The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06 NEG DECL OF RAIL PKG STRUCTURE 11-06-07-- • ~- "~~ , _~ AGENDA REPORT ~a~J MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agenda Item 6 Reviewed: City Manager Finance Director SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE TUSTIN COMMUTER RAIL STATION PARKING STRUCTURE SUMMARY The Tustin Commuter Rail Station Parking Structure project proposes the replacement of an existing surface parking lot at the Tustin Commuter Rail Station with the construction of a parking structure with up to 825 parking spaces on up to five levels. The project is a cooperative effort between the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Tustin and is needed to provide additional parking to serve the growing number of patrons of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority's (SCRRA's) Metrolink commuter rail service. The OCTA will be responsible for the design and construction of the project. A Final Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 07-83), and no potential significant environmental impacts have been identified. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 07-83 approving the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the Tustin Commuter Rail Station Parking Structure project. FISCAL IMPACT The Tustin Commuter Rail Station Parking Structure project is a cooperative effort between the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Tustin. The OCTA has secured design and construction funding through the State Transportation Improvement Program in the amount of approximately $10,600,000. ENVIRONMENTAL A Negative Declaration has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is attached as Exhibit A of Resolution 07-83 (Attachment C). Station Parking Structure November 6, 2007 Page 2 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The project site encompasses approximately 3.7 acres and is located at 2975 Edinger Avenue (Attachment A -Location Map). The project site is surrounded by light industrial, commercial, and automotive businesses to the northwest, west, and southwest; Jamboree Road to the southeast, and railroad tracks and light industrial and commercial uses to the north and northeast.. The site is zoned Planned Community -Industrial and is designated by the Tustin General Plan as Planned Community Commercial/Business. The proposed parking structure would be able to accommodate up to 825 parking spaces and would be no greater than five (5) stories in height (approximately 50 feet in height). No subterranean parking is proposed. The elevator/stair facility would extend approximately 10-15 feet above the upper level of the parking structure. A conceptual site plan of the proposed parking structure is provided in Attachment B. Parking demand at the Tustin Commuter Rail Station already exceeds parking capacity during peak hours and train ridership is anticipated to increase. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has adopted an increase in service plan for Metrolink that would increase the frequency of train service between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo to intervals of 30 minutes by 2009. The planned increase in train service is expected to significantly increase parking demand. The proposed parking structure would serve current demand and accommodate future demand caused by the planned increase in train service. The OCTA will be responsible for the design and construction of the project. To expend the State Transportation Improvement Program funds for the design and construction, the OCTA must first demonstrate that the City of Tustin has made an environmental determination for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental Analysis A Final Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 07-83). The attached Initial Study discusses potential impact categories. No potential significant impacts have been identified. The public comments period for the environmental documents was from October 18, 2007, to November 6, 2007. As of October 30, 2007, no comments had been received. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE It is anticipated that the Orange County Transportation Authority will complete the design development and construction documents in October of 2009. Construction is proposed to begin in May of 2010, with project completion scheduled for July 2011. Station Parking Structure November 6, 2007 Page 3 -~~ ~,~~ Tim D. Serlet Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~~~ ~~~~ Scott Reekstin Senior Planner Attachments: A. Location Map B. Conceptual Site Plan C. City Council Resolution No. 07-83 Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director S:\Cdd\CCREPORT\Commuter Rail Station Parking Structure ND.doc ATTACHMENT A Location Map z LL 0 U W J u \ Z S~~\~ o \ \ \~\~J5 \~~ O ~~ G \~y G P~ \ `~~ QP ~P \ `~ ~y ~P Off' O~ O ~ ~' i ~ ~~ ~ ~O ~~ z ~„ 0 ~ ~~NvE ~ v ~~ P G O ~o~N / U , i ~ / O / ~ v Y V IA O~ C Y O a .o 0 a W J 4 U C~ Z_ a Z a Y Z 0 w z .. w Q z U w '^O ~.~i ATTACHMENT B Conceptual Site Plan ~` s~' ~., ,~ w J Q N O Z W O Z Q W U O O E- 0 ~~ LL ~ w ~ Q J ~~ W U ~O~ ~ w C7 Qc~noc 1'N MaD'! inn uiun ~~i~~ iwi; ~~i iYiro M"NISL Lt'\~~ 'M~~\~l\wgA16 !6d - @OD MAV~~O\~L'70\MnItWV\~f ATTACHMENT C City Council Resolution No. 07-83 RESOLUTION NO.07-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR THE TUSTIN COMMUTER RAIL STATION PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the Tustin Commuter Rail Station Parking Structure project is considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project and distributed for public review. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration. evaluated the implications of the proposed Tustin Commuter Rail Station Parking Structure project. C. Prior to approving of the Project, the City Council evaluated the proposed Negative Declaration and determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment. D. That the Negative Declaration was advertised for public review for 20 days in compliance with Section 15105 of CEQA. E. The City Council of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties regarding the subject Initial Study/Negative Declaration, at the November 6, 2007, meeting. II. A Draft Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to recommending approval of the proposed Project and finds that it adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study, the City Council finds that the proposed project would not have any significant impacts on the environment. In addition, the City Council finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Resolution No. 07-83 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 6cn day of November, 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. 07-83 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6t" day of November, 2007, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-83 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Tustin Commuter Rail Station Parking Structure Project Location: 2975 Edinger Avenue, Tustin Project Description: Public parking structure with up to 825 parking spaces Project Proponent: Orange County Transportation Authority/City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Telephone: 714/573-3016 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 6, 2007 Date /D • l~- d~ Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) S 73-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact Person: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Tustin Commuter Rail Station Parking Structure City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573-3016 2975 Edinger Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780 Orange County Transportation Authority, 550 S. Main Street, Orange, CA 92863 Planned Community Commercial/Business Planned Community Industrial (PC-IND) District Project Description: Public parking structure with up to 825 parking spaces Surrounding Uses: North: Railroad, Light Industrial South: Light Industrial, Commercial Other public agencies whose approval is required: ^ Orange County Fire Authority ^ Orange County Health Care Agency ^ South Coast Air Quality Management District ^ Other East: Jamboree Rd, Light Industrial, Commercial West: Light Industrial, Commercial ^ City of Irvine ^ City of Santa Ana ^ Orange County EMA B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ^Land Use and Planning ^Population and Housing ^Geological Problems ^Water ^Air Quality ^Transportation & Circulation ^Biological Resources ^Energy and Mineral Resources C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: Scott Reekstin ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier- EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers ^Hazards ^Noise ^Public Services ^Utilities and Service Systems ^Aesthetics ^Cultural Resources ^Recreation ^Mandatory Findings of Significance Title Senior Planner Date October 18, 2007 Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Directions 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent 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 (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 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? 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving 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? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ a ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ 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 excess noise levels? XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S:\Cdd\SCOTT\Environmental etc\Commuter Rail Station Pkg Structure Checklist.doc ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TUSTIN COMMUTER RAIL STATION PARKING STRUCTURE 2975 EDINGER AVENUE PURPOSE FOR THE PROJECT The proposed project involves the development of a public parking structure to expand transit- serving parking facilities at the Tustin Commuter Rail Station, which is located near the intersection of Edinger Avenue and Jamboree Road. The project is needed to provide additional long term parking to serve the growing number of patrons of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority's (SCRRA's) Metrolink commuter rail service. Parking demand at the Tustin Commuter Rail Station already exceeds parking capacity during peak hours and train ridership is anticipated to increase. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has adopted an increase in service plan for Metrolink that would increase the frequency of train service between Fullerton and Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo to intervals of 30 minutes by 2009. The planned increase in train service is expected to significantly increase parking demand. The proposed parking structure would serve current demand and accommodate future demand caused by the planned increase in train service. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), in cooperation with the City of Tustin, proposes the construction of a parking structure with up to 825 parking spaces to replace an existing surface parking lot at the Tustin Commuter Rail Station. The current parking capacity at the station is approximately 317 spaces. The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing parking lot and the construction of the new parking structure and driveway access. Temporary off-site parking may be used during the -construction phase to accommodate commuter rail patrons and/or construction workers. The location or locations of any temporary off-site parking have not been determined at this time. However, temporary parking locations would be within .5 mile of the site, and two locations within 500 feet of the site are being explored at this time. The Tustin Commuter Rail Station is located at 2975 Edinger Avenue. The 3.7 acre site is surrounded by light industrial, commercial, and automotive businesses to the northwest, west, and southwest; Jamboree Road to the southeast, and railroad tracks and light industrial and commercial uses to the north and northeast. The site is zoned Planned Community -Industrial and is designated by the Tustin General Plan as Planned Community Commercial/Business. Rail Station Parking Structure Page 2 The proposed parking structure would be able to accommodate up to 825 parking spaces and would be no greater than five (5) stories in height (approximately 50 feet in height). No subterranean parking is proposed. The elevator/stair facility would extend approximately 10-15 feet above the upper level of the .parking structure. A conceptual site plan of the proposed parking structure is provided in Exhibit 1. The discretionary actions that are anticipated to be considered by the Tustin City Council include: • Adoption of the Negative Declaration • Approval of a cooperative agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority • Approval of the project design review • Approval of the project plans and specifications In addition, subsequent approvals by the City of Tustin may include: • Demolition permit • Grading permit • Building permit 1. AESTHETICS Items a & b - No Impact: The 3.7 acre site is developed with an existing parking lot and rail station and is surrounded by developed parcels. The property is not located on a scenic vista or within a State scenic highway, thus would not damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historical buildings within a State scenic highway. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Item c -Less Than Significant Impact: The site is currently improved. The construction of a five-story parking structure would change the visual character of the site and its surroundings, but would not degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings. The site is surrounded by a one and two-story commercial buildings to the west, northwest, and southwest, Jamboree Road to the southeast, and railroad tracks and light industrial and commercial buildings to the north and northeast. No sensitive uses are located in the vicinity of the site. It is assumed that the structure would be constructed in pre-cast concrete. Consistent with the City's established procedures, architectural design details would be developed during subsequent levels of project approval, including design review. Compliance with existing design review criteria in the Tustin City Code will reduce any impacts to a level of insignificance. Rail Station Parking Structure Page 3 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Item d -Less than Significant Impact: The project site is located in located in an urban setting that is currently subject to on-street and on-site lighting. The existing commuter rail station and parking lot are lighted at night. The proposed parking structure would introduce new light sources, but these light sources would be consistent with existing light sources and would not adversely impact views in the area. All light sources would be required to comply with the City's security standards and all lights would be arranged so that no direct rays would shine onto adjacent properties. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Map Field Inspection Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items athrough c - No Impact: The proposed parking structure will be located on a site that is currently improved with an existing commuter rail station and parking lot and surrounded by developed commercial and light industrial properties, railroad tracks, and Jamboree Road. The proposed project is not located on a property designated as Prime farmland, Unique farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor is it located within a property zoned for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; therefore, the project will have no impacts on any farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project will not result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural use. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Field Inspection Conceptual Plans 2004 CA Dept. of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 3. AIR QUALITY Items a, c, d, and e - No Impact: The project is below the thresholds of significance established by Tables 6-2 (operation thresholds) and 6-3 (construction thresholds) of the Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The Air Quality Management Rail Station Parking Structure Page 4 District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook is intended to provide professional guidance for analyzing and mitigating air quality impacts of projects when preparing environmental documents. The construction of fewer than 1,309,000 square feet of building and the grading of fewer than 177.00 acres is not considered to have a significant air quality impact. Since the total building area will be approximately 250,000 square feet on 3.7 acres of land, no impact is anticipated. As such, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by Federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. Item b -Less Than Significant Impact: The project will temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the area due to grading of the property and construction activities. Since the site is relatively flat, only minor grading will be required. Less than significant short-term emissions associated with grading, construction, and operation of the proposed project will comply with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual, which include requirements for dust control. As such, the proposed project will not create significant impacts related to air quality. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook - April 1993 City of Tustin Grading Manual Project Application Field Inspection 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items athrough f - No Impact: The site is improved and is surrounded by properties that are developed with pavement and structures. The site is not inhabited by any sensitive species of animals and the proposed project would have no impacts on animal populations, diversity of species, or migratory patterns. No wetlands exist within the project site. The project would include the removal of landscaping to accommodate the new parking structure, and new landscape materials will be provided in accordance with the Tustin Landscape and Irrigation guidelines. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this project. Rail Station Parking Structure Page 5 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Field Inspection Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items athrough d - No Impact: The property is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District, nor is there any identified cultural, historic, or archaeological resources identified on the site. The site is not located in an area of high paleontological sensitivity as illustrated in the City's General Plan. The project would have no impacts on cultural resources. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin Zoning Code Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan 6. GEOLOGY & SOILS Items a-ii, a-iii, & d -Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed parking structure will be located on expansive soil and is located within an area that may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic- related ground failure including liquefaction. However, a soils report is required to be submitted prior to building permit issuance per the 2001 Uniform Building Code (or other applicable building code) to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure seismic stability. No significant impact is anticipated since the project would be conditioned to comply with the 2001 Uniform Building Code related to Chapter 18 (or other applicable building code). Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code 2001 Uniform Building Code Conceptual Plans Field Evaluation Rail Station Parking Structure Page 6 Items a-i, a-iv, b, c, & e - No Impact: The project site is not located within an area on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The project will not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and will not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code 2001 Uniform Building Code Conceptual Plans Field Evaluation 7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a through h - No Impact: The proposed project consists of the construction of a parking structure. No storage or transport of hazardous materials are anticipated from the proposed project. The project would not result in exposure to hazardous substances. A parking structure is not anticipated to emit hazardous materials which could create a hazard to the adjacent businesses or the general public if released into the environment. During the construction phase of the project, there is a limited risk of accidental release of hazardous materials such as gasoline, oil, or other fluids in the operation and maintenance of construction equipment. Compliance with standard State and local construction requirements would reduce the risk of any damage or injury from these potential hazards to a less than significant level. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site, is not located on any potential impact zones identified for John Wayne Airport, and there are no private airstrips nearby. The project is not anticipated to interfere with emergency response or evacuation. All grading and construction is subject to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. As such, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant hazards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes Conceptual Plans Tustin General Plan California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001 8. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Rail Station Parking Structure Page 7 Items a, b, c, d, e, k, 1, m, n & o -Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a relatively flat site with proper site drainage, including roads, curbs and gutters, and landscaping. With new construction, there is the potential to impact stormwater runoff from construction and post-construction activities with stormwater pollutants from the maintenance of landscape areas and paved areas. There is also the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters and changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. However, the project is required to comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and most recently adopted NPDES permit (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order R8-2002-0010), thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Together, these regulations minimize water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge .pollutants into local waters. As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality in the area. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Items f, , h, i, j and p - No Impact: The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a relatively flat site with proper site drainage and landscaping. A portion of stormwater received on-site will percolate into the soil where landscaping is provided, but the majority of the stormwater will be conveyed through a fossil filter prior to entering a City stormdrain. City stromwater infrastructure is able to accommodate the water from the project, and the amount of water should not increase as a result of the project. The applicant must provide a drainage and hydrology report to the City and demonstrate that the private stormwater drainage system will be able to able to handle the capacity of any wastewater directed into the system. Best Management Practices are required to be implemented for construction activity and would deter water from flowing, off-site. Any water that would leave the site would be filtered prior to entering a City storm drain. Best Management Practices will also be implemented to ensure that, once the project is constructed, wastewater will be filtered prior to entering the storm drain. As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality, in the area. While the project is located within Zone X (areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood), the project site is located outside a 100-year flood hazard area (areas of 1 percent annual chance of flood) as mapped on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. Accordingly, the project will be designed and graded with an appropriate drainage system to avoid any potential flood hazards. The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area structure which will impede or redirect flood flows. The project site will not expose people or structures to a Rail Station Parking Structure Page 8 significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map 9. LAND USE PLANNING Items a, b & c - No Impact: The property is designated by the Tustin General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community Commercial/Business and zoned Planned Community Industrial (PC-IND). The proposed project would not change the use of the property. The site is accessible from the City's current street system, and the project would support existing transportation and public facilities. The proposed project would not divide an established community since it involves construction on an existing site that is already improved with a parking lot and rail station. The proposed project is not located in the conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable conservation plan. Mitigation Measures: None Required Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Map 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Items aand b - No Impact: The proposed project is not located on a mineral resource recovery site. The construction of a parking structure on a lot which is improved with a parking lot will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Rail Station Parking Structure Page 9 11. NOISE Items a through d -Less Than Significant Impact: The maximum allowable noise level for industrial districts in Tustin is 70 dB(A). Exceptions are made for noise sources associated with construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, excluding City observed federal holidays. Construction of the proposed project would not occur beyond these hours nor on Sundays or City-observed federal holidays. Therefore, noise generated by the construction of the project would comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction of the project would not result in a significant noise impact. Furthermore, the proposed project would involve typical construction activities and equipment. There would be no construction or operational activities that would generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise. Operations at the project site for the new parking structure would be similar to existing conditions. The proposed project would not significantly increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code Items e & f - No Impact: The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two (2) miles of a public or private airport. Therefore, no noise impacts related to airports would occur. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code 12. POPULATION & HOUSING Items athrough c - No Impact: Rail Station Parking Structure Page 10 The proposed project is the development of a parking structure for an existing commuter rail station. No residential development is proposed. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase in the City. In addition, no expansion of infrastructure would be required which could indirectly induce population growth in the area. The proposed project would not displace existing housing or people, nor require the construction of replacement housing. The proposed project would not result in any impacts to population and housing. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a - No Impact: The proposed project is a parking structure for an existing commuter rail station. The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area where fire and police protection are currently provided. Although the project would increase the number of parking spaces at the commuter rail station, no new streets, public services, or infrastructure would need to be created. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code 14. RECREATION Items aand b - No Impact: The proposed parking structure would not increase the use of, or require the construction or expansion of City parks or recreational facilities. No significant impact related to recreation would occur, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None required Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Item a -Less Than Significant Impact; Item b - No Impact: Rail Station Parking Structure Page 11 The traffic analysis for this project is contained in the Traffic/Circulation Technical Memorandum dated October 2007 prepared by PB Americas, Inc. (Exhibit 2). Under aworst-case scenario, during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods the project is anticipated to generate a total increase of 1,016 trips to roadways in the immediate vicinity of the commuter rail station. Edinger Avenue at that location has a capacity of 48,600 vehicles per day. The traffic analysis concludes that the proposed project will not have significant adverse impacts on the traffic circulation system. Each arterial and intersection projected to operate at deficient levels of service, as demonstrated by comparing the No Project Scenario to the Project Scenario, are impacted by presently assumed increased background traffic growth surrounding the project area rather than prof ect-related traffic activity. Items c, d, e, f & g - No Impact: The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth wherein the project will not result in changes to air traffic patterns, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. The project will improve parking capacity and is proposed to satisfy current and future parking demand at the Tustin commuter rail station. The project does not include any uses or design features that would increase hazards. Furthermore, the parking structure would be designed to ensure that adequate fire protection facilities are provided and that sufficient emergency access is provided. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Traffic/Circulation Technical Memorandum (Exhibit 1) 16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items athrough g - No Impact: The proposed project will not exceed the requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed project will utilize the existing sewer and storm drain systems and thus will not require construction of a new .storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. The project would be required to submit a hydrology report ensure proper grading, drainage, and sewer systems. The project will utilize the City's existing trash hauler contract, thus not requiring a new trash hauler. Adequate water supply from existing resources will be available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no environmental impact related to utilities and service systems would occur, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Rail Station Parking Structure Page 12 Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a, b & c - No Impact: The project design, construction, and operation will comply with applicable regulations. The project, by nature of its location and as designed, does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or, eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-term. It does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Sources: Conceptual Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan S:ACdd\SCOTT\Environmental Etc.ACommuter Rail Station Pkg Structure IS.doc Exhibit 1 Conceptual Site Plan a C O Y _ ~ ._ O ~++ W L V 7 L ~_ L ~Q a m N O a o a u~- w I~ L ~~~ ~~~ W g? >~ ~ u • Q 0 h .~ k O O N .p 0 U c 0 .~ c ro W o~ .c ~c c~ .o ... ~U .c .c ,:..r ~ ~ ~~ Exhibit 2 Traffic/Circulation Technical Memorandum -,.,.,. ,:. , F TUSTIN STATION PARKING EXPANSION CITY OF TUSTIN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Task 1.1 October 2007 Prepared for: Orange County Transportation Authority And City of Tustin In coordination with: Southern California Regional Rail Authority Prepared by: PB Americas, Inc. 505 South Main Street, Suite 900 Orange, California 92868-4529 ~,~~OFESS~~ ~2 ~~ ~ b0532 m 2 ~ rn * ~ ~Z~F .~ `rqp~ n~'NI1r P __- -__ _- -_ Technical Memorandum _ 505 South Main St., Suite 900 _- - - Orange, CA 92668 ~o0 714-973-4880 YEARS TUSTIN STATION PARKING EXPANSION CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Traffic/Circulation October 18, 2007 This memo presents traffic analysis for the proposed expansion of transit serving parking facilities at the Tustin Metrolink Station located at 2975 Edinger Avenue in the City of Tustin, California. This memo includes a project description and a brief methodology followed by analysis of existing conditions, future Year 2030 No Project conditions, future Year 2030 With Project conditions, and a conclusion. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), in cooperation with the City of Tustin, proposes the construction of a parking structure with approximately 825 parking spaces over a portion of the existing surface lot. The train station currently has a parking capacity of 317 spaces. The parking structure is needed to meet current and projected parking demand for the Tustin Metrolink Station. The project involves demolition of the existing parking lot and construction of the parking structure and driveway access. A temporary off-site parking facility may be used during the construction. Locations for the temporary parking include on and off street parking along Dow Street and Myford Road, and leasing of under utilized parking lots in the project vicinity. Tustin Station Parking Expansion 1 October 2007 Tustin, California 1 0 c~ ~ ,i c~ F= ~. C~ C L Q V d .O L a W i~ * ~ A` ~ (~~ ~~ '~' ~''~~ CS' i~ ;~ b 6 ~ -'v-~ ~ ~ ~, ~, F _ ~~'~.: ~ -. ~ >~ , ~ fs 2 .. aka `j ~ ~ ~~ ''~ ~~ ,~~ 1 t'~'. ` ~ ~f~ .y ~tyJ64 y"aq ,~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,y4Y t~~ ~ ~ a ,T'' ay ~ .. ~i, ~ ~ .~ .. 4 -~ a ~ e s` `~ N `yy ~ . ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ __ - Jay ~~ ~ ~~~ ~y ~'* - - ~, f.~ '1r~ry.'l _ V qa E`er>.~7t _ ~ ~, =~ yr ,'~ ~~ ~r ~.+. a.Y,~ ~ bey ~' yE ~ ~~i '~y X _ a x r d ~. ~' , n•3`' ~S, ~ ~2.. ~~ r <~rr ~d~ ,~~ \ "~' U ~.~ ~~ ~ > 4*a~ 0 c~ ~, '. fix,` ~t° a c` ~I ~ t~] m .. 4 v= 7 Q t: /~ y ~~ ~w _ ~ W F- : '~- ~ a a iu ~_: U ~ 1Y l^ ~~ ad 7a Y 02 Z~ V O i Z ~ W Z Od ~~ a a s ,~ ~o ~~' ~ .~ s t„ ~ r h ~ ~~ ~.~: ~'IxCInW Ir3~ 0 0 N L N .p O U N .~ Q W i ~ Y cB cB ~ ~ i O +;. ~U .c .c ....~ ~ ~ ~~ c 0 m .i W Z ~ Y~ ~~ QU a~ a~ O f- ~~ W (W/~ to v' X ~ O Wtk fa t5 a ~ 3 ~_ 0 0 N L m .Q O U ,CS 0 i+ Y .O L V L ~+ a as 0 a 0 a i N d L _~ Q ~n ~~i,' ,. ~~a F '~ o ~ .~~ cn ~- ` ~,/ ~C t; ~ ~ ~ V~12 1z .r; L 7 ~~ ~ L ~ F f~!". .~~.,~~ Z O 0 t V ~ W p c a DS y t ~ ~% z L w ~i z i E~ n -- ~` Traffic/Circulation METHODOLOGY The analysis for existing conditions was performed utilizing existing traffic counts obtained from the City of Tustin and OCTA. For future conditions analysis, traffic volumes were obtained from the Orange County Transportation Authority Model (OCTAM). OCTAM is the traffic forecasting tool for Orange County. The new parking structure will be designed to provide up to 825 new parking spaces. The structure is sized to accommodate future parking demand estimates based on Metrolink ridership forecasts. The structure is proposed as a multi-level parking unit replacing a portion of the existing 317-space surface lot. The station site is accessible from Edinger Avenue. To accurately evaluate project impacts, the net increase in parking spaces is the controlling factor in determination of trip generation associated with the project. The new structure, an increase of 508 spaces over the existing 317-space surface lot, is forecast to add 508 trips during each peak period and 1,016 daily trips to the immediate station vicinity circulation system. This increase in volume creates a potential for traffic impacts. To estimate potential impacts from the proposed project, arterial average daily traffic (ADT) and level of service (LOS) were analyzed for the following ten arterial segments: Walnut Avenue -Red Hill Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road - Tustin Ranch Road to Jamboree Road - Jamboree Road to Culver Drive* ^ Edinger Avenue- Red Hill Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road -Tustin Ranch Road to Station Access - Station Access to Jamboree Road - Jamboree Road to Culver Drive* ^ Red Hill Avenue -Walnut Avenue to Edinger Avenue ^ Tustin Ranch Road -Walnut Avenue to Edinger Avenue ^ Harvard Avenue -Walnut Avenue to Edinger Avenue* ('` Denotes City of Irvine jurisdiction) In addition, peak hour intersection LOS analysis was performed for the following twelve intersections during morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak periods: ^ Red Hill Avenue / Edinger Avenue ^ Red Hill Avenue /Walnut Avenue ^ Tustin Ranch Road / Edinger Avenue ^ Tustin Ranch Road /Walnut Avenue ^ Edinger Avenue /Station Entrance ^ Edinger Avenue /Jamboree Road; ^ Walnut Avenue /State Route (SR)-261 Northbound (NB) Ramps* ^ Walnut Avenue / SR-261 Southbound (SB) Ramps* ^ Harvard Avenue /Walnut Avenue" ^ Harvard Avenue /Irvine Center Drive* ^ Culver Drive /Walnut Avenue* ^ Culver Drive /Irvine Center Drive* (" Denotes City of Irvine jurisdiction) Figure 3 presents the location of study arterial segments and intersections. OCTAM post-processing methodology was applied to Year 2030 OCTAM forecast volumes to estimate future traffic volumes which reasonably reflect appropriate growth consistent with existing traffic volumes. Arterial segment performance was then evaluated by computing volume-to-capacity ratios (V/C), which are compared to the City's critical thresholds to determine whether the arterial segment performs adequately. Similarly, intersection performance was also evaluated by analyzing intersection capacity utilization (ICU) and levels of service during the peak periods. The acceptable threshold is LOS D or better for both arterial segments and intersections. Table 1 presents level of service thresholds. Tustin Station Parking Expansion 4 October 2007 Tustin, California c 0 w cts i (~ 7 . ~ '~ a .`' ~J,; ~:~~ # "trt ;^-y ~.,~ ,~` ~;. S Y' { O .~ >~~~° • W,f ~;. ~~ V +~ ` ~ ~ I , ~ J tl ay, +`~ . ,may • ~ ~ •. a~",~'~ G~~a G1 -~ ,~, ~ ''. _ m ~ ` " ~ ~ n L ~ m ,;; •~ x ~ q- ~, ,~ - ai G2 `r? f1' _ .~~ u, :. , j 4i~ ~ m c~ 9 L o. ~_ ~~G ~ cn ''~ ~j' o ? ~~'f+~ ~ ~ Lt a ~~ ~i dt "° ~ ~f ~~ L '~~ ~ dish t, ° ~' • W ~ iy,~" O ~ ~ .~~ ~C`-' :~ ~(/ ~ LL r O ~~ ` ~?~ ~ _ ~1 ~ I ~~ M °~, L _ .. ~ ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~,~.~ - _ .rY.. J L:., _ S~ c~ ,~_ su ,; 4 gyrr ,,~ w t:~ rand Aar S Gram Ave 5 ar:snri AvG ~ ,, ';'`'\°`~~ ~~~ 5° ~ ~ flr1 i; U rn C (a d ^ c 0 U N N C r~~ u 0 0 N i .Q O U 0 .~ c ca Q Y a .~ i o ~. ~ U c ,c ~ ~ Traffic/Circulation Table 1 -Level of Service Thresholds LOS V-C Ratio /ICU A < 0.60 B 0.61 - 0.70 C 0.71 - 0.80 D 0.81 - 0.90 E 0.91 -1.00 F > 1.00 Per the City of Tustin's traffic guidelines, if the daily V/C for a segment is equal to 0.91 or greater (i.e. LOS E or worse), then a peak hour analysis for that segment must be performed to determine if there are any peak hour deficiencies. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project area which encompasses the Metrolink Station is primarily comprised of light industrial and commercial land uses. The station occupies a generally flat site of triangular shape and is bounded by Jamboree Road on the East, Red Hill Avenue on the West, Walnut Avenue on the North, and the former Tustin Marine Corps Air Station to the south. ~, Table 2 presents existing average daily traffic (ADT) counts and levels of service for key arterials surrounding the project site. It is observed that under existing daily conditions, all segments with the exception of two segments perform at a satisfactory LOS. Harvard Avenue from Walnut Avenue to Edinger Avenue operates at LOS F. Table 3 reports AM and PM peak hour arterial segment levels of service for the deficient arterial segment. The table indicates there are no capacity inadequacies for this arterial segment during either of the peak hours. Table 2 -Existina Conditions Arterial Seament Dailv V/C and LOS ID Arterial From To Existing ADT Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V-C Ratio Daily LOS 1 Walnut Avenue Redhill Avenue Tustin Ranch Road 19,500 4D 37,500 0.52 A 2 Walnut Avenue Tustin Ranch Road Jamboree Road 26,600 4D 37,500 0.71 C 3* Walnut Avenue Jamboree Road Culver Drive 16,045 4D 32,000 0.50 A 4* Edinger Avenue Redhill Avenue Tustin Ranch Road 24,700 6D 54,000 0.46 A 5'' Edinger Avenue Tustin Ranch Road Station Access 24,700 6D 54,000 0.46 A 6 Edinger Avenue Station Access Jamboree Road 24,700 6D 56,300 0.44 A 7 Edinger Avenue Jamboree Road Culver Drive 21,500 6D 56,300 0.38 A 8 Redhill Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 30,100 6D 56,300 0.53 A 9 Tustin Ranch Road Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue N ot Applicabl e 10* Harvard Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 14,317 2U 13,000 1.10 Note: City of Irvine segment Table 3 -Existina Conditions Arterial Seament Peak Hour V/C and LOS Deficient Segment- ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Lanes Capacity Traffic V/C LOS Traffic V/C LOS 10 Harvard Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 2U 3,200 1,145 0.36 A 1,432 0.45 A Table 4 presents ICU and LOS results for the study intersections under Existing conditions during the AM -~ peak hour and PM peak hour. Current intersection lane geometrics were assumed in the ICU analysis. It is observed that all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS under Existing conditions. The detailed Existing condition ICU worksheets are presented in Appendix A. Tustin Station Parking Expansion 6 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation TAhIA 4 - FXietinn rnnrlitinnc Paak Hn~~r I(_1 I ~nrl 1 r1C I D Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Red Hill Avenue / Edinger Avenue 0.74 C 0.71 C 2 Red Hill Avenue /Walnut Avenue 0.80 C 0.68 B 3 Tustin Ranch Road / Edinger Avenue Not Ap plicable 4 Tustin Ranch Road /Walnut Avenue 0.39 A 0.40 A 5 Edinger Avenue /Station Entrance 0.35 A 0.30 A 6 Edinger Avenue /Jamboree Road 0.84 D 0.42 A 7 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 NB Ramps 0.33 A 0.55 A 8 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 SB Ramps 0.68 B 0.43 A 9 Harvard Avenue /Walnut Avenue 0.38 A 0.43 A 10 Harvard Avenue /Irvine Center Drive 0.42 A 0.55 A 11 Culver Drive /Walnut Avenue 0.73 C 0.80 C 12 Culver Drive /Irvine Center Drive 0.56 A 0.65 B FUTURE (YEAR 2030) NO PROJECT Table 5 and Table 6 present daily and peak hour forecast volumes and levels of service, respectively, for the arterial segments under future (Year 2030) No Project conditions. Three segments are projected to operate deficiently under daily conditions. The traffic on Walnut Avenue between Jamboree Road and Culver Drive is projected to increase by over 100 percent. Walnut Avenue from Tustin Ranch Road to Jamboree Road is projected to increase by 28 percent. Harvard Avenue from Walnut Avenue to Edinger Avenue is projected to increase by over 7 percent. These projected increases on these specific facilities result in daily V/C ratios greater than the LOS D threshold. However, as shown in Table 6, the peak hour analysis of these deficient segments indicated no capacity inadequacies during AM or PM peak periods. I aps e 5 - ru><ure rear ~usu No rro ect Hrterlai 5e ment Uall V/G and LOS ID Arterial From To Existing ADT 2030 ADT Traffic Growth Mid-Block Lanes Total Capacity V-C Daily Ratio LOS 1 Walnut Avenue Redhill Avenue Tustin Ranch Road 19,500 22,960 17.7% 4D 37,500 0.61 B 2 Walnut Avenue Tustin Ranch Road Jamboree Road 26,600 34,010 27.9% 4D 37,500 0.91 3' Walnut Avenue Jamboree Road Culver Drive 16,045 32,520 102.7% 4D 32,000 1.02 4' Edinger Avenue Redhill Avenue Tustin Ranch Road 24,700 38,790 57.0% 6D 54,000 0.72 C 5' Edinger Avenue Tustin Ranch Road Station Access 24,700 39,320 59.2% 6D 54,000 0.73 C 6 Edinger Avenue Station Access Jamboree Road 24,700 37,980 53.8% 6D 56,300 0.67 B 7 Edinger Avenue Jamboree Road Culver Drive 21,500 40,370 87.8% 6D 56,300 0.72 C 8 Redhill Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 30,100 33,110 10.0% 6D 56,300 0.59 A 9 Tustin Ranch Road Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue NA 40,510 NA 6D 56,300 0.72 C 10' Harvard Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 14,317 15,340 7.1 % 2U 13,000 1.18 NA -Not Applicable Note: 'City of Irvine segment TahIP_ Fi -Future (Year 7(13(11 Nn PrniArt Artarial ~anmanfi Ptak 1-In~ it \//(` anrt 1 r1C Deficient Segment- ID Arterial From To Mid-Block Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Lane Capacity Traffic V/C LOS Traffic V/C LOS 2 Walnut Avenue Tustin Ranch Road Jamboree Road 4D 6,400 2,940 0.46 A 3,320 0.52 A 3 Walnut Avenue Jamboree Road Culver Drive 4D 6,400 2,800 0.44 A 3,010 0.47 A 10 Harvard Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 2U 3,200 1,270 0.40 A 1,480 0.46 A Table 7 presents LOS results for the study intersections under Future (Year 2030) No Project conditions. A total of four intersections perform deficiently during the two peak periods as a result of future background traffic growth and additional land use intensities assumed in OCTAM. The detailed ICU worksheets for the No Project scenario are presented in Appendix B. Tustin Station Parking Expansion 7 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation Table 7 -Future (Year 2030) No Project Peak Hour ICU and LOS AM Pea k Hour PM Pea k Hour I D Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Red Hill Avenue / Edinger Avenue 1.08 0.92 2 Red Hill Avenue /Walnut Avenue 0.75 C 0.76 C 3 Tustin Ranch Road / Edinger Avenue 0.53 A 0.60 A 4 Tustin Ranch Road /Walnut Avenue 1.00 0.84 D 5 Edinger Avenue /Station Entrance O.bO A 0.46 A 6 Edinger Avenue /Jamboree Road 0.56 A 0.62 B 7 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 NB Ramps 0.43 A 0.93 8 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 SB Ramps 0.85 D 0.54 A 9 Harvard Avenue /Walnut Avenue 0.58 A 0.64 B 10 Harvard Avenue /Irvine Center Drive 0.58 A 0.83 D 11 Culver Drive /Walnut Avenue 0.84 D 0.89 D 12 Culver Drive /Irvine Center Drive 0.93 0.96 Deficient Intersections- FUTURE (YEAR 2030) WITH PROJECT Table 8 presents daily forecast volumes and levels of service for the arterials under Future (Year 2030) With Project conditions. The table indicates the three deficient segments remain unchanged compared to No Project conditions. However, Edinger Avenue from Tustin Ranch Road to Culver Drive and Tustin Ranch Road from Walnut Avenue to Edinger Avenue report a nominal V/C-increase of up to 0.02 compared to No Project conditions. Table 9 and Table 10 present LOS for AM peak hour and PM peak hour for the deficient arterial segments. The tables reveal that all three segments perform satisfactorily at LOS B or better during both peak periods in the future. The peak hour project-only trips are projected to add an insignificant number of trips to the deficient segments during either peak hour and have a negligible impact on their LOS. Table 8 -Future (Year 2030) With Project Conditions Arterial Segment Daily V/C and LOS T Existing 2030 ADT Mid-Block Total V-C Daily ID Arterial From o ADT No Project Project Total Lanes Capacity Ratio LOS 1 Walnut Avenue Redhill Avenue Tustin Ranch Road 19,500 22,960 40 23,000 4D 37,500 0.61 B 2 Walnut Avenue Tustin Ranch Road Jamboree Road 26,600 34,010 0 34,010 4D 37,500 0.91 3' Walnut Avenue Jamboree Road Culver Drive 16,045 32,520 40 32,560 4D 32,000 1.02 4' Edinger Avenue Redhill Avenue Tustin Ranch Road 24,700 38,790 160 38,950 6D 54,000 0.72 C 5' Edinger Avenue Tustin Ranch Road Station Access 24,700 39,320 390 39,710 6D 54,000 0.74 C 6 Edinger Avenue Station Access Jamboree Road 24,700 37,980 630 38,610 6D 56,300 0.69 B 7 Edinger Avenue Jamboree Road Culver Drive 21,500 40,370 300 40,670 6D 56,300 0.72 C 8 Redhill Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 30,100 33,110 20 33,130 6D 56,300 0.59 A 9 Tustin Ranch Road Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue NA 40,510 120 40,630 6D 56,300 0.72 C 10' Harvard Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 14,317 15,340 10 15,350 2U 13,000 1.18 NA -Not Applicable Note: `City of Irvine segment Deficient Segment- Table 9 -Future (Year 2030) With Protect Conditions Arterial Segment AM Peak Hour V/C and LOS ID Art i l F T Existing 2030 Traffic Mid-Block Total V-C AM er a rom o Traffic No Project Project Total Lanes Capacity Ratio LOS 2 Walnut Avenue Tustin Ranch Road Jamboree Road 2,128 2,940 0 2,940 4D 6,400 0.46 A 3 Walnut Avenue Jamboree Road Culver Drive 1,284 2,800 9 2,809 4D 6,400 0.44 A 10 Harvard Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 1,145 1,270 3 1,273 2U 3,200 0.40 A Tustin Station Parking Expansion 8 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation TahlP 1 n - Ft ttl IrP_ /YPar' ~n3n1 1Arith Prnicrt r`nnrli+innc n.+ori~l Ce..~,~,o.,~ ~I-A ~,,.,V u,.. ~. ~ irn ,....