avenue and assuming improvements at the Newport Avenue/Sycamore
Avenue intersection (see Table 7).
For Year 2020 without project traffic conditions, the roadway links in the
vicinity of the site are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of
Service, with the connection of Newport Avenue to Edinger Avenue.
Table 1 shows the Year 2020 with project Levels of Service (LOS) at the
study area intersections.
For Year 2020 with project traffic conditions (see Table 8), most of the
intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of
Service D or better during the peak hours (assuming the Newport
Avenue/Sycamore Avenue intersection improvements), with the connection
of Newport Avenue to Edinger Avenue. However, the Newport
Avenue/Project Entrance intersection is projected to operate at Level of
Service F during the evening peak hour.
For Year 2020 with project traffic conditions, the roadway links in the vicinity
of the site are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service with
the connection of Newport Avenue to Edinger Avenue.
The percentage of project increase is shown in Table 1 for the study area
intersections. As shown in Table 9, the project traffic contributions have
been calculated for the intersections in the vicinity of the site. The project
traffic contribution has been based on the proportion of project peak hour
traffic contributed to the total new peak hour Year 2020 traffic volume.
Even though the Newport Avenue/Sycamore Avenue intersection is
projected to operate at Level of Service F during the peak hours (withoUt
improvements), the project impacts are 0.004 and 0.004 for the morning
and evening peak hours, respectively (Table 7 compared to Table 8).
These increases in ICU would be below a threshold of significance for
project related impacts.
Recommendations
The following measures are recommended to mitigate the impact of the project on
traffic circulation:
Site-specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on
Figures 26 and 27.
A STOP sign should be installed to control outbound traffic at the site
access driveway.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction
with detailed construction plans for the project. All markings or signs
internal to the project shall comply with provisions of the State's Traffic
Manual.
The site should provide sufficient parking spaces to meet City of Tustin
parking code requirements in order to service on-site parking demand.
A project impact has been identified for Year 2020 traffic conditions at the
Newport Avenue/Project Entrance intersection. A future raised median on
Newport Avenue will provide the necessary mitigation of the project
impacts. The project's proportionate share of a raised median improvement
has been estimated to be $19,780. The project shall provide the $19,780 to
the City of Tustin, which will serve to mitigate the future impacts generated
by the proposed project,
4
Table 1
Summary of Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
ICU-LOS~
Intersection Scenario Morning Evening
Newport Avenue (NS) at: Existing 0.533-A 0.573-A
Walnut Avenue (EW) Existing Plus Project 0.536-A 0.574-A
Project Percent Increase 0.6% 0.2%
Year 2020 Without Project 0.615-B 0.660-B
Year 2020 With Project 0.617-B 0.661-B
Proiect Increase 0.3% 0.2%
Newport Avenue (NS) at: Existing 0.396-A 0.461-A
Sycamore Avenue (EW) Existing Plus Project 0.398-A 0.463-A
Project increase 0.5% 0.4%
Year 2020 Without Project= 0.804-D 0.862-D
Year 2020 With Project2 0.806-D 0.864-D
Project Increase 0.2% 0.2%
ICU-LOS = intersection Capacity Utilization - Lever of Service
With improvements reflected in Tables 7 and 8.
5
2. Project Description
This section discusses the project's location, proposed development, and traffic
characteristics of such a development. Figure 1 shows the project location map
and Figure 2 illustrates the site plan.
Location
The project site is located east of Newport Avenue between Walnut Avenue and
Sycamore Avenue in the City of Tustin.
Proposed Development
The project site is proposed to be developed with 63 condominium dwelling units.
The following describes the proposed land use from a traffic engineering
viewpoint:
Condominiums: Peak traffic volumes occur in the morning and evening when
inhabitants are going to and from work. Mid-day volumes are often shopping
oriented or child related, such as home-to-school and home-to-Little League.
Figure 1
Project Location
-X-Site
2752~
7
Figure 2
Site Plan
K~nznm~ Associates
2732/2
3. Existing Traffic Conditions
The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below and illustrated in
Figures 3 to 9.
SurroundinR Street System
Roadways that will be utilized by the development include Newport Avenue,
Walnut Avenue, and Sycamore Avenue. In the vicinity of the project site, the
following roadway conditions exist.
Newport Avenue: This north-south two lane undivided to four lane divided
roadway. It currently has a volume of approximately 3,700 to 29,200 vehicles per
day.
.Walnut Avenue: This east-west four lane undivided to four lane divided roadway.
It currently has a volume of approximately 7,400 to 14,000 vehicles per day.
Sycamore Avenue: This east-west two lane undivided to four lane divided
roadway. It currently has a volume of approximately 7,500 to 8,600 vehicles per
day.
Existin.q Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls
Figure 3 identifies the existing roadway conditions for arterials near the site. The
number of through lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection
controls are identified.
Existin,q Averaqe Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes
Figure 4 depicts the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. Traffic volumes
were obtained from the City of Tustin 2003 Traffic Flow Map.
Existin,q Volume to Capacity Ratios
Roadway capacity is generally defined as the number of vehicles that can be
reasonably expected to pass over a given section of road in a given time period.
Congestion, high accident rates, the quality of traffic flow (Level of Service), and
environmental acceptability all come into play in defining a particular roadway's
effective capacity. It is possible to identify maximum desirable volumes for typical
roadway types based on the number of roadway travel lanes. These daily
volumes reflect estimates of the amount of daily traffic that will result in peak hour
traffic volumes equal to the maximum desirable capacity of each roadway type.
Table 2 contains City of Tustin daily capacities by roadway type.
By dividing existing ADT volumes by the daily roadway capacities listed in Table 2,
existing daily volume to capacity ratios have been calculated and are shown in
Figure 5. As may be seen on Figure 5, the roadway links in the vicinity of the site
currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service.
Existin,q Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known
as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value the volume of
traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An
ICU value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion
of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection
traffic if all approaches operate at capacity.
The technique used to calculate Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is as
follows. Lane capacity is 1,700 vehicles per lane per hour of green time for
through and turn lanes. A total yellow clearance time of 5 percent is added.
The technique used to assess the capacity needs of an unsignalized intersection
is known as the Intersection Delay Method. To calculate delay, the volume of
traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection.
The Levels of Service for the existing traffic conditions have been calculated and
are shown in Table 3. Existing Levels of Service are based upon manual morning
and evening peak hour intersection turning movement counts made for Kunzman
Associates in April 2003 (see Figures 6 and 7). Traffic count worksheets are
provided in Appendix B.
There are two peak hours in a weekday. The morning peak hour is between 7:00
AM and 9:00 AM, and the evening peak hour is between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM.
The actual peak hour within the two hour interval is the four consecutive 15 minute
periods with the highest total volume when all movements are added together.
Thus, the evening peak hour at one intersection may be 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM if
those four consecutive 15 minute periods have the highest combined volume.
The intersections in the vicinity of the site currently operate at Level of Service A
during the peak hours. Existing Level of Service worksheets are provided in
Appendix C.
Comparison of daily volume to capacity ratios and corresponding Level of Service,
and peak hour Intersection Capacity Utilization and corresponding Level of Service
reveals significant differences. The differences between daily link volume to
capacity ratios and peak hour ICU values is particularly pronounced when cross
traffic is light. Daily volume to capacity ratios assume that all cross streets require
50 percent of the time to satisfy their demand, and assume that the subject street
has 50 percent of the time available to it. The daily link volume to capacity ratios
are a generalized indicator while peak hour ICU actually represents what can be
expected in the peak hour at intersections. Of the two indicators, the peak hour
10
ICU value and corresponding LOS is by far the best measure of roadway
performance.
Existin,q Master Plan of Arterial Hi.qhways
Figure 8 exhibits the current City of Tustin General Plan Circulation Element. Both
existing and future roadways are included in the Circulation Element of the
General Plan and are graphically depicted on Figure 8. This figure shows the
nature and extent of arterial highways that are needed to serve adequately the
ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Figure 9 shows the City of Tustin General Plan roadway cross-sections.
Transit Service
The study area is currently served by the OCTA Route 66 along Walnut Avenue.
The traffic reducing potential of public transit has not been considered in this
report. Essentially the traffic projections are "worst case" in that public transit
might be able to reduce the traffic volumes.
11
Table 2
City of Tustin Roadway Capacities
Number Capacity
Facility Type of Lanes LOS D LOS E
Maior Highway 8 Divided 67,500 75,000
Major Highway 6 Divided 50,600 56,300
Primary Highway 4 Divided 33,800 37,500
Secondary Highway 4 Undivided 22,500 25,000
Commuter 2 Undivided 11,300 12,500
12
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Intersection,~ }roach Lanest Peak Hour
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound ICU-LOS2
Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evening
Newport Avenue (NS) at:
Walnut Avenue(EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.533-A 0.573-A
Sycamore Avenue (EW) TS 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 0 0 2 0 0.396-A 0.461-A
1 When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. TO function as a right turn lane, there msujt be sufficient
width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right
2 ICU-LOS = Intersection Capacity Utilization - Level of Service
3
TS = Traffic Signal
13
Figure 5
Existing Through Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls
2 -Z-Site
3
U 2U
Kunzman Assoc~tes
Legend
I'~ = Traffic Signal
4 -- Tnt=ugh Travel Lines
O = Divided
U = Undivided
IntersecUon reference numbers are h upper left corner of turning movement boxes.
2752/5
14
Figure 4
Existing Averoge DaVy Traffic (ADT) Volumes
7. 3.2
-X-Site
8,6
Legend
;3.7 = Vehicles Pa' Day (lO00's)
Kunzman Associates
2732/4
15
Figure 5
Existing Volume To Capacity Ratios
¸.78
-)(-Site
0.2~
Legend
0.50 = Volume To
Kunzman Associates
27~2~
16
Figure 6
Existing Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2
--X- Site
K~u~ra~ Assoc~tes
Project Entrence Sycomore Avenue
Intersectio~ reference numbers ore i~ upp~ left come' of turnin9 movement boxes.
27=/bbos
17
Figure 7
Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Tuming Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
3
Intersection reference numbers ore h upfxa* left cema* of turning movement boxes. 2732,/bbos
18
Figure 8
City of Tustin General Plan Circulation Bement
LEGEND
u'jor (8 l~ne.s)
Se~ond~ (4 or 2 ~eS)
Ku~mm Associates
Source: City of Tustb
2752/8
19
Figure 9
City of Tustin General Plan Road~vay Cross-Sections
92' ROW
Note: ~th
Kv~n~ Assoc~tes
S~urce: City of Tustin
20
4. Project Traffic
The project site is proposed to be developed with 63 condominium dwelling units.
The proposed project will have access to Newport Avenue.
Traffic Generation
The traffic generated by the project is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip
generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are predicated
on the assumption that energy costs, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our
life styles remain similar to what we know today. A major change in these
variables may affect trip generation rates.
Trip generation rates were determined for daily traffic, morning peak hour inbound
and outbound traffic, and evening peak hour inbound and outbound traffic for the
proposed land use. By multiplying the traffic generation rates by the land use
quantities, the traffic volumes are determined. Table 4 exhibits the traffic
generation rates, project peak hour volumes, and project daily traffic volumes.
The trip generation rates are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
The project site is projected to generate approximately 369 daily vehicle trips, 27
of which will occur during the morning peak hour, and 34 of which will occur during
the evening peak hour.
