Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 MCAS PLAN AMEND & DEV AGMNT 04/03/07Agenda Item 2 Reviewed: >� City Manager r AGENDA REPORTFinance Director Nin MEETING DATE: APRIL 3, 2007 TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (ZONE CHANGE 07-001) AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-002 SUMMARY: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (Zone Change 07-001) and Development Agreement (DA) 06-002 are proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (the developer), a Delaware limited liability company. Zone Change 07-001 generally would allow tandem parking in residential developments and compact spaces in non- residential developments and would specify their required dimensions. Zone Change 07-001 would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The purpose of DA 06-002 is to give the developer certain assurance that in return for Developer's commitment to the comprehensive planning for the Property that is contained in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and the Specific Plan, the City will in turn remain committed to the DDA and the Specific Plan. The City Attorney is working with the Tustin Legacy Community Partners legal counsel on this matter; therefore, DA 06-002 was not forwarded to the Planning Commission. On March 27, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Zone Change 07-001 and continued Development Agreement 06-002. Applicant: Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 07-33 finding that the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin ("FEIS/FEIR") and its Addendum is adequate to serve as the project FEIS/EIR for Zone Change 07-001 and that all applicable mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. City Council Report April 3, 2007 Page 2 2. Introduce and have first reading, by title only, of Ordinance No. 1335 approving Zone Change 07-001 and set for second reading at the Council's next scheduled meeting. 3. Continue Development Agreement 06-002 to next City Council meeting of April 17, 2007. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed Zone Change is an applicant -initiated project. The applicant has paid applicable fees for the processing of this project. BACKGROUND The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on February 3, 2003 (Ordinance No. 1257), establishing the zoning designation, development standards, and entitlement framework for future development of that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin ("Tustin Legacy"), including property within the Master Development footprint. The Specific Plan conforms to and implements the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and the City's General Plan. Since the original adoption of the Specific Plan, minor amendments to the Specific Plan have been approved as follows: On March 7, 2005, the Tustin City Council approved Specific Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-03 modifying certain Specific Plan site development standards as it affects Planning Area 4 and 5 (Ordinance No. 1297). The applicant on this request was Marble Mountain Partners, LLC. • On March 7, 2005, the Tustin City Council also prezoned MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36 from the City of Irvine to the City of Tustin and amended the Specific Plan to establish Tustin site development standards for Disposition Parcel 36 (Ordinance Nos. 1294 and 1295). Disposition Parcel 36 was subsequently annexed to the City of Tustin. The applicant on this request was Marble Mountain Partners, LLC. On June 5, 2005, the Tustin Council approved Specific Plan Amendment 05-001 (Ordinance No. 1299). The purpose of the amendment was to facilitate the application and implementation of some of the requirements contained in the Specific Plan, and provide for minor clarifications and modifications as it primarily related to density calculations, the definition of a development unit, and the transfer or residential units between planning areas. The City was the applicant on this request. On April 17, 2006, the Tustin Council approved Specific Plan Amendment 05-002 (Ordinance No. 1311). The purpose of the amendment was to facilitate the City Council Report April 3, 2007 Page 3 implementation of a refined master development plan for Tustin Legacy. The applicant on this request was Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. On March 20, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-29 approving the First Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA Amendment) between the City of Tustin, Tustin Public Financing Authority, and Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. for the Master Developer site. DISCUSSION Minor Amendments to the MCAS Specific Plan are proposed to support improvements planned within the master developer footprint (Attachment A). The applicant has indicated that the proposed amendment would allow the developer to maximize architectural diversity and marketability, and offset potential loss of units created by the constraints of planned block sizes. The proposed amendments include the following: Table 3-4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to read as follows: TABLE 3-4 RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS ALL REUSE PLAN DISPOSITION PARCELS EXCEPT PARCEL 36 Number of Number of Spaces Covered/Assigned Unassigned Housing Type Required Spaces per Units Guest Spaces }2 Detached Single -Family 2.0 2 Garage .5 per unit Attached Single -Family Studio 1.0 1 Garage .25 per unit 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Garage .25 per unit 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage .25 per unit 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage .25 per unit 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Garage .25 per unit Condominium and Multiple - Family Units Studio 1.0 1 Garage or carport .25 per unit 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Garage or carport .25 per unit 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage or carport .25 per unit 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage or carport .25 per unit 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Garage or carport .25 per unit Patio Homes 12.0 12 Garage 10.5 per unit 1 Not more than 40 percent of a Building Site's attached residential units within Neighborhood G, and all attached residential units within Neighborhood D may utilize tandem spaces to satisfy the requirement for covered parking_ 42 50 percent of the guest space required may be fulfilled with on -street parking. City Council Report April 3, 2007 Page 4 RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS REUSE PLAN DISPOSITION PARCEL 36 ONLY Number of Number of Spaces CoveredlAssigned Unassigned Housing Type Required Spaces per Unit Guest Spaces Detached Single -Family 1 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage Public/Private 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage Street frontage 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage 4 or more Bedroom 3.0 2 Garage Attached Development, Ownership3 Studio 1.0 1 Covered .7 spaces/unit if 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Covered garages 2 or more Bedroom 2.0 1 Covered .4 spaces/unit if carports Resident spaces may be tandem. 2 If on -street parking is not permitted or is restricted on the unit's street frontage, then 1 visitor parking space shall be required for each affected unit. This visitor space shall be located not more than 100 feet from the unit's street frontage. This space cannot be tandem. 3 On -street parking may count toward fulfilling visitor parking requirements if on a private street. Tandem parking may not count toward fulfilling visitor parking requirements. Section 3.13.1.J of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to read: J. Parking Stall Dimensions and Parking Lot Design: Except as otherwise provided herein, P -parking space dimensions, compact car accommodations, and parking lot design shall be provided in accordance with the parking standards and guidelines on file in the City of Tustin or Irvine Community Development Department, as applicable. in �rrnaFy�hthe Gita of Tustin-, tThe following parking standards shall be provided: 1. Within Planning Areas 7 through 15: An enclosed qaraqe parkinq space clear and unobstructed inside dimension shall be not less than 10 feet by 20 feet. All other standard spaces shall be not less than 9 feet by 18 feet, except that a parking _space abuttinq a solid wall within a parkina structure shall be not less than 10'-6" by 18 feet. • The minimum width of any two-way drive aisle serving a parking space shall be not less than 24 feet. When parking spaces are located within a parking structure, any supporting column shall be City Council Report April 3, 2007 Page 5 set back two (2) feet from the drive aisle as measured from the centerline of the column. • Up to 20 percent of the parking spaces required for non-residential use may be designed and designated for compact cars. A compact parking space shall be not less than 8 feet by 16 feet. Compact spaces may not be used to satisfy any portion of the required number of covered/assigned spaces or guest spaces for residential developments. Where authorized in Table 3-4, an enclosed tandem garage space clear and unobstructed inside dimension shall be not less than 10 feet by 40 feet. Where located in an open parking structure a tandem space clear and unobstructed dimension shall be not less than 9 feet by 36 feet. 2. For all other Planning Areas: Each parking space shall be a rectangular area 9 feet by 20 feet. A 2Y2 foot overhang area over low level landscaping shall be permitted. Parking accommodations for compact cars may be provided with such designated spaces being not less than 8 feet by 17 feet. Up to 20% ep rcent of the required parking spaces of the site may be designated for compact cars, upon the approval of the Community Development Director. ENVIRONMENTAL On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin (FEIS/EIR). On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. Subsequently, the City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for the DDA Amendment (approved on March 20, 2007), DA 06- 002, and ZC 07-001 for the proposed project. The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. .,. Senior Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director City Council Report April 3, 2007 Page 6 Attachments: A. Location Map B. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 4058 and 4059 C. City Council Resolution No. 07-33 D. Ordinance No. 1335 ATTACHMENT A Location Map RE MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Planning Areas Master Developer Project Boundary ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 4058 and 4059 RESOLUTION NO. 4058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN ("FEIS/FEIR") AND ITS ADDENDUM IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-002 AND MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (ZONE CHANGE 07-001) AND THAT ALL APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That Development Agreement (DA) 06-002 is proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (the developer), a Delaware limited liability company. The purpose of proposed Development Agreement 06-002 is to give the developer certain assurances that in return for Developer's commitment to the comprehensive planning for the Property that is contained in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and the Specific Plan, the City will in turn remain committed to the DDA and the Specific Plan; B. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (Zone Change 07-001) is proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (the developer), a Delaware limited liability company. Zone Change 07-001 does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan. Instead, Zone Change 07-001 generally would allow tandem parking in residential developments and compact spaces in non-residential developments and would specify their required dimensions. Zone Change 07-001 would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; C. That DA 06-002 and the Zone Change 07-001 are considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; D. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential Resolution No. 4058 Page 2 environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin; E. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement Amendment, DA 06- 002 and Zone Change 07-001 for the proposed project, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does not result in any 'new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. II. The Planning Commission finds that the project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15168 (c) and 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 27th day of March, 2007. 3i r `7 BRE.TT FLOYD Chairperson`_—' ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4058 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27th day March, 2007. f /p ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Please see Exhibit 1 City Council Resolution No. 07-33 for Environmental Checklist and Analysis RESOLUTION NO. 4059 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (ZONE CHANGE 07-001) TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (TLCP) proposes Amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Zone Change 07-001). Zone Change 07-001 does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan. Instead, Zone Change 07-001 generally would allow tandem parking in residential developments and compact spaces in non-residential developments and would specify their required dimensions. Zone Change 07-001 would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on March 27, 2007, by the Planning Commission. C. Zone Change 07-001 is considered a "project" subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.). D. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. E. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement Amendment, DA 06- 002 and Zone Change 07-001 for the proposed project, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes, or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no Resolution No. 4059 Page 2 new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. F. Zone Change 07-001 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area: 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city-wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master -planned development. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Ordinance No. 1335 adopting MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (Zone Change 07-001), attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 27th day of March, 2007. BRETT FLOYD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4059 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27th day March, 2007. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4059 Draft Ordinance No. 1335 ORDINANCE NO. 1335 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (ZONE CHANGE 07-001) TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (TLCP) proposes Amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Zone Change 07-001). Zone Change 07-001 does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan. Instead, Zone Change 07-001 generally would allow tandem parking in residential developments and compact spaces in non-residential developments and would specify their required dimensions. Zone Change 07-001 would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on March 27, 2007, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Zone Change 07-001. C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on April 3, 2007, by the City Council. D. Zone Change 07-001 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city-wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master -planned development. Ordinance No. 1335 Page 2 SECTION 2. Table 3-4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: TABLE 3-4 RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS (ALL REUSE PLAN DISPOSITION PARCELS EXCEPT PARCEL 36) Number of Number of Number of Number of Spaces Spaces Covered/Assigned Unassigned Housing Type Required Spaces per Univ Guest S aces'2 Detached Sin le -Family 2.0 2 Garage .5 per unit Attached Single -Family 2 Garage Public/Private 2 Bedroom Studio 1.0 1 Garage .25 per unit 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Garage .25 per unit 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage .25 per unit 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage .25 per unit 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Garage .25 per unit Condominium and Multiple - 1 Covered .7 spaces/unit if 1 Bedroom Family Units 1 Covered garages 2 or more Bedroom Studio 1.0 1 Garage or carport .25 per unit 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Garage or carport .25 per unit 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage or carport .25 per unit 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage or carport .25 per unit 4 Bedroom 12.5 12 Garage or carport 1.25 per unit Patio Homes 2.0 12 Garage 10.5 per unit Not more than 40 percent of a Building Site's attached residential units within Neighborhood G and all attached residential units within Neighborhood D may utilize tandem spaces to satisfy the requirement for covered parking. }2 50 percent of the guest space required may be fulfilled with on -street parking. RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS (REUSE PLAN DISPOSITION PARCEL 36 ONLY) Number of Number of Spaces Covered/Assigned Unassigned Housing Type Required Spaces per Unit Guest Spaces Detached Single -Family 1 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage Public/Private 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage Street frontageZ 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage 4 or more Bedroom 3.0 2 Garage Attached Development, Ownership3 Studio 1.0 1 Covered .7 spaces/unit if 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Covered garages 2 or more Bedroom 2.0 1 Covered .4 spaces/unit if carports Resident spaces may be tandem. Z If on -street parking is not permitted or is restricted on the unit's street frontage, then I visitor parking space shall be required for each affected unit. This visitor space shall be located not more than 100 feet from the unit's street frontage. This space cannot be tandem. 3 On -street parking may count toward fulfilling visitor parking requirements if on a private street. Tandem parking may not count toward fulfilling visitor parking requirements. Ordinance No. 1335 Page 3 SECTION 3. Section 3.13.1.J of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read: J. Parking Stall Dimensions and Parking Lot Design: Except as otherwise provided herein, 42parking space dimensions, compact car accommodations, and parking lot design shall be provided in accordance with the parking standards and guidelines on file in the City of Tustin or Irvine Community Development Department, as applicable. , tThe following parking standards shall be provided: 1 Within Planning Areas 7 through 15: An enclosed garage parking space clear and unobstructed inside dimension shall be not less than 10 feet by 20 feet. All other standard spaces shall be not less than 9 feet by 18 feet, except that a parking space abutting a solid wall within a parking structure shall be not less than 10'-6" by 18 feet. The minimum width of any two-way drive aisle serving a parking space shall be not less than 24 feet. When parking spaces are located within a parking structure any supporting column shall be set back two (2) feet from the drive aisle as measured from the centerline of the column. Up to 20% of the parking spaces required for non-residential use may be designed and designated for compact cars. A compact parking space shall be not less than 8 feet by 16 feet. Compact spaces may not be used to satisfy any portion of the required number of covered/assigned spaces or quest spaces for residential developments. Where authorized in Table 3-4 an enclosed tandem garage space clear and unobstructed inside dimension shall be not less than 10 feet by 40 feet Where located in an open parking structure a tandem space clear and unobstructed dimension shall be not less than 9 feet by 36 feet. 2 For all other Planning Areas: Each parking space shall be a rectangular area 9 feet by 20 feet. A 2'/2 foot overhang area over low level landscaping shall be permitted. Parking accommodations for compact cars may be Ordinance No. 1335 Page 4 provided with such designated spaces being not less than 8 feet by 17 feet. Up to 20%ep rcent of the required parking spaces of the site may be designated for compact cars, upon the approval of the Community Development Director. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish the purpose of the regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall apply only to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall continue to be fully effective. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 3rd day of April, 2007. LOU BONE Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1335 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 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1335 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of April, 2007, and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2007 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk ATTACHMENT C City Council Resolution No. 07-33 RESOLUTION NO. 07-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN ("FEIS/FEIR") AND ITS ADDENDUM IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (ZONE CHANGE 07-001) AND THAT ALL APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (Zone Change 07-001) is proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (the developer), a Delaware limited liability company. Zone Change 07-001 does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan. Instead, Zone Change 07-001 generally would allow tandem parking in residential developments and compact spaces in non-residential developments and would specify their required dimensions. Zone Change 07-001 would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; B. That Zone Change 07-001 is considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; C. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin; D. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for Zone Change 07-001 for the proposed project, attached as Exhibit 1 hereto. The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; Resolution No. 07-33 Page 2 E. The Planning Commission considered the Environmental Checklist on March 27, 2007, and adopted Resolution No. 4058 recommending the City Council to approve the Environmental Checklist; F. That the City Council has considered the Environmental Checklist along with the FEIS/EIR and its addendum prior to making a decision on Zone Change 07-001 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 (c) and 15162, and approves the Environmental Checklist, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. II. The City Council finds that the project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15168 (c) and 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 3rd day of April, 2007. LOU BONE MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do 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. 07-33 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3`d day of April, 2007 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT 1 TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 07-33 Environmental Checklist and Analysis COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Disposition and Development Agreement 05-01 Amendment, Development Agreement 06-002, and Specific Plan Amendment 07-001 Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3115 Project Location: Neighborhoods B, D, E, and G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC 26840 Aliso Viejo Parkway, Suite 100 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP -1 Specific Plan), Neighborhoods B, D, E, and G Project Description: Proposed amendment of a previously approved Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA 05 -01 -Master Developer), Development Agreement 06-002, between the City of Tustin and Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC, and Minor Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (See attachment A for further project description). Surrounding Uses: North: Edinger Avenue and Residential Uses East: Jamboree Road/Industrial Uses South: Light Industrial/Business Parks West: Red Hill Avenue, Business Complexes B. Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on April 3, 2006. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality r-1 Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier FIR 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. Preparers'' Date: Justina Willkom, Senior Planner lit. Date--.�, Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Date Christine A. Shingleton, A&tant City Manager D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attachment A attached to this Checklist EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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'? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use'? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract'? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use'? III. AIR OUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan'? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions 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'? No Substantial Neu, 'yore Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts ,4naly.cis ❑ ❑ FI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ 11 11 ❑ El IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'? b) [lave a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means'? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites'? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance'? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan'? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5'? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature'? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries'? V1. 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: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Anah,sis ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EJ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault'? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking'? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides'? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil'? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse'? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property'? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school'? 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'! t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? No .Substantial New ,Yore Change From .Slgniticant .Severt Previous frnp(lct lnI)acts Anull'sis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands'? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)'? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site'? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site'? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality'? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map'? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows'? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam'? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow'? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING— Would the project: ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact hnpacts Analysis adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan'? ❑ ❑El h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands'? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)'? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site'? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site'? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality'? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map'? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows'? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam'? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow'? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING— Would the project: ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El a) Physically divide an established community'? 0 ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect'? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan'? X. MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan'? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies`? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels'? I) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere'? ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection'? Schools? Parks'? Other public facilities'? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment'? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)'? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways'? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)'? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity'? D ❑ � No Substantial ❑ Nein More Change From El Sign yicant Severe Previous ❑ Impact Impacts .4nalt•sis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere'? ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection'? Schools? Parks'? Other public facilities'? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment'? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)'? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways'? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)'? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity'? D ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ El g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would YSTEMS—Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects'? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed'? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments'? t) 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 of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory'? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable'? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly'? ❑ ❑ 171 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts .4nulysis ❑ ❑ 171 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 171 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ 11 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 05-01 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-002 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 07-001 NEIGHBORHOODS B, D, E, AND G OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EIS/EIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the Navy (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy (NEPA). The FEIS/EIR analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The DoN published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed, the agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is required. For the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) Amendment, Development Agreement (DA), and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) project, the City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided below to determine if the project is within the scope of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and if new effects would occur as a result of the project. PROJECT LOCATION The property subject to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA 05 -01 -Master Developer, hereinafter the "Original DDA"), Proposed DDA Amendment, Development Agreement (DA) 06-002, and Specific Plan Amendment 07-001 consists of approximately 820 acres at Tustin Legacy. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs and was officially closed in Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 2 July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (I-5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (I-405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barranca Parkway on the south. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the north providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. The Property is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. That portion of the Property subject to the Original DDA, Proposed DDA Amendment, Proposed DA 06-002, and Proposed Specific Plan Amendment is within an 820 acre footprint. The estimate of Property within this footprint that might ultimately be conveyed to the Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC (Developer) for private development as identified in the Original DDA is approximately 420 acres in size. The Property subject to the Original DDA, Proposed DDA Amendment, Proposed DA 06-002, and Proposed Specific Plan Amendment also includes property that will not be transferred by the City to the Developer, including property owned or to be owned by the City of Tustin, the Tustin Unified School District including but not limited to certain public uses, public utilities, and public right-of-way areas, and approximately 15 acres of property that could be privately developed; however, a final disposition of ownership decision could not be made at the time of execution of the Original DDA (this is the 15 acre "Hangar Parcel"). The majority of the Property subject to the Original DDA, Proposed DDA Amendment, Proposed DA 06-002, and Proposed Specific Plan Amendment is currently owned by the City of Tustin. A portion of the Property is also currently owned by the Department of the Navy and is expected to be transferred to the City of Tustin subject to the Navy's issuance of a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) and deed provisions mutually acceptable to the Navy and City. The City will transfer the Property for private development to the Developer (unless excluded pursuant to the Original DDA) in phases. PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY Historically, the Property was used as a Marine Corps helicopter training facility. Currently, the actual footprint of the Property is largely undeveloped land that was previously used for interim agricultural out -leasing by the Marines, and also improved with landing strips and tarmac areas. Permits for demolition of abandoned buildings on the Property have been issued and existing facilities are in the process of being removed, with obsolete infrastructure also programmed for removal. The City has nearly completed a Phase I roadway project, the Valencia/Armstrong project, which included some demolition of tarmac areas, landing strips, and demolition of some obsolete utilities. The Valencia/Armstrong project also included the installation of water and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 3 sewer Backbone Infrastructure on a portion of the Property and interim storm drain retention facilities. Interim earth work and mass grading of the Property by the Developer is also proposed to begin shortly. As required by the Original DDA, the Developer has obtained approval of a Sector A Map which encompasses the entire Property and is completing preconditions to the Phase I conveyance. The Developer has also begun processing the Sector B maps for MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Neighborhoods E and G, and the required accompanying Concept Plans for each Neighborhood (Neighborhoods D, E, and G). Sector B Map for Neighborhood D is expected to be submitted shortly. Certain major amendments or refinements to the DDA and Specific Plan Amendment are being requested to facilitate submittals and to clarify Original DDA terms and conditions as described in more detail under the DDA section. PROJECT COMPONENTS The project evaluated in this environmental review includes two components described further in sections below: • DDA (Master Developer) Amendments • Development Agreement 06-002 0 Specific Plan Amendment 07-001 AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL DDA Background The Original DDA was entered into by and between the City of Tustin and Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC (TLCP), a Delaware limited liability company on May 3, 2006. The original DDA sets forth the parameters of development and conveyance by the City of Tustin and Tustin Public Financing Authority (hereinafter the "Agency") of certain property at Tustin Legacy (the former MCAS Tustin) to TLCP. Members of the TLCP include Centex Homes, Shea Homes, and Shea Properties (the "Developer"). Under the original DDA, TLCP will serve as the master developer, the land development entity that will entitle the Property, build out certain defined Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, and then sell finished development parcels to residential builders for construction of vertical improvements (homes) in Neighborhood D and rough graded parcels to builders for constriction of vertical residential and non-residential development in Neighborhoods B, D and E. TLCP have indicated that they will also act as vertical builders for a large portion of the Property. The DDA contemplates that certain portions of the Property will be developed by third party developers. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 4 Pursuant to the Original DDA, a scope of development (Attachment 28), schedule of performance (Attachment 17), and a variety of terms and conditions required of TLCP were identified. In the Original DDA, the Property was proposed to be developed around four (4) potential conveyance phases to the Developer: Phase 1 began in September 2006, Phase 2 begins in September 2009, Phase 3 begins in July 2011, and Phase 4 to be defined pursuant to the process defined in the Original DDA. The Original DDA establishes certain key terms, including but not limited to, the phasing and conditions precedent to the Agency's obligation to sell and convey each phase of the Property to the Developer, the purchase price of the property, profit participation payments, obligations of the Developer for deconstruction of the Property, and development of the Property under the established schedule of performance including obligations for construction of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure and Local Infrastructure. Description of DDA Amendments Minor amendments to clarify the language in Sections 1. 13, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 of the Original DDA related to default provisions in the Original DDA and the Attachment 17 Schedule of Performance. 2. Neighborhood E: A modification to the scope of development to relocate the Sports Park/detention basin originally proposed at Red Hill and Warner Avenue. The detention basin component would be incorporated into detention facilities within the Linear Park and constructed with Phase 1 of the Linear Park, whereas the Sports Park component would be relocated to Phase 2. Commercial/business uses would replace the original sports park site in Phase 1. The sports park relocation site would be at the southeast of the extension of Carnegie and the Linear Park. This amendment required a financial review to confirm that the amendment has not created net positive financial impacts on land value when all DDA Amendments are considered, based on the Final DDA Pro Forma (more specifically, the Business Plan residual land values) considered in the Original DDA (this is when all DDA changes requested are taken into consideration). Based on the proposed DDA Amendment language and conditions including revisions to Attachments 17 and 28, a determination has been made that the DDA Amendment will have an immaterial impact on the original value assumptions as contained in the DDA Business Plan cash flow model and would not require an adjustment in proposed land payments to the City of Tustin. 3. Neighborhood G: A modification to relocate and defer construction of a Congregate Care facility at Valencia and Tustin Ranch Road until Phase 2 and to replace the original Congregate Care site in Phase 1 with residential uses. The Proposed DDA Amendment also required a financial review to confirm that the amendment has not created a net positive impact on land values when all DDA amendments are considered based on the Final DDA Pro Forma (more specifically, the Business Plan residual land values) considered in the Original DDA (this is when all DDA changes requested are taken into consideration). Based on the proposed DDA Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 5 Amendment including revisions to Attachments 17 and 28, a determination has been made that the DDA Amendment will have an immaterial impact on the original value assumptions as contained in the DDA Business Plan cash flow model and would not require an adjustment in proposed land payments to the City of Tustin. 4. Neighborhood D: The Developer modified the square footage distributions within the portion of the Community Core located south of Warner Avenue (Planning Areas 13 and 14) consistent with the Implementation Strategy required by the Original DDA that was previously considered and approved by the City Council for this area. The Proposed DDA Amendment has also required a financial review to confirm that the DDA Amendment has not created a net positive impact on land values when all DDA Amendments are considered based on the Final DDA Pro Forma (more specifically, the Business Plan residual land values) considered in the Original DDA (this is when all DDA changes requested are taken into consideration). Based on the proposed DDA Amendment including revisions to Attachments 17 and 28, a determination has been made that the DDA Amendment will have an immaterial impact on the original value assumptions as contained in the DDA Business Plan cash flow model and would not require an adjustment in proposed land payments to the City of Tustin. 5. Minor alterations to the Original DDA Schedule of Performance (Attachment 17 and Exhibit F of Attachment 28) are proposed. 6. The Developer proposes to delete a grade separated vehicular under -crossing at Tustin Ranch Road just north of the Community Park that is currently shown as a Developer required Backbone Infrastructure Improvement in Attachment 10 of the Original DDA (improvement 129) and replace it with a grade separated pedestrian/bicycle bridge over - crossing between the Neighborhood and Linear Park proposed along the east side of Tustin Ranch Road and the north side of the Community Park located on the west side of Tustin Ranch Road north of Legacy Crossing. Costs associated with this modification will need to be considered pursuant to item #7 below. 7. Instead of six (6) arches within the Linear Park as required by the Original DDA's provisions for Local Infrastructure Improvements, the Developer will be required to construct an iconic grade separated pedestrian bridge structure with functional purpose that incorporates arch features for the pedestrian bridge at Warner Avenue/Community Park, and unique iconic pedestrian bridges over Tustin Ranch Road/Community Park, and Armstrong/Linear Park, subject to approval of the design by the City. This proposal requires that the cost of all grade separated crossings have costs associated with the complete construction of these facilities that are at a minimum equal to the total costs of the six (6) arches and three (3) bridges as originally identified in the Original DDA (a total cost of $19,813,005), as will be certified by the Public Works Director and Assistant City Manager. Any cost escalations necessary to accommodate construction of the iconic bridge structures will be a Developer obligation. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 6 8. Modification of Attachment 10 entitled Description of Developer's Backbone Infrastructure Work and Attachment 11 entitled Description of Local Infrastructure Work. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the California Legislature adopted the Development Agreement Statute of the Government Code. Pursuant to the Statute, the City may enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property and to provide for the development of such property and to establish certain development rights therein. Development Agreement (DA) 06-002 is proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. Pursuant to Section 1.7 of the Original DDA entered on May 3, 2006, the City agreed to consider a future application for a Development Agreement by TLCP to assist in the implementation of the DDA and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The general purpose of Development Agreement 06-002 is to give the following assurances to Developer: 1. Assurance to Developer that, in return for Developer's commitment to the comprehensive planning for the Property that is contained in the DDA and the Specific Plan, the City will in turn remain committed to the DDA and the Specific Plan; 2. Assurances to Developer that as Developer becomes obligated for the costs of designing and constructing the public improvements included in the DDA and the Specific Plan, and makes dedication, Developer will become entitled to complete the private development portions of the DDA and the Specific Plan that justify those obligations; and 3. Assurances to Developer that in the City's administration of the DDA and the Specific Plan, Developer will be allowed the flexibility, consistent with the DDA and the Specific Plan, to respond to the marketplace in terms of housing types and intensities, the development of mixed uses, and reconfiguration of land uses, so long as in so doing overall intensity and density of development, and the range of uses within sectors identified in the DDA and the Specific Plan are not exceeded. These assurances require the cooperation and participation of the City and Developer and could not be secured without mutual cooperation in and commitment to the comprehensive planning effort that has resulted in the DDA and the Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 7 The DA will include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: • The term of DA 06-002 which will commence on the effective date and will continue for a term of twenty (20) years thereafter unless the term is terminated, modified, or extended by circumstances set forth in DA 06-002. • The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the design improvement and construction standard and specifications applicable to the development of the Property, and provisions for the reservation and dedication of land for public purposes, as set forth in the DDA and Existing Land Use Regulations which includes City's General Plan, Zoning Code, Specific Plan, and all other ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations of the City governing the development and use of the Property in effect as of the effective date of the DA. • Vested Right to carry out and develop the Property in accordance with DDA, Development Plan, Existing Land Use Regulations and the provisions included in DA 06-002. • The timing of development as set forth in the DDA. • Construction of infrastructure and public facilities as set forth in the DDA. • Dedications as set forth in the DDA, Specific Plan, and dedication of certain right-of-way areas to the applicable agencies as necessary for construction of required off-site traffic and circulation mitigation as required by the DDA, Specific Plan, or by Developer pursuant of the Final EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, as amended. • Annual review of Developer's performance. • Indemnity by the Developer to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City from any and all actions, suits, claims, liabilities, etc. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Minor Amendments to the MCAS Specific Plan are proposed to support improvements planned within the TLCP footprint. The amendments include, but are not limited to, the following: • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Table 3-4 for all residential housing types that the covered parking requirements can be satisfied with tandem parking. Up to forty (40) percent of the attached units within Neighborhood G can satisfy their covered parking requirement with tandem parking spaces. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 8 • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Section 3.13.2, to clarify that a covered tandem garage is a minimum dimension of 10 feet by 40 feet, and an open tandem parking condition within a parking structure is a minimum dimension of 9 feet by 36 feet. • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Section 3.13.1(J), to allow 9 feet by 18 feet standard parking stall and 24 foot two-way drive aisle. For parking structure conditions, the column will be held back 2 feet from the drive aisle as measured from centerline of the column. At an end condition where a parking stall abuts a solid wall within a parking structure, an additional I foot and 6 inches will be added to the end stall. • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Section 3.13.1(J), to allow 8 feet by 16 feet compact parking stall and 24 foot two-way drive aisle. At an end condition where a parking stall abuts a solid wall within a parking structure, an additional l foot and 6 inches will be added to the end stall. • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Section 3.13. t(J), permitting (without qualifying) up to twenty (20) percent of the required parking spaces for non-residential developments may be designated for compact parking. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause aesthetic impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEISiEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the site. There are no designated scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed DDA Amendment and Development Agreement would not result in a substantial adverse effect Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 9 on a scenic vista. Although the project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway, the FEIS/EIR concluded that the loss of both historic blimp hangars would be a significant visual impact, the loss of only one hangar would be less than significant. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not change the conclusions of the analysis from the FEIS/EIR relative to these visual changes since the status of the hangars would not be affected by the proposed DDA changes. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not modify the land use plan adopted in the Specific Plan but rather modify and refine the Master Development Plan in the DDA only. No changes in original uses identified or permitted in the Specific Plan are being requested; therefore, the types of uses to be developed are consistent and would result in similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. While the loss of the six (6) proposed arch structures in the Linear Park as outlined in the Original DDA could pose a visual change, the Master Developer will be required to construct an iconic grade -separated pedestrian bridge that incorporates arch features for the pedestrian bridge at Warner Avenue/Community Park and unique iconic pedestrian bridges over Tustin Ranch Road/Community Park and Armstrong/ Linear Park. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable to the project have been implemented with adoption of original Specific Plan. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 10 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project. The physical impact area for the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment is the same as that identified in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would continue to impact areas mapped (though not used) as Prime Farmland. Designated Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Specific Plan area is outside of the Master Developer footprint and is located north of Barranca Parkway, west of Harvard Avenue, and east of Jamboree Boulevard. The area is currently under development. Additionally, there are no areas subject to a Williamson Act contract, and conservation of farmland in this area was deemed unwarranted by NCRS. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the impact conclusions presented in the FEIS/EIR. The loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEIS/EIR are still infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with the loss of mapped/designated farmland. There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would reduce the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to urban uses. Mitigation options identified in the FEIS/EIR determined to be infeasible are still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. There would not be a substantial increase in the severity of project -specific and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; however, these impacts would continue to be significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. The Tustin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page I 1 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) Resolution No. 00-90 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysi% The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause Air Quality impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project. Consistent with the conclusion reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would result in significant short-term construction air quality impacts. Because the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment only involve redistribution of land uses within the threshold of the Specific Plan and the previously approved FEIS/EIR and its Addendum, the project would not substantially increase the type or severity of construction related air quality impacts from those identified in the FEIS/EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 12 change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR for operational and construction activities. However, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum also concluded that the Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90). No new mitigation measure is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through 153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 13 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Substantial Change frons Previous Analysiv. The physical impacts resulting from development uses proposed with the DDA amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would be similar to those identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Specifically, impacts to on-site vegetation and loss of habitat for the loggerhead shrike, a CDFG species of special concern, would be less than significant. It would be noted that project construction activities would be completed in compliance with federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species; however, the FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project site) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle, which is identified as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation measures were included in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative off-site habitat, and to require the applicant to obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary for areas on the project site affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. .litigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28 through 5-40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 14 Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause impacts to cultural resources. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA -ORA -381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. There is no new technology or methods available to reduce the identified significant unavoidable project -specific and cumulative impacts to historical resources associated with the removal of Hangars 28 and 29 to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, these unavoidable project -specific and cumulative impacts also occur with implementation of the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address potential significant unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from the removal of both blimp hangars. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. ;Vitigation/Monitoring Required.• Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 15 for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not cause any direct impact to geology or soil. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative geology or soil effect on the site. The FEIS/EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non -seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 16 ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No new mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 17 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Substandal Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not involve the creation of a hazard or hazardous materials. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would result generally in the same types of land uses being developed within the project area. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, these uses would generate and use small amounts of hazardous materials for operation and maintenance activities. The FEIS/EIR and its addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and then - current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the DoN would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR and the Addendum, the project site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not propose changes to height limitation included in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose an aircraft -related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. MitigationljVfonitoring Required: Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No new or modified mitigation is required for the project. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 18 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49 through 5-55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3,and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 19 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative hydrology and water quality effect on the site. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a WQMP in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from the development activities to a level of insignificance. Implementation of the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR. The types of land uses proposed are substantially the same, with minor square footage distribution among planning areas. The amount of impervious surface proposed for construction would not change substantially; therefore, analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed; therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patters, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56 through 5-92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING— Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 20 specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The project being evaluated involves an amendment to the Original DDA, a new Development Agreement, and modifications to parking standards. The proposed project would not substantially alter the land uses proposed for development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the Specific Plan area, rather the distribution of land uses has been slightly modified and minor adjustments to Planning areas and development phases are proposed. The Specific Plan area is surrounded by existing development and development on-site would not physically divide an established community. The proposed development would result in the continuation of similar uses. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substandal Change from Previous Analysis. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicated that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 21 identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Require& No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and Addendum (Page 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE — Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would slightly modify the land use distribution within the Specific Plan which would result in a slight redistribution of the traffic generated by the implementation of the project. However, the backbone circulation system identified for the implementation of the project is substantially the same or less Average Daily Trips as that presented in the original DDA and Specific Plan. Consequently, the severity of the long- term traffic related noise impacts would not be increased more than previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 22 With respect to the short-term noise impacts, implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would be required to comply with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction -related noise impacts. As discussed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of the project site. Based on review of the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the project site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not involve the development of any uses that would expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to noise. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not increase the severity of the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures would be required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3- 162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ,Vo Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment provide a similar amount and type of housing as that included in the original DDA and the Specific Plan. The amendment proposes a slight redistribution of development activities within the project boundary. No additional new housing, removal of existing housing, or displacement of any people to necessitate construction of additional housing are proposed with the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment beyond the number of units already analyzed in the Specific Plan and previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Similar to the conclusions Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 23 reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not have an adverse effect on population and housing. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as. may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/ EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum related to population/housing. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not change the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and no new mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-101 through 5-112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails; however, new facilities will be provided within the Master Developer footprint to which the applicant will contribute a fair share. Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of existing fire stations in the areas surrounding the site and a future fire station proposed at Edinger Avenue and the West Connector Road will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. hnplementation of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 24 the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum previously considered future development of the portion of the Specific Plan area within the SAUSD as being non-residential uses resulting in an indirect student generation impact. However, the TLCP is now proposing minor refinements to their development plan that would result in both non-residential and residential development uses which would result in both indirect and direct student generation impacts. The impacts to schools resulting from the implementation of the proposed DDA Amendment, DA and Specific Plan Amendment would be similar to that identified in the FEIS/EIR. Consistent with SB 50, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation measures that require the Master Developer to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD, TUSD, and SAUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the issuance of building permits. The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide "full and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development of real property on school facilities (Government Code 65995). SB 50 provides that a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real property on the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that will directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area. Developers within the Specific Plan area are required to make a fair share contribution to a portion of the development costs of the library expansion. To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the site proceeded. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the demand more than what was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no substantial change is expected. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 25 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-112 through 5-122) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would include a modification to relocate and defer construction of the sports park originally proposed at Red Hill and Edinger Avenue until Phase 2 and to replace the original sports park site in Phase 1 with commercial/business uses. The new sports park relocation site would be at the southeast of the extension of Carnegie and the linear park. Since the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment only involves a relocation of a sports park, impacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services compared to conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 26 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin City Code Section 9331 d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build out of the Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at 18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/EIR for a complete list) and the levels of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no -project condition. The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips. The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would result in a redistribution of trips that would not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. No Significant changes to on-site circulation would occur with the proposed project. Austin Foust Associates, Inc. has prepared the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis - March 2007 (Exhibit A) to identify and evaluate how the traffic impacts from the proposed Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 27 project differ from the original analysis as presented in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The study has shown that the proposed Legacy Park land use and arterial circulation changes within the TLCP footprint have not resulted in new significant impacts that would require mitigation. Therefore, there are no changes to the previous traffic findings included in the original FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, the proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer also has reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the revised analysis. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendments than were originally considered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3- 142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5- 127 through 5-147) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 28 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause impacts to utilities and service systems. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for WAS Tustin and Addendum. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed new oft -site and on-site backbone utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, the applicant is required to pay a fair share towards off-site infrastructure and installation of on-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and off-site, and water availability. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, no unavoidable significant impacts would result. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 29 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FEIS/EIR and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment. With the enforcement of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly nor degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90) for issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural resources, and traffic/circulation. The project does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) and Addendum Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Exhibit A Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis March 2007 By Austin Foust Associates, Inc. City of Tustin LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY Traffic Analysis March 2007 _`_ AL/ST/N-FOUST ASSOC/ATES, INC DRAFT City of Tustin LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2223 East Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 (714)667-0496 March 6, 2007 CONTENTS Pane 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background Scopeand Methodology.........................................................................................................:......1-3 PerformanceCriteria......................................................................................................................1-4 Relationshipto Other Studies........................................................................................................1-4 References.....................................................................................................................................1-8 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT LandUse and Trip Generation....................................................................................................... 2-1 ProposedProject............................................................................................................................ 2-1 Trip Budget for Non -Residential Uses..........................................................................................2-6 3.0 ON-SITE ROADWAY SYSTEM PlannedCirculation System...........................................................................................................3-1 IntersectionControls......................................................................................................................3-1 IntersectionLane Geometry ..........................................................................................................3-6 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS DailyTraffic Forecasts..................................................................................................................4- IntersectionLevels of Service.......................................................................................................4-1 TurnPocket Lengths......................................................................................................................4-6 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................4-6 APPENDICES: A: Land Use and Trip Generation B: Intersection Capacity Utilization Calculations C: Turn Pocket Length Methodology D: External Traffic Volumes lliy of l usUn Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis i 9_22004rpti.doc LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND EXHIBITS Figures Pa2e 1-1 2007 Tustin Legacy Master Developer Footprint.......................................................................... 1-2 2-1 2007 Tustin Legacy Master Development Footprint.....................................................................2-3 2-2 Legacy Park Circulation System...................................................................................................2-5 3-1 Legacy Park Circulation System...................................................................................................3-2 3-2 Recommended Traffic Control Measures — Community Core Area ............................................. 3-3 3-3 Recommended Traffic Control Measures — Neighborhood E .......................................................3-4 3-4 Recommended Traffic Control Measures — Neighborhood G (Planning Area 15) ............ ........... 3-5 3-5 Intersection Lane Configurations — Community Core Area..........................................................3-7 3-6 Intersection Lane Configurations — Neighborhood E......:............................................................. 3-8 3-7 Intersection Lane Configurations — Neighborhood G (Planning Area 15) ....................................3-9 4-1 Legacy Park ADT Volumes...........................................................................................................4-2 4-2 Intersection Location Map.............................................................................................................4-5 A-1 Tustin LegacyTraffic Model (TLTM) Traffic Analysis Zone System ........................................ A-3 B-1 Intersection Location Map............................................................................................................ B-2 C-1 Turn Pocket Length Methodology................................................................................................ C-2 Tables 1-1 Volume/Capacity Ratio Level of Service Ranges for Intersections..............................................1-5 1-2 Performance Criteria for Analyzed Intersections..........................................................................1-6 1-3 Level of Service Descriptions — Signalized Intersections.............................................................. 1-7 2-1 Land Use and Trip Generation Summary ......................................................................................2-2 2-2 Tustin Legacy Trip Generation......................................................................................................2-4 2-3 Tustin Legacy Trip Budget............................................................................................................2-7 2-4 Planning Area Trip Budget Comparison (Non -Residential Uses)...............................................2-11 4-1 Peak Hour Intersection ICU Summary ..........................................................................................4-3 4-2 Lett -Turn Storage Length Requirements.......................................................................................4-7 4-3 Right -Turn Storage Length Requirements...................................................................................4-10 A-1 ADT and Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate Summary .................................................................. A-2 City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis ii 922004rpt5.doc Chapter 1.0 INTRODUCTION "This report presents traffic findings for proposed changes to the development plan in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 portion of Neighborhood G of the Master Developer area in the Tustin Legacy project in the City of Tustin. The revised portions of the Master Developer footprint (see Figure 1-1) will be known as Legacy Park and will henceforth be referred to throughout this report as the "Proposed Project." The purposes of this report are 1) to determine that the land use changes by the Master Developer do not exceed the "trip cap" established for the Master Developer's footprint at Tustin Legacy, 2) to identify and evaluate the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project on-site as well as at the external off-site intersections on the periphery of Tustin Legacy, and 3) to present data that will be the basis of design for key on-site project roadways in the Legacy Park area of Tustin Legacy (Neighborhood D including the area referred to as the "Community Core" south of Warner Avenue, Neighborhood E, and Planning Area 15 portion of Neighborhood G). BACKGROUND A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was certified as complete in January 2001 for the Reuse and Disposal of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Tustin. The EIS/EIR also evaluated the adoption of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. All elements were identified as the original "project." A comprehensive traffic report was prepared for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and that report was used in preparing the Circulation section of the Final Joint EIS/EIR. The "Program EIS/EIR" mitigation measures identified for the original project were the subject of agreements with the adjacent Cities of Irvine and Santa Ana, and those in Tustin were planned to be implemented in phases according to a phasing plan described in the traffic study. In 2006, a traffic report was carried out in support of an Addendum to the EIS/EIR in which certain Specific Plan Amendments were adopted including certain administrative clarifications and minor Specific Plan modifications that largely affected property within the Master Developer footprint including the Neighborhoods being analyzed in this report. The former site of the MCAS Tustin is now referred to as "Tustin Legacy" and Legacy Park is a portion within this site. City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis I t 922004ipt5. loc 4 20 7 2 5 15 3 6 21 PA7 8 O PA8 tic ore° �P PA 13,14 13 16 PA9-12 9-12 22 © 17 (City of Irvine) PA15 14 18 19 Legend Figure 1-1 Planning Area Boundary (Specific Plan Boundar)) XX Planning .Area Numbering System 2007 "1 US HN LEGACY MASTLR 0 Proposed Master D"vloper Arca DEVELOPER FOOTPRINT QY Neighborhood City of Tustin Austin -Foust AssoeiateN. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legac} Traffic Analysis 1 ' 922004rpt5figl-1-dwg The total trip generation with the Proposed Project for Tustin Legacy (including the portion in City of Irvine) is the same as the trip cap established in the original Specific Plan in 2001 and included in the current Specific Plan with 216,440 average daily trips (ADT). SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The subject areas addressed in this report are as follows: 1. Proposed Project and Current Specific Plan Land Use and Trip Generation 2. On -Site Roadway System 3. Traffic Forecasts and Intersection Evaluation The first of these describes the Proposed Project and its relation to the trip generation ceiling established as part of the original Specific Plan and contained in the current Specific Plan. Also discussed is the non-residential land use/trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood in the current Specific Plan and for the Proposed Project. The second subject area being addressed involves the on-site circulation of the Proposed Project in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G (collectively referred to as Legacy Park). The Legacy Park circulation system information presented here includes midblock lanes, intersection lane geometrics, and type of intersection control. The third subject area provides traffic forecasts for on-site and adjacent intersections that reflect the land use refinements and the local roadway system in the Proposed Project site. Average daily traffic and peak hour levels of service at signalized intersections are derived and turn pocket lengths for intersections within the Proposed Project site are estimated. Because the changes included in the Proposed Project compared to the current Specific Plan as amended in 2006 are minor and that the ADT projections outside the Proposed Project boundaries show minimal change compared to the 2006 Specific Plan assessment, the only off-site intersections analyzed are along the periphery of Tustin Legacy (Edinger Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Barranca Parkway). To derive the long-range traffic forecasts for this analysis, updated traffic forecast data was prepared from the recently updated Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM). The ITAM was approved by OCTA as meeting all of the County's consistency guidelines, and the particular version City of Tustin Austin Foust Associates, Inc. Lel-acv Park ofTustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 1-3 922004rpt5 doc selected for this application is that recently used for transportation planning work in Irvine which includes projects that were approved prior to the end of 2006 (i.e., various residential projects in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and the Heritage Fields/Orange County Great Park project in the former WAS El Toro site). It includes an update to the land use and circulation for Tustin Legacy. The model provides intersection data in the City of Tustin as well as in the City of Irvine. The forecasts in this report are based on the ITAM described here and include the year 2025 time frame for traffic forecasting with corresponding assumptions with respect to local and regional transportation improvements. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Traffic level of service (LOS) is designated "A" through "F" with LOS "A" representing free flow conditions and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. Table 1-1 summarizes the volume/capacity (V/C) ranges that correspond to LOS "A" through "F" for intersection locations. The traffic analysis evaluates the peak hour intersection volumes for the Proposed Project. The intersection findings are based on intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. Table 1-2 describes the intersection evaluation criteria. The threshold levels established here reflect levels of significance applicable in this report and are consistent with previous assessments of the project area. Table 1-3 describes the general LOS conditions for intersections. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STUDIES Several traffic studies that have been carried out in this area are of relevance to the traffic analysis presented here. The projects and studies briefly summarized below have all been approved and have been incorporated where appropriate as background conditions in this analysis. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Disposal and Reuse Traffic Study (Reference 1) — This traffic study dated November 17, 1999, was included as Appendix F of the EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin dated December 1999. The traffic study presented the results of a circulation analysis performed as part of the EIS/EIR addressing the disposal and reuse of WAS Tustin. This traffic study includes the traffic impact results related to the preferred alternative (Reuse Alternative 1). The land use and circulation plan for Reuse Alternative 1 is known as the original Specific Plan. Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis (Reference 2) - This traffic study dated February 22, 2006, was referenced in the 2006 Addendum to the Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin. City ofTustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis I 922004iptidoc Table 1-1 VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of Service (LOS) Volume/Capacity (V/Q A -00—.60 B .61 — .70 C .71—.80 D .81 — .90 E .91 — 1.00 F Above 1.00 City offustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Puk ofTustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 1-5 9 2110 4rpt5.doc Table 1-2 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS I. V/C Calculation Methodology Level of service to be based on peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values calculated using the following assumptions: Saturation Flow Rate: 1,700 vehicles/hour/lane Clearance Interval: .05 Right -Turn -On -Red Utilization Factor*: .75. * "De -facto" right -turn lane is assumed in the ICU calculation if 19 feet from edge to outside of through -lane exists and parking is prohibited during peak periods. II. Performance Standard Level of Service "D" (peak hour ICU less than or equal to .90). City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 1-6 922004rpt5.doc LOS Table l-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS — SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Levels of service (LOS) for signalized intersections are defined in terms of control delay as follows: DESCRIPTION A LOS "A" describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. B LOS "B" describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS "A", causing higher levels of delay. DELAY PER VEHICLE (secs) <10 10-20 C LOS "C" describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds 20-35 per vehicle. These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D LOS "D" describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds 35-55 per vehicle. At LOS "D", the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E LOS "E" describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds 55-80 per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. F LOS "F" describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. > 80 This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park ofTustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 1-7 922004rpt5.doc This report presents traffic findings relative to MCAS Specific Plan Amendments and a proposed evelopment Plan for the Master Developer area of the Tustin Legacy project in the City of Tustin. The purpose of this report is to identify and evaluate how the project proposed in the Master Developer footprint area compares to the original Specific Plan in terms of traffic impacts. The land use and circulation plan presented in this report is referred to as the current Specific Plan in the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis. City of Irvine Planning Areas 30 and 51 Heritage Fields GPA/Zone Change (Reference 3) - This report presents the findings of a traffic study carried out to determine the impacts of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change for the former MCAS El Toro site which is now being referred to as the Heritage Fields/Orange County Great Park project located in Planning Areas 30 and 51 (PA30 and PA51) in the City of Irvine. The PA30 and PA51 project was approved and is included in the background conditions of this report. REFERENCES Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Disposal and Reuse Traffic Study, Austin - Foust Associates, Inc., November 17, 1999 (same as Appendix F of the EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin dated December 1999). 2. "Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., February 22, 2006 (referenced in the 2006 Addendum to the Final EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin). 3. "City of Irvine Planning Areas 30 and 51 Heritage Fields GPA/Zone Change [former MCAS El Toro site]," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., September 7, 2006. City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 1-8 92_2004rpt5.doc Chapter 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT The information presented in this chapter summarizes land use and trip generation for the Proposed Project as well as for the entire Tustin Legacy area. The purpose is to make findings relative to the trip cap established in the current Specific Plan. A review of the trip budget for non-residential uses is also re-evaluated in this chapter. LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Table 2-1 provides a summary of the land use and trip generation for the Proposed Project, and includes the corresponding data for the current Specific Plan. The trip generation has been determined based on the trip generation rates summarized in Appendix A, and detailed land use and trip generation summaries by Planning Area can also be found in Appendix A. The daily trip generation rates are consistent with those used in the original Specific Plan. The land use data presented in this chapter includes the Proposed Project and approved development for other areas in Tustin Legacy. The land uses in Planning Areas 4, 5, 16, 17, 19-22 as approved for the Marble Mountain Partners (Lennar and William Lyon Homes) residential development, the Vestar commercial development and the John Laing residential development have also been incorporated into the land use database (see Figure 2-1 for Planning Area boundaries). Comparing the total revised trip generation projection with the approved (current) Specific Plan shows that the Proposed Project does not exceed the trip budget established for the Specific Plan. PROPOSED PROJECT A trip generation comparison between the current Specific Plan and revised plan for the entire Tustin Legacy including the Proposed Project is summarized Table 2-2. The table shows that the established "trip cap" of 216,440 average daily trips (ADT) remains the same as do the trips within the Proposed Project and remaining non -project areas within Tustin Legacy. The proposed arterial circulation system for the Proposed Project in Legacy Park is presented in Figure 2-2. Included are the roadways in the current Specific Plan and the addition of proposed local City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 2-1 922004tpt5.doc Table 2-1 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERA110N SUMMARY Current Specific Plan Land Use Category _Units Amount ADT_ Proposed Project Amount ADT Difference Amount ADT 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) DU 1,033_ 9,888 1,147 10,978 114 1,090 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) DU 1 1,449 11,592 1,335 10,680 -114 -912 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) DU 1,897 12,576 1,897 12.57611 0 0 4. Transitional Housing Roomi 192 941 192 941 0 0 5. Hotel Rooml 500 4,115 500 4,115 0 0 6. Elements /Middle School Stu 2,400 2,448 2,400 2,448 0 0 7. High School Stu 1,850 3,312 1,850 3,312 0 0 8. Learning Center TSF 1,293.86 7,920 1,293.86 7,920 1 0 0 9. Neighborhood Commercial TSF 147.38 16,480 143.07 15,999 -4.31 -481 10. Community Commercial TSF 419.85 11. Shopping Center (EQ) TSF 930.6 28,621 28,608 509.64 930.6 34,740 28,608 89.79 0 6.119 0 12. General Office TSF 2,679.73 35,562 2,068.73 27,451 -611.00 -8,111 13. Office Park (EQ) TSF 2,343.75 20,869 2,865.73 -6,105 521.98 5,236 14. Military (Office) TSF 40.85 542 40.85 542 0 0 15. Light Industrial/R&D TSF -- -- 456.03 3,699 456.03 3.699 16. Industrial Park (EQ) TSF 627.05 8,088 332.28 4,196 -294.77 -3,892 17. Park Acre 100.4 509 75.3 j 379 -25.1 -130 18. Regional Park Acre 84.5 423 84.5 423 0 0 21. Multiplex Theater Seat 3,500 6,300 3,500 6,300 0 0 22. Senior Congregate TSF 158.99 970 158.99 970 0 0 24. Theatre Seat 1.000 1,250 1,000 1,250 0 0 25. Health Club TSF 30 988 20 659 -10659 -329 26. High -Turnover Restaurant TSF 18 2,289 -- -- -18 -2,289 27. Senior.Housing Attached DU 242 340 242 840 0 0 28. Sports Park Acre 94.6 5,089 94.6 5,089 0 0 29. Tustin Facility SG -- 6,220_ -- 6,220 -- ) TOTAL 216,440 216,440 0 Abbreviations: ADT - average daily trips DU - dwelling units EQ - Equation based trip rate used LDR - Low Density Residential MDR -Medium Density Residential MHDR - Medium High Density Residential R&D - Research and Development SG - special generator Stu - student TSF - thousand square feet City of TustinAUltln-Foust A,sociat es, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 2-2 922004rpt5 doc C. 2 3 1 F 9-12 oc 6 Legend Planning Area Boundary (Specific Plan Boundary) XX Planning Area Numbering System L Proposed Master Dceeloper Area QY Neighborhood ;;, Neighborhood Boundary 20 21 22 (City of Irvine) 3 Figure 2-1 2007 TUSTIN LEGACY MASTER DEVELOPER FOOTPRIN P City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 2-3 922O04rpmtig2-I.dwg Table 2-2 TUSTIN LEGACY TRIP GENERATION Area* Current Specific Plan Propos d Project Difference Neighborhoods D, E and G (PA15)** 128,336_ 128,33_6 0 Neighborhood G (PA20-PA21) & H (PA22) _ T 12,218 12,218 0 Remainder of i'ustin Legacy 75,886 75,886 0 Total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 216,440 216,440 0 * See Figure 2-1 for neighborhood map. ** Legacy Park proposed project. _ City ofTustln Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Le.,acy Park of Tustin Legacv Traffic Analysis 2-4 9220(4rpt5.doc Legend x Midblock lanes City of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 2-5 Figure 2-2 LEGACY PARK CIRCULATION SYSTEM Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 922004rpt5fig2-2.dwg EDINGER AV O p a` ST 2 br4 � Z n � N 2 �N 6OQO b6 4 4 `< 4 4 N• A P p Nay 4A VALENCIA > a` Z 2 2 MOFFETT RD � yy� p N N S ^ O F - o A to T 2 N < GG ST < b 2 v pV v~i 6 6 4 6 WARNS "I" = 2ST �'' H 6' WARNER AV A ry N N .y N O •s b ti ? ryti•f R' d'L a I Ir 6 sT ♦ ti 4 9 "A" ST ? dr v �? ry• B 1 a 2 s ? sr b . CARNEGIE 4 A _o m U �D y A 0 f - BARRANCA PKWY Legend x Midblock lanes City of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 2-5 Figure 2-2 LEGACY PARK CIRCULATION SYSTEM Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 922004rpt5fig2-2.dwg roadways, mostly two-lane local arterials, in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G (see previously referenced Figure 2-1 for neighborhood map) to serve the Proposed Project. TRIP BUDGET FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES This section discusses the non-residential land uses/trip budget tracking system included in the current Specific Plan. Table 2-3 compares the current Specific Plan trip budget to the Proposed Project. Table 2-5 presents a summary table comparing the results. The overall trip budget is similar for both with differences occurring within individual neighborhoods that result in slightly less trips (50 ADT) for the Proposed Project compared to the trip budget established in the current Specific Plan. City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 2-6 932004ipt5.doe 011 of fustiu Au tiu-Fuu�t Auuciate;. Inc cguc) Perk ul Tusnn Lcgac} Tragic Anul�si. 2-7 92?004rp15-doc Table 2-3 TUSTIN LEGACY TRIP BUDGET' Planning Area _ Land Use Category Units Current Specific Residential/Parks Plan Non -Residential With Proposed Project Residential/Parks Non -Residential � Amount ADT Amount ADT Amount ADT Amount ADT NEIGHBORHOOD A _ 1 Elernentary,lMiddle School Learning Center Neighborhood Commercial Tustin Facilites__ STU TSF TSF SG ------------------------ _ _ 550 1,293.86 17.12 561 7,920 3,033 6,220 550 561 1,293.86 7,920 27.12 3,033 6,220 _PA 1 Trip Budget Total _ 1,320.98 17,73 4 1,320.98 17,734 2 Sorts Park ACRE 24.1 1,297 24.1 1.297 3 _ Transitional HOUSing ROOM 192 941 192 911 Neighborhood A Square Footage Total TSF 1,320.98 1,320.98 Neighborhood A Trip Budget Total 17,734 17,73.1 NEIGHBORHOOD B 4L DR (1-7 DU!Acre) DU 145 1,388 1 15 1.388 MDR (8-15 DU!Acre) DU 120 960 120 960 Senior Housing Attached DU 72 250 72 250 5 MDR (8-15 DU!Acre) DU 132 1,056 132 1,056 MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) DU 438 2,903 438 2,903 7 Senior Housing Attached Community Commercial DU TSF 170 590 103.46 7,052 170 590 103.46 7,052 General Office TSF 144.84 1,922 144.84 j 1,922 PA 7 Trip Budget Total 248.3 8,974 X48.3 8,974 Neighborhood B Square Footage Total TSF 2.18.3 2.18.3 Neighborhood B Trip Budget Total 8,974 8,974 NEIGHBORHOOD C 6 Community Commercial TSF 57.5 3,920 57.5 3,920 Re ional Park ACRE 84.5 423 84.5 423 PA 6 Trig Budget Total 3,920 57.5 -57.5 3.920 Neighborhood C Square Footage Total TSF 57.5 57.5 _ Neighborhood C Tri Bud et Total _ _ _ 3,920 3,920 011 of fustiu Au tiu-Fuu�t Auuciate;. Inc cguc) Perk ul Tusnn Lcgac} Tragic Anul�si. 2-7 92?004rp15-doc Table 2-3 (cont.) I'USTIN LEGACY TRIP BUDGET' Planning Area Laud Use Category Units Current S ecific Plan Residential/Parks Non -Residential With Proposed ResidentiaUParks Project Non -Residential Amount I ADT Amount 1 ADT Amount I ADT Amount ADT NEIGHBORHOOD D 8 High School STU 1,850 3,312 1,850 3,312 Neighborhood Commercial TSF 65.69 7,345 61.38 6,864 General Office TSF 207 2,747 211.31 2,804 Office Park TSF 1,383.8 11,280 1,383.8 11,2280 Industrial Park TSF 319.51 3,803 Light Industrial/R&D TSF 319.51 2,591 Park ACRE - 10.3 52 10.3 52 Sorts Park _ ACRE 46 - 2,475 46 2,475 PA 8 Trip Budget Total 1,976 28,487 _ 1,976 26,851 13 MHDR (I6-25 DU/Acre) DU 891 5,907 891 5,907 Hotel (380 TSF) ROOM 500 4,115 Hotel (190 TSF) _ ROOM 500 4,115 Neighborhood Commercial TSF _ 9.76 1,091 1,091 Community Commercial General Office--- TSF TSF - 117.1 I 1,512 - 7,984 20,065 _ _9.76 2101 835.71 11,315 11,090 Office Park TSF 447.2 4.193 1 __Park --- ACRE 129 65 -- _ 14.8 75 _Health Club TSF30 988 20 659 Theatre (28 TSF _ SEAT _ 1,000 1,250 1-1i Jh-Turnover Restaurant TSF 12 1,526 PA 13 Trip Budget Total 2,060.86 35,769 1,740.67 36,713 14 Community Commercial TSF _ _ 11.11 757 8 545 General Office TSF 136.9 1,818_ _ 37.4 496 Office Park _ _TSF 547 1 5,645 804.74 j - 7,688 Theatre (25 TSF) Hi IrTurnover Restaw-ant SEAT TSF 1,000 6 1,250 763 - -- PA 14 Trip Budget -Total - Neighborhood_ D Sure Footage Total TSF _ 726.01 -4,762.87_ 10,233 850.14 1 t,566.8 8.729 Neighborhood D Tri Budget Total _ 74,489 _ _ I, -1 72,293 Cm of I ustm _ - -- Au,tin-I oust :�., �ia[e;. ln� LcgaeN Park of llutiu I_ep,c� I rallic Anah,is ?