HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 03-130RESOLUTION NO. 03-130
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE 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 City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
That General Plan Amendment 03-001, Zone Change 03-001, and
Tentative Tract Map 16506 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 City Council 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 City Council 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.
II.
A Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The City Council has
received and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prior to approving 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 City Council finds
that there will not be a significant effect as a result of the project.
The City Council hereby adopts the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for
General Plan Amendment 03-001, Zone Change 03-001, and Tentative Tract
Map 16506. In addition, the City Council finds that the project involves no
potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife
resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Games Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the 1st day of December, 2003.
MAYOR
/¢~PAMELA STOKER,
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 1of 133
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City
Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 03-130
was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the 1st day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
I~GEN, KAI~/ASHINA, DAVERT (3)
som~
(0)
( Z )
AMC:LA STOKER,
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 2 of 133
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Project Location: 14552 Newport Avenue, Tustin, Orange County, 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 ~om Commemial 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
Agreement by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency and the site developer (The Olson Company)
which will authorize the issuance of the 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,
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 whexe 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 detenr~nation is attached and is on file at the Community
Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this
Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and
extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review
period may be extended if deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 5, 2003
Date October 17, 2003 ~
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 3of 133
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
INITIAL STUDY
Ae
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 ~00, Seal 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 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 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
mount not to exceed $2,119,960 to assist in the creation often (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 and Commercial
Developments
[] City of Irvine
[] City of Santa Ana
[] Orange County
EMA
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 4 of 133
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potent/ally affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
[-']Land Use and Planning
[--]Population and Housing
~Geol°gical Problems
~Water
N-]Ak Quality
[~Transportation & Circulation
~Biological Resources
[--]Energy and Mineral Resources
[-']Hazards
[-]Noise
~Public Services
~]Utilities and Service
Systems
[-]Aesthetics
['~Cultural Resources
I-]Recreation
[-']Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis &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 NEGAT1VE 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 Si,%mificant 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 Develonment Director
Title Associate Planner
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 5of 133
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Directions
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rapture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level,
indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may 'occur, the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, 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 froTM Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an.effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or. negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a)
b)
c)
Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier documem .pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and,
b) the mitigation measure identifi¢d, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 6 of 133
1. 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?
I!t AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts t~ agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepaxed by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural usc?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in thc existing environment, which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
IIL AIR QUALITY: Where available, thc significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control dislxict may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions, 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
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[]
[]
[]
No Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 7of 133
~IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURC..ES: - Would *he project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department 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 inten~uption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved lOCal, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would *he 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 § 15064.57
c) Di~:ectly 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:
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 8 of 133
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the Stat~ Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence oft known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
- iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, aS defined in Table 18-I-B
of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to ~e public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
cnvironmem through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in th: nroject area'.'
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
Resolution No, 03-130
Page 9of 133
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:- Would
the project:'
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofth~ 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)?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activiti es?
'Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
[ncor?oration
L~s Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 10 of 133
I) Potentially impact stormwateT 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 equipm0m maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work
areas?
n) ResuR 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 runoffto cause
environmental harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site
or surrounding areas?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
· natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability ora known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE-
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation ofnoi,~e levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than '
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 11 of 133
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project7
d) A'substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ora
public airpor~ or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels.'?
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise 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?
Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision &new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 12 of 133
XIV. RECREATION-
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical detefiorafon of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
thc 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 sweet system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase haTards 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?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle rocks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result'in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, thc
construction &which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Signi~cant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 13of 133
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewatcr treatment
provider which serves or may serve thc project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's cxisting commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa f~sh 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 rcstxict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
arc considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
LeSS Th~Tn
Significant
Potentially With £ess Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact
[] [] []
No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 14 of 133
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) trait 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 from 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 from 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 Significant Impact
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 15of 133
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. Tt~e
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 of a typical residontial 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 16 of 133
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
operational 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 Tustin Grading Manual
Project Application
Field Inspection
4.. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a, b, c, d, e & f- No Iropact:
The site is improved and occupied by a commercial masonry business and is surrounded with
commercial and residential pmpertles 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 plant or animal life identified in local or regional
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 17of 133
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:
Sources: Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
None Required
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 axchaeological 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:
Sources.'
Submitted Plans
Tustin Zoning Code
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
None Required
6. GEOLOGY' & SOILS
Items a-ii, a-iii, & d- Less Than Significant Impact:
The proposed building will be located on expansive soil and is located within an area that
may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground
failure including liquefaction. However, a soils report is required to be submitted prior to
building permit issuance per the 2001 Uniform Building Code to demonstrate compliance
with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures,
foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure
seismic stability.
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:
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 18 of 133
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TIM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 5 of 12
The project site is not located within an area on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map. The project will not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and will not
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Since all new
buildings in the City are required to operate on the existing sewer system, the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be necessary.
Sources:
Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
2001 Uniform Building Code
Project Application
Field Evaluation
7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Items a through 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 i$ designed with proper emergency evacuation and
response systems; therefore, th, 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
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Items a, b, c, d, e, k, 1, m, n & o - Less Than Significant Impact:
The project site is relatively fiat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a
relatively flat site with improved site drainage, including roads, curbs and gutters, and
additional landscaping. There will be new construction and there is the potential to impact
stormwater runoff from construction and post-construction activities 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 Aha 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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 19of 133
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, g, h, i, j 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.
Sources:
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
1.1 of the Tustin General Plan which permits compatible multi-family development to meet
regional housing needs where be~t 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 Qeneral Plan Policy No. 1.1
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 20 of 133
Tustin Place
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM ! 6506, DR 03-009
Page 7 of ! 2
which promotes the construction of additional dwelling nnits 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 Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Map
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
Items a & b - No Impact:
The proposed project is not located on 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 exterior 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 Tusfin 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 Elemem
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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 21of 133
Tustin Place
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
Tustin 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 during 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 plan 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 aircraft noise impacts. The project, however, would
be conditioned to meet City's noise standards.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 22 of 133
Tustin Placo
GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TrM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 9 of' 12
12.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
· Tustin Zoning Code
POPULATION & HOUSING
Items a, b, and c - No Impact:
None Required
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 infrastructure 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 23of 133
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 9331.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 Major
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 operate
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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 24 of 133
· Tustin Place
.GPA 03-001, ZC 03-001, TTM 16506, DR 03-009
Page 11 of 12.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
?riot 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
constxuct street improvements along the project frontage on Newport Avenue such that
the distance from centedine 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 Imoact:
The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth wherein the project
will not result in changes to air traffic patterns, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. The
project includes sufficient parking on-site to comply with current parking requirements for
the proposed use. As such, no impacts to parking are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Traffic ImpactAnalysis
16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
ltems a, b, c, d, e, f & g - No Impact:
The proposed project will not exceed requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board or require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities. The proposed project will utilize the existing sewer and storm drain systems and thus
will not require construction of a new storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. The
project will utilize the City's existing trash hauler contract, thus not requiring a new trash hauler.
Adequate water supply from existing resources will be available to serve the proposed project.
.Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 25of 133
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.
Sourcesi
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
$:\Cd6~lUSTINA~urmnt plamfing~mvimmncn~l\Ol~o~l All, chiller A.doe
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 26 of 133
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF TUSTIN
TUSTIN PLACE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED)
Prepared by:
Carl Bailard and
William Kunzman, P.E.
April 28, 2003
October 7, 2003 (Revised)
ASSOCIATES
llll Town & COUNTIL¥ ~.0~0..~UITE 34
ORA~X~E, CA
PHONE: (714) 973-8~3
FAX: (714) 973-0~
E~AIL: ~AILOTKAFF IC-E~I NEE~.COM
WEB: WWW.TEA~FlC-E~INEEK.COM
2732
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 27of133
Table of Contents
1. Findings ......................................................................................................... 2
Existing Traffic Conditions .......................................................................... 2
Traffic Impacts ............................................................................................ 2
Recommendations ..................................................................................... 3
2. Project Description .................................................................................... s
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 ................................................................ 35
Method of Projection ................................................................................ 35
Year 2020 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ..................................... 35
Year 2020 Volume to Capacity Ratios ..................................................... 35
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 28 of 133
Year 2020 Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) ...................................... 35
Project Traffic Contribution ....................................................................... 36
· · , ,, 49
7, Internal C~rculabon ...............................................................................
Site Access .............................................................................................. 49
Sight Distance ............................................................................. 49
p .... 5O
arK~ng ........................................................................................
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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 29of 133
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 ..................................................................... 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 30 of 133
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 13.
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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 31of 133
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure25.
Figure26,
Figure27.
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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 32 of 133
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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 33of 133
1. Findings
This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, and
the proposed mitigation measures.
Existing 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.
d. The roadway links in the vicinity of the
acceptable Levels of Service.