~ ~ nn ID Arterial From To Existing 2030 Traffic Mid-Block Total .. V-C ` v PM Traffic No Project Project Total Lanes Capacity Ratio LOS 2 Walnut Avenue Tustin Ranch Road Jamboree Road 2,660 3,320 0 3,320 4D 6,400 0.52 A 3 Walnut Avenue Jamboree Road Culver Drive 1,605 3,010 4 3,014 4D 6,400 0.47 A 10 Harvard Avenue Walnut Avenue Edinger Avenue 1,432 1,480 1 1,481 2U 3,200 0.46 A Table 11 presents LOS results for the study intersections under Future (Year 2030) With Project conditions during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. The four intersections which operate at LOS E or worse under No Project conditions continue to operate deficiently under With Project conditions. As in the LOS analysis of arterial segments, some intersections show a nominal increase in ICUs. The intersection of Edinger Avenue/Station Entrance reports a V/C-increase of 0.05 during the AM peak hour and 0.02 during the PM peak hour when compared to No Project conditions. However, as this intersection would continue to pertorm at LOS A, no mitigation is warranted. The detailed ICU worksheets for this scenario are presented in Appendix C. TahIP_ 1 1 - Fi tt~ ira /YPar' 7(13(11 \A/i>Fh Prnicrf pmlr Nn..r I('I t ~nrl 1 nc I D Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Pe ak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Red Hill Avenue / Edinger Avenue 1.08 0.92 2 Red Hill Avenue /Walnut Avenue 0.76 C 0.76 C 3 Tustin Ranch Road / Edinger Avenue 0.54 A 0.60 A 4 Tustin Ranch Road /Walnut Avenue 1.01 0.84 D 5 Edinger Avenue !Station Entrance 0.55 A 0.48 A 6 Edinger Avenue /Jamboree Road 0.57 A 0.62 B 7 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 NB Ramps 0.43 A 0.93 8 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 SB Ramps 0.85 D 0.54 A 9 Harvard Avenue /Walnut Avenue 0.58 A 0.64 B 10 Harvard Avenue /Irvine Center Drive 0.59 A 0.83 D 11 Culver Drive /Walnut Avenue 0.84 D 0.89 D 12 Culver Drive /Irvine Center Drive 0.93 0.96 Deficient Intersections - CONCLUSION The results of this analysis demonstrate that the parking structure project will not have significant adverse impacts on the traffic circulation system. Each arterial and intersection projected to operate at deficient levels of service, as demonstrated by the No Project to Project comparison, are impacted by presently assumed increased background traffic growth surrounding the project area rather than project-related traffic activity. No project traffic mitigation measures are warranted nor recommended for the proposed parking structure project. Access issues associated with construction, if any, will be addressed in the environmental document. Preparers Shivaprasad Shivananjappa, Transportation Planner B.E. Civil Engineering, Bangalore University, India M.S. Civil Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Tim Byrne, P.E., Senior Supervising Planner B.S. Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine M.S. Transportation Engineering, University of California, Irvine Rick Sandzimier, AICP, Senior Planning Manager B.A. Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine w: Tustin Station Parking Expansion 9 October 2007 ~ Tustin, California t Traffic/Circulation APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS ICU WORKSHEETS Tustin Station Parking Expansion 10 October 2007 Tustin, California ~, Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 1 Red Hill Avenue / Edinger Avenue DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 82 0.02 3400 245 0.07 NBT 3 5100 314 0.06 5100 1607 0.32 "' NBR 1 1700 82 0.05 1700 304 0.18 SBL 2 3400 141 0.04 3400 101 0.03 " SBT 3 5100 1680 0.33 5100 488 0.10 SBR 1 1700 351 0.21 1700 170 0.10 EBL 2 3400 496 0.15 3400 249 0.07 " EBT 3 5100 1106 0.22 5100 595 0.12 EBR 1 1700 94 0.06 1700 47 0.03 WBL 2 3400 142 0.04 3400 197 0.06 WBT 2 3400 397 0.12 3400 677 0.20 WBR 1 1700 187 0.11 1700 196 0.12 N/S Movements 0.35 0.34 E/W Movements 0.33 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.74 0.71 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) C C PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 2 Red Hill Avenue /Walnut Ave nue DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 109 0.06 1700 248 0.15 NBT 3 5100 405 0.11 5100 1064 0.24 NBR 0 154 171 SBL 1 1700 91 0.05 1700 128 0.08 " SBT 2 3400 969 0.30 '` 3400 471 0.17 SBR 0 52 110 EBL 1 1700 129 0.08 1700 118 0.07 " EBT 2 3400 394 0.21 3400 398 0.15 EBR 0 326 103 WBL 1 1700 302 0.18 1700 250 0.15 WBT 2 3400 436 0.16 3400 699 0.25 WBR 0 98 144 N/S Movements 0.36 0.32 FJW Movements 0.39 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.80 0.68 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) C B Tustin Station Parking Expansion 11 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 4 Tustin Ranch Road /Walnut Avenue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 1.5 4725 647 0.14 2550 297 0.12 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1.5 375 51 0.14 2550 91 0.04 EBL 1 1700 74 0.04 1700 50 0.03 * EBT 2 3400 682 0.20 * 3400 574 0.17 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 0 0.00 WBT 2 3400 374 0.11 3400 681 0.20 * WBR 1 1700 147 0.09 1700 538 0.32 N/S Movements 0.14 0.12 E/W Movements 0.20 0.23 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.39 0.40 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A A PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 5 Edinger Avenue /.Station Entry DATE 10/2/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME VIC CAPACITY VOLUME VIC NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 0 0.00 3400 6 0.00 * SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 13 0.01 * EBL 1 1700 16 0.01 1700 0 0.00 EBT 3 5100 607 0.12 5100 1218 0.24 * EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 * WBT 3 5100 1463 0.29 5100 799 0.16 WBR 1 1700 7 0.00 1700 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.00 0.00 E/W Movements 0.30 0.24 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.35 0.30 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A A Tustin Station Parking Expansion 12 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 6 Edinger Avenue /Jamboree Road DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 111 0.03 3400 270 0.08 NBT 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 14 0.01 1700 168 0.10 SBL 2 3400 321 0.09 * 3400 245 0.07 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * SBR 1 1700 1043 0.61 * 1700 263 0.15 EBL 2 3400 148 0.04 3400 392 0.12 * EBT 3 5100 246 0.07 5100 567 0.12 EBR 0 108 70 WBL 2 3400 165 0.05 3400 103 0.03 W BT 3 5100 908 0.18 * 5100 875 0.17 * WBR 1 1700 347 0.20 1700 314 0.18 N/S Movements 0.09 0.08 E/W Movements 0.22 0.29 Rt. Turn Component 0.48 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.84 0.42 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) D A PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 7 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 NB Ramps DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 327 0.10 3400 612 0.18 NBT 2 3400 266 0.08 3400 684 0.20 * NBR 1 1700 74 0.04 1700 244 0.14 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 83 0.02 * 3400 282 0.08 * EBT 3 5100 452 0.09 5100 750 0.15 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 577 0.11 * 5100 563 0.11 * WBR 1 1700 268 0.16 * 1700 367 0.22 * N/S Movements 0.10 0.20 E/W Movements 0.14 0.19 Rt. Turn Component 0.04 0.11 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.33 0.55 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A A Tustin Station Parking Expansion 73 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 8 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 SB Ramps DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 '` 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 201 0.06 3400 323 0.10 SBT 2 3400 868 0.26 3400 352 0.10 " SBR 1 1700 300 0.18 1700 152 0.09 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 305 0.06 5100 713 0.14 EBR 1 1700 511 0.30 1700 363 0.21 '~ WBL 2 3400 265 0.08 '` 3400 144 0.04 WBT 3 5100 650 0.13 5100 1028 0.20 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.26 0.10 E/W Movements 0.14 0.20 Rt. Turn Component 0.24 0.07 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.68 0.43 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) B A PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 9 Harvard Avenue /Walnut Ave nue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 209 0.06 3400 310 0.09 NBT 1 1700 49 0.03 1700 109 0.06 " NBR 1 1700 33 0.02 1700 138 0.08 SBL 1 1700 64 0.04 1700 87 0.05 SBT 1 1700 102 0.06 1700 37 0.02 SBR 1 1700 54 0.03 1700 39 0.02 EBL 1 1700 21 0.01 1700 67 0.04 EBT 2 3400 244 0.07 3400 735 0.22 EBR 1 1700 210 0.12 1700 262 0.15 WBL 1 1700 182 0.11 1700 78 0.05 WBT 2 3400 615 0.20 3400 566 0.18 WBR 0 51 29 N/S Movements 0.12 0.12 E/W Movements 0.21 0.26 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.38 0.43 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A A Tustin Station Parking Expansion 14 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 10 Harvard Avenue / Edinger Avenue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 137 0.04 3400 253 0.07 NBT 2 3400 134 0.04 3400 691 0.20 NBR 1 1700 32 0.02 1700 244 0.14 SBL 1 1700 63 0.04 1700 82 0.05 SBT 2 3400 472 0.16 3400 182 0.07 SBR 0 81 41 EBL 2 3400 29 0.01 3400 110 0.03 EBT 3 5100 338 0.07 5100 753 0.15 EBR 1 1700 205 0.12 1700 127 0.07 WBL 2 3400 238 0.07 3400 113 0.03 WBT 3 5100 721 0.15 '' 5100 1031 0.22 WBR 0 21 87 N/S Movements 0.20 0.25 E/W Movements 0.15 0.25 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.42 0.55 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A A PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 11 Culver Drive /Walnut Avenue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 123 0.04 3400 265 0.08 NBT 3 5100 873 0.17 5100 1625 0.32 '` NBR 1 1700 272 0.16 1700 390 0.23 SBL 2 3400 154 0.05 