HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 05-25
RESOLUTION NO. 05-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING 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 City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council 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 approving of the Project, the City Council 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 was advertised for public review for 20 days in
compliance with Section 15105 of CEOA.
G.
That at a regularly scheduled meeting on January 24, 2005, the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the purpose of approving Tentative Tract 16782
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 1 of 62
and Design Review 04-024.
H.
The City Council of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented
by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with
respect to the subject draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration at the
February 7,2005, meeting.
II. A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council has received
and considered the information contained in the 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 City Council 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 City Council finds that the project involves
no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife
resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. The City Council
hereby adopts the 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 City Council, held on
the 7th day of February, 2005.
'--I;!/~
LOU BONE
Mayor
~f~
City Clerk
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 2 of 62
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 05-25 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 7th day of
February, 2005, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: BONE DAVERT AMANTE KAWASHTMA
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: NONE
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: HAGEN
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: NONE
(4)
(0)
0)
(0)
~r
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 3 of 62
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 ofTustin
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: LeMar South Coast
Project Sponsor's Address: 25 Enterprise, Ste. 250
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
General Plan Designation:
Plarmed 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.l5563. 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 fue 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
0
City of Irvine
City of Santa Ana
Orange County
EMA
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 4 of 62
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by tills 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
D Hazards & Hazardous Materials
0 Land Use/Plarming
D Noise
D Public Services
0 Transportation/Traffic
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
0 Agriculture Resources
0 Biological Resources
0 Geology/Soils
0 HydrologylWater Quality
0 Mineral Resources
0 PopulationIHousing
0 Recreation
D Utilities/Service Systems
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[8] 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.
D 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 IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
D 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
:5¿~:b! ~~*
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
Title Associate Plarmer
Date January 18.2005
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 5 of 62
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Directions
I)
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 if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is
~~ .
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 Seetion XVII. "Earlier Analyses," may be cress-
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 ErR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(0). 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 refmed from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6)
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to infonnation sources for potential
i:l1pacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
"here appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7)
Supporting Infonnation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)
T!l;S is on]y 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 fonnat is selected.
9)
1 he 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.
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 6 of 62
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
less Than
Signijìc'lnt
Potentially With Les.r Than
Signifk:ant Mitigation Significant
-I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Incarporation Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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 ~
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 ~ 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 ~
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 FarmJand
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 ~
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 ~
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Fannland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0 ~
Ill. AIR OUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project: .
a) Conflict with or obsttuct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan? 0 0 0 ~
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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
-- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 0 0 ~ 0
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? 0 0 Resolu¡Q, No. 05-25 ~
Pelle 7 eflì2
IV. BIOLOC tCAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate. sensitive. or special status species in local or
regional plans. policies. or regulations, or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional p :'::1S, policies, regulations or by the California'
Department 0 f Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have 1 substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands os 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?
d) Interl.re substantially with the movement of any native
resident o. ;¡¡:gratory fish or wildlife species or with
establish,.! native resident or migratory wildlife corridor¡¡, or
impede tI1e us. afnative wildlife nur¡¡ery sites?
e) Cone 'ct with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biologic" ,-.sources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance'
f) ConCct with the provisions of an adoptOd Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other apr .,cd local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CUI TUHA L RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cau' , " substantial adverse change in the significance of
a histone.., resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a stlbstantial adverse change in the significance of
an archae :"gicol resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Dire' .1r indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource. r site or unique geologic feature?
d) Db"b ar.y human remains, including those interred
outside lormal cemeteries?
VI. GLC .,OGY AND SOILS: - Would the project:
a) E\p ,people or structures to potential substantial
adverse ;-ts, including the risk oflass, injury, or death
involvin.
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 8 of 62
Potentially
Significant
Impact
LeS$ Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
No Impact
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
0
0
0
181
0
0
0
181
0
0
0
181
0
0
0
181
0
0
0
181
0
0
0
181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 181
Less Thon
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
-- i) Rupture ora known earthquake fault, as delineated on the {mpact {ncorporation (mpact No {mpacr
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 I8J
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 I8J 0
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 I8J 0
iv) Landslides? 0 0 I8J 0
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 I8J 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 I8J 0
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B
of the Uruform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property? 0 0 181 0
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disp<>sal systems where
- sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 0 0 0 181
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transpon, use, or Wsp<>sal of
hazardous materials? 0 0 0 181
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 0 181
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or prop<>sed school? 0 0 0 181
d) Be located on a site wlrich 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 0 181
e) For a project located within an aÌlport land use plan or,
where sucb a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
- public airport or public USe aÌlport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? 0 0 0 181
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing Resolution No. 05-25
or working in the project area? 0 0 ê;lae 9 of 62 181
Less Than
Significant
Pot~nlially Wilh Less Than
Significant Miligation Significant
g) 1mr " in1plemenlation of or physicaUy interfere with an Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
adopted ,"'gèney response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? 0 0 0 C8J
h) Expo . people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
Injury "" 'Jlh involving wildland fU'es, including where
wild!. L; Illjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are i¡""ni, ,'.1 with wildlands? 0 0 t8J 0
VIII. BY ,/IWI.OGY AND WATER OUALITY: - Would
the proje."