Traffic Impacts
site currently operate within
ao
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.
do
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 I 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 34 of 133
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
3
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 35of 133
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 $19,780 to
the City of Tustin, which will serve to mitigate the future impacts generated
by the proposed project.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 36 of 133
Table 1
Summary of Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
ICU-LO$~
intersection Scenario MomingI 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
Project Increase 0.3% 0,2%
Newport Avenue (NS) at: Existing 0.396-A 0.4§1-A
Sycamore Avenue (EW) Existing Plus Project 0.398-A 0.463-A
Project Increase 0.5% 0.4%
Year 2020 Without Project2 0.804-D 0.862-D
Year 2020 With Project2 0.806-D 0.864-D
Project Increase 0,2% 0.2%
1 ICU-LOS = Intersection Capa¢~ Utli~-~on - Level of SaUce
2 With improvements reflected in Tabte~ 7 and 8,
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 37of 133
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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 38 of 133
Fkjure 1
Project Locotion Mop
--)(-Site
27~/I
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 39of 133
Figure 2
Site Plan
Ku~z ra~ A~
27~2/2
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 40 of 133
3. Existing Traffic Conditions
The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below and illustrated in
Figures 3 to 9.
Surrounding 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.
Existinq Travel Lanes and Intersection Control,S,
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 Avera~le 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 daity
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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 41of 133
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.
Existinq 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 42 of 133
ICU value and corresponding LOS is by far the best measure of roadway
performance.
Existing Master Plan of Arterial ,Highways
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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 43of 133
Table 2
City of Tustin Roadway Capacities
Number Capacity
Facility Type of Lanes LOS D LOS E
Major Highway 8 Divided 67,500 75,000
Major Highway 6 Divided 50,600 56,300
Primary Highway 4 Divided 33~800 37,500
Secondar7 Highway 4 Undivide< 22,500 25,000
Commuter 2 Undivided 11,300 12,500
12
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 44 of 133
Table 3
Existing Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
.... In!ersectlon AF pF0,ac, h ,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 Evening
Newport Avenue (NS) at:
Walnut Avenue (EW) TS I 2 I I 2 1 I 2 0 I 2 0 0,533-A 0.573-A
Sycamore Avenue (EW) TS 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 0 0 2 0 0,396-A 0.461-A
When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be ~lped or unstflped. To function a~ · right turn lane, them msujt be sUffl~ent
width for right turning vehicles t~ travel o~tsido the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right
ICU-LO$ = Intersection Capacity Utilization - Level of Service
TS ,, Traffic Signal
13
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 45of 133
Rgure 3
Existing Through Trovei Lones ond Intersection Controls
2 -X-Site
Kun~man Associates
4 - Tnro~h Tro~ Lo~a
U = Undi~ded
1 4-0 I +-! 3 ~.-a
If~tm'section refm'e~ce number ore h upper left c~rner of turning mowrne~t boxes.
2732/]
14
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 46 of 133
F'~jure 4
Existing Averoge Deay Traffic (AD'I) Volumes
8.8
K=~.~n~ Jssoe~tes
-X--Site
~7
7.!
~7 - Vehicles Per Ooy
27~2/+
15
Resolution No, 03-130
Page 47of 133
Figure 5
Existing Volume To Cepocity Retios
-X-Site
Legend
0.~0-- ¥~um~ To eq~oel~y R~tlo
Ku~.m~ Assoc4ates
16
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 48 of 133
Fl(jure .6
Existing Morning Peek Hour Intersection Turning Idovement Vdumes
-X-Site
Avenue
dssoc~tes
~ ,41 Project Entrance
Intersectiua reference number~ a~e im upf3er left cema' of tumln§ movee~et boxes. 2732/1~
17
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 49of 133
Figure .7
Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersecbon Turning Uovement Volumes
2 -X--Site
l~lnut A~u¢
K~zm~ Asso~tes
Inta'sectkm refereac~ numl~rs ore in ~ I~ ¢~'n~r of tumiag mop. cent bo~
18
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 50 of 133
R§ure 8
City of Tusfin C, enerol Plen Circulation Dement
~'
Corridor
oz~.ly.
19
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 51of 133
F*~gure 9
City of Tustin Generol Plon Roodwoy Cross-Sections
100'
92' I~1
76'
Not~: Vlit~ Oo~ I lic~e ~
~r~,rce: City of Tustin
2732/9
20
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 52 of 133
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 vol~lmes 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 I~eak 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 mute 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 53of 133
Figure 10 contains the directional distribution and assignment of the project traffic
for the proposed land use.
Project-Related Traffic
Based on the identified traffic generation and distribution, project related ADT
volumes are shown on Figure 1'1. The project related morning and evening peak
hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 12 and 13,
respectively.
22
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 54 of 133
Table 4
Project Traffic Generation~
Tdps Generated Tdps Generated
Time Period Per DU2 by 63 DU
Morning 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 5.66 369
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE), Trio Generation,
6th Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 230.
2
DU = Dwelling Units
23
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 55of 133
Table 5
Traffic Generation Comparison
Peek Hour
Morninl~ Evenir~l
Land Use Quantity/ Units1 Inbound Outbound Tota~ Inbound Outbound Total Daily
Previope
Commercial Retailz 3.23 AC 4 4 8 12 12 24 310
Pr°o°sed 3691
Multi-Family Attached Residential3 63 DU 4 23 27 23 11 34
Difference +0 +19 +1~ +11 -1 +10 +59
AC = Acrae
DU = Dwelling Units
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineem (ITE), Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 817.
See Table 4.
24
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 56 of 133
5Z
(~
Ku~. ~ Assoe~,~es
Figure 10
Project Traffic Distribution
I0~
(~
--X-Site
(~
20X
Percent To/f'~rom Pro~jec'tject
For Exlstln§ Plus
Traffic
CefldlUon~
P~rc~nL To/f'r~'~ ProTect
For Yeor 2Q20 ~ ProJec~ Trefflc
25
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 57of 133
Figure 11
Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes
0ol
(0.'~)
0.1
(02) (0.0
-X-Site
(0.2)
o.~
0.1 : ~Veh~e~ Per Day
rot Ex~sti~ Plus Pro~ct Troffic
Cmditlan$
(000 = ~" ~ef D~y¢O00'~)
rot Tear 2020 W~fh Project Traffic
CofldJtJms
NOM - N.mbd, Le~ Than 50
K~m~ dssoc~tes
2732.~1t
26
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 58 of 133
F-~gure 12
Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
I ~mUng ~: ProjBct Trdfic Cmditm; I
A~nue Pro,jed: Enhance Sycamore Avenue
I Yeer 2020 tt~th Proj,ct Tmf~: Cmditims I
27
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 59of 133
Fkjure 13
Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
[[xbting Rus I~o~t rroffic CcndftionsI
z
28
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 60 of 133
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.
ExistinQ Plus Project Avera_~e Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes
Upon project completion and occupancy, the existing plus project ADT volumes
are as illustrated on Figure 14.
Existing Plus p,r,.oiect Volume to Capacity Ratios
For existing plus project traffic cenditions, 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.
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of $grvice {LOS)
The technique used to assess the oDerstion 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
.'peAk 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 61of 133
Table 6
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Peak Hour
Intersection Approach Lanes~ ICU-LOS2/
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound DelaT-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 '1 2 1 1 2 0 I 2 0 0.536-A 0.574-A
Project Entrance(EW)3 (:;SS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10.8-B 11.3-B
Sycamore Avenue(EW)~ TS I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 0 0 2 0 0.398-A 0.463-A
1
When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can elthor be striped or unstril3ed. To fun~ion as s right lure lane, there mu~t be sufficient
width for right turning vehicles to travel out~do the through lanes.
L = Loft; T = Through; R - Right; 1 = Impmverneflt
ICU-LOS ,= Intersection Capacity Util[zatlo~ - Level of E. ervics
Delay and level of sewice has been calculated using the following analysis so~.Yars: Traffix, Version 7,5,0615 (2000), Per the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), overall average intarsectio~ delay and level of seneca ara show~ for |ntersecflofla with trofl~c signal
or oil way stop control. Fa' intersections wfth cress .~'eet ~op control, the delay an(I level of service for the worst individual movement
(st' movements sharing a single lane) ara shOW~l.
4
TS = Traffic Signal
CS$ ~ Cross, ~lreet ~top
30
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 62 of 133
Figure 14
Existing Plus Project Average Doay Traffic (ADT) Volumes
14.1
--X-Site
8.7
3.7 = Ve~ides Per Oey
31
27~2/14.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 63of 133
Figure 1,5
Existing Plus Project Volume To Copocity Ratios
0.7~
-)(--Site
~23
0.~0 = Volume To ~:mlty Ro~
Ku~zma~ ,4ssoc~,s
27~./~5
52
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 64 of 133
F~jure 16
Existing Plus Project
laoming Peek Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
Project
reference nUmbEr~ are b UlCEr left cmnar of tumrng movement txa~m.