_g Associate,, -dog 'fable 2-3 (cont.) TUSTIN LEGACY TRIP BUDGET' i Current Specific Plan With Proposed Project Planning Area land Use Category Units Residential/Parks Non-Residential Residentia[/Parks Non-Residential Amount I ADT Amount ADT Amount I ADT Amount ADT NEIGHBORHOOD E 9-12 Neighborhood Commercial TSF 18.13 2,028 18.13 2,028 General Office TSF 528.71 7,016 689.19 9,145 Office Park TSF 412.95 3,944 230 2,9.14 Industrial Park TSF 307.54 4,285 >32.28 4,196 Li Pub Industrial/R&D TSF 136.51 1,107 Park ACRE 28.2 143 26.3 132 _ _Sports Park ACRE 10.4 559 _ 8 430 Neighborhood E Square Footage Total Neighborhood E Trip Budget Total TSF 1,267.33 17,273 1,406.11 19,420 NEIGHBORHOOD F 16 Shopping Center TSF 448 13,772 448 13,772 r __ _PA 16 Trip Budget Total _ 448 13,772 448_ 13,772 17 ShOing Center TSF 47 1,445 47 1,445 PA 17 Trip_Bud et Total 47 1,445 47 1,445 18 Military (Office) TSF 40.85 542 _ 40.85 542 PA IS Trip Budget Total 40.85 542 _ 40.85 542 19 Shopp in&Center __ TSF_ _ _ 435.6 13,391 435.6 13,391 ____Multiplex Theater (70 TSF PA 19 Trip Budget Total Neighborhood F Square Footage Total Neighborhood F Trip Budget Total I SEAT TSF TSF _ _ I 3,500 _ 505.6 1,041.45 6,300 19,691 35,450 3.500 505.6 1,041.45 6,300 19,691 35,450� ( it\ of 1 u;Wi -- — -- — — — Au,nn-Fuu t ri;; Kialc. InC I cga.) Park of I usun I_egac} I raftic Analysis 2-9 922004ipt? doc Table 2-3 (cont.) TUSTIN LEGACY TRIP BUDGET' Current Specific Plan With Proposed Project Planning Area _Land Use Category Units Residential/Parks Non -Residential Residential/Parks Non -Residential Amount ADT Amount ADT Amount ADT Amount ADT NEIGHBORHOOD G 15 LDR (1-7 DU' Acre) DU 533 5,102 647 6,192 MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) DU 489 3,912 375 3,000 MIIDR(16-25 DU/Acre) DU 192 1,273 192 1,273- ,27;Elemental Elementary/Middle /Middle School STU 1,200 1,224 1,200 1,224 Neighborhood Commercial TSF 26.68 2,983 26.68 2,983 Conununi Commercial TSF 130.68 8,908 _ 130.68 8,908 General Office TSF 150.28 1,99-4 150.28 1,994 Park_ _ ACRE 49 249 23.9 120 Senior Core Tate n T TSF 970 -158.99 158.99 970 Sports Park ACRE 14.1 758 I 16.5 888 PA 15 Trip Budget Total 466.63 14,855 466.63 ' 14,855 �0 MHD_R 16-25 DU/Acre f --LDR DU - 376 2,493 —_ 376 2,493 31 (1-7 Dll/Acre) MDR (8-15 DU/_Acre) _ DU DU 189 465 -I -- 1,809_ 3.720_ _ 189 465 1,809 3,720 oo Neighborhd G Square Footage Total TSF 466.63 _ 466.63 _-Neighborhood G Tri Budget Total ------- - EIGHBORHOOD H 22 LDR ( 1 -7 DU/Acre) NIDR(8-15 DU/Acre) Elementary/Middle School DU DU STU 166 243 650 _ 1,589 1,944 -� -� 14,855__ _ - 166 343 650 - 1,589 1,944 - 663 - -- Nei hborhood H S uare Foota a Total - _Nei>;hborhood H Trip Budget Total TSF _663 0 _ 0 -0 0 Residential and park uses are shown for informational purposes only and are not part of the non-residential trip budget. l itN of Tustin -- -- -- — —— - --- —.- __ — Austin -Foust Assuciaws. Inc. legacy Park of Mustin I cg act Traffic .analysis 2.10 922004rpt5.doc Table 2-4 PLANNING AREA "TRIP BUDGET COMPARISON (NON-RESIDENTIAL USES) — -1 -- ---- Neighbor -PlanningAreas Units Current S ecific Plan Propose Project � Difference Amount ADT Amount ADT Amount ADT A l-3 TSF 1,320.98 17,734 1,32098 17,734 0 B 4,5,7 TSF 248.3 8,974 248.3 8,974 0 0 C _____6 TSF 57.5 3,920 57.5 3,920 0 0 D 8,13,14 TSF 4,762.87 74,489 4,566.8 72,293 -196.07 -2,196 E 9-12 "TSF 1,267.33 17,273 1,406.11 19,420 138.78 2,146 F 16-19 TSF 1,041.45 35,450 1,041.45 35,450 0 0 G 15,20,21 TSF 466.63 14,855 466.63 14,855 0 0 H 22 TSF 0-1. 0 0 0 0 0 Notes: 1) See Figure 2-1 for neighborhood map. 2) Park uses are not part of the non-residential trip budget. City ofTustin Legacy Park of Tustin Lcgacy Traffic Analysis Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. I I 922004rp15.dr c Chapter 3.0 ON-SITE ROADWAY SYSTEM This chapter discusses the on-site roadway system of the Proposed Project in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G. The purpose is to show the type of on-site roadways, intersection controls and intersection lane geometrics that are proposed within the project area and confirm that the proposal meets the established operational criteria. PLANNED CIRCULATION SYSTEM The circulation system assumed for the traffic analysis study area for buildout 2025 conditions is illustrated in Figure 3-1. Included are the roadways in the current Specific Plan and the addition of several roadways, mostly two-lane local arterials. The on-site circulation system includes two six -lane mainr arterials, Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue, secondary arterials (Valencia North Loop, Legacy Road, North Loop Road, Park Avenue, Armstrong Road, "A" Street between Red Hill Avenue and "C" Street, "F" Street, "C" Street and "B" Street north of Tustin Ranch Road in Neighborhoods D and E), and local roadways in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G to serve the Proposed Project. The arterial circulation system is virtually the same as established in the 2006 Addendum to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan EIS/EIR with the primary difference being the addition of the local roadway networks in the Proposed Project area (Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G). INTERSECTION CONTROLS The assumed on-site traffic control measures are shown in Figures 3-2 through 3-4, for Neighborhoods D (Community Core Area), E and G (Planning Area 15). Traffic control measures are not project mitigation measures. Rather they address the traffic operational needs of the project site depending on individual capacity and include a combination of traffic signals and all -way and one-way stop signs. A detailed analysis of traffic control measures, including traffic signals, stop -sign control and pedestrian crossings, will be performed with the associated development's master plan and street improvement plan reviews, and in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, when specific project City of Tustin --- — Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-1 022004rpt5.doc _ Major Arterial (6 lanes) - Primary Arterial (4 lanes) Secondary Arterial (24 lanes) Local Collector (2-4 lanes) Local Street (2 lanes) City of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-2 Figure 3-1 LEGACY PARK CIRCULATION SYSTEM Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 922004rpt5fig3-l.dwg EDINGER AV 9' N• v ti RO y N VALENCIA �y MOFFETT RD A �y Z a M PO y r ?V RO N .G IARM � •I• F WARNER AV ST L sj ' h c. ,o yti s vs y� .G y1 Sl •0 CARNEGIE "A" ST w J} q� `s P O o :0 •A• S� m U � O o BARRANCA PKWY w 6 _ Major Arterial (6 lanes) - Primary Arterial (4 lanes) Secondary Arterial (24 lanes) Local Collector (2-4 lanes) Local Street (2 lanes) City of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-2 Figure 3-1 LEGACY PARK CIRCULATION SYSTEM Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 922004rpt5fig3-l.dwg �o �o P WARNER AV .C. ST .1. ST i �� tfCACY • RD a .� »C. ST ST r" 09 PyFc/� »Ee ST Z qV N 4 • ST ci RANCH RD 49 p�'Y yL Legend Figure 3-2 Signalized Intersection RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES Stop Sign COMMUNITY CORE AREA City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-3 922004rpt5fig3-2.dwg nM a Legend Signalized Intersection Stop Sign Figure 3-4 RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES - NEIGHBORHOOD G (PLANNING AREA 15) City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-5 922004rpt5fig34.dwg e' h� sl eo/��R G�2�G qV A V) �Q ' _ 2 VALENCIA NORTH LOOP r a0 cn cn U MOFFETT RD s� 2 p �2 n5 Aa 00 N T � s a U" •G CH Rp o�4i �yGP 20 "G" ST WARNER AV Legend Signalized Intersection Stop Sign Figure 3-4 RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES - NEIGHBORHOOD G (PLANNING AREA 15) City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-5 922004rpt5fig34.dwg details are available. Appropriate traffic control measures will be in accordance with City Standards, as directed by the City Traffic Engineer, and implemented in the design of the development with the approval of the street improvement plans. INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY This section provides the proposed intersection lane geometry information for Neighborhoods D (Community Core Area), E and G (Planning Area 15). It has been prepared to assist in the design of the backbone roadway system for Tustin Legacy's Legacy Park. The intersection lane geometries for each analyzed neighborhood area are illustrated in Figures 3-5 through 3-7. A detailed analysis of intersection lane geometry will be performed with the associated development's master plan and street improvement plan reviews, and in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, when specific project details are available. Appropriate intersection lane geometry will be in accordance with City Standards, as directed by the City Traffic Engineer, and implemented in the design of the development with the approval of the street improvement plans. - -- - -- - rty ut ustm Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. Legacy Pak of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-6 922004 ptidoc I PJ 2G �O Q� P WARN fR AV qT LEGACIr "'' -:�-E' ST Z + 44 -A -D"ST —� L14 RANCH RD 3 " 49 Y A�� m Figure 3-5 INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS - COMMUNITY CORE AREA City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-7 922004 t5 5.dw IP �- B 1 J Z P� G -z s s s y G O (, F— y�7� � 8 .1M0 w z 3 - Z_ � �1u r— 1►� AV ITH 0321 Q W U W z U k OP NIF- VALENCIA NORTH LOOP \ II �l r A, h r e N ,O U MOFFETT RD LA Z �I r2 y �Y SGP r �� "G" ST �P WARNER AV Figure 3-7 INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS - NEIGHBORHOOD G (PLANNING AREA 15) City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-9 922004rpt5fig3-7.dwg Chapter 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS This chapter discusses the performance of the circulation system of the Proposed Project. As noted in the methodology section, the Proposed Project is analyzed under long-range (year 2025) traffic conditions, and project land uses and circulation are expected to be completed by this time. The purpose is to confirm that the proposed roadway supporting the project will work within the established performance criteria. DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS Under year 2025 with -project conditions along with buildout of the on-site roadways, Red Hill Avenue, Edinger Avenue and Barranca Parkway along the periphery of the project are expected to be built out with their ultimate lanes. Tustin Ranch Road is assumed to be connected between Walnut Avenue and Edinger Avenue with a grade separation of the railroad and Edinger Avenue, and then an indirect connection to Edinger Avenue. Access to and from the north is provided via three roadways on Edinger Avenue (West Connector, Tustin Ranch Road and East Connector), three from the east (Moffett Drive, Jamboree Road and Warner Avenue), four on Barranca Parkway (Aston Street, Armstrong Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road and District Road), and three on Red Hill Avenue (Valencia North Loop, Warner Avenue and Carnegie Avenue) Figure 4-1 shows the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the on-site roadways. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) Table 4-1 provides the results of the intersection analysis for the intersections illustrated in Figure 4-2. Because the changes included in the Proposed Project compared to the current Specific Plan as amended in 2006 are minor and that the ADT projections outside the Proposed Project boundaries show. minimal change compared to the 2006 Specific Plan assessment, the only off-site intersections analyzed here are along the periphery of Tustin Legacy on Edinger Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Barranca Parkway (see volume map in Appendix D). by of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 4-1 922004ipt5.doc Legend 10 20 30 ADT Volumes (000s) City of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 42 Figure 41 LEGACY PARK ADT VOLUMES Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 922004rpt5fig4-I.dwg EDINGER AV 9 o Sr 9 h P1`� rn 0- & N O N < � ;D 18 4 2 .. �$ NORTH LOOP VALENCIA NORTH (OOp v A 24 2 py 3 3 • U 7 MOFFETT RD 9 � N Z�Z m � 'P C 5 i � 1 'G' �GpO� $ ST < b 6 45 57 18 18 43 40 51 44� "I" = 1ST m 8 ly WARNER AV WARN y tiG tiyt sr�� 12 4 CARNE 'A" ST ti 11� V o S tiAS p VE m 11 11 14 •A S� m CD a o LA 0 z 0 r N Legend 10 20 30 ADT Volumes (000s) City of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 42 Figure 41 LEGACY PARK ADT VOLUMES Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 922004rpt5fig4-I.dwg Table 4-1 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY AM Peak Hour Intersection* ICU LOS i Pili Peak Hour ICU LOS 1. Armstrong & Valencia N Loop60 32 A 35.BSt&ESt 55 A 2. Tustin Ranch Rd & Valencia N .73 C 12 .64 B 3. 'Tustin Ranch Rd & Warner N 4. Tustin Ranch Rd & Warner S .69 .58 13 A A 80 .65 C B _5. Annstron & Warner 65 B 55 64 B 6. Armstrong & A St .47 A A .48 A 7. Tustin Ranch & C St/Park Ave .60 A 4 L C St & A St/D St .69 B 8. Loop Rd & Warner .67 B .64 B 9. Loop Rd & Jamboree SB Ramps 10. N Loop Rd & Moffett 20 24 A A .31 .20 A A- 11. 11. N Loop Rd & Valencia N Loo .15 A .16 A 13. Loop Rd S & District Rd .38 A .35 A 14. B St & Tustin Ranch Rd .45 A .49 A 15. Warner & F St/Legacy.70 B 63 B 16. Armstrong & C SUI St 28 A .30 A 18. Armstrong & E St .32 A I 26 A 19. Warner & D St .29 A .38 A - 20. Tustin Ranch Rd & Legacy .79 C 21. Armstrong & B St .40 A _81 .26 A 22. Driveway A & Warner .72 C .80 C 23. Driveway B & A St .43 A .46 A 24. B St & A St .38 A .35 A 25. C St & A St .41 A .59 A 26. Driveway C& B St 30.JSt&GSt _ 31.BSt&GSt I .25 .13 09 A A _ A .14 A .14 A 11 A 32. L St & G St/H St .08 A .12 A 33. I St & H St .07 A .09 A 1_34.JSt&ESt 2$ A 32 A 35.BSt&ESt 15_ A 23 A 36. L St & E St 12 A ?8 A 37. C St/F St & E St35 A 40 A 38. 1 St & F St 38 A 55 A 39. J St & A St .29 A 45 A 40. B St & A St .36 A .57 A 4 L C St & A St/D St .45 A j .53 A City of Tustin Austin -Foust -\s,ociates. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 4-3 9'20l4rpt5 doc Table 4-1 (cont.) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY Intersection* 42. N St & D St r 43. M St & A St AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS . l 1 A- .35 A ICU _ .18 .32 LOS _ A A 44.KSt&ESt .08 A 10 1 45. K St & G St .08 A .11 A 46.BSt&ISt .10 A .09 A 1 47.JSt&ISt .16 A .17 A 50. B St & Valencia N Loop_.25 A 22 A 51.NLoop Rd&BSt 14 A 14 A 52. East Connector & B St .18 A .17 A 53.DSt&BSt i .14 A .14 A 58. D St & Moffett _ .35 A .?8 A 59. C St & Moffett 45 A 37 A 60. N Loo Rd & Legacy .34 A .30 A 62. C St & Legacy . l0 A .16 A 63. N Loop Rd & G St .10 A .14 A 101. Red Hill & Edinger .87 D .78 C 102. Red Hill & Valencia .84 D .73 C 103. Red Hill & Warner .81 D .90 D 104. Red Hill & Carnegie 105. Red Hill & Barranca .53 A 70 B .57 .81 _ A D 106. Aston & Barranca .52 A .62 B 107. Armstrong & Barranca .58 A .61 B 108. Tustin Ranch Rd/Von Karman & Barranca .79 C .74 C 109. West Connector & Edinger .53 A .70 B 0. Tustin Ranch Rd Connector & Edinger .70 B .79 C 1. East Connector & Edinger 2. Tustin Ranch Rd & Tustin Ranch Rd Connector FI 65 B .74 C 69 .77 B C� 3. Tustin Ranch Rd & Walnut .83 D .82 D * See intersection location map in Figure 4-2 I ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization iLOS - Level of Service City ofTustin Austin -Foust associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 4-4 022014ipt5Bloc Figure 4-2 INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 4-5 922004rpt5fig4-2.dwg WALNUT AV 113 109 110 10 EDINGER AV 112 111 e•sT r~4 51 52 53 •50 2 NORTH LOOP 11 y ,4_Na11 W •- 1 1 K U 102 i �y = 58 ,59 10 MOFFETf DR Z62 'y"s y 61 m 60 o � 20 x F s• •O 63 < G. 'G' 'G' ST 0 9 15 3 103 22 5 P� 19 8 < WARNED .I• =33 T 38 WARNER AV 2, f 4 21 s� S45 37 42 .: 47.6 31 .41 c .0 16 0'. S35 43 7 104 23 A' ST 24 ` 5� 34 40 13 i CARNEGIE 8 ; 25 39 14 o m y 6 A A O 105 U •106 107 108 ti 0 is BARRANCA PKWY Figure 4-2 INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 4-5 922004rpt5fig4-2.dwg The intersection criteria involve the use of peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ICU ranges that correspond to LOS "A" through -F were described in Chapter 1.0, and by practice the ICU methodology assumes that intersections are signalized. Based on the peak hour intersection performance criteria and impact thresholds discussed in Chapter 1.0, all intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels (i.e., ICU value is .90 or less). (See Appendix B for detailed ICU worksheets.) TURN POCKET LENGTHS This section addresses turn pocket lengths for left -turn and right -turn lanes at future signalized intersections with exclusive right -turn and left -turn lanes. They are based on vehicle storage requirements, and are thereby exclusive of transition lengths (typically, transitions are 90 feet for a single lane and 120 to 150 feet for a double lane). The recommended turn pocket lengths for left -turns and right -turns are summarized in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. A detailed analysis of the left- and right - turn pocket lengths will be performed with the associated development's master plan and street improvement plan reviews, and in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, when specific project details are available. CONCLUSIONS This analysis has shown that the proposed Legacy Park land use and arterial circulation changes within the Master Development footprint of Tustin Legacy have not resulted in significant changes to the projected trip generation or in any new significant project impacts that would require mitigation. Therefore there are no changes to the previous traffic findings included in the original Program EIS/EIR and the subsequent addendum completed in 2006. Moreover, the proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied here. - - - -- nv Of ustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Lcgacy Traffic Analysis 4-6 9220(4rpt5.doc Table 4-2 LEFT -TURN STORAGE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Intersection (ti/S Rd at E/W Rd) j2. Tustin Ranch & Valencia N Loop 3. Tustin Ranch & Warner N Movement Peak Hour �_ Volume _ SBL_ PM 38 NBL AM 317 _EBL PM 521 WBC PM27 SBL pM� 727 Lanes 2 �— 2 1 2 Volume/Lane I Length 19 _ 150' — 159 200' 261 300' 27 150' 364 t001 WBL— AM 1,675 2.9* 578 _� 600' 4. Tustin Ranch & Warner South NBL PM 171 2 86 150' EBL PM 989 2 495 500' 5. Armstrong & Warner SBL PM 135 1 135 150' NBL PM I 418 2 209 EBL 201 1 201 1 250' 1 250' WBL 150 1 150 150' 6. Armstrong &A St 7. Tustin Ranch & C St/Park Ave SBL EAM 229 1 229 I 250' NBL 107 l 107 _ �I50' EBL AM 150 1 150 150' WBL PM 216 I 1 216 SBL PM 258 2 129 250' 150' NBL AM 259 2 130 150' _ _ EBL PM 222 1 222 X50' WBL PM 248 1 248 250' 8. Loop Rd & Warner SBL PM 30 1 30 150' NBLPM 221 1 221 250' EBL PM 51 2 26 150' WBL PM 90 2 45 1501 9. Loop Rd & Jamboree SB Ramps SBL PM 171 1 171 200' NBL PM 46 1 _46 150' EBL PM 60 1 60 150' WBL AM 325EE 2 163 200' 10. N Loop Rd &Moffett SBL PM 69 1 69 150' WBL AM 279 1 279 300' 11. N Loop Rd & Valencia N Loop M NBL E?AM 76 I 76 150' EBL 86 1 86 150' 14. B St & Tustin Ranch SBL PM--�— EBL AM 278 252 1.9* 2 147_ 126 j 150' 150' 15. Warner & F St/Legacy SBL PM 558 2 279 300' NBL PM 51 1 51 150' EBL PM 516 1.9* 2', 2 300' WBL AM 23 l 23 X150' 20. Tustin Ranch & Legacy SBL PM 146 1 146 150' NBL AM 330 1 330 350' EBL PM 353 1 353 400' WBL PM 116 1 116 150' qty of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 4-7 922004rpti.doc Table 4-2 (cont.) LEFT -TURN STORAGE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Intersection (N/S Rd at E/W Rd_) 22. Driveway A& Warner Movement SBL Peak Hour glume PM 110 Lanes 1 Volume/Lane j Length 110 150' _ NBL PNI 137 l 137 --F-3-46-1 150' EBL AM 346 350' WBL AM 63 1 63 150' 23. Driveway B & A St SBL PM268 1 268 300' NBL PM ! 46 1 46 150' EBL AM 326 1 326 350' WBL AM 159 1 159 200' 25. C St & A St �40. B St & A St 4 L C St & A St/D St SBL AM 116 1 116 150' NBLAIVI 261 1 261 300' EBL AM 21 1 21 �- 150' WBL PM 269 1 269 SBL PM 253 l 253 300' 300' NBL AM 295 2 148 EBL PM _ 401 4050' 150' WBL PM 22 1 22 SBL AM==, 1 1 _ 150' 150' NBL AM 471 2 236 250' EBL PM 57 1 57 150' WBL PM 38 1 38 _ 150' 60. N Loop Rd & Legacy SBL AM I 1 l 150' NBL AM 79 1 79 150' EBLPM 165 1 165 200' WBL PM 63 1 63 150' 102. Red Hill & Valencia SBL AM 270 2 135 150' NBL PM 1,120 2 560 600' EBL AM 40 1 40 150' WBL AM 580 2 290 300' 103. Ked Hill &Warner SBL AM 600 2 300 300' NBL PM 480 240 250' EBL PM 280 2 140 150' WBL AM 290 2 145 150' 104. Red Hill & Carnegie SBL AM 500 2 250 250' NBL AM 120 1 120 150' EBL PM 90 1 90 150' WBL PM 220 1 220 250' 106. Aston & Barranca 107. Armstrong & Barranca SBL PM 150 1 150 150' NBL PM 130 1 130 150' EBL AM 300 1 300 300' WBL AM 80 1 80 SBL PM 340 1 I 340 150' 350' NBL PM_ 100 1 100 150' EBL AM 360 l 360 400' WBL AM 170 1 l7U 200' Cityc n Leg ParkAu;nn-Foust Associates. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 4-8 922004rpt5 doc Table 4-2 (cont.) LEFT -TURN STORAGE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Intersection (N/S Rd at E/W Rd) F108. Von Karman/Tustin Ranch & Barranca Movement SBL Peak Hour Volume Lanes 540 2 Volume/Lane 270 Length 1300' _PM NBL PM 50_0 2 250 '50' EBL PM 1 360 2 180 200' WBL AM 670 2 335 350' 110. Tustin Ranch Rd Connector NBL PM 430 I 430 400' & Edinger WBL AM 430 2 215 I 250' 1 1 1. East Connector & Edinger SBL PM 300 1 300 300' NBL AM 130 1 130 150' EBL PM 130 1 130 150' WBL PM 90 1 90 150' l li 2. Tustin Ranch & SBL PM 260 1 260 300' Tustin Ranch Rd Connector WBL AM 700 2 350 350' 113. Tustin Ranch & Walnut WBL PM 370 2 185 200' Abbreviations: Adj. — Adjacent ICU — Intersection Capacity Utilization Ln(s) — Lane(s) N/S Rd, E/W Rd — North/South Road, East/West Road RT — Right -Turn Vol — Volume Notes: The turn pocket length for right -turn lanes is determined from the estimated queue length of the highest adjacent through movement (or left -turn movement at a T -intersection) in the AM or PM peak hour with a minimum of 150' and rounded into increments of 50'. Only intersections that are anticipated to be signalized with dedicated left - turn lanes are analyzed here. * "The right -turn volumes (or through at a four-way intersection) are assumed to use five (5) percent of the shared turn/right-turn lane. left- City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 4-9 92201 4ipt5.doc Intersection (N/S Rd at E/W Rd) 2. Tustin Ranch & Valencia N Loop RT Peak Move Hour SBR AM NBR PM_ EBR PM WBR PM 3. Tustin Ranch & Warner N _ 4. Tustin Ranch & Warner South _ _NBR PM WBR PM SBR AM EBR PM 5. Armstrong & Warner SBR PM EBR AM 7. Tustin Ranch & C St/ Park Ave SBR AM NBR PM EBR PM 8. Loop Rd & Warner SBR AM NBR PM EBR PM WBR AM 10. N Loop Rd & Moffett NBR PM WBR AM 11. N Loop Rd & Valencia N Loop SBR PM EBR AM 14. B St & Tustin Ranch SBR PM WBR AM 15. Warner & F St/Legacy SBR I PM WBR T AM Table 4-3 RIGHT -TURN STORAGE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS RT Vol RT Lns RT Vol/Ln Adj Move Adj Vol 759 1 759 SBT_ 2.362 58 1 58 NBT_ 2,063 411 1 411 168_ _ 34 1 _ 34 _EBT WBT 101 1,382 1.5 _ 922 NBT 1,208 938 1.5 626 WBL 695 1,174 1.5 783 SBT 1,791 273 1 273 EBL 989 244 1 ?44 SBT 178 502 1 502 EBT 1,280 292 1 292 SBT 1,498 317 1 317 NBT 1,368 312 1 312 EBT 239 266 1 266 SBT 101 202 1 202 NBT 45 89 1 89 EBT 1,998 23 1 23 WBT 2.178 188 1 188 NBT 44 81 1 81 WBL 279 41 1 41 SBT 76 53 1 53 EBL 86 429 1.5 286 SBT 278 253 1 253 WBT 1,568 513 1 513 SBT 1,093 867 2 434 WBT 308 Adj Lanes Adj Vol/Lane — I ICU Peak Hour - RT Lengi 3 788 r-- .73 AM 300' 3 688 300' 1 168 250' - 51250' 2.5 484 ! .8( PM -1 1 300' 2.5 21-8-1 300' 2.5 717 .65 —PM 250' 2 _ 495 _ 2 89 _ 65 AM 250' 3 427 250' 3 500 .69 PM 300' 3 456 300' 1 239 250' 2 51 .67 AM 250' 2 23 250' 3 666 300' 3 726 300' 2 22 .24 AM 250' 1 279 250' 1 76 .16 PM 250' 1 86 250' 1 278 .49 PM 250' 3 523 250' 3 365 70 AM 300' 2 154 250' - - -- - -- - - - - -_- - - - --- -- 1 ity ul fusun Austin -Foust kssuciatcs. Inc Lcgac� Park ofl istin Lcgac� 1 raf is Analysis 4-I0 9 20041pu doc Table 4-3 (cont.) RIGHT -TURN STORAGE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Intersection (N/S Rd at E/W Rd) 20. Tustin Ranch & Lega_ RT Peak Move Hour RT Vol SBR AM 775 SBR PM_ 373 RT Lns 1 1 RT Vol/Ln 775 -- 373 Adj Move SBT SBT Adj Adj Ad' Vol Lanes Vol/Lane 1,771 _ 3 _ 591 _ 3 1 3 ICU .81 .80 Peak Hour PM _ �— PM RT Length 350' 250' 22. Driveway A& Warner _ _ __ — EBR PM 44 1 44 2,014 3 672 300' 23. _Driveway B St & A EBR AM 51 1 51 _EBT EBT 225 1 225 .46 PM 250' 38. 