HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3962RESOLUTION NO. 3962
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 16790 AND ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN
REVIEW 04-025, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16790 and Design Review 04-025 is
considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
B. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared
for this project and distributed for public review. The Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the proposed
development.
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence
presented by the Community Development Director and other interested
parties with respect to the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration.
D. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and determined that with incorporation of the mitigation
measures, the project would not have a significant effect on the
environment.
II. A Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The Planning
Commission has received and considered the information contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to approving Design Review 04-025 and
recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16790 and found that it
adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the
basis of the initial study and comments received during the public hearing process,
the Planning Commission finds that there will not be a significant effect as a result
of the project.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16790 and
Resolution No. 3962
Page 2
adopts the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for Design Review No. 04-025. In
addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project involves no potential for
any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as
defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Games Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetin
on the 14th day of February, 2005.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
g of the Tustin Planning Commission, held
JO IE SE
Chairperson
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3962 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the
14th day of February, 2005.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
CO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN'T'
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3IOU
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 16790) and Design Review (DR) 04-025
Project Location: 1361 El Camino Real, Tustin, Orange County, California.
Project Description: A Vesting Tentative Map and Design Review to demolish an existing apartment
complex, subdivide the property into a condominium subdivision, and construct ninety-
three (93) attached condominium housing units on an approximately 4.99 acre site.
Project Proponent: The Ntevis Tustin, LLC., 650 W. Huntington Drive # 201, Arcadia, CA 91007
Lead Agency Contact Perssn "Justina Willkom Telephone: (714) 5733174
The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance
with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
__ __
and on the basis of that study hereby fmds:
^ That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
® That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans
and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
sigruf~cant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial
Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached-and is on file at the Community
Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this
Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and
extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Conununity Development Director, this review
period may be extended if deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 12:00 NOON ON FEBRiIA.RY 14 2005
Date Fanuarv 25, 2005
EIizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN'.>r
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, C.4 92780
(714) 573-3100
INTTrAT. STUDY
A. BACKGROLJNU
.Project Title: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16790 and Design Review- 04-025
Lead Agency: City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency
Contact Person:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's
Name and Address:
General Plan Designation;
Zoning Designation:
Project Description:
Surrounding Uses:
North: Tustin High School
South: Interstate 5 Freeway
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
^ Orange County Fire Authority
^ Orange County Health Care Agency
^ South Coast Air Quality Management
District
^ Other
Justine Wiilkom Phone: (714} 573-3174
1361 El Camino Real, Tustin, CA 92780
Nevis Tustin, LLC., 650 W. Huntington Drive # 201, Arcadia, CA 91007
High Density Residential
Multiple Family Residential (R-3} District
A Vesting Tentative Map and Design Review to demolish an existing apartment
complex, subdivide the property into a condominium subdivision, and construct
ninety-three (93} attached condominium housing units on an approximately 4.99
acre site.
East: Commercial Development
West: Tustin High School
^ City of Irvine
^ City of Santa Ana
^ Orange County
EMA
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
^Land Use and Planning
^Population and Housing
^Geological Problems
^water
^Air Quality
^Transportation & Circulation
^Biological Resources
^Energy and Mineral Resources
^Hazards
^Noise
^Public Services
^Utilities and Service
Systems
^Aesthedcs
^Cultaral Resources
^Recreation
^Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at Ieast one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparers _ Justina VJiI_ lkom Title Associate Planner
~~
~~~ ~~~
`T Date January 25, 2005
E izabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIItONMENTAL it1VV1PACTS
Directions
1 } A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if .the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault. rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g, the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level,
indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than signifcant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced). - ~-
5) Eazlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(I)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following: ____
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects .that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site•specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the. statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited. in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria ar threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and,
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b} Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepazed by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. World the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resowces Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be retied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed
.quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors}?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
°) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
~f people?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Sign cant ~ Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation .Impact No lmpact
^ ^
~ ® ^
® ^ ^
^ ^
a o
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ -~
® ^
® ^
® ^
® ^
® ^
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES• -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either dvectly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identifed in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
{including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nwsery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
Plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects; including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Im act Incor oration . Im act No Im aci
~ ~ ~ ~ C
^ ^ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
^ ^
^ ^
~ ~ ^
~ ~
~ ~ ~
^ ^
^ ^
d-._ i) Rupture of a Imown earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a ]mown fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii} Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b} Result in substantial soil erosion or the Ioss of topsoil?
c)• Be Iocated on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (2001}, creating substantial
_ risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 659625 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an~ airport land use plan ~or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
____ area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard .for people residing
or working in the project area?
Less Than
Sign cant
Potentially With Less Than
Sign cant Mitigation Signifrcant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ ^ p
^ ^ ~ ^
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ~ ^ - ~
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ Q
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
g) . Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
Plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving Wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY• -Would
the project;
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existingnearby wells would. drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted r~moft?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activities?
Less Than
Signif cant
Potentially With Less Than
Sign cant Mitigation Signifrcant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
~ ^ ^
0 ^ ^
~ ^ ® o
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ® ^
o ^ ® o
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ~ ^ ~
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ® ^
t} Potentially impact stormwater runoff' from post-
construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for dischazge of stormwater
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work
areas?
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect
the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow
velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause
environmental harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site
or surrounding areas?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a} Physically divide an established conununity?
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 environments] effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE -
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Sigrrificanl
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ ® o
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ® ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ 0
^ ^ ^ Q
^ ^ ^
^ ® ^ ^
^ ^ ® ^
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport Iand use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or worlang in the
project area to excess noise levels?
XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c} Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) .Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Less Than
Significant .
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant -
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impacr
^ p ® D ._
^ ^
^ ~ []
~ ~ - ~
o ^ o
^ ^
~ ~ ® ^
^ ^ ~
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^ ~ ®.