S)~=m~*e Avenue ~
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 65of 133
Figure 17
Existing Plus Project
Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Uovement Volumes
2 -)(-Site
Kunzmn lssoc~tes
Intersectioa refermce n~rnbers ~re in ~ left ~ et' tumin§ mo~ernent boxes,
34
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 66 of 133
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 Projection
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 Averat:le Daily Traffic (AD .T,) Volume-
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 ~ervice (I-OS)
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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 67of 133
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 Caltrans 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 68 of 133
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 rei~ed 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 69of 133
Table 7
Year 2020 Without Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Intersection AI )proach 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 Evening
Newport Avenue (NS) at:
Walnut Avenue(EW) TS I 2 1 1 2 1 I 2 0 I 2 0 0,615-B 0,660-B
Sycamore Avenue (EW)
-Withoutlmprovements TS I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1,650-F 1,805-F
- With Improvements TS 2 2 I I 3 0 2 1 I 0 2 0 0.804-D 0.862-D
When · i~ght turn lane la designated, the lane can either, be strlded or unstripad. To f~nctlon as · light turn lane, there must be sulllclant
width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the th~eugh lane~.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1 ' ImproYeme~t
ICU-LOS = Intersection Capacity Utilization - Level of Se~vica
TS = Traffic Signal
38
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 70 of 133
Table 6
Year 2020 With Project Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Peak Hour
Intersection Approach LanesI ICU-LOS2/
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Delay-l_OS3
Interseotion 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 I 1 2 1 1 2 0 I 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 I 0 23.5-C 99.7-F
-Withlmprovements CSS 0 2 1_ 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1_ 10.2-B 16.9-C
Sycamore Avenue (EW)2
-Withoutlmprovements TS 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 0 0 2 0 1.654-F 1.809-F
-With Improvements TS 2_ 2_ 1 I 3 0 2_ 1 1_ 0 2 0 0,806-D 0.864-D
When a ~ght turn Hne t~ designated, the lane can elt~er be ~ped or un~tr~ped, To ftmelJon a~ a right turn lane, there must be r,u~cient
wklth ~ light t~mlng vehl~lus to ~vel oul~de the th*'ough lane~.
L = LeR; T = Through; R '~ Right; 1 = Imlxovement
2 ICU-LO,g, = Intef,~ction Capacity Utilization - Level
3 Delay and level o~ sen~ica has basa calculated using the follewing analy~s =oflware: Traffix, Vemlon 7.5.0815 (2000). Per the 2(]00
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), overall ave~ge I~emection delay and level ~ sec.'ice am ~now~ for inteme~aons w~th Iraffic signal
or all way atop conlrol. For ~tersections w~th cross stmat stop control, ~ de~ay and level o~ sen~ice for the worst Indlvldusl movement
(or m~vernant$ shnrlr~l · single lane) am
4
TS = Traffic Signal
C~S - Cross Street Stop
39
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 71of 133
Table 9
Project Traffic Contribution
Existing Plus Project Year 2020 W'~ Project
Existing Project Year 2020 Total Project
Peak Project Plus Project % of Existing With Project Project New % of New
Intersection Hour Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic
Newport Avenue (NS) at:
WalnutAvenue(EW) AM 19 1,918 1.0% 1,899 2,684 14 785 1.8%
PM 23 2,269 1.0% 2,246 3,258 18 1,012 1.8%
AVERAGE 21 2r094 1.0% 21073 2r971 16 899 1.8%
Newport Avenue (NS) at:.
Sycamore Avenue (EW) AM 7 1,153 0.6% 1,146 3,731 11 2,585 0.4%
PM 10 1,262 0.8% 1,252 4,845 15 3,593 0.4%
AVERAGE 9 1,208 0.7% 1,199 4,288 13 3,089 0.4%
40
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 72 of 133
F'~ure 18
Yeor 2020 Without Project A~roge Do~y Troffic (ADT) Volumes
9.0 57.0
-X-Site
32.0., Ve~idm Per 0eX
2732/16
41
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 73of 133
Rgure 19
Year 2020 With Project Average Da)y Traffic (ADT) Volumes
-~- Site
32.1 -- Vehi~e. Pm Oay (lO00's)
Kunz ~ n .4 ssooi~tes
27'~2/19
42
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 74 of 133
Rgure 20
Year 2020 Without Project Volume To Capacity Ratios
-X-Site
0.8,5 ~ Vdume To C~poctty RoUe
Ku~z nm~ Associates
27~2~20
43
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 75of 133
Rgure 21
Yeor 2020 With Project Volume To Cepocity Rotios
0.99
-X-Site
0.27 0.67
0.86 = Velume To CopocHy
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 76 of 133
Figure 22
Year 2020 Without Project
Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
Intersection rclarmc~ mm~M~ (~e i~ upper left c~rner ~ turning me.mint box~
Project Enhance 5~m~e Avenue )1 ~e'-+l~l 1' I) I
45
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 77of 133
Figure 25
Year 2020 Without Project
Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
Kuflzm~ lssoc~tes
[ntrmce S~:emere Avenue
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 78 of 133
Fkjure 24
Yeor 2020 With Project
Morning Peok Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
Pmje~t Eqtrmce $~:on~ .~eAue
Inte'secti~ refar~ mdflq~ ore i~ ~ left coma- of tum~j mo~mmt box..
27~2/b~
47
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 79of 133
Figure 25
Yeor 2020 With Project
Evening Peek Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
2 -X-Site
W~lnut Avenue
Associates
reference nurnbem clre h ~ left ce-ne- o~ tumag me~ment box~
2732/bix=
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 80 of 133
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 interse(~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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 81of 133
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 !eft 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 right or toward the north, the driver would need to
see an approaching vehicle 56 feet west of the Newpod 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.
Parkinq
The site should provide sufficient parking spaces to meet City of Tustin parking
code requirements in order to service on-site parking demand.
5O
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 82 of 133
Fi<jure 26
Circulotion Recommendotions
$it~
O~-m'te boric dgnbg md stril~g dx~ld be Iml~ern.nted
h caaju~m with detoaed c:m~tctkn ~ ~ the
Ivoject. NI met~9~ (z dg~ bt.md to the Fojact d~l
cd3mdy with ixo~i~g of the Store's Troffic Ii(mud.
stop
2752/26
51
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 83of 133
52
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 84 of 133
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Glossary of Transportation
Traffic Count Worksheets
Explanation and Calculation of Intemection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) and Intersection Delay
City of Tustin Improvement Standard No. 510
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 85of 133
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Transportation Terms
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 86 of 133
GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS
COMMON ABBREVIATI.ONS
AC:
ADT:
Caltrans:
DU:
ICU:
LOS:
TSF:
V/C:
VMT:
Acres
Average Daily Traffic
California Department 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 re§ulation of conflicting traffic
movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement
markings, raised islands, or other suitabie 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).
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 87of 133
CYCLE LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete
signal cycle.
CUL-DE-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.0eu, ver freely and travel is unimpeded by other traffic.
GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream,
rear bumper to front bumper.
HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a
traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 88 of 133
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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 89of 133
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 parson 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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 90 of 133
APPENDIX B
Traffic Count Worksheets
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 91of 133
Tntersection Turning Movement
Prepared by; ,Southland Car Counters
N-S STREET:
E-W STREET:
Newport Ave.
Walnut Ave.
LANES:
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:15 .aJVl
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AH
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11;15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
DATE: 4/24/2003
DAY: THURSDAY
NORTHBouND .... S~-U:i:i. ii3~u No
NL NT NR SL ST SR
i 2 0 1 2 0
9 90 20 79 44
10 89 16 97 50
5 98 16 129 50
6 68 22 113 55
5 73 14 85 58
10 88 7 73 64
6 76 14 81 62
11 53 18 44 55
TOTAL NL NT NR
LOC. AT]ON: City of Tustin
PRO.1ECT# 03-0692-001 A
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
EL ET ER WL WI' WR TOTAL
I 2 0 I 2 0
4 2 63 6 8 46 30 401
8 2 76 10 15 43 41 457
5 3 68 g 21 57 51 512
13 5 59 5 29 65 60 500
3 2 37 6 20 57 70 430
7 1 28 11 22 43 55 409
10 7 30 11 25 34 38 394
4 3 21 8 17 29 49 312
SL ST SR EL ET ER WL VVT WR TOTAL
VOLUMES = 62 635 127
AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 26 328 68
CONTROL: Signalized
701 438 54 25 382 66 157 374 394 3415
424 213 29 12 240 30 85 222 222 1899
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 92 of 133
:Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Countem
N-S STREET:
E-W STI~:
Newport Ave.
Walnut Ave,
DATE: 4/24/2003
DAY: THURSDAY
LOCAT[ON: City of Tustln
PRO3ECT# 03-0692-001 P
NORTHBOUND
LANES:
NL NT NR
1 2 0
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:Z5 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
15 70 15
14 91 7
24 97 14
14 gB 14
14 87 14
10 95 11
g 104 15
TOTAL NL NT NR
VOLUMES = 113 744 113
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 430 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES: 66 373 49
CONTROL: Signalized
SOUTH'66iJ'ND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
SE ST SR EL ET ER WE WT WR
i 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
60 56 9 3 46 13 25 115 70 535
75 53 10 5 33 15 32 85 74 482
71 86 14 4 42 10 25 108 72 544
74 62 9 4 45 12 21 98 72 532
76 77 5 3 54 9 28 120 89 587
86 73 10 3 58 12 24 91 111 583
80 68 9 4 33 6 19 88 98 521
77 77 9 2 31 7 24 71 93 519
TOTAL
SL ST SR EL ET ER WL W'l: WR TOTAL
599 552 75 28 342 84 198 776 679 4303
307 298 38 14 L99 43 98 417 344
2246
Resolution No, 03-130
Page 93of 133
Zntersection Turning Movement
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
N-S STREET:
E-W STREET:
Newport Ave.
Sycamore Ave.