a) Vio all>, water quality standards or waste discharge
require",' IS? 0 0 t8J 0
b) Subst liaily deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
sub""n'Ü, wi,h grounllwater recharge such that there would
beal eta ,',,' aqui fer volume or a lowering of the local
groUi,lw lli, Ie level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existieg', wells would drop to a level which would not
suppo", ,!." g land uses or planned uses for whlcil permits
have bee ""nted)? 0 0 0 t8J
c) Seb: ,"¡"ity alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or arca, i 'J<li ng through the alteration of the course of a
stream or vcr, in a manner wilich would result in substantial
erosi"n or citation on- or off-site? 0 0 t8J 0
d) 'ubs' alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or are,', i, , illg through the alteration ofthe cou"e ofa
slrea" I 0 , c'r substantially increase the rate or amount of
surf., cr' ,e, ia a manner which would result in flooding on-
orofhiiC 0 0 t8J 0
e) ('Co.' 0:' contribute runoff water which would exceed the
cap",.ty , existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or pI ,vide, .'.lbsrantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 t8J 0
t) ,Ither substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 C8J 0
g) 'ac' ",."g within a lOG-year flood hazard area as
mar j ;,: "al F iood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Inse' 1l ,:0 \lap or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 0 t8J
h) Pace 'vitb in a IOO-year flood hazard area structures
whic .1' ,<I ¡:npede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 t8J
i) ,xpo "cople or structures to a significant risk ofloss,
injurv or C "th involving flooding as a result of the failure ofa
leve, or d 0 0 0 ~
j) ,In o"'y seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 t8J
k) I. ,:..y Impact stormwater runoff from construction
activi,iè 0 0 t8J 0
Resolution No, 05-25
Page10of62
Less Than
Significanf
Potenfialty With Less Than
Signijicam Mitigation Significant
Impact (ncorporation tmpacr No Impact
I) Potentially impact storm water nmofffrom post-
construction activities? 0 0 ~ 0
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater
pollutants 1i'om 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 ~ 0
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect
the beneficial uses oflbe receiving waters? 0 0 ~ 0
0) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow
velocity or volume of stonnwater 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 Ibe project:
a) Physically divide an estahlished 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 I8J
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan OT
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 ofvatue to the region and the residents
of the state? 0 0 0 I8J
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 establ ished in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 I8J 0
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? 0 0 ~ 0
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 11 of 62
Les.' T~n
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
c) <"n'lUl permanent increase in ambient noise levels Impact tncorporution Impact No Impact
in tll pro" t 'icinity above levels existing withoutthe
pro}, ,t? 0 0 ~ 0
d) ,\ sul"'ontiai temporary or periodic increase in ambient
nois in tho project vicinity above ievels existing
will ""ojeer' 0 0 @ 0
e) Fe , rojecr located within an airport land use plan or,
where d. "plan llas not been adopted, within two miles of a
pub], 11,or public use airport, would the project expose
peorle 'in~ or working in the project area to excessive
nois, I", .' 0 0 0 I8J
f) "or a mojcc! within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
wou' " 'rnjeet expose people residing or working in the
proje to excess noise levels? 0 0 0 I8J
lli.h " LATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) èn", substantial population growth in an area, eitb..r
dire,.. ,oJr¡¡ple, by proposing new homes and
busi 1e or ind;"cctly (for example, through extension of
road '" ,er in:"'Clstructure)? 0 0 ~ 0
b) "'sp'lce ,u[-s;antia! nllmbers of existing housing,
nece og the construction of replacement housing
elsev 0 0 0 ~
c) Dr , ',' slIb",mti,,1 nllmbers of people, necessitating the
cons!r Il ofrcpiacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 ~
XIII, L1C SF:RVICES
a) '\ Jl.:. the project result in substantial adverse physical
impac" ac,ocicted will, the provision of new or physically
alter CCI'Il:ll,',"al facilities, need for new or physically
alter , ""'i:lwltal facilities, the construction ofwhicb
coul. sign rtìcant environmental impacts, in order to
maint" ceptab!e service ratios, response times or other
perfon objectives for any of the public services:
[. "kctio,,', 0 0 0 I8J
p, :orotection? 0 0 0 I8J
: l' 0 0 0 I8J
0 0 0 ~
ubile facilities? 0 0 0 ~
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 12 of 62
¿"SO rhan
Significant
Potenlia/(v With Less Than
XIV RECREATION - SignifICant Mitigation SignifICant
lmpacl (",,-orporalion lmpaci No lmpacl
a) Would the project incroose the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would ocCW' or be accelerated? 0 0 ~ 0
b) Docs the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 ~ 0
XV. TRANSPORT A TIONrrRAFFIC - 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? 0 0 0 ~
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? 0 0 0 ~
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? 0 0 0 ~
t) 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)? 0 0 0 ~
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Woutd the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Contra! Board? 0 0 0 ~
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treattnent facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? 0 0 0 181
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
- drainage facilities oc expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? 0 0 0 181
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 13 of 62
Less Than
Significant
Potenrially With Less Than
Significanr Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
d) . ,umc iellt water supplies avaijabJe to serve the
proj, 'i'e;n existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expa I "ntirlemen!s needed? 0 0 0 t8I
e) {, ,,: in a determination by the wasrewater treatment
prov: "ieh serves or may serve the projectthat it has
adeq ¡¡",city to serve the project's projected demand in
addi! tile provider's existing commitments? 0 0 0 t8I
f) \Cd by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to ac c" "hte the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 0 t8I
g) 1 If Iy witll ¡cderal, state, and local statutes and
regu: ' , rehted to solid waste? 0 0 0 t8I
h) \ I the pruject include a new or retrofitted storm water
treat' ':ltro! Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g.