Traffic Generation Comparison
The project site is requesting authorization to change the zoning designation from
Commercial General (CG) to Multiple Family Residential (R-3). A traffic
generation comparison has been conducted between the land uses for the
previous development and the proposed development. Based upon the trip
generation comparison depicted in Table 5, the proposed development is
projected to generate approximately 59 more daily vehicle trips, 19 more of which
will occur during the morning peak hour, and 10 more of which will occur during
the evening peak hour.
Traffic Distribution and Assi,qnment
Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic. It is
based on the geographical location of employment centers, commercial centers,
recreational areas, or residential area concentrations.
Traffic assignment is the determination of which specific route development traffic
will use, once the generalized traffic distribution is determined. The basic factors
affecting route selection are minimum time path and minimum distance path.
21
Figure 10 contains the directional distribution and assignment of the project traffic
for the proposed land use.
Proiect-Related Traffic
Based on the identified traffic generation and distribution, project related ADT
volumes are shown on Figure 11. The project related morning and evening peak
hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 12 and 13,
respectively.
22
Table 4
Project Traffic Generation~
Tdps Generated Tdps Generated
Time Period Per DU2 by 63 DU
rvloming Peak Hour
Inbound 0.07 4
Outbound 0.37 23
Total 0.44 27
Evening Peak Hour
Inbound 0.36 23
Outbound 0.18 11
Total 0.54 34
Daily 5.86 369
1 Source: institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trio Generation.
6th Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 230.
2 DU = Dwelling Units
23
Table 5
Traffic Generation Comparison
Peak Hour
Morning Evenin~l
Land Use QuantJt7 Units~ Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound' Total Daily
Previous
Commercial Re, tail2 3.231 AC 4 41 8 12 1;, 24 310
Pro~<~sed
Mui~-Family Attached Residential3 631 DU 4 ~ 27 23 11 34 369
Difference +0 +1 .c +19 + 11 -1 +1 (3 +59
AC = Acres
DU = Dwelling Units
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Tdp Generation, 6tfl Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 817.
See Table 4,
24
Figure 10
Project Traffic Distn'bution
-X-Site
20~
5Z
10'~
10~ = Pa-cent To~rorn Project
Fa' Existing Plus Project Traffic
C~difia~a
00~ = Percent To/From Pro'~t
Far Year 2020 t~th Project Traffic
Ce~ditinns
25
Figure 11
Project Average Daay Traffic (ADT) Volumes
(
0.1
(0.~)
-X-Site
(o.~)
(N~)
(~)
(NO~)
Legend
0.1 = Ve~ides Per Day ~O0(Ts)
For Existhg Plus rro~ct Traffic
Cmdltlms
(Om1) = ~ P~ D~y(lOOO'~)
re' Tee' 2020 Wl(h Project Troffic
Conditi~s
NOU = N~n|nal, Le~s ~an 50
Vehicles Pe~ Doy
Ku~z~ta~ Assoc~tes
2752/11
26
Figure 12
Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
I Ex,ting Plus Project Troffic Conditiofls J
Walnut A~ue ~-~-°"~ ~.~ I=r°ject Entronce Sycomore Avenue
Yeor 2020 t~ Project Trc~ffic Cmditio~s [
Pro~ect Entrance
S)camere A~mnue
Intersection reference numbes om re upper left comer of turning mmemeet boxes. 2752/bbas
27
Figure 13
Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Uovement Volumes
2 -X-Site
3
Pmj~t Entro~ce
I Ye~ 20~ YAth Project Traffic Cendffi~s I
Project Entrance
Intersection refexmce numbers ore in upper left comer of tumin9 movement boxes, 2732/bbaa
28
5. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Once the project-related traffic is assigned to the existing street network and
added to existing volumes, the traffic impact can be assessed. Figures 14 to 17
illustrate the existing plus project traffic conditions.
Existin.q Plus Project Avera,qe Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes
Upon project completion and occupancy, the existing plus project ADT volumes
are as illustrated on Figure 14.
Existinq Plus Project Volume to Capacity Ratios
For existing plus project traffic conditions, daily volume to capacity ratios have
been calculated and are as shown on Figure 15. Daily volume to capacity ratios
are based on City of Tustin roadway capacities depicted in Table 2. For existing
plus project traffic conditions, the roadway links in the vicinity of the site are
projected to continue to operate within acceptable Levels of Service.
Existin.q Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known
as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value the volume of
traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection, An
ICU value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion
of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection
traffic if all approaches operate at capacity.
The technique used to assess the capacity needs of an unsignalized intersection
is known as the Intersection Delay Method. To calculate delay, the volume of
traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection.
The Levels of Service for the existing plus project traffic conditions have been
calculated and are shown in Table 6. Existing plus project morning and evening
.'pe'ak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 16 and
17, respectively.
For existing plus project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site
are projected to operate at Level of Service B or better during the peak hours.
Existing plus project Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
29
Table 6
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Peak Hour
Intersection Approach Lanes~ ICU-LOS2/
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Dela,,-LOS3
Intersection Controla L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evening
Newport Avenue (NS) at:
Walnut Avenue(EW)2 TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 I 2 0 0.536-A 0.574-A
Project Entrance (EW)3 CSS 0 2 i 1_ 2 0 0 0 0 0 1_ 0 10~8-B 11.3-B
Sycamore Avenue (EW)2 TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0.398~A 0.463-A
When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a fight turn lane, there must be sufficient
width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1_ == Improvement
2 ICU-LOS = In!~rse..ction Capacity Utilization - Level of Service
3 Delay and level of se~ice has been cetcuiated using the following anarysis soda,rare: Traffix, Version 7.5.0615 (2000). Per the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal
or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street step control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement
(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
4 TS = Traffic Signal
CSS = Cross Street Stop
3O
Figure 14
Existing Plus Project Average Daay Traffic (ADT) Volumes
7.,
X Site
Lea_end
3.7 = Vahides Per Day (lO00's)
Ku~z~a~ Associates
27~2/1~
31
Figure 15
Existing Plus Project Volume To Capacity Ratios
-X-Site
Legend
0.50 = Volume To Capacity Ratio
Associates
2"/32/15
32
· . Figure 16.
Exmflng Plus Project
Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
3
z Z z
Intersection reference numbe~ ere ~ upper left cerner of tum~g mo~ment boxes,
55
· . Figure 17.
Ex~sbng Plus Project
Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Uovement Volumes
2 -X--Site
3
S)comoFe Avenue
Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left come' of tumS§ movement bo~es. 2732/obas
34
6. Year 2020 Traffic Conditions
In this section, Year 2020 traffic conditions reflecting ultimate buildout of the
existing General Plan without and with the project are discussed. Figures 18 to 25
show the Year 2020 traffic conditions.
Method of Proiection
The Year 2020 without project ADT and peak hour volumes have been obtained
from the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Disposal and Reuse Traffic
Study (October 19, 1999). The project site has been manually overlaid onto the
study area network.
Year 2020 Avera,qe Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes
Year 2020 without project ADT volumes are depicted on Figure 18 and the Year
2020 with project ADT volumes are as illustrated on Figure 19.
Year 2020 Volume to Capacity Ratios
For Year 2020 without and with project traffic conditions, daily volume to capacity
ratios have been calculated and are as shown on Figures 20 and 21. Daily
volume to capacity ratios are based on City of Tustin roadway capacities depicted
in Table 2. For Year 2020 without project and with project traffic conditions, the
roadway links in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate within acceptable
Levels of Service, with the connection of Newport Avenue to Edinger Avenue.
Year 2020 Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known
as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value the volume of
traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An
ICU value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion
of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection
traffic if all approaches operate at capacity.
The technique used to assess the capacity needs of an unsignalized intersection
is known as the Intersection Delay Method. To calculate delay, the volume of
traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection.
The Levels of Service for the Year 2020 without project traffic conditions have
been calculated and are shown in Table 7. Year 2020 without project morning and
evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures
22 and 23, respectively.
35
For Year 2020 without project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of
the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak
hours, with the connection of Newport Avenue to Edinger Avenue and assuming
improvements at the Newport Avenue/Sycamore Avenue intersection (see Table
7). Year 2020 without project Level of Service worksheets are provided in
Appendix C.
The Levels of Service for the Year 2020 with project traffic conditions have been
calculated and are shown in Table 8. Year 2020 with project morning and evening
peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 24 and
25, respectively.
For Year 2020 with project traffic conditions (see Table 8), most of the
intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service
D or better during the peak hours (assuming the Newport Avenue/Sycamore
Avenue intersection improvements), with the connection of Newport Avenue to
Edinger Avenue. However, the Newport Avenue/Project Entrance intersection is
projected to operate at Level of Service F during the evening peak hour. Year
2020 with project Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
Based on the intersection analysis tool known as the Delay Methodology, the
intersection of Newport Avenue/Project Entrance is projected to operate at an
unacceptable Level of Service as an unsignalized intersection. If it were
signalized, the Delay Methodology would indicate that the intersection would
operate at an acceptable Level of Service (see Table 8). However, based on
traffic signal warrants, and directly considering the intersection volumes, a traffic
signal is not warranted.
The traffic signal warrant methodology directly addresses whether a traffic signal
should be installed or not, where as one of the by products of the Delay
Methodology implies that a traffic signal is needed. The traffic signal warrants are
based on years of experience, are time tested, industry standards, and are
recognized by the Federal Highway Administration and Caitrans as the appropriate
method of determining whether a traffic signal is needed or not. The Delay
Methodology on the other hand is not recognized by the Federal Highway
Administration and Caltrans as a valid methodology for determining whether a
traffic signal is needed or not.
Therefore, the two methodologies produce different and contradictory conclusions
to the question of whether a traffic signal is needed or not. Of the two
methodologies, Kunzman Associates believes the traffic signal warrant
methodology should take precedence and a traffic signal should not be installed.
Proiect Traffic Contribution
As shown in Table 9, the project traffic contributions have been calculated for the
intersections in the vicinity of the site. The project traffic contribution has been
36
based on the proportion of project peak hour traffic contributed to the total new
peak hour Year 2020 traffic volume.
Even though the Newport Avenue/Sycamore Avenue intersection is projected to
operate at Level of Service F during the peak hours (without improvements), the
project impacts are 0.004 and 0.004 for the morning and evening peak hours,
respectively (Table 7 compared to Table 8). These increases in ICU would be
below a threshold of significance for project related impacts.
A project impact has been identified for Year 2020 traffic conditions at the Newport
Avenue/Project Entrance intersection. A future raised median on Newport Avenue
will provide the necessary mitigation of the project impacts. The project's
proportionate share of a raised median improvement has been estimated to be
$19,780. The project shall provide the $19,780 to the City of Tustin, which will
serve to mitigate the future impacts generated by the proposed project.