^ ^
~~
XIV. RECREAT)rON -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFIPIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load.and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the,volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
_ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment}?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f} Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g} Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks}?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Boazd?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmenta] effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Sign cant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
^ ^ ^ L~
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ® ^
o a ^
^ ^ ^
O ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ~
^ ^ ^
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e} Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve fhe project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATARY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Sign cant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impac
~ o ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^ ~
-- 0 ^ ^
5~1CAdUUSTINA4iemy Pdw~II15:u~Nevu ill wYOy.dac
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16790 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04025
NEVIS TUSTIN, LLC.
1361 EL CANIINO REAL
BACKGROUND
The project site is a 4.99 acre parcel improved with sixty-five (65) apartments (T'he Cottages}
and is surrounded by commercial developments to the east, El Camino Real Street and Interstate
5 Freeway to the south, and Tustin High School parking lot and school field to the west and to
the north. The site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District and designated by the
General Plan as High Density Residential which pmvide for the development of duplexes,
condominiums, town homes, and apartments at 15-25 dwelling units per acre. The project
density is at 18.64 dwelling units per acre which is below the maximum-density of 25 dwelling
units per acre allowed by the High Density Residential land use designation.
The project includes demolition of the existing..apartments, aVesting Tentative Tract Map to
subdivide the parcel into a condominium tract, and a Design Review for the review of building
design, site planning, and site development of a ninety-three (93) unit condominium complex.
The project will include the construction of two (2) and three (3) story buildings with basement
parking totaling 156,655 square feet of residential development. Six (6) plans are proposed
which consist of four (4) floor plans (Plans A, B, C, and D) and two (2) variations of Plan A
(Plan AZ and A3). Plans A and B would have 1,580 square feet of floor area, Plan A2 and A3
would have 1,681 and 1,697 squaze feet respectively, Plan C would have 2,035 square feet of
floor area, and Plan D would have 1,984 squaze feet.
1. AESTHETICS
Items a & b -- No Impact:
The property is 4.99 acres developed with an existing apartment complex and is surrounded
by developed parcels. The property is not located on a scenic vista or within a State scenic
highway, thus would not damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or
historical buildings within a State scenic highway.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Item c -Less Than Significant Impact
The property is currently improved and occupied by one-story apartments. The construction
of a three-story housing project would change the visual character of the site and its
surroundings. The site is surrounded by a two-story commercial building to the east, El
Camino Real street and the elevated Interstate 5 freeway to the south, and Tustin High
School parking lot and play field to the west and north. The buildings will be setback fifteen
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 2
(15) feet away from the front property lines, ten (10) feet to eighteen (18) feet away from the
side property lines, and fourteen and half (14%) feet from the rear property line. -These
setbacks are greater than the minimum required setbacks of fifteen (15) feet, five (5) feet, and
ten (10) feet for front, side, and reaz setbacks, respectively. In addition, trees and heavy
landscaping will be planted within the setback areas. Because adequate landscaping, tract
setback from streets, and decorative architecture will be utilized, there will not be any
significant visual impacts to the site.
Item d -Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed new condonunium complex would generate new light sources with installation
of new exterior Lighting for landscape areas, patios, and parking areas. However, the new
sources of light would not adversely affect day- or night-time views in the area since the
amount of lights would be conunensurate with a typical residential project and would be
required to comply with the City's security standards and all lights would be arranged so that
no direct rays would shine onto adjacent property.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
At building plan check the applicant shall submit a photometric study for buildings and
common area lighting and shall ensure that lighting be of a typical residential level and
shall be arranged so that direct rays do not shine on adjacent properties, subject to the
review and approval of the Community Development Director. ~-
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a, b & c - No Impact:
The proposed project will be located on a site that is currently improved and occupied by
apartment buildings and surrounded by developed commercial properties and a school. The
proposed project is not located on a property designated as Prime farmland, Unique farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Lnportance, nor is it located within a property zoned for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract; therefore, the project will have no impacts on any farmland,
nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The
proposed project will not result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural use.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 3
3. AIR QUALITY
Items a, b, c, d & e -Less Than Significant Impact:
The project will temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the area due to
grading of the property and construction activities. Since the site is relatively flat, only minor
grading will be required. The project is below the thresholds of significance established by
Tables 6-2 (operation thresholds) and 6-3 (construction thresholds) of the Air Quality
Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The Air Quality Management
District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook is intended to provide professional guidance for
analyzing and mitigating air quality impacts of projects when preparing environmental
documents.
The construction of fewer than 1,309,000 square feet of building, the grading of fewer than
177.00 acres, and the operation of fewer than 297 condominium units is not considered a
significant impact. Since the total building area will be 156,655 square feet on 4.99 acres of
land and the project would have a total of 93 units, which is less than the operational
threshold of 297 units, no impact is ,anticipated. Less than significant short-term emissions _
associated with grading, construction, and operation of the proposed project will comply with
the regulations of .the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin
Grading Manual, which include requirements for dust control. As such, the proposed project
will not create a significant impacts related to air quality.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations
City of Tustin Goading Manual
Project Application
Field Inspection
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a, b. c, d, e & f - No .Impact:
The site is improved and occupied by an apartment complex and is surrounded with
properties that are developed with pavement and structures. The site is not inhabited by any
sensitive species of animals and would have no impacts on animal populations, diversity of
species, or migratory patterns. No wetlands exists within the project site. The project would
include the removal of trees to accommodate the development and new trees and landscape
materials will be provided in accordance with the Tustin Landscape and Irrigation guidelines.
No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Nevis Tustin
V1TM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 4
Sources: Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a. b, c & d - No Impact•
The property is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District, nor is there
any identified cultural, historic, or archaeological resources identified on the site. The site is
not located in an azea of high paleontological sensitivity as illustrated in the Gity's General
Plan. The project would have no impacts on cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required _
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin Zoning Code _
Tustin-City Code .
Tustin General Plan
6. ~ GEOLOGY & SOILS
Items a-ii, a-iii. & d -Less Than Significant Impact•
The proposed building will be located on expansive soil and is located within an area that
may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground
failure including liquefaction. However, a soils report is required to be submitted prior to
building permit issuance per the 2001 Uniform Building Code to demonstrate compliance
with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures,
foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure
seismic stability. No significant impact is anticipated since the project would be conditioned
to comply with the 2001 Uniform Building Code related to Chapter. l 8.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
2001 Uniform Building Code
Project Application
Field Evaluation
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04025
Page 5
Items a-i, a-iv, b. c, & e - No Impact:
The project site is not located within an area on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map. The project will not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and will not
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Since all new
buildings in the City aze required to operate on the existing sewer system, the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be necessary.