wale treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands),
the 0 1;1 of which could result in significant
envir IItal effects (e,g. increased vectors and odors)? 0 0 0 t8I
XVI I "DA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) j ite project have the potential to degrade the quality
ofth , Ifonment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wild! 'cies. couse a fish or wildlife population to drop
bel" c maming levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
ani" 1un ity, reduce the number orrestrict the range of
a rill, ",~ngcred piant or animal or eliminate important
exan ; the major periods of California history or 0 0 0 t8I
preh' i)'
b) , "10 project have impacts that are, individually
limit I, I oumulativcly considerable? ("Cumulatively
cons, ,e" m"¡~s that the incremelltal effects of a project
are c , ',nble when viewed in connection with the effects
of 1" "cts, Ih,-, elfects of other current projects, and the
efL ' ,haole future projects)? 0 0 0 t8I
c) ,:-' p",¡cet have ellvironmental effects which will
caus :JIltiai :¡dverse effects on human beings, either
direl UJ indirectly? 0 0 0 t8I
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 14 of 62
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 Sjemificant 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
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 15 of 62
p.':::chi1"l1t A
1 :,67:;: ond 0"04.024
P;lge2ul'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 Slatewide 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. ¡-iF< QUALITY
I:ems 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
R IDtistr~t'sRf-¥5QA Air Quality Handbook is intended to provide professional guidance
p:~~~o~rtÆå yžlng and mitigating air quality impacts of projects whEm preparing
Attachment A
ITI6782 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 Fedèral or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor
affecting a substantial number at 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 ImDact:
As identified by Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the Air Quality Management District's CEOA
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 EIRÆIS. 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 Resolution No. 05-25
Page 17 of 62
Att3chment A
TT 16 782 one! DR 04-024
Page ,lot' I ~
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a to f - No Impact:
The property is currently a vacant site surrounded by roads, a school, and an open
,pace 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 an imals. Given that this is an urban infil1 project, it is not anticipated that there will
l e i'llpacts 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
,tanding water or riparian or wetland species are apparent on the property. No
i npacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in
[)Gal 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.
i .1itigation Measures/Moniloring 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.
IVlitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
ETSP
ETSP EIR 85-2
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 18 of 62
Attachment A
TTl6782 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 Sianificant Imoact:
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 Imoact:
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
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 19 of 62
Attachment A
TTI67ö2 Qild DR 04-024
Pagei)ot:~
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 modificatjon zone between the tract and the adjacent naturally vegetated open
space parcel to the east in compliance with Orange County Fire Authority standards.
Sourcc:s:
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
,!ohn '.^Jayne 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
Or2nc;e County Fire Authority and no comments were received indicating that the
pro~ect 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.
Mitigotion 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
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 20 of 62
Attachment A
ITI6782 and DR 04-024
Page 7 of 14
8. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Items a. c. d e. f. k. I. m n o. & 0 - Less Than Sianificant Imoact:
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 drainag,e 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 pñor 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
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 21 of 62
Attachment A
lTI6782 and DR 04-024
PageJol14
Items b, a. 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
rercoiation 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
D6059C0282H, nor is the project located within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area and the
project will not will impede or redirect flood impede or redirect flood flows. The
rroject site will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
(!eath as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or by inundation by seiche,
~sui1ami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
Sourœs: 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
~onsistent 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
d',":=II:ngs 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
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 22 of 62
Attachment A
TII6782 and DR 04-024
Page 9 ofl4
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 Sianiftcant 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 10Y.(er
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
Resolution No. 05-25
, Page 23 of 62
Attach:,,':nt t\
TTI6Î:'~ and DR 04-024
Page 10 of 14
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
ETSP EIR 85-2
Itc:ns 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:
Ti1G 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
d\'.'elling 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
al'CJwed. An increase in population was previously anticipated with the adoption of
the ETSP which, in conformance with the Housing Element of the General Plan,
ici;ntified 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
'tens 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
nL'mbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
~:~~~~~~Rifgasures/Monitoring Required: None
Attachment A
TTI6782 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 sa 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 Sianificant Imeact:
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 MeasureslMonitoring Required: None Required
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 25 of 62
Attachment ^
TI16nZ and DR 04-024
Page 12 of 14
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
ETSP
ETSP EIR 85-2
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Item a & d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact With Mitiqation Incorporation:
Tile 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 RoadlRawlings Way
injersection, 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
RZiod 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
C;::pitallmprovement 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
net generate a significant traffic impact on street systems other than the north bound
lef(.turn lane.
M:tigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
tvUigation 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 &
i\ssociates, dated January 2005 for the project. The study indicates a 1.9 percent
proportionate share for the project impacts at the Tustin Ranch RoadlRawlings
'. 'lay 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
rei:eve the applicant of any further traffic mitigation obligations.
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 26 of 62
Attachment A
IT] 6782 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 & a - 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 altemative transportation such as bus tumouts 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 & a - 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.