37
Table 7
Year 2020 Without Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Intersection Approach Lanes~ Peak Hour
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound ICU-LOS2
Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evenin~
Newport Avenue (NS) at:
Walnut Avenue (EW) TS 1 2 I I 2 1 1 2 0 I 2 0 0.615-B 0.660-B
Sycamore Avenue (EW)
- Without Improvements TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1.650-F ; 1.805-F
-With Improvements TS 2 2 I 1 3 0 2_ I 1_ 0 2 0 0.804-DI0.862-[;
I When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient
width fur right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; I = Improvement
2 ICU-LOS = Intersection Capacity Utilization - Level of Service
TS = Traffic Signal
38
Table 8
Year 2020 With Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Peak Hour
Intersection Approach Lanes~ ICU-LOS2/
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Deta ~,LOS3
Intersection Control4 L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning Evening
Newport Avenue (NS) at:
Walnut Avenue(EW)2 TS 1 2 1 I 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.617-B 0.661-B
Project Entrance (EW)3
-Without Improvements CSS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1_ 0 23.5-C 99.7-F
-With Improvements CS__~S 0 2 1_ 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1_ 10.2-B 16.9-C
Sycamore Avenue (EW)2
-Without Improvements TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 0 0 2 0 1~654-F 1.809-F
-With Improvements TS _2 _2 1 1 3 0 2_ 1 1_ 0 2 0 0.806-D 0.864-D
I When a fight turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane, there must be sufficient
width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through fanes,
L -- Left; T -- T~rough; R = Right; 1 = Improvement
2 ICU-LOS = Intersection Capacity Utilization - Level of Sewice
Delay and level of service has been calculated usmg the following analysle software: Traffix, Version 7.5.0615 (2000). Per the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections wffh traffic signal
or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and levet of service for the worst individual movement
(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
4 TS = Traffic Signal
CSS = Cross Street Stop
39
Table 9
Project Traffic Contribution
Existing Plus Project Year 2020 With Project
Existing Project Year 2020 Total Project
Peak Project Plus Project % of Existing With Project Project New % of New
Intersection Hour Traffic Traffic Tralflc Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic
~lewport Avenue (NS) at:
Walnut Avenue (EW) AM 19 1,918 1.0% 1,899 2,684 14 785
PM 23 2,269 1.0% 2,246 3,258 18 1,012 1.8%
AVERAGE 21 21094 1.0¥~ 2~073 2,971 16 899 1.8%
qewport Avenue (NS) at:
Sycamore Avenue (EW) AM 7 1,153 0.6°/~ 1,148 3,731 11 2,585 0.4%
PM 10 1,262 0.8~,~ 1,252 4,845 1~ 3,593 0.4%
AVERAGE 9 1,208 0.7¥~ 1,199 4,288 13 3,089 0.4%
40
Figure 18
Year 2020 Without Project Average Oo~y Traffic (ADT) Volumes
7.0
-X-Site
2.0
Legend
32.0 = Vehides Per Day (lO00's)
Kanzman Associates
2752~18
4!
Year 2020 With
Figure 19
Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes
gJ 7.1
-X--Site
10.0
/32.1
Legend
32.1 = Vehicles Per Day (lO00's)
2732/19
42
Figure 20
Year 2020 Without Project Volume To Capocity Rotios
0.2, L99
X' Site °'~~
Legend
0,85 = Vdume To Capacity Rotlo
Kunzrrmn Assoc~tes
27~2/20
43
Figure 21
Year 2020 With Project Volume To Capacity Ratios
,.99
0.67 ~.
-X--Site
Le_aend
0.86 = Volume To Capacity Ratio
Ku~zma~ Assoc~tes
2752/21
44
Figure 22
Year 2020 Without Project
Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning aovement Volumes
2 -X--Site
3
Wdnut Avenue
Kur~r~mn Assoc~tes
Project Entronce Sycmnore Avenue
intersection reference numbers ore in upper left comer of tumim] movement boxes.
2732/bbos
45
Evening
Figure 23
Yeor 2020 Without Project
Peek Hour Intersection Turning aovement Volumes
2 -X-Site
3
z
Project Entrance $)¢ama'e Avenue ~1 1'/I,
Intersectim reference numbers ore iff upper left c~er of luming movement boxes. 2752/bbos
46
Morning
Figure 24
Yeer 2020 With Project
Peek Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2
-X-Site
3
Z
II I~' ~ /
Kvnzman Assoc~tes
Intersectial reference numbers are in upper left c~,'ner of tumin9 movement boxes.
47
Figure 25
Year 2020 With Project
Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -)(-Site
3
Kunzman Assoc~tes
Project Entrance
Inte;sectien refermce numbers are in uppe' left comer of turning movemeqt boxes. 2732/bbos
48
7. Internal Circulation
Discussed below are site access, sight distance, and parking.
Site Access
Site-specific circulation and access recommendations are depicted on Figures 26
and 27.
A STOP sign should be installed to control outbound traffic at the site access
driveway.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with
detailed construction plans for the project. All markings or signs internal to the
project shall comply with provisions of the State's Traffic Manual.
Siqht Distance
The sight distance at the project site intersection has been reviewed with respect
to City of Tustin sight distance standards, as shown on Figure 27.
Sight distance has been reviewed based upon the City of Tustin sight distance
requirements. The City of Tustin has an intersection sight distance standard
known as Improvement Standard No. 510 (see Appendix D).
The minimum corner sight distance for public road intersections shall be the
stopping distance measured from the 3.5 foot high height of the driver's line of
sight to a 4.25 foot object height of oncoming vehicles on the major roadway.
However, for an unsignalized intersed:tion it is desirable that the corner sight
distance be calculated from the distance required to allow 7 % seconds for the
driver on the cross road to safely cross the main roadway while the approach
vehicle travels at the assumed design speed of the main roadway. Therefore, the
maximum corner sight distance is 660 feet for a Major roadway classification.
Based upon the factors recommended by the City of Tustin, a preliminary'
graphical sight distance analysis has been made for the project site intersection.
The limited use areas are determined by the graphical method using the
appropriate distances. It shall be used for the purpose of prohibiting or clearing
obstructions in order to maintain adequate sight distance at the intersections.
Limited use areas shall have public use easements to limit slope and landscaping,
and be placed in a lighting and landscape assessment district. It should be noted
that obstructions such as bus shelters, walls, or landscaping within the limited use
area that could restrict the line of sight shall not be permitted. At the time of
preparation of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans, a final
49
determination of sight distance characteristics shall be prepared. The grading
plans should keep obstructions and slopes out of the limited use areas as shown
on Figure 27.
For purposes of this analysis it has been assumed that, for a driver exiting the
driveway and looking toward the left or toward the south, the driver would need to
see an approaching vehicle just 8 feet west of the Newport Avenue curb line. This
assumption would easily reveal any vehicle in the northbound lane that begins 8
feet west of the curb line. The first 8 feet next to the curb is for parking including
emergency parking. And it is hard to drive a vehicle in less than 8 feet. Thus, the
line of sight based on 8 feet out from the curb is conservative.
For purposes of this analysis it has been assumed that, for a driver exiting the
driveway and looking toward the ri,qht or toward the north, the driver would need to
see an approaching vehicle 56 feet west of the Newport Avenue curb line. This
assumption would easily reveal any vehicle in the southbound lane that begins 56
feet west of the curb line assuming the center of the road is centered on the center
line and assuming the median is only 10 feet wide. The road half section is 51 feet
wide.
Parking
The site should provide sufficient parking spaces to meet City of Tustin parking
code requirements in order to service on-site parking demand.
5O
Figure 26
Circulation Recommendations
Step Si~n
Kuz~zzruz~ Assoc~tes
51
52
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Glossary of Transportation Terms
Traffic Count Worksheets
Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) and Intersection Delay
City of Tustin Improvement Standard No. 510
APPENDIX A
GlosSary of Transportation Terms
GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS
COMMON ABBREVIATIONS
AC:
ADT:
Caltrans:
DU:
ICU:
LOS:
TSF:
V/C:
VMT:
Acres
Average Daily Traffic
California Depadment of Transportation
Dwelling Unit
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Level of Service
Thousand Square Feet
Volume/Capacity
Vehicle Miles Traveled
TERMS
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by
the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included.
BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for
through traffic in a signal progression.
BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a travelway that limits the amount
of traffic that can proceed downstream from its location.
CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably
expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given
time period.
CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic
movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement
markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe
and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians.
CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Nearly same as yellow time. If there is an all
red interval after the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the
clearance interval.
CORDON: An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles,
persons, or other items are counted (in and out).
CYCLE.LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete
signal cycle.
CUL-DI=-SAC STREET: A local street open at one end only, and with
special provisions for turning around.
DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic that will result in a volume
during the peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway.
DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by
some element over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds
per vehicle.
DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic-actuated signal.
DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the
through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually
expressed in vehicles per mile.
DETECTOR: A device that responds to a physical stimulus and
transmits a resulting impulse to the signal controller.
DESIGN SPEED: A speed selected for purposes of design. Features of
a highway, such as curvature, superelevation, and sight distance (upon
which the safe operation of vehicles is dependent) are correlated to
design speed.
DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any
point in time.
DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion.
FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow.
FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can
ma~eLcver freely and travel is unimpeded by other traffic.
GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream,
rear bumper to front bumper.
HEABWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a
traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper.
INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections that
are connected to achieve signal progression.
LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors,
which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to
maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs.
LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire
embedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and
producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle.
MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between
successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is
willing and able to cross or merge.
MULTI-MODAL: More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit,
rail rapid transit, and bicycle transportation modes.
OFFSET: The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green
at one intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent
intersection.
PLATOON: A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of
several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces
ahead and behind.
ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of
origin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip.
PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE): One car is one Passenger
Car Equivalent. A truck is equal to 2 or 3 Passenger Car Equivalents in
that a truck requires longer to start, goes slower, and accelerates slower.
Loaded trucks have a higher Passenger Car Equivalent than empty
trucks.
PEAK HOUR: The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of
vehicles.
PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop
and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic
conditions. Also, fixed time signal.
PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive movement of
traffic through several signalized intersections.
SCREEN-LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all
trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic
models.
SIGNAL CYCLE: The time period in seconds required for one complete
sequence of signal indications.
SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more
traffic movements.
STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement
of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a
signalized intersection.
TRAFFIC-ACTUATED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs
traffic to stop and go in accordance with the demands of traffic, as
registered by the actuation of detectors.
TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to
another (destination). For example, from home to store to home is two
trips, not one.
TRIP-END: One end of a trip at either the origin or destination; i.e. each
trip has two trip-ends. A trip-end occurs when a person, object, or
message is transferred to or from a vehicle.
-TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quality of trips produced and/or
attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of units such as per
dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square feet of floor space.
TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having
more than two axles.
UNBALANCED FLOW: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the
other. On a daily basis, most facilities have balanced flow. During the
peak hours, flow is seldom balanced in an urban area.
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL: A measure of the amount of usage of a
section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by
length of facility in miles.
APPENDIX B
Traffic Count Worksheets
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
STREET:
E-W $ i KEET:
Newport Ave,
Walnut Ave.
DATE: 4/24/2003
DAY: THURSDAY
LOCATION: Cib/of Tustin
PROJECT# 03-0692-001 A
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL VV'I' WR TOTAL
I 2 0 1 2 0 i 2 0 1 2 0
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
9 90 20 79 44 4 2 63 6 8 46 30 401
10 89 16 97 50 8 2 76 10 15 43 41 457
5 98 16 129 50 5 3 68 9 21 57 51 512
6 68 22 113 55 13 5 59 5 29 65 60 500
5 73 14 85 58 3 2 37 6 20 57 70 430
10 88 7 73 64 7 i 28 11 22 43 55 409
6 76 14 81 62 10 7 30 11 25 34 38 394
11 53 18 44 55 4 3 21 8 17 29 49 312
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL VVT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 62 635 127 701 438 54 25 382 66 157 374 394 3415
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 26 328 68 424 213 29 12 240 30 85 222 222 1899
CONTROL: Signalized
%ntersection Turning MOvement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N-S STREET:
E-W STREET:
Newport Ave.