NORTHBOUND
LANES:
NL NT NR
I i 0
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM 24
7:15 AM 27
7:30 AH 25
7:45 AM 24
8:00 AM 34
8:15 AM 2.0
8:30 AM 18
8:45 AM 18
9;00 AM
9:15 AM
g: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
16 13
33 10
29 12
26 6
19 13
18 8
19 9
24 8
IUIAL
VOLUMES =
190 184 79
AH Peak Hr Begins at: 700 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 100 104
CONTROL: Signalized;
DATE: 4/24/2003
DAY: THURSDAY
SOUTHBOUND
SL ST SR EL
1 1 1 1
34 13 12 50
34 15 13 38
39 17 31 3g
38 23 29 45
38 24 26 34
40 20 16 48
44 23 14 51
29 14 31 51
s[' "~ SR
296 149 172
41 145 68 85
LOCATION; City of Tustin
PRO]ECl-* 03-0692-002 A
F..,A~_..¥BOU NDr · " WESTBOUND
ET ER WL W'T WR TOTAL
.5 .5 0 2 0
10 4 5 45 40 266
30 3 3 86 17 309
33 2 5 70 29 331
8 6 2 24 9 240
8 2 3 43 20 264
5 3 6 41 38 263
7 6 3 34 27 255
10 4 4 25 18 236
EL ET ER ~NL "'W'T WR TOTAL
~s6 111 3o 3~ 3r~ 198
172 81 15 15 225 95 1146
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 94 of 133
Intersection TUrning Movement
Prepared by: Southland ~ar Counters
N-S STREET:
E-W STREET:
Newport Ave.
Sycamore Ave,
DATE: 4/24/2003
DAY: THURSDAY
LOCATION: City of Tustln
PRO3ECT# 03-0692-002 P
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND
NL
LANES: i
NT HR SL s-r SR EL
1 0 I I I i
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 PH
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 8 20
4:15 PM 8 4
4:30 PM 7 8
4:45 PM 11 28
5:00 PM 8 31
5:15 PM 8 13
5:30 PM 7 28
5;45 PM 9 23
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
9 34 26 29 32 15
2 32 28 12 21
3 44 23 21 28 9
7 51 35 7 49 12
2 57 44 31 37 14
6 53 41 23 45 13
3 47 29 18 45 11
4 40 45 20 59 9
TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR
VOLUMES = 66 155 36 358 271 161
PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 34 100 18
208 149 79
CONTROL: Sk~nal~zed;
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
ET ER WL W'T WR TOTAL
.5 .5 0 2 0
i 10 48 52 284
2 9 25 43 187
2 9 63 41 258
3 11 45 54 313
2 11 53 40 330
4 20 43 29 298
2 17 50 54 311
13 15 45 30 312
~L ET ER' WL WT WR TOTAL
316 84 29 102 372 343 2293
176 50 11 59 191 177 1252
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 95of133
APPENDIX C
Explanation and Calculation of
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
and Intersection Delay
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 96 of 133
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
nodhbound 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 northbound 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 oan be seen that the ICU is
50 plus 30, or 80 percent. When left tum 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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 97of 133
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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 98 of 133
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 Unsic~nalized 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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 99of 133
Siqnal Timin,q
The ICU calculation assumes that a signal is properly timed. It is
possible to have an IOU 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
article 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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 100 of 133
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, tn the case of a diamond interchange, the middle lane is
sometimes shared, and the driver can turn left, go through, or tum 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 101of 133
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 Ri,qht,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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 102 of 133
Standard RiRht Turn Lane, No Ri,qht 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 RiQht Turns 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 rum, 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 103of 133
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 Ri,qht Turn Arrow~ With Ri!:lht 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 104 of 133
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 'q'he Critical Lane Method value is
800 vehicles per hour" means little to most persons, whereas a
statement such as 'q'he 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 ~ethod Result ICU Result
800 vehicles >er hour
50 percent
960 vehicles >er hour
60 percent
1120 vehicles per hour
70 percent
1280 vehicles >er hour
80 percent
1440 vehicles >er hour
90 percent
1600 vehicles )er hour
100 percent
1760 vehicles )er hour
110 percent
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 105of 133
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 0.600and below
extremely favorable end 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
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 E 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 inter~e~tion. 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: Hiehwa¥ Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board,
Nalional Research Council Washington D.C., 2000.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 106 of 133
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 fodh. 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 107of 133
8. Area type (CBD or other)
9. Right tums
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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 108 of 133
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 rapidiy 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.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 109of 133
INTERSECTION DELAY
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESCRIPTION1
Average Total Delay
Level of Per Vehicle (Seconds}
Service
(LOS) Descriptlm~ Signalized
Unsigneliz ed
A Level of San4ce A ocours when progression is extr~nel7 favorable 0to 10,00 0to 10.00
and most vohlclee antve during the green phase. Mcat vehicles do
no{ stop at all. Sho~t cycle lengths may also contribute to Iow delay,
B Level of Se~ice B generally occurs with good progression and/or 10.01 to 20.00 10.01 to 15.00
short cycle lengths. Mo~e vohicle~ stop than for LOS A, causing
higher levels of average total delay.
C Level of Service C generally results 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, although many still pass through the interseCtion
without stopping.
D Level of Service D generally results in noticeable congestion. 35.01 to 55.00 25.01 to 35.00
Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable
progmseion, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios.
Mar~y ~hicles stop, and the pmpodion of vehicles no~ stof~ping
declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
E Level of Service E is considered to be the limit of accepiable 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 capacib/ ratios. Individual cycle
failures are frequent occuffen~es.
F Level of Service F is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. 60.01 and up 50.01 and up
This condition often occurs with overseturation, 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: Hiohwav Capacity Manual (HCM) Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 110 of 133
Existin~
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 111of 133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTIO~I: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and WALNUT AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE:
LAND USE: EXISTING GEC~qETRICS: Existing
MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUM~ TO
VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY
RATIO
CAM) (JAN) (AM) (PM) CAM) (PM) (AM) (PR)
Nor thbour~ Left 1 1700 26 66 0 0 26 66 0.015 0.039
Northbound Through 2 3400 328 3r3 0 0 328 ~ 0,096' 0.110'
Nor thl~ur~ Right 1 1700 68 49 0 0 ~ /*9 0.040 0,0~9
SouthbmJnd Left 1 1700 ~,26 30? 0 0 424 307 0.249t 0.181'
$o~Jt h~ Through 2 3400 213 298 0 0 213 298 0.~3 0.088
Southbound Right 1 1700 29 38 0 0 29 38 0.017 0.027
Eastbound Left 1 1700 12 14 0 0 12 14 0.007t 0.008*
Eastbour~ Through 2 3400 ~&O 199 0 0 2~,0 199 0.0~ 0.071
Eastbo~ Right 0 0 30 43 0 0 ~:0 43 0,000 0.000
Westbound Laft 1 1700 85 98 0 0 85 98 0.050 0.058
Uestbo~a-~d Through 2 3400 222 417 0 0 222 ~,17 O; 131* 0.224*
Westbound Right 0 0 222 34~, 0 0 222 344 0.000 0.000
#orthbound Right Turn Adjustment 0 % of right turns (AT) are assuned to occuron! 0.000" 0.000'
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light whe~ there is separate RT lane & when_~ 0.000' 0.000'
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000~ 0.000'
gestbo~qcl Right Turn Adjustment 0.000t
Clearance Interval 0.050' 0.050*
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Con~oonents with ~) > 0.533
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 [CU; 6=.601-.7= C~.701-.8; 0=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=1.001+) A A
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLL~4E$ AND LARKS PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
I A A A
29 - 38 213 - 298 o [14,300] Northl No!th VI 1228 '1374 [16'$11](2 Way Volumes)
307 6~ - 643 [ 7,2001 562 - 7~1 [ 7,1121
1.1, 2.0 t.0!