Sources: Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
2001 Uniform Building Code
Project Application
Field Evaluation
7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Items athrough h - No Impact: _
The proposed project involves the construction of a ninety-three (93) condominium complex.
No storage or transports of hazardous materials aze anticipated from the proposed residential
development. The 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 hazazd to the adjacent 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 Sohn Wayne Airport, and there are no private airstrips
nearby. The project has been reviewed by the Tustin Police Department who determined that
the project will not interfere with any evacuation plans. The project has received preliminary
review by the Orange County Fire Authority and no comments were received indicating that the
project would interfere with any evacuation plans. All grading and construction is subject to
compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. As such, the project is not
anticipated to result in any significant hazards.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes
Submitted Plans
Tustin General Plan
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 6
8. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Items a, b, c, d, e, k, 1, m, n & o -Less Than Signifcant Impact:
The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a
relatively flat site with improved site drainage, including roads, curbs and gutters, and
additional landscaping. With new constru'on, there is the potential to impact stormwater
runoff from construction and post-construction activities with stormwater pollutants from the
maintenance of landscape areas and. the trash enclosures. There is also the potential for
discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters and changes in
the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. However, the project is required to
comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and most recently adopted NPDES permit
(Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB} Order R8-2002-0010), thus
reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Together, these regulations
minimize water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into local
waters. As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or degrade water quality in the area.
Mitigation Measures: None Required. -
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001
Items £ g, h, i, i and p - No Impact:
The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a
relatively flax site with improved site drainage and additional landscaping. A significant
amount of stormwater received on-site will percolate into the soil where landscaping is
provided and remaining stormwater will be conveyed through a fossil filter prior to entering a
City stormdrain. City stromwater infrastructure is able to accommodate additional water
from the project. The applicant must provide a drainage and hydrology report to the City and
demonstrate that the private stormwater drainage system will be able to able to handle the
capacity of any wastewater directed into the system. Best Management Practices are
required to be implemented for construction activity and would deter water from flowing off-
site. Any water that would leave the site would be filtered prior to entering a City storm
drain. Best Management Practices will also be implemented to ensure that, once the tract is
constructed, wastewater will be filtered prior to entering the storm drain. As such, the project
will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water
quality in the area.
While the project is located within Zone X (areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood), the
project site is located outside a 100-year flood hazard area {areas of 1 percent annual chance
of flood) as mapped on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. Accordingly, the project will be
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 7
designed and graded with. appropriate drainage system to avoid any potential flood hazards.
The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area structure which will impede or
redirect flood flows. The project site will not expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or by inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. LAND USE PLANNING
Items a, b & c - No Impact:
The property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as High Density Residential
and zoned Multiple Family Residential (R-3}. The proposed use would be consistent with
the applicable land use and zoning regulations. The proposed project would increase
percentage of ownership housing consistent with Goal 3 of the Housing Element, the project
is accessible through the City's current street system, and the project could be supported with
existing transportation and public facilities.
The proposed project would not divide an established community since it includes
construction on an existing site that is already improved with. multiple family residential.
The proposed project is not located in the conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable conservation
plan.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Map
10. NIINERAL RESOURCES
Items a & b - No Impact:
The proposed project is not located on a mineral resource recovery site. The construction of
a ninety-three (93) unit condominium complex on a lot which is improved with an apartment
complex will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 2b790 and DR 04-025
Page 8
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
11. NOISE
Item a -Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
The project will be constructed within an area with exterior Community Noise Equivalent
{CNEL) contours that range from 60 dB to 70 dB (Figure N-1 of Tustin Noise Element). The
provisions of the State of California Noise Insulation Standazds and the City of Tustin Noise
Ordinance limits the indoor noise levels for multifamily residential living spaces to not
exceed 45 dB and exterior noise level to not exceed SSdB. Table N-2 of the Tustin Noise
Element identifies potential conflicts between the land uses and the noise environment. Per
Table N-2, the proposed project falls within Zone A through Zone C. Zone A implies no
mitigation measure will be needed, Zone B implies minor soundproofing may be needed, and
Zone C implies noise mitigation such as construction of noise barriers or building: sound
insulation will be necessary.
Since the buildings along El Camino Real will be located within Zone C, the applicant
submitted an acoustical analysis (Exhibit 1), which analyses potential noise impacts. Based
upon the submitted acoustical analysis, the exterior ambient noise level at the project site is at
71.I dB which is above the exterior noise standards for residential properties of 55 dB. In
this event, Section 4614(c) of the Tustin City Code allows the maximum noise level to be
increased to reflect the ambient noise level of 71.1 dB.
The study also recommends needed noise insulation features in the design of the buildings to
reduce the interior noise level to 45 dB. The noise reduction technique recommended by the
acoustical analysis would be implemented and made as conditions of the project. With the
implementation mitigation measures listed below, potential noise impact would be reduced to
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
Roof ceiling construction will be roofing on ~/2" plywood. Batt insulation will be
installed in joist spaces. The ceilings will be one layer of 5/8" gypboard nailed direct.
• All exterior walls will be 2 x 4 studs 16" o.c. with Batt insulation in the stud spaces.
Exteriors will be exterior plaster or stucco. The interiors will be 5/S gyboazd.
• All windows and glass .doors shown in red light in Figure 1 if the Acoustical Analysis
(Exhibit 1) will be glazed with STC 32 glazing. STC 32 glazing can be provided with
either 1/4" laminated glass or a dual pane assembly with a'/Z" airspace. In either case,
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 9
the glazing supplier should submit a test report documenting the STC 29 rating. The test
report should be prepared in an independent, accredited testing laboratory in accordance
with ASTM E-90.
• All other windows and glass doors may be standard glazing.
• All entry doors would be 1-3/4 solid core doors with weather stripping seals on the sides
and top. Glazing in entry doors should not be accepted.