Walnut Ave.
DATE: 4/24/2003
DAY: THURSDAY
LOCATION: City of Tustin
PROJECT# 03-0692-001 P
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER
1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
WESTBOUND
WL WT WR
I 2 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
3:15 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
13 102 23 60 56 9 3 46 13 25 115 70 535
15 70 15 75 53 10 5 33 15 32 85 74 482
14 91 7 71 86 14 4 42 10 25 108 72 544
24 97 14 74 62 9 4 45 12 21 98 72 532
14 98 14 76 77 5 3 54 9 28 120 89 587
14 87 14 86 73 10 3 58 12 24 91 111 583
10 95 11 80 68 9 4 33 6 19 88 98 521
9 104 15 77 77 9 2 31 7 24 71 93 519
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL VVT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 113 744 113 599 552 75 28 342 84 198 776 679 4303
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 430 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 66 373 49 307 298 38 14 199 43 98 417 344 2246
CONTROL: Signalized
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N-S SI REET:
E-W STREET:
Newport Ave.
Sycamore Ave.
DATE: 4/24/2003
DAY: THURSDAY
LOCATION: City of Tustin
PRO3ECT# 03-0692-002 A
LANES:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 .5 .5 0 2 0
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 AH
9:00 AM
9:15 APl
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 Al'4
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
24 16 13 34 13 12 50 10 4 5 45 40 266
27 33 10 34 15 13 38 30 3 3 86 17 309
25 29 12 39 17 31 39 33 2 5 70 29 331
24 26 6 38 23 29 45 8 6 2 24 9 240
34 19 13 38 24 26 34 8 2 3 43 20 264
20 18 8 40 20 16 48 5 3 6 41 38 263
18 19 9 44 23 14 51 7 6 3 34 27 255
18 24 8 29 14 31 51 10 4 4 25 18 236
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 190 184 79 296 149 172 356 111 30 31 368 198 2164
AM Peak Hr Beoins at: 700 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 100 104
CONTROL: Signalized;
145 68 85 172 81 15 15 225 95 1146
Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N-S STREET:
E-W STREET:
Newport Ave.
Sycamore Ave.
DATE: 4/24/2003
DAY: THURSDAY
LOCATION: Cib/of Tustin
PRO3ECT# 03-0692-002 P
LANES:
NORTHBOUND
NL NT NR
! 0
SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR
1 1 1 1 .5 .5 0 2 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
3:15 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
8 20 9
8 4 2
7 8 3
11 28 7
8 31 2
8 13 6
7 28 3
9 23 4
34 26 29 32 15 i 10 48 52 284
32 28 12 21 1 2 9 25 43 187
44 23 21 28 9 2 9 63 41 258
51 35 7 49 12 3 11 45 54 313
57 44 31 37 14 2 11 53 40 330
53 41 23 45 13 4 20 43 29 298
47 29 18 45 11 2 17 50 54 311
40 45 20 59 9 13 15 45 30 312
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 66 155 36 358 271 161 316 84 29 102 372 343 2293
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 34 100 18 208 149 79 176 50 11 59 191 177 1252
CONTROL: Signalized;
'APPENDIX C
Explanation and Calculation of
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
and Intersection Delay
EXPLANATION AND CALCULATION OF
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)
Overview
The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The
capacity is usually greater between intersections and less at
intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only
during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best
defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. If capacity is
1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green, and if the green phase is 50
percent of the cycle and there are three lanes, then the capacity is 1600
times 50 percent times 3 lanes, or 2400 vehicles per hour for that
approach.
The technique used to compare the volume and capacity at an
intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). ICU,
usually expressed as a decimal, is the proportion of an hour required to
provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all
approaches operate at capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80
percent of capacity (i.e., an ICU of 80 percent), then 20 percent of the
signal cycle is not used. The signal could show red on all indications 20
percent of the time and the signal would just accommodate approaching
traffic.
ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time
needed to serve each conflicting movement of traffic, (b) summing the
times for the movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to
the total time available. For example, if for north-south traffic the
northbound traffic is 1600 vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is
1200 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either direction is 3200
vehicles per hour, then the nodhbound traffic is critical and requires
1600/3200 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for east-west traffic, 30
percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is
50 plus 30, or 80 percent. When left turn arrows (left turn phasing) exist,
they are incorporated into the analysis. The critical movements are
usually the heavy left turn movements and the opposing through
movements.
The ICU technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing as well as future
intersection operation. The impact of adding a lane can be quickly
determined by examining the effect the lane has on the Intersection
Capacity Utilization.
ICU Worksheets That Follow This Discussion
The ICU worksheet table contains the following information:
Peak hour turning movement volumes.
Number of lanes that serve each movement.
For right turn lanes, whether the lane is a free right turn lane,
whether it has a right turn arrow, and the percent of right turns on
red that are assumed.
Capacity assumed per lane.
Capacity available to serve each movement (number of lanes
times capacity per lane).
Volume to capacity ratio for each movement.
Whether the movement's volume to capacity ratio is critical and
adds to the ICU value.
8. The yellow time or clearance interval assumed.
9. Adjustments for right turn movements.
10. The ICU and LOS.
The ICU Worksheet also has two graphics on the same page.
two graphics show the following:
1. Peak hour turning movement volumes.
2. Number of lanes that serve each movement.
These
3. The approach and exit leg volumes.
4. The two-way leg volumes.
An estimate of daily traffic volumes that is fairly close to actual
counts and is based strictly on the peak hour leg volumes multiplied
by a factor.
6. Percent of daily traffic in peak hours.
7. Percent of peak hour leg volume that is inbound versus outbound.
A more detailed discussion of ICU and LOS follows.
Level of Service {LOS)
Level of Service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of
Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service C is typically the
standard to which rural roadways are designed.
Level of Service D is characterized by fairly restricted traffic flow. Level
of Service D is the standard to which urban roadways are typically
designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can
accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary
duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is
characterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration.
A description of the various Levels of Service appears at the end of the
ICU description, along with the relationship between ICU and Level of
Service.
Siqnalized and Unsi,qnalized Intersections
Although calculating an ICU value for an unsignalized intersection is
invalid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the
calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of
accommodating the expected volumes with a signal. A traffic signal
becomes warranted before Level of Service D is reached for a signalized
intersection.
Siqnal Timin,q
The ICU calculation assumes that a signal is properly timed. It is
possible to have an ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic
congestion. This would occur if one or more movements is not getting
sufficient green time to satisfy its demand, and excess green time exists
on other movements. This is an operational problem that should be
remedied.
Lane Capacity
Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width; however, standard
lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 or 14
feet wide. Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or a
left turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1750 vehicles per hour of
green time, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than
1600 vehicles per hour of green per lane. Right turn lanes have a
slightly lower capacity; however 1600 vehicles per hour is a valid
capacity assumption for right turn lanes.
This finding is published in the August, 1978 issue of ITE Journal in the
articte entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersection Capacity" by
William Kunzman. A capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour per lane with no
yellow time penalty, or 1700 vehicles per hour with a 3 or 5 percent
yellow time penalty is reasonable.
Yellow Time
The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used and no
penalty applied, or it can be assumed to be only partially usable. Total
yellow time accounts for approximately 10 percent of a signal cycle, and
a penalty of 3 to 5 percent is reasonable.
During peak hour traffic operation the yellow times are nearly completely
used. If there is no left turn phasing, the left turn vehicles.completely
use the yellow time. Even if there is left turn phasing, the through traffic
continues to enter the intersection on the yellow until just a split second
before the red.
Shared Lanes
Shared lanes occur in many locations. A shared lane is often found at
the end of an off ramp where the ramp forms an intersection with the
cross street. Often at a diamond interchange off ramp, there are three
lanes. In the case of a diamond interchange, the middle lane is
sometimes shared, and the driver can turn left, go through, or turn right
from that lane.
If one assumes a three lane off ramp as described above, and if one
assumes that each lane has 1600 capacity, and if one assumes that
there are 1000 left turns per hour, 500 right turns per hour, and 100
through vehicles per hour, then how should one assume that the three
lanes operate. There are three ways that it is done.
One way is to just assume that all 1600 vehicles (1000 plus 500 plus
100) are served simultaneously by three lanes. When this is done, the
capacity is 3 times 1600 or 4800, and the amount of green time needed
to serve the ramp is 1600 vehicles divided by 4800 capacity or 33.3
percent. This assumption effectively assumes perfect lane distribution
between the three lanes that is not realistic. It also means a left turn can
be made from the right lane.
Another way is to equally split the capacity of a shared lane and in this
case to assume there are 1.33 left turn lanes, 1.33 right turn lanes, and
0.33 through lanes. With this assumption, the critical movement is the
left turns and the 1000 left turns are served by a capacity of 1.33 times
1600, or 2133. The volume to capacity ratio of the critical move is 1000
divided by 2133 or 46.9 percent.
The first method results in a critical move of 33.3 percent and the second
method results in a critical move of 46.9 percent. Neither is very
accurate, and the difference in the calculated Level of Service will be
approximately 1.5 Levels of Service (one Level of Service is 10 percent).
The way Kunzman Associates does it is to assign fractional lanes in a
reasonable way. In this example, it would be assumed that there is 1.1
right turn lanes, 0.2 through lanes, and 1.7 left turn lanes. The volume to
capacity ratios for each movement would be 31.3 percent for the through
traffic, 28.4 percent for the right turn movement, and 36.8 percent for the
left turn movement. The critical movement would be the 36.8 percent for
the left turns.
Ri.qht Turn on Red
Kunzman Associates' software treats right turn lanes in one of five
different ways. Each right turn lane is classified into one of five cases.
The five cases are (1) free right turn lane, (2) right turn lane with
separate right turn arrow, (3) standard right turn lane with no right turns
on red allowed, (4) standard right turn lane with a certain percentage of
right turns on red allowed, and (5) separate right turn arrow and a certain
percentage of right turns on red allowed.
Free Ri,qht Turn Lane
If it is.a free right turn lane, then it is given a capacity of one full lane with
continuous or 100 percent green time. A free right turn lane occurs
when there is a separate approach lane for right turning vehicles, there
is a separate departure lane for the right turning vehicles after they turn
and are exiting the intersection, and the through cross street traffic does
not interfere with the vehicles after they turn right.
Separate Riqht Turn Arrow
If there is a separate right turn arrow, then it is assumed that vehicles
are given a green indication and can proceed on what is known as the
left turn overlap.
The left turn overlap for a northbound right turn is the westbound left
turn. When the left turn overlap has a green indication, the right turn
lane is also given a green arrow indication. Thus, if there is a
northbound right turn arrow, then it can be turned green for the period of
time that the westbound left turns are proceeding.
If there are more right turns than can be accommodated during the
northbound'thi:ough green and the time that the northbound right turn
arrow is on, then an adjustment is made to the ICU to account for the
green time that needs to be added to the northbound through green to
accommodate the northbound right turns.
Standard Riclht Turn Lane, No Riclht Turns on Red
A standard right turn lane, with no right turn on red assumed, proceeds
only when there is a green indication displayed for the adjacent through
movement. If additional green time is needed above that amount of
time, then in the ICU calculation a right turn adjustment green time is
added above the green time that is needed to serve the adjacent through
movement.