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 27 of 62
Attachm,"t ,\
IT] õ7B2 and DR 04.024
Pagel4ofl4
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,ICd"'",.oENV'RONMENTALlTTI6782 DR <>4-024 INITIAL STUDY AllðehmentA.-
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 28 of 62
A TT ACHMENT B OF EXHffiIT A
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 29 of 62
Resolution No. 05-25
Page 30 of 62
Limited T raffle Study for
a Residential Proj ect
in the City of Tustin
January 2005
Prepared for:
Lennar- South Coast Homebuilding
25 Enterprise, Suite 250
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
949/349-8150
Prepared by:
=- Katz, Okitsu &: Assodates
...... 1><1/11& e.,m-. ØN/ ~ "",."",
17852 E. Seventeenth Street, Suite 102
Tustin, California 92780-2412
714/573-0317 Phone
714/573-9584 Fax
Project No: JA4752
17852 E. -'" So.
Suite 102
Tullin, CA
92780-2142
714573.0317
lax: 714.573-'1534
koooc@Iu.aoIdau.com
www.lc1aiokI-
w A/tIIU
323.260.4703
1uc.323.260.470S
$arlDiefo
619.683.2933
Iuc 619.683.7982
San........,.,.
'109 .89Ð.'969 3
fax: '10'1.890.96901
~ Katz, Okitsu &: Associates
.... T"'¡¡¡c~IIItI/n-~1'IIIIr-.
January 14, 2005
Mr. Todd Refling
lennar- South Coast Homebuilding
25 Enterprise, Suite 250
Ailsa Viejo, CA 92656
Subject:
Limited Traffic Study £Or a Residential Project in the City of Tustin
Dear Mr. ReEling:
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 Read 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 ancHorwarding 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 ofTustin. ".."..-
~
Rock Miller, F.E.
Principal
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION.........................................................,......."..."..................................................1
2.
PROJECT STUDY METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................4
3.
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
EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................................................7
4.
EXiSTING CIRCULATION NETWORK ......................................................................................................... 7
F ...\K HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF ...SERVICE.................................................................................... 7
Signalized Intersections......................................................................................................................]]
FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDmONS WITHOur PROJECT .......................................................12
5.
FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH..................................................................................................................... 12
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF"SERVICE........................................................................"""""'" 12
Signalired Intersections...................................................................................................................... ]2
:ROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC...................................................................................................15
6.
P¡WJECT TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................""""""""""'" 15
PROJECT TRAFFIC........................................................................... ........................................................ 15
FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDmONS WITH PROJECT ................................................................18
7.
PFAK HOUR INTERsECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE..................................................................................... 18
Signalized Intersections...................................................................................................................... ]8
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................................................................21
8.
: ",SITE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS.................................................,.................................23
9.
ACCeSS ROADS AND DR/VEW AYS ................................................................................................."""'" 23
GA" REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 23
; .~:TIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................25
10.
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................26
.J~a,¡l. akit&1 & Associates
.. ." . 'JJt,~8w\l,y,;'!i~1 T""'~""~n PI""",
'320(62' "
City of Tustin
Rawlingf Way Rtsid~ntial Traffìc Impact Study
List of Figures
FIOURE I - PROJECT LOCATION...................................................................................................................... 2
FIGURI!2 - PROPOSED SITE PLAN...............................................,..".............................. .................................3
FIGURE 3 - EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY .......................................................................................... 8
FIOURE 4 - ExISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AM PEAK HOUR ......................................................................... 9
FIGURE 5 - EXISTING T'RAFFICVOLUMES, PM Pl!AKHOUR """"""""""""""""""....................................10
FIGURE 6 - FuTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Wm¡OUT PROJECT, AM PEA/( HOUR .......................................... 13
FIGURE 7 - FuTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WmlOUT PROJECT, PM PEAK HOUR........................................... 14
FIGURE 8 - PROJECTT!up DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................................................17
FIGURE 9 - FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT. AM PEAl< HOUR................................................. 19
FIGURE 10 - FuTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WmI PROJECT, PM PEAK HOUR.................................:.............. 20
List of Tables
TABLE 1 - LEvELS OF SERVICE FOR INTERSBCTIONS ..................................................................................... 5
TABLE 2 - PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................. 11
TABLE 3 - PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CONDITIONS FlITURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS """""""'" 12
TABLE 4 - PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT TRIP GENERATJON................................................................ 16
TABLE 5 - PROPosED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ...................................................................................... 16
TABLE 6. PEA/( HOUR INTERSECTION CONDITIONS FlITURE WmI PROJECT CONDITIONS........................ 18
TAB[.E 7 - LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS IDBTERMINATJON OF IMPACTS ................................................... 21
TABLE 8 - QUEUE LENGTH PROBABIUTY - RANDoM ARRIvALS AT GATE ................................................. 24
A ppcndiccs
- .
Appendix A - Existing T r~ffk Counts
Appendix B - Intersection Level of Service Worksheets
Appendix C - Intersection Level of Service Concepts
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
r"(fi< bI,..""" "",I r"""""""¡,,, PI...."
ii
Po"
1,~. Introduction
The subject of this traffic impact study is a proposed project known as "Camellia", consisting of
25 s cr. gle- family homes within a gated community in the City of Tustin. The proposed project is
loCJ ted 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
Fi?ure 1 and the proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2
c. ,y of Tustin had previously approved a 27,548 square-foot church and day care facility for
the :'roject site. The City approval for this project has since expired.
The Clcy is requesting a trip generation analysis to show the difference in trips from the site due
to tilC 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
i:' c:sc:tions. The analysis is intended to meet the requirements of the City of Tustin.