• There should not be no mail slots in the entry doors.
• If interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be unopenable or
closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning
system to provide a habitable interior environment. The ventilation system must not
compromise the dwelling units or guest room noise reduction.
Sources: Submitted Plans
._ Submitted Noise Analysis (Exhibit 1) -
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Code
Items b, c & d- Less Than Significant Impact:
The project includes construction of ninety-three (93} condominium units on an existing
parcel that is developed with an apartment complex. Although the grading and construction
of the site may result in typical temporary construction noise impacts, the Tustin Noise
Ordinance only allows construction activities to occur during the daytime on Monday
through Saturday to eliminate construction noise during the nighttime hours.
The proposed project will not create excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a permanent
increase in the existing ambient noise levels beyond the established standards.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Item e & f - No Impact:
The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two (2) miles of a public or
private airport. The proposed project is three (3) stories in height with basement parking.
Although the project is not located within the John Wayne Airport flight path, it is in close
proximity to the incoming flights over the State Route 55 freeway to John Wayne Airport.
Nevis 'Ilistin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-Q25
Page 10
The City, County, and .State criteria for Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) for exterior
residential uses is 65 dB consistent with the Tustin Noise standards. I:n accordance with the
California Airport Noise Standards, John Wayne Airport performs quarterly noise monitoring
at several locations. Based on the quarterly noise abatement reports, the project is not
located within the 65 CNEL arealnoise impact area. As a result, no specific method of
construction would be required to mitigate the unanticipated aircraft noise impacts. The
project, however, would be conditioned to meet City's noise standazds.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Code
12. POPULATION & HOUSING
Items sand b - No Impact: _
The proposed project would replace sixty-five (65) apartment units ,with ninety-three (93)
condominium units and increase the number of housing units in the area by 28 units. The
increase in the number of units, however, is within the allowable housing units and
population as identified in the City's General Plan. The increase in housing units and
population would not be substantial in that new public streets or new public services would
need to be created. In addition, the project would replace existing rental housing units with
ownership housing units; thereby, increasing the City's ownership housing units ratio
consistent with Policy No. 3.1 of the Tustin Housing Element of the .General Plan. The
proposed project would not displace substantial number of existing housing, but rather
replace and add additional housing units.
Item c -Less than Significant Impact,
The project site is currently improved with sixty-five (65.) apartments comprised of sixty-four
(64) two-bedroom units and one (1)one-bedroom unit. These units aze rented at market rate
(not considered as affordable units) and the existing residents are on a month to month Lease.
While there will be displacement of existing residents as a result of the proposed project, the
displacement would not be substantial nor necessitate the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere since the impact could be absorbed by the local rental market. Although
the project is not required by law to provide relocation assistance, the project would be
conditioned to provide a minimum of ninety (90) days (Real Estate law requires sixty (60)
days) to current residents to allow adequate time to find replacement housing.
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 11
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
• The developer shall provide current residents with a minimum of ninety (90) days notice
to vacate the project site to allow for sufficient time to find replacement housing.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a - No Impact:
The proposed project would construct ninety-three (93) condominium units. The proposed
project is in an existing urbanized azea where fire and_ police protection are currently
provided. Although the project would increase the number of housing units within the area,
no new streets, public services, or infrastructure would need to be created.
1blitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
14. RECREATION
Items a & b - No Impact:
The project would include a private community pool recreation area to benefit the residents
of the project. However, since the size of the pool area does not comply with the minimum
criteria for parkland dedication, the project would be conditioned to dedicate parkland
elsewhere or pay in lieu fees for parkland dedication in accordance with Section 9331 of the
Tustin City Code. The developer has indicated that they will pay ist lieu fee to comply with
Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code.
While the residents of the project may use existing City's parks, the increased use of existing
pazks would not be such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated, nor would the project include recreational facilities that would have an adverse
physical effect on the environment.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
• Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a minimum of .0065
acre per dwelling unit based on density of 18.64 dwelling units per acre for parkland or
pay fees in Lieu of parkland dedication. The value of the amount of such fees shall be
based upon the requirements of Section 9331.d.3 of the Tustin City Code.
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 12
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Item a -Less Than Significant• Item b - No Impact•
The traffic analysis for this project is contained in a document prepared by Katz, Okitsu &
Associates (Exhibit 2 ). The project is anticipated to generate approximately 744 dell y
vehicle trips. This is an increase of 316 vehicles per day more than the existing land use. EI
Camino Real, where the project is located is a four-lane street and has a capacity of 24,000
vehicles. Currently El Camino Real serves 11,500 vehicles per day. Adding 316 vehicles
per day to the existing Level of service would bring El Camino Real to a total of 11,816
vehicles per day which is-still below the maximum capacity. Therefore the increase of three
(3) percent to the existing level of service is considered to be insignificant. In addition, the
total trips from the site are not sufficient to warrant a traffic signal at this location.
In the AM pear hour, 62 trips ate expected which include 16 trips entering and 46 trips
exiting the site. In the PM peak hour, 73 trips are expected which include 42 trips entering
and 31 trips exiting the site. This is an increase of 32 additional trips in the AM peak hour
and 35 additional trips in the PM peak hour from the current land use. The peak hour volume
of 46 outbound trips is less than the threshold value for minor street volume for the peak hour ~"-~
traffic signal warrant.
In addition to the trip generation study, observations were done before and after school to
assess the interaction of the project with the adjacent Tustin High School. There is very little
interaction between vehicles entering and exiting the project site and vehicles to and from
Tustin High School in either AM or PM high school peak periods. However, re-striping the
existing paved median to provide a 75-foot left turn lane into the project would provide
sufficient room for vehicles to turn left into the project. Pedestrian traffic along El Camino
Real before. and after school was also observed and was found to have little impact on the
ability of vehicles to enter and exit the existing apartments during those periods.
In conclusion, while the study finds that the traffic impacts of the proposed project have no
adverse effect on the surrounding street system, the study uses assumptions and
recommendations that tie to the project design and density. Therefore, should the project's
density or design be modified, a new or revised traffic study would be required.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
• The applicant shall re-stripe the existing paved median to provide a 75-foot left turn lane
into the project.