Standard Riqht Turn Lane, With Ri,qht Tums on Red
A standard right turn lane with say 20 percent of the right turns allowed
to turn right on a red indication is calculated the same as the standard
right turn case where there is no right turn on red allowed, except that
the right turn adjustment is reduced to account for the 20 percent of the
right turning vehicles that can logically turn right on a red light. The right
· turns on red are never allowed to exceed the time the overlap left turns
take plus the unused part of the green cycle that the cross street traffic
moving from left to right has.
As an example of how 20 percent of the cars are allowed to turn right on
a red indication, assume that the northbound right turn volume needs 40
percent of the signal cycle to be satisfied. To allow 20 percent of the
northbound right turns to turn right on red, then during 8 percent of the
signal cycle (40 percent of signal cycle times 20 percent that can turn
right on red) right turns on red will be allowed if it is feasible.
For this example, assume that 15 percent of the signal cycle is green for
the northbound through traffic, and that means that 15 percent of the
signal cycle is available to satisfy northbound right turns. After the
northbound through traffic has received its green, 25 percent of the
signal cycle is still needed to satisfy the northbound right turns (40
percent of the signal cycle minus the 15 percent of the signal cycle that
the northbound through used).
Assume that the.westbound left turns require a green time of 6 percent
of the signal cycle. This 6 percent of the signal cycle is used by
northbound right turns on red. After accounting for the northbound right
turns that occur on the westbound overlap left turn, 19 percent of the
signal cycle is still needed for the northbound right turns (25 percent of
the cycle was needed after the northbound through green time was
accounted for [see above paragraph], and 6 percent was served during
the westbound left turn overlap). Also, at this point 6 percent of the
signal cycle has been used for northbound right turns on red, and still 2
percent more of the right turns will be allowed to occur on the red if there
is unused eastbound through green time.
For purpose of this example, assume that the westbound through green
is critical, and that 15 percent of the signal cycle is unused by eastbound
through traffic. Thus, 2 percent more of the signal cycle can be used by
the northbound right turns on red since there is 15 seconds of unused
green time being given to the eastbound through traffic.
At this point, 8 percent of the signal cycle was available to serve
northbound right turning vehicles on red, and 15 percent of the signal
cycle was available to serve right turning vehicles on the northbound
through green. So 23 percent of the signal cycle has been available for
northbound right turns.
Because 40 percent of the signal cycle is needed to serve northbound
right turns, there is still a need for 17 percent more of the signal cycle to
be available for northbound right turns. What this means is the
northbound through traffic green time is increased by 17 percent of the
cycle length to serve the unserved right turn volume, and a 17 percent
adjustment is added to the ICU to account for the northbound right turns
that were not served on the northbound through green time or when right
turns on red were assumed.
Separate Riqht Turn Arrow, With Ri,clht Turns on Red
· A right turn lane with a separate right turn arrow, plus a certain
percentage of right turns allowed on red is calculated the same way as a
standard right turn lane with a certain percentage of right turns allowed
on red, except the turns which occur on the right turn arrow are not
counted as part of the percentage of right turns that occur on red.
Critical Lane Method
ICU parallels another calculation procedure known as the Critical Lane
Method with one exception. Critical Lane Method dimensions capacity in
terms of standardized vehicles per hour per lane. A Critical Lane
Method result of 800 vehicles per hour means that the intersection
operates as though 800 vehicles were using a single lane continuously.
If one assumes a lane capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour, then a Critical
Lane Method calculation resulting in 800 vehicles per hour is the same
as an ICU calculation of 50 percent since 800/1600 is 50 percent. It is
our opinion that the Critical Lane Method is inferior to the ICU method
simply because a statement such as "The Critical Lane Method value is
800 vehicles per hour" means little to most persons, whereas a
statement such as "The Intersection Capacity Utilization is 50 percent"
communicates clearly. Critical Lane Method results directly correspond
to ICU results. The correspondence is as follows, assuming a lane
capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour and no clearance interval.
Critical Lane Method Result ICU Result
800 vehicles per hour
50 percent
960 vehicles per hour
60 percent
1120 vehicles per hour
70 percent
1280 vehicles per hour
80 percent
1440 vehicles per hour
90 percent
1600 vehicles per hour
1 O0 percent
1760 vehicles per hour
110 percent
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESCRIPTION~
Level of Volume to
Service Description Capacity Ratio
A Level of Service A occurs when progression is 0.600 and below
extremely favorable and vehicles arrive during the green
phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle
lengths may also contribute to Iow delay.
Level of Service B generally occurs with good
B progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles 0.601 to 0.700
stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average
delay.
Level of Service C generally results when there is fair
C progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual 0.701 to 0.800
cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The
number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,
although many still pass through the intersection without
stopping.
Level of Service D generally results in noticeable
D congestion. Longer delays may result from some 0.801 to 0.900
combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios. Many
vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not
stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are
noticeable.
Level of Service F is considered to be the limit of
E acceptable delay. These high delay values generally 0.901 to 1.000
indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high
volume to capacity ratios, individual cycle failures are
frequent.
Level of Service F is considered to be unacceptable to
F most drivers. This condition often occurs when 1.001 and up
oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high
volume to capacity ratios below 1.00 with many
individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long
cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to
such delay levels.
~Source: HiRhway Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council Washington D.C., 2000.
CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) USING DELAY METHODOLOGY
The levels of service at the unsignalized and signalized intersections are
calculated using the delay methodology in the 2000 Hi,qhway Capacity
Manual (HCM). This methodology views an intersection as consisting of
several lane groups. A lane group is a set of lanes serving a movement.
If there are two northbound left turn lanes, then the lane group serving
the northbound left turn movement has two lanes. Similarly, there may
be three lanes in the lane group serving the northbound through
movement, one lane in the lane group serving the northbound right turn
movement, and so forth. It is also possible for one lane to serve two lane
groups. A shared lane might result in there being 1.5 lanes in the
northbound left turn lane group and 2.5 lanes in the northbound through
lane group.
For each lane group, there is a capacity. That capacity is calculated by
multiplying the number of lanes in the lane group times a theoretical
maximum lane capacity per lane times 12 adjustment factors.
Each of the 12 adjustment factors has a value of approximately 1.00. A
value less than 1.00 is generally assigned when a less than desirable
condition occurs.
The 12 adjustment factors are as follows:
Peak hour factor (to account for peaking within the peak
hour)
Lane utilization factor (to account for not all lanes loading
equally)
3. Lane width
4. Percent of heavy trucks
5. Approach grade
6. Parking
7. Bus stops at intersections
Area type (CBD or other)
9. Right turns
10. Left turns ~
11. Pedestrian activity
12. Signal progression
The maximum theoretical lane capacity and the 12 adjustment factors for
it are all unknowns for which approximate estimates have been
recommended in the 2000 HCM. For the most part, the recommended
values are not based on statistical analysis but rather on educated
estimates. However, it is possible to use the delay method and get
reasonable results as will be discussed below.
Once the lane group volume is known and the lane group capacity is
known, a volume to capacity ratio can be calculated for the lane group.
With a volume to capacity ratio calculated, average delay per vehicle in a
lane group can be estimated. The average delay per vehicle in a lane
group is calculated using a complex formula provided by the 2000 HCM,
which can be simplified and described as follows:
Delay per vehicle in a lane group is a function of the following:
1. Cycle length
2. Amount of red time faced by a lane group
3. Amount of yellow time for that lane group
4. The volume to capacity ratio of the lane group
The average delay per vehicle for each lane group is calculated, and
eventually an overall average delay for all vehicles entering the
intersection is calculated. This average delay per vehicle is then used to
judge Level of Service. The Level of Services are defined in the table
that follows this discussion.
Experience has shown that when a maximum lane capacity of 1,900
vehicles per hour is used (as recommended in the 2000 HCM), little or
no yellow time penalty is used, and none of the 12 penalty factors are
applied, calculated delay is realistic. The delay calculation for instance
assumes that yellow time is totally unused. Yet experience shows that
most of the yellow time is used.
An idiosyncrasy of the delay methodology is that it is possible to add
traffic to an intersection and reduce the average total delay per vehicle.
If the average total delay is 30 seconds per vehicle for all vehicles
traveling through an intersection, and traffic is added to a movement that
has an average total delay of 15 seconds per vehicle, then the overall
average total delay is reduced.
The delay calculation for a lane group is based on a concept that the
delay is a function of the amount of unused capacity available. As the
volume approaches capacity and there is no more unused capacity
available, then the delay rapidly increases. Delay is not proportional to
volume, but rather increases rapidly as the unused capacity approaches
zero.
Because delay is not linearly related to volumes, the delay does not
reflect how close an intersection is to overloading. If an intersection is
operating at Level of Service (LOS) C and has an average total delay of
18 seconds per vehicle, you know very little as to what percent the traffic
can increase before LOS E is reached.
INTERSECTION DELAY
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESCRIPTION~
Average Total Delay
Level of Per Vehicle (Seconds)
Service
(LOS) Description Signalized
Unstgnalized
A Level of Service A occurs when progmesion is extremely favorable 0 to 10.00 0 to 1000
and most vehicles ar~lve dudng the green phase. Most vehicles do
not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to iow delay.
B Level of Service B generally occurs with good progression and/or 10.01 to20.00 10.01 to 15.00
short cycle lengths. More vahlcles stop than for LOS A, causing
higher levels of average total delay.
C Level of Service C ganerelly resuEs when there is fair progression 20.01 to 35.00 15.01 to 25.00
and/or longer cycle lengths, individual cycle failures may begin to
appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant
at this level, aithoogh many still pass through the intersection
without stopping.
D Level of Service D generally rests in noticeable congestion. 35.01 to55.00 25.01 fa35.00
Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios.
Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping
declines. IndNidual cycle failures are noticeable.
E Level of Service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. 55.01 to 80.00 35.01 to 50.00
These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle
failures are frequent occurrences.
F Level of Service F is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. 80.01 and up 50.01 and up
This condition often occurs with oversaturafion, I.e., when arrival
flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also ~ccur
at high volume to capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual
cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be
I major contributing causes to such delay levels.