I L~O,O-- 222 - 344 2?-/ - 521 £ 6,,38~] 52~ - 859 [ ?,63~3
SRj LSL < <
Fl.0-- 85 - 98 282 - 256 r 2,959) 7~2 - 555 [ 7,079]
I
2'0 = Lanes WL < >
J 559 - r~7 [ ?,3483 1261 -1414 [14~713]
--o o-- (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes)
[ 7,300]
EL
.] 328 - 439 [ 4,2191 422 - 488 [ 5,0051
12 - 14 --1. NT
2~0 - 199 2.0 ET NL FNR LEGEND: A
AH-PM Peak Hour [Daily1 [ 750 - 927
£
g,224]
~0 - 4"~ --0.0--1 . 2.0 . Daily = (AN+PH)* 5.5 V (2 Ua¥
ER I L ~3 49 Leg: North South East West
[ 9,200] o 3 8 - 3 X Entering (AM-PM) 54 - 47 56 - 53 42 - 61 50 - 33
LEGEklO: AM-PM Peak Hour [ X of Oaity in Peak 9 - 10 8 - 10 9- 10 8 - 11
[Estimated 2-Way Daily)I L6 - 66 Hour (AN-PM)
-- Kunzman Associates-
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 112 of 133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTIOI, I: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE CEW) COUNT OATE:
LAND USE: EXISTING GEOMETR]CS: Existing
MOVEME#T LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUNE TO
VOLUME VOLUNE VOLUHE CAPAC I TY
RAT I 0
(AM) (PM) (AN) (PH) (AN) (PH) (AM) CPM)
Nor t hi~3ue~l Left I 1700 100 3/, O 0 100 :S4 0°059 0°020
Northbound Through 1 1700 10/* 100 O 0 10/* 100 0.061' 0.059*
Northbound Right I 1700 ~1 18 0 0 /.1 18 O. 02/* 0.011
$outhbour~d Left I 1700 145 208 0 0 1/.5 208 0.085* 0.122'
Southbound Through 1 1700 68 169 0 0 68 1~9 O. 0/*0 0.088
Southbound Right 1 1700 85 ~9 0 0 85 ?9 0.050 0.0~6
Eastbound Left I 1700 172 176 0 0 172 176 0.101' 0.10~*
Ematloound Throb I 1700 81 50 0 0 81 50 0.056 O. 0:~6
East bound Right 0 0 15 11 0 0 15 11 0.000 0.000
Westbound Left 0 0 15 59 0 0 15 59 0.000 0.000
Westbound Through 2 3/*00 225 191 0 O 225 191 0.099* 0.126'
Westbound Right 0 0 95 177 0 0 95 177 0.000 0.000
Northbound Right Turn Adjustn~nt 0 % of rfgh: turn~ (HT) are assumed to occur on 0.000' 0.000'
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red Eight 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' 0.000'
Ctearence Interval 0~0~0' 0,050'
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONS, ICU (Su~ of Ccm1~nents uith *) .> 0.396 0.461
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.000-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C-".701-.8~ D:.801-.9: E=.901-1.0; F=1.001+) A A
PLOT OF PEAl( HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
I A A A
85 - 79 o [ R,600] I ! ) 669 - 8,89 [ 8,569]
I V (2 ~4a¥ Volumes)
68 - 1/+9 North NO th
208 [ 298 - ~36 [ 6,0371 371 - /*53 [ /*,5321
1/.0il v
1.0
--] Lil ' 0.0-- 95 - 177 410 - 304 £ 3,927] 335 - 427 £ 4,191]
SR SL I <
WT..-..2.0--- 225- 191
· ;T I --'>
! I 0.0--- 15 - 59 268 - 237 [ 2,778) 267 - 276 [ 2,9871
I
2'0 = Lanes WL < ~ <
[ 678 - 5/.1 [ 6,7053 602 - 703 [ 7f1781
---0 o-- (2 Way vol, umes) (2 Vay VoLumes)
[6,700] [7,200)
_] 98 - 219 [ 1,7/+4] Z4~ - t52 [ 2,1841
172- 176--1. NT V
81 - 50--1.0 ET NL / Ne LEGE#D~ A
1~. AN-PM Peak Hour [DaCtyl I 343 - 371 [ 3,927]
15 - 11 --0.0-~ . 1.0 /.O~ Daily = (AM+PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes)
R~1 - 18 Leg: 14orth South East ~est
[ $,9003 o 1 4 - 100 ~ Entering (AM-PM] 45 - 49 71 - 41 56 - 61 40- 44
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour % of Deity in Peak 8 - 10 9 - 9 8 - 10 10 - 8
[Estimated 2-Uay Deity] 1~10 - :5~ Hour (AM-PM)
-- Kunzman Associates
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 113of 133
Existin~ Plus Project
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 114 of 133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INI'ERSECT[ON: NE'I, JPORT AVEIRIE (NS) ond UALNUT AVENUE (E~J) COUNT DATE:
LAND USE: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT GE(~IETRICS: Existing
MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE AODED TOTAL VOLUME TO
VOLUNE VOLUHE VOLUHE CAPAC i TY
RATIO
(AM) (PN) (Aid) CP#) (AH) (PM) (APd) (PN)
Northbound Left I 1700 26 66 2 1 28 67 0.016 0.039
Northbound Through 2 3400 328 37'5 9 4 337 377 0.099* 0.111'
Northbound Right 1 1700 68 49 S 2 73 51 0.0/*3 0.030
Southbound Left 1 1700 &g& 307 0 0 /*24 307 0.2/*9* 0.181'
Southbound Through 2 3400 Z13 Z98 2 9 215 307 0.063 0.090
Southbound Night 1 1700 29 38 0 0 29 38 0.017
Eastbound Left 1 1700 12 1/* 0 0 12 14 0.007~ O.OOS*
Eastbound Through 2 3400 240 199 0 0 240 199 0.079 0.072
East houri Right 0 0 30 /,3 0 2 30 /*5 0.000 0,000
Westbound Left 1 1700 85 90 1 5 86 103 0.051 0.061
Westbo~d Through 2 3400 222 ¢17 0 0 222 417 0.131' 0.22/**
Wes tl0~d~l Right 0 0 222 344 0 0 222 3/*/* 0.000 0.000
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment 0 ~ of right turns iRT) are assigned to occur on 0.000' 0.000'
Southbour~:l Right Turn Adjustatent red [fght whe~q there is separate RT lane & when 0.000' 0.000'
Eastbou~ Right 1,urn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000' 0.000'
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000'
Clearance Interval. 0,050* 0.050*
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION. ]CU (Sum of Cc~r~onents with *) -> 01536 0.57/*
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.0; D-.801-.9; E=.901-1.0/ F=1.001+) A A
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLLIMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
I A A A
29 - 38 o [14./*00) t I I 12,9-1387 [14.443]
1
I
V (2 Way VoLun~s)
215 - 307 North North
I 424 - 307 668 - 652 [ T.2602 IA
1.,i2!0 l.O ~R V I571 ' ~5 [ 7'183]
SR SL : <
IdT--2.0-- 222 - ¢17
T > ·
i 1.0~ 86 - 103 282 - 258 [ 2,970] 737 - 557 [ ?,117]
2'0. = Lar~s ' ~L < · <-->
{ , 561 - 780 [ 7,376] 1267 -1421 [14,78/,3
---o ~ o--- (2 tday Volumes) (2 Uay Volumes)
[ 7,4003 , [14,800]
12 - 14 --1. NT V
240- 199--2.0 ET NL'"'-'I 2 0 r~NN1.~ LO LEGEND: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily] I 769 - 950 [ 9,4553
30 - 45 --0.0-~ ' ' I' Daily = (A~+r~}* 5.5 v (g Way volumes)
R~3 - 51 Leg: North South East West
[ 9,500] o 327 - 377 % Entering (AM-PM) 54 - 47 57 - 52 /*2 - 61 50 - 33
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour I X of Daily in Peak 9 - 10 § - 10 9 - 10 8 - 11
[Estimated 2-Way Daily]I Z8 - 67 Hour CAM-PM}
-- Kunzman Associates
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 115of 133
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 Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Newport Avenue (NS) / Project Entrance
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 U~ontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lane~: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
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 Fur: 0 422 i 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
PHF 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
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
O 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 7 0 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 7 0 ~6
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
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxx× xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: ~x~x xxxx x~xxx 423 xxx~ xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 592 xxxx 211
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxx~ ~xxxx 1147 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 442 xxxx 801
Move Cap.: ~x~x xxxx xxxxx 1147 x~xx xxxxx xxxx xxxx Kxxxx 441 xxxx 801
............ I ............... II ............... II ............... II ...............