3400 384 0.11 SBT 3 5100 1911 0.37 5100 1396 0.27 SBR 1 1700 313 0.18 1700 189 0.11 EBL 2 3400 257 0.08 3400 429 0.13 EBT 2 3400 283 0.13 3400 475 0.18 " EBR 0 144 144 WBL 2 3400 477 0.14 '` 3400 455 0.13 WBT 2 3400 454 0.13 3400 503 0.15 WBR 1 1700 295 0.17 1700 266 0.16 N/S Movements 0.41 0.43 E/W Movements 0.27 0.32 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.73 0.80 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) C C Tustin Station Parking Expansion Tustin, California 75 October 2007 Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Existing Conditions INTERSECTION: 12 Culver Drive /Irvine Center Drive DATE 9/27/2007 " AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 179 0.05 3400 235 0.07 NBT 4 6800 684 0.10 6800 1901 0.28 " NBR (Free) 150 0.00 391 0.00 SBL 2 3400 133 0.04 3400 260 0.08 " SBT 4 6800 1896 0.28 '` 6800 1362 0.20 SBR 1 1700 125 0.07 1700 111 0.07 EBL 2 3400 58 0.02 3400 142 0.04 " EBT 3 5100 420 0.08 5100 650 0.13 EBR (Free) 86 0.00 96 0.00 WBL 2 3400 327 0.10 3400 229 0.07 WBT 3 5100 676 0.13 5100 1038 0.20 " WBR (Free) 121 0.00 118 0.00 N/S Movements 0.33 0.36 E/W Movements 0.18 0.25 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.65 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A B Tustin Station Parking Expansion 16 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation APPENDIX B FUTURE (YEAR 2030) NO PROJECT ICU WORKSHEETS ~. Tustin Station Parking Expansion 17 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 1 Red Hill Avenue / Edinger Ave nue DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 437 0.13 3400 775 0.23 NBT 3 5100 330 0.06 5100 1687 0.33 NBR 1 1700 91 0.05 1700 319 0.19 SBL 2 3400 148 0.04 3400 106 0.03 SBT 3 5100 1692 0.33 5100 512 0.10 SBR 1 1700 551 0.32 1700 290 0.17 EBL 2 3400 748 0.22 3400 592 0.17 '` EBT 3 5100 2182 0.43 5100 1145 0.22 EBR 1 1700 574 0.34 1700 210 0.12 WBL 2 3400 166 0.05 3400 233 0.07 WBT 3 5100 725 0.14 5100 1444 0.28 " WBR 1 1700 196 0.12 1700 206 0.12 N/S Movements - 0.46 0.36 E/W Movements 0.57 0.51 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 0.92 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) F E PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 2 Red Hill Avenue /Walnut Avenue DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME VIC NBL 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 299 0.18 NBT 3 5100 425 0.08 5100 1173 0.23 " NBR 1 1700 207 0.12 1700 180 0.11 SBL 1 1700 195 0.11 1700 138 0.08 SBT 3 5100 1211 0.24 5100 482 0.09 SBR 1 1700 83 0.05 1700 160 0.09 EBL 2 3400 144 0.04 3400 167 0.05 EBT 2 3400 625 0.28 3400 459 0.17 EBR 0 342 113 WBL 2 3400 379 0.11 '' 3400 255 0.08 WBT 2 3400 703 0.25 3400 1011 0.35 WBR 0 148 ~ 190 N/S Movements 0.30 0.31 E/W Movements 0.40 0.40 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.75 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) C C Tustin Station Parking Expansion 18 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 3 Tustin Ranch Road / Edinger Avenue DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 30 0.02 1700 34 0.02 NBT 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 117 0.07 1700 407 0.24 " SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 1168 0.23 5100 1598. 0.31 EBR 1 1700 46 0.03 1700 9 0.01 WBL 1 1700 404 0.24 1700 211 0.12 " WBT 3 5100 1655 0.32 5100 1560 0.31 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Movements 0.47 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.10 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.53 0.60 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A A PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 4 Tustin Ranch Road /Walnut Avenue DATE 10/2/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 180 0.11 1700 611 0.36 NBT 3 5100 321 0.06 5100 1396 0.27 NBR 1 1700 458 0.27 1700 622 0.37 SBL 1 1700 342 0.20 1700 109 0.06 SBT 3 5100 1803 0.35 5100 536 0.11 SBR 1 1700 56 0.03 1700 33 0.02 EBL 1 1700 28 0.02 1700 34 0.02 EBT 2 3400 650 0.19 3400 523 0.15 EBR 1 1700 585 0.34 1700 131 0.08 WBL 1 1700 436 0.26 1700 439 0.26 WBT 2 3400 647 0.19 3400 540 0.16 WBR 1 1700 67 0.04 1700 443 0.26 N/S Movements 0.46 0.46 E/W Movements 0.45 0.41 Rt. Turn Component 0.05 0.04 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 0.96 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) E E E Tustin Station Parking Expansion 19 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circu/ation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 5 Edinger Avenue /Station Entry DATE 10/2/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 N BT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 " NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 0 0.00 3400 175 0.05 " SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 104 0.06 t EBL 1 1700 76 0.04 1700 0 0.00 EBT 3 5100 1513 0.30 5100 1761 0.35 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 2068 0.41 5100 1651 0.32 WBR 1 1700 105 0.06 1700 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.00 0.05 E/W Movements 0.45 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.46 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A A PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 6 Edinger Avenue /Jamboree Road DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 460 0.14 3400 397 0.12 NBT 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 263 0.15 SBL 2 3400 522 0.15 '` 3400 269 0.08 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 " SBR (Free) 1095 0.01 271 0.00 EBL 2 3400 174 0.05 3400 420 0.12 " EBT 3 ~ 5100 827 0.16 5100 1045 0.20 EBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 155 0.09 WBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 253 0.07 WBT 3 5100 1557 0.31 5100 1683 0.33 " WBR 1 1700 392 0.23 1700 374 0.22 N/S Movements 0.15 0.12 E/W Movements 0.36 0.45 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.56 0.62 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A B Tustin Station Parking Expansion 20 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 7 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 NB Ramps DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 496 0.15 * 3400 643 0.19 NBT 2 3400 305 0.09 3400 864 0.25 * NBR 1 1700 147 0.09 1700 312 0.18 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 115 0.03 * 3400 428 0.13 * EBT 3 5100 1085 0.21 5100 1154 0.23 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 979 0.19 * 5100 923 0.18 * WBR 1 1700 343 0.20 * 1700 856 0.50 * N/S Movements 0.15 0.25 E/V1/ Movements 0.23 0.31 Rt. Tum Component 0.01 0.32 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.43 0.93 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A E PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 8 Walnut Avenue / SR-261 SB Ramps DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME WC NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 617 0.18 3400 469 0.14 * SBT 2 3400 1067 0.31 * 3400 416 0.12 SBR 1 1700 596 0.35 * 1700 160 0.09 EBL 0 0 * 0 EBT 3 5100 513 0.10 5100 1121 0.22 * EBR 1 1700 537 0.32 * 1700 465 0.27 * WBL 2 3400 299 0.09 3400 259 0.08 * WBT 3 5100 1184 0.23 * 5100 1158 0.23 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.31 0.14 E/W Movements 0.23 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.25 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.85 0.54 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) D A Tustin Station Parking Expansion 21 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 9 Harvard Avenue /Walnut Avenue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 218 0.06 * 3400 421 0.12 * NBT 1 1700 51 0.03 1700 114 0.07 NBR 1 1700 77 0.05 1700 170 0.10 SBL 1 1700 119 0.07 1700 97 0.06 SBT 1 1700 107 0.06 * 1700 39 0.02 SBR 1 1700 57 0.03 1700 48 0.03 EBL 1 1700 24 0.01 1700 79 0.05 * EBT 2 3400 824 0.24 * 3400 1193 0.35 EBR 1 1700 265 0.16 1700 304 0.18 WBL 1 1700 274 0.16 * 1700 116 0.07 WBT 2 3400 1107 0.35 3400 1301 0.40 * WBR 0 68 44 N/S Movements 0.13 0.15 E/W Movements 0.40 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.58 0.64 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A B PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 10 Harvard Avenue / Edinger Avenue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 180 0.05 * 3400 266 0.08 NBT 2 3400 141 0.04 3400 726 0.21 NBR 1 1700 87 0.05 1700 344 0.20 SBL 1 1700 165 0.10 1700 125 0.07 * SBT 2 3400 496 0.18 * 3400 191 0.07 SBR 0 103 43 EBL 2 3400 35 0.01 3400 123 0.04 * EBT 3 5100 1105 0.22 * 5100 1252 0.25 EBR 1 1700 240 0.14 1700 133 0.08 WBL 2 3400 296 0.09 * 3400 202 0.06 WBT 3 5100 1207 0.24 5100 2138 0.45 * WBR 0 27 178 N/S Movements 0.23 0.29 E/W Movements 0.30 0.49 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.58 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A D Tustin Station Parking Expansion 22 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 11 Culver Drive /Walnut Avenue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 161 0.05 3400 394 0.12 NBT 4 6800 917 0.19 6800 1725 0.32 " NBR 0 356 458 SBL 2 3400 232 0.07 3400 469 0.14 SBT 3 5100 2109 0.41 5100 1444 0.28 SBR 1 1700 472 0.28 1700 292 0.17 EBL 2 3400 373 0.11 3400 533 0.16 '` EBT 3 5100 582 0.16 5100 653 0.16 EBR 0 217 168 WBL 2 3400 574 0.17 3400 468 0.14 WBT 2 3400 747 0.22 3400 774 0.23 WBR 1 1700 342 0.20 1700 292 0.17 N/S Movements 0.46 0.46 E/W Movements 0.33 0.38 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.84 0.89 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) D p PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) No Project INTERSECTION: 12 Culver Drive /Irvine Center Drive DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 188 0.06 3400 287 0.08 NBT 4 6800 718 0.11 6800 2055 0.30 NBR (Free) 332 0.00 722 0.01 SBL 2 3400 292 0.09 3400 445 0.13 " SBT 4 6800 2040 0.30 6800 1430 0.21 SBR 1 1700 131 0.08 1700 126 0.07 EBL 2 3400 90 0.03 3400 155 0.05 EBT 3 