Source: Hiohwav Capacity ManusI (HCM) Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Existin.q
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and WALNUT AVENUE (EW)
LAND USE: EXISTING
COUNT DATE: 04-24-03
GEOMETRICS: Existing
MOVEMENT
Northbound Left
Northbound Through
Northbound Right
Southbound Left
Southbound Through
LANES
CAPACITY
1700
3400
1700
1700
3400
1700
1700
3400
0
1700
3400
0
BASE
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
26 66
328 373
68 49
424 307
213 298
ADDED
VOLUME
CAM) (PM)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
TOTAL
VOLUME
(AM) CPM)
26 66
328 373
68 49
424 307
213 298
29 38
12 14
240 199
30 43
85 98
222 417
222 344
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment
CLearance Interval
0 % of right turns CRT) are assumed to occur on
~red Light when there is separate RT Lane & when
[~movement is permitted.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Con~onents with *) ·
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.8; D=.001-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=1.001+)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM)
0.015 0.039
0.096* 0.110'
0.040 0.029
0.249* 0.181'
0.063 0.088
0.017 0.022
0.007* 0.008*
0.079 0.071
0.000 0.000
0.050 0.058
0;131' 0.224*
0.000 0.000
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.050* 0.050'
0.533 0.573
A A
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES
29 - 38
L213 - 298
424 - 307
1.{ 2.0
[ 7,300]
EL
240 - 199--2.0--~T
30 - 43 ~.gR:
[ 9,200]
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour
[Estimated 2-Nay DaiEy]
A
[14,300] No!th
WR
~0.0-- 222 - 344
WT--2.0~ 222 - 417
r_l.0_ 85 - 98
WL
[14,700]
NT
2.0 .~0NR
; 63 8 ~6373
-- Kunzman Associates-
PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
A A
i 1228-1374 [14,311]
v C2 Way VoLtages)
North
666 - 643 ( 7,2001 562 - 731 [ 7,112]
V
277 - 521 [ 4,389] 529 - 859 [ 7,634]
282 - 256 [ 2,959]
328 - 439 [ 4,219] i
V
>
?32 - 555 ( 7,079]
1261 -1414 [1A,713]
(2 Way Volumes)
A
I 422
- 488 [ 5,0053
LEGEND: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Daity] i750 - 927 [ 9,224]
Daily = CAM+PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes)
Leg: North South East West
Entering (AM-PM]
of Daily in Peak
Hour [AM-PM)
54 - 47 56 - 53 42 - 61 50 - 33
9 - 10 8 - 10 9 - 10 8 ~ 11
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE
LAND USE: EXISTING
COUNT DATE: 04-24-03
GEOMETRICS: Existing
MOVEMENT
Northbound Left
Northbound Through
Northbound Right
Southbound Left
Southbound Through
Southbound Right
Eastbour~f Left
Eastbourx~ Through
Eastbound Right
Westbound Left
Westbound Through
Westbound Right
LANES
CAPACITY
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
0
0
3400
0
BASE
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
100 34
104 100
41 18
145 208
68 149
85 79
172 176
81 50
15 59
225 191
ADDED
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
TOTAL
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
100 34
104 100
41 18
145 208
68 149
85 79
172 176
81 50
15 11
15 59
225 191
95 177
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment
Clearance Intervat
0 % of right turns (RT) are assuaged to occur on
red light when there is separate RT lane & when
L~ovement is permitted.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Co~oonents with *) .>
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.8; D=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=1.001+)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM)
0.059 0.020
0.061' 0.059'
0.024 0.011
0.085* 0.122'
0.040 0.088
0.050 0.046
0.101' 0.104'
0.056 0.036
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.099' 0.126'
0.000 0.000
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0,050* 0.050*
0.396 0.461
A A
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES
85 - 79
I 168 - 149
145 - 208
ST
2[0. : Lanes
[ 6,700]
EL
[ 3,9003
[Estimated 2-Way Daily)
o [ 8,600]
North
WR
--0.0-- 95 - 177
WT--2.D--- 225 - 191
r--o.o_ 15 - 59
WL
[ 7,2003
NT
01 4 - 100
1 34
PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
A A
669 - 889 [ 8,569]
(2 Way VoLunes)
298 - 436 [ 4,037] I
V
410 - 304 [ 3,9273
268 - 237 [
678 - 541 [ 6,7053
(2 Way Volumes)
98 - 219 [ 1,7443 ,
V
~EGEND: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily]
Daily = (AM+PM}* 5.5 V
Leg: North
% Entering (AM-PM)
% of Daily in Peak
Nour (AM-PM)
A
I371 - 453 [ 4,532]
335 - 427 [ 4,191]
267 - 276 [ 2,987]
602 - 703 [ 7,178]
(2 Way VoLumes)
245 - 152 [ 2,184]
343 - 371 [ 3,927I
(2 Way Votumes)
South East West
8 - 10 9 - 9 8 - 10 10 - 8
Existin.q Plus Project
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and WALNUT AVENUE
LAND USE: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
CO~JNT DATE: 04-24-03
GEOMETRICS: Existing
MOVEMENT
Northbound Left
Northbound Through
Northbound Right
Bouthbour~l Left
Southbound Through
Southbound Right
Eastbour~l Left
Eastbour~l Through
Eastbound Right
Vestbound Left
Westbound Through
Westbound Right
LANES
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
2
0
CAPACITY
1700
3400
1700
1700
3400
1700
1700
3400
0
1700
3400
0
BASE
VOLUME
(AM) LPM)
26 66
328 3T5
68 49
424 307
213 298
29 38
12 14
240 199
3O 43
85 98
222 417
222 344
ADDED
VOLUME
CAM) (PM)
2 1
9 4
5 2
0 0
2 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
1 5
0 0
0 0
TOTAL
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
28 67
337 377
73 51
424 307
215 307
29 38
12 14
240 199
30 45
86 103
222 417
222 344
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustn~nt
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment
Clearance Interval
r,mo O % of right turns (ET) are assumed to occur on---~
ed Light when there is separate RT fane & whenm
vement is permitted, m
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of C~onents with *) ->
LEVEL OH SERVICE (A=.OO0-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.8i D=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=1.001+)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM)
0.016 0.039
0.099* 0.111'
0.043 0.030
0.249* 0.181'
0.063 0.090
0.017 0.022
0.007* 0.008*
0.0~ 0.072
0.000 0.000
0.051 0.061
0.131' 0.224*
0.000 0.000
0.000' O.O00*
0.000' O.O00*
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.050* 0.050*
0~536 0.574
A A
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES
29 - 38
L215 - 307
424 - 307
1.1 2.0 1.0
ST
[ 7,400]
12 - 14 --1.0~
240 - 199 --2.0--ET
30 - 45 --O'O~Rc
[ 9,500]
LEGEND: AM'PM Peak Hour
[Estimated 2-Way Daily]
[14,400]
L-o.o--
NT
3! 7 - 377
8 - 67
A
North
222 - 344
222 - 417
86 - 103
[14,800]
51
-- Kunzman Associates
PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
A A
i i 1239-1387 [14,443]
V (2 Way Vol~s)
North
668 - 652 [ 7,2601 571 - 735 [ 7,1831
V
279 - 522 [ 4,4063 530 - 864 [ 7,667]
282 - 258 [ Z,970]
561 - 780 [ 7,376]
(2 Way Volumes)
331 - 455 [ 4,323]
7'57 - 557 [ 7,117]
1267-1421 [14,784]
(2 Way Volumes)
438 - 495 [ 5,1323
LEGEND: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily] I 769 - 950 [ 9,455]
Daily = (AM+PM)* 5.5 V (2 ~ay Volumes)
Leg: North South East West
% Entering (AM-PM) 54 - 47 57 - 52 42 - 61 50 - 33
% of Dairy in Peak 9 - 10 8 - 10 9 - 10 8 - 11
Hour (AM-PM)
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Tue Oct 7, 2003 07:33:26 Page 1-1
Tustin Place
Existing Plus Project
Morning Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignal±zed Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Newport Avenue (NS) / Project ~ntrance (EW)
Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T - R L - T R L T - R L - T R
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 00201 10200 00000 001!00
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 422 0 0 328
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 422 0 0 328
Added Vol: 0 0 1 3 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 422 1 3 328
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PMF Volume: 0 422 1 3 328
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 422 1 3 328
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 7 i 0 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 7 0 16
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 0 7 0 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 7 0 16
xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 423 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 592 xxxx 211
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1147 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 442 xxxx 801
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1147 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 441 xxxx 801
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 642 xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.8 xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * B *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.8
ApproachLOS: * * * B
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Tue Oct 7, 2003 07:34:35 Page 1-1
Tustin Place
Existing Plus Project
Evening Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume D-lternative)
Intersection #1 Newport Avenue (NS) / Project Entrance (EW)
Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T - R L T - R L - T R L T R
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 00201 10200 00000 001!00
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 488 0 0 439
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 488 0 0 439
Added Vol: 0 0 7 16 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 0 488 7 16 439
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 488 7 16 439
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 488 7 16 439
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0 8
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 0 3 0 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0 8
4.1 xxxx xxxxx
xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
6.8 xxxx 6.9
3.5 xxxx 3.3
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 495 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 740 xxxx 244
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1079 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 357 xxxx 763
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1079 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 353 xxxx 763
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped,Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 579 xxxxx
Shrd'StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.3 xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * B *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 11.3
ApproachLOS: * * * B
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE (EW)
LAND USE: EXISTING PlUS PROJECT
COUNT DATE: 04-24-03
GEOMETRICS: Existing
MOVEMENT
Northbound Left
Northbound Through
Northbound Night
Southbound Left
Southbound Through
Southbound Right
Eastbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbound Night
Westbound Left
Westbound Through
Westbound Right
LANES
CAPACITY
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
0
0
3400
0
SASE
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
100 34
104 100
41 18
145 208
68 149
85 79
172 176
81 50
15 11
15 59
225 191
95 177
ADDED
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
0 0
0 1
0 0
2 1
3 2
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
TOTAL
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
100 34
104 101
41 18
147 209
69 150
88 81
173 179
81 50
15 11
15 59
225 191
95 179
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment
Eastbound Night Turn Adjustment
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment
Clearance ]ntervaL
0 % of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on
ed Light when there is separate ET lane & when
ovement is permitted.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (sum of Components with *) ->
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A:.O00-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C:.701-.8; D:.801-.9; E:.901-1.0; F:1.001+)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM)
0.059 0.020
0.061' 0.05~
0.024 0.011
0.086* 0.123'
0.041 0,088
0.052 0.048
0.102' 0.105'
0.056 0.036
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.099* 0.126'
0.000 0.000
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.050* 0.050*
0.398 0.463
A A
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES
A
i. 1.o 1.o
SR~1 [~SL
ST
2[o
[ 6,800]
EL
[ 3,900] o
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour
[EstLmated 2-Way Daily]
[ 8,700]
North
WT--2.0-- 225 - 191
~0.0-- 15 - 59
[ 7,200]
18
RT
01 14 - 101
1 34
PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
A A
i 676 - 899 [ 8,663]
V (2 Way Vot~es)
North
304 - 440 [ 4,092] 372 - 459 [ 4,571]
V
413 - 306 [ 3~955] 335 "429 [ 4,202]
269 - 240 [ 2,800]
682 - 546 [ 6,7543
(2 Way VOLLEYS)
99 - 220 [ 1,755] [