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 13
Items c, d. e. f & e - No Impact:
The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth wherein the project
will not result in changes to air traffic patterns, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. The
project includes sufficient parking on-site including guest parking to comply with current
parking requirements for the proposed use. In addition, guest parking spaces are dispersed
through out the project to serve each building and to nunim;~E congestion within specific
area of the project. As such, no impacts to parking are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 2)
16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a. b. c. d, e, f •& ¢ - No Impact:
The proposed project will not exceed the requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board or require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
__
facilities. The proposed project will utilize the existing sewer and storm drain systems and thus
will not require construction of a new storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. The
project would be required to submit hydrology report ensure proper grading, drainage, and
sewer systems. The project will utilize the City's existing trash hauler contract, thus not
requiring a new trash hauler. Adequate water supply from existing resources will be available to
serve the proposed project.
Mitigation MeasuresLMonitoring Required: None Required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a, b & c - No Impact:
The project design, construction, and operation will comply with applicable regulations. The
project, by nature of its location and as designed, does not have the potential to: degrade the
quality of the environment; reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal; or, eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
Nevis Tustin
VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025
Page 14
prehistory. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals
to the disadvantage of the -long-term. It does not have impacts that are individually .limited
but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human
beings.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code '
Tustin General Plan
5:1CddVUS7iNAbunmt plemlingiFarvirommeaufWevu Atu~ment A.da
Exhibit 1
Acoustical Analysis
Received {MON)AUG 23 2004 i1:a8
Davy
~5' Associates, Inc. .
Consultarsts in Acoustics
2dz7 ManhaQan Beach Blvd„ Suite 112 • Redonda Bcach, CA 90178-I60{ • 7'eL• 3 Jp-643-5161 • Far; 310.613 SS64 • Email: DavyAarx®aol,corn
.lN2004-84
MR160
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
Tl~e Cottages
Tustin, Catifomia
FOR
Nevis i-tomes, i_LC
Arcadia, California
August, 20G4
R.ece i ved (MON) RUC 23 2004 11 :58
1.0 in#roducti n
At the direction of Nevis Homes, LLC, Davy ~ Associates, Inc. has completed an
acoustical analysis of The Cottages Project in Tustin Callfornia.
The Catifomia Administrative Code (Title 24)~ as enforced by Tustin specifies
maximum allowable interior noise levels of CNEL 45 far all habitable spaces in
residential buildings where exterior noise from transportation sources exceeds CNEL
60.
Section 2.0 of this report contains the results of measurements and calculations of the
future exterior noise environment at the site to determine compliance with these
requirements.
Section 3.0 of this report contains recommendations for complying with the Tustin
interior noise level requirements.
Section 4.0 of this report contains the requirements of the Stafie Building Code
concerning ventiiation_
2.0 Exterior and Future Acaus#ical Environment
Environmental noise ieveis were monitored at the site in Tustin, California on August
18, 2004 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. The bcation of the site is
shown in Figure 1. Noise measurements were made at the south building line.
Noise levels at the site are dominated by traffic on the Rt. 5 Freeway and by traffic on
EI Camino Real ~to the south. No other significant sources of noise were noted during
the site visit.
Environmental noise levels were measured with.a precision integrating LD 820 sound
level meter that had been calibrated with a B&K 4230 Acoustical Calibrator
immediately prior to use. The sound level meter measures and displays the
eQuivaient noise level(LEQ), as well as the maximum and .the minimum noise ieveis
during the measurement period. A copy of the analysis of the acoustical data is
attached to this report.
nc~ci rcu knwiv/11uU L5 LUU4 I I :5~
The data thus collected were analyzed to determine the CNEL level at the
measurement location. The CNEL value was determined by measuring the equivalent
noise level (LEQ) directly, and then calculating the equivalent noise level for each of
the other 23 hours in the day.' This CNEL approach has been ufilized extensively.
The accuracy of this procedure-has been established with automatic 24hour
measurements at the same location. The procedure has always been within
acceptable accuracy limits. The results of-the monitoring and calculations are
summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1
Measured Arntilant Noise Levels In dB
Location Pesk Hour LEQ CNEL
S. Building Line fi7.1 dB - 71,.1. dB
Section 3501.(c) of tfie State Building Code states the following:
Worst-case noise feveis either existing or future, shall be used as the basis for
determining compliance with this Section. Future noise feveis shall be
predicted for period of at (east 10 years from the time of building permit
application. .
CAl,TRANS, Division of Traffic Operations publishes an annual traffic volume book
that contains previous traffic trends. The 2000 traffic volumes on the Caiifomia State
Highway System-Book (the latest edition available? lists an average annual increase
of 2.2% per year in annual traffic volumes for the years 1994 through '! 999. Assuming
that this annual: gfiowth of. 2.2% would hold for this site, it was projected that traffic
volumes would increase by a factor 1.24 by the year 2014. This traffic volume
increase over the next 10 years would result in a 0.9 dB traffic noise increase.
Therefore, the projected future year noise level is summarized in Table 2:
Table 2
Exterior 2014 CNEL Value at the Site in d6
Location CNEL
S. Building Line 72.Q dl3
Seel , for example, '7resula6on of Buildings Against Highway Noise," Bruce Gavy and Steven Slcaie,
Federal Highway Administration FNWA-TS-r 7-242.
2
Keceived (MUN)AUG 23 2004 12:00
With an exterior noise level of CNEL 72:0, the buildings must provide an A-weighted
noise reduction value of at least 27 dB to achieve an interior CNEL 46 value.
Standard construction consisting of 2x4 studs with R-11 insulation, exterior stucco,
interior gypboard, and standard glazing provides a minimum A-weighted noise
reduction of 20 dB.
!f all windows and glass. doors spawn in red high light on Figure 1 are glazed with STC
32 glazing, the noise reduction of this Building will be a minimum of 30 dB..
This means that with the use of standard construction and STC 32 glazing in all south
facing windows and glass doors, interior noise levels should not exceed CNEL 45.