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ~xxx 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:~xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx~x xxxxx ~xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.8 xxxxx
Shared LOS: ** * ** * ** * * B *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.8
ApproachLOS: * * * B
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Bowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 116 of 133
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Tue Oct 7, 2003 07:34:35 Page 1-1
Tustln Place
Existing Plus Project
Evening Peak Hour
Level Of Service ConkDutation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #t Newport Avenue (NS) / Projec~ 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 488 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Added vol: 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 0 488 7 16 439 0 0 0 0 3 0 8
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 488 7 16 439 0 0 0 0 3 0 8
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 488 7 t6 439 0 0 0 0 3 0 8
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
4.~ ~Kxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xx×xx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3,3
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 xx×x xxxxx 1079 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 353 ~x×x 763
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxx~x 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 x×xx xxxxx XX~ xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 579 xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx ~xxxx 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
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 117of133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) end SYCAMORE AVEtJUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 06,-2&-03
LAND USE: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT GEOHETRICS: Exiatir~
I~OVENENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOL~E TO
VOLUHE VOL~E VOL~E ~PAC I TY
RATIO
(~) CPN) (AN) (PH) (AH) (PM) (~) (p~)
gorth~ Left 1 1~00 100 3~ 0 0 100 3~ 0.059 0.020
North~ Thr~gh 1 1~0 1~ 100 0 1 104 101 0.061' 0.059*
gorth~ RSght 1 1700 41 18 0 0 41 18 0.024 0.011
S~th~ Left 1 1700 145 208 2 1 147 209 0.0~* 0.123'
S~th~ Thr~gh 1 1700 ~ 1&9 1 1 69 150 0.~1 0.0~
S~th~ Right 1 1700 85 79 3 2 88 81 0.052 0,~8
East~ Left 1 1700 lrg 176 1 3 1~ 179 0.102· 0.105·
East~ Thro~h 1 1700 81 50 0 0 81 50 0,056 0.0~
East~ Rfght 0 0 15 11 0 0 15 11 0.000 0.000
~est~ Left 0 0 15 59 0 0 15 59 0.000 0,000
West~ 1brough 2 3400 225 191 0 0 225 191 0.~ 0.126'
West~ Right 0 O 95 1~ 0 2 95 179 0.000 0.000
North~ Right Turn Adjust~nt 0 % of right turns (AT) are ass~d to occur on 0.000' 0.000*
S~th~ R~ght Turn Adjustm~t red [~ght ~hen there ~s serrate RT ta~ & ~hen O.O00* 0.000'
East~ Rfght Turn Adj~t~t ~ve~nt is permitted. 0.000' 0.000~
Uest~ R~ght Turn Adjust~t 0.000' 0.000'
Clearance Interval 0,050* 0.050*
INTERSECTI~ CAPACITY UTILIZATiO~, ICU (S~ of C~n~ts ~ith ~) > 0.398 0.~6~
LEVEL OF SERVICE CA:.O00-.6 ICU; B:.601-.7; Cm.701-.8; D~.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F:1.001+) A A
PLOT OF PEAK H~R TURNING VOLUMES AND LA~ES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
I A A A
~- 81 o [ 8,700] I ~V~ 676 - 899 [ 8,66~](2 Way Vo{~s)
~ 69 - 150 North ~o th
1~7 - 209 304 - ~0 [ ~,~23
A
0 1.0 ~R v I~72 ' 459 [ ~,571]
4,202]
$R~ ~SL < <--
.~ 15 - 59 269 - 240 [ 2,800] 269 ~ 277 [ 3,003]
210. = Lanes WL > < >
] <~2 - 546 [ 6,754] 604 - 706 [ 7,205]
--o ~ (2 Way Votes) (2 Uay Vot~s)
[ 6.800] [ 7,200]
99 - Z20 [ 1,755] 245 - 15~ [ Z,189]
81 - 50--1.0 ET NL ~NR LEGEND: A
~-P~ Peek Hour EOa~y]
[
15 - 11 --0.~ . 1.0 ~. Daily- (AM+PM)* 5.5 V C2 Uay Voids)
ER :~1 ' 18 Leg: North South East Uest
[ 3,900] o 1~14 - 101 % Entering (AM-PM) 45 - 49 71 - 41 55 - 61 ~9 - 44
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour ~ % of Daily Jn Peak
[Esti~t~ 2-gay DaCtyl~ 1 0 - 34 Hour (AM-PM)
-- K~z~n Assoc~ate~
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 118 of 133
Year 2020 Without Project
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 119of 133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECT]ON: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and WALNUT AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE;
LAND USE-' YEAR 2020 WITHOUT PROJECT GEOHETRICS; Existing
MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLLINE TO
VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME EAPAC] TY
RATIO
(AN) (PM) (AM) (PM) lAM) (PM) (AM) (PM)
#orthbound Left 1 1TO0 20 170 0 0 20 170 0.012' 0.100
Nor thbo~nd Through 2 ~400 300 890 0 0 300 890 0.088 O. 262'
#or t hbound Right 1 1700 80 120 0 0 80 120 0.047 0,071
Southbound Left 1 1700 90 200 0 0 90 200 0.05:5 0.118'
Southbound 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 Throb 2 3~00 270 190 0 0 270 190 0.100' 0.~
Eastbound Right 0 0 ?0 40 0 0 70 40 0.000 0.000
;~estbound Left 1 1700 240 40 0 0 2GO GO 0.1z, 1* 0.024
Westbound Thr~h 2 3&O0 4110 550 0 0 310 550 0.150 O. 22z,*
~es tbou~d Right 0 0 200 210 0 0 200 210 0.000 0.000
#orthloound Right Turn Adjust~nt 0 % of right turns CRT) are Isstm~d to occur on 0.000' 0.000'
$outhtx~und Right Turn Adjust~nt red light ~hen there is separate RT Lane & when 0.000' 0.000'
Eastbot~d Right Turn Adjustmnt manet ia permitted. 0.000' 0.000*
tJestbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000'
C[eara~e Interval 0.050' 0.050*
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (S~ of Components with *) · 0.615 0.~0
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 ICU= g=.601-.7; C=.701-.8; D=.BOI-.9; E=.901-1.O; F=I.O01+) B B
PLOT OF PEAK HCTJR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
I A A A
20' 50 o [21,000] I I I 1680-2130 [20,955]
I
V C2 Nay Volumes)
1060 - 770 North North
1. . ~.0
I .0~ 200 - 210 350- 770 [ 6,1602 750 - 800 [ 8,525]
s.-J LsL Lo <
I
i VI' Z,O~ ]10 - 550
ST __.> ·
r l.O-- 240 - 40 350 - 240 [ 3,245] 4/*0 - 510 [ 5,225]
t
2.0 = Lanes ~L < >
i 700-1010 [ 9,405] 1190 -1310 [1:~,7503
--o o~ (2 Way VoIc~nes) (2 ~ay VoL~s)
[ 9,400] [13,800]
10 - 10 --1, NT V
:~70 - 190 --2.0 ET NL ~--NR LEGE#D: A
1~. AM~F~q Peak Hour [DaiLy]i1770 -2030
[20,~0]
70 - 40 --0,0~ . 2o0 m' o~ity = (AM+PM}* 5.5 V (7 &Jay VOIL~eS)
R~0- 120 Leg: North South East &Jest
[20,900] o ; 3'~0 - 890 % Entering CAM-PM) 70 - 48 23 - 58 63 - 61 50 - 24
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour ] % of Deity in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 9 - 10 7 - 11
[Estimated 2-Uay Daily]I [0 - 170 Hour (AM-PM)
-- Kunz~n Associates-
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 120 of 133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (MS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE
LAND USE: YEAR 2020 WITHOUT PROJECT
COgeNT DATE: 04-24-03
GEONETRIC$: Existing
MOVEMENT
Northbound Left
Northtx~Jnd Through
Northbound Right
Smathbound Left
Southbound Through
Southbound Right
Eastbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbound Right
Westbound Left
Westbound Through
Westbound Right
LANES
CAPACITY
1 ?00
1700
1700
1 ?00
1700
1700
1700
1700
0
0
3400
0
BASE
VOLUME
CAM)
620 1080
270 1140
10 140
120 ?0
1600 1360
120 140
200 410
90 130
90 90
300 10
190 130
110 130
ADDED
VOLUME
CAN) CPM)
O 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
CAM) (PM)
620 1080
270 1140
10 140
t20 ?0
1600 1360
t20 140
ZOO
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 CRT) are assumed to occur on
r~d Light when there is separate RT fane & when
movement is permitted.
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION~ [CU (Sum of Components with *) ·
LEVEL Of SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 iCU; 1-.601-.7; C=.701-.8; 0=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=1.001+)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
(AN) (PM)
0.365* 0.635*
0.159 0,671
0,006 0.082
0;071 0.041
0.g41' 0.800*
0.071 0.082
0.118' 0.2&1'
0.106 0.129
0.000 o.oo0
0.000 0.000
0.176' 0.072*
0.000 0.000
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
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
120 - l&0
1. 1.0
ST
2!0
[18,100]
= Lanes
EL
200 - 410 --1.0~
90 - 130 --1.0 ET
90 ' 90 '-'O'O-~Rc
[36,9003
LEGEND: AN-PM Peek Hour
[Estimated 2-Way Dairy]
A
o [31,200] I
North
L--o.o-- 110 - 130
190 - 130
---0.0-- 300 - 10
gL
[ 7,900]
NT
-- Kunzman Associates
PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
A
No!th
1840 -1570 i18,7551 I
V
930 -1350 [12,540]
380 - 630 [ 5,555]
1510-1980 [18,0953
(2 Uay VoLumes)
2420 -3250 [31,185]
(Z Way Voturnes)
A
580 -1680 [12,~303
600 - 270 [ 4,785]
220 - 3/,0 [ 3,080]
820 - 610 [ 7w865]
(2 Way Vottznes)
1~0 -1460 [18,9~] 900 -2360 {17,9303
V
LEGEND: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Deily] I 2890 -3820 i36,9053
Deity = (AN+PM)* 5.5 V (2 gay Volumes)
Leg; North South East West
% Entering (AN-PM) 76 - 48 3t - 62 ~ - 44 22 - 32
% of DaiLy in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 10 - 8 7 - 11
Hour (AM-PM)
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 121of133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVEMUE (NS) and BYCAHORE AVEMUE (EU)
LAND USE: YEAR 2020 WITHOUT PROdECT
COUNT DATE: 04-24-03
GEOMETRICS: Improved
N(~/ENENT
North~umJ Left
#orth~ur~l Through
#orth~umd Right
$~thbound Left
Southbound Through
$outhbound RIght
CAPACITY
BASE
VOLUME
CAN)
ADDED
VOLUME
CAM) (PM)
TOTAL
VOLUME
(~) (pN)
Eastbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbound Right
Westbound Left
Westbound Through
WestbotJ~d Right
LANES
3400
3400
1700
1700
5100
0
620 1080
270 1140
10 140
120 70
1600 1360
120 140
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
620 1080
270 1140
10 140
120 7O
1600 1360
120 140
410
130
90
10
130
130
1700
1700
0
3400
0
Horth~und Right Turn Adjust~nt
Smth~und Right Turn Adjmtmt
Eastbound Right 1urn Adjust~nt
West~und R~ght Turn Adjust~nt
Clearance interval
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM)
0.182' 0,318'
0.079 0.335
0.006 0,082
0.071 0.0~1
0.337~ 0.294*
0.000 0.000
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*
200 410
90 130
90 90
300 10
190 130
110 130
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
200
90
90
300
190
110
0 % of right turns (RT) are ass~d to occur on
red tight when there is set, rate RT Lane & when
movement is permitted.
INTERSECTIOM CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of C~nents with *) .>
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.O00-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.?01-.8; 0=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0~
0.804 0.862
D O
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES
I A
120 - 140 o [31,200]
11600 -1360
North
120 - 7D
2!o
[18. 100]
= Lanes
EL
200 - 410 --2.0-]
90 - 130 --1.0 ET
90 - 90 --l'hRc
[36,900).