V
269 ~ 277 [ 3,003]
604 - 706 [ 7,205]
(2 Way Volumes)
A
I 245
- 153 [ 2,1891
LEGEND: A
AM'PM Peak Hour [Daily] I344 - 373 [ 3,944]
Daily = (AM+PM}* 5.5 V (2 Way VoL~es)
% Entering (AM-PM)
% of Daily in Peak
Hour (AM-PM)
45 - 49 71 - 41 55 - 61 39 - 44
Year 2020 Without Project
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and WALNUT AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 04-24-03
LAND USE: YEAR 2020 WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing
MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY SASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO
VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY
RATIO
(AN) (PM) CAM) (PM) CAM) (PM) (AM) (PM)
Northbound Left 1 1700 20 170 0 0 20 170 0.012' 0.100
Northbound Through 2 3400 300 890 0 0 300 890 0.088 0.262*
Northbound Right 1 1700 80 120 0 0 80 120 0.047 0.071
Southbound Left 1 1700 90 200 0 0 90 200 0.053 0.118'
Southb~ald Through 2 3400 1060 770 0 0 1060 770 0.312' 0.226
Southbound Right 1 1700 20 50 0 0 20 50 0.012 0,029
Eastbound Left 1 1700 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.006 0.006*
Eastbound Through 2 3400 270 190 0 0 270 190 0.100' 0.068
East bour~l Right 0 0 70 40 0 0 70 40 0.000 0.000
Westbound Left 1 1700 240 40 0 0 240 40 0.141' 0.024
Westbourtd Through 2 3400 310 550 0 0 310 550 0.150 0.224*
Westbound Right 0 0 200 210 0 0 200 210 O.O00 0.000
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment 0 ~ of right turns (ET) are asst~med to occur on 0.000' 0.000'
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red Light when there is separate RT lane & when 0.000' 0.000'
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000'
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment -- -- 0.000' O.O00*
CLearance Interval 0.050* 0.050*
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, I0U (Sum of Components with *) ~> 0.615 0.660
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.8; D=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=I.001+) B S
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
I A A A
20- 50 o [21,000)! IV11680'2130120'955](2 gay VoLumes)
1060 - 7-/0 No th North
1170 -1020 [12,0451 510-1110 [ 8,910]
I
70 - 40 --0.0~ . 2.0 !~'0 DaiLy = {AM+PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes)
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE (EU) COUNT DATE: 04-24-03
LAND USE: YEAR 20ZO WITHOUT PROJECT GEOMETRIES: Existing
MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO
VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM)
Northbound Left
Northbound Through
Northbound Right
Southbound Left
Southbound Through
Southbound Right
Esstbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbour~ Right
Westbou~d Left
Westbot~ad Through
Westbo~ Right
0
0
2
0
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
0
0
3400
0
620 1080
270 1140
10 140
120 70
1600 1360
120 140
200 410
9O 130
90 90
300 10
190 130
110 130
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
620 1080
270 1140
10 140
120 70
1600 1360
120 140
200 410
90 130
90 90
300 10
190 130
110 130
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment
Eestbound Right Turn Adjustment
Westbota~d Right Turn Adjustment
Clearance Interval
r---o % of right turns iRT) are assumed to occur on
red light when there is separate RT lane & when
L_vementis permitted.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Stem of Components with *) ·
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.8; D=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=I.O01+)
0.365* 0.635'
0.159 0.671
0.006 0.082
0;071 0.041
0.941' 0.800*
0.071 0.082
0.118' 0.241'
0.106 0.129
0.000 O.OOO
0.000 0.000
0.176' 0.079*
0.000 0.000
0.000' O.OOO*
0.000' O.OOO*
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.050' 0.050*
1.650 1.805
F F
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES
A
120- 140
1600 -1360
120 - 70
210. = Lanes
[18,1003
EL
200 - 410--1.0~
90 - 130 --I.0~ET
90 - 90 --O'hRc
[36,9003
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour
[Estimated 2-Way Daily]
[31,2003
North
WR
~0.0-- 110 - 130
WT--2.0-- 190 ~ 130
.0--- 300 - 10
WL
[ 7,9001
NT
MLle. 1.0 .~oNR
2 0 -l14D
6 0 -1080
PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
A A
{ 2420-3250 [31,185]
V (2 Way Volumes)
North
1840-1570 [18,7551 500 -1680 [12f4301
V
930 -1350 [12,5403 600 - 270 [ 4,785]
380 - 630 [ 5,555]
1310-1980 [18,095]
(2 Way Volumes)
1990 -1460 [18,975]
220 - 340 [ 3,0803
820 - 610 [ 7,8653
(2 Way Volumes)
900 -2360 [17,930]
LEGEND: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily) I 2890 -3820 [36,905]
Daily = (AM+PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes)
Leg: North South East West
Entering (AM-PM)
of Daily in Peak
Hour (AM-PM)
76 - 48 31 - 62 73 - 44 29 - 32
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
iNTERSECTION: NE~ORT AVENUE (NS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE (EM)
LANO USE: YEAR 2020 WITHOUT PROJECT
COUNT DATE:
GEOMETRIC$: improved
MOVEMENT
Northbound Left
MorthboundThrough
Northbound Right
Southbound Left
Southbound Through
Southbound Right
Eastbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbound Right
Westbound Left
Westbound Through
Westbound Right
LANES
CAPACITY
3400
3400
1700
1700
5100
0
3400
1700
1700
0
3400
0
BASE
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
620 1080
270 1140
10 140
120 70
1600 1360
120 140
200 410
90 130
90 90
300 10
190 130
110 130
ADDED
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
TOTAL
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
620 1080
270 1140
10 140
120 70
1600 1360
120 140
200 410
90 130
90 90
300 10
190 130
110 130
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment
CLearance interval
0 % of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur o!
red Light when there is separate RT lane & when
movement Ls permitted.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Stun of Components with *i ·
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 ]CU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.8; D=.801-.9; E:.901-1.O; F=1.001+)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM)
0.182' 0.318'
0.079 0.335
0,006 0,082
0.071 0.041
0.337* 0.294*
0.000 O.OOO
0.059' 0.121'
0.053 0.076
0.053 0.053
0.000 0.000
0.176' 0.079'
0.000 0.000
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.050* 0.050*
0.804 0,862
D D
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES
A
120- 140
1600 -1360
3.0 Lo
sR--I ,IT ISL
2!0
= Lanes
EL
200 - 410 --2.0a
[36,900]
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour
[Estimated 2-Way Daily]
[31,200)
North
WT--2.0-- 190 - 130
0.0-- 300 - 10
L
[ 7,900]
NT
L lO - 140
-1080
PLOT OF INTERSECT]ON LEG VOLUMES
A A
, 2420 -3250 [31,185]
V (2 Way Volumes)
North
I A
1840 -1570 [18,755] I 580 -1680 [12,430]
V
930 ~1350 [12,540] 600 - 270 [ 4,785]
380 - 630 [ 5,555]
<__>
1310-1980 [18,095)
(2 Yay Volumes)
1990 -1460 [18,975] I
V
220 - 340 [ 3,080]
820 - 610 [ 7,865]
(2 Way Vo[~m)es)
900 -2360 [17,930]
LEGEND: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Dally] I 2890 -3820 [36,905]
Daily = {AM+PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes)
Leg: North South East West
% Entering (AM-PM) 76 - 48 31 - 62 73 - 44 29 - 32
% of Dairy in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 10 - 8 7 - 11
Hour (AM-PM)
Year 2020 With Proiect
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION= NENPORT AVENUE (NS) and WALRUT AVERUE (EM) COURT DATE: 04-24-03
LARD USE: YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing
MOVEMERT LARES CAPACITY SAgE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO
VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM)
Northbound Left I 1700 ZO 170 2 1 ZZ 171 0.013' 0,101
Rot thbouncl Through 2 3400 300 890 7 3 307 893 0.090 0.263*
Ror thboumd Right 1 1700 80 120 3 2 83 122 0.049 0.072
Southbound Left 1 1700 90 200 0 0 90 200 0.053 0.118'
Southbound Through 2 3400 1060 770 1 7 1061 777 0.312' 0.229
Southbound Right 1 1700 20 50 0 0 20 50 0'012 0.029
Eastbound Left 1 1700 10 10 0 0 10 10 0,006 0.006*
Eastbound Through 2 3400 270 190 0 0 270 190 0.100' 0.068
Eastbound Right 0 0 70 40 0 2 70 /,2 0.000 0,000
Westbound Left 1 1700 240 40 1 3 241 43 0.142' 0.025
Nest bound Through Z 3400 310 550 0 0 310 550 0.150 0.224*
Nest bound Right 0 0 200 210 0 0 200 210 0,000 0.000
Rorthbound Right Turn Adjustment 0 % of right turns CRT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000'
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red Light ~hen there is separate RT Lane & when 0.000' 0.000'
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000'
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment __ 0.000' 0.000'
CLearance Intervat 0.050* 0,050*
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) -> 0.617 0.661
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 [CU; B=.601-.7; C:.701-.8; D=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=1.001+) B B
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES ARD LANES PlOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
20 - 50 o [21,100] I I I 1688-2140 [21,0541
I
I
V (2 Way VoLumes)
1061 - 777 North North
90 - 200 1171 -1027 [12,089] 517 -1113 [ 8,965]
---J /t ~.0-- 200 - 210 352 - 771 [ 6,1773 751 - 803 [ 8,5473
SR --gL < <.__
NT--2.O-- 310 - 550
~T
--1.0-- 241 - 43 350 - 242 [ 3,256] 443 - 512 [ 5,253]
2.0 = Lanes NL
I 702 -1013 [ 9,433] 1194 -1315 [13,800]
~ o-- (2 Way VoLumes) (2 Nay Votum0es)
[ 9,400] [13,800]
J 1372 - 862 [12,2871 412 -1186 [ 8,789]
, AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily] I 1784 -2048 [21,0761
70 - 42 --0.0--I I DaiLy = (AM+PM}* 5.5 V (2 Way VoLumes)
/
ER ~3- 122 Leg: North South East Nest
[21,100] o 3 7 - 893 % Entering [AM-PM) 69 - 48 23 - 58 63 - 61 50 - 24
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour I % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 9 - 10 7 - 11
[Estimated 2-~ay Daily][ :2 - 171 Hour CAM-PM)
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Tue Oct 7, 2003 13:33:06 Page 1-1
Tustin Place '
Year 2020 With Project
Morning Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Newport Avenue (NS) / Project Entrance (EW)
Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T - R L - T R L T R L T - R
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 00201 10200 00000 001!00
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 580 0 0 1840 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 580 0 0 1840 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 0 580 2 2 1840 0 0 0
User Adj: 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
PHF Volume: 0 580 2 2 1840 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 580 2 2 1840 0 0 0
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 10 0 13
0 0 0 0
0 10 0 13
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 10 0 13
0 0 0 0
0 10 0 13
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 582 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1504 xxxx 290
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1002 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 114 xxxx 713
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1002 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 114 xxxx 713
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * a * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 23.5 xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * C *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 23.5
ApproachLOS: * * * C
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Tue Oct 7, 2003 13:32:53 Page 1-1
Tustin Place
Year 2020 With Project
Evening Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Newport Avenue (NS) / Project Entrance (EW)
Average Delay (sec/veh): 99.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: F
Approach: North Bound South Bound
Movement: L - T R L T R
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1680
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1680
Added Vol: 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0
Initial Fur: 0 1680
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1680
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 1680
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx
East Bound West Bound
L T R L - T R
Stop Sign Stop Sign
Include Include
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
0 0 1570 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 1570 0 0 0
10 13 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
10 13 1570 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 13 1570 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
10 13 1570 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 0
0 5 0 6
0 0 0 0
0 5 0 6
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 5 0 6
0 0 0 0
0 5 0 6