Therefore, the Building will comply with the California Noise Insulation Standards as
enforced by Tustin.
STC 32 glazing can be provided with either 1 J4" laminated glass or a dual pane
assembly with a 112" airspac®. in either case, the glazing supplier should submit a test
report documenting the STC 32 rating. The test report should be prepared in an
independent. accredited testing laboratory in accordance with ASTM E-90.
3_~Consiruction Recommendations
3.1 Roof ceiling construction will be roofing on 1/2" plywood. Batt insulation will be
installed in joist spaces, The cel(ings will be one layer of 5/8" gypboard nailed
direct.
3.2 All exterior wails will be 2x4 studs 16" o.c. with Batt insulation in the stud
spaces. Exteriors wilt be exterior plaster or stucco. The interiors will be 5J8"
gypboard.
3.3 All windows and glass doors shown in red high (fight on Figure 1 will be glazed
with STC 32 glazing. STC 32 glazing can be provided with either 1/4" laminated
glass or a dual pane assembly with a 1/2" airspace. in either case, the glazing
supplier should submit a tes# report documenting the STC 29 rating, The test
report should be prepared in an independent,.accredlted tes~ng laboratory in
accordance with ASTM E-90.
3.4 Alt other windows and glass doors may be standard glazing.
3.5 All entry doors should be 1-3/4 solid core doors with weather stripping seats on
the .sides and top. Glazing in entry doors should not be accepted.
3.G There should be no mail slots in the entry doors.
4
•••~~~~~ ~~•~~~./nvu Lv LVV9 IL.UU
V ntiE ReQuirem®nts
The California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24) states the following paragraph
concerning ventilation:
"If interior allowable noise levels are met •by requiring tftiat windows be
unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify a
ventilation orair-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior
environment. The ventilation system must not compromise the dwelling unit or
guest room noise reduction." '
With windows open, typical noise reduction values will be in the 12 dB range. This
means that a ventilation system must be provided for a!f habitable rooms. This can
normally be supplied with an FAU (forced air unit) with a summer switch. Outside air
intake must be in compliance with Section 12.03.3 of the.'! 997 edition of the Uniform
Building Code.
Bruce A. Davy, P.E.
f.N.C.E. Boarcf Certfied
Davy ~ Associates, Inc.
5
=~J
~t``~_____-----~ i ----_~--------------------._
~"'N~~ <<~ 1PIV 14JflUU c~ LUU4 IY:UI
S~.J TE M4N[TOR-NC; NOISE aNALYSlS
JN2004-84
MR~so
PROJECT: THE COTTAGES
LOCATION: SOUTH BUILDING LINE
TEST DATE: AUGUST 18, 2004
START TIME: 4:00 P
M
ENO TIME: .
.
4:30 P.M.
EQUIPMENT USED: LD 820 SLM
1l1" RANDOM INCIDENCE MIC
WINDSCREEN
B&K 4230 CALIBRATOR
TRIPOD
_
.WIND SPEED INDICATOR `
MICRONTA THERMOMETER/HYGROMETER
TEMPERATURE: 76~
RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 55%
WIND: 0-2 mph
LEQ: 67.1 L90: 60.3
LMAX; 60.7 L50: 63.6 .
LM1N: 58.1 .125: .67.0
CNEL: 71.1 L8: gg_g
LDN: 71.1 L2: 72.1
. L1: 73.1
DA1~'1'
>~ Ei3SOCfATES, INC.
Conr~u? ta.e ~s in Acaus ~i cs
Exhibit 2
Traffic Study
Katz, Oltitsu & Associates
TmfJk: Ewgiwasrs rwd TrwwtpunoQtion Plwwwers
December 2, 2004
17852 E. Seventeenth St.
sane Toe Mr. Scott Yang
7as""' G' .Nevis Homes
9z~so-z~a2
25~ East Santa Clara Street, Suite 210
7Tas73.o3r7 Arcadia, CA 91006
faz: 714.573.9534
ti
~~jj~.j~~''~ ~ ~~ ~~~
.., ._
't°aOCc`'~~~~~+•~m Subject: Limited Traffic Study for Residential Project in the City of Tustin
W W W.kattOkILSLLCOiII '
Dear Mr. Yang:
Katz, Okitsu & Associates is pleased to present the traffic impact study report for a
proposed residential prvject in the City of Tustin. The project is Iocated along EI
Camino Real north of Redhill Avenue and consists of 93 town homes on a 5.2-acre Iot.
The traffic study has been prepared to meet the traffic study requirements of the City
of Tustin for the analysis of traffic impacts associated with the proposed development.
The report is being submitted to you for review-and Forwarding to the City of Tustin.
Please contact our office if you have any questions or comments about the report, or if
you need additional information to complete your submittal. If there are any
comments that require response or revisions, please notify our office as soon as
possible For prompt revision.
It has been a pleasure to prepare this study for Nevis Hornet and the City of Tustin.
Sincerely,
Lot Angeles /~~ ~~~
323.260.4703
fax: 323.260.4705 Rock Miller, P.E.
tan Uiego Principal
6 T 9.683.2933
fax: 6 T 9.683.7962
San 8emardino
909.890.9643
far: 909.890.9694
/ n'y :,i:
.~, qr
J ~ ~, C, •~ ~~%. i
~ ~~. 1 ? ~G r_?'~
s~ ~,~ ~.,
--- ~... LS'~ .i~ ..
J:Icir;eslTUSTIN{/A4708Re4k!!!-E1cnm(RO1Rcpon}7'(J ElCaminaRra!-Trrt~;c5rudpReviieE.doc
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Trnj~i~ Fn,¢n+rrrs and Trairspvnaiwn P/annns
~- Limited Traffic Study for a Residential Project
in the City of Tustin
The subject of this traffic impact study is a proposed townhouse project located along El Camino
Real in the City of Tustin. The developer of the proposed project is Nevis Homes, of Arcadia,
California. The project is at 1361 El Camino Real in the City of Tustin. The proposed project is
replacing 65 existing apartments with 93 new townhomes. The site will provide a total of 217
parking spaces. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site plan is shown on
Figure 2
The City is requesting a trip generation analysis to show the difference in trips from.the site due
to the proposed development, an analysis of the on-site circulation, and access to El Camino Real.