5100 1566 0.31 5100 1213 0.24 EBR (Free) 157 0.00 98 0.00 WBL 2 3400 733 0.22 3400 401 0.12 WBT 3 5100 1241 0.24 5100 2187 0.43 WBR (Free) 230 0.00 220 0.00 N/S Movements 0.36 0.43 E/W Movements 0.52 0.47 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.96 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) E E Tustin Station Parking Expansion 23 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation APPENDIX C FUTURE (YEAR 2030) WITH PROJECT ICU WORKSHEETS Tustin Station Parking Expansion 24 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Proje ct INTERSECTION: 1 Red Hill Avenue / Edinger Avenue DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 437 0.13 3400 775 0.23 NBT 3 5100 330 0.06 5100 1687 0.33 NBR 1 1700 92 0.05 1700 319 0.19 SBL 2 3400 149 0.04 3400 106 0.03 SBT 3 5100 1692 0.33 5100 512 0.10 SBR 1 1700 551 0.32 1700 290 0.17 EBL 2 3400 748 0.22 3400 592 0.17 "` EBT 3 5100 2205 0.43 5100 1145 0.22 EBR 1 1700 574 0.34 1700 210 0.12 WBL 2 3400 166 0.05 3400 234 0.07 WBT 3 5100 725 0.14 5100 1463 0.29 " WBR 1 1700 196 0.12 1700 209 0.12 N/S Movements 0.46 0.36 E/W Movements 0.57 0.51 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 0.92 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) F E PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Proje ct INTERSECTION: 2 Red Hill Avenue /Walnut Avenue DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 299 0.18 NBT 3 5100 425 0.08 5100 1174 0.23 NBR 1 1700 207 0.12 1700 180 0.11 SBL 1 1700 197 0.12 1700 138 0.08 " SBT 3 5100 1211 0.24 5100 482 0.09 SBR 1 1700 83 0.05 1700 160 0.09 EBL 1 1700 144 0.08 1700 167 0.10 " EBT 2 3400 631 0.19 3400 459 0.14 EBR 1 1700 342 0.20 1700 113 0.07 WBL 1 1700 379 0.22 1700 255 0.15 WBT 2 3400 703 0.21 3400 1013 0.30 " WBR 1 1700 148 0.09 1700 192 0.11 N/S Movements 0.30 0.31 ENV Movements 0.41 0.40 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.76 0.76 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) C C Tustin Station Parking Expansion 25 October 2007 Tustin, California " Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Project INTERSECTION: 3 Tustin Ranch Road / Edinger Avenue DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME VIC NBL 1 1700 30 0.02 * 1700 34 0.02 * N BT 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 138 0.08 1700 407 0.24 * SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0.00 * 0 0.00 * SBR 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 1194 0.23 * 5100 1598 0.31 * EBR 1 1700 46 0.03 1700 9 0.01 WBL 1 1700 404 0.24 * 1700 224 0.13 * WBT 3 5100 1655 0.32 5100 1593 0.31 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.02 0.02 E/W Movements 0.47 0.45 Rt. Tum Component 0.00 0.09 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.54 0.60 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A A PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Proje ct INTERSECTION: 4 Tustin Ranch Road /Walnut Avenue DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 180 0.05 * 3400 615 0.18 NBT 3 5100 321 0.06 5100 1401 0.27 * NBR 1 1700 458 0.27 1700 622 0.37 SBL 2 3400 342 0.10 3400 109 0.03 SBT 3 5100 1822 0.36 5100 536 0.11 SBR 1 1700 56 0.03 1700 33 0.02 EBL 1 1700 28 0.02 1700 34 0.02 EBT 2 3400 650 0.19 3400 523 0.15 * EBR 1 1700 595 0.35 * 1700 131 0.08 WBL 1 1700 436 0.26 1700 439 0.26 WBT 2 3400 647 0.19 3400 540 0.16 WBR 1 1700 67 0.04 1700 443 0.26 * N/S Movements 0.41 0.31 E/W Movements 0.45 0.41 Rt. Turn Component 0.11 0.07 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 0.84 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) F D Tustin Station Parking Expansion 26 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Project INTERSECTION: 5 Edinger Avenue /Station Entry DATE 10/2/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 " NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 0 0.00 3400 262 0.08 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 SBR 1 1700 0 0.00 1700 150 0.09 '' EBL 1 1700 153 0.09 1700 0 0.00 EBT 3 5100 1513 0.30 5100 1761 0.35 '` EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 2068 0.41 5100 1651 0.32 WBR 1 1700 207 0.12 1700 0 0.00 N/S Movements 0.00 0.08 E/W Movements 0.50 0.35 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.01 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.55 0.48 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A A PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Project INTERSECTION: 6 Edinger Avenue /Jamboree Road DATE 10/17/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 487 0.14 3400 397 0.12 NBT 0 0 0 NBR 1 1700 110 0.06 1700 263 0.15 SBL 2 3400 522 0.15 3400 269 0.08 SBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 " SBR (Free) 1114 0.01 271 0.00 EBL 2 3400 174 0.05 3400 429 0.13 " EBT 3 5100 827 0.16 5100 1082 0.21 EBR 1 1700 170 0.10 1700 196 0.12 WBL 2 3400 250 0.07 3400 253 0.07 WBT 3 5100 1612 0.32 5100 1683 0.33 '` WBR 1 1700 392 0.23 1700 374 0.22 N/S Movements 0.15 0.12 E/W Movements 0.37 0.46 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.57 0.62 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A B e Tustin Station Parking Expansion 27 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Project INTERSECTION: 7 Walnut Avenue / SR261 NB DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME VIC CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 496 0.15 * 3400 644 0.19 NBT 2 3400 305 0.09 3400 867 0.26 NBR 1 1700 147 0.09 1700 316 0.19 SBL 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 EBL 2 3400 115 0.03 * 3400 428 0.13 * EBT 3 5100 1085 0.21 5100 1154 0.23 EBR 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBT 3 5100 988 0.19 * 5100 923 0.18 * WBR 1 1700 343 0.20 * 1700 856 0.50 N/S Movements 0.15 0.26 E/W Movements 0.23 0.31 Rt. Turn Component 0.01 0.32 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.43 0.93 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A E PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Proje ct INTERSECTION: 8 Walnut Avenue / SR261SB DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME VIC CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 0 0 * 0 NBT 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 * NBR 0 0 0 SBL 2 3400 617 0.18 3400 469 0.14 * SBT 2 3400 1075 0.32 * 3400 416 0.12 SBR 1 1700 596 0.35 * 1700 160 0.09 EBL 0 0 0 EBT 3 5100 513 0.10 5100 1121 0.22 EBR 1 1700 539 0.32 * 1700 465 0.27 * WBL 2 3400 308 0.09 3400 259 0.08 * WBT 3 5100 1184 0.23 * 5100 1159 0.23 WBR 0 0 0 N/S Movements 0.32 0.14 E/W Movements 0.23 0.30 Rt. Turn Component 0.25 0.05 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION ~ 0.85 0.54 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) D A Tustin Station Parking Expansion 28 October 2007 Tustin, California Traffic/Circulation '°" PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Project INTERSECTION: 9 Harvard Avenue /Walnut Ave nue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 218 0.06 3400 421 0.12 " NBT 1 1700 51 0.03 1700 114 0.07 NBR 1 1700 77 0.05 1700 170 0.10 SBL 1 1700 119 0.07 1700 97 0.06 SBT 1 1700 107 0.06 1700 39 0.02 SBR 1 1700 57 0.03 1700 48 0.03 EBL 1 1700 24 0.01 1700 79 0.05 '` EBT 2 3400 824 0.24 3400 1197 0.35 EBR 1 1700 265 0.16 1700 304 0.18 WBL 1 1700 274 0.16 1700 116 0.07 WBT 2 3400 1116 0.35 3400 1301 0.40 WBR 0 68 44 N/S Movements 0.13 0.15 E/W Movements 0.40 0.44 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.58 0.64 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A g PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Proje ct INTERSECTION: 10 Harvard Avenue / Edinger Avenue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 186 0.05 '` 3400 266 0.08 NBT 2 3400 141 0.04 3400 726 0.21 NBR 1 1700 87 0.05 1700 344 0.20 SBL 1 1700 165 0.10 1700 125 0.07 " SBT 2 3400 496 0.18 '` 3400 191 0.07 SBR 0 105 43 EBL 2 3400 35 0.01 3400 124 0.04 " EBT 3 5100 1105 0.22 5100 1284 0.25 EBR 1 1700 240 0.14 1700 137 0.08 WBL 2 3400 296 0.09 3400 202 0.06 WBT 3 5100 1254 0.25 5100 2138 0.45 '` WBR 0 27 178 N/S Movements 0.23 0.29 E/W Movements 0.30 0.49 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.59 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) A D Tustin Station Parking Expansion 29 October 2007 Tustin, California ;: Traffic/Circulation PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Project INTERSECTION: 11 Culver Drive /Walnut Avenue DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME VIC NBL 2 3400 161 0.05 '` 3400 394 0.12 NBT 4 6800 917 0.19 6800 1727 0.32 NBR 0 356 458 SBL 2 3400 232 0.07 3400 469 0.14 SBT 3 5100 2110 0.41 5100 1444 0.28 SBR 1 1700 476 0.28 1700 292 0.17 EBL 2 3400 373 0.11 3400 534 0.16 " EBT 3 5100 582 0.16 5100 655 0.16 EBR 0 217 168 WBL 2 3400 574 0.17 3400 468 0.14 WBT 2 3400 751 0.22 3400 774 0.23 WBR 1 1700 342 0.20 1700 292 0.17 N/S Movements 0.46 0.46 E/W Movements 0.33 0.38 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.84 0.89 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) D D PROJECT: Tustin Parking Expansion Traffic Study ANALYSIS CONDITION: Future (Year 2030) With Proje ct INTERSECTION: 12 Culver Drive I Irvine Center D rive DATE 9/27/2007 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NBL 2 3400 199 0.06 3400 287 0.08 NBT 4 6800 718 0.11 6800 2055 0.30 NBR (Free) 332 0.00 722 0.01 SBL 2 3400 292 0.09 3400 445 0.13 SBT 4 6800 2040 0.30 6800 1430 0.21 SBR 1 1700 132 0.08 1700 126 0.07 EBL 2 3400 90 0.03 3400 158 0.05 " EBT 3 5100 1566 0.31 5100 1231 0.24 EBR (Free) 157 0.00 105 0.00 WBL 2 3400 733 0.22 3400 401 0.12 WBT 3 5100 1270 0.25 5100 2187 0.43 WBR (Free) 230 0.00 220 0.00 N/S Movements 0.36 0.43 E/W Movements 0.52 0.48 Rt. Turn Component 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.05 0.05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.93 0.96 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) E E Tustin Station Parking Expansion 30 October 2007 Tustin, California