XXXXX 4.1 XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX 6.8 XXXX 6.9
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1690 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2491 xxxx 840
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 383 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 25 xxxx 313
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 383 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 24 xxxx 313
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 14.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * B * * * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Share~ Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 49 xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 99.7 xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * F *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 99.7
ApproachLOS: * * , F
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:29:42 Page 1-1
Tustin Place
Year 2020 With Project
Morning Peak Hour - With Improvements
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Newport Avenue (NS) / Project Entrance (EW)
Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound
Movement: L T - R
Control: Uncontrolled
Rights: Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1
South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T - R L - T R L T R
Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop sign
Include Include Include
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 580 4 0 1853
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 580 4 0 1853
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 580 4 0 1853
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 580 4 0 1853
0 0 0 0 0 0 23
1.00 1.00 1.00 ~1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 0 0 0 23
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 0 0 0 23
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 23
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * ' *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * *
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 290
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 713
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 713
xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.2
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxx xxxx xxxxx
xxxxxx 10.2
* B
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:30:32 Page 1-1
Tustin Place
Year 2020 With Project
Evening Peak Hour - With Improvements
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Newport Avenue (NS) / Project Entrance (EW)
Average Delay (sec/veh): 16,9 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T - R L T R
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 00201 00200 00000 00001
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1680
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1680
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1680
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 1680
23 0 1588 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
23 0 1588 0 0 0
1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
23 0 1588 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 1588 0 0 0
0 0 0 11
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 11
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0 0 0 11
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 11
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 840
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 313
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx~ xxxx xxxx 313
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 16.9
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 16.9
ApproachLOS: * * * C
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 04-24-03
LAND USE: YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing
MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO
VOLUME VOL~E VOLUME CAPAC I TY
RATIO
(AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM)
Northbound Left 1 1700 620 1080 0 0 620 1080 0.365' 0.635*
Northboutx~ Through I 1700 270 1140 1 6 271 1146 0.159 0.674
Nor thbou~d Right 1 1700 10 140 0 0 10 140 0.006 0.082
Southbound Left 1 1700 120 70 2 1 122 71 0.072 0.042
Southbound Through 1 1700 1600 1360 6 3 1606 1363 0.945* 0.802*
',out hbound Hight 1 1700 120 140 2 1 122 141 0.072 0,083
Eastbound Left 1 1700 200 410 0 2 200 412 0.118' 0.242*
Eastbound Through 1 1700 90 130 0 0 90 130 0.106 0.129
E est bouncl Right 0 0 90 90 0 0 90 90 0.000 0.000
Westbound Left 0 0 300 10 0 0 300 10 0.000 0.000
Westbound Through 2 3400 190 130 0 0 190 130 0.176' 0.080*
Westbound Eight 0 0 110 130 0 2 110 132 0.000 0.000
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment 0 % of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000'
Southbound Eight Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate ET tame & when 0.000' 0.000'
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000'
Westbound Eight Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000'
CLearance Interval 0.050* 0.050'
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) · 1.654 1.809
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.8; D=.BOI-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=I.001+) F
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
I A A A
I I- 2431 -3265 [31,328] (2 Way Volumes)
122 - 141 o [31,3001
1606 -1363 North North
! 71 1850 -1575 [18,838] 581 -1690 [12,491]
WR V
1.1 1.0 t.0 L--O.O-- 110 - 132 932 -1351 [12,557] 600 - 272 [ 4,796]
SR~ [~st <
WT--2.0-- 190 - 130
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEUPORT AVENUE (NS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE (EU)
LAND USE: YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT
CC~JNT DATE: 04-24-03
GEC)t4ETRICS: Improved
MOVEMENT
North~ Left
Northbound Through
Northbo~ Right
Southbour~l Left
Southbound Through
Southbou~ Right
Eastbc~dr~ Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbound Right
Westbound Left
Westbour~ Through
Westbo~ Right
LANES
2
1
1
3
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
CAPACITY
3400
3400
1700
1700
5100
0
3400
1700
1700
0
3400
0
BASE
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
620 1080
270 1140
10 140
120 70
1600 1360
120 140
200 410
90 130
90 90
300 10
190 130
110 130
ADDED
VOLUME
(AM) [PM)
0 0
1 6
0 0
Z 1
6 3
2 1
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
TOTAL
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
620 1080
271 1146
10 140
122 71
1606 1363
122 141
ZOO 412
90 130
90 90
300 10
190 130
110 132
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM)
0.182' 0.318'
0.000 0.337
0.006 0.082
0.072 0.042
0.339* 0.295'
0.000 0.000
0.059* 0.121'
0.053 0.076
0.053 0.053
0.000 0.000
0.176' 0.080*
0.000 0.000
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment r-0 % of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000'
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment I red light when there is separate RT lane & when 0.000' O.OOO*
0.000' 0.000'
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment ~vement is permitted.
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000'
Clearance Interval 0.050' 0.050*
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Co~nents with *) > 0.806 0.864
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.000-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.8; D=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=1.001+) D D
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
122 - 141
I1606 -1363
122 - 71
ST
2!o
[18,100]
= Lanes
EL
200 - 412 --2.0]
90 - 130 --1.O--ET
ER
[37, 0003
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour
[Estimated 2-Way Dai{y]
A
[31,300] I
North
WR
L"-O.O-- 110 - 132
~T--2.0--- 190 - 130
~.0-- 300 - 10
[ 7,900]
NT
ll 10 - 140
2 I -1146
6 0 -1080
A A
i 2431 -3265 [31,328]
V (2 t~ay Votes)
North
1850 -1575 [18,838] 581 -1690 [12,491]
V
932 -1351 [12,557] 600 - 272 [ 4,796[
380 - 632 [ 5,566]
1312 -1983 [18,123]
(2 !~ay Volumes)
1996 -1463 [19,025],
V
222 - 341 [ 3,0973
822 - 613 [ 7,893]
(2 Way Volumes)
A
I 901
-2366 [17,9693
LEGEND: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily] { 2897 -3829 [36,9933
Daily = {AM+PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes)
Leg: North South East West
% Entering (AM-PM) 76 - 48 31 - 62 73 - 44 29 - 32
% of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 10 - 8 7 - 11
Hour (AM-PM)
-- Kunzman Associates.
APPENDIX D
City of Tustin
Improvement Standard No. 5t0
s oR s(~)
SIGHT OIST ANCE I ~ I .
s ~ S(F, Y' x' ! x¢
MAJOR 660 580 37 37 13 m
PRIMLY 610 500
SECONDARY 550 450
COMMUTER 500 360 ' O O 0
)CO~ECTO~ 390 ~50 0 0 0
LOCAL 280 150 0 0
..% ' X AND X' ARE BASED UPON A STANDARD 14'
%% MEDIAN FOR MAJOR AND PRI.ARY HIGHWAYS
DIST~NCEJ i I
NO 'SCALE
I~CTI~ ~ DISTANCE
s I s(F,Y' x- x~,
MAJOR 660 580 37 3? 13
PRIMA~;1y 610 500 25 25 15
SECONDARY 550 450 18 18 .$
COMMUTER 500 300 ' 0 O 0
COLLECTOR 390 250 0 0 0
LOCAL 280 150 0 0 0
~iOT~
l- THE DISTANCE 'S REPRESENTS THE CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE MEASURED ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF THE ROAD. THE CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE IS THE OISTANCE REOUIRED TO
ALLOW 7. 1/2 SECONDS FOR THE DRIVER ON THE CROSS ROAD (OR LEFT TURN POCKET) TO
'SAFELY CROSS THE MAiN ROADWAY OR TURN LEFT WHILE THE APPROACH VEHICLE TRAVELS
AT THE ASSUMED DESIGN SPEED OF THE MAIN ROADWAY.
2. THE DISTANCE $ SHOULD BE INCREASED BY ~.0% FROM THE AMOUNT SHOWN ON THE TABLE
ON SUSTAINED DOWNGRADES STEEPER THAN $% AND LONGER THAN ONE MILE,
$. POINTS A AND A' ARE THE LOCATIONS OF A DRIVER'S LINE OF SIGHT (3,5 FOOT EYE HEIGHT)
TO ONCOMING VEHICLES (4,25 FOOT OBJECT HEIGHT) LOCAT£D AT POINTS C AND C' WHILE
IN A VEHICLE AT AN INTERSECTION 10 FEET BACK FROM THE PROJECTION OF THE CURB
FACE. IN NO CASE SHALL POINTS A OR A' BE LESS THAN 15 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE
TRAVELED W~Y.
4. ~HE DISTANCE Y' IS THE DISTANCE MEASURED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE MAIN ROAD
TO THE FAR RIGHT THROUGH TRAVEL LANE. THE DISTANCE Y' tS EQUAL TO ZERO FOR
T-INTERSECTIONS. THE DISTANCE X IS THE DISTANCE MEASURED FROM THE CENTERI~INE Of
THE MAIN ROAD TO THE FAR RIGHT THROUGH TRAVEL LAN[. TH[ DISTANCE X' IS THE
DISTANCE MEASURED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE MAIN. ROAD TO THE CENTER OF THE
TRAVEL LANE NEAREST THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROAD.
5. THE. LIMITED USE AREA IS D£T[RMIN£D' BY THE GRAPHICAL METHOD USING THE APPROPRIATE
DISTANCES GIVEN IN THE TABLE ON STANDARD PLAN 510 SHEET 4. IT SHALL BE USED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROHIBITING OR CLEARING OBSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
ADEOUATE. SIGHT DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS.
6, THE LINE OF SIGHT LINE SHALL BE SHOWN AT INTERSECTIONS ON ALL LANDSCAPING PLANS.
GRADINGS PLANS AND TENTATIVE TRACT PLANS WHERE SAFE SI,GHT DISTANCE IS
· OUESTIONABLE. IN CASES WHERE AN 'INTERSECTION IS LOCATED ON A VERTICAL ·CURVE, A
PROFILE AT THE .LINE OF SIGHT MAY BE REQUIRED.
7, OBSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS BUS SHELTERS, WALLS OR LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE LIMITED USE
AREA WHICH COULD RESTRICT THE LINE OF SIGHT SHALL NOT, BE PERMITTED.
A. PLANTS AND SHRUBS WITHIN THE LIMITED USE AREA SH~LL BE OF THE TYPE
THAT WILL GROW NO HIGHER THAN 12 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND AND SHALL
BE MAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 12 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND'.
MAINTENANCE AT A LOWER HEIGHT MAY BE ·REQUIRED ON CREST VER,I'tCA[~
CURVES PER NOTE 6 ABOVE.
B. A PROFILE OF THE LINE OF SIGHT WILL BE REQUIRED TO VERIFY 12 INCH
MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE ABOVE VARIABLE HEIGHT OBSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS
SLOPE LANDSCAPING, PLANTS AND SHRUBS.
C. 'THE TOE OF SLOPE MAY ENCROACH INTO THE LIMITED USE AREA PROVIDED THAT
THE REQUIREMENTS or (Bi ABOVE ARE SATISFIED.
0. IN LIEU OF pROViDING A PROFILE OF THE LINE OF SIGHT; THE TOE OF SLOPE
SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO THE LIMITED USE AREA, ANO THE LIMITED USE AREA
SHALL SLOPE AT 2% MAXIMUM TO THE ROADWAY.
~, TREES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN ANY PORTION OF THE LIMITED USE AREA, UNL£$S
APPROVED BY ,THE CITY ENGINEER. ;' "
9. MEDIAN AREAS I.~SS THAN 6 FEET IN WIDTH SHALL RE PAVED WITH CONCRE,TE AS DIRECTED
BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
~0. RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS SERVING FOUR OR MORE UNITS AND COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS SHALL
BE TREATED AS A LOCAL STREET INTERSECTION.
'.. NO SCALE
~of~ CITY OF TLISTIN IMPROVEMEN~ ETANDARD STD,
,' DATE
IN'~TION ~ DISTANCE