EXISTWG CONDITIONS
EI Camino Real has two travel Ianes in each direction and a center turn lane running parallel to I-5
in the vicinity of the project. The traffic volume on the street is 11,500 vehicles per day. Tustin
---- High School is adjacent to the project site on the northwest. There are commercial Land uses at
the intersection of E! Camino Real with both Redhill Avenue and Newport Avenue.
PROJECT RELATED TRAFFIC
The proposed project, located on El Camino Real north of Redhill Avenue, consists of a 93-unit
townhouse project. These facilities are expected to generate additional traffic volumes based on
established ITE trip generation rates as documented below.
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation is a measure or forecast of the number of trips that begin or end at the project site.
All or part of these trips will result in traffic increases on the streets where they occur. The traffic
generated is a function of the extent and type of development proposed for the site.
Prepared far 1Vevrs Homes
Limned Tra ffic Study for a Rcsidcnrial Project !rs the City of Tusrrn
December 2004
Ketz~ Ql~itsu & ASSO~tgS Residentsal Project City of Tustin Figure 7
Traffic Enyn~enz and Transporraion Planners
Project Location
r
'r a "3
sI I ~ Fc ~
~~ ~ ~(~,J
~1~ JJ ~7k'~~zr~t~FA~_. _ _
..- ~
.r
~ f.
~---
nI •,1i J~ ,~~
.~
~, ~..
,...
~ ...- •. .J•.. ~.
! 1 .i i "' ""mot ~....
..~~_ _
• ~is~'
~~y--J
A
~-
f
~J
v M
Kati, Okitsu & Associ2tes Residential Project City of Tustin Figure 2
TrafficEnginnrsandTiansportationPlannen Site Plan
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Trat]ir fa,4iacus aaATrqusportarion Planners
Trip generation is generally equal to the traffic volume expected at the project entrance. The trip
generation rates are equivalent to the number of trips that start .or end (in and out) at the project
site, and are specific by Land use for a given time period (i.e. am peak hour). Trip generation rates
are expressed as a function of a given characteristic of the land use area (i.e. floor area, site area,
number of employees, or seating capacity. The rates are based on regression analysis, and are
derived from field observations From as many sources as possible. At each site, trips in and out of
site are counted, trip rate modifiers are identified and regression analysis is used to derive a abest
fit" for a particular land use. An equation is developed which calculate average trip generation rate
for the specific land use.
The project trips summarized below in Table 1 are based on trip generation rates provided by ITE
Trip Generation, 7`t' Edition with consideration of comparable trip generation rates for similar uses
in this region. This report is widely used in Southern California and indicates the probable traffic
generation rates. for various land uses based on studies of existing developments in comparable
settings.
Existing Land Use Traffic - ~ •~
A 65-unit apartment complex currently occupies the project area. The trip generation currently
associated with the project site is also shown on Table 1.
Prcparetl jnr Nevrs Homes
Limned Traffic Srudy for a Residexrial Project in rkc Cirp of Tustin
December 2004 4
Katz, Okitsu &'Associates
Trat~'ic fni;trrcers and Tre~nMortarien Flaanrrs
Table 1
Project Trip Generation
nd Use Measure Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out
Trip Generation Rates
w-Rise Residential
Condominium/Townhouse DU 8:00 0.67 0.17 0.50 0.78 0.45 0.33
E Code ,23 4
w-Rise Apartment
TE Code.Z24 DU 6.59 0.46 0.10 0.36 0.58 0.3B 0.20
~ehide Trips
istiag Active Use
(Trip Credits)
w-Rise Apartment 65 DU 428 30 6 24 38 25 13
TE Code ,724 _
oposed Use -~~
ow-Rise Residential
ondominiurnJTownhouse 43 DU 744 62 16 4b 73 42 31
TE Code z3 4
T Project Trips 316 32 10 22 35 17 18
As -shown in Table 1, the project is expected to generate approximately 744 daily trips. Of this
amount, 62 are expected to be in the AM peak hour, including 16 trips entering and 46 trips
exiting the site. There are expected to be 73 trips during the PM peak hour, including 42 trips
entering and 31 trips exiting the site. This is a net increase of 316 daily trips with 32 additional
trips in the AM peak hour and 36 additional trips in the PM peak-hour.
PROJECT IMPACTS
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 normaIly defined when project
related traffic would cause IeveI of service to deteriorate to below the minimum acceptable Level
by a measurable amount. Impacts may also be significant if the location is already below the
minimum acceptable level and project related traffic causes a further decline.
Prepared jor tievrs Homes
Limirta` Tra f fie Study for a Residenrial Project in the City a(Tusri-r
December 2004
5
•~Katz, Okitsu & Associates
rra~t En~,nntas ntrd 7rmts~arwrinn Plarrntrs
The project will have 744 vehicles per day going. out onto El Camino•Real. This is an increase of
316 vehicles per day above the existing land use. The resulting "NET Project TripsA are shown in
Table 1. The total trips from the site are not sufficient to warrant a traffic signal at this location.
The peak hour volume of 46 outbound trips is less than the threshold value for minor street
volume for the peak hour .traffic signal warrant. A copy 6f the Warrant is provided in the
appendix. Adding 316 vehicles per day on a street that is currently serving 11,500 vehicles per day
is a 3% increase. A four-lane street has a capacity of 24,000 vehicles per day. This additional traffic
will have little impact on El Camino Real.
Observations were done before and after school to assess the interaction of the project with the
adjacent Tustin High School. There is very little interaction between vehicles entering and exiting
the project site and vehicles to and from Tustin High School in either the AM or PM high school
peak periods. Significant pedestrian traffic along El Camino Real before and after school was
observed. There was little impact on the ability of vehicles to enter or exit the existing apartment
complex during those periods. Construction at the corner of Redhill Avenue and EI Camino Real
seemed to have more of an impact on traffic along El Camino Real than the high school or the
existing apartment complex. ~ ~'
As the vehicles turning left into the project on El Camino Real have to stop in the existing
median, the existing paved median could be restriped to provide a 75-Foot left turn Lane into the "'
project. There is 297 feet from the proposed driveway to the driveway into Tustin High School.