~:1IIõ.1ðti2siJ & Associates
~-\5ftI6:2"¡j"'m"'d¡"""""'..PI..,.m
City of Tustin
Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study
LEGEND
. Project lo!:abon
N
t
_K Old & A__-'- CityOfTu8lin
iiiIII""~ T,,~~,ginu" ~Ur,...~~ Rawlings Way Reaidential Project
Resolution No. 05-25
Figure 1
Study Area
;¡-..
~ð
\
"'.
~>
C::-.-¡Á"' ~\
.... ('."~ ,'~
~'. ,'" 1'-
':;;.:.
~.
t.
."",
,,-
,.
Resolution No. 05-25
-~:;~~~~T(~'~~~~~~ ~::~g:U;:: Re5idential Project
Figure 2
Sfte Plan
1. Project Study Methodology
This chapter documents the methodologies and assumptions used to éonduct the analysis for the
proposed project. This section contains the following baclcground information:
. Study timeframes
. Study area description
. Capacity analysis methodologies
Study TimefrRtnes
This report presents an analysis of the intersection operating conditions during the morning and
evening peak hours during the following anticipated timeframes:
. Existing Conditions (Year 2005)
. Opening Year 2006
Project Struly 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 Portela Parkway
The study area
AlUllysis Muhodologies
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!
Leve! 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 VIC or
delay over the defined threshold. For further information on these significance thresholds see
Appendix C.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
r"ff- f,t~i.un ."J r,.""""".. Pi""",
4
eso 5
g få2
Rawlings Way Residential Traffic ¡",pact Study
Pro;w Study Methodofogy
I,lersection Capacity Analysis
-, Le analysis oE peak hour intersection conditions was conducted using the TRAFFIX software
':~ogram 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)
-:-. '~¡c conditions in Southern California are often evaluated during peak hours at intersections
l! '¡ng a methodology known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) technique. This is the
L,ercrred analysis method Eor the City of Tustin. This analysis method is widely accepted and
,eatially measures the amount of traffic signal "green" time required for the intersection. It is a
";niEicant variation from the HCM method; however it produces results that are generally
"",¡¡ar, The City of Tustin generally requests that this method be used in the City, so all
51~nalized intersections were analyzed based on this method. Table 1 shows the relationship
'oc:ween Level of Service and the ICU Method volume/capacity criteria for signalized
... ~:::"ctions.
Table 1
Levels of Service for InterHCtions
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
T . ,Tic Count Data
L~l, 'r, g daily and peak hour traEEic data was obtained from Traffic Data Services from Santa Ana,
c.,J::arnia, in October, 2004. All traffic count data used in this study is compiled in Appendix A.
F¡ .re Traffic Volumes
D "v and peak hour traffic volumes for Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way under future
cc" ".¡ans were Eorecast based on a 1% annual growth rate from existing conditions. Project trips
v- . c ¿.:'cied to this background base to determine the relative impact of the project.
&.lutr'~iJ.,ó$L:iIPU & Associates
~f'~~£n,;nw, a". T"",..."a"", Pia."",
5
City of Tustin
Rawlings Way Residemiaf Traffic Impaci Study
Proj.ct Study M<thodoloSY
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
Traffi, bq¡i..." <no T""""",,~, p¡....~
6
. 5
à>, j!p~2
Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study
.
,..."." xisting Conditions
,'~is section documents the existing conditions in the study area, including local land uses and
':;iveway locations. The discussion presented here is limited to specific roadways in the project
"i:inity. The project location is on Rawlings Way north of Tustin Ranch Road in the City of
-.:stin.
. '1'.; Circulation Network
-eels in the project vicinity which could be affected by the proposed project include Rawlings
. ;y, Tustin Ranch Road, and Portola Parkway. The existing roadway circulation network was
.- j¡'iJ previously in Figures I and 2. Existing intersection geometry is shown in Figure 3.
. "'ings Way is a 2-lane street on a northwest-southeast alignment located immediately to the
Jul:o of and adjacent to the project site. The street has a signalized intersection with Tustin
,. -I Road. The prima facie speed limit on Rawlings Way is 25 mph. Lutd use along the street
urnarily residential, with an elementary school located immediately north of the project site.
j ',,:in Ranch Road is a 6-lane divided arterial on a northeast-southwest alignment located
Î.1 :TIediately to the east of and adjacent to the project site. The street has a raised median with
j, :-turn pockets, and signalized intersections with Rawlings Way and Portola Parkway. The
:: limit on Tustin Ranch Road is 45 mph in the project vicinity. Land use along the street is
- ,,1rily residential, with an elementary school located one block to the north off Rawlings Way.
j .J'-.1 Pûrkway is a 4-lane divided arterial in the project vicinity, located to the northeast of the
p :o:t site on a northwest-southeast alignment. The street has a raised median with left-turn
p - <ets. The speed limit on PortoJa Parkway is 45 mph south of Tustin Ranch Road. Land use
a. .[. the street is residential in the project vicinity. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of
F J[ :a Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road.
~
::]]] circulation is provided by the 1-5 Freeway approximately 2 miles to the south and the
'11 T ol1way approximately 1 mile to the east of the project site.
p, í.: Hour Intersection Level ofServia
F, '. ,; il1ustrates tbe existing peak hour traffic volumes during the AM peak hour, while Figure 5
i1 --,,'s the existing peak hour traffic volumes during the PM peak hour. Peak half-hour
v.', es factored to equivalent hourly volumes are used for the Tustin Ranch Road/Rawlings Way
i: 'ct;on northbound left and eastbound right per direction from the City, Based on these
e "g traffic volumes, level of service analyses were conducted for the two study intersections.
