The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05 TTM 16782 DR 04-024 # Report to the Planning Commission DATE: JANUARY 24, 2005 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16782 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-024 APPLICANT: LENNAR SOUTH COAST OWNERS: 1) 2) JAMBOREE WORSHIP CENTER TUSTIN RANCH ESTATES MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND RAWLINGS WAY ON LOTS 7 AND T OF TRACT NO. 12870 AND A PORTION OF LOT S OF TRACT NO. 15563 ZONING: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, RESIDENTIAL (1-18 DU/ACRE) MEDIUM DENSITY ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: AN INITIAL STUDY WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND CONCLUDED THAT, AS CONDITIONED, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WOULD RESULT FROM THE PROJECT. PROJECT: A PROPOSAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16782 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-029 TO SUBDIVIDE 5.33 ACRES INTO 25 NUMBERED LOTS AND 6 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING 25 DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLINGS, COMMON AREA LANDSCAPE LOTS, AND FUEL MODIFICATION LOT WITHIN A GATED COMMUNITY MAINTAINED BY A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3960 recommending that the City Council find that the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map 16782 and Design Review 04-024 is adequate for the project; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 3961 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 16782 to subdivide 5.33 acres into 25 numbered lots and 6 lettered lots for the purpose of developing 25 medium density detached single- Planning Commission Report TT16782 and DR 04-024 January 24, 2005 Page 2 family dwellings and Design Review 04-024 for the site layout and architectural design of the project. BACKGROUND The undeveloped, flat, and grubbed 5.33 acre site is located in an urbanized area of the City within Sector 8 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) at the northwest corner or Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way in the community know as Tustin Ranch. The property is designated as Planned Community Residential by the General Plan and is designated as medium density residential (1-18 du/ac) by the ETSP. The property is situated between an elementary school to the north, an open space parcel to the east, Tustin Ranch Road to the south, and medium density single-family dwellings across Rawlings Way to the west (Attachment A - Location Map). The open space parcel (Lot S of Tract 15563) to the immediate east contains a hillside slope that a portion of the tract would utilize as a fire fuel modification zone. Pursuant to Section 2.14.2 of the ETSP a maximum of 436 dwelling units may be constructed within Sector 8 of the ETSP. The ETSP monitoring report shows that 367 dwelling units are approved and constructed within Sector 8. The total number of units for the Sector including the proposed tract would be 392, which would allow the Sector to maintain a surplus allocation for 44 dwelling units. However, approval of IT 16782 and DR 04-024 would complete the development of vacant land in the ETSP area. Pursuant to Section 5.5 of the City's Subdivision Manual, Tentative Tract Map 16782 requires a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council for final action. Design Review 04-024 requires Planning Commission approval. However, to expedite project review by the Planning Commission and City Council and comply with noticing requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act, the final decision will be deferred to the City Council upon Planning Commission recommendation. Site History On September 28, 1987, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Tentative Tract (TT) 12870 which includes Lots 7, KKK, 5, and T that the subject project will be built upon. The City Council approved IT 12870 on October 7, 1987, and the Final Map on May 2, 1988. On August 11, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3539 recommending that the City Council approve IT 14396 for the development of 113 estate residential units at the northwest intersection of Tustin Ranch Road and Pioneer Road. The City Council approved IT 14396 on August 18, 1997, by adopting Resolution No. 97- 86. IT 14396 was subsequently divided into three phases. Phase I, or Final Map 15563, was approved on August 11, 1997, by the Planning Commission and contains Lot 5, which is an open space and landscape parcel for the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association, and a portion is proposed as a fuel modification area for the proposed project. Planning Commission Report TT16782 and DR 04-024 January 24, 2005 Page 3 On March 13, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 92-049 and Design Review (DR) 92-056 for construction of a church. The application expired on October 13, 1996, because the applicant did not obtain building permits for the project. On December 11, 2000, the Planning Commission approved CUP 98-025 and DR 98-029 for the Church at Tustin Ranch to construct a 27,548 square foot church facility, offices, classrooms, and a preschool. Because the Church at Tustin Ranch was unable to secure the finances necessary to construct the previously approved project, they submitted CUP 01-025 and DR 01-031 which was a scaled down proposal to construct a 14,500 square foot church facility including a sanctuary, church offices, and Sunday school/Bible study classrooms. The Planning Commission approved the project on October 8,2001. On April 8, 2003, CUP 01-025 and DR 01-031 expired. After the entitlements expired, the applicant filed an extension request. Staff supported a six (6) month extension with additional conditions. On August 25, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the extension for six (6) months until March 1, 2004. No building permits were issued and the proposed project expired. DISCUSSION Tentative Tract 16782 The applicant is requesting approval of TT 16782 to subdivide 5.33 acres into 25 numbered lots and 6 lettered lots for the purpose of developing 25 two-story, detached, single-family, dwellings (Attachment B - Submitted Plans). The tract would include the following lots: . Lots 1 through 25 range in size from 3,885 to 6,582 square feet and would accommodate detached single-family dwellings. Lots 1 through 21 would have rear yards along the perimeter of the project boundary while Lots 22-25 would be located in the center of the tract and surrounded by a circular private street (Lot A). The total area of Lots 1 through 25 is 120,454 square feet or 2.76 acres. Lot A would accommodate a private street, which would range from 32 to 36 feet wide to allow for guest parking on both sides in most locations. Lots KKK and S are existing lots that will remain as part of Tract 12780 in the City's lighting and landscape district and would accommodate perimeter landscaping adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road for TT 16782 and at the northwest corner at the intersection with Rawlings Way. The lots are currently landscaped and no changes are proposed. Lots Band C would be interior tract landscape lots. Lots D and E contain existing landscaping in a 5 foot wide section adjacent to Rawlings Way which would accommodate perimeter landscaping and a utility easement. . . . . Planning Commission Report TT16782 and DR 04-024 January 24,2005 Page 4 . Lettered Lot F is currently a portion of Lot S of Tract 15563, which serves as an unimproved, naturally vegetated, open space lot owned by the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association (TREMA). The applicant intends to purchase this area from TREMA for use as a fuel modification zone which is required by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) to accommodate the placement of several tract dwellings in proximity to the' naturally vegetated wildland fire interface area. Lot F is also proposed to maintain existing terrace drains, accommodate a retaining wall to support a grade cut into the hillside, and to accommodate a toe drain where the cut grade interfaces with the residential lots. Condition 5.8 requires the applicant to provide an easement to the TREMA for the continued acceptance of drainage. A gated street entry for vehicular and pedestrian access to the tract would be located approximately 150 feet from the curb of Tustin Ranch Road on the northeast side of Rawlings Way. The street entry throat is 125 feet long from the Rawlings Way curb to the interior circular street inside the tract. The gate would be located 115 feet from the Rawlings Way curb. The entry, including sidewalks on each side, would vary between 78 and 60 feet wide and is divided into inbound and outbound lanes with a landscaped planter and a wall containing a tract identification sign in the throat median. No off-site infrastructure improvements are required aside from connecting water, sewer, storm drain, gas, electric, telephone and cable to existing utilities in the Rawlings Way public right-of-way. On-site improvements will be required for those same services and will be located under the private street. Demolition, severance, or relocation of structures or utilities is not required for the site and only repair of the public right-of-way to City standards would be required after trenching necessary to connect utilities. The proposed tract provides for continuity of vehicular, pedestrian, and infrastructure facilities and linkages, including drainage facilities; and, incorporates the requirements of the ETSP, the Uniform Building Code, and Construction Standards for Private Improvements. Resolution No. 3961 includes conditions to ensure compliance with the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP), the FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Subdivision Map Act, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Desian Review O~ Development Standard.§ A total of 25 two-story, detached, single-family dwellings are proposed, at a density of 4.5 units per acre (gross), which is within the 1-18 dwelling units per acre range allowed by the ETSP. A full statistical summary identifying compliance with applicable development standards is included as Attachment C. All development standards identified in the ETSP applicable to the project have been met. Two designs for the units are proposed within the tract. The footprint of Plan 1 is 1,676 square feet and the footprint of Plan 2 is 1,733 square feet. The lot coverage for each ,. Planning Commission Report TT16782 and DR 04-024 January 24, 2005 Page 5 unit will range between 25.5 and 44.6 percent for the 25 numbered lots which is in compliance with the ETSP development standards that allow coverage of up to 70 percent of the net area. The floor area for Plan 1 is 2,335 square feet and includes a two (2) car garage, dining/living room, kitchen with nook, family room, den, laundry room, three (3) bedrooms, and two and on-half (2%) bathrooms. The floor area for Plan 2 is 2,665 square feet and includes a two (2) car garage, dining room, living room, kitchen with nook, family room, spiral staircase surrounded entry room, loft/den, laundry room, three (3) bedrooms, and two and on-half (2%) bathrooms. As an option, the den/loft may be constructed as an additional bedroom. The total height of Plan 1 would be 26 feet 5 inches and the total height of Plan 2 would be 28 feet 9 inches. The ETSP allows dwellings heights up to 35 feet in the medium density district. Most of the units would maintain roof eaves that project one (1) foot and chimneys that project two (2) feet into the required setbacks identified in Attachment C. The ETSP development standards allow those projections because they do no encroach more than four (4) feet into a required yard. No model homes are proposed in association with the project; however, a condition of approval has been provided to address the need for any future on-site sales trailers, if needed. Architecture The architecture for each of the residences is designed to be complementary in style, materials, and colors yet the plans allow for a variety of colors, roof, and elevation designs. Each of the two floor plans provides Spanish or Monterey exterior architectural treatment (Attachment B - Submitted Plans). A total of four (4) exterior architectural appearances will exist in the tract with six (6) possible color and material schemes. Enhanced elevations will be provided for the units facing and those visible from Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way. The enhancements consist of faux shutters, wrought iron, and window sills. In the event that additional architectural articulation is desired, Condition 7.1 would allow the Community Development Director to request modifications during plan check. A summary of colors, materials, and architectural design characteristics is provided for the Spanish and Monterey architecture in plans 1 and 2 as follows: Common design . Brown, tan, or red Spanish clay tile roofs. elements for all . Cream or tan color rough stucco exterior walls. plans and . Brown shades for the fascia, trim, and garage doors. variations Plan 1 Spanish . Two street-facing garage doors; open front porch with a Spanish tile roof; . wood trimmed garage doors and windows; . exposed rafters; . Qable and hiD roofs; Planning Commission Report TT16782 and DR 04-024 January 24, 2005 Page 6 . multi-paned windows with faux shutters or sills; . long-vertical windows; and, . half-arch architectural embellishments. Plan 1 Monterey . Two street-facing garage doors; . no porch; . wood trimmed garage doors and windows; . exposed rafters and decorative corbels; . second story street-facing balcony; . gable roofs; . multi-paned windows, dark faux shutters; and, . arched front door. Plan 2 Spanish . One (1) street-facing garage door; . Recessed garage door, windows, and front porch; . Arched architectural embellishments; . Corbels; . Cantilevering second story; . Exposed rafters; . Gable and hip roofs; . Multi-paned, double hung, and single pane windows; and, . Wrouaht iron and faux shutter window treatment. Plan 2 Monterey . One (1) street-facing garage door; . Decorative corbels; . Rectangular louver; . Multi-paned windows; . Faux shutters; . Front porch; . Second story balcony; . Wood trimmed eaves, windows, and doors; and, . Brick treatment on first stOry. Similar to many Tustin Ranch residences, the Spanish and Monterey architecture for Plans 1 and 2 uses character defining features to reflect a Spanish Colonial Revival or Monterey Style Architecture. Landscapinq and Open Space Perimeter tract landscaping currently exists and consists of mature trees with a meandering sidewalk on Lot S of Tract 12780 in a 25 foot area between the curb of Tustin Ranch Road and the proposed perimeter tract wall. A landscaped portal intersection with a mature tree exists on a 110 by 100 triangular lot known as Lot KKK at the northeast intersection of Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way. Landscaping, irrigation, and hardscape on Lots S and KKK will continue to be maintained by the City under a lighting and landscape district. Along Rawlings Way, a five (5) foot landscape strip currently contains landscaping with mature trees on Lots D and T. The landscape strip was previously known as Lot T o( Tract 12780 but was divided into two lots to accommodate the entrance to the tract. Some mature trees would be removed to accommodate the project entrance. Interior tract landscaping would be provided in the front yards of private residences, Lots Band C, and the medians at the gated entry on Lot A. Landscaping on Lots A, B, A TT A CHMENT A Location Map ôB ,. $c.IU ~ffi J.EGEND -'-"""""1'1""""" --<m""""""- ! ----, "",,-A~~""'¡; '<,.(, ,,'~(f" h{£,,/ *','1,' /,' "', 'ð"^" ¡j"i A TT A CHMENT B Submitted Plans ------ ~ TYPICAL _AT( STREET SECTION (32' WIDE) ---... -~: TYPICAL _AT( STREET SECTION (31' WIDE) ---... .~ o. -- L- oo--JJ P""AT( STREET SECTION I-I . ----- .~ - --- P""AT( STREET SECTION C-C ---... = ur~- .- '='- - ~ ~ - ---- - P-... ---- - ~--- . ..-----.--- ==== : ,-... :=..:::"=---~-- ..........- --- ... -.- . ==- ::= --- ::":'.:".=="'" ~- ~.__._- ~~:::~~.i~~~ -- _.__.~._.._.__.- -.--.-.---. --,-.---.-- -.---.--....- .---.---.-.- ~._---~_._._.- --_._-~._- --- --.- ----- --- .... r=~...::..::::_-- I ~J~~~~-- : ;~.:æi;':5.=:::::. . :::æ::.:;ai!C"i=--- . --.-..--- . ----------- . -.------.-. . --.--.-.-- . -_._--_.~ . --..----. . _V'-'_'___.T_T .-.-.--_u_-- ----- '::-":'1,¡:'~~_"=\.'.:: =- .:::.::..:: ::: - . =' .. . - SUYIWIY or ""","",<NT !ITA"."" -----.-.-- , -----_...u.---- . -----... . ----~----- . ---~-- . ---------- . -------- o. ._---_.~.. . ----_.~ _WINO "om. .--_u_.-- .----- .-..---..- .~-=====111'10::? .. ., 1 å':- ;:: ::'=- -- . -- t. :~=- ,. -- ::.: =:.- - ==- -- =':-.- iii"v.e ~ .- .--- .~ - =:.;.-.: - ....... ::",::,':",..-.- T..... -- ....... _I....... ...-- , :::=--- ì ---- ¡ iiiiI;:..-::.-..:.- i Tenlal~~~Tract ¡ No. 16782 ¡ IN 1tE arr a= 1IBTII ¡ STATE a= CAI..FOINA ....-......- ! ~ :¡ ;:; ;; ~_ee__'__-__cmcmm_c c ~ ~ ~ 'c ~ .' ,; z ;i 0 ¡i ¡:::: ¡ I 3§ ~ , ¡ ¡~. LU ! I i .m ..J J:: ¡ ¡II i;ii LU !;! J Ii to,. I:!:! ~ "\~z lie « :s;~ ~ z¡ °::l~ ~e - C >-~LU 9 :Ii .," ' ;:¡¡ "" It \\~ ~ ~ « "" ~ LU ()~ <I. ê t w u ð () t III ~I! i~~e I ~c J h I" I: ~i4 l!:¡1 .( . omm m REAR t::J t::J LEFI' m mHm RIGIIT PLAN 1 MONTEREY BLEV ATIONS . TUSTIN RANCH. CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES 6-17.04 M$EW,N va:N -=--=----=- "'::' .::: --- ---~------- ----- -------->------------>----'-->--->--»»----->--------->------>-------> ---_>n____>_---->-->-->~-,----- - »n_»--»>--» >--» -->------->-------------- REAR m m u [] LEFT II RIGHI' PLAN 2 MONTEREY BLBV ATIONS . TUSTIN RANCH. CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES ~6-17-G4 VCCN -=--=k":..":" "'::- -.::: ....." t -- 0 IEIEIE mmm REAR m _w u um m LEFr D m RIGHT PLAN 2 SPANISH ELEVATIONS ENHAN CBD -TUSTIN" RANCH- CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES ~6-17-<M VGCN -:-...:'.":..'":" --:::= .:=- ><MOm --- --.---------------------------.------------------- -------,------------ -----------.-------------- .-- _____m_____.---.--- - - ..,. . . mEHHJm R 0 rnrnrn HmH REAR m 83 m ~ ~m m LEFT m m RIGHT PLAN 2 SPANISH ELEVATIONS -TUSTIN RANCH- CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES 6-17-<)4 MSSENAN VGCNI -=== .-- -:- -= .:=- . ------.--------. ..---.---.-... .........--- .""'-'--'---'---'--'-"-'--"""""""--"'---'-----"------ _..... ....--------.......-------.--.-- ....... .-.-. -."'---""-"'---" .... .-...-------.---.----..----.--- - SPANISH MONTEREY PLAN 2 BLEV A TIONS -TUSTIN" RANCH- CHURCH SITE GREYSTONE HOMES 6-2-44 &'.SSINAN VCCN -:--'-.-_":'" --== .::: -- -------.-------------------------------- ---- ---.----.------- -- I I I i- I I I ,OPTIONAL DEN DEN ..". "'~ IOPTIONAL BEDROOM 4¡ OPTIONAL RE'IREAT I r~~~~~~=---=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-ì Ii OPI'IONAL III Ii DI!CIE: II ..,.....,.. SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2 . 2,655 SQ. FT. -TUSTIN RANCH- CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES ~6-17- vro.. -::--:'.-_"':" --== .:=..- --.. ~ "-"-~-"._--~.."----_. "'-'~'_._"-"'-- .,~~--,., "--,~..'._.._-,..~.. -"---~.- .._-- "'---'---'-"'-"-".""-"-" ...".. .'-- ,--_...' ...,. ...... w... 1- -I ~ r------------------, I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 " ¡, L- --~ FIRST FLOOR ~ ~.. .....- ~A- PLAN 2 . 2,655 SQ. Fr. . TUSTIN"" RAN CM . CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES 6-17-<14 II'I55INm ÎK.cN -=--=k-_":'" -=- -.:.:::- --., ..... " ~ !< " !< II " 1:1 DIEm m EH REAR ¡::¡ ¡::¡ LEFI' m mmffiB RIGHr PLAN 1 MONTEREY ELEVATIONS ENMAN CED -TUSTIN RANCH- CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES 6-17-ö4 &'.SSINAN VCCN -::::.:--'":" --== .:..- ~ -- --~~--~ I ~. 0 lElElE mæm REAR m III rn:::r:m¡mI ~ ~ om IE LEFT m RIGIIT PLAN 2 MONTEREY BLEV A 'nONS ENHANCED -TUSTIN RANCH- CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES ~6-17-04 VCCN -::- -= .:- - ":" "::.:" .:=- ......." -- _m__- ----- --- 0 HIm m REAR LEFr RIGHT mmlfm PLAN 1 SPANISH ELEVATIONS ENHANCED -TUSTIN" RANCH- CHURCH SITB GREYS TONE HOMES 6-17.04 ~ VCCN -:-...:.~'":" -= .::::- ---- -------.--- -. - --------~- '*""'" ----.---.---..----..-.- -------..-...-.. ...-.-.-- ......-.---------.----.--....-.... .-----..-.--------.--.---..-.----..-.------........-....-.----..--.- .---. ----.-.. DB 8 REAR t:::I LEFI' mmæ RIGHT PLAN 1 SPANISH ELEVATIONS -TUSTIN RANCH- CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES 6-17-04 II'.SSENAN VCCN -:::: .":.. ":" -==- .:.::.- .--" MONTEREY SPANISH PLAN 1 BLEVAnONS . TUSTIN RAN" CH . CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES ~_-ê: -= .:=- - - ......,... --------~-- t:: SECOND FLOOR ",""",""",,"""""""~A""" PLAN 1 . 2,335 SQ. Fr. . TUSTIN'" RAN CH . CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES ~6-17-64 VGCN -=== .":.. ":- ~ .:=: i-- I I I I i ,OPTIONAL BEDRM 4 , I ! I I ! DBDO..... ""-. "", ~ ~ ..... ...... ...... ..... ----------------- -:::::'.'":..'":'" -== .::::- , - 0 ------------ =~n:fQ '."'~ IJ FIRST FLOOR ---------- PLAN 1 .-----. - . DBN ""-. ..'- ---- - . 2,335 SQ. FT. -TUSTIN RANCH- CHURCH SITE GREYS TONE HOMES -------- 6-17.04 ~ - l/GCN --., ~ ~ !r II ~ 1.1 """-=~""""""""'A- ----------~ -------------------------------------.----------- ------------------------------------ --.-....----.- -.._u_--...---------------.-- ---.-- ----_... -.-- - - A TT A CHMENT C Land Use Application Fact Sheet 10. LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): TT16782 and DR 04-024 LOCATION: NW CORNER OF RAWLINGS WAY AND TUSTIN RANCH ROAD 2. 3. ADDRESS: 2575 RAWLINGS WAY 4. LOTS: 7. T. AND S TRACTS: 12780 AND 15563 5. APN(S): 501-093-19 6. PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: TRACTS 12780 AND 15563 7. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: OPEN SPACE SOUTH: RAWLINGS WAY/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST: TUSTIN RANCH ROAD/MEDIUM DENSITION RESIDENTIAL WEST: LADERA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR) SOUTH: PCR EAST: PCR WEST: PCR 9. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL EAST: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL WEST: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SITE LAND USE: A. EXISTING: VACANT PROPOSED: 25 DWELLINGS B. C. GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED GP: SAME DEVELOPMENT FACTS: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. D. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING: SAME LOT AREA: 232.174 S.F. 5.33 ACRES BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: 70% PER LOT MAX. PERMITTED 25.5 - 44.6% PROPOSED SITE LANDSCAPING: AS APPROVED IN SUBMITTED PLANS REQUIRED 2.093 SQUARE FEET PLUS EXISTING LANDSCAPING ADJACET TO TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND RAWLINGS WAY PROPOSED OPEN SPACE: AS APPROVED IN SUBMITTED PLANS REQUIRED NONE PROPOSED PARKING: 2 GARAGE SPACES PER DWELLING AND 1 GUEST SPACE PER DWELLING REQUIRED 2 GARAGE SPACES PER DWELLING AND 1 GUEST SPACE PER DWELLING PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 35 FEET MAXIMUM REQUIRED 26 FEET 5 INCHES FOR PLAN Forms: land UseApplicationF actSheet 17. 18. 1 AND 28 FEET 9 ICHES FOR PLAN 2 PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROPOSED FRONT: SIDE: 15 FEET OR GREATER 5 FEET EACH SIDE YARD 15 FEET 0 FEET ONE SIDE PROVIDED THAT THE AGGREGATE OF BOTH SIDES IS 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET MINUMUM, TYPICALLY 15 FEET OTHER UNIQUE CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED TO THE PROPERTY (I.E. SPECIAL STUDY ZONES, EASEMENTS, ETC.) A FIRE FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE IS PROPOSED ON THE NORTH PARCEL OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS CURRENTLY KNOWN AS A PORITON OF LOT S OF TRACT 15563 REAR: A TT A CHMENT D Resolution Nos. 3960 and 3961 RESOLUTION NO. 3960 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT 16782 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-024 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Tentative Tract 16782 and Design Review 04-024 is considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; B. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared for this Project and is advertised as available for public review between January 18 and February 7, 2005. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration evaluated the construction of 25 single-family dwelling units and incorporated, by reference, the environmental analysis included in Environmental Impact Report EIR 85-2 for the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) (certified on March 17, 1986) and subsequently amended by Addendum 7. C. That the negative declaration was prepared in conformance with Section 15168(c)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to analyze the project with consideration of changes to the ETSP area that were not originally examined in the ETSP program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2). D. That as permitted by Section 15153(c) of CEQA, EIR 85-2 was used as a reference document with the Initial Study and assisted in determining that the project would not result in significant impacts. E. Prior to recommending approval of the Project, the Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed Negative Declaration and determined that with incorporation of the mitigation measures, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. F. That the negative declaration may be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the end of the public review period established by Section 15105 of CEQA because the Planning Commission will not be rendering a decision on the project but will be making a recommendation for the City Council who will make a decision for the project after the public review period has concluded. Resolution No. 3960 Page 2 G. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration at the January 24, 2005, meeting. II. A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the 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 and comments received during the public hearing process, the Planning Commission finds that although the proposed project could have impacts, there will not be a significant effect because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration and applicable mitigation measures of ETSP EIR 85-2 have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval which mitigate any potential significant effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purpose of approving Tentative Tract 16782 and Design Review 04-024. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 24th day of January, 2005. JOHN NEILSEN Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 3960 Page 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3961 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 24th day of January, 2005. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION 3960 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Tentative Tract 16782 and Design Review 04-024 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Chad Ortlieb Phone: (714) 573-3127 Project Location: 2575 Rawlings Way Project Sponsor's Name: Project Sponsor's Address: Lennar South Coast 25 Enterprise, Ste. 250 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 General Plan Designation: . Planned Community Residential Zoning Designation: East Tustin Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential Project Description: Subdivision of 6.5 acres currently known as Lots 7, S, T, and KKK of Tract No. 12780 and a 1.59 acre portion of Lot S of Tract No.15563. The new tract proposes Lots 1-25 for detached two-story single family dwellings, Lot A for a private street, Lots B, C, S, T, and KKK for tract landscaping, Lot D for a fire fuel modification zone, and Lot E for Tustin Ranch Road right-of-way. Surrounding Uses: North: Elementary School South: Tustin Ranch Road East: Open Space Lot S of Tract No 15563 West: Medium density single family dwellings Other public agencies whose approval is required: ~ 0 0 0 Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other 0 0 D 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. 0 Aesthetics 0 Air Quality 0 Cultural Resources 0 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Land Use/Planning 0 Noise 0 Public Services 0 Transportation/Traffic 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Biological Resources 0 Geology/Soils 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Mineral Resources 0 Population/Housing 0 Recreation 0 Utilities/Service Systems C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that although the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described in the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and no further documentation is required. Preparer: Chad Ortlieb &~d ~~...* Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Title Associate Planner Date January 18, 2005 6) 7) 8) 9) D. EV ALVA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS 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 a project-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, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate ifthere is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and 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. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 0 0 rg¡ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ofthe site and its surroundings? 0 0 rg¡ 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 0 rg¡ 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? 0 0 0 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 rg¡ 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? 0 0 0 rg¡ 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? 0 0 0 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 0 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)? 0 0 0 0 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 0 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0 0 0 rg¡ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 0 r8J b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 0 r8J c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 0 0 r8J 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? 0 0 0 ~ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 0 0 r8J 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? 0 0 0 r8J V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as derIDed in § 15064.5? 0 0 0 ~ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § l5064.5? 0 0 0 r8J c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 ~ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 0 0 r8J 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 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 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. 0 0 0 ~ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 ~ 0 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 ~ 0 iv) Landslides? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 ~ 0 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? 0 0 ~ 0 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 ~ 0 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 0 [8J 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? 0 0 [8J 0 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 [8J 0 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)? 0 0 0 [8J 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? 0 0 [8J 0 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? 0 0 IZI 0 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? 0 0 [8J 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 [8J 0 g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 0 [8J h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 IZI 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? 0 0 0 ~ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 [8J k) Potentially impact storm water runoff trom construction activities? 0 0 IZI 0 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact I) Potentially impact storm water runoff from post- construction activities? 0 0 [g 0 m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants ITom 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? 0 0 [g 0 n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? 0 0 [8J 0 0) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm? 0 0 ~ 0 p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? 0 0 ~ 0 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 ~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 0 ~ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 [8J 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 0 0 [8J 0 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 ~ 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D D ~ D 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? D D ~ D b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D 0 D ~ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D 0 D ~ 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? D D D ~ Police protection? D D D ~ Schools? 0 D D ~ Parks? D D D ~ Other public facilities? D D 0 ~ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XIV. RECREATION - Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 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? D D ~ D 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? D D ~ D 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)? 0 ~ 0 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? D D D ~ 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 D D ~ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 ~ 0 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D D ~ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 ~ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? D D D ~ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? D D D ~ 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? D 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 [8J f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 0 [8J g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 0 [8J h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? 0 0 0 [8J 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 Cali fomi a history or 0 0 0 [8J 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)? 0 0 0 [8J c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 [8J ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DESIGN REVIEW 03-015 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16527 1123 WARNER AVENUE BACKGROUND The subject 5.3 acre site is located in an urbanized area of the City within Sector eight (8) of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP). The site is relatively flat and is currently grubbed but undeveloped. The property is located between an elementary school to the north, an open space parcel to the east, Tustin Ranch Road to the south, and medium density single-family dwellings to the west. The open space parcel to the immediate east contains a hillside slope that a portion of the project would utilize as a fire fuel modification zone. The proposed project consists of constructing a tract of twenty-five (25) new two-story, detached, single family dwellings on lots ranging between 3,885 and 6,582 square feet. The square feet of each dwelling unit will be either 2,335 or 2,665 and will contain three (3) or four (4) bedrooms. The tract includes a private street, common area landscape lots, and a fire fuel modification area. A maximum of 436 dwelling units were anticipated to be constructed in Sector 8 of the ETSP. The ETSP EIR 85-2 monitoring program shows that 367 dwelling units exist within Sector 8 and the addition of 25 dwelling units would bring the total dwelling unit count to 392 which, is under the maximum allowed. All mitigation measures identified in ETSP EIR 85-2 are addressed as conditions of approval for the project. 1. AESTHETICS Item c - Less Than SiQnificant Impact: The property is currently a vacant lot devoid of vegetation. The project would have architecturally upgraded elevations on the dwellings that face or are visible from Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings way. The project currently has a substantial 25 foot landscape setback from the Tustin Ranch Road curb face and a five (5) foot landscape setback between the Rawlings Way right-of-way. A 100 by 100 foot triangle of landscaping exists as a portal intersection at Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way. In between the landscape setback areas and the individual residential lots, a decorative block wall varying in height between six (6) and eight (8) feet will be placed. Because adequate landscaping, tract setback from streets, and decorative architecture will be utilized, there will not be any significant visual impacts to the site. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Field Inspection ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Attachment A TTI6782 and DR 04-024 Page 2 of 14 Items a. b. and d - No Impact: The subject property is not located on a scenic vista and will not disturb any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings located on a State scenic highway. Street lighting and light standards proposed for the exterior elevations of the dwellings will be evaluated during plan check and are subject to the City's design review process to ensure that lighting comply with City standards to prevent off-site glare. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Field Inspection ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a. b & c - No Impact: The property is currently a vacant, grubbed parcel not used for a farming or agricultural use. As indicated on a Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map on file with the California Department of Conservation, the parcel is indicated as urban land. Therefore, the new dwelling units will have no impacts on any Prime or Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project will not result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Field Inspection Submitted Plans Tustin City Code ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 3. AIR QUA'=!IY Items c and d - Less Than SiQnificant Impact: The project will temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the area due to grading of the property and construction activities. The project is below the thresholds of significance established by Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook is intended to provide professional guidance for analyzing and mitigating air quality impacts of projects when preparing Attachment A TTl6782 and DR 04-024 Page 3 of 14 environmental documents. As identified in the handbook, the construction of up 166 single family dwellings and/or up to 1,309,000 of housing floor area is not considered a significant impact. Construction of 25 dwelling units with a total building area of 63,075 square feet on 6.5 acres of land is less than the threshold of significance in the handbook; therefore, no impact is anticipated. Less than significant short-term emissions associated with grading, construction, and operation of the proposed project will comply with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual, which includes requirements for dust control. As such, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by Federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations City of Tustin Grading Manual Project Application Field Inspection ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 Items a. b. and e - No Impact: As identified by Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the project does not violate any air quality standards and is not a substantial contributor to existing or projected air quality violations. Given that the subject property is the last parcel within the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) area to be developed, the project is not a part of a larger future development scheme in the area; therefore, the project will not be a precursor to cumulative impacts. Air quality impacts associated with development of the project area has already been accounted for under ETSP EIR 85-2 which found that "Cumulative increases in pollutant emissions, to which the project contributes, may have a significant impact on regional air quality." However, given the limited feasibility of implementing mitigation measures, the project was approved anyway. Most of the future housing projects in the City are anticipated on Tustin Legacy and cumulative effects of those projects are addressed in the MCAS Tustin EIR/EIS. The short and long term emissions created by construction and resident trip generation would not create detectable odors to any persons of ordinary olfactory senses. Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations Project Application ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 Attachment A TTl6782 and DR 04-024 Page 4 of 14 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a to f - No Impact: The property is currently a vacant site surrounded by roads, a school, and an open space parcel. The property has no trees and has been routinely grubbed to conform to the City's weed/nuisance abatement program. Therefore, the property has not had opportunity to become inhabited by any sensitive or special status species of plants or animals. Given that this is an urban infill project, it is not anticipated that there will be impacts on animal populations, diversity of species, or migratory patterns. The project will include the planting of new trees and landscape materials, which will be provided in accordance with the Tustin Landscape and Irrigation guidelines. The project area is not identified as a federal, state, or local protected wetland and no standing water or riparian or wetland species are apparent on the property. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will occur as a result of this proposed project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Inspection Submitted Plans Tustin City Code ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items b. c. & d - No Impact: No archaeological, paleontological, or human remains are known to exist on the previously graded/grubbed project site. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 Attachment A TT16782 and DR 04-024 Page 5 of 14 Item a - No Impact There are no historical resources on-site. Sources: Tustin Historical Resources Survey Report Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 6. GEOLOGY & SOILS Items a-ii. a-iii. a-iv. b. c. & d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact The proposed buildings are located within an area that may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides. A soils report is required to be submitted prior to building permit issuance per the 2001 Uniform Building Code to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure seismic stability of structures and slopes. A water quality management plan will be required to ensure that drainage is retained on-site during and after construction or does not increase historical flow; therefore, soil erosion should not be significant. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code 2001 Uniform Building Code Submitted Plans ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 Items a-i & e - No Impact The project site is not located within an area on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Since all new buildings in the City are required to connect to the existing sewer system, the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be necessary. Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code 2001 Uniform Building Code Project Application Field Evaluation ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 Attachment A TT16782 and DR 04-024 Page 6 of 14 7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Item h - Less than Siqnificant Impact The project is adjacent to a naturally vegetated open space area in Tract 15563. Wildland fire risk will be addressed in that the subject development will provide a fire fuel modification zone between the tract and the adjacent naturally vegetated open space parcel to the east in compliance with Orange County Fire Authority standards. Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan OCFA Guideline C-05 for Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 Items a to q - No Impact: The residential project would not result in exposure to hazardous substances other than the possibility of household hazardous waste generation which residents could properly dispose of most unwanted items at approved County drop-off locations. Because the use is for residential purposes, the project is not anticipated to need or emit hazardous materials which could create a hazard to the adjacent elementary school or the general public if released into the environment. 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 has been reviewed by the Tustin Police Department who determined that the project will not interfere with any evacuation plans. The project has received preliminary review by the Orange County Fire Authority and no comments were received indicating that the project would interfere with any evacuation plans. All grading and construction is subject to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. As such, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant hazards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Airport Environs Land Use Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 Attachment A TT16782 and DR 04-024 Page 7 of 14 8. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Items a. c. d. e. f. k. I. m. n. o. & P - Less Than Siqnificant Impact: There will be new construction which has the potential to impact stormwater runoff from construction and post-construction activities. There is also the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters, increase flow velocity and volume of storm water runoff, exceed the capacity of an existing private storm drain, degrade water quality, and create erosion. However, the project is required to comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and a NPDES permit (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order R8-2002-0010), thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The regulations of the NPDES permit, Water Quality Ordinance, and project conditions of approval will minimize the ability of the project to cause water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into local waters. The drainage pattern of the area will not be altered in that, to comply with the City's grading ordinance, the project will be designed to accept historical drainage to the site and; therefore, will not significantly increase the rate and/or amount of surface runoff. A significant amount of stormwater received on-site will percolate into the soil where landscaping is provided and remaining stormwater will be conveyed through a fossil filter prior to entering a City stormdrain. City stromwater infrastructure is able to accommodate additional water from 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 tract 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. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001 ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 ^'- -"-------"-- ---------------- "'--- Attachment A TTl6782 and DR 04-024 Page 8 of 14 Items b. Q. h. i. & i-No Impact: The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Rather, landscape irrigation practices and soil percolation of stormwater onto landscaped areas would be more likely to contribute to groundwater supplies. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06059C0282H, nor is the project located within a 100-year flood hazard area and the project will not will impede or redirect flood impede or redirect flood flows. The project site will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Federal Insurance Rate Map ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 9. LAND USE PLANNING Items a. b & c - No Impact: The subject property is designated Planned Community Residential (PCR) by the General Plan Land Use Map and zoning map. The proposed project will be consistent with the applicable land use and zoning regulations. The proposed project will not divide an established community since it includes construction of single family dwellings completely surrounded by other similar single family dwellings in an urbanized area. The proposed project is not located in a conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Map ETSP EIR 85-2 Attachment A TT] 6782 and DR 04-024 Page 9 of]4 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a & b - No Impact: The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant site. Construction on the site will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource and is not located in a mineral resource recovery site. . Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP EIR 85-2 11 . NOISE Items a, b, c & d- Less Than Siqnificant Impact: The project includes construction of 25 single family dwellings on an existing vacant site. Although, the grading and construction of the site may result in typical temporary construction noise impacts, the Tustin Noise Ordinance only allows construction activities to occur during the daytime on Monday through Saturday to eliminate construction noise during the nighttime hours. The project dwellings are required to be insulated from exterior noise in accordance with Title 24 of the California Building Code so that no more than 45 dB of sound occurs in any habitable room. The traffic to be generated by the project will coincide with peak a.m. and p.m. hour traffic on Tustin Ranch Road because Tustin Ranch Road is arterial road serving a residential community. As identified in the Noise Element of the General Plan, Tustin Ranch Road generates about 80 dB of sound. Sound attenuation fencing is required to be included in the project in accordance with the "Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures" adopted with the ETSP EIR. The applicant is proposing to construct a six (6) foot high block wall adjacent to the property lines for Lots S and KKK which would shield the residents from vehicular noise on Tustin Ranch Road. Conditions of approval require the developer to construct decorative masonry walls that will provide a maximum exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas. Noise created by traffic to the project will not exceed the noise created by traffic on Tustin Ranch Road because traffic within the tract and on Rawlings Way will be at reduced speeds and lower volumes. Therefore, no additional traffic noise will be created by the project. The proposed project will not create excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels beyond the established standards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Attachment A TT16782 and DR 04-024 Page 10 of 14 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP EIR 85-2 Items e & f - No Impact: The project is not located in close proximity to any airports. Standard building techniques will provide sufficient indoor insulation to prevent tract residents from being exposed to air traffic noise. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 12. POPULATION & HOUSING Item a - Less than Siqnificant Impact: The project will involve the construction of 25 new single family dwellings which would increase the population of the area. However, the number of dwelling units and the tract is still below the maximum threshold established for Sector 8 by the ETSP. A maximum of 436 dwelling units were anticipated to be constructed in Sector 8 of the ETSP. The ETSP EIR 85-2 monitoring program shows that 367 dwelling units that exist within Sector eight (8) and the addition of 25 dwelling units would bring the total dwelling unit count to 392 which, is under the maximum allowed. An increase in population was previously anticipated with the adoption of the ETSP which, in conformance with the Housing Element of the General Plan, identified a need for owner occupied housing in Tustin. Therefore, no significant population increase would occur. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP EIR 85-2 Items b & c - No Impact: The project will not induce substantial population growth wherein new streets or new public services will need to be created nor will the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Attachment A TT16782 and DR 04-024 Page II of 14 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a - No Impact: The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area where fire and police protection are currently provided and can accommodate the increase in population. The proposed subdivision would not have an impact on school district facilities within the Tustin Unified School District in that The TUSD will receive its statutory school impact fees per Senate Bill 50 from residential development. As a condition of approval for the project, the developer will be required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of building permits. City required mitigation is limited by State law to requiring payment of the SB 50 school impact fees. Park needs were previously addressed and provided for the project area when underlying Tract 12780 was approved. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 14. RECREATION Items a & b - Less than Siqnificant Impact: The project is in proximity to the Tustin Sports Park, Pioneer Park, and Cedar Grove recreational facilities. The project has the potential to increase the use of existing parks but is not anticipated to contribute to a substantial deterioration of park facilities. Park needs to serve the project are existing in accordance with the ETSP and were dedicated at the time Tract 12780 was approved. The project does not include any recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Attachment A TTl6782 and DR 04-024 Page 12 of 14 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 15. TRANSPORT A TION/TRAFFIC Item a & d - Less Than SiQnificant Impact With MitiQation Incorporation: The traffic analysis for this project is contained in a document prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates (Attachment B). Intersection analyses were performed for the intersection of Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way to determine if any significant traffic impacts would result from the project. The intersection is presently at Level of Service ("LOS") A, which is the best level (LOS A through D are considered acceptable). LOS A is maintained with the addition of the proposed project. While the project will not impact the LOS of the Tustin Ranch Road/Rawlings Way intersection, the project traffic will comprise approximately 1.9 percent of the traffic volume at the intersection once the project is finished. To minimize cumulative impacts resulting from additional vehicle trips generated by the project, the applicant is required to participate in a Capital Improvement Program project to increase the northbound left-turn pocket storage length for vehicles turning left from Tustin Ranch Raod onto Rawlings Way from 153 feet to 220 feet. To applicant's contribution will be in the form of providing the City with a proportionate share toward the cost of the Capital Improvement Program. While the project is identified to have an impact on the volume of the Tustin Ranch Road/Rawlings Way intersection, the traffic analysis concludes that the project will not generate a significant traffic impact on street systems other than the north bound left-turn lane. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Mitigation Measure 1: The applicant shall pay an "in-lieu" traffic impact mitigation fee of $1,330 to the City of Tustin prior to issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for any of the 25 proposed dwelling units. The "in-lieu" fee shall be based upon the proportionate share of the cost to mitigate traffic impacts that are a direct result of the proposed project, based upon the traffic study prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates, dated January 2005 for the project. The study indicates a 1.9 percent proportionate share for the project impacts at the Tustin Ranch Road/Rawlings Way intersection, which translates to $1,300 (1.9% x $70,000 improvement cost). The City shall apply the fee to provide traffic relief for the project. The fee shall relieve the applicant of any further traffic mitigation obligations. Attachment A TTI6782 and DR 04-024 Page 13 of 14 Sources: Submitted Plans Traffic Study Tustin City Code Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 Items b, C, e, f & q - No Impact: The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth wherein the project will not result in changes to air traffic patterns, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. The project includes sufficient parking on-site to comply with current parking requirements for the proposed use. As such, no impacts to parking are anticipated. The proposed project would not prevent emergency vehicle access to the site as determined by the traffic analysis provided by Katz, Okitsu & Associates. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code January 2005 Parking Analysis by Katz, Okitsu & Associates Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a, b, c, d, e, f & q - No Impact: The proposed project will not exceed requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board because the project absorb a significant portion of stormwater in landscape areas on-site and excess stormwater will be routed through fossil filters prior to being deposited into the existing sewer and storm drain systems and thus will not require construction of a new storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. Existing water service and wastewater treatment facilities should be sufficient to support the project and shall require a letter of intent to serve from the Irvine Regional Water District at plan check. The project will utilize the City's existing trash hauler contract, thus not requiring a new trash hauler. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Attachment A TT 16782 and DR 04-024 Page 14 of 14 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a. b & c - No Impact: As described under each topic, the project grading, construction, and operation are not anticipated to result in any significant impacts. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-term. It does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. All mitigation monitoring identified in ETSP EIR 85-2 are addressed as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ETSP ETSP EIR 85-2 S:ICddIChadIENVIRONMENTAlITT16782 DR 04-024 INITIAL STUDY Attachment A.doc A TT ACHMENT B OF EXHIBIT A limited Traffic Study for a Residential Project in the City of Tustin January 2005 Prepared for: Lennar- South Coast Homebuilding 25 Enterprise, Suite 250 AIiso Viejo, CA 92656 949/349-8150 Prepared by: ~ Katz, Okitsu & Associates - Traffic Engi1U!ers and Transportation Planners 17852 E. Seventeenth Street, Suite 102 Tustin, California 92780-2412 714/573-0317 Phone 714/573-9584 Fax Project No: JA4752 17852 E. Seventeenth St. Suite 102 Tustin. CA 92780-2142 714.573.0317 fax: 714.573-9534 koaoc@katzokitsu.com www.katzokitsu.com Los Angeles 323.260.4703 fax: 323.260.4705 San Diego 619.683.2933 fax: 619.683.7982 San Bernardino 909.890.9693 fax: 909.890.9694 ~ Katz, Okitsu & Associates .....1II1IIIIII Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners January 14, 2005 Mr. Todd Refling Lennar- South Coast Homebuilding 25 Enterprise, Suite 250 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Subject: Limited Traffic Study for a Residential Project in the City of Tustin Dear Mr. Refling: Katz, Okitsu & Associates is pleased to present this revised traffic impact study report for a proposed residential project in the City of Tustin. The project, known as "Camellia", is located along Rawlings Way north of Tustin Ranch Road and consists of 25 single-family homes within a gated community on a 3.7-acre site. The traffic study has been prepared to meet the traffic study requirements of the City of Tustin for the analysis of traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. The report is being submitted to you for review and forwarding to the City of Tustin. Please contact our office if you have any questions or comments about the report, or if you need additional information to complete your submittal. If there are any comments that require response or revisions, please notify our office as soon as possible for prompt revision. It has been a pleasure to prepare this study for Lennar- South Coast Homebuilding and the City of Tustin. '.~".' ~~ ft Rock Miller, P.E. Principal /~~~~~ /'~ \,1jJ.,I", , ""","'J¡" <'>", Þ~:;'S?>':;'-7;--:;'::';':'~~~':;:" ,,~ì\ ¿:",""/' Cî>"-' h',j/",'"""',,",';~,,, "¡' 'v ",.J '" ," ., ""0'".' "~ ,I C;::/' \..1 "'/';'"," ""I,"'" fi(",,:," «- '\1'" \ ';..:.:, \~\ j; 'J I ,,'~ ì " ' ~ILU¡ Nü.1i;j \'" ',j '\ !,~ \' Fxp. ' ~ " ):~;,,} , / ,Ii &'" ' " ", "~'" Table of Contents - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --- - - - - --- --- - - - 1. INTRODUCTION.......................................... .......................... ............. ....... ........ ............. ...... .......1 2. PROJECT STUDY METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................4 STUDY TIMEFRAMES .............................................................. ............................ ................................ """ 4 PROJECT STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................. 4 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES ........................................... ............... .......................................................... 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 5 TRAFFIC COUNT DATA.................................................................................................. ..... ...................... 5 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES..................... ........................ .................................. ..................... ................. 5 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE.......... ......................................................... ......... ........................ ............. 6 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................. 7 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK ......................................................................................................... 7 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF ..SERVICE..................................................................................... 7 Signalized Intersections.............................................................................................................."""" J J 4. FUfURE TRAFFIC CONDmONS WITHOUf PROJECT .......................................................12 FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH ........................... ................................. """"""""'" ...................................... 12 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OFSERVICE...... """""'" ........ ........ """""" ........... """"" ........... ...... 12 Signalized Intersections ... ....... ................... ...... ........... ...................... .......................................... ........ J 2 5. PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC ............. ................... ......... """" """'" ........ .................................15 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION.... ..... ....,...... """"'" ........... .......... ................. ................ ............. ........ .... ..... 15 PROJECT TRAFFIC............................................................. ..................... ........... """ ........ ........................ 15 6. FUfURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT ................................................................18 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF ..SERVICE................................................................................... 18 Signalized Intersections.................................................................................... .................................. J 8 7. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................................................................21 8. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS.................................................;.................................23 ACCESS ROADS AND DRIVEWAYS .......................................................................................................... 23 GATE REQUIREMENTS............................................ ...................... ........ .................. .................. ""'" ....... 23 9. MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. ............ ............ .......................... ........25 10. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................26 Katz, Okitsu & Associates T"'tfit Engilleers alld Traltsporttltion Planners i Cityo(Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study List of Figures ~~ ~. .. .. ~ .. - - n - ~.. . .- . ._~ - FIGURE 1 - PROJECT LOCATION.. .............. ....... ............................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2 - PROPOSED SITE PLAN......... ......................... .................. ............................................................... 3 FIGURE 3 - EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY .......................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 4 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AM PEAK HOUR ......................................................................... 9 FIGURE 5 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR ........................................................................ 10 FIGURE 6 - FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT, AM PEAK HOUR .......................................... 13 FIGURE 7 - FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT, PM PEAK HOUR........................................... 14 FIGURE 8 - PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ..............................................................................................."'" 17 FIGURE 9 - FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT, AM PEAK HOUR................................................. 19 FIGURE 10 - FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT, PM PEAK HOUR.................................;.............. 20 List of Tables TABLE 1 - LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS ""'" .............................................................................. 5 TABLE 2 - PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................. 11 TABLE 3 - PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CONDITIONS FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS................. 12 TABLE 4 - PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ................................................................ 16 TABLE 5 - PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ...................................................................................... 16 TABLE 6 - PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CONDITIONS FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS........................ 18 TABLE 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS /DETERMINATION OF IMPACTS ................................................... 21 TABLE 8 - QUEUE LENGTH PROBABILITY - RANDOM ARRIVALS AT GATE................................................. 24 Appendices ~--_._~---- .------- ---- ---------~------------~-~-------------------~ ----~- Appendix A - Existing Traffic Counts Appendix B - Intersection Level of Service Worksheets Appendix C - Intersection Level of Service Concepts Katz, Okitsu & Associates r"'ffi( EngÙteers t/t/d rransporttllion PIt/liners 11 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study 1. Introduction - - - - -. - - -- - - The subject of this traffic impact study is a proposed project known as "Camellia]]] consisting of 25 single-family homes within a gated community in the City of Tustin. The proposed project is located on Rawlings Way north of Tustin Ranch Road. The developer of the proposed project is Lennar- South Coast Homebuilding, of Aliso Viejo, California. The project location is shown in Figure 1 and the proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2 The City of Tustin had previously approved a 27,548 square-foot church and day care facility for the project site. The City approval for this project has since expired. The City is requesting a trip generation analysis to show the difference in trips from the site due to the proposed development, and an analysis of the on-site circulation and access to Rawlings Way. This study documents the trip generation and evaluates two nearby signalized intersections. The analysis is intended to meet the requirements of the City of Tustin. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Trame EngÌl'ttfs alld Trmlsporlt/lion Plallners 1 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study LEGEND . Project Location _Katz, Okitsu & Associates City OfTustin ii\WIII""'~ Traffic Engineers and Transponation Planners Rawlings Way Residential Project Figure 1 Study Area N t \ ',}:'.I ~. ";'. ;1;>, -~'. "I>;, ,~'oJ "~'J -¡-, <~, --/-\jN ...--J ~ // ' "..." ,.; I I I _Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engilleers alld Trallsportatioll Plallllers City Of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Project Figure 2 Site Plan 2. Project Study Methodology This chapter documents the methodologies and assumptions used to conduct the analysis for the proposed project. This section contains the following background information: . Study timeframes . Study area description . Capacity analysis methodologies Study Timeframes This report presents an analysis of the intersection operating conditions during the morning and evening peak hours during the following anticipated timeframes: . Existing Conditions ry ear 2005) . Opening Year 2006 Project Study Area The study area was determined through consultation with City of Tustin staff. consists of the following: . Tustin Ranch Road at Rawlings Way and . Tustin Ranch Road at Portola Parkway The study area Analysis Methodologies This section presents a brief overview of traffic analysis methodologies and concepts used in this study. Street system operating conditions are typically described in terms of "level of service." Level of service is a report-card scale used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on roadway segments and at intersections. Level of service (LOS) ranges from LOS A (free flow, little congestion) to LOS F (forced flow, extreme congestion). A more detailed description of the concepts described in this section is provided in Appendix C of this document. The local jurisdictions within the project area, including the City of Tustin, have determined that Level of Service D is the minimum acceptable level of service for peak hour operation. Any roadway segment operating at Level E or F is considered to be operating deficiently. An impact is deemed significant when the level of service is E or F and the project causes an increase in V IC or delay over the defined threshold. For further information on these significance thresholds see Appendix C. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers al/d Trdllsporlation Plal/ners 4 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study Project Study Methodology Intersection Capacity Analysis The analysis of peak hour intersection conditions was conducted using the TRAFFIX software program developed by Dowling Associates. The following peak periods were selected for analysis: . Weekday AM (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) Weekday PM (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) . Traffic conditions in Southern California are often evaluated during peak hours at intersections using a methodology known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) technique. This is the preferred analysis method for the City of Tustin. This analysis method is widely accepted and essentially measures the amount of traffic signal "green" time required for the intersection. It is a significant variation from the HCM method¡ however it produces results that are generally similar. The City of Tustin generally requests that this method be used in the City, so all signalized intersections were analyzed based on this method. Table 1 shows the relationship between Level of Service and the ICU Method volume/capacity criteria for signalized intersections. Table 1 Levels of Service for Intersections Level of Service Volume/Capacity Ratio A 0.00 - 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 and up Traffic Count Data Existing daily and peak hour traffic data was obtained from Traffic Data Services from Santa Ana, California, in October, 2004. All traffic count data used in this study is compiled in Appendix A. Future Traffic Volumes Daily and peak hour traffic volumes for Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way under future conditions were forecast based on a 1 % annual growth rate from existing conditions. Project trips were added to this background base to determine the relative impact of the project. Katz, Okitsu & Associates r"'flì' Engineers and rransporttl/ion P"mners 5 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study Project Study Methodology Standards of Significance The City of Tustin has determined that Level of Service D is the minimum acceptable level of service during peak hours at intersections. Any roadway segment operating at Level of Service E or F is considered to be operating deficiently. An impact is deemed significant when the level of service is E or F and the project causes an increase in the Volume/Capacity ratio of .01 or more over the defined threshold. For further information on these significance thresholds see Appendix C. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Tmffi' Engineers tllld TrtlnsporttlllOn Planners 6 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study 3. Existing Conditions - -- - - - n - --- This section documents the existing conditions in the study area, including local land uses and driveway locations. The discussion presented here is limited to specific roadways in the project vicinity. The project location is on Rawlings Way north of Tustin Ranch Road in the City of Tustin. Existing Circulation Network Streets in the project vicinity which could be affected by the proposed project include Rawlings Way, Tustin Ranch Road, and Portola Parkway. The existing roadway circulation network was shown previously in Figures 1 and 2. Existing intersection geometry is shown in Figure 3. Rawlings Way is a 2-lane street on a northwest-southeast alignment located immediately to the south of and adjacent to the project site. The street has a signalized intersection with Tustin Ranch Road. The prima facie speed limit on Rawlings Way is 25 mph. Land use along the street is primarily residential, with an elementary school located immediately north of the project site. Tustin Ranch Road is a 6-lane divided arterial on a northeast-southwest alignment located immediately to the east of and adjacent to the project site. The street has a raised median with left-turn pockets, and signalized intersections with Rawlings Way and Portola Parkway. The speed limit on Tustin Ranch Road is 45 mph in the project vicinity. Land use along the street is primarily residential, with an elementary school located one block to the north off Rawlings Way. Portola Parkway is a 4-lane divided arterial in the project vicinity, located to the northeast of the project site on a northwest-southeast alignment. The street has a raised median with left-turn pockets. The speed limit on Portola Parkway is 45 mph south of Tustin Ranch Road. Land use along the street is residential in the project vicinity. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of Portola Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road. Regional circulation is provided by the I-5 Freeway approximately 2 miles to the south and the SR-261 Tollway approximately 1 mile to the east of the project site. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Figure 4 illustrates the existing peak hour traffic volumes during the AM peak hour, while Figure 5 illustrates the existing peak hour traffic volumes during the PM peak hour. Peak half-hour volumes factored to equivalent hourly volumes are used for the Tustin Ranch Road/Rawlings Way intersection northbound left and eastbound right per direction from the City. Based on these existing traffic volumes, level of service analyses were conducted for the two study intersections. The results of these analyses are summarized below in Table 2 for the existing conditions. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers "lid Tmnsporl<llion Plallners 7 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study LEGEND . e Study Intersection Signalized Intersection N t ~ Intersedlon Lane Geometry _Katz, Okitsu & Associates City Of Tustin Traffic EI/gil/urs al/d Tral/sportatiol/ Plal/I/ers Rawlings Way Residential Project Figure 3 Existing Geometry ;'\þ,~ ~~,,1 <,. ~ ( ...1;'> þ,'?:>" ~ <\. \ '\ 1;~1 " LEGEND . . Project Location Study Intersection N t X)(l. Turning Movement Count _Katz, Okitsu & Associates City Of Tustin iJIIIlII"""" Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners Rawlings Way Residential Project Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour LEGEND . Project Location . Stud Y I ntersectio n N t .xx+ Turning Movement Count _Katz, Okitsu & Associates City OfTustin iJIIIIII""'" Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners Rawlings Way Residential Project Figure 5 Existing Traffic Volumes.- PM Peak Hour Existing Conditions Table 2 Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Existing Conditions, Year 2004 Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections Volume/ Level Of Volume/ Level Of Capacity Service Capacity Service Tustin Ranch Rd & Rawlings Way 0.552 A 0.483 A Tustin Ranch Rd & Portola Pkwy 0.393 A 0.317 A Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers and Transportation Plmlners 11 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study 4. Future Traffic Conditions Without Project - - - -- -- - - -- -- This section develops the future without project traffic conditions in the study area with ambient growth added. The year 2006 was selected for analysis based on available traffic forecast data and study requirements. The project is scheduled for completion before the end of the year 2006. Future Traffic Growth Peak hour traffic volumes for Rawlings Way, Tustin Ranch Road, and Portola Parkway under near-term future r.y ear 2006) conditions were forecast based on a 1% per year growth factor. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - Future Near Term To simulate the near-term growth conditions for the year 2006, the peak hour volumes in Figures 4 and 5 were increased by a factor of 1 % per year for two years. Peak half-hour volumes factored to equivalent hourly volumes are used for the Tustin Ranch Road/Rawlings Way intersection northbound left and eastbound right movements per direction from the City. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the resulting AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. Table 3 illustrates the future without project intersection level of service conditions. As shown in the table, both intersections are expected to operate at Level of Service A under the future without project condition for the year 2006. Table 3 Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Future Without Project Conditions, Year 2006 Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Int~$ection$ Volume/ Level Of Volume/ Level Of Capacity Service Capacity Service Tustin Ranch Rd & Rawlings Way 0.561 A 0.493 A Tustin Ranch Rd & Portola Pkwy 0.399 A 0.330 A Katz, Okitsu & Associates Tr4fíc En¡!.ineers mId TransporM/ion Planners 12 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study N t ~Katz, Okitsu & Associates City OfTustin 11\918 Traffic Engineus and Transportation Planners Rawlings Way Residential Project Figure 6 Future Traffic Volume WID Project AM Peak Hour ~ (' ,,1,~ ""rf:J" ~ 2\ \ " ":Jþ"P N t _Katz, Okitsu & Associates City Of Tustin Figure 7 iiJIIIII""" Traffic Enginurs and Transportation Planners Rawlings Way Residential Project Future Traffic Volumes WID Project PM Peak Hour 5. Project Related Traffic ~. ...... . ..... The proposed project consists of 25 single-family homes. This residential development is expected to generate additional traffic volumes as documented below. Project Trip Generation Trip generation is a measure or forecast of the number of trips that begin or end at the project site. Allor part of these trips will result in traffic increases on the streets where they occur. Traffic generated is a function of the extent and type of development proposed for the site. Trip generation is generally equal to the traffic volume expected at project entrances. The trip generation rates are equivalent to the number of trips that start or end (in and out) at the project site, and are specific by land use for a given time period (i.e. AM peak hour). Trip generation rates are expressed as a function of a given characteristic of the land use area (i.e. floor area, site area, number of employees, or seating capacity. The rates are based on regression analysis, and are derived from field observations from as many sources as possible. At each site, trips in and out of site are counted, trip rate modifiers are identified and regression analysis is used to derive a "best fit" for a particular land use. An equation is developed which calculate an average trip generation rate for the specific land use. Project Traffic The City of Tustin had previously approved a 27,548 squarecofoot church and day care facility for the project site. The City approval for this project has since expired. The trip generation for this previously approved project is shown in Table 4. The trip generation for the new proposed project consisting of 25 single-family homes is shown in Table 5. The project trips summarized in these tables are based on trip generation rates provided by ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition with consideration of comparable trip generation rates for similar uses in this region. This report is widely used in Southern California and indicates the probable traffic generation rates for various land uses based on studies of existing developments in comparable settings. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 240 daily trips. Of this amount, 19 are expected to be in the AM peak hour, including 5 trips entering and 14 trips exiting the site. There are expected to be 25 trips during the PM peak hour, including 16 trips entering and 9 trips exiting the site. There is no trip generation currently associated with the project site. Figure 8 illustrates the expected trip distribution for these project trips. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Trtlffic Engineers IlIId Transportation Pla/lners 15 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study Project Related Traffic Table 4 Previously Approved Project Trip Generation Land Use Measure Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out T otaI In Out Trip Generation Rates Church KSF 1 9.11 0.72 0.39 0.33 0.66 0.23 0.32 lITE Code 560 Day Care Student 1.52 0.81 0.43 0.38 0.86 0.40 0.46 lTE Code 565 Vêlûc:le Trips . Church 27,548 SF 251 20 11 9 19 10 9 FTE Code 560 Day Care 250 380 203 108 95 215 100 115 ITE Code 565 Students frotaI Project Trips 631 223 119 104 234 110 124 Note 1: KSF = Thousand Square Feet Table 5 Proposed Project 'J:' rip Generation Land Use Measure Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour T otaI In Out T otaI In Out Tri Þ (;eneratÎøh Råt:~$ Single Family Detached Housing DU 9.57 0.75 0.19 0.56 1.01 0.64 0.37 JTE Code 210 Vehicle Trips $ingle Family Detached Housing 25DU 240 19 5 14 25 16 9 lTE Code 210 Project Trips 240 19 5 14 25 16 9 Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers alld Trallsp'marioll PI,mllers 16 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study <?--ò (j~ ~1>~ .~ ~ ,,-::> N t _Katz, Okitsu & Associates City Of Tustin I ....... Traffic EnginuTS and Transportation Plannus Rawlings Way Residential Project Figure 8 Trip Distribution 6. Future Traffic Conditions With Project This section documents the near-term future traffic conditions with the addition of project- related traffic to the surrounding street system. It evaluates near term traffic conditions in the study area with ambient growth added and with traffic from other area projects and the proposed project added. The proposed project completion date is September, 2005, however the year 2006 was selected for analysis to be conservative. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Table 6 summarizes the results of the level of service analyses for this scenario. As shown in the table, both intersections continue to operate at Level of Service A with the addition of project- related traffic. Peak half-hour volumes factored to equivalent hourly volumes are used for the Tustin Ranch Road/Rawlings Way intersection northbound left and eastbound right movements per direction from the City. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the resulting AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. Table 6 Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Future With Project Conditions, Year 2006 Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Si gnaliz e dIn ttr s ecti on s Volume/ Level Of Volume/ Level Of Capacity Service Capacity Service Tustin Ranch Rd & Rawlings Way 0.566 A 0.501 A Tustin Ranch Rd & Portola Pkwy 0.402 A 0.334 A Katz, Okitsu & Associates Trtlffic Enginttrs "lid TransporM/ion Pltlltners 18 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study N t _Katz, Okitsu & Associates City Of Tustin I!III""'" Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners Rawlings Way Residential Project Figure 9 Future Traffic Volumes With Project AM Peak Hour N t _Katz, Okitsu & Associates City OfTustin iI!II""""" Traffic Enginurs and Transportation Planners Rawlings Way Residential Project Figure 10 Future Traffic Volumes With Project PM Peak Hour 7. Detenl1ination Of Significant Impact Traffic impacts are identified if the proposed project will result in a significant change in traffic conditions on a roadway or intersection. A significant impact is normally defined when project related traffic would cause level of service to deteriorate to below the minimum acceptable level by a measurable amount. Impacts may also be significant if the location is already below the minimum acceptable level and project related traffic causes a further decline. The City of Tustin has identified Level of Service D as the minimum allowable service level during peak hours at signalized intersections in the City. Most arriving traffic will clear the intersection on the first allowable green cycle under this level of service. Mitigation measures should be considered when traffic conditions are forecast to decline to poorer levels of service. The level of service analyses for the Future ry ear 2006) ,study scenarios determined that level of service will remain at Level A under both the "Future Without Project" and "Future With Project" scenarios, for both study intersections. The project will not create a significant impact at either of the study intersections in the Future scenarios. Table 7 provides a comparison of the levels of service and volume/capacity ratios of all study scenarios for the Future condition. Traffic impacts created by the project can be evaluated by comparing the "Future Without Project" condition to the "Future With Project" condition. Table 7 Level of Service Analysis /Determination of Impacts for Future Conditions - Intersection Existing Future Without Project Future With Project Increase/ Significant Decrease Impact? ustin Ranch Rd & Rawlings Way A I 0.483 ustin Ranch Rd & Portola Pkwy AIO.317 Note: LOS = Level of Service; V/C = Volume/Capacity 0.017 No Katz, Okitsu & Associates Trtl{{i, Engineers and TrmrsPrJrtarion Planners 21 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study Future Traffic Conditions With Project Expected future traffic volumes at Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way indicate that the northbound left-turn pocket storage length required to accommodate the expected queue of vehicles turning left from Tustin Ranch Road onto Rawlings Way will need to be lengthened from the existing 153 feet to 220 feet. This is based on a projected turning volume of 182 vehicles per hour in the morning peak hour (7:30 - 8:30 AM) and 211 vehicles per hour in the afternoon peak hour (2:00 - 3:00 PM) under the future with project scenario. It should be noted that traffic volumes in the afternoon peak at approximately 2:30 PM due to the presence of the nearby elementary school. It is estimated that the proposed project will contribute approximately 4 vehicles (1.9%) of the traffic during the afternoon peak hour. T urn pocket storage length is the same under the future without project scenario. It should be noted that the unusual peaking characteristics of this intersection require that these projected peak hour volumes use peak half-hour volumes factored to equivalent hourly volumes for the northbound left movement to allow for adequate queuing capacity during the peak half-hour periods. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers and Transporteltion Planners 22 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study 8. On-Site Circulation and Access Access Roads and Driveways The project is proposed to access Rawlings Way at one location near the center of the south boundary of the site. This will be the only site access. Currently the vacant lot occupying the site has no access from Rawlings Way. Traffic conditions on Rawlings Way were observed during the peak morning and afternoon hours. School-related traffic was observed to back-up onto Rawlings Way, blocking a portion of the project site but leaving the project driveway location clear. The project site plan was reviewed for internal circulation. The width of the access drive is adequate for vehicles to easily enter and exit the project. The two interior streets running roughly parallel with Tustin Ranch Road are 36 feet in width. These streets have adequate space for vehicles to pass each other and to allow for curbside parking on both sides of the street. The interior streets at the front and back of the project site running roughly parallel with Rawlings Way are 32 feet in width. It is recommended that parking be prohibited on the inside curbs of these streets. This restriction will allow adequate space for vehicles to pass each other and emergency vehicle access. Gate Requirements The entrance gate must be designed to provide adequate queue storage for a daily volume of about 240 vehicles (120 inbound and 120 outbound). The maximum hourly inbound service volume is 16 vehicles, occurring in the PM peak hour. The entry gate must be designed to allow for storage for vehicles waiting for the gate to open, and for vehicles waiting behind them. The storage requirement for the gate is calculated using queuing formulas adapted for use at gate entrances. These formulas also require use of the processing rate. The proposed system is expected to be a keypad for guests which will provide for a processing rate of about 60 seconds per vehicle. There is sufficient room at the entrance for guests using the keypad to not block residents entering the project. Table 8 shows the probability of the queue of vehicles exceeding specific values at the proposed gate. The table indicates that the expected queue will be zero most of the time and one vehicle occasionally. The queue will rarely be more than two vehicles. A storage requirement of two vehicles is recommended. This will require a storage area of approximately 50 feet from the security gate to the back end of the queue storage area. Traffic conditions should be adequate with gate control and the exits should provide adequate width for one outbound and one inbound lane, plus room for guests to park while securing entry without interfering with entering residents. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers al/d Transportation Plal/ners 23 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic ImpaCt Study On-Site Circulation and Access Table 8 Queue Length Probability - Random Arrivals at Gate Forecasted 25% Increase 50% Increase Demand Arrival Rate 16 veh/ hr 20 veh/ hr 24 veh/ hr Process Rate 1 Veh/30 seconds 1 Veh/30 seconds 1 Veh/30 seconds Load Factor 0.13 0.17 0.20 Queue Vehicles 0 vehicles 86.7% 83.3% 80.0% 1 vehicles 11.6% 13.9% 16.0% 2 vehicles 1.5% 2.3% 3.2% 3 vehicles 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 4 vehicles 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 5 vehicles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers ,It/d Transportation Planntrs 24 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study 9. Mitigation and Recommendations , --------- ------- - - _n- -- ---------------------------- - - ------ -- -------------- -- ---______n____- --- Mitigation measures are required if approval and construction of the project will result in or significantly increase unacceptable traffic conditions. They are also appropriate if cumulative traffic conditions will result in an unsatisfactory level of service and the proposed development contributes to these conditions significantly. These conditions are not expected to occur at either of the intersections in the project study area. The intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way, and Tustin Ranch Road and Portola Parkway will operate at an acceptable level of service in Year 2006 including the proposed project conditions. Levels of service will remain at Level A with the increase in traffic due to the proposed project. Although level of service is expected to remain at satisfactory levels, future traffic volumes at Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way indicate that the northbound left-turn pocket storage length required to accommodate traffic turning left from Tustin Ranch Road onto Rawlings Way will need to be lengthened from the existing 153 feet to a minimum 220 feet. The project should contribute a fair share towards the lengthening of this turn pocket. The fair share percentage for the proposed project has been estimated at 1.9% of the total cost of the turn pocket extension. The total cost of lengthening the turn pocket is estimated at $70,000. The fair share for the proposed project toward the cost of the turn pocket extension should therefore be $1,330. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners 25 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study 10. Conclusions ~.. ~ ~~. ..~ ~ The subject of this traffic impact study is a proposed residential project known as IICamellia", consisting of 25 single-family homes in the City of Tustin. The proposed project is located on Rawlings Way north of Tustin Ranch Road. The City requested a trip generation analysis to show the difference in trips from the site due to the proposed development, level of service analyses for two study intersections, an analysis of on- site circulation, and an analysis of access to Rawlings Way. The two intersections studied were Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way, and Tustin Ranch Road and Portola Parkway. The results of the trip generation analysis showed that the project is expected to generate approximately 240 daily trips. Of this amount, 19 are expected to be in the AM peak hour, including 5 trips entering and 14 trips exiting the site. There are expected to be 25 trips during the PM peak hour, including 16trips entering and 9 trips exiting the site. The level of service analyses for the future year (2006) showed that both study intersections will operate at Level of Service A (excellent), including project trips, during both the AM and PM peak hours. The on-site circulation and queuing analysis showed that traffic conditions should be adequate with gate control and the exits should provide adequate width for one outbound and one inbound lane, plus room for guests to park while securing entry without interfering with entering residents. A storage requirement of two vehicles at the entry gate is recommended. Expected future traffic volumes at Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way indicate that the northbound left-turn pocket storage length required to accommodate the expected queue of vehicles turning left from Tustin Ranch Road onto Rawlings Way will be 220 feet. The traffic impact study for the proposed project will be submitted to the City of Tustin, who will review the plan for compliance with applicable City standards. We anticipate that any minor internal circulation issues will be addressed in conjunction with this review. Katz, Okitsu & Associates recommends that the City find that the traffic impacts of the project have no adverse effect on the surrounding street system for the future year. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners 26 City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study A ppendix A Existing Traffic Counts Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers 'lI1d Transportation Planners City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, tNC SUMMARY OF VEHICUlAR TURNING MOVEMENTS NIS ST : TUSTIN RANCH RO FILENAME: 1140601 EtN 51: RAWLINGS 'NY DATE: 11/M)4 CITY: TUSTIN DAY: TUESDAY PERIOD NORTHI5OUND SOlmIBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BeGINS NL NT NR SL ST 8ft a ET ER WL WT WA Total .L LANES; 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7:00 AM 1 59 3 0 103 4 5 0 6 5 1 5 192 15 AM 5 127 4 2 154 5 12 1 12 15 0 11 348 30 AM 10 111 6 2 249 13 16 a 11 16 2 7 443 45 AM 14 91 1 4 277 16 5 0 18 14 0 7 447 8:00 AM 30 73 5 2 272 15 11 1 34 18 2 11 474 15 AM 58 67 3 0 183 27 21 3 66 10 7 1 426 30 AM 7 45 2 5 166 3 6 5 44 14 1 4 302 46 AM 12 55 4 1 123 4 7 0 15 9 0 4 234 PEAK HOUJIt BEGINS AT; PHF: 0.94 730 AM VOL.UMeS" 112 342 15 8 981 71 !3 " 129 58 11 26 1790 FILENAME: 1140801P DATE: 1114104 DAY: THURSDAY PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOU11i8OUNO EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ,eGlNS NL NT Nft SL aT SR EL ET ER WL wr WR ToI8I 4:00 PM 8 117 5 3 117 4 3 0 9 5 1 3 275 15 PM 6 71 10 5 66 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 162 3QPM 14 110 6 5 106 3 7 0 13 3 0 3 270 46 PM 13 114 2 3 130 5 8 0 8 7 1 4 29ð 5:00 PM 15 146 8 5 113 10 4 3 10 13 0 2. 329 15 PM 9 131 9 6 125 1 4 0 8 3 0 3 299 3QPM 7 146 10 14 119 9 7 0 12 2. 0 3 329 46 PM 8 137 11 8 101 7 4 0 9 -}O 5 295 PEAK HOUR BeGINS AT: 1700 PM VOLUMES '" 39 560 PHF: 0.&5 38 33 468 27 19 :3 39 23 0 13 1252 COMMENTS: 600 III . ':>NI . . S':>AS V.T.va ~ T .'¡,'¡V>U. . n,n'T"""TI .....". ""... L__- .-- ,-- TRAFFIC DATA ~ES, IHe SUMMARY 01' VEHICUlAR TURNING MOVE.IiNTS, NIB ST : 1\JSTN RANCH AD FILENAME: 0641 005 EJW ST: PORTeLA PKWY DATE: 5118104 CITY: TUSTIN DAY: TUESDAY PERIOD NORTHBOUNO SOUTHBOUND EASTÐOUNO WESTBOUND BEGINS Nl NT NR SL ST SR a. ET ER WL wr WR Tó~ LANES: 3 1 1 3 2 1 7:00 AN 54 25 20 101 56 8 263 16AM 189 e4 57 178 96 74 648 30 AM 83 38 111 175 62 33 502 45 AM 93 34 125 251 104 15 622 8:00 AM 66 35 24 144 95 11 375 15AM 40 28 17 74 67 6 232 30 AM 64 34 42 153 61 10 364 45 AM 44 14 34 10S 37 12 246 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 715 AM VOWMES. a ~1 181 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 2147 FILENAME: 0541005P OATE: 5/18/04. DAY: TUESDAY PeRIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND I!ASTBOUND WESTBOUND ~GINS NL NT NR SL ST SR a ET !R WI. !NT WR Total 4:00 PM 41 15 14 49 26 11 156 1SPM 51 29 11 62 55 12 220 30 PM 80 38 14 71 80 15 258 4ePM 65 43 9 80 79 23 299 5:00 PM 66 45 11 79 80 2S 306 15PM 92 39 10 91 79 30 341 30 PM 96 43 12 SO 81 28 339 4SPM 87 36 9 78 Be 30 326 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 1700 PM VOLUMES ;c 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 a 113 1312 COMMENTS: I:OO~ '~~T"~~A~ VTvn ~TJJVUT ^..^..~._-_. --- -- Appendix B Intersection Level of Service Worksheets Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers and Transporltl/Üm PIII1mers City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study 2004 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 15:59:46 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Scenario: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2004 AM Scenario Report Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: AM 2004 AM Existing Default Impact Fee AM Residential Default Paths Default Routes AM Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 15:59:46 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning Movement Report AM Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume #1 TRR/Rawlings Base 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 1862 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 1862 #2 TRR/Portola Base 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 2147 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 2147 #3 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 15:59:46 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3-1 Camillia Tustin Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Base Dell VI LOS Veh C A xxxxx 0.552 # 1 TRR/Rawlings # 2 TRR/Portola A XXXXX 0.393 Future Dell VI LOS Veh C A XXXXX 0.552 A XXXXX 0.393 Change in + 0.000 v/c + 0.000 V/c Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 15:59:46 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Warrant Summary Report Base Met [Del/Vol] Future Met [Del/Vol] Intersection Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 15:59:46 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.552 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1' ---------------11---------------, Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0' 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------, '---------------11---------------, Volume Module: Base Vol: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.98 0.02 0.93 0.07 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 4886 214 1700 5058 42 1581 119 1700 1429 271 1700 ------------, ---------------11---------------11--------------- '---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 15:59:46 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.552 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 a 1 a 2 1 a a 1 a 0 1 a 1 a 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.98 0.02 0.93 0.07 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 4886 214 1700 5058 42 1581 119 1700 1429 271 1700 ------------1---------------11--------------- 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 15:59:46 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.393 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 18 May 2004 « Base Vol: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 , PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 --- ------ --- - ----- - ---- --- -11-- - - --- --------11--- -- - -- --- ----11------ --- ---- --I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5100 1700 3400 5100 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 15:59:46 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.393 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: a a a a a a a a a a a a Lanes: a a 3 a 1 2 a 3 a 0 a a a a a 2 0 a a 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 18 May 2004 « Base Vol: a 431 161 317 748 a a a a 357 a 133 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 431 161 317 748 0 a 0 a 357 0 133 Added Vol: 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: a 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 a 357 0 133 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a Reduced Vol: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5100 1700 3400 5100 0 a 0 a 3400 a 1700 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (C) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:05:56 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin Existing Condition PM Peak Hour Scenario: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2004 PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Scenario Report PM 2004 PM Existing Default Impact Fee PM Residential Default Paths Default Routes PM Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 PM Fri Jan 14, 200516:05:56 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin Existing Condition PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Northbound Type Left Thru Right #1 TRR/Rawlings Base 200 560 Added 0- " 0 Total 200 560 #2 TRR/Portola Base 0 340 Added 0 0 Total. 0 340 #3 Base Added Total 0 0 0 163 0 163 0 0 0 38 0 38 0 0 0 Turning Movement Report PM Southbound Left Thru Right 33 0 33 458 0 458 Eastbound Left Thru Right 27 0 27 19 0 19 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound Total Left Thru Right Volume 228 0 228 0 0 0 326 0 326 23 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 1602 0 1602 42 0 42 328 0 328 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 113 1312 0 1312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:05:56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3-1 Camellia - Tustin Existing Condition PM Peak Hour Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Base Dell vi LOS Veh C A xxxx.x 0.483 # 1 TRR/Rawlings # 2 TRR/Portola A xxxx.x 0.317 Future Dell vi LOS Veh C A xxxx.x 0.483 A xxxx.x 0.317 Change in + 0.000 V/c + 0.000 Vlc Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:05:56 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin Existing Condition PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Signal Warrant Summary Report Base Met [Del/Vol] Future Met [Del/Vol] Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:05:56 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin Existing Condition PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.483 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1--------------- 1---------------11---------------1 , ---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------ ---------------11---------------1 ---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 9 Nov 2004 « Base Vol: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 ------------1---------------1 ---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.83 0.17 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4495 305 1600 4533 267 1382 218 1600 1600 0 1600 ------------ ---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.14 D.010.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:05:56 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin Existing Condition PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1 (Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.483 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 32 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 9 Nov 2004 « Base Vol: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 200 560 38 33 458 27 19 3 228 23 0 13 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.83 0.17 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4495 305 1600 4533 267 1382 218 1600 1600 0 1600 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:05:56 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin Existing Condition PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCU 1 (Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.317 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11--------------- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11--------------- 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 18 May 2004 « Base Vol: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 ------------1---------------1 ---------------11---------------1' ---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 4800 1600 3200 4800 0 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 ------------1---------------, 1--------------- 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2004 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:05:57 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin Existing Condition PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.317 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 18 May 2004 « Base Vol: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 340 163 42 328 0 0 0 0 326 0 113 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 4800 1600 3200 4800 0 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:08:24 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 Without Project AM Peak Hour Scenario: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 AM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Scenario Report AM 2004 AM Existing Default Impact Fee AM Residential Default Paths Default Routes AM Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:08:24 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 Without Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning Movement Report AM Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume #1 TRR/Rawlings Base 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 1899 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 1899 #2 TRR/portola Base 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 2190 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 2190 #3 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:08:24 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3-1 eamillia Tustin 2006 Without Project AM Peak Hour Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Base Dell VI LOS Veh e A xxxxx 0.561 # 1 TRR/Rawlings # 2 TRR/Portola A XXXXX 0.399 Future Dell vi LOS Veh e A XXXXX 0.561 A XXXXX 0.399 Change in + 0.000 vie + 0.000 vie Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:08:24 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 Without Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Signal Warrant Summary Report Base Met [Del/Vol] Future Met [Del/Vol] Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:08:24 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 Without Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCO l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.561 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------1 , ---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 ------------1---------------1' ---------------11---------------11---------------/ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 ~1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.98 0.02 0.93 0.07 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 4886 214 1700 5058 42 1581 119 1700 1429 271 1700 ------------1---------------/1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:08:24 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 Without Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.561 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1-----'----------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 a a 0 a a 0 a 0 0 Lanes: 1 a 2 1 a 1 a 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 a 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 Added Vol: a 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59. 11 27 Reduct Vol: a 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 180 -349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.98 0.02 0.93 0.07 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 4886 214 1700 5058 42 1581 119 1700 1429 271 1700 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:08:24 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 Without Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1 (Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.399 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 18 May 2004 « Base Vol: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane:~ 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5100 1700 3400 5100 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:08:24 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 Without Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************************************** Level Of gervice Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.399 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: a a a a a a a 0 a 0 a a Lanes: a a 3 a 1 2 a 3 a a a a a a a 2 a a a 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 18 May 2004 « Base Vol: a 431 161 317 748 a a a a 357 a 133 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: a 440 164 323 763 0 a 0 a 364 a 136 Added Vol: a a a a a a a a a a a 0 PasserByVol: a a a a a a a 0 a 0 a 0 Initial Fut: a 440 164 323 763 0 a 0 0 364 a 136 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: a 440 164 323 763 a a a a 364 0 136 Reduct Vol: a a a a a 0 a a a a 0 a Reduced Vol: a 440 164 323 763 0 a a 0 364 0 136 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 'Final Vol.: a 440 164 323 763 a a a a 364 0 136 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: a 5100 1700 3400 5100 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:08 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 Without Project PM Peak Hour Scenario: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 PM Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Scenario Report PM 2006 PM Existing Default Impact Fee PM Residential Default Paths Default Routes PM Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:08 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 Without Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning Movement Report PM Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume #1 TRR/Rawlings Base 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 1657 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 1657 #2 TRR/Portola Base 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 1393 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total- 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 1393 #3 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:08 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3-1 Camellia - Tustin 2006 Without Project PM Peak Hour Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Base Dell vi LOS Veh C A xxxxx 0.493 # 1 TRR/Rawlings # 2 TRR/Portola A xxxxx 0.330 Future Dell vi LOS Veh C A xxxxx 0.493 A xxxxx 0.330 Change in + 0.000 vie + 0.000 V/c Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:08 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 Without Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Signal Warrant Summary Report Base Met [Del/Vol] Future Met [Del/vol] Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:08 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 Without Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.493 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------1 ---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 200 571 39 34 467 28 19 3 228 23 0 13 Growth Adj:1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 ------------1---------------1' --------------- /---------------/1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.83 0.17 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4493 307 1600 4528 272 1382 218 1600 1600 0 1600 ------------ ---------------/1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:08 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 Without Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.493 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 200 571 39 34 467 28 19 3 228 23 0 13 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.83 0.17 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4493 307 1600 4528 272 1382 218 1600 1600 0 1600 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:08 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 Without Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.330 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East. Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1--------------- I---------~-----II--------------- 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 Lanes: a 0 3 a 1 2 a 3 a a a a a a 0 2 a 0 a 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: . Base Vol: a 347 166 43 335 a a a a 333 a 115 Growth Adj: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: a 361 173 45 349 a a a a 346 a 120 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 Reduct Vol: 0 a 0 a a a a 0 a 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 361 173 45 349 a 0 0 0 346 0 120 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 ------------1---------------1 ---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 4800 1600 3200 4800 a 0 0 a 3200 0 1600 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** **** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:08 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 Without Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.330 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 '---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 347 166 43 335 0 0 0 0 333 0 115 Growth Adj: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 4800 1600 3200 4800 0 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------, 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour Scenario: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 AM Scenario Report Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: AM 2004 AM Existing Default Impact Fee AM Residential Default Paths Default Routes AM Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Generation Report Forecast for AM Zone # Subzone Amount Units Rate In Rate Out Trips Trips In Out Total % Of Trips Total ---- ------------ ------- -------------- 1 Camellia - T 1.00 Residential 5.00 14.00 Zone 1 Subtotal............................. 5 5 14 14 19 100.0 19 100.0 TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 14 19 100.0 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Distribution Report Percent Of Trips all To Gates 1 2 5 Zone 1 45.0 25.0 30.0 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning Movement Report AM Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume #1 TRR/Rawlings Base 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 1899 Added 2 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 6 0 0 0 19 Total 182 349 15 8 980 11 62 4 210 59 11 27 1918 #2 TRR/Portola Base 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 2190 Added 0 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 Total 0 444 168 323 764 0 0 0 0 366 0 136 2201 #3 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 19 Total 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 19 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5-1 Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Base Dell vi LOS Veh C A =xx 0.561 # 1 TRR/Rawlings # 2 TRR/portola A =xx 0.399 Future Dell vi LOS Veh C A =xx 0.566 A =xx 0.402 Change in + 0.005 V/c + 0.003 vie Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Signal Warrant Summary Report Base Met [Del/Vol] Future Met [Del/Vol] Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCU 1 (Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.561 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------1' ---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 S9 11 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 17Óà 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.98 0.02 0.93 0.07 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 4886 214 1700 5058 42 1581 119 1700 1429 271 1700 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.566 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 37 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 176 342 15 8 961 8 53 4 200 58 11 26 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 180 349 15 8 980 8 54 4 204 59 11 27 Added Vol: 2 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 6 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 182 349 15 8 980 11 62 4 210 59 11 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 182 349 15 8 980 11 62 4 210 59 11 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 182 349 15 8 980 11 62 4 210 59 11 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 182 349 15 8 980 11 62 4 210 59 11 27 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.97 0.03 0.94 0.06 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 Final Sat.: 1700 4886 214 1700 5043 57 1595 105 1700 1429 271 1700 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report rcu l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.399 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 '---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------1--------------- 1---------------11--------------- 11---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 18 May 2004 « Base Vol: 0 431 161 317 748 0 0 0 0 357 0 133 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Final Vol.: 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5100 1700 3400 5100 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 AM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:10:56 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camillia Tustin 2006 With Project AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.402 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: a 0 a 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: a a 3 a 1 2 a 3 0 0 a a 0 a 0 2 a a a 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11--------------- 1---------------1 Volume Module: » Count Date: 18 May 2004 « Base Vol: 0 431 161 317 748 0 a 0 0 357 a 133 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 440 164 323 763 0 0 0 0 364 0 136 Added Vol: 0 4 4 0 1 a 0 0 0 2 0 a PasserByVol: a a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 Initial Fut: 0 444 168 323 764 0 0 a a 366 a 136 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 444 168 323 764 0 0 0 0 366 0 136 Reduct Vol: 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: a 444 168 323 764 0 0 0 0 366 0 136 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: a 444 168 323 764 0 0 0 0 366 0 136 ------------1---------------11---------------1 ---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 5100 1700 3400 5100 0 0 0 0 3400 0 1700 ------------1---------------11--------------- --------------- ---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour Scenario: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 PM Scenario Report Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: . . PM 2006 PM Existing Default Impact Fee PM Residential Default Paths Default Routes PM Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Generation Report Forecast for PM Zone # Subzone Amount Units Rate In Rate Out Trips Trips In Out Total % Of Trips Total ---- ------------ ------- -------------- 1 Camellia - T 1.00 Residential 16.00 9.00 Zone 1 Subtotal............................. 16 16 9 9 25 100.0 25 100.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9 25 100.0 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Distribution Report Percent Of Trips all To Gates 1 2 5 Zone 1 45.0 25.0 30.0 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning Movement Report PM Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume #1 TRR/Rawlings Base 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 1657 Added 7 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 25 Total 211 582 40 35 476 38 24 3 237 23 0 13 1682 #2 TRR/portola Base 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 1393 Added 0 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 14 Total 0 363 176 45 353 0 0 0 0 351 0 120 1407 #3 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 25 Total 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 25 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5-1 Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Base Dell VI LOS Veh C A xxxxx 0.493 # 1 TRR/Rawlings # 2 TRR/portola A xxxxx 0.330 Future Dell vi LOS Veh C A xxxxx 0.501 A xxxxx 0.334 Change in + 0.009 vie + 0.003 vie Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Signal Warrant Summary Report Base Met [Del/Vol] Future Met [Del/Vol] Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1 (Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.493 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 a 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 200 571 39 34 467 28 19 3 228 23 0 13 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.83 0.17 0.86 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4493 307 1600 4528 272 1382 218 1600 1600 0 1600 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCU 1 (Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 TRR/Rawlings ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 critical Vo1./Cap. (X): 0.501 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: A ***********************~******************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 200 571 39 34 467 28 19 3 228 23 0 13 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 204 582 40 35 476 29 19 3 233 23 0 13 Added Vol: 7 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 211 582 40 35 476 38 24 3 237 23 0 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 211 582 40 35 476 38 24 3 237 23 0 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 211 582 40 35 476 38 24 3 237 23 0 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 211 582 40 35 476 38 24 3 237 23 -0 13 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 2.78 0.22 0.89 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4493 307 1600 4449 351 1422 178 1600 1600 0 1600 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 Page 10-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.330 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 347 166 43 335 0 0 0 0 333 0 115 Growth Adj: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------1 ---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 4800 1600 3200 4800 0 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA 2006 PM Fri Jan 14, 2005 16:37:46 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Camellia - Tustin 2006 With Project PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report lCU 1 (Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 TRR/Portola ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 CritiealVol./Cap. (X): 0.334 Loss Time (see): 10 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 ------------1---------------1 ---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 347 166 43 335 0 0 0 0 333 0 115 Growth Adj: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 0 361 173 45 349 0 0 0 0 346 0 120 Added Vol: 0 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 363 176 45 353 0 0 0 0 351 0 120 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 363 176 45 353 0 0 0 0 351 0 120 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 363 176 45 353 0 0 0 0 351 0 120 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 363 176 45 353 0 o'~ 0 0 351 0 120 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 4800 1600 3200 4800 0 0 0 0 3200 0 1600 ------------1--------------- 1---------------11---------------1 ---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, TUSTIN, CA Appendix C Intersection Level of Service Concepts Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers and Transportation Platrners City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE A project will nonnally have a significant adverse impact on traffic and circulation if it results in any of the following conditions: . An increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., results in a substantial increase in either the number of the vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections); or, . An increase in the level of service standard established by the Orange County Transportation Authority for designated roads or highways. . An increase in the number of the peak hour trips over and above a residential project in confonnance with the General Plan land use designation. To understand how well a roadway or intersection is handling traffic, several concepts have been devised. The fIrst is a qualitative measure, referred to as Level of Service, which evaluates a roadway's operation based on observations. A LOS "A" is an optimal traffic condition, while a LOS "F" represents service congestion. A second, more quantitative measure, referred to as Volume to Capacity Ratio (VIC), is the ratio of an intersection's or roadway's traffic volumes to its design capacity. The relationship between the LOS and V IC Ratio are summarized below in Table C-I. TABLE C-l DEFINITIONS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service Definitions - LOS ICU Range CV/C Description Ratio) A Less than 0.60 Free flowing traffic conditions, no congestion. B 0.60 to less than 0.70 Generally free from congestion. All vehicles may clear signal in a single cycle. C 0.70 to less than 0.80 Light congestion with occasional back-ups at critical approaches. D 0.80 to less than 0.90 Congestion at critical approaches. E 0.90 to less than 1.0 Moderate to severe congestion during peak period. F 1.00 or greater Severe congestion. Source: Blodgett/Baylosis Associates, 2000 Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Enginttrs and T"lnsporralion Plallnus City of Tustin Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study RESOLUTION NO. 3961 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16782 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-024, TO SUBDIVIDE 5.33 ACRES INTO 25 NUMBERED LOTS AND 6 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING 25 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ON LOTS 7, KKK, S, AND T OF TRACT 12780 AND A PORTION OF LOT S OF TRACT 15563 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Tentative Tract Map 16782 and Design Review 04-024 was submitted by Lennar South Coast requesting subdivision of a 5.33 acre site into 25 numbered lots and 6 lettered lots for the purpose of developing 25 two-story, single family, detached, residential units within Sector 8 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP), and specifically known as Lots 7, KKK, S, and T of Tract 12780 and a portion of Lot S of Tract 15563. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map on January 24, 2005, by the Planning Commission; C. That the proposed project is located within the General Plan "Planned Community Residential" land use designation and consistent with General Plan policies that support the development of residential uses in the Tustin Ranch area. D. That the proposed project is located within the Planned Community Residential (PCR) zoning district, which is subject to the East Tustin Specific Plan. The regulations for development of the site are contained within the medium density residential district standards of the East Tustin Specific Plan. The building intensity, density, and design of the proposed project and subdivision are consistent with the Tustin Area General Plan, ETSP, and as conditioned, the map would be required to conform with the State Subdivision Map Act and the Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code); E. That pursuant to Section 2.14.2 of the ETSP, a maximum of 436 dwelling units may be constructed within Sector 8 of the ETSP. The ETSP monitoring report shows that 367 dwelling units are approved and constructed within Sector 8. The total number of units for the Sector including the proposed tract would be 392, which would allow the Sector to maintain a surplus allocation for 44 dwelling units. Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 2 M. F. The site is physically suitable for the proposed building intensity in that the project would provide for a maximum building density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre which is an acceptable low range within the 1- 18 dwelling units per acre range established in the ETSP for medium density districts. The project will be consistent with surrounding neighborhoods that are developed with medium density two-story residences. Using an average of 2.24 persons per dwelling unit assumed for the project, the tract would provide for approximately 56 persons on 5.33 acres (or 10.5 persons per acre) and is within the density range anticipated by the General Plan; G. As conditioned, the subdivision would promote orderly development to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare and provide for proper use of land and adequate traffic circulation, utilities, and other services; H. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the project is accessible through the City's current street system and could be supported with existing transportation and public facilities; I. That lettered Lot F will be maintained as a fuel modification zone which is required by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) to accommodate the placement of several tract dwellings in proximity to the naturally vegetated wildland fire interface area. J. That the project proponent shall be required to obtain final map approval prior to obtaining grading or building permits so that development of the project area may occur on property under one ownership and will not create building pads on two separate legal lots (Lot S of IT 15563 and Lot 7 of IT 12780). K. The design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the project has been conditioned to comply with applicable regulations of the City of Tustin and Orange County Fire Authority; L. That the dedication of parkland previously occurred for Tentative Tract 16782 at the time that Tentative Tract 12780 was approved and the developer is relieved of dedicating additional land for park purposes; That the proposed subdivision would not have an impact on school district facilities within the Tustin Unified School District in that the number of proposed residential units is below the threshold analyzed and addressed by ETSP EIR 85-2 and TUSD will receive its statutory school impact fees per Senate Bill 50 from residential development. As a condition of approval for the project, the Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 3 Q. R. S. developer will be required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of building permits. City required mitigation is limited by State law to requiring payment of the SB 50 school impact fees; N. The subdivision would establish undivided interests in common areas such as the private street, sidewalk, parking areas, open space areas, and landscape areas with separate interests in property for each numbered lot. Title 6 of the California Civil Code authorizes the creation of an association to set forth the restrictions on the use or enjoyment of any portion of the common interest in a residential tract. As conditioned, the developer would be required to record a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the project; o. That the subdivider will be required to provide an easement to the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association for the continued acceptance of drainage on Lot F of Tentative Tract 16782. P. That the subdivider will be required to dedicate a portion of the drive entrance to the tract to ensure access and will maintain an easement for private sewer, private water, private utilities, and other purposes. To ensure that established facilities are not disrupted, the subdivider is required to maintain the utility easement on Lot T from Tract 12780, maintain the landscape easements over Lots S and KKK of Tract 12780, and may be required to obtain an easement from the Irvine Company for use of a drainage easement on Lot 6 of Tract 12780, and; That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat as analyzed in the initial study conducted for the project; The proposed subdivision is not located within a 100-year flood plain according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency map for the area dated August 9,2002; That pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole, as described below. 1. Height, bulk, and area of buildings: The proposed height, massing, and size of the dwellings comply with the East Tustin Specific Plan and are compatible with existing two-story residential dwellings surrounding the site in adjacent tracts in that the dwellings and tracts have been subject to the same Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 4 2. medium density development standards and design review considerations as the project. Setbacks and site planning: The proposed building setbacks comply with the East Tustin Specific Plan and are compatible with the setbacks, parcel coverage, and floor area of adjacent tracts. The estate density tract (15563) to the north of the project is located behind a naturally vegetated slope and is not visible. Exterior materials and colors: The colors and materials for dwelling units in the tract are consistent with the colors and materials used on dwellings in adjacent tracts and include stucco walls, wood trim multi pane windows, concrete/tile roofs, and earth tone colors such as tans, browns, and egg shell whites. Establishment of a homeowner association with CC&Rs will enable the preservation of the color and material schemes for the tract. Type and pitch of roofs: The proposed architecture contains a combination of hip and gable roofs as is found on dwellings in adjacent tracts. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings: Windows, doors, and vents are symmetrically placed on the buildings and do not interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of privacy in yards or dwellings of adjacent tracts. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae: No roof-mounted equipment, antennae or flagpoles are proposed in association with the tract and would be subject to City and homeowner association design review prior to any future installations. Chimneys proposed for each dwelling in the tract are complementary to the architecture of the buildings and are similar to chimneys on dwellings in surrounding tracts. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination: Private street lighting will be provided for the tract and, as conditioned, street lighting will meet the City's minimum illumination requirements without producing glare onto on-site or off-site properties. Landscaping and parking area design: Existing perimeter landscaping with mature trees on Rawlings Way and Tustin Ranch Road is adequate to serve as a landscape buffer for the tract. The existing landscaping will continue to be maintained in the City's landscape and lighting district and by the homeowner association. Proposed interior common area tract landscaping is conditioned to be provided by the developer in association with City landscape guidelines and will be maintained by the homeowners association. Pursuant to the CC&Rs, all garages must be maintained to allow the parking of two (2) vehicles and as proposed 25 on-street parking spaces will be provided, which is required by the ETSP for the 25 dwelling units in the tract. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 5 The tract entrance will consist of a landscaped median conditioned to meet City guidelines and a security gate, wall, and tract identification sign. As conditioned, all must consist of decorative materials and are subject to staff design review during plan check. 9. Hillside grading compatibility: Grading of Lot F is conditioned to integrate into the project so that it closely follows the contours of the existing slope and the cut is not readily visible from Tustin Ranch Road. The cut slope shall be subject to further staff design review at plan check. 10. Mechanical equipment: All equipment must be screened from view by being placed within an enclosed structure or behind a walles) in the rear or side yard of the residential lots. 11. Location and method of refuse storage: The CC&Rs for the tract are conditioned so that refuse and recycling containers are not visible when it is not a hauling day and will be enforced by the homeowner association. 12. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood: The proposed tract is buffered from existing structures on adjacent prope'rties in Tustin Ranch in that a naturally vegetated open space hill is to the north, Rawlings Way is to the south, Tustin Ranch Road is to the east, and an elementary school that maintains buildings significantly distanced away from the tract is to the west. 13. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares: The proposed design features of the buildings are consistent with existing dwellings in Tustin Ranch in that similar height, massing, and materials are proposed. Enhanced elevations are required for dwellings facing Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way. 14. Proposed signage: All tract identification would be reviewed in accordance with the Tustin Sign Code, which requires compatibility with the building architecture and materials. 15. Development Guidelines from the ETSP: The project complies with the development and design guidelines contained in the ETSP in that adequate landscaping, decorative block walls, quality building materials, consistent colors, compatible architecture, and enhanced street facing elevations are incorporated into the project. T. That the Planning Commission has considered the Draft Negative Declaration prepared for the project and public comments received prior to or at the public hearing prior to recommending approval of the project and has adopted Resolution No. 3960 recommending that the City Council find that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses all potential impacts related to the project. Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 6 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 16782 for the subdivision of 5.33 acres into 25 numbered lots and 6 lettered lots for the purpose of developing 25 medium density detached single-family dwellings and Design Review 04- 024 for the site layout and architectural design of the project, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January, 2005. JOHN NEILSEN Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3961 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 24th day of January, 2005. . ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary (1 ) GENERAL (1 ) 1.1 EXHIBIT A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16782 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-024 RESOLUTION NO. 3961 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped February 7, 2005, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan and Tustin City Code and other applicable codes. Approval of Tentative Tract Map 16782 and DR 04-024 is contingent upon the applicant returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk- Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. As a condition of approval of Tentative Tract Map 16782 and DR 04- 024, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third-party against the Ci,ty, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense" elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1 ) 1.2 SOURCE CODES: 1.3 (1) (2) (3) (4) STANDARD CONDITION (5) CEQA MITIGATION (6) UNIFORM BUILDING CODES (7) DESIGN REVIEW *** RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 2 (1 ) 1.4 (1 ) 1.5 (1 ) 1.6 FINAL MAP (1 ) 2.1 (1 ) 2.2 (5) 2.3 The subject project approvals shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway within twenty-four (24) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this resolution shall be complied with as specified or prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable regulations, including the East Tustin Specific Plan. Prior to issuance of a precise grading or building permit, the subdivider shall record the final map and conform to all applicable requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP), and the City's zoning regulations. Pursuant to Section 66452.6 of the State Subdivision Map Act, within 24 months from tentative map approval, the subdivider shall record with the appropriate agencies a final map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9323 of the Tustin Municipal Code. Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. Upon recordation of a final map, the applicant shall obtain a new address numbers from the Engineering Division. Prior to recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall pay all costs related to the calculation of the revised parcel assessments, the preparation of the revised assessment diagram, and other required administrative duties related to Reassessment District No. 95-2. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 3 GRADING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL (3) 3.1 (5) 3.2 (3) 3.3 (3) 3.4 Four (4) sets of final grading plans consistent with the site and landscaping plans as prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted and shall include the following: A. Technical details and plans for all utility installations including telephone, gas, water, and electricity. Three (3) copies of precise soil report provided by a civil engineer and less than one (1) year old. Expanded information regarding the levels of hydrocarbons and ground water contamination found on-site shall be provided in the soil report. All pavement UR" values shall be in accordance with applicable City of Tustin standards. Two (2) copies of Hydrology Report. All site drainage shall be handled on-site and shall not be permitted to drain onto adjacent properties. The developer shall address in the hydrology report for the project the ability of the existing private storm drain to accept the additional water the project intends to divert into the system. If deemed necessary by the Building Official, prior to building permit issuance or final map approval, whichever occurs first, the developer shall obtain an easement from the private storm drain owner for the conveyance of drainage through the storm drain. Prior to building permit issuance or final map approval, whichever occurs first, the developer shall provide an easement to the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association for continued acceptance of drainage from Lot S of Tract 15563. Drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drains shall comply with the on- site Private Improvement Standards. All locations of existing and proposed cut/fill line(s) shall be shown on the plans. B. C. D. E. F. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, grading plans must demonstrate compliance with the Hillside District Guidelines specified in Section 2.13 of the ETSP. The engineer of record shall submit a final compaction report to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The engineer of record shall submit a pad certification to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 4 (3) 3.5 (3) 3.6 Prior to grading permit issuance, a surety/cash bond will be required to assure work is completed in accordance with approved plans prior to permit issuance. The engineer's estimated cost of the grading, drainage, and erosion control shall be submitted to the Building Official for determination of the bond amount. Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a note on final plans that a six (6) foot high chain link fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages. A nylon fabric or mesh shall be attached to the temporary construction fencing. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles. LANDSCAPING/HARDSCAPE PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL (6) 4.1 In conjunction with the submittal of grading plans, the applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans demonstrating that all landscape areas will be constructed to the City's Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines. The landscape plans shall be approved prior to issuance of grading permits and shall include: A. A summary table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual location. The plan and table must list botanical and common names, sizes, spaces, actual location, and quantity of the plant materials proposed. B. Landscape grading (planting and berming details), soil preparation, staking, etc. C. An irrigation plan showing the location and control of backflow prevention devices, timers pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing, and coverage. D. All property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way area, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, and wall locations, if any. E. Plans must include the following notes which must be adhered to during construction: 1) Landscaping and irrigation is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Community Development Department. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 5 (1 ) 4.2 (1 ) 4.3 2) Turf is unacceptable for grades over 25 percent. A combination of planting materials must be used; ground cover on large areas alone is not acceptable. 3) A combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover shall be installed at the front entrance landscape lot. 4) Landscape materials shall not conflict with the visual clearance requirements of the proposed driveway approaches. 5) All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy and vigorous condition typical to the species and shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, trimming, moving, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of diseased or dead plants. Landscape maintenance on Lots A, B, C, D, E, and F (fuel modification lot) shall be the responsibility of Homeowners Association (HOA). All landscape lots along Tustin Ranch Road and the corner lot at northwest corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way shall be maintained by the Tustin Landscape and Lighting District and shall be equipped with a computerized irrigation system fully compatible with the existing systems currently utilized in other areas of Tustin Ranch. PRIVATE ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS (3) 5.1 Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits or infrastructure construction plans, plans prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer shall be required for all private, on-site construction. All construction of improvement work shall be designed and performed in accordance with the applicable portions of the City of Tustin's "Grading Manual" and "Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drain and On-Site Private Improvements," revised April 1989, or as subsequently amended. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. B. Curbs and gutters on all streets; Sidewalks on all streets, including curb ramps for the physically disabled; all sidewalks, pathways, paseos, and trails shall comply with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act; Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 6 ~ (1 ) 6.1 F. G. H. I. J. K. C. D. E. Drive aprons; Signing/striping plan; Street and drive aisle paving; all private streets, drive aisles, and curb return radius shall be consistent with the City's design standards for private street improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Official, and all roadway and driveway widths and parking area widths (and lengths where appropriate) shall be dimensioned on the plans; Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connections to the public storm drain system with approval of the Orange County Flood Control District; Domestic water facilities and reclaimed water facilities: The domestic water system shall be designed and installed to the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Improvement plans shall also be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Authority for fire protection purposes. The adequacy and reliability of the water system design and the distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated. The water distribution system and appurtenances shall also conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department. Any required reclaimed water system shall meet the standards as required by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD); Sanitary sewer facilities: All sanitary sewer facilities must be submitted as required by the Building Official, the City Engineer, and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). These facilities shall be consistent with the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District; Fire hydrants; Demolition/removal of utilities in accordance with the demolition/severance plan as required herein; Telecommunications facilities including, but not limited to, telephone and cable television facilities. Developer is required to coordinate design and construction of cable television facilities with a City-franchised system operator and shall not place an undue burden upon said operator for the provision of these facilities; and, This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State and Regional Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations. (1 ) 6.2 The applicant shall comply with the following conditions pertaining to the requirement for a Water Quality Management Plan: Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 7 C. D. (1 ) 6.3 A. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures specified detailing implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the project; the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. B. Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the applicant shall submit a deposit of $5,000.00 for the estimated cost of review of the WQMP to the Building Division. The actual costs shall be deducted from the deposit, and the applicant shall be responsible for any additional review cost that exceeded the deposit prior to issuance of grading permits. Any unused portion of the deposit shall be refunded to the applicant. Prior to issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the property owner shall record CC&R's or another legal instrument approved by the City Attorney that shall require the property owner, successors, tenants (if applicable), and assigns to operate and maintain in perpetuity the post- construction BMP's described in the WQMP for the project. The Community Development and Public Works Departments shall determine whether any change in use requires an amendment to an approved Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that the NOI has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. In addition, the applicant shall include notes on the grading plans indicating that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 8 (1 ) 6.4 The following requirements shall be defined on permit plan cover sheets as either general or special notes and the project shall be implemented in accordance with the notes: A. Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that an anticipated storm does not carry wastes or pollutants off the site. B. Discharges of material other than stormwater are allowed only when necessary for performance and completion of construction practices and where they do not cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard; cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance; or, contain a hazardous substance in a quantity reportable under Federal Regulations 40 CFR Parts 117 and 302. C. During construction, disposal of pollutants shall occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential storm water run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, State, and Federal requirements. Potential pollutants include, but are not limited to, solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives, and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flake or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water, concrete, detergent or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; and chlorinated potable water line flushing. D. Dewatering of contaminated groundwater or discharging contaminated soils via surface erosion is prohibited. Dewatering of non-contaminated groundwater requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit from the California State Regional Water Quality Control Board. BUILDING PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL (3) 7.1 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), 2001 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2001 California Plumbing Codes (CPC), 2001 California Electrical Code (CEC), California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations, Title 24 Energy Regulations, City Ordinances, and State and Federal laws and regulations. Building plan check submittal shall include the following: Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 9 G. H. I. J. L. A. Seven (7) sets of construction plans, including drawings for mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. Two (2) copies of structural calculations. Two (2) copies of Title 24 energy calculations. Noise Analysis: The applicant shall comply with the Tustin Noise Ordinance to limit all exterior and interior noise levels to the established standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a noise analysis to identify insulation features needed to ensure that the interior noise level of living areas do not exceed 45 dB and the insulation features shall be incorporated into the construction drawings. The noise analysis must show that, with decorative masonry walls constructed between the dwelling units and Tustin Ranch Road, exterior yard noise levels will not exceed 65 dB. The noise analysis is subject to approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building permits. Elevations that include all proposed dimensions, materials, colors, finishes, and partial outlines of adjacent buildings on-site and off-site where applicable. Enhanced elevations shall be exhibited on the exterior of all dwelling units facing Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way. Prior to building permit issuance, Community Development Director may require modifications to the elevation drawings submitted for plan check to ensure there will be adequate architectural embellishments on the dwelling units facing Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way. Roofing material shall be fire rated class "B" or better. The location of any utility vents shall be provided on the roof plan. No other rooftop equipment shall be permitted. Ground or wall-mounted outdoor equipment shall be screened so that it cannot be viewed from public or private streets. Details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated pattern of light distribution of all proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be consistent with the architecture of the building. All exterior lighting shall be designed and arranged as not to direct light or glare onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent streets. Wall-mounted fixtures shall be directed at a gO-degree angle directly toward the ground. All lighting shall be developed to provide a minimum of one (1) foot- candle of light coverage, in accordance with the City's Security Ordinance. Construction methods to mitigate ground shaking effects B. C. E. F. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 10 (5) (1 ) (1 ) (1) (3) (3) (3) (3) (1 ) 7.7 7.8 7.9 M. within a liquefaction zone as determined by the Building Official. Note on plans that no field changes shall be made without prior approval from the Building Official and architect or engineer of record. 7.2 Escape or rescue windows shall be provided in all sleeping rooms, in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code (Section 310.4). 7.3 All new glass doors and windows, in or adjacent to doors, shall be tempered per 2001 California Building Code Section 2406.4. 