1St & F St NBR PM 598 1 _ 598 NBL/T 5 1 5 .55 PM 250' 40. B St & A St _ EBR PM-- 51 33 1 513 EBT 71 2 -- 36 57 - PM_ - 250' 41. C St & A SUD St _ SBR PM 225 _ 1 225 SBT 300 1 .3 .53 PM 250' EBR_ PM 435 1 435 EBT 13 1 13 250' 60. N Loop Rd & Legacy EBR PM 186 1 186 EBT 174 1 174 _ .34 AM 250 102, Red Hill & Valencia SBR AM 120 1 130 SBT 1,580 3 527 .84 AM 350' NBR PM 630 _1 630 NBT 1,460 4 365 350' WBR AM 70 1 70 WBT 450_ 2 225 250' 103. Red Hill & Warner SBR AM 220 1 _220 _ S B_T 2.190 4 548 _ .90 P M 400' NBR PM 280_ 1 _ 280_ NBT_ 1,980 4 495 400' EBR AM 230 -- -- 1 — -- 230 — EBT ------ 1,670 3 557 400' WBR PM 670 1 670__ W_BT -- -- 1,650 3 550 500'_ 104. Red Hill & Carnegie __. NBR PM 60 I 60 NBT_ 2,250 3 .57 PM 250' EBR PM 100 1 100 EBT _750 20 1 20 250' 250' WBR AM 400 1.5 267 WBT 20 20 — — 107. Armstrong & Barranca - 108. Tustin Ranch Von Karman & Barranca _ SBR _PM 370 NBR PM 80 SBR AM 320 _ 1 1 2 370 80 160 SBT NBT SBT .5 10 1 10.61 10 _ 1 10� 1,080 3 360 .79 1 _ PM AM 250' _ 250' — 300' NBR PM 520 1 530 NBT 1,140 3 380 300' EBR PM 320 1 320 EBT _ 1,390 4 348 300' WBR AM 430 1 430 WBT 1,440 4 360 300' 110. Tustin Ranch Rd Connector & Edinger LNBR I PM 160 1 160 NBL 430 1 430 .79 PM 300' EBR I AM 560 I 560 EBT 2,020 3 674 300' Cul of lusun Awtin-Parol Associates lnC. Leea,yPark of fuslUnLceacN 7rallic.Anal5sis 4 -II 922004rpr-doe llp of fusLin Lcoac� Park of fustin Legacy IraaIfic Analysis 4-1? -- Austin-touNt Associates. Inc. 922004rpt--doc able 4-3 (cont.) RIGHT -TURN STORAGE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Intersection N/S Rd at E/W Rd I 11. East Connector & Edinger RT Move SBR Peak _Hour RT Vol PM 100 RT Lns _ 1 RT Vol/Ln 100 Adj _Move SBT Adjd' Vol 10 Adj Lanes 1 ,���eak Vol/Lane_ 10 ICU .69 Hour PM RT Length 250' NBR __A_M 70 _ l 70 NBT 10 1 _ 10 250' 112. Tustin Ranch Rd - WBR AM 150 1 150 — WBT 2,290 3 _ -- 764 300' & Tustin Ranch Rd Connector NBR PM 330 1 330 _NBT 2,280 3 760 .77 PM 300` WBR AM 290 l 290 VbBL 700 2 350 300' Notes: The turn pocket length for right -turn lanes is determined from the estimated queue length of the highest adjacent through movement (or left -turn movement at a T -intersection) and/or highest ICU in the AM or PM peak hour with a minimum of 250' and rounded into increments of 50'. Only intersections that are anticipated to be signalized with dedicated right -turn lanes are analyzed here. Adj - Adjacent ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Ln(s) - L ane(s) N'S Rd, E W Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road RT - Right -Turn Vol - Volume llp of fusLin Lcoac� Park of fustin Legacy IraaIfic Analysis 4-1? -- Austin-touNt Associates. Inc. 922004rpt--doc Appendix A LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Table A-1 ADT and Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate Summary Figure A-1 Tustin Legacy Traffic Model (TLTM) Traffic Analysis Zone System - -- -- — rty of 1�"Pwtin Au,tin-Foust Associates. lnc. Legacy �ukol Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis A -I 9220(4rpti.doc Table A -t ADT AND PEAK IIOUR TRIP GENERATION RATE SUMMARY AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Lanid Use _ Units �� In Out Total 1 LDR (t-7 DU/Acre) �DUIJ-_ l9 .75 In Out .65 .36 Total ADT 1.01 9.57 _. _.56 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) DU .13 .Sl 64 .56 24 8.00 3--NI-HDR (16-25 DU/Acre) DU .08 .43 .51 3. __.80 _ .42 _ .20 _ .62 6.63 _4. Transitional Housing Room 21 17 38 5. hotel (190 TSF) Room -- .34 .56 .18 22 .40 4.90 8.23 _22 6. Elementary/Middle School - Stu l7 12 .29 .32 .29 .00 .00 .61 .00 Haigh School Stu .32 .14 _1.02 1.79 _7. .46 8. Learning Center TSF .66 .07 .73 .06 .09 t5 .34 .15 .49 6.12 9. Neighborhood Commercial TSF 1.63 1.05 2.68 4.68 5.06 9.74 10. Community Commercial TSF 1.00 .641.64 2.85 3.09 5.94 68.17 12. General Office TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 13.27 14..Military (Office) TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 13.27 15. Light Industrial/R&D TSF 1.03 21 1.24 .16 1.08 8.11 17. Park Acre .00 .00 .00 .92 .00 .00 .00 5.00 18. Regional Park Acre .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5.00 19. Golf Course Acre .38 .10 .48 22 .50 .72 8.00 20. Community Facility TSF 2.00 .25 2.25 .89 1.97 2.86 25.00 1. 1Aulti lex Theater Seat .00 .00 .01 .09 .06 .14 1.80 1 22. Senior Congregate TSF .19 .19 .38 22 6.10 23. Specialty Retail Center TSF .00 .00 .00 .20 1.19 1.52 .42 2.71 44.32 24. 'Theatre (29 TSF Seat 00 .00 .00 .01.01 .02 1.25 25. Health Club I TSF 51 .70 1.21 2.07 1% 4.05 32.93 26. High -Turnover Restaurant TSF 5.99 5.53 11.52 6.66 4.26 10.92 127.15 27. Senior Housing Attached DU .04 .04 .08 .07 .04 .11 3.48 28. Sports Park Acre .01 .00 .Ol 3.40 4.10 7.50 53.80 29. "Tustin Facility SG 3.32 1.01 4.33 2.27 4.76 7.03 62.20 Note: For a land use over 300 TSF that can be defined as a campus, the square footages are combined and the equation -based rates are applied to determine trip generation (i.e., Shopping Center, Office Park and Industrial Park.). The land use -based trip rates for these uses are based on the following equation: LN(T)=AxLN(X)+B where X -land use amount and T=daily trips ----- AM Peak Hour ----- ----- PM Peak Hour ----- Coefficients Pk/ADT Pk/ADT Land Use Type Units A B Ratio In Out Ratio In Out 11. Shopping Ctr TSF .643 5.866 .024 61% 39% .087 i 48% 52% � 1.3. Office Park TSF .768 3.654 .080 76% 24% .087 36% 64% 16. Industrial Park TSF .768 3.654 .079 77% 23% .089 32% 68% Abbreviations: ADT - average daily trips DU - dwelling units 1 LDR - Low Density Residential MDR -Medium Density Residential MHDR - Medium High Density Residential R&D - Research and Development SG - special generator Stu - student TSF - thousand square feet Trip Rate Sources: MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR and ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7"' Edition. City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis A-2 922004rpt5.doc /'- 14-15 I �N 00 16-20 ❑2 05 r A 1-10 37 38 39 F6-1 21 103 23 106 f1 105 F L 0 � 1 U 102 109 22 101 111 93 98 97 100 92 F1 51 74 99 95 96 1 94 91 90 85 89 .� F8-1 84 86 87 25 CD) 83 82 81 88 35 33 '` 27 78 80 26 79 31 36 34 _ 30 23 77 54 ❑ 9 55 13 59 62 � 68 � 58 ,? 69 F161 ,x 41 57 64 70 112 40 4'' �` N 42 56 65 71 / 46 66 72 j !^�a 43 76 47 17 113 49 73 . ' Fl -91 9-12 _ 48 _ 75 - —1 44 45 5 0 53 74 14 18 114 1 115 Legend Planning Area Boundary (Specific Plan Boundary) Fx-x-1 Planning Area Numbering System N Neighborhood ZZ Model Zone Neighborhood Boundary (City of Irvine) Figure A-1 TUSTIN LEGACY TRAFFIC MODEL JLTM) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE SYS ELM City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis A-3 922004rp0figA-1.d%%g 11-12 13 ! s A 1-10 37 38 39 F6-1 21 103 23 106 f1 105 F L 0 � 1 U 102 109 22 101 111 93 98 97 100 92 F1 51 74 99 95 96 1 94 91 90 85 89 .� F8-1 84 86 87 25 CD) 83 82 81 88 35 33 '` 27 78 80 26 79 31 36 34 _ 30 23 77 54 ❑ 9 55 13 59 62 � 68 � 58 ,? 69 F161 ,x 41 57 64 70 112 40 4'' �` N 42 56 65 71 / 46 66 72 j !^�a 43 76 47 17 113 49 73 . ' Fl -91 9-12 _ 48 _ 75 - —1 44 45 5 0 53 74 14 18 114 1 115 Legend Planning Area Boundary (Specific Plan Boundary) Fx-x-1 Planning Area Numbering System N Neighborhood ZZ Model Zone Neighborhood Boundary (City of Irvine) Figure A-1 TUSTIN LEGACY TRAFFIC MODEL JLTM) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE SYS ELM City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis A-3 922004rp0figA-1.d%%g NEIGHBORHOOD A LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ' -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- Land Use Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING AREA 1 (Zones 1-10) 6. Elementary/Middle School 550.00 STU 94 66 160 0 0 0 561 8. Learning Center 1293.86 TSF 852 92 944 196 440 636 7920 9. Neighborhood Commercial 27.12 TSF 44 28 72 127 137 264 3033 29. Tustin Facility 100.00 SG 332 101 433 227 476 703 6220 TOTAL 1322 287 1609 550 1053 1603 17734 PLANNING AREA 2 (Zones 11,12) 28. Sports Park 24.10 ACRE 0 0 0 82 99 181 1297 PLANNING AREA 3 (Zone 13) 4. Transitional Housing 192.00 ROOM 40 33 73 35 42 77 941 NEIGHBORHOOD A TOTALS 4. Transitional Housing 192.00 ROOM 40 33 73 35 42 77 941 6. Elementary/Middle School 550.00 STU 94 66 160 0 0 0 561 8. Learning Center 1293.86 TSF 852 92 944 196 440 636 7920 9. Neighborhood Commercial 27.12 TSF 44 28 72 127 137 264 3033 28. Sports Park 24.10 ACRE 0 0 0 82 99 181 1297 29. Tustin Facility 100.00 SG 332 101 433 227 476 703 6220 TOTAL 1362 320 1682 667 1194 1861 19972 A-4 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD B LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ' -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- Land Use Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT --'------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING AREA 4 (Zones 14,15) 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 145.00 DU 28 81 109 94 52 146 1388 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 120.00 DU 16 62 78 68 28 96 960 27. Senior Housing Attached 72.00 DU 2 2 4 6 2 8 250 TOTAL 46 145 191 168 82 250 2598 PLANNING AREA 5 (Zones 16-20) 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 132.00 DU 17 67 84 75 30 105 1056 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 438.00 DU 35 188 223 185 88 273 2903 27. Senior Housing Attached 170.00 DU 5 5 10 10 5 15 590 TOTAL 57 260 317 270 123 393 4549 PLANNING AREA 7 -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- Zone Land Use Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT --•------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 10. Community Commercial 51.73 TSF 52 33 85 147 160 307 3526 12. General Office 72.42 TSF 119 17 136 22 108 130 961 SUB -TOTAL 171 50 221 169 268 437 4487 23 10. Community Commercial 51.73 TSF 52 33 85 147 160 307 3526 12. General Office 72.42 TSF 119 17 136 22 108 130 961 SUB -TOTAL 171 50 221 169 268 437 4487 PLANNING AREA 7 TOTALS 1.0. Community Commercial 103.46 TSF 104 66 170 294 320 614 7052 1.2. General Office 144.84 TSF 238 34 272 44 216 260 1922 TOTAL 342 100 442 338 536 874 8974 NEIGHBORHOOD B TOTALS ' 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 145.00 DU 28 81 109 94 52 146 1388 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 252.00 DU 33 129 162 143 58 201 2016 . MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 438.00 DU 35 188 223 185 88 273 2903 10. Community Commercial 103.46 TSF 104 66 170 294 320 614 7052 12. General Office 144.84 TSF 238 34 272 44 216 260 1922 27. Senior Housing Attached 242.00 DU 7 7 14 16 7 23 840 TOTAL 445 505 950 776 741 1517 16121 A-5 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 A-6 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD C/PA6 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ' -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- Land Use Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEI:GHBORHOOD C/PLANNING AREA 6 (Zone 21) 10. Community Commercial 57.50 TSF 58 37 95 164 178 342 3920 18. Regional Park 84.50 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 423 TOTAL 58 37 95 164 178 342 4343 A-6 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD D LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY A-7 Legacy Paris of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- ;one Land Use Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING AREA 8 (NEIGHBORHOOD D NORTH OF WARNER) 24 7. High School 1850.00 STU 592 259 851 111 167 278 3312 SUB -TOTAL 592 259 851 111 167 278 3312 25 28. Sports Park 46.00 ACRE 0 0 0 156 189 345 2475 SUB -TOTAL 0 0 0 156 189 345 2475 26 9. Neighborhood Commercial 7.19 TSF 12 8 20 34 36 70 804 13. Office Park (EQ) 135.10 TSF 89 28 117 46 82 128 1478 (Equation base = 235.30 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 101 36 137 80 118 198 2282 27 9. Neighborhood Commercial 27.44 TSF 45 29 74 128 139 267 3069 13. Office Park (EQ) 522.72 TSF 239 76 315 123 219 342 3963 (Equation base - 1153.94 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 284 105 389 251 358 609 7032 28 13. Office Park (EQ) 299.07 TSF 137 43 180 70 125 195 2267 (Equation base - 1153.94 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 137 43 180 70 125 195 2267 29 9. Neighborhood Commercial 17.21 TSF 28 18 46 81 87 168 1924 13. Office Park (EQ) 326.70 TSF 149 47 196 77 137 214 2476 (Equation base - 1153.94 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 177 65 242 158 224 382 4400 30 9. Neighborhood Commercial 5.23 TSF 9 5 14 24 26 50 584 13. Office Park (EQ) 100.20 TSF 66 21 87 34 61 95 1096 (Equation base - 235.30 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 75 26 101 58 87 145 1680 31 17. Park 8.70 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 SUB -TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 32 17. Park 1.60 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 SUB -TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 33 15. Light Industrial/R&D 162.70 TSF 168 34 202 26 150 176 1319 SUB -TOTAL 168 34 202 26 150 176 1319 34 9. Neighborhood Commercial 4.32 TSF 7 5 12 20 22 42 483 12. General Office 38.81 TSF 64 9 73 12 58 70 515 SUB -TOTAL 71 14 85 32 80 112 998 35 15. Light Industrial/RSD 156.82 TSF 162 33 195 25 144 169 1272 SUB -TOTAL 162 33 195 25 144 169 1272 36 12. General Office 172.50 TSF 285 40 325 53 257 310 2289 SUB -TOTAL 285 40 325 53 257 310 2289 PLANNING AREA 8 (NEIGHBORHOOD D NORTH OF WARNER) TOTALS 7. High School 1850.00 STU 592 259 851 111 167 278 3312 9. Neighborhood Commercial 61.38 TSF 101 65 166 287 310 597 6864 12. General Office 211.31 TSF 349 49 398 65 315 380 2804 13. Office Park (EQ) 1383.79 TSF 680 215 895 350 624 974 11280 15. Light Industrial/R&D 319.51 TSF 330 67 397 51 294 345 2591 17. Park 10.30 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 28. Sports Park 46.00 ACRE 0 0 0 156 189 345 2475 TOTAL 2052 655 2707 1020 1899 2919 29378 PLANNING AREAS 13 AND 14 (NEIGHBORHOOD D SOUTH OF WARNER) PLANNING AREA 13 54 9. Neighborhood Commercial 9.76 TSF 16 10 26 46 49 95 1091 12. General Office 39.03 TSF 64 9 73 12 58 70 518 SUB -TOTAL 80 19 99 58 107 165 1609 55 10. Community Commercial 6.00 TSF 6 4 10 17 19 36 409 17. Park 12.00 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 SUB -TOTAL 6 4 10 17 19 36 469 56 12. General Office 127.68 TSF 211 29 240 40 190 230 1694 SUB -TOTAL 211 29 240 40 190 230 1694 57 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 54.00 DU 4 23 27 23 11 34 358 SUB -TOTAL 4 23 27 23 11 34 358 58 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 76.00 DU 6 33 39 32 15 47 504 17. Park 0.30 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 SUB -TOTAL 6 33 39 32 15 47 506 A-7 Legacy Paris of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD D LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (cont.) ' A-8 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 -_AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- --Zone-------Land-Use-Type --------------- --------Units--------In Out ADT PLANNING AREA 13 (cont.) --Out---Total------In ----- ---Total------ 59 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 106.00 DU 8 46 54 45 21 66 703 10. Community Commercial 26.00 TSF 26 17 43 74 80 154 1772 SUB -TOTAL 34 63 97 119 101 220 2475 60 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 147.00 DU 12 63 75 62 29 91 975 17. Park 0.50 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 SUB -TOTAL 12 63 75 62 29 91 978 61 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 242.00 DU 19 104 123 102 48 150 1604 SUB -TOTAL 19 104 123 102 48 150 1604 62 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 38.00 DU 3 16 19 16 8 24 252 SUB -TOTAL 3 16 19 16 8 24 252 63 17. Park 1.00 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 SUB -TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 64 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 96.00 DU 8 41 49 40 19 59 636 10. Community Commercial 27.00 TSF 27 17 44 77 83 160 1841 SUB -TOTAL 35 58 93 117 102 219 2477 65 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 96.00 DU 8 41 49 40 19 59 636 10. Community Commercial 31.00 TSF 31 20 51 88 96 184 2113 SUB -TOTAL 39 61 100 128 115 243 2749 66 10. Community Commercial 7.00 TSF 7 4 11 20 22 42 477 12. General Office 100.00 TSF 165 23 188 31 149 180 1327 SUB -TOTAL 172 27 199 51 171 222 1804 ,67 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 10.00 DU 1 4 5 4 2 6 66 10. Community Commercial 22.00 TSF 22 14 36 63 68 131 1500 12. General Office 60.00 TSF 99 14 113 19 89 108 796 SUB -TOTAL 122 32 154 86 159 245 2362 iib 12. General Office 65.00 TSF 107 15 122 20 97 117 863 17. Park 1.00 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 SUB -TOTAL 107 15 122 20 97 117 868 69 13. Office Park (EQ) 447.20 TSF 255 81 336 131 233 364 4193 SUB -TOTAL 255 81 336 131 233 364 4193 .70 5. Hotel (190 TSF) 250.00 ROOM 85 55 140 80 73 153 2058 SUB -TOTAL 85 55 140 80 73 153 2058 71 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 17.00 DU 1 7 8 7 3 10 113 10. Community Commercial 73.00 TSF 73 47 120 208 226 434 4976 12. General Office 141.00 TSF 233 32 265 44 210 254 1871 25. Health Club 20.00 TSF 10 14 24 41 40 81 659 SUB -TOTAL 317 100 417 300 479 779 7619 72 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 9.00 DU 1 4 5 4 2 6 60 10. Community Commercial 18.00 TSF 18 12 30 51 56 107 1227 12. General Office 178.00 TSF 294 41 335 55 265 320 2362 24. Theatre (28 TSF) 1000.00 SEAT 0 0 0 10 10 20 1250 SUB -TOTAL 313 57 370 120 333 453 4899 73 S. Hotel (190 TSF) 250.00 ROOM 85 55 140 80 73 153 2058 12. General Office 125.00 TSF 206 29 235 39 186 225 1659 SUB -TOTAL 291 84 375 119 259 378 3717 PLANNING AREA 13 TOTALS 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 891.00 DU 71 382 453 375 177 552 5907 5. Hotel (190 TSF) 500.00 ROOM 170 110 280 160 146 306 4115 9. Neighborhood Commercial 9.76 TSF 16 10 26 46 49 95 1091 10. Community Commercial 210.00 TSF 210 135 345 598 650 1248 14315 12. General Office 835.71 TSF 1379 192 1571 260 1244 1504 11090 13. Office Park (EQ) 447.20 TSF 255 81 336 131 233 364 4193 17. Park 14.80 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 24. Theatre (28 TSF) 1000.00 SEAT 0 0 0 10 10 20 1250 25. Health Club 20.00 TSF 10 14 24 41 40 81 659 TOTAL 2111 924 3035 1621 2549 4170 42695 PLANNING AREA 14 74 10. Community Commercial 8.00 TSF 8 5 13 23 25 48 545 12. General Office 37.40 TSF 62 9 71 12 56 68 496 13. Office Park (EQ) 321.45 TSF 178 56 234 92 163 255 2933 (Equation base - 502.64 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 248 70 318 127 244 371 3974 75 13. Office Park (EQ) 181.18 TSF 101 32 133 52 92 144 1653 (Equation base - 502.64 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 101 32 133 52 92 144 1653 A-8 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD D LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (cont.) A-9 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- --Zone-------Land-Use-Type--------------------Units--------In-- Out Total------In----Out Total PLANNING AREA 14 (cont.) ------------- -------- -------ADT 76 13. Office Park (EQ) 302.10 TSF 189 60 249 97 173 270 3102 SUB -TOTAL 189 60 249 97 173 270 3102 PLANNING AREA 14 TOTALS 10.,Community Commercial 8.00 TSF 8 5 13 23 25 48 545 12. General Office 37.40 TSF 62 9 71 12 56 68 496 13. Office Park (EQ) 804.74 TSF 468 148 616 241 428 669 7688 TOTAL 538 162 700 276 509 785 8729 PLANNING AREAS 13 AND 14 (NEIGHBORHOOD D SOUTH OF WARNER) 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 891.00 DU 71 382 453 375 177 552 5907 5. Hotel (190 TSF) 500.00 ROOM 170 110 280 160 146 306 4115 9. Neighborhood Commercial 9.76 TSF 16 10 26 46 49 95 1091 10. Community Commercial 218.00 TSF 218 140 358 621 675 1296 14860 12. General Office 873.11 TSF 1441 201 1642 272 1300 1572 11586 13. Office Park (EQ) 1251.94 TSF 723 229 952 372 661 1033 11881 17. Park 14.80 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 24. Theatre (28 TSF) 1000.00 SEAT 0 0 0 10 10 20 1250 25. Health Club 20.00 TSF 10 14 24 41 40 81 659 TOTAL 2649 1086 3735 1897 3058 4955 51424 NEIGHBORHOOD D TOTALS 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 891.00 DU 71 382 453 375 177 552 5907 5. Hotel (190 TSF) 500.00 ROOM 170 110 280 160 146 306 4115 . High School 1850.00 STU 592 259 851 111 167 278 3312 9. Neighborhood Commercial 71.14 TSF 117 75 192 333 359 692 7955 1.0. Community Commercial 218.00 TSF 218 140 358 621 675 1296 14860 1.2. General Office 1084.42 TSF 1790 250 2040 337 1615 1952 14390 1.3. Office Park (EQ) 2635.73 TSF 1403 444 1847 722 1285 2007 23161 1.5. Light Industrial/RSD 319.52 TSF 330 67 397 51 294 345 2591 17. Park 25.10 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 24. Theatre (28 TSF) 1000.00 SEAT 0 0 0 10 10 20 1250 25. Health Club 20.00 TSF 10 14 24 41 40 81 659 28. Sports Park 46.00 ACRE 0 0 0 156 189 345 2475 TOTAL 4701 1741 6442 2917 4957 7874 80802 A-9 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 Zone ---.37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 I 48 49 50 51 52 53 NEIGHBORHOOD E/PA9-12 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY NEiIGHBORHOOD E/PLANNING AREAS 9-12 TOTALS 9. Land Use Type Units ---------------------------------------------- 12. General Office 150.09 TSF 16. Industrial Park (EQ) 196.90 TSF TSF SUB -TOTAL Light Industrial/R6D 136.51 12. General Office 48.79 TSF 16. Industrial Park (EQ) 56.63 TSF ACRE SUB -TOTAL Sports Park 8.00 12. General Office 48.79 TSF 15. Light Industrial/R6D 56.63 TSF 0 SUB -TOTAL 0 0 12. General Office 60.03 TSF 16. Industrial Park (EQ) 78.76 TSF 60 SUB -TOTAL 1739 340 12. General Office 60.89 TSF 15. Light Industrial/R6D 79.88 TSF SUB -TOTAL 17. Park 10.10 ACRE SUB -TOTAL 12. General Office 126.00 TSF SUB -TOTAL 17. Park 16.20 ACRE SUB -TOTAL 9. Neighborhood Commercial 8.71 TSF 12. General Office 35.00 TSF SUB -TOTAL 9. Neighborhood Commercial 5.88 TSF 12. General Office 72.05 TSF SUB -TOTAL 13. Office Park (EQ) 59.73 TSF (Equation base - 91.89 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 13. Office Park (EQ) 32.16 TSF (Equation base - 91.89 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 9. Neighborhood Commercial 3.54 TSF 12. General Office 87.56 TSF SUB -TOTAL 28. Sports Park 3.20 ACRE SUB -TOTAL 13. Office Park (EQ) 64.47 TSF (Equation base - 138.10 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL 28. Sports Park 4.80 ACRE SUB -TOTAL 13. Office Park (EQ) 73.64 TSF (Equation base a 138.10 TSF ) SUB -TOTAL NEiIGHBORHOOD E/PLANNING AREAS 9-12 TOTALS 9. Neighborhood Commercial 18.13 TSF 12. General Office 689.19 TSF 13. Office Park (EQ) 230.00 TSF 15. Light Industrial/R6D 136.51 TSF 16. Industrial Park (EQ) 332.28 TSF 17. Park 26.30 ACRE 28. Sports Park 8.00 ACRE TOTAL -- AM Peak Hour -- In Out Total ------------- 248 35 283 136 41 177 384 76 460 80 11 91 52 16 68 132 27 159 80 11 91 58 12 70 138 23 161 99 14 113 67 20 87 166 34 200 100 14 114 82 17 99 182 31 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 208 29 237 208 29 237 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 9 23 58 8 66 72 17 89 10 6 16 119 17 136 129 23 152 49 16 65 49 16 65 26 8 34 26 8 34 6 4 10 144 20 164 150 24 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 15 63 48 15 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 17 72 55 17 72 -- PM Peak Hour -- In Out Total ------------- 47 224 271 64 135 199 111 359 470 15 73 88 24 52 76 39 125 164 15 73 88 9 52 61 24 125 149 19 89 108 31 67 98 50 156 206 19 91 110 13 73 86 32 164 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 188 227 39 188 227 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 44 85 11 52 63 52 96 148 28 30 58 22 107 129 50 137 187 25 45 70 25 45 70 14 24 38 14 24 38 17 18 35 27 130 157 44 148 192 11 13 24 11 13 24 25 44 69 25 44 69 16 20 36 16 20 36 28 51 79 28 51 79 ADT 1992 2233 4225 647 858 1505 647 459 1106 797 1105 1902 808 648 1456 51 51 1672 1672 81 81 974 464 1438 658 956 1614 808 808 435 435 396 1162 1558 172 172 794 794 258 258 907 907 30 19 49 86 92 178 2028 1136 159 1295 214 1027 1241 9145 178 56 234 92 164 256 2944 140 29 169 22 125 147 1107 255 77 332 119 254 373 4196 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 27 33 60 430 1739 340 2079 560 1695 2255 19982 A-10 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD F LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ' -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- Land Use Type -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT PLANNING AREA 16 (Zone 112) 1'.1. Shopping Center (EQ) 