TJ resul:s of these analyses are summarized below in Table 2 for the existing conditions.
Jlsoh,¡tiOm.::~Q,,~~li¡u & Associates
.1f'4G.df'ß2E"gi"'" ",J r""""""w, Pi","",
7
City of Tustin
Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study
!..-..
LEGEND
.
e
Study I nllnocton
$V1a1ized Intneâlon
N
t
~ Interædial L.... ~
_Katz, Okitsu & Associates City OtTum
T""", E'gi'utl ....¡ T'..',.'l4IfMl'l...", R8Wllngs Way Residential Project
Resolution No. 05-25
62
Figure 3
Existing Geometry
.
.
LEGEND
1,
"'oject Location
CAudy I nterseclion
N
t
xx. Turning Movement Count
Resolution No. 05-25
fg~~. ðkitsu & Associates city OfTustin
C """",..d Tr"""o""'io, "',,"en Rawlings Way Residential Project
Figure 4
Existing Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour
LEGEND
. Project Location
.
Sludy '_n
N
t
JÕ(ì Tuming Movement Count
_~~g2,~~~~~~ ~~~:;:: Rnden~ p~
Resolution No. 05-25
Pa e430f62
Figure 5
Existing Traft'Ic Vofumes- PM P....... 1-/"",
Existing Conditions
Table 2
Peak Hour Intersection Conditions
Existing Conditions, Year 2004
Intersection AM Peak Hour I 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
su & Associates
f'62" ,.,;,,'" ",' T,..""""o. PI""","
11
City of Tustin
Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study
4. Future Tt.tffic Conditions \VÜhOllt 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 Traffu: Growth
Peak hour traffic volumes for Rawlings Way, Tustin Ranch Road, and Portola Parkway under
near-term future rr ear 2006) conditions were forecast based on a 1% per year growth factor.
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Sen¡Ü;e - Future NeIlr 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 ConditioDl Year 2006
Intersection AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour
~d huÌ!rilection. .. ....
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
T"fl- """""""JT"""."",,~, Pi...."
1Z
a 1/ 2
Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study
N
t
Resolution No. 05-25
.v - Oki & Ass. City OfTustin
iìiI:i!!II"""'" ~ ',7.s;"'" ~~TM"""""';~~~~ Rawlings Way Residential Project
Figure 6
Future Tra1lic Volume W/O ProiectAM Peak Hollr
N
t
Resolution No. 05-25
.u- Old & A__-,-tes CItyOfTU8Iin FIgure 7
~~~-.;-- ts'-~7:"".~""" m_.--
""II'-~'-' - ,_. '~.'" R8WliOlJl~R88ldenti8IProjeCl FutureTrafficVolurJ1l!SW/OProjectPMPeakHour
:;'~,,' 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
" ?'"neration is a measure or forecast of the number of trips that begin or end at the project site.
01 part of these trips will result in traffic increases on the streets where they occur. Traffic
,:nerated is a function of the extent and type of development proposed for the site.
";::J 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
SO'". ar.d are specific by land use for a given time period (Le. AM peak hour). Trip generation rates
.'C' expressed as a function of a given characteristic of the land use area (Le. floor area, site area,
. 'r of enployees, or seating capacity The rates are based on regression analysis, and are
ived from field observations from as many sources as possible. At each site, trips in and out of
~::, ère counted, trip rate modifiers are identified and regression analysis is used to derive a "best
r-' for a particular land use. An equation is developed which calculate an average trip generation
rc..: for the specific land use.
r. ,'eet Traffic
rty of -:-ustin had previously approved a 27,548 square'foot church and day care facility for
rroject site. The City approval for this project has since expired. The trip generation for this
¡ cèviol:sIy approved project is shown in Table 4.
1 t f'f] generation for the new proposed project consisting of 25 single-family homes is shown in
1 de;e 5, The project trips summarized in these tables are based on trip generation rates provided
kiTE Trip Generation, 7th Edition with consideration of comparable trip generation rates for
S r ;IJr uses in this region. This report is widely used in Southern California and indicates the
'aLic traErc generation rates for various land uses based on studies of existing developments in
,'~Ja!Jble settings, As shown in Table 5, the proposed project is expected to generate
a. ToximateJy 240 daHy trips. Of this amount, 19 are expected to be in the AM peak hour,
i: ::;.lg 5 trips entering and 14 trips exiting the site. There are expected to be 25 trips during the
I è: k hour, including 16 trips entering and 9 trips exiting the site. There is no trip generation
C ".tly associated with the project site. Figure 8 illustrates the expected trip distribution for
~e project trips.