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour
[Estimated 2-Way Deity]
LO.O~ 110 - 1~0
VT 2.0--- 190 - 130
~[---0.0~ 300 - 10
L
[ 7,9003
NT
2.O .['~0R
-- Kunzman Associates
PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
A
Noeth
1860 -1570 [18,7551
930 ~1350 [12,5401
380 - 630 [ 5,555)
131,0 -1980 [18,095]
(2 Way VoIt~nes)
2420 -3250 [31,185)
CZ Way Voluees)
A
580 -1680 [12,430]
600 - 270 [ 4,785]
220 - 340 [ 3,080)
820 - 610 [ 7,865)
(2 Way Voids)
Ii
1990 -1460 [18,975] 900 '2360 [17,930)
V
LEGEMD: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Oai fy] ] 2890 -3820 [36,905]
Daily = {AN+PM},* 5.5 V C2 Way VoLumes)
Leg: North South East Uest
Entering (AM-PM) 76 - 48 31 - 62 73 - 44 29 - 32
of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 I0 - 8 7 - 11
Hour (AM-PM)
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 122 of 133
Year 2020 wrlth Project
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 123of 133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and WALNUT AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 0~+-24-03
LAND USE,' YEAR 2020 ~/ITH PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing
MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO
VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY
RATIO
(AH) (MN) CAM) CPM) CAM) CPM) (AM) (PM)
Northbound Left 1 1700 20 170 2 1 22 171 0,013' 0.101
No r t hloc~Jx~ Through 2 3400 300 890 7 3 307 893 0.090
#or thbo~qd Right 1 1700 80 120 3 2 83 122 O. 0/~9 0.072
$out hbo~ex~ Left 1 1700 90 200 0 0 90 200 0.053 O. 118*
Southbound Through 2 3400 1060 770 1 7' 1061 ~7 0.312' 0.229
Southbound Right 1 1700 20 50 0 0 20 50 0:012 0.029
Eastbodr~ Left 1 1700 10 10 0 0 10 10 0.006 O.O06'
Eastbound Through 2 3/~O0 270 190 0 0 27'0 190 O. 100* 0.06~
East bot~d Right 0 0 70 ~,0 0 2 70 ~.2 0.000 0.000
~estbo~x~ Left 1 1700 2/.0 40 1 3 2/.1 ~.3 0.142' 0.025
~/est bound Through 2 .~00 310 550 0 0 310 550 0.150 0.224*
Uestbound Right 0 0 200 210 0 0 200 210 0.000 0.000
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment 0 ~ of right turns CRT) are ass~ to occur on 0.000' 0.000'
Southbot~cl Right Turn Adjustment red tight when there is separate RT fane & when 0.000' 0.000'
EastbourxJ Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000'
t4estloound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000' 0.000'
Cteara~e Interval O.OSO* 0.050*
iNTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIOII, ICU (Sum of Components with *) > 0.617 0.661
LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.OO0-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.701-.8; D=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0; F=1.001+) B B
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF [NTERSECTZCL~I LEG VOLUMES
I A A A
20 - 50 o [21.100] I I I 1688-2140 [21,05/.]
I
V (2 Way Volunes)
1061 - 77'7 North North
1.1 . ~.0
m / , 0.0.~ 200 - 210 352- 771 [ 6,177! ~1 - 803 [ 8.547]
SR~ ~SL < <
~T 2.0~ 310 - 550
:;T __>
fl.0-- 241 - 63 350 - 242 [ 3,256] 4~.3 - 512 [ 5,253]
I
2'0 = Lanes ~L < > <-->
I ?OZ -1013 [ 9,4333 1194-1315 [13,800)
--o o--- (2 t~ay Votumes) (2 Nay volumes)
[ 9,600] [13,8003
270 - 1913 --2.0 ET NLmNR LEGEND: A
1~. AM-PM Peak Hour [DaiLy] I 1784
[21,076]
70 - 42 ~.0~ Z ! DaiLy = {AM+PM}* 5.5 V [2 Way Votunes)
R~- 1Z~ Leg: North South East West
[Z1,100] o 317 - 893 ~ Enteri~ CAM-PM) 69 - 48 23 - 58 63 - 61 50 -
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour J X of DaiLy in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 9 - 10 7 - 11
[Esti~ted 2-~/ay Dairy]J L2 - 171 Hour CAM-PM)
-- Ku~zman Associates-
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 124 of 133
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 Un$ignalized 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: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 580 0 0 1840 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 580 0 0 1840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 13
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 O 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 580 2 2 1840 0 0 0 0 10 0 13
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volu.~e: 0 580 2 2 1840 0 0 0 0 10 0 13
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 580 2 2 1840 0 0 0 0 10 0 13
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx
xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxx~ EMMXM 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 ~xxx~ 582 x~xx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1504 xx×x 290
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1002 xxxx ~xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 114 ~xxx 713
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1002 xxxx xxxxx ×~xx xxxx KXMXM 114 XXMX 713
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8,6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxx~ xxx~x
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 217 xxxxx
Shrd StpDet:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 23.5 xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * C *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 23.5
ApproachLOS: * * * C
Traffi× 7.5.0615 (c) 2001Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 125of133
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Tue Oct 7, 2003 13:32:53 Page 1-1
Tustin Place
Year Z020 With Project
Evening Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Newport Avenue (NS} / Project Entrance
Average Delay (sec/veh): 99.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: F
Approach: North Bound $o~h 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: 0 0 2 0 I 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1680 0 0 1570 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1680 0 0 1570 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 0 1680 l0 13 1570 0 0 0 0 5 0 6
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PH¥ Volume: 0 1680 10 13 1570 0 0 0 0 5 0 6
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 1680 10 13 1570 0 0 0 0 5 0 6
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx
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:
Cn~lict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1690 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2491 xxxx 840
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 383 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx x~xxx 25 xxxx 313
Move Cap.: Xx~x ~x ~xx 383 x~x 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 xxx~ xxxx xxxxx xxxx 49 xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:Mxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 99.7 xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * F *
Approa~hDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 99.7
ApproachLOS: * * * F
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 126 of 133
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:29:42 Page
Tustin Place
Year 2020 With Project
Morning Peak Hour - With Improvements
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignallzed Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection $1 Newport Avenue (NS) / Project Entrance
Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T R L T - R L T R
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 00201 00200 00000 00001
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 580 4 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 580 4 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 580 4 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 580 4 0 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxXX xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ~xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxXxx XXXXX xxxx 6.9
FollowUpTim:xxxxx x~xx xxxxx xxxxx axxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Kxxxx xxxxx XKXK 3.3
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxx~ xxxx xxxx xxxxx x~xx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 290
Potent Cap.: xxxE xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 713
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx ~xxx 713
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.2
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * B
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxX xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.2
ApproachLO$: * * * B
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 127of133
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:30:32 Page 1-1
Tustin Place
Year ZOO0 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: LT R L - T - R L - T - R L T R
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1680 23 0 1588 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Growth Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ].00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial B~e: 0 1680 23 0 1588 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1680 23 0 1588 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 1680 23 0 1588 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx ~xxxx M×MX~ XX~X XXXX~ XXXXX XXXM 6.9
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx×x xxxxx MXXM 3.3
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx× xxxx xxxx 840
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx zxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx ~xxxx xxxxx xxxx 16.9
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx~ xxx~x xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * ** ~ * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx~x 16.9
ApproachLOS: * * * C
Traffix 7.5.0615 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Kunzman Associates
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 128 of 133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEWPORT AVENUE (NS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE
LAND USE: YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT
140VEMEMT
Northbour~ Left
Northbound Through
Northbound Right
Southbound Left
Southbound Through
Southbound Right
Eastbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastbound Right
Westbound Left
Westl:~x~nd Through
Westbound Right
LANES
CAPACi TT
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
0
0
]400
0
BASE
VOLUME
(AM) CPM)
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) CPM)
0 0
1 6
0 0
Z 1
6 3
2 1
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
COUNT DATE: 04-24-03
6EOMETRICS: Existing
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment
Southbound Rtght Turn Adjustment
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment
Westbound Right Turn Adjustment
Clearance Interval
TOTAL
VOLUME
(AM) (PM)
620 1080
271 1146
10 140
122 71
1606 1363
122 141
200 &12
90 130
90 90
300 10
190 130
110 132
0 % of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur
on
red Light when there is separate RT Lane & when
movement is permitted.
INTERSECTIOM CAPACITY UTILIZAT]OH, 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
(AN) (PM)
0.~65' 0.635*
0.159 0.6?4
0.006 0.082
0.072 0.1)42
0.945* 0.802*
o.o~ O.OE1
0.118*
0.106 0,129
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.176' 0.080'
0.000 0.000
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0,000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.050* 0.050'
1.654 1.809
F F
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES
122- 161
1606 - 1363
J 122 -
1.11.o
SR--]
210. = Lanes
[18,100]
EL
200 - 412 --1.0-J
90 - 130 --1.0 ET
90 - 90 --O.hR~
[37,000]
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour
[Estimated 2-Way Daily]
A
[31,300]
No th
~-0.0-- 110 - 132
190 - 130
-.-0.0-- 300 - 10
WL
[ 7,900]
NT
HLi~. 1.0 I.oNR
I L.,4o
PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
A
North
1850-15T5
932 -1351 [12,55~
380 - 632 [ 5,566]
131~ -1983 [18,1~3]
CZ Way VoLumes)
t996 -1463 [19,025]
2431 -3265 [31,328]
(Z Way Vol~s)
A
581 -1690 [~2o~91]
600 - 2~ [ 4,796]
222 - 341 [ 3,097]
822 - 613 [ 7,8933
(2 Way Volumes)
A
I901 -2366 (17,969]
LEGEND~ A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Dally]I28~7 -3829 [36,~3]
Daily = (AM+PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Votumes)
Leg: North South East West
Entering (AM-PM) 76 - G8 ~1 - 62 73 - 44 29 - 32
of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 10 - 8 ? - 11
Hour (AM-PM)
-- Kunzman Associates,
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 129of 133
INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION
INTERSECTION: NEUPORT AVENUE (NS) and SYCAMORE AVENUE
LAND USE: YEAR 2020 WiTH PROJECT
MOVEMEMT
Northbound Left
Northbour~:~ Through
Northbound Right
Southbound Left
Southbound Thro~jh
Southbound Right
Eastbound Left
Eastbound Through
Eastkx~Jnd Right
Westbound Left
Westbound Through
Westboza~d Right
LANES
CAPACITY
]400
3400
17O0
17OO
5100
0
3400
1 ?00
1700
0
34OO
0
BASE
VOLUME
(AM) CPM)
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
(A~) (PM)
0 0
I 6
0 0
2 1
6 3
2 1
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
COUNT DATE: 04-24-03
GEOMETRICS: I~rl~roved
TOTAL
VOLUME
CAR) (PM)
Northbound Right Turn Adjustment i
Southbound Right Turn Adjustment
Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment
gestbound Right Turn Adjustment
Cteerance Interval
620 1080
271 1146
10 140
122 71
1606 1363
122 141
200 412
90 130
90 90
300 10
100 130
110 132
0 % of right turns CRT) are assumed to occur on
red Light when there is separate RT lane & when
movement is permitted.
[NTERSECTIOfl CAPACITY UTILIZATION~ ICU (Sum of Cc~nponents with *) ·
LEVEL OF SERVICE CA=.O00-.6 ICU; B=.601-.7; C=.?01-.8; 0=.801-.9; E=.901-1.0: F=1.001.)
VOLUME TO
CAPACITY
RATIO
(AM) (PM)
0,182' 0.318'
0.080 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
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.000' 0.000'
0.050' 0.050*
0.806 0.B64
D O
PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLLAMES AND LANES
1ZZ - 141
I1606 -1363
o.I 3!o t.0
SR--I IT I--SL
2!0 = Lanes
[18,100!
EL
200 - 412 --2.DJ
90 - 130 --1.0--ET
90 - 90--1.C~R
[37,0003
LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour
[Estimated 2-gay Daily]
I A
o [31,3003 I
Rorth
LO,O-- 110 - 132
WT Z.O-- 190 - 130
n--O.O~ 300 - IQ
WL
[ 7,9003
NT
-- Kunzman Associates
PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES
A
North
1850-1575 C18,8~83 I
V
932 -1351 [12,557]
380 - 632 [ 5,566]
1312-1983 [18,1233
(2 Uay Volumes)
1996 -1463 [19,0253 I
V
2431 -3265 [31,3283
(2 Way volumes)
A
581 -1690 [12,4915
600 - 272 [ 4,796]
>
222 - 341 [ 3,097]
822 - 613 [ ?,89])
(2 Way Votunes)
A
I901 -2366 [1Z,969]
LEGEND: A
AM-PM Peak Hour [Daily] , 2897 -3829
Daily = (AM+PM~* 5.5 V (2 gay VoIunes)
Leg: North South East West
Entering (AM-PM) 76 - 48 ]1 - 62 7'5 - 44 29 - ~2
of DalLy in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 10 - 8 ? - 11
Nour (AM-PM]
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 130 of 133
APPENDIX D
City of Tustin
Improvement Standard No. 510
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 131of 133
· ---. LIlY,TED US[ AREA
AND CROSS TEAFFIC
OISYANCE (~.)
UA JOE
PRIMLY
SECONDARY 550 450~ 18 38 .6
COMMUTER 500 360 j '0 0 0 '
CO~ECTOR 390 ~50 0 0 0
m X AND X' UPON A STANO~RD
s I' s('; ~' x' x"
IdAJOR 660 580 37 3'7 13
PRIMLY 610 500 25 25 13
SECONDARY 550 450 18 lB .6
COMMUTER 500 360 '0 0 0
COLLECTOR 390 250 0 0 O
LOCAL 28,0 150 0 0 0
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 132 of 133
1. THE DISTANCE S REPRESENTS TH[ OORNER SIGHT DISTANCE MEASURED ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF THE; ROAD. THE; CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE IS THE 01STANCE REOUIRED TO
ALLOW 7. 1/2 SECONDS FOR THE DRIVER ON THE CROSS ROAD (OR LEFT TURN POCKET) 1'O
'SAFELY CROSS TH[ MAIN ROADWAY OR TURN LEFT WHILE THE APPROACH VEHICLE TRAVFLS
AT THE ASSUMFD DESIGN SPEED OF THE MAIN ROADWAY.
2.. THE DISTANCE S SHOULD BE INCREASED BY 20H FROM THE AMOUNT SHOWN ON THE TABLE
ON SUSTAINED DOWNGRADES STEEPER THAN 5~ AND LONGER THAN ONE; MILE.
3. POINTS A AND A' AI~£ THE LOCATIONS OF A DRIVER'S LINE OF SIGHT (3,5 FOOT EYE HEIGHT)
TO ONCOMINC VEHICLES (4.2,.5 FOOT OBJECT HEIGHT) LOCATED AT POINTS C AND C' WHIL£
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 FIrET FROM THE EDGE OF THE
TRAY[bED W~Y.
4. THE DISTANCE ¥' I$ THE DISTANCE MEASUE£D FROM THE C[NTERLINE OF THE MAIN ROAD
TO THE FAR RIGHT THROUGH TRAVEL LANE. THE DISTANCE Y' I$ EQUAL TO ZERO FOR
T-INTERSECTIONS. THE DISTANCE X I$ THE DISTANCE )4EASUEED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF
THE MAIN ROAD TO THE FAR RIGHT THROUGH TRAVEL LAN[. TH[ DISTANCE X' I$ THE
DISTANCE MEASURED FROM TH[ CEHTE;RLINE OF TH[ MAIN-ROAD TO THE CENTRE OF TH[
TRAVEL LANE NEAREST THE CENTERLINE OF THE ROAD.
5. THE, LIMITED USE AREA IS DETERMINED' BY THE GRAFHICAL METHOD USING THE APPROPRIATE
DISTANCES GIVEN IN TH[ TABLE ON STANOARO PLAN 510 SHEET I. IT SHALL BE USED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF' PROHIBITINi; OR CLEARING OBSTRUCTIONS IN DEl)ER TO' MAINTAIN
ADEOUATE .SIOHT DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS.
6. THE t. INE OF SIGHT lINE SHALL BE; SHOWN AT INTERSECTIONS ON ALL I.ANOSCAPING PLANS,
GRADINGS PLANS AND TENTATIVE TRACT PI, ANS WHERE
OUESTIONABLE. IN CASE;S WHERE AN 'INTER~ECTION IS LOCATED ON A VERTICAL.CURVE, A
PROF1LE AT THE ,UNE OF SIGHT MAY HE REQUIRED.
7. OBSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS BUS CjHELTERS, WALLS OR LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE LIMITED USE
AREA WHICH COULD RESTRICT THE LINE OF SIOHT SHALL NOT. BE PERMITTED,
A, PLANTS AND SHRUBS WITHIN THE LIMITED USE AREA SHALL BE OF THE TYPE
THAT WILL GROW NO HIGHER THAN 12 INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND AND SHALL
BE NiAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF '12, INCHES ABOVE THE GI~OUND',
MAINTENANCE AT A LOWER HEIGHT MAY BE .REQUIRED ON CREST VER,TICA!?
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 OI~S'I'RUCTIONS SUCH A~
SLOPE LANDSCAPING, PLANTS AND SHRUBS.
C, THE TOE OF SLOPE MAY ENCROACH INTO THE UMITED USE ARE~ PROVIDED THAT
THE REOUIREWENT$ OF (B) ABOVE ARE SATISFIED,
D. IN LIEU OF PROVIDING A PROFILE OF THE LINE OF SIGHT; THE TOE OF SLOPE
SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO THE LIMITED USE AREA, AND THE LIMITED USE AREA
SHALL SLOPE AT 2% MAXIMUM TO THE; ROADWAY,
B. TREES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN ANY PORTION OF THE LIMITED USE AREA, UNLESS
APPROVED BY .THE CITY ENGINEER.
9. I~IEDIAH AREAS [,,ESS THAN 5 FEET IN WIOTH SHALL BE' PAVED WITH CONCRETE ~$ DIRECTED
BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
iD. RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS SERVING FOUR OR MORE UNITS AND COMMERCIAL DRIv[~NAY~ SHALl.
BE TREATED AS A LOCAL STREET INTEES£CTION.
'.. NO SCALE
' ~' ~OTION ~ DISTANCE
Resolution No. 03-130
Page 133of 133