This provides sufficient room to accomplish the restriping without disruption to traffic on El
Camino Real.
Oa-site Circulation & Access
The project is proposed to access El Camino Real at one location near the center of the site. The
existing apartment complex has two access points at the center and southeast end of the site.
One of the two existing access points is at approximately the same location as the access- point on
the proposed site plan. The width of the access point and interior streets will provide the
necessary space needed for vehicles to easily enter and exit the project and to pass each other. The
proposed driveway has sight distance to comply with the Caltrans 7.5 second sight distance
criteria for a roadway speed of 50 mph or higher. The driveway is over 560 feet from the Red Hill
Avenue intersection and has sight distance over 600 feet to the west.
The project site plan was reviewed for internal circulation. All parking stalls are accessible, and all
parking areas comply with accepted design standards for stall and aisle width. We have no major
concerns over the current site plan.
Prerared for Nevis Nomes
Limited Tra~i'c Study for a Rcsidenria/ Project in nc~ Ciry of Tustin - 6
December 2004
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Trnf/& Eneureers and 7rans~~onmioa PJaanen
Gate Requiremexrts
The entrance gate must be designed to provide For a daily volume of about 744 vehicles. The
maximum hourly inbound service volume is 42 vehicles, occurring in the PM peak hour. There are
two lanes at the gate. One lane can be used by visitors and residents and the other lane by
residents only. The gate must be designed to allow for storage for vehicles waiting for the gate to
open, and for vehicles waiting behind them. There are two lanes of storage of at least 75 feet each
from the gate to EI Camino Real. The storage requirement for the gate is calculated using queuing
theory formulas adapted for use at gate entrances. These formulas also require use of the
processing rate. The proposed system is expected to be a garage door opener system for residents
providing a processing rate of 8 seconds per vehicle. A keypad system would be used for guests
providing a processing rate of about 60 seconds per vehicle. There is sufficient room at the
entrance for guests using the keypad to not block residents entering the project.
Table 2 shows the probability of the queue of vehicles. exceeding. specific values at the proposed
gate. The table indicates that the expected queue will be zero most of the time and one vehicle
occasionally. The queue will rarely be more than two vehicles. •~A storage requirement of two
vehicles is recommended. This will require a storage area of approximately 50 Eeet from the
security gate to the back end of the queue storage area.
Table 2
Queue I.eagth Probability -Random Arrivals at Gate
Forecasted Demand
Residents Visitors
Arrival Rate 3B veh/ hr 4 veh/ hr
Process Rate 1 Veh/8 seconds 1 Veh/60 seconds
Load Factor 0.08 0.07
0 vehicles 91.6% 93.3%
1 vehicles 7.7% 6.2%
2 vehicles 0.7% 0.4% .
3 vehicles 0.1% 0.0%
4 vehicles 0.0% 0.0%
Prepared for Nevis Homes
Limited Traffic Study for a Residartial Project in the City of Tusrrn
December ,ZOOk
i
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Fra~"ir FarXrncns and Traus~naibn Planacrs
Traffic conditions should be adequate with step sign control and the exits provide adequate width
for one outbound and two inbound Ianes, including room for guests to park while securing entry
without interfering with, entering residents. As stated earlier in this report, no sight distance
issues are expected. Sight distance is available for aver 560 Eeet in each direction.
CONCLUSION
The City of Tustin is requesting a traffic analysis for a proposed townhouse project located at
1361 El Camino Real. The proposed project replaces 65 existing apartments with 93 new
townhomes. The project site will provide 217 parking spaces. The traffic analysis report shows
the difference in trips from the site due to the proposed development, an analysis of. the on-site
circulation, and access to El Camino Real.
The project is expected to generate approximately 744 daily trips. Of this amount, 62 are
expected to be vn the AM peak hgur, including 10 trips entering and 46 trips exiting the site.
There are expected to be 73 trips during the PM peak hour; including 42 trips entering and 31 trips
exiting the site. This is a net increase of 316 daily trips with 32 additional trips in the AM peak
hour and 35 additional trips in the PM peak hour from the current land use.
The proposed project will be submitted to the City of Tustin, who will review the plan for
compliance with applicable City standards. We anticipate that any minor internal circulation or
parking issues will be addressed in conjunction with this review. Katz, Okitsu & Associates
recommends that the City find that the traffic impacts of the project have no adverse effect on
the surrounding street system for the future year.
Prepared for Nevis Homes
Limned Tra~c Study for a Residential Projecr in rke City of Tusrin
December ,200.y ~ 6
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Trnfjrt fnxiixers anETrans~artaiion Piaaacrs
Appendix
' Preparcrl jor Nevis Homes
Limircd r ra fjic Srudy for a ResidenriaJ Projecr in tke Ciry o f rusrin
Deccmber zooy 9
..~``~.`
~...
Y
~:.Y
??:c
Sg''.
:. ~
•jS~r
.K; ..
,.. ,.
20Q3 Edition ~ ~ (, u wl; ;~ % f ~ , ;;, ~ -r 11•i r L n ~"i u. ~ r,
r
Figure 4G3. Werrenf 3, Peek Hour
= 600
a
500
Q 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE t,ANES
Q 400
~ a 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
~ Q 300
o ~ 1 LANE & 1 LANE
~ O 200
w 100
Z
U'
Page 4C-7
150
100.
'+6
400 500 600 700 B00 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH}
'Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for aminor-street
• approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower _
•• threshold volume for aminor-street approach with one lane.
Figure 4C-4. Warranf 3, Peak Hour (TO°b Factor)
(COMMUNRY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 iuhlft OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)
a
U 400
h0
w
~ a 300
~¢
w
w
z ~ 200
_~
~O
100
2
U'
z
00
'5
~6
300 400 500 600 700 B00 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH}
"Note: 100 vph applies as the iawer threshold volume far aminor-street
approach with two or mots lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for aminor-street approach with one lane.