Rþsoh.lljØÁ~~su & Associates
plo$Æ!jlf;~, """,n "..d r""'p'n..,"" PI""",~
15
City of Tustin
Rawlings Way ResidtntiaJ Traffic Impact Study
Proj~ct .Related Traffic
Table 4
Previously Approved Project Trip Generation
Land Use Measure Daily AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour
I Total I In Out I Total In Out
Trip Generation Rates
Church KSF' 9.11 0.72 0.39 0.33 0.66 0:23 0.32
lTI! Code 560
Day Care Student 1.52 0.81 0.43 0.38 0.86 0.40 0.46
lTE Code 565
Véhicle t ripŠ
Church 27,548 SF 251 20 11 9 19 10 9
lTE Code 560
Day Care 250 380 203 108 95 215 100 115
lTE Code 565 Students
rrotaI Project Trips 631 223 119 104 234 110 124
Note 1: !<SF ~ Thousand Square Feet
Table 5
Proposed Project !rip Generation
0.37
Îngle Family DetadJed HOU8ing 25DU
TE Code 210
240
19
5
14
25
16
9
240
19
5
14
25
16
9
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
r,.rr. &8;"'" d.J r'd"""",.. PIn..""
16
Ci~~ 4B1IWiG2
Rawlings Way RlSidentjal Traffic Impact Study
N
t
Resolution No. 05-25
City Of Tustin
Rawlings Way Residential Projed
Figure e
Trip Distribution
6. Future Traffic Conditions VVith 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 cons~rvative.
Peak Hour lntersu:tion 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 Levd 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 AJ:,/¡ and PM peak hour
volumes, respectively-
Table 6
Peak Hour Intersection Conditions
Future With Project Conditions, Year 2006
Intersection AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour
SigncUized Intèrsectiom
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
r"'ff< E..i..." ..J T'."""."" "...on
18
5
CiI¥~m_2
Rawlings Way Residential Traffìc Impact Study
N
t
Resolution No. 05-25
_Katz, Okitsu & Associates City Of Tustin Figure 9
iiiI!P"'" r"!fit ['"",u" ,.. r"."",.,¡,. PI...", Rawlings Way Residential Project Future Tralli.c Volumes With Project AM Peak Hour
N
t
Resolution No. 05-25
Pae530f62
_Katz, Okitsu & Associates City OfTullin Figure 10
iiI!Il""'" r,.f/ic £'8;""" .,.¡ T,."".".,... Pt._" Rawtlngs Way ~esidentlal Project Futura Traftic Volumes With PJcject PM P",,* Hno..
Octcnl1in.1I ioll Of Signifkant Impact
c'
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
re!ated traffic would cause level of service to deteriorate to below the minimum acceptable level
by a measurable amount. lmpacts may also be significant if the location is already below the
f'1inimum acceptable level and project related traffic causes a further decline.
" \e Cty of Tustin has identified Level of Service D as the minimum allowable service level during
r ':k ':ours at signalized intersections in the City. Most arriving traffic will clear the intersection
on tee first allowable green cycle under this level of service. Mitigation measures should be
cons;dered when traffic conditions are forecast to decline to poorer levels of service.
:-:Oc level of service analyses for the Future (Year 2006) .study scenarios determined that level of
s -.,'" 'Nil] remain at Level A under both the "Future Without Project" and "Future With Project"
,;OS, for both study intersections. The project will not create a significant impact at either
o. :h.C study intersections in the Future scenarios. Table 7 provides a comparison of the levels of
su.- and voJume/capacity ratios of aU study scenarios for the Future condition. Traffic impacts
cr ": . by the project can be evaluated by comparing the "Future Without Project" condition to
tl . uture With Project" condition.
Table 7
Level of Service Analysis IDetermination of Impacts
for Future Conditions
Intersection
No
Existing
",'1 Ranch ReI & Rawlings Way AI 0.552
..:1 R.3nch Rd & Portola Pkwy
jr: l),anch Rd & Ra wlings Way A 10.483
L. .;" i\anchRd &PortolaPkwy A/O.317
N,'" LOS = Level of Service; VlC = Volume/Capaoty
No
.SOIUtiqQ-No,. ~fu & Associates
.e 54 of 62""""" m,J T;a""""",," Plmm
21
City of Tustin
RawlinS$ 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
vehicIes 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 approxiInately 2:30 PM due to the presence of the nearby
elementary school. It is estiInated that the proposed project will contribute approximately 4
vehicles (1.9%) of the traffic during the afternoon peak hour.
Turn 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 hour1y volumes for the
northbound left movement to allow for adequate queuing capacity during the peak half-hour
periods.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Twill( &OR""" and T".".."",," PI....."
.u
e~ - 5
e 2
Rawlings Way Rtsidential Traffic Impact Study
!o,.itc Circulation and Access
tt.
£\ccess Roads and DriVewAYS
T:
. project is proposed to access Rawlings Way at one location near the center of the south
.dary of the site. This wìlJ be the only site access. Currently the vacant lot occupying the site
:1é) access from Rawlings Way. Traffic conditions on Rawlings Way were observed during the
:Tom in? and afternoon hours. SchooI-related traffic was observed to back-up onto Rawlings
J portion of the project site but leaving the project driveway location clear.
1
è '
?'O;cct site pIan was reviewed for internal circulation. The width of the access drive is
. ;uate for vehicles to easily enter and exit the project. The two interior streets running roughly
Ie! with Tustin Ranch Road are 36 feet in width. These streets have adequate space for
,es to pass each other and to allow for curbside parking on both sides of the street. The
or streets at the front and back of the project site running roughly parallel with Rawlings
arc 32 f. ,t in width. It is reco:nmended that parking be prohibited on the inside curbs of
streets. This restriction will allow adequate space for vehicles to pass each other and
. ~ency vehicle access.
e
c
. Rer,u;remtnts
1
. co nee gate must be designed to provide adequate queue storage for a daily volume of about
:.:des (120 inbound and 120 o'ctbound). The maximum hourly inbound service volume is
. '¡ides, occ.:rring in the PM peak Lour. The entry gate must be designed to allow for storage
'!liclcs wairing for the gate to c:,en, and for vehicles waiting behind them. The storage
PJèlent for the gate is calculated using queuing formulas adapted for use at gate entrances.