448.00 TSF 202 129 331 575 623 1198 13772 PLANNING AREA 17 (Zone 113) 1.1. Shopping Center (EQ) 47.00 TSF 21 14 35 60 65 125 1445 PLANNING AREA 18 (Zone 114) 1.4. Military (Office) 40.85 TSF 67 9 76 13 61 74 542 PLANNING AREA 19 (Zone 115) 1.1. Shopping Center (EQ) 435.60 TSF 196 125 321 559 606 1165 13391 21. Multiplex Theater 3500.00 SEAT 11 11 22 301 203 504 6300 TOTAL 207 136 343 860 809 1669 19691 NEIGHBORHOOD F TOTALS 11. Shopping Center (EQ) 930.60 TSF 419 268 687 1194 1294 2488 28608 14. Military (Office) 40.85 TSF 67 9 76 13 61 74 542 21. Multiplex Theater 3500.00 SEAT 11 11 22 301 203 504 6300 TOTAL 497 288 785 1508 1558 3066 35450 A-1 I Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD G LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Zone Land Use Type Units -------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING AREA 15 Total In 77 9. Neighborhood Commercial 26.68 TSF 28 12. General Office 45.74 TSF 260 SUB -TOTAL 75 11 78 22. Senior Congregate 79.50 TSF 607 SUB -TOTAL 39 157 79 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 108.00 DU 15 SUB -TOTAL 30 16 80 17. Park 4.50 ACRE 15 SUB -TOTAL 16 17 81 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 31.00 DU 69 SUB -TOTAL 26 86 82 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 40.00 DU 60 SUB -TOTAL 86 864 83 17. Park 3.90 ACRE 0 22. Senior Congregate 79.50 TSF 0 SUB -TOTAL 0 0 84 10. Community Commercial 130.68 TSF 23 12. General Office 104.54 TSF 297 SUB -TOTAL 17 23 85 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 54.00 DU 8 SUB -TOTAL 30 26 86 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 20.00 DU 22 SUB -TOTAL 26 14 87 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 9.00 DU 0 SUB -TOTAL 0 0 88 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 44.00 DU 16 SUB -TOTAL 33 485 89 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 55.00 DU 17 SUB -TOTAL 505 131 90 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 61.00 DU 776 SUB -TOTAL 172 24 91 28. Sports Park 11.50 ACRE 1387 SUB -TOTAL 108 411 92 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 34.00 DU 7 SUB -TOTAL 35 30 93 17. Park 10.60 ACRE 28 SUB -TOTAL 30 13 94 28. Sports Park 5.00 ACRE 15 SUB -TOTAL 7 20 95 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 47.00 DU 13 SUB -TOTAL 20 191 96 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 38.00 DU 3 SUB -TOTAL 86 2 97 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 68.00 DU 9 17. Park 2.80 ACRE 33 SUB -TOTAL 16 45 98 6. Elementary/Middle School 1200.00 STU 29 SUB -TOTAL 45 421 99 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 37.00 DU 20 SUB -TOTAL 526 10 100 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 65.00 DU 56 SUB -TOTAL 12 34 101 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 38.00 DU 584 SUB -TOTAL 34 46 102 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 61.00 DU 0 17. Park 2.10 ACRE 39 SUB -TOTAL 86 619 103 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 44.00 DU 47 SUB -TOTAL 619 6 -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- In ----------------------------------------------------- Out Total In Out Total ADT 43 28 71 125 135 260 2983 75 11 86 14 68 82 607 118 39 157 139 203 342 3590 15 15 30 16 17 33 485 15 15 30 16 17 33 485 14 55 69 60 26 86 864 14 55 69 60 26 86 864 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6 17 23 20 11 31 297 6 17 23 20 11 31 297 8 22 30 26 14 40 383 8 22 30 26 14 40 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 15 15 30 16 17 33 485 15 15 30 16 17 33 505 131 84 215 372 404 776 8908 172 24 196 32 156 188 1387 303 108 411 404 560 964 10295 7 28 35 30 13 43 432 7 28 35 30 13 43 432 4 11 15 13 7 20 191 4 11 15" 13 7 20 191 2 5 7 6 3 9 86 2 5 7 6 3 9 86 8 25 33 29 16 45 421 8 25 33 29 16 45 421 10 31 41 36 20 56 526 10 31 41 36 20 56 526 12 34 46 40 22 62 584 12 34 46 40 22 62 584 0 0 0 39 47 86 619 0 0 0 39 47 86 619 6 19 25 22 12 34 325 6 19 25 22 12 34 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 17 21 38 269 0 0 0 17 21 38 269 9 26 35 31 17 48 450 9 26 35 31 17 48 450 7 21 28 25 14 39 364 7 21 28 25 14 39 364 9 35 44 38 16 54 544 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 9 35 44 38 16 54 558 204 144 348 0 0 0 1224 204 144 348 0 0 0 1224 7 21 28 24 13 37 354 7 21 28 24 13 37 354 12 36 48 42 23 65 622 12 36 48 42 23 65 622 7 21 28 25 14 39 364 7 21 28 25 14 39 364 12 34 46 40 22 62 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 34 46 40 22 62 595 8 25 33 29 16 45 421 8 25 33 29 16 45 421 A-12 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD G LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (cont.) ' -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- Zone Land Use Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.04 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 23.00 DU 4 13 17 15 8 23 220 SUB -TOTAL 4 13 17 15 8 23 220 1.05 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 70.00 DU 9 36 45 39 17 56 560 SUB -TOTAL 9 36 45 39 17 56 560 1.09 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 75.00 DU 10 38 48 42 18 60 600 SUB -TOTAL 10 38 48 42 18 60 600 1.11 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 192.00 DU 15 83 98 81 38 119 1273 SUB -TOTAL 15 83 98 81 38 119 1273 PLANNING AREA 15 TOTALS I. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 647.00 DU 122 361 483 423 232 655 6192 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 375.00 DO 49 192 241 209 90 299 3000 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 192.00 DU 15 83 98 81 38 119 1273 6. Elementary/Middle School 1200.00 STU 204 144 348 0 0 0 1224 9. Neighborhood Commercial 26.68 TSF 43 28 71 125 135 260 2983 1.0. Community Commercial 130.68 TSF 131 84 215 372 404 776 8908 1.2. General Office 150.28 TSF 247 35 282 46 224 270 1994 1.7. Park 23.90 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 22. Senior Congregate 158.99 TSF 30 30 60 32 34 66 970 28. Sports Park 16.50 ACRE 0 0 0 56 68 124 888 TOTAL 841 957 1798 1344 1225 2569 27553 PLANNING AREA 20 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 376.00 DU 30 162 192 158 75 233 2493 PLANNING AREA 21 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 189.00 DO 36 106 142 123 68 191 1809 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 465.00 DU 60 237 297 260 112 372 3720 TOTAL 96 343 439 383 180 563 5529 ' N'EIGHBORHOOD G TOTALS 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 836.00 DU 158 467 625 546 300 846 8001 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 840.00 DO 109 429 538 469 202 671 6720 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 568.00 DU 45 245 290 239 113 352 3766 6. Elementary/Middle School 1200.00 STU 204 144 348 0 0 0 1224 9. Neighborhood Commercial 26.68 TSF 43 28 71 125 135 260 2983 10. Community Commercial 130.68 TSF 131 84 215 372 404 776 8908 12. General Office 150.28 TSF 247 35 282 46 224 270 1994 17. Park 23.90 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 22. Senior Congregate 158.99 TSF 30 30 60 32 34 66 970 28. Sports Park 16.50 ACRE 0 0 0 56 68 124 888 TOTAL 967 1462 2429 1885 1480 3365 35575 A-13 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD H/PA22 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ' -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- Land Use Type -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 166.00 DU 32 93 125 108 60 168 1589 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) 243.00 DU 32 124 156 136 58 194 1944 E.. Elementary/Middle School 650.00 STU ill 78 189 0 0 0 663 TOTAL 175 295 470 244 118 362 4196 A-14 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 Appendix B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) CALCULATIONS City of Tus[inAustin-Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park ofTustin Legacy Traffic Analysis B -I 922003rpt;.doc Figure B-1 INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP City of 'Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis B-2 922004rpt5figB-l.dwg WALNUT AV 113 109 110 EDINGER AV 10 112 111 r 4 51 e° 52 53 •50 2 NORTH LOOP JP��NCP ,O 1 o U .59 N� = 58 102 < Z 10 MOFFETT DR z P � 62 Z n5 61 �° 60 6 rn 20 Inn p 63 •G• SGP°r m ST 0 9 15 3 y 8 103 5 a� -i 19 -I- =33 38 WARNER AV WARNE0. 2, 4 21 37 . 42 �46 y45 - any 26,0 �` •: 47.d 31 , 41 0 r. 16 30 y35 43 7 104 23 'A- ST 24 •4 5` 34 40 ' 13 CARNEGIE 18 25 9 14 0 co N 6 . s� sr f1 O 105 U 106 107 108 ~ v � BARRANCA PKWY N Figure B-1 INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP City of 'Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis B-2 922004rpt5figB-l.dwg t1. Armstrong i Valencia N Loop 2;025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 386 .11* 572 .17* NBT 1 1700 5 .00 22 .01 NBR d 1700 103 .06 454 .27 SBL 1 1700 11 .01 9 .01 SBT 1 1700 17 .04* 15 .02* SBR 0 0 44 15 EBL 1 1700 12 .01 43 .03 EBT 2 3400 303 .09* 720 .21* EBR 1 1700 545 .32 424 .25 WBL 2 3400 527 .16* 176 .05* WBT 2 3400 788 .23 367 .11 WBR 0 0 6 15 Riqht Turn Adjustment EBR .15* NBR .05* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .60 .5! 3. Tustin Ranch Rd i Warner N 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C N13L 0 0 0 3400 0 .09* N13T 2.5 6800 661 (.13)* 1208 (.34)* N13R 1.5 NBR 548 (.04) 1382 .01 SBL 2 3400 578 .17* 727 .21* S13T 3 5100 1290 .25 691 .14 S13R 0 0 0 1700 0 .45 EBL 0 0 0 3400 0 .05* EBT 0 0 0 1700 0 .05 EBR 0 0 0 1700 0 .12 WBL 2.5 WBL 1675 1700 695 .02 WET 0 6800 0 (.34)* 0 (.20)* WPR 1.5 WBR 821 1700 938 .01 Clearance Interval .02 .05* .05* .05* !. Tustin Ranch Rd i Valencia N Loop 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 317 .09* 218 .06 NBT 3 5100 848 .17 2063 .40* NBR 1 1700 17 .01 58 .03 SBL 2 3400 23 .01 38 .01* SBT 3 5100 2362 .46* 1227 .24 SBR 1 1700 759 .45 290 .17 EBL 2 3400 155 .05* 521 .15* EBT 1 1700 90 .05 168 .10 EBR 1 1700 201 .12 411 .24 WBL 1 1700 26 .02 27 .02 WBT 2 3400 275 .08* 101 .03* WBR 1 1700 23 .01 34 .02 Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .73 .64 4. Tustin Ranch Rd i Warner S 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 40 .01* 171 .05 NBT 3 5100 869 .17 1601 .31* NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 2.5 6800 1791 (.42)* 951 (.19) SBR 1.5 1174 435 (.04) EBL 2 3400 340 .10* 989 .29* EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1700 47 .03 273 .16 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .80 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .65 B-3 Legacy Paris of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 ' 5. Armstrong 6 Warner 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 186 .05* 418 .12* NBT 2 3400 102 .03 187 .08 NBR 0 0 14 .05 99 .19 SBL 1 1700 88 .05 135 .08 SBT 2 3400 136 .04* 178 .05* SBR 1 1700 244 .14 244 .14 EBL 1 1700 201 .12* 174 .10 ]SBT 3 5100 1280 .25 1763 .35* EBR 1 1700 502 .30 337 .20 WBL 1 1700 150 .09 116 .07* 14BT 3 5100 1930 .38* 1479 .29 WBR d 1700 167 .10 191 .11 Right Turn Adjustment .05* SBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 'DOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .6A 7. Tustin Ranch 6 C St/Park Ave 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 14BL 2 3400 259 .08* 203 .06 14BT 3 5100 774 .15 1368 .27* 14BR 1 1700 88 .05 317 .19 SBL 2 3400 49 .01 258 .08* SBT 3 5100 1498 .29* 794 .16 SBR 1 1700 292 .17 172 .10 EBL 1 1700 93 .05 222 .13 ,"BT 1 1700 81 .05* 239 .14* EBR 1 1700 103 .06 312 .18 41BL 1 1700 220 .13* 248 .15* PIBT 2 3400 362 .12 216 .12 WBR 0 0 42 182 Clearance Interval .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .60 .69 i. Armstrong i A St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 107 .06 87 .05 NBT 2 3400 332 .12* 133 .08* NBR 0 0 88 149 .09 SBL 1 1700 229 .13* 187 .11* SBT 2 3400 71 .02 240 .07 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1 1700 150 .09* 100 .06* EBT 2 3400 105 .05 164 .10 EBR 0 0 49 272 .16 WBL 1 1700 135 .08 216 .13 WBT 2 3400 192 .08* 408 .18* WBR 0 0 67 211 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .47 .48 8. Loop Rd i Warner 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 52 .03* 221 .13* NBT 2 3400 18 .01 45 .01 NBR 1 1700 14 .01 202 .12 SBL 1 1700 16 .01 30 .02 SBT 2 3400 101 .03* 123 .04* SBR 1 1700 266 .16 135 .08 EBL 2 3400 21 .01* 51 .02 EBT 3 5100 1057 .21 1998 .39* EBR 1 1700 21 .01 89 .05 WBL 2 3400 53 .02 90 .03* WBT 3 5100 2178 .43* 1276 .25 WBR. 1 1700 23 .01 41 .02 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* Clearance Interval .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .64 B-4 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 i. Loop Rd 6 Jamboree SB Ramps 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 33 .02* 46 .03 NBT 2 3400 29 .01 81 .03* NBR 0 0 0 11 SBL 1 1700 56 .03 171 .10* SBT 2 3400 36 .02* 40 .02 SBR 0 0 69 .04 74 .04 EBL 1 1700 13 .01 60 .04 EBT 1 1700 3 .01* 38 .08* EBR 0 0 22 95 WBL 2 3400 325 .10* 154 .05* WBT 1 1700 16 .05 13 .04 WBR 0 0 62 63 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .20 .31 11. N Loop Rd 6 Valencia N Loop 2025 AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 76 .04* 46 .03* NST 1 1700 22 .01 43 .03 NBR 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 SBL 0 0 0 207 0 SBR SBT 1 1700 17 .01* 76 .04* SBR 1 1700 71 .04 41 .02 EBL 1 1700 86 .05* 67 .04* EBT 0 0 0 447 0 184 EBR 1 1700 53 .03 84 .05 WBL 0 0 0 33 0 Right WBT 0 0 0 .04* 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .15 .16 l0. N Loop Rd i Moffett 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2 3400 17 .01* 44 .01* NBR 1 1700 27 .02 188 .11 SBL 1 1700 33 .02* 69 .04* SBT 2 3400 36 .01 91 .03 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 279 .16* 8 .00 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1700 81 .05 45 .03 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .10* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .24 .20 13. Loop Rd S 6 District Rd 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 0 .00 2 .00 NBT 1 1700 19 .01 215 .13* NBR 1 1700 158 .09 427 .25 SBL 1 1700 3 .00 1 .00 SBT 1 1700 103 .06* 207 .12 SBR 1 1700 0 .00 1 .00 EBL 1 1700 0 .00 2 .00 EBT 2 3400 18 .01* 77 .02* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 447 .26* 184 .11* WBT 2 3400 52 .03 112 .04 WBR 0 0 44 33 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .04* Clearance Interval .05* .05* MAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .38 .35 B-5 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 ' 14. B St i Tustin Ranch Rd 15. Warner 6 F St/Legacy 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 .16* 0 .13* NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1.5 1700 76 .02* 278 .08* SBT 0 5100 0 .09 0 (.12)* SBR 1.5 0 127 (.02) 429 EBL 2 3400 252 .01* 199 .06 EBT 3 5100 1045 .20 1610 .32* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 1568 .31* 1250 .25 WBR 1 1700 253 .15 104 .06 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .45 .49 16. Armstrong i C St/I St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2 3400 412 .15 467 .14 NBR 0 0 110 17 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 2 3400 482 .18* 557 .18* SSR 0 0 137 52 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1700 0 .00 0 .00 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1700 117 .07 176 .10 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .05* WBR .07* Clearance Interval .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .28 .30 B-6 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 6 .00 51 .03 NBT 3 5100 1207 .24* 554 .11* NBR 0 0 1 1 SBL 2 3400 407 .12* 558 .16* SBT 3 5100 437 .09 1093 .21 SBR 1 1700 434 .26 513 .30 EBL 1.5 380 .11* 516 .15* EBT 1.5 5100 106 .07 231 .14 EBR 0 6 6 WBL 1 1700 23 .01 22 .01 WBT 1 1700 308 .18* 266 .16* WBR 2 3400 867 .26 757 .22 Clearance Interval .05* .05* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .63 18. Armstrong a E St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2 3400 503 .16* 392 .13* NBR 0 0 46 52 SBL 1 1700 182 .11* 131 .08* SBT 2 3400 301 .09 426 .13 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1700 19 .01 92 .05 Clearance Interval .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .32 .26 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 9. Warner 6 D St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 1214 .24* 606 .12 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3 5100 353 .09 1015 .22* SBR 0 0 113 46 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1700 34 .02 188 .11 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .11* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .29 .31 21. Armstrong 6 B St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 232 .14* 10 .01* NBT 2 3400 297 .09 633 .19 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 2 3400 618 .21* 555 .18* SBR 0 0 102 54 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1700 2 .00 54 .03 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .02* Clearance Interval .05* .05* DOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .40 .21 0. Tustin Ranch Rd i Legacy 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 330 .19* 83 .05 NBT 3 5100 1029 .23 1858 .40* NBR 0 0 124 205 SBL 1 1700 42 .02 146 .09* SBT 3 5100 1771 .35* 1152 .23 SBR 1 1700 775 .46 397 .23 EBL 1 1700 32 .02* 353 .21* EBT 2 3400 30 .02 121 .07 EBR 0 0 24 151 .09 WBL 1 1700 13 .04 116 .07 WBT 2 3400 167 .09* 95 .06* WBR 0 0 122 141 .08 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .09* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .81 22. Dwy A i Warner 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 30 .02* 137 .08 NBT 1 1700 2 .01 8 .09* NBR 0 0 9 150 SBL 1 1700 14 .01 110 .06* SBT 1 1700 2 .00* 3 .00 SBR 1 1700 118 .07 373 .22 EBL 1 1700 346 .20* 278 .16* EBT 3 5100 1959 .38 2014 .39 EBR 1 1700 168 .10 44 .03 WBL 1 1700 63 .04 26 .02 WBT 3 5100 2175 .45* 2077 .41* WBR 0 0 123 38 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* DOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .8t B_7 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy ? 3. DvyBSASt 2025 AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 18 .01* 46 .03 NBT 1 1700 0 .01 0 .08* NBR 0 0 11 133 SBL 1 1700 52 .03 268 .16* SBT 1 1700 0 .06* 0 .14 SBR 0 0 97 EBT 233 288 EBL 1 1700 326 .19* 68 .04* EBT 1 1700 225 .13 111 .07 EBR 1 1700 51 .03 11 .01 WBL 1 1700 159 .09 26 .02 WBT 2 3400 214 .12* 363 .13* WBR 0 0 183 70 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .46 25. CSt&ASt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 261 .15 52 .03* NST 1 1700 40 .11* 9 .05 NBR 0 0 153 74 SBL 1 1700 116 .07* 21 .01 SBT 1 1700 6 .02 64 .06* SBR 0 0 24 45 EBL 1 1700 21 .01 11 .01 EBT 1 1700 241 .16* 342 .29* EBR 0 0 26 159 WBL 1 1700 37 .02* 269 .16* WBT 1 1700 202 .12 297 .17 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* 4.BSt6ASt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 NBR SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 2 0 54 SBR 1 1700 68 .04 65 .04 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1700 288 .17 512 .30* EBR 0 0 0 0 1 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 EBR WBT 1 1700 488 .29* 393 .23 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .04* 68 .20* Clearance Interval .04* .05* 0 .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .38 .35 26.DwyCABSt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 2 54 SBT 1 1700 0 .00* 0 .05* SBR 0 0 0 32 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1700 0 .00 0 .00 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 1 1700 68 .20* 34 .04* WBR 0 0 266 31 Clearance Interval .05* .05* DOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .41 .59 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .25 .D B-8 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 30.JSt6GSt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 (.06}* 0 1 NBT 1 1700 79 .05* 29 .04 NBR 0 0 1 0 36 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 1 SBT 1 1700 14 .01 94 .06* SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 1 EBT 0 0 0 .01 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 26 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 1 WBT 1 1700 0 .03* 0 .03* WBR 0 0 46 0 47 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .13 .14 32. L St i G St/H St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 46 1.031* 103 (.06}* NBT 1 1700 1 .03 1 .06 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 7 0 5 0 SBT 1 1700 0 .00* 0 .00* SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1700 2 .00 21 .01 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 26 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 1 1700 0 .00* 0 .01* WBR 0 0 2 0 11 0 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* 11. BSt&GSt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 11 1 NBT NBT 1 1700 0 .00 4 .03* NBR 0 0 6 0 40 SBL SBL 0 0 0 0 0 SBT SBT 1 1700 0 .01* 0 .01 SBR 0 0 13 0 12 EBL EBL 0 0 0 0 0 EBT EBT 1 1700 0 .01 0 .00 EBR 0 0 9 26 5 WBL WBL 0 0 8 0 4 WBT WBT 1 1700 13 .03* 6 .03* WBR 0 0 33 0 46 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .09 .11 33. I St 6 H St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 2 11 (.O1)* NBT 1 1700 30 .02* 31 .02 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 1 1700 1 .00 16 .01* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1700 0 .00 0 .02* EBR 0 0 8 26 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .08 .12 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .07 .09 B-9 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 ' 34. JSt6ESt 1025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 7 {.031* 38 1.021* NBT 1 1700 83 .06* 20 .05 NBR 0 0 8 27 SBL 0 0 16 1.011* 135 SBT 1 1700 10 .02 54 .14* SBR 0 0 13 54 EBL 0 0 97 71 EBT 1 1700 22 .13* 49 .11* EBR 0 0 109 63 WBL 0 0 0 (.01)* 0 1.021* WBT 1 1700 0 .04 0 .01 WBR 0 0 69 10 Clearance Interval Interval .05* .