7.4 Dwelling units shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a temperature of 70 degrees at a point three (3) feet above the floor in all habitable rooms in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code (Section 310.11). 7.5 No part of any structure shall project beyond the property line. 7.6 Prior to building permit issuance, written permission from property owners shall be required for any work located on adjacent properties. Prior to building permit issuance or final tract map approval, the applicant shall provide a Refuse and Recycling Container Placement exhibit that demonstrates where the containers would be placed on hauling day in relation to required parking spaces. The exhibit shall be incorporated as part of the CC&Rs. Pursuant to the City of Tustin's Security Ordinance and the Uniform Fire Code, street numbers shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of the complex. The numerals shall be no less than four (4) inches in height and shall be of contrasting color to the background to which they are attached and illuminated during hours of darkness. No outdoor storage shall be permitted except as approved by the Tustin Community Development Director. 7.10 Project Recycling Requirement - The City of Tustin is required to comply with the recycling requirements contained in the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. To facilitate City compliance with this law, the Project Applicant is required to comply with Section 4327 of the Tustin City Code which details requirements for developing and implementing a Waste Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 11 (3) Management Plan. The following recycling criteria shall apply: A. All construction, demolition and renovation projects with a valuation between $50,000 to $100,000 are required to submit construction and demolition debris collection, disposal, and diversion information to the City of Tustin Building Department on the City prescribed form, upon project completion. The applicant must provide proof that at least 50 percent of the waste materials are diverted from landfil/(s) and are recycled or salvaged. All construction, renovation, or demolition for any project with a valuation of $100,000 or greater is required to submit construction and demolition debris collection, disposal, and diversion information to the City of Tustin Building Department on the City prescribed form prior to building permit issuance. At least 50 percent of the debris shall be diverted from landfill(s) to a recycling center. A $50.00 per ton security deposit (not to exceed $5,000 per project) shall be collected by the City prior to building permit issuance for construction and demolition recycling. Upon final inspection, the applicant shall submit documents (i.e. receipts from vendors) to the City of Tustin showing actual weight or volume of each material of construction and demolition diverted to recycling center(s). B. 7.12 Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall provide written approval from Federal Disposal Services for acceptance of refuse and recycling hauling services to the tract. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (1 ) 8.1 Prior to approval of the final tract map, approval of a separate 24" x 36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for all construction within the public right-of-way. Construction and/or replacement of any missing or damaged public improvements shall be required adjacent to this development. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: A. B. C. D. E. F. Curb and gutter Sidewalk, including curb ramps for the physically disabled Landscape/irrigation Street lighting Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connection to existing storm drain system Domestic water facilities Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 12 (1 ) (1) 8.3 (1 ) 8.4 (1 ) 8.5 G. H. I. Reclaimed water facilities Sanitary sewer facilities Underground utility connections In addition, a 24" x 36" reproducible construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation shall be required. . 8.2 Plans shall show that current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements are met at the drive apron and pedestrian walkways. The improvements shall subsequent be constructed to plans. Two complete sets of hydrology studies and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. Adequate horizontal and vertical intersection sight line shall be provided. In general a 25' x 25' limited use area triangle provides adequate sight at typical driveways. Addition sight evaluation, however, could be required to satisfy City of Tustin Standard Drawings and Design Standards for Public Works Construction No. 510 for all affected streets. The sight lines would be shown on the grading plan and landscape plan. If detailed analyses are requested, all landscaping within the limited use area would need to comply with City of Tustin Standard Drawings and Design Standards for Public Works Construction No. 510. Prior to building permit issuance, Lots S and KKK of Tract 12780 will require to the Tustin Landscape and Lighting District by the project proponent. The project proponent shall provide a letter to the Public Works Department stating this annexation will not protested. CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT PHASING (1 ) 9.1 (1 ) 9.2 (2) 9.3 If the sale of the open space occurs after the approval of the Final Tract Map, the applicant shall relocate the proposed retaining wall outside the open space or obtain written approval/ easement from the Tustin Ranch Estate. Design and construction of all public infrastrl;Jcture, in-tract private streets and utility systems, and residential units shall be constructed within one (1) phase. All construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 13 (1 ) 9.4 (1 ) 9.5 (1 ) 9.6 (1 ) 9.7 Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise determined by the Community Development Director and/or Building Official. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and City-observed Federal holidays. The construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. All construction activity must comply with the requirements of the City of Tustin Grading Manual which requires frequent watering of the project site to control dust and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed 15 miles per hour. Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities shall be repaired before acceptance of the tract. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. Any proposed temporary on-site sales or construction trailers shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Any proposed temporary trailers shall meet Title 24 accessibility standards for disabled persons, provide an accessible path of travel, and provide on-site parking. Occupancy of any on- site trailers shall be prohibited daily between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. CONDITIONS & RESTRICT!ONS (CC&RS). (1 ) 10.1 Prior to issuance of building permits or recordation of the final map, whichever occurs first, all organizational documents for the project including Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney. The applicant is responsible for costs associated with the review of these documents. The approved CC&Rs shall be recorded concurrently with recordation of the final map. A copy of the final documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within five (5) days after their recordation. These provisions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. No dwelling unit in the development shall be sold or a Certificate of Occupancy issued, unless a homeowners association has been legally formed with the right to assess Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 14 G. all these properties which are jointly owned or benefited to operate and maintain all other mutually available features of the development including, but not limited to, landscape lots, private streets, utilities, and Lot F for fuel modification purposes. B. The City shall be included as a party to the CC&Rs for enforcement purposes of those CC&R provisions in which the City has interest, as reflected in the following provisions. However, the City shall not be obligated to enforce the CC&Rs. c. Association bylaws must be established. D. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including but not limited to, landscaped areas, tract perimeter walls, private roadways (Le., walkways, sidewalks, driveways), landscape lots, and Lot F for fuel modification purposes. E. Membership in the homeowners association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual Lots A, B, C, 0, E, and F. F. Architectural controls shall be provided and may include, but not be limited to, provisions regulating exterior finishes, roof materials, fences and walls, accessory structures such as patios, sunshades, trellises, gazebos, awnings, exterior mechanical equipment, television and radio antenna, consistent with the ETSP. These controls shall also include all restrictions on privately or commonly owned lots that are affected by the Precise Fuel Modification Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Authority at plan check. Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed in Section d. Examples of maintenance standards are shown below: 1. All common area landscaping and private areas visible from any public way shall be properly maintained such that they are evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, debris, and weeds. All trees and shrubs shall be trimmed so they do not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 15 H. I. Trees shall be pruned so they do not intrude into neighboring properties and shall be maintained so they do not have droppings or create other nuisances to neighboring properties. All trees shall also be root pruned to eliminate exposed surface roots and damage to sidewalks, driveways, and structures. 2. All private roadways, sidewalks, and open space areas shall be maintained so that they are safe for users. Significant pavement cracks, pavement distress, excessive slab settlement, abrupt vertical variations, and debris on travel ways should be removed or repaired promptly. 3. Common areas shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid the reasonable determination of a duly authorized official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. Homeowners association approval of exterior improvements requiring a building permit shall be obtained prior to. requesting a building permit from the City of Tustin Community Development Department. All plans for exterior improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by the City and the CC&Rs. The approved "Site Plan" shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall be enforced by the homeowners association. In addition to the exhibit, provisions regarding parking shall be included in the CC&Rs, including the following: 1. 2. All units are required to maintain a two-car garage. A total of 25 unassigned on-street parking spaces shall be permanently maintained in locations shown on the site plan. Residents shall not store or park any non-motorized vehicles, trailers, or motorized vehicles that exceed 7 feet high, 7 feet wide, and 19 feet long in any parking space, driveway, or private street area except for the purpose of loading, unloading, making deliveries, or emergency repairs except that the homeowners association may adopt rules and regulations to authorize exceptions. 3. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 16 J. K. L. M. N. 4. Residents shall park vehicles in garage spaces. Storage of items may occur in the garages only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage spaces. 5. The homeowners association shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing all parking and traffic regulations on private streets. The proposed CC&Rs shall include provisions requiring the association to develop and adopt an enforcement program for parking and traffic regulations within the development which may include measures for fire access and enforcement by a private security company. 6. Trash and recycling bins shall be placed for collection in locations indicated on the "Refuse and Recycling Container Placement" exhibit no sooner than twelve hours before waste hauling pick up day and removed from view no later than twelve (12) hours after collection. Maintenance of all common areas, landscape (Lots ß, C, D, and E), fuel modification (Lot F), drive aisle (Lot A), driveways (Lot A), etc., shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Television and radio antennas shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Tustin City Code. All utility services serving the site shall be installed and maintained underground. The homeowners association shall be required to file the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one member of the homeowners association board and, where applicable, a manager of the project before January 1st of each year with the City of Tustin Community Development Department for the purpose of contacting the association in the case of emergency or in those cases where the City has an interest in CC&R violations. The homeowners association shall be responsible for establishing and following procedures for providing access to public utilities for maintenance of their facilities within the project area, subject to those agencies' approval. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 17 o. No amendment to alter, modify, terminate, or change the homeowners association's obligation to maintain the common areas and the project perimeter wall or other CC&R provisions in which the City has an interest, as noted above, or to alter, modify, terminate, or change the City's right to enforce maintenance of the common areas and maintenance of the project perimeter wall, shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the City of Tustin Community Development Department. HOMEBUYER NOTIFICATION (1) 11.1 A. C. D. E. F. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a homebuyer notification document that includes the notifications listed below. The notification document shall be signed by each homebuyer prior to final inspection and occupancy, and a copy of the signed notification shall be provided to the Community Development Department prior to final inspection and/or issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy. A notice for potential roadway noise and airport noise that may impact the subdivision, including roadway noise associated with Tustin Ranch Road which is a major road. B. A notice regarding units that are adjacent to aboveground utilities or structures (such as street light standards and fire hydrants) identifying the type of structure and their locations. A notice explaining the location and restrictions associated with the Precise Fuel Modification Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Authority at plan check. A notice explaining the guest parking provisions of the CC&Rs. A notice that Tustin is subject to aircraft overflights into John Wayne airport. A notice explaining the CC&R provisions for curbside placement refuse and recycling containers. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 18 G. A notice indicating that any use of a residence for a business shall be subject to the City's Home Occupation Ordinance and may require zoning clearance and a business license. H. A notice explaining the easements, facilities, amenities, and dedications that will be provided on lettered Lots and indicating all on-site streets, driveways, fuel modification areas, and common areas are to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. I. A notice stating refuse and recycling bins shall be placed for collection in locations indicated on the "Refuse and Recycling Container Placement" exhibit no sooner than twelve hours before waste hauling pick up day and removed from view no later than twelve (12) hours after collection. J. A notice indicating the minimum building setbacks, lot coverage, and restrictions on construction within the fuel modification zone for Lots 8 through 12. K. A notice explaining that residents are required to park vehicles in garage spaces and that garage storage may only occur to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage spaces. L. A notice explaining that the 25 on-street parking spaces are unassigned. M. The developer shall notify all potential homebuyers that potential liens/assessments against the properties include: 1. 2. Reassessment District No. 95.2 fees. Tustin Landscape and Lighting District fees as amended. 3. Mello Roos fees. GRANTS IN FEE AND DEDICATIONS (1) 12.1 The subdivider shall satisfy grants in fee dedication and/or reservation requirements as applicable, including but not limited to dedication of all required street and flood control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements, and water Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 19 (1 ) easements defined and approved as to specific locations by the City Engineer and other agencies. (1 ) 12.2 In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final development plans including, but not limited to: tract maps, parcel maps, right-of-way maps, records of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans are also required shall be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file format is AutoCAD Release 2004 having the extension DWG. Likewise, layering and linetype conventions are AutoCAD-based (latest version available upon request from the Engineering Division). In order to interchangeably utilize the data contained in the infrastructure mapping system, CADD drawings shall be in AutoCAD "DWG" format (i.e., produced using AutoCAD or AutoCAD compatible CADD software). The most current version of AutoCAD is Release 2004. Drawings created in AutoCAD Release 2000 are compatible and acceptable. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. The subdivision bonds will not be released until the "as built" CADD files have been submitted. 12.3 Subdivider's execution of a subdivision and monumentation agreement and furnishing the improvement and monumentation bonds as required by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final map. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY OCFA CONDITIONS (1 ) 13.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a Fire Master Plan obtain approval of the Orange County Fire Authority for all fire protection access roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of every structure on site. The Fire Master Plan should indicate the locations of all proposed fire hydrants on the project. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbs and signage and include a detail of the proposed signage including the height, stroke and colors of the lettering and its contrasting background. contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access, or Bulletin number 08-99, "Fire Department Access Requirements for A Single Family Residence." Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TIM 16782 Page 20 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 13.2 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The "Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection" form needs to be signed by the applicable water district and submitted to the Fire Chief for approval. If sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available, an automatic fire extinguishing system may be required in each structure affected. 13.3 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire Chief for the construction of any gate across required fire department access roads. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Design and Installation of Emergency Access Gates and Barriers." 13.4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the OCFA for a precise fuel modification plan. The plan needs to indicate the proposed means of modifying vegetation to reduce the risk to structures. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guideline for Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance." 13.5 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer, under the supervision of the OCFA, shall complete the portion of the approved precise fuel modification plan determined to be necessary before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval will be subject to an on-site inspection. 13.6 Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the fuel modification shall be installed and completed under the supervision of the OCFA with an approved plant pallet. The CC&Rs or other approved documents need to contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation. The fuel modification zones will be subject to triennial inspections. 13.7 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for any required automatic fire sprinkler system in any structure to the OCFA for review and approval. Fire sprinklers will be required if any of the structures are in excess of fire department access requirements, or if any of the structures are 5,500 square feet or larger. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 for additional information. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3961 TTM 16782 Page 21 FEES (1) (1 ) (1 ) 14.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including, but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. A. Building and grading plan check and permit fees shall be paid to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. B. Private improvement plan check and permit fees shall be paid to the Community Development Department. C. OCFA plan check and inspection fees shall be paid to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. D. New development fees in the amount of $350 per unit shall be paid to the Community Development Department. E. School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District shall be paid to the District based to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the applicant. F. Water and sewer connection fees shall be paid to the Irvine Regional Water District (IRWD). 15.2 The applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin a fee for the review of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and homebuyer notifications at the time of submittal. The review fee includes one initial check and recheck of the document. If subsequent review is required, an hourly fee of $190 per hour (or the rate in effect at the time of submittal) for the City Attorney and $50 per hour (or the rate in effect at the time of submittal) for staff review shall be submitted. 15.3 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of forty-three dollars ($43.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within, such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. ...----..----........ . ---... ........--....-,-............-..-.....-----..--...-..---.-....-............--.....-.