:v,mulas also require use of the processing rate. The proposed system is expected to be a
",, for guests which will provide for a processing rate of about 60 seconds per vehicle. There
r:eient room at the entrance for guests using the keypad to not block residents entering the
n
T
k
is
r
1
'r 8 shows: he probability of the queue of vehicles exceeding specific values at the proposed
The table indicates that the expected queue wìlJ be zero most of the time and one vehicle
'"oily. The queue will rarely be more than two vehicles. A storage requirement of two
is recommended, This will require a storage area of approximately 50 feet from the
. ".1 te to the back end of the queue storage area.
gó
oc
ve
se
T . conditions should be adequate with gate control and the exits should provide adequate
v. em one outbound and one inbound I.1ne, pJus room for guests to park while securing entry
W r"t interfering with entering reside"ts.
IésoluticiíiCr>, 0fu1t5u & Associates
~e. 56 6tMngi."" ".J r"""f<"""'. PI...",
23
City of Tustin
Rawlings Way Residtlftial 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 16veh/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
r'd"" Eo,¡i.'", AHJ r"..".nnti.. PIa."",
24
"'SOI
llige
"~c. itigation and Rccommendations
1.
.,' ion measures are required if approval and construction of the project will result in or
.mtly increase unacceptable traffic conditions. They are also appropriate if cumulative
conditions wiIl result in an unsatisfactory level of service and the proposed development
,'outes to these conditions significantly. These conditions are not expected to occur at either
"e intersections in the project study area. The intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and
:s Way, and Tustin Ranch Road and Porto!a Parkway wi1l operate at an acceptable level of
., in Year 2006 including the proposed project conditions. Levels of service will remain at
A with the increase in traffic due to the proposed project.
v
"h level of service is expected ta remain at satisfactory levels, future traffic volumes at
Ranch Road and Rawlings Way indicate that the northbound left-turn pocket storage
" lequired to accommodate traffic turning left from Tustin Ranch Road onto Rawlings Way
. j to be lengthened from the existing 153 feet to a minimum 220 feet. The project should
te a fair share towards the lengtl,ning of this turn pocket. The fair share percentage for
)posed project has been estimated at 1.9% of the total cost of the turn pocket extension.
"..11 cost of lengthening the turn pocket is estimated at $70,000. The fair share for the
j project toward the cost of the turn pocket extension should therefore be $1,330.
1
r"
K~ Glœ&u & Associates
Õ~'8iM"""'T"""","""PI",",,,
25
City of Tustin
Rawlings Way Ruidenrial Traffic ImpaCt Study
./. Conclusions
The subject of this traffic impact study is a proposed residential project known as "Camellia",
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 &om the site due to
l~'r' 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
F M peak hour, including 16 trips 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
] ,ne, plus room for guests to park while securing entry without interfering with entering
residents, A storage requirement of two vehicles at the entIy gate is recommended.
Expected future traffic volumes at Tustin Ranch Road and Rawlings Way indicate that the
north bound 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.
T:1e traffic impact study for the proposed project will be submitted to the City of Tustin, who
\ "1 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 &
Assoçiates 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
~T'.ffi"".i""'."JT,...".""~.P~~..,,
26
Resd!Uliyn:ála: ú¥t-lifj
Rawlings Way Ruidtntial Traffic f,Hpacp%RfJij
Appendix A ,
Existing Traffic Counts
These are on file and may.:beviéwed,':by.'ìn'i;ereSted parties
at the Community Development Department, Tustin City Hall
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
Çity of Tustin
Rawlings Way Residential Traffic Impact Study
Appendix C
Intersection Level of Service Concepts
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
r",(fi, &,,1'0" ... r""""".,ro, ,."....
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A project will nonnally have a significant adverse impact on traffic and circulation if it results in any of
the fól1owing 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 eith~ the numb~ of the vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections); 01',
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 re¡¡idential 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.
~. 'e first is a qua1itative measure, refmed to as Level of Service, which evaluates a roadway's operation
b;.sed on observations. A LOS "A" is an optimal traffic condition, while a LOS "F" represents service
e[ "':estion. A second, more quantitative measure, referred to as Volume to Capacity Ratio (II/C), is the
J of an intersection's or roadway's traffic volumes to its design capacity. The relationship between the
L .; and V /C Ratio are summarized below in Table C-I.
TABLE C-t
DEFINITIONS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE.
I Level ofser-vice Defin!tians
LOS ICU Range NIC Description
Ratio)
A less than 0.60 Free flowing traffic conditions, no congestion.
B 0.60 to less than 0.70 GeneraUy free from congestion. All vehicles may clear signa!
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 iess than to Modera te to severe congestion during peak period.
F 1.00 or greater Severe C"ogestion.
Source; Blodgett/Baylosis Associates, 200J
&~Œ,~i;u & Associates
~ft E->gio,m ,,"J r""'I"""'¡<>H Plmus
City of Tustin
Rawlings Way Rtsidentia/ Traffìc Impact Study