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .25 .32 ' 36. LSt6ESt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 {.031* 0 NBT 1 1700 9 .03* 24 .14* NBR 0 0 36 207 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 .03* 0 .04* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1700 1 .01 18 .02 EBR 0 0 11 15 WBL 0 0 0 (.01)* 23 1.021* WBT 1 1700 33 .04* 33 .09* WBR 0 0 40 91 Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* .05* 'OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .12 .28 is. B St & 9 St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 49 {.031* 5 NBT 1 1700 18 .04 62 .04 NBR 0 0 0 2 SBL 0 0 0 4 SBT 1 1700 45 .03* 68 .04* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 2 33 EBT 1 1700 1 .03* 3 .12* EBR 0 0 43 174 WBL 0 0 14 (.01)* 27 1.021* WBT 1 1700 20 .03 5 .04 WBR 0 0 13 28 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .15 .23 37. C St 6 E St/F St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 3 .00 0 .00 NBT 1 1700 8 .00 37 .02 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 1 1700 480 .28* 406 .24* SBR 1 1700 69 .04 147 .09 EBL 1 1700 0 .00 45 .03* EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1700 37 .02 179 .11 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .02* EBR .08* Clearance Interval .05* .05* MAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .40 B-10 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 38. IStiFSt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NEL 0 0 0 1 NBT 1 1700 2 .00 4 .00* NBR 1 1700 412 .24 598 .35 SBL 1 1700 4 .00 34 .02* SBT 1 1700 2 .02* 4 .01 SBR 0 0 25 9 EBL 1 1700 0 .00 1 .00 EBT 1 1700 35 .02 108 .07 EBR 0 0 3 16 WBL 1 1700 185 .11 158 .09 WBT 1 1700 511 .30* 549 .32* WBR 1 1700 48 .03 102 .06 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .01* NBR .16* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .38 .55 1 40. B St i A St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2 3400 295 .09* 147 .04 NBT 1 1700 187 .12 127 .09* NBR 0 0 22 30 SBL 1 1700 40 .02 253 .15* SBT 1 1700 54 .07* 173 .20 SBR 0 0 62 167 EBL 1 1700 19 .01* 40 .02* EBT 2 3400 65 .02 71 .02 EBR 1 1700 138 .08 513 .30 WBL 1 1700 12 .01 22 .01 WBT 2 3400 354 .14* 227 .08* WBR 0 0 105 37 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .18* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 19. JStiASt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 0 0 18 44 NBT 1 1700 0 .04* 1 .12* NBR 0 0 43 157 SBL 0 0 0 0 SST 1 1700 0 .02* 1 .10* SBR 0 0 35 173 EBL 1 1700 10 .01* 8 .00 EBT 2 3400 178 .08 467 .15* EBR 0 0 92 52 WBL 1 1700 131 .08 55 .03* WBT 2 3400 411 .17* 438 .14 WBR 0 0 169 48 Clearance Interval .05* .05* Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .29 .45 41.CSt9ASt/D St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2 3400 471 .14 244 .07* NBT 1 1700 312 .26* 289 .20 NBR 0 0 130 57 SBL 1 1700 0 .00 1 .00 SBT 1 1700 120 .07 300 .18* SBR 1 1700 418 .25 225 .13 EBL 1 1700 20 .01* 57 .03* EBT 1 1700 4 .00 13 .01 EBR 1 1700 141 .08 435 .26 WBL 1 1700 16 .01 38 .02 WBT 1 1700 13 .01* 15 .01* WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* EBR .19* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 'OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .36 .57 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .45 .53 B -I 1 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 42.NSt6DSt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 .02 0 .06* NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 14 95 1.061* SBT 1 1700 0 .04* 0 .07* SBR 0 0 61 17 EBL 0 0 0 .01* 0 .02* EBT 1 1700 20 .01 4 .00 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 .04 0 .02 WBT 1 1700 0 .02* 0 .06* WBR 0 0 35 99 .14 Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 11 lE ' 44.KSt6ESt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 .02 0 .06* NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 11 24 1.061* SBT 1 1700 0 .01* 0 .03* SBR 0 0 14 27 EBL 0 0 0 .01* 0 .02* EBT 1 1700 1 .00 10 .01 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 .04 0 .02 WBT 1 1700 33 .02* 33 .02* WBR 0 0 0 0 .14 Clearance Interval .05* .05* 13.MSt&ASt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 1 1700 0 .02 0 .06* NBR 0 0 36 108 SBL 0 0 54 106 1.061* SBT 1 1700 0 .05* 4 .08 SBR 0 0 26 33 EHL 1 1700 12 .01* 32 .02* EBT 2 3400 74 .03 292 .09 EBR 0 0 20 15 WBL 1 1700 74 .04 26 .02 WBT 2 3400 496 .24* 228 .13* WBR 0 0 332 231 .14 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .32 45.KSt&GSt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1700 2 .00 21 .02 EBR 0 0 2 11 WBL 0 0 15 44 WBT 1 1700 31 .03* 60 .06* WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* WAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .08 .10 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .08 .11 B-12 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 I 46. B St 6 I St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 31 1.02►* 38 (.02)* NBT 1 1700 0 .02 0 .02 NBR 0 0 1 13 3 SBL SBL 0 0 0 3 0 SBT SBT 0 0 0 0 0 SBR SBR 0 0 0 89 0 EBL EBL 0 0 0 90 0 EBT EBT 1 1700 1 .00 19 .01 EBR 0 0 0 41 0 WBL WBL 0 0 13 21 14 WBT WBT 1 1700 34 .03* 12 .02* WBR 0 0 0 3 0 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .10 .09 50. B St i Valencia N Loop 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 17 (.01)* 9 {.01)* NBT 1 1700 0 .02 0 .01 NBR 0 0 20 0 13 16 SBL 0 0 3 0 3 0 SBT 1 1700 0 .09* 0 .05* SBR 0 0 158 0 89 0 EBL 1 1700 24 .01* 90 .05 EBT 1 1700 97 .06 133 .10* EBR 0 0 10 109 41 14 WBL 1 1700 9 .01 21 .01* WBT 1 1700 149 .09* 64 .04 WBR 0 0 3 0 3 0 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .25 .22 17.JSt&ISt 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 64 (.04►* 131 NBT 1 1700 0 .04 0 .09* NBR 0 0 0 16 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1700 1 .06* 3 .01 EBR 0 0 109 14 WBL 0 0 13 (.01)* 5 WBT 1 1700 53 .04 45 .03* WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .16 .17 51. N Loop Rd i B St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 7 .00 7 .00 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 101 .06 104 .06 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 1 1700 37 .02* 10 .01* EBR 0 0 3 3 WBL 1 1700 84 .05* 115 .07* WBT 1 1700 78 .05 74 .04 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .02* NBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 'OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .14 .14 B-13 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 2. East Connector i B St 53. D St 6 B St 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 1 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 NBT 0 1700 NBR 0 0 0 .09* 0 0 SBL 1 1700 4 .00 74 .04* SBT 0 0 0 .00 0 .01* SBR 1 1700 37 .02 157 .09 EBL 1 1700 128 .08* 75 .04* EBT 1 1700 8 .00 39 .02 EBR 0 0 0 EBT 0 1700 WBL 0 0 0 .12* 0 0 WBT 1 1700 75 .04* 31 .02* WBR 1 1700 80 .05 23 .01 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01* SBR .02* Clearance Interval WBR .05* 0 .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 18 li 58. D St i Moffett 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 0 .00 0 .00 NBT 1 1700 11 .01 3 .09* NBR 0 0 7 0 154 0 SBL 1 1700 4 .00 22 .01* SBT 1 1700 29 .02* 39 .02 SBR 0 0 0 0 3 0 EBL 1 1700 6 .00 56 .03 EBT 1 1700 44 .03 198 .12* EBR 0 0 0 6 0 51 WBL 1 1700 81 .05 12 .01* WBT 1 1700 460 .28* 44 .03 WBR 0 0 11 0 8 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 49 .03* 18 .01* NBT 0 0 0 .06* 0 .01* NBR 1 1700 0 .00 0 .00 SBL 0 0 0 .01* 0 .01* SBT 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 EBT 1 1700 7 .01 61 .07* EBR 0 0 6 51 WBL 1 1700 22 .01 20 .01* WBT 1 1700 107 .06* 37 .02 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .14 .14 59. C St i Moffett 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 1 .00 2 .00 NBT 1 1700 2 .06* 1 .01* NBR 0 0 101 17 SBL 1 1700 15 .01* 10 .01* SBT 1 1700 5 .00 4 .00 SBR 0 0 1 0 EBL 1 1700 1 .00 6 .00 EBT 1 1700 62 .04 344 .21* EBR 0 0 3 14 WBL 1 1700 2 .00 161 .09* WBT 1 1700 544 .33* 64 .07 WBR 0 0 23 54 Clearance Interval .05* .05* 'OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .28 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .45 .37 B-14 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 60. N Loop Rd i Legacy 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 79 .05* 48 .03* NBT 2 3400 16 .01 66 .04 NBR 0 0 12 65 SBL 1 1700 1 .00 0 .00 SBT 2 3400 77 .05* 47 .03* SBR 0 0 237 .14 52 .03 EBL 1 1700 26 .02* 165 .10* EBT 1 1700 59 .03 174 .10 EBR 1 1700 35 .02 186 .11 WBL 1 1700 33 .02 63 .04 WBT 1 1700 166 .10* 153 .09* WBR 0 0 2 1 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .34 .30 63. N Loop Rd i G St 2025 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .10 .14 62. C St i Legacy 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 .01* 0 .00 NBT 2 3400 77 .03 170 .06 NBR 0 0 27 34 SBL 1 1700 4 .00 35 .02 SBT 2 3400 141 .04* 262 .08* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 .03* 0 .00 EBT 0 0 0 .00 0 .01* EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 19 .01* 23 .01* WBT 0 0 0 .00* 0 .00 WBR 1 1700 31 .02 10 .01 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .10 .14 62. C St i Legacy 2025 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .10 .16 B-15 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 12 .01* 5 .00 NBT 1 1700 37 .02 10 .01 NBR 0 0 1 4 SBL 1 1700 2 .00 6 .00 SBT 1 1700 1 .01* 17 .10* SBR 0 0 23 156 EBL 1 1700 58 .03* 3 .00 EBT 1 1700 4 .00 16 .01* ESR 0 0 1 0 WBL 0 0 3 5 WBT 1 1700 0 .00* 0 .00 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .10 .16 B-15 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 101. Red Hill i Edinger 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 120 .04* 350 .10 NBT 3 5100 400 .08 1450 .28* NBR 1 1700 150 .09 650 .38 SBL 2 3400 300 .09 170 .05* SBT 3 5100 1500 .29* 420 .08 SBR 1 1700 750 .44 420 .25 EBL 2 3400 240 .07* 420 .12* EBT 3 5100 850 .17 1500 .29 EBR 1 1700 390 .23 160 .09 WBL 2 3400 650 .19 230 .07 WBT 3 5100 1650 .32* 1400 .27* WBR 1 1700 130 .08 310 .18 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .10* NBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .87 .78 I 103. Red Hill i Warner 2025 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .81 .90 102. Red Hill i Valencia 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 80 .02* 480 .14 NBT 4 6800 770 .11 1980 .29* NBR 1 1700 200 .12 280 .16 SBL 2 3400 600 .18 530 .16* SBT 4 6800 2190 .32* 770 .11 SBR 1 1700 220 .13 460 .27 EBL 2 3400 210 .06 280 .08* EBT 3 5100 1670 .33* 1530 .30 EBR 1 1700 230 .14 180 .11 WBL 2 3400 290 .09* 260 .08 WBT 3 5100 1410 .28 1650 .32* WBR 1 1700 630 .37 670 .39 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .81 .90 102. Red Hill i Valencia 2025 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .84 .73 104. Red Hill i Carnegie 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 650 .19* 1120 .33* NBT 4 6800 680 .10 1460 .21 NBR 1 1700 280 .16 630 .37 SBL 2 3400 270 .08 160 .05 SBT 3 5100 1580 .31* 600 .12* SBR 1 1700 120 .07 20 .01 EBL 1 1700 40 .02 20 .01 EBT 2 3400 420 .12* 360 .11* EBR f 30 1050 100 740 WBL WBL 2 3400 580 .17* 420 .12* WBT 2 3400 450 .13 340 .10 WBR 1 1700 70 .04 220 .13 Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .84 .73 104. Red Hill i Carnegie 2025 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .57 B-16 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 120 .07* 50 .03 NBT 4 6800 830 .12 2250 .33* NBR 1 1700 90 .05 60 .04 SBL 2 3400 500 .15 110 .03* SBT 4 6800 1910 .33* 1090 .16 SBR 0 0 300 10 EBL 1 1700 20 .01 90 .05* EBT 1 1700 10 .01* 20 .01 EBR 1 1700 30 .02 100 .06 WBL 1 1700 120 .07* 220 .13 WBT 0.5 3400 10 1.011 20 1.111* WBR 1.5 200 400 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .57 B-16 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 ' 105. Red Bill i Barranca 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 300 .09 1050 .31* NBT 4 6800 720 .11* 1600 .24 NBR 1 1700 80 .05 370 .22 SBL 2 3400 640 .19* 250 .07 SBT 4 6800 1250 .18 830 .12* SBR 1 1700 170 .10 330 .19 EBL 2 3400 160 .05 230 .07* EBT 4 6800 1510 .22* 1110 .16 EBR 1 1700 380 .22 200 .12 WBL 2 3400 450 .13* 190 .06 WBT 4 6800 1050 .15 1610 .24* WBR 1 1700 160 .09 530 .31 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .02* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .81 1 107. Armstrong 6 Barranca 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 60 .04* 100 .06 NBT 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01* NBR 1 1700 30 .02 80 .05 SBL 1 1700 70 .04 340 .20* SBT 1 1700 10 .01* 10 .01 SBR 1 1700 130 .08 370 .22 EBL 1 1700 360 .21* 180 .11* EBT 4 6800 1370 .21 1650 .25 EBR 0 0 90 0 30 .31 WBL 1 1700 170 .10 40 .02 WBT 4 6800 1680 .21* 1480 .24* WBR 0 0 150 0 170 .25 Clearance Interval .19 .05* Turn Adjustment .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .61 .06. Aston i Barranca 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 20 .01 130 .08* NBT 1 1700 10 .02* 10 .04 NBR 0 0 30 .13 50 .31 SBL 1 1700 10 .01* 150 .09 SBT 1 1700 10 .01 10 .19* SBR 0 0 10 .09 310 .11 EBL 1 1700 300 .18* 40 .02* EBT 4 6800 1780 .28 1660 .25 EBR 0 0 150 .31 30 .19 WBL 1 1700 80 .05 20 .01 WBT 4 6800 1630 .26* 1890 .28* WBR 0 0 160 .25 40 .19 Clearance Interval . Turn Adjustment .05* .16* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .52 .62 108. Tustin Ranch Rd/Von Barman i Barranca 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 240 .07* 500 .15 NBT 3 5100 640 .13 1140 .22* NBR 1 1700 220 .13 520 .31 SBL 2 3400 260 .08 540 .16* SBT 3 5100 1080 .21* 740 .15 SBR 2 3400 320 .09 390 .11 EBL 2 3400 250 .07 360 .11 EBT 4 6800 700 .10* 1390 .20* EBR 1 1700 520 .31 320 .19 WBL 2 3400 670 .20* 190 .06* WBT 4 6800 1440 .21 800 .12 WBR 1 1700 430 .25 320 .19 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .16* NBR .05* Clearance Interval .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .74 B-17 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 1 109. West Connector 6 Edinger 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 50 .03* 290 .17* NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 20 .01 90 .05 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 1100 .22 2300 .45* EBR 1 1700 180 .11 90 .05 WBL 1 1700 230 .14 50 .03* WBT 3 5100 2280 .45* 1600 .31 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .70 111. East Connector 6 Edinger 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 130 .08 60 .04 NBT 1 1700 10 .01* 10 .01* NBR 1 1700 70 .04 30 .02 SBL 1 1700 120 .07* 300 .18* SBT 1 1700 0 .00 10 .01 SBR 1 1700 110 .06 100 .06 EBL 1 1700 50 .03* 130 .08 EBT 3 5100 670 .13 1910 .40* EBR 0 0 10 140 WBL 1 1700 30 .02 90 .05* WBT 3 5100 2290 .45* 1380 .27 WBR 1 1700 150 .09 100 .06 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .04* Clearance Interval .05* .05* 110. Tustin Ranch Rd Connector i Edinger 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 410 .24* 430 .25* NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 170 .10 160 .09 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 560 .11 2020 .40* EBR 1 1700 560 .33 370 .22 WBL 2 3400 430 .13 320 .09* WBT 3 5100 2100 .41* 1220 .24 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .79 112. Tustin Ranch Rd i Tustin Ranch Rd Connector 2025 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 5100 680 .13 2280 .45* NBR 1 1700 350 .21 330 .19 SSL 1 1700 230 .14 260 .15* SBT 3 5100 2430 .48* 1260 .25 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3400 700 .21* 300 .09* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1700 290 .17 390 .23 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05* OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .69 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .74 .77 B-18 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 113. Tustin Ranch Rd i Walnut 2025 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .82 B-19 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 220 .06* 500 .15 NBT 3 5100 230 .05 1880 .37* NBR d 1700 520 .31 290 .17 SBL 2 3400 450 .13 160 .05* SBT 3 5100 2040 .40* 930 .18 SBR d 1700 160 .09 350 .21 EBL 2 3400 310 .09 210 .06* EBT 2 3400 770 .23* 330 .10 EBR d 1700 320 .19 220 .13 WBL 2 3400 300 .09* 370 .11 WBT 2 3400 290 .09 970 .29* WBR d 1700 40 .02 350 .21 Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .82 B-19 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 Appendix C TURN POCKET LENGTH METHODOLOGY These guidelines address turn pocket lengths for lett-turn and right -turn lanes at signalized intersections. They are based on vehicle storage requirements, and are thereby exclusive of transition lengths (typically, transitions are 90 feet for a single lane and 120 to 150 feet for a double lane). The results can be used as recommendations for design purposes. LEFT -TURN LANES The turn pocket lengths for left -turn lanes are determined from the graph in Figure C-1 which is based on vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) and signal cycle length. Minimum Length: 150' (Serves up to 150 vphpl) The length for more than 150 vphpl is derived as follows: BASIS: The storage length is based on the number of vehicles to be stored during one signal cycle. At lower volumes, the calculated length is increased to account for random arrivals (i.e., relatively high standard deviation in relation to the average). At higher volumes, the standard deviation in relation to the average decreases. Hence the graph is curved rather than a straight line. METHOD: Estimate the probable signal cycle length and select pocket length from the curve. Round off to nearest 25' or 50' depending on the application. If the cycle length is not known, use the dashed line in the graph. RIGHT -TURN LANES The turn pocket length for right -turn lanes is determined from the estimated queue length of the adjacent through movement. The graph in Figure C-1 is based on the following: Minimum Length: 250' (adequate for ICU up to .65) Length for higher ICU is derived as follows: BASIS: Derived from the estimated 95`h percentile queue for ICU values greater than .65 (taken from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) queue lengths for different levels of service). METHOD: Use the highest ICU (AM or PM) to access the graph and round off to nearest 25' or 50' depending on the application. City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis C-1 922004rpt5.doc LENGTH (Feet) 700 650 ---- — 600 LEFT TURN POCKET LENGTH 550 --- -- - - -- - - - -:f' 500 -- - - — - --- - - — :_- --,�- — - --- 450___--- 400 } 350 -A— _ 300 �� Jo 250 -- ,._ ----- --- -- -- — 200' 'Y 150 (•' 150 200 LENGTH (Feet) 500 450 400 350 300 250 .65 10 300 400 500 600 700 LEFT TURN VOLUME PER LANE :10 RIGHT TURN POCKET LENGTH .70 .75 .80 .85 .90 .95 1.00 15 25 35 45 55 67 80 ICU or HCM Delay (highest AM/PM) Figure C -I TURN POCKET LENGTH METLIODOLOGY City of Tustin ,austin-Foust :associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis C-? 922004rpt5figC-Ldwg Appendix D EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES City of Tustin Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis D-1 02'_UIk}iptidoc Red Hill Avenue ' Future - AM 1/31/2007 X130 +-1650 I9I I 50 Edinger Tl 240-4 � 1 2I X —s 390-y o 0 m 8 X20 30: �- zo 111 TTTT pp X70 F- 111E ° V.1.n ie )TTp.Ttt --p a2o� O O N F _4-1410 210-1 230: O -� O O $w �00 -lid - <— If x120 Camegie 20- '.. ITTTT; 30-4 m 0 0 X1050 F t— dllll� X450 Bartanee ,sow i T?TTt 15101-* 360 Red Hill Avenue ' Future - PM 1/31/2007 X310 X1400 EdkkW R,-230 420 YYY»i 1500—.> 160-y o c % 020 X40 E— 66 �s 0 2 = 40 ff TTI 0 8 S X220 _ E— I II YI T I4}-*Valench 2_ ITIT —1 3 $ � O N 4 O +.-670 F *-1660 fof InI 1530—> • � N 0 —'► 0 2200 C..& 2 0--* 100 p 0 0 1-30 4— X1610 y X190 Barrance 230 IT o v 1110 200 o: ozz c r F-ovs h � l I� �obz aal osz::� ' iT TT T� 09M---> N o N —i Oz O O a$ ^ r_0£ 6uaisuuy 0, '�T T T —> 0 L=4 0£ L—IA `ip' 0 0 JAroz uolsv o`er TT$Tr —� OLS 0 r X09 OZL C, o + u!H Pea —� ovs�! co 'i iT T T T� o9zL:,-* OL L,' I i I I IIII r` -0z9 E �Mi��yyy �009L F aal Oona'i'iT T T T� � c ' ' 09 C4 - 0s C:� 0 0 $woe E- X111 +-O sL 6U04SULiv Doe Tjr A N OLE - A r 0 0 E— X111 root u0iSV o�4 1%1r Me 0 cc 0 �09E X009 L F �I I III �OSOL IIIH P82loqz:� —� 'iT T T T� Oee--+ � � a —� Oee� 111 m >� as rn m �a ww 0 0 N r � � A 00 9 ..� 00Td� M y 0 O N O C\1 C14 M TW TTN 11 cn Cp U X00 E£ 3 k -06Z CQ)' SZZ C, O o <--089L �o0s '+,p�sn O9L , OM N OM -4 N m N os£ -y O 06 O >g6sZ L L TITS —� � � N ATTACHMENT D Ordinance 1335 ORDINANCE NO. 1335 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (ZONE CHANGE 07-001) TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (TLCP) proposes Amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Zone Change 07-001). Zone Change 07-001 does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan. Instead, Zone Change 07-001 generally would allow tandem parking in residential developments and compact spaces in non-residential developments and would specify their required dimensions. Zone Change 07-001 would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on March 27, 2007, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Zone Change 07-001. C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on April 3, 2007, by the City Council. D. Zone Change 07-001 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city-wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master -planned development. Ordinance No. 1335 Page 2 SECTION 2. Table 3-4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: TABLE 3-4 RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS ALL REUSE PLAN DISPOSITION PARCELS EXCEPT PARCEL 36 Number of Number of Number of Number of Spaces Spaces Covered/Assigned Unassigned Housing Type Required Spaces per Unit' Guest Spaces }2 Detached Single -Family 2.0 2 Garage .5 per unit Attached Single -Family 2 Garage Public/Private 2 Bedroom Studio 1.0 1 Garage .25 per unit 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Garage .25 per unit 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage .25 per unit 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage .25 per unit 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Garage .25 per unit Condominium and Multiple - 1 Covered .7 spaces/unit if 1 Bedroom Family Units 1 Covered garages 2 or more Bedroom Studio 1.0 1 Garage or carport .25 per unit 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Garage or carport .25 per unit 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage or carport .25 per unit 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage or carport .25 per unit 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Garage or carport .25 per unit Patio Homes 12.0 12 Garage 10.5 per unit ' Not more than 40 percent of a Building Site's attached residential units within Neighborhood G, and all attached residential units within Neighborhood D may utilize tandem spaces to satisfy the requirement for covered parking_ �2 50 percent of the guest space required may be fulfilled with on -street parking. RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS REUSE PLAN DISPOSITION PARCEL 36 ONLY Number of Number of Spaces Covered/Assigned Unassigned Housing Type Re uired Spaces per Unit Guest Spaces Detached Single -Family 1 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage Public/Private 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage Street frontage 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Garage 4 or more Bedroom 3.0 2 Garage Attached Development, Ownership3 Studio 1.0 1 Covered .7 spaces/unit if 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Covered garages 2 or more Bedroom 2.0 1 Covered .4 spaces/unit if carports Resident spaces may be tandem. 2 If on -street parking is not permitted or is restricted on the unit's street frontage, then 1 visitor parking space shall be required for each affected unit. This visitor space shall be located not more than 100 feet from the unit's street frontage. This space cannot be tandem. 3 On -street parking may count toward fulfilling visitor parking requirements if on a private street. Tandem parking may not count toward fulfilling visitor parking requirements. Ordinance No. 1335 Page 3 SECTION 3. Section 3.13.1.J of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read: J. Parking Stall Dimensions and Parking Lot Design: Except as otherwise provided herein, P -parking space dimensions, compact car accommodations, and parking lot design shall be provided in accordance with the parking standards and guidelines on file in the City of Tustin or Irvine Community Development Department, as applicable. IR ru mrnary, Within the Gity of Tustin tThe following parking standards shall be provided: 1. Within Planning Areas 7 through 15: • An enclosed garage parking space clear and unobstructed inside dimension shall be not less than 10 feet by 20 feet. All other standard spaces shall be not less than 9 feet by 18 feet, except that a parking space abutting a solid wall within a parking structure shall be not less than 10'-6" by 18 feet. • The minimum width of any two-way drive aisle serving a parking space shall be not less than 24 feet. When parking spaces are located within a parking structure, any supporting column shall be set back two (2) feet from the drive aisle as measured from the centerline of the column. • Up to 20% of the parking spaces required for non-residential use may be designed and designated for compact cars. A compact parking space shall be not less than 8 feet by 16 feet. Compact spaces may not be used to satisfy any portion of the required number of covered/assigned spaces or quest spaces for residential developments. • Where authorized in Table 3-4, an enclosed tandem garage space clear and unobstructed inside dimension shall be not less than 10 feet by 40 feet. Where located in an open parking structure, a tandem space clear and unobstructed dimension shall be not less than 9 feet by 36 feet. 2. For all other Planning Areas: Each parking space shall be a rectangular area 9 feet by 20 feet. A 2Y2 foot overhang area over low level landscaping shall be permitted. Parking accommodations for compact cars may be Ordinance No. 1335 Page 4 provided with such designated spaces being not less than 8 feet by 17 feet. Up to 20%ep rcent of the required parking spaces of the site may be designated for compact cars, upon the approval of the Community Development Director. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish the purpose of the regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall apply only to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall continue to be fully effective. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 3�d day of April, 2007. LOU BONE Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1335 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 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1335 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of April, 2007, and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2007 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk