Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 05-44 RESOLUTION NO. 05-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16790, 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16790 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. 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. D. That the negative declaration was advertised for public review for 20 days in compliance with Section 15105 of CEQA. E. That at a regularly scheduled meeting on February 14, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purpose of approving Vesting Tentative Tract 16790. F. 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 March 7,2005, meeting. A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has oeen 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 II. Resolution NO. 05-44 Page 1 of 47 will not be a significant effect because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration 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 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purpose of approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16790. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the th day of March, 2005. ~1Í~ LOU BONE MAYOR ~r CITY CLERK 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. 05-44 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the th day of March, 2005, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBERAYES: BONE, DAVERT, AMANTE, HAGEN, KAWASHIMA COUNCILMEMBER NOES: NONE COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: NONE COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: NONE (5) (0) (0) (0) ~~ CITY CLERK Resolution No. 05-44 Page 2 of 47 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 16790) and Design Review (DR) 04-025 Project Location: 136] 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 Nevis Tustin, LLC., 650 W. Huntington Drive # 201, Arcadia, CA 91007 Lead Agency Contact person' Justina Willkom Telephone: (714) 573-3174 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of 'rustin's procedures regarding impLementation of the California EnvironmentaL Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: 0 [8J That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 12:00 NOON ON FEBRUARY ä05 Date January 25. 2005 ~~ Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Resolution NO. 05-44 Page 3 of 47 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16790 and Design Review- 04-025 Lead Agency: City ofTustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina WiLlkom Phone: (714) 573-3174 Project Location: 1361 EI Camino Real, Tustin, CA 92780 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Nevis Tustin, LLC., 650 W. Huntington Drive # 201, Arcadia, CA 9LO07 General Plan Designation: High Density Residential Zoning Designation: MultipLe Family Residential (R-3) Dis1rict 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. Surrounding Uses: North: Tustin High School South: Interstate 5 Freeway East: Commercial Development West: Tustin High School. Other public agencies whose approval is required: 0 0 0 0 Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other 0 0 0 City ofIrvine City of Santa Ana Orange County EMA Resolution No. 05-44. Page 4 of 47 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. OLand Use and Planning OPopulation and Housing DGeologica! Problems OWater OAir Quality OTransportation & Circulation DBiological Resources DEnergy and Mineral Resources OHazards DNoise DPublic Services OUtilities and Service Systems OAesthetics DCultural Resources DRecreation OMandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 1 fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [8J 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. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect I) 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. 0 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 rnitigation measures that are irnposed upon the proposed project. 0 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 potentialJy 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 rnitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Justina WiIlkom .-'--" --- ~~ø-LÁ~~ EIYmbeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Title Associate Planner Date Januarv 25. 2005 Resolution NO. 05-44 Page 5 of 47 9) 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 folJowing each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced infonnation 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) AIJ answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction,and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "PotentialJy 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 detennination 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 fÌ'om "PotentialJy Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(0). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the folJowing: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects fÌ"om 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 fÌ"om 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 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 tile discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normalJy address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Resolution No. 05-44 Page 6 of 47 Less Than Significant Poten/iàJly With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 ~ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 0 0 rz¡ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qua]ity of the site and its sulToundings? 0 0 ~ 0 d) Create a new soùrce of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 rz¡ 0 0 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In detennining 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 fannland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Fannland of Statewide Importance (FannIand), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fannland 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 Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0 ~ JII. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following detenninations. Would the project: a) Contlict with or obstruct implementation Or the applicable air quality plan? 0 0 rz¡ 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 [8J 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 [8J 0 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 ¡g¡ 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number . of people? 0 0 Iðj 0 HeSOIUlion I~O. O!\-44 ..page70f4!......... IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department 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 plans, policies, regulations or by the California Depanment ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlaods as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) tJirough direct removat, filling, hydrological intelTuption, 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 colTidors, or impede tbe use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conmct with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, sucb as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? I) 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 tbe significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an arcbaeological 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 intelTed outside offonnal 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: Resolution No. 05-44 Page ~ of47 Potentially Significant impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation 1ncorporation No 1mpact Less Than Significant 1mpact 0 0 0 12!1 0 0 0 12!1 0 0 0 12!1 0 0 0 12!1 0 0 0 12!1 0 0 0 12!1 0 0 0 12!1 0 0 0 12!1 0 0 0 12!1 0 0 0 12!1 Less Than Significant Poten/iaily With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant i) Rupture of a Imown earthquake fault, as delineated on the Impact Incorporation Impact No Impocl 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 ¡g ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 ¡g 0 Hi) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 ¡g 0 iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 ¡g b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 ¡g c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would hecome unstahle as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 0 0 0 ¡g d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined Ù1 Table 18-I-B of the Unifonn Building Code (200]), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 ¡g 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 0 0 0 ¡g VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to tbe public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of bazardous materials? 0 0 0 ¡g b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through re¡¡sonahly foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 0 0 ¡g c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 0 181 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 0 0 181 e) For a project located within an airport laod use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, wouJd 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 or working in the project area? 0 0 ReSOlu~n NU. Ub-4J8L- J'age 9 0147 __n_____- Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 0 ~ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urhanized areas or where residences are intennixed with wildlands? 0 0 0 ~ VIII. HYDROLOGY ANDWATEROUALlTY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 ~ 0 b) Substantially deplete groWldwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would he a net deficit in aquifer volwne or a lowering of the local groundwalcr table level (e.g., the production rate,ofpr.,. existing nearby wells would. drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 0 0 I:!:?J 0 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 0 0 I:!:?J 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 0 0 0 0 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runotfl 0 0 0 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 D ~ g) Place housing within a I DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 D ~ h) Place within a I DO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 ~ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of. 0 levee or dam? 0 0 ~ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 J:8 k) Potentially impact storm water runoff from construction activities? 0 0 ~ 0 .. Resolution No. 05-44 Page100f47 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact I) Potentially impact stormwater runnfffiom post- construction activities? 0 0 181 0 m) Result in a potential for di*'harge of stonnwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment mainrenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? 0 0 J:?Sj 0 n) Result in a potential for discharge of stonnwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? 0 0 ~ 0 0) Create the potential for significant changes in the Ìlow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm? 0 0 181 0 p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? 0 0 0 I2J IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 I2J b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction óver the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or wning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 0 I2J c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 I2J X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 0 0 0 I2J b) Resuit 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 D I2J XI. NOJSE- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 I8J D 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 0 0 181 0 Resolution NO. 05-44 ~¡¡e110f4!. Less Than Sign!ficant Potentially With Le88 Than Sign!ficant Mitigatian Sign!ficant c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels 1mpact 1ncorporalion 1mpact No Impact in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 ~ 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D 0 ~ 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noiselevels? 0 0 0 ~ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? 0 0 0 ~ XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infi"astructure)? 0 0 0 ¡g¡ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 ¡g¡ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 ~ 0 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? 0 0 0 IZI Police protection? 0 0 0 ~ Schools? 0 0 0 ¡g¡ Parks? 0 0 0 ~ Other public facilities? 0 0 0 ~ Resolution No. 05-44 Page 12 of 47 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XIV. RECREA nON - Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Imp"ct No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 0 [8J 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? 0 0 0 [8J XV. TRANSPORT A TJONrrRAFFIC - 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 r8I 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 [8J 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 r8I 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 [8J e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 [8J f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 [8J g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 0 0 [8J XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 0 [8J b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 0 [8J c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 0 [8J Resolution NO. 05-44 page 13 of 47 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or 0 0 0 ~ expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a detennination by Ibe wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in 0 0 0 ¡z¡ addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 0 0 0 ~ to accommodate tile project's solid waste disposal neòds? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 0 0 0 ~ regulations related to solid waste? XVH. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ora 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 enda.gered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Cali forai a history or 0 0 0 ¡z¡ prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individuaJly 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 0 0 0 ~ effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either 0 0 0 ¡z¡ directly or indirectly? '",""USTINA<_",.,,""-"""""""""""""" Resolution No. 05-44 Page 140f47 ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS VESTING TENT A TIVE TRACf MAP 16790 AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-025 NEVIS TUSTIN, LLC. 1361 EL CAMINO REAL BACKGROUND The project site is a 4.99 acre parcel improved with sixty-five (65) apartments (The 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 provide 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, a Vesting 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 A2 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 square feet respectively, Plan C would have 2,035 sqW\l'e feet of floor area, and Plan D would have 1,984 square feet. 1. AESTHETICS Items a & b - No Imoact: 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 MeasuresIMonitoring Required: None Required. Item c - Less Than SÎlmificant Imoact 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, EI 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 Resolution NO. 05-44 _f"age 150f47 Nevis Tustin V'ITM 16790 and DR 04-025 Page 2 . (15) feet away úom the front property lines, ten (10) feet to eighteen (18) feet away úom the side property lines, and fourteen and half (14Y:.) 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 úont, side, and rear 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 ImDact with Mitigation Incomorated The proposed new condominium 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 commensurate 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 MeasuresIMonitoring 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 Importance, nor is it located within a property zoned for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; therefore, the project will have no impacts on any farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project will not result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Mitigation MeasuresIMonitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Field Inspection Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Resolution No. 05-44 Page 160f47 Nevis Tustin VTIM 16790 and DR04-02S Page 3 3. AIROUALITY Items a. b. c. d & e - Less Than Sismificant 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 wiIl 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 MeasuresIMonitoring Required: None Required Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations City of Tustin Grading Manual Project Application Field Inspection 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a. b. c. d. e & f- No Imoact: 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 wiIl 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 Resolution NO. 05-44 . r:age 17 of47 Nevis TustÙl VTTM 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 area of high paleontological sensitivity as illustrated in the City's General Plan. The project would have no impacts on cultural resources. Mitigation MeasuresIMonitoring 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 Silmificant 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 18. Mitigation MeasuresIMonitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code 2001 UniforlÌ1 Building Code Project Application Field Evaluation Resolution No. 05-44 Page 18 of 47 Nevis Tustin VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025 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 are 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 a throuw h - No Impact: The proposed project involves the constntction of a ninety-three (93) condominium complex. No storage or transports of hazardous materials are 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 hazard 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 John Wayne Airport, and there are no private airstrips nearby. The project has been reviewed by the Tustin Police Department who determined that the project will not interfere with any evacuation plans. The project has received preliminary review by the Orange County Fire Authority and no comments were received indicating that the project would interfere with any evacuation plans. All grading and constntction 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 MeasuresIMonitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Resolution NO. 05-44 E.;¡ge190f4I. Nevis Tustin VITM 16790 and DR 04-025 Page 6 8. HYDROLOGY & WATER OUALITY Items a. b. c. d. e. k. I. m. n & 0 - Less Than SifffiÎficant 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 construction, there is the potential to impact stormwater runoffftom construction and post-construction activities with stormwater pollutants ftom 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 R8-2002-001O), 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, 200 I Items f. g. h. i. i and o-No hnoact: The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a relatively flat 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 lOa-year flood hazard area (areas of I percent annual chance of flood) as mapped on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. Accordingly, the project will be Resolution No. 05-44 Page 20 of 47 Nevis Tustin VTfM 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 lOO-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 ofa 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. MINERAL 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 re.sult in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. . . Resolution NO. 05-44 u~age210f47 Nevis Tustin VTTM ]6790 and DR 04-025 Page 8 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan ll.~ 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-l ofTustin Noise Element). The provisions of the State of California Noise Insulation Standards 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 55dB. 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 I), which analyses potential noise impacts. Based upon the submitted acoustical analysis, the exterior ambient noise level at the project site is at 71.1 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 roofmg on Vz" plywood. Batt insulation will be installed injoist 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 5/8 gyboard. All windows and glass doors shown in red light in Figure I if the Acoustical Analysis (Exhibit I) 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 W' airspace. In either case, Resolution No. 05-44 Page 22 of 47 Nevis Tustin VTIM 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 shouJd 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 Shmificant ImDact: 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. Resolution NO. 05-44 ~a!Je 230f 47 -------- Nevis Tustin VTIM 16790 and DR 04-025 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. In 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 area/noise 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 standards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code 12. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a and b - No Imoact: 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 are 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. Resolution No. 05-44 Page 24 of 47 Nevis Tustin VTfM 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 area 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 infiastructure would need to be created. Mitigation 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 in lieu fee to comply with Section 9331 ofthe Tustin City Code. While the residents of the project may use existing City's parks, the increased use of existing parks 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 pàrkland 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.dJ of the Tustin City Co~e. Resolution NO. 05-44 Page 25J>JA7 Nevis Tustin VTTM 16790 and DR 04-025 Page 12 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code 15. TRANSPORTATIONffRAFFIC 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 dail y vehicle trips. This is an increase of316 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 peak hour, 62 trips are 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 EI 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 fmds 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 MeasuresIMonitoring Required: . The applicant shall fe-stripe the existing paved median to provide a 75-foot left turn lane into the project. Resolution No. 05-44 Page 26 of 47 Nevis Tustin VTIM 16790andDR04-02S Page 13 Items c. d. e. f & 11- No Impact: The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth wherein the project will not result in changes to air traffic patterns, orconfJict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. The project includes sufficient parking on-site incluclin¡¡ ¡¡uest 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 minimize congestion within specific area of the project. As such, no impacts to parking are anticipated. Mitigation MeasuresIMonitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 2) 16. UTlLffiES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a. b. c. d. e. f & I! - 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 MeasuresIMonitoring 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 Resolution NO. 05-44 E-age 27.._of 47 Nevis Tustin VITM 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 cwnulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on hwnan beings. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan S,ICddVUSTlNA'==, pJ.ruú'l\E"~~'m,"'ù\N.~. A..""..., A.do, Resolution No. 05-44 Page 28 of 47 Exhibit I Acoustical Analysis Resolution NO. 05-44 I"_age 29 of 47 Received (MON)AUG 23 2004 11 :58 Davy ... & Associates, Inc. Consultants /n Acousrics 267-7 MaMtutan 8t4r:h BI'á..,Suiu 212 . Red.... B,.e¡" CA 90278-1604 . 1<1: JIO~j.J161 . Fax; j1~3.Jj64 . Emnil:Dn"....",xtlnol:eo", Resolution No. 05-44 Page 30 of 47 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS The Cottages Tustin, California FOR Nevis Homes, LLC Arcadia, California August. 2004 JN2004-84 MR160 Receive/ (MDN)AUG 23 2004 11:58 1.0 Introduction At the direction of Nevis Homes, LlC, Davy & Associates, Inc. has completed an acoustical analysis of The Cottages Project in Tustin California. The California Administrative Code (Title 24) as enforced by Tustin specifies maximum allowable interior noise levels of CNEL 45 for all habitable spaces in residential buíldings 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 ai the site to determine compliance with these requirements. Section 3.0 of this report contains recommendations for complying with the Tustin intenor noise level requirements. Section 4.0 of this report contains the requirements of the State Building Code concerning ventilation. ' 2.0 Exterior and Future Acoustical Environment Environmental noise levels were monitored at the site in Tustin, Callfomla on August 18, 2004 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. The location 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 equivalent noise level (LEa), as well as the maximum and the minimum noise levels during the measurement period. A copy of.the analysis of the acoustical data is attached to this report. . " . Resolution NO. 05-44 E.age 31 pf 47' Received (MON)AUG 23 2004 11:58 The data thus collected were analyzedto determine the CNEL level at the measurement location. The CNEL value was deterrninedby measuring the equivalent noise level (LEQ) directly, and then calculating the equivalent noise level for each of the other 23 hours in the day.1 This CNEL approach has been utilized extensively. The accuracy of this procedure has been establíshed with automatic 24-hour measurements at the same location. The procedure has always been within acceptable accuracy limits. The results ofthe monitoring and calculations are summarized below In Table 1. . Table 1 Measured Ambient Noise Levels In dB Locatioll Peak Hour LEQ S. Building Line 67.1 dB gjß. 71.1 dB Section 3501.(c) of the State Building Code states the following: Worst-case noise levels either existing or Mure, shall be used as the basis for determining compliance with thi$ Section. Future noise levels shall be predicted for period of at least 10 years from the time of building permit applícation. GAL TRANS, Division of Traffic Operations publishes an annual traffic volume book that contains previous traffic trends. The 2000 traffic volumes on the California State Highway System Book (the latest edition available) lists an average annual increase of 2.2% per yearln annual traffic volumes for the years 1994 through 1999. Assuming that this annual growth of 2.2% would hold for this site, it was projected that traffic volumes wouid 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 I~vel is summarized in Table 2, Table 2 Exterior 2014 CNEL Value at the Site in dB Location CNEL 72.0 dB S. Building Line 1 See, fore>.-ample, "Insulation of Buildings Against Highway Noise,' Bruce Davy and Steven Skala, Federal Highway Administration FHWA.TS-77.202. < 2 Resolution No. 05-44 Page 32 of 47 KecelVed \MVNIAUG 23 2ÐÐ4 12:00 With an exterior noise level of CNEL 72,0, the buildings must prollide an A-weighted noise reduction value of at least 27 dB to achieve an Interior CNEL 45 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. . If all windows and glass doors shown 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. Thls means that with the use of standard construction and SIC 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. SIC 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 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. 3.0 Construction Recommendation$} 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Roof ceiling construction will be roofing on 1/2" plywood. Batt insulation will be installed in joist spaces. Thecelilngs will be one layer of 5/8" gypboard nailed direct. All exterior walls will be 2x4 studs 16" O.c. with Batt insulation in the stud spaces. ~eriors will be exterior plaster or stucco. The interiors will be 5/8" gypboard. All windows and glass doors shown in red high light 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 test report documenting the STC 29 rating. The test report should be prepared In an Indep!lndent,accredited testing laboratory in accordance with ASTM E-90. ' All other windows and glass doors may be standard glazing. All entry doors should 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 be no mall slots in the entry doors. 4 Resolution NO. 05-44 ",-age 33 of 47 Kecel ved lMONJAUG 23 2004 12:00 4.0 Ventilation Reauireme'Ú!. The California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24) states the following paragraph concerning ventilation: "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 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 all 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 1997 edition ofthe Uniform Building Code. L.~ Bruce A. Davy, P.E. LN.C.E. Board Certified Davy & Associates,lnc. 5 Resolution No. 05-44 Page 34 of 47 " -------------l , i ¡ i i I i j ! ! I I ¡ I I ¡ I i j ! I I ¡ ! ! ! R.ceived (MON)AUG 23 2004 12:01 SITE MONITORING NOISE ANALYSIS JN2004-84 MR160 PROJECT: LOCATION; TEST DATE: START TIME; END TIME: EQUIPMENT USED: TEMPERATURE: RELATIVE HUMIDITY: WIND: LEQ; 67.1 LMAX: 80.7 LMIN; 58.1 CNEL: 71.1 LDN: 71.1 Resolution No. 05-44 Page 36 of 47 THE COTTAGES SOUTH BUILDING LINE AUGUST 18,2004 4:00 P.M. 4:30 P.M. LD 820 SLM 112" RANDOM INCIDENCE MIC WINDSCREEN B&K4230 CALIBRATOR TRIPOD WIND SPEED INDICATOR MICRONTA THERMOMETER/HYGROMETER 76'1 55% 0-2 mph L90: 60.3 L50: 63.6 L25; 67.0 L8: 69.9 L2: 72.1 L1: 73.1 DAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Con"ul tants in ¡wouðt;ic:s Exhibit 2 Traffic Study Resolution NO. 05-44 E.age ~óf 47 ~ Katz, Okitsu & Associates .... T'øjficEogi...".n4T".,_.p¡...", December 2, 2004 RECEIVED .IAN I 9 2004 COMMUNiTY DEVEW?MU J 7BS2 E. """""en'" Sc Suit., 02 Mr. Scott Yang T"'tin.CA Nevis Homes 92780-2,., 255 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 210 714.$73.0317 Arcadia, CA 91006 fa" "..S73.0S3' koa""@katzokJ"u.,om Subject: www.katzoki"u.com Limited Traffic Study for Residential Project in the City of Tustin Dear Mr. Yang: Katz, Okitsu & Associates is pleased to present the traffic impact study report for a proposed residential project in the City of Tustin. The project is located along EJ Camino Real north of Redhill Avenue and consists of 93 town homes on a 52-acre lot. 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 deve]opment. 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 Homes and the City of Tustin. Sincerely, loo Ange'... ~~ø;cA:: -- 323.260.4703 f"", 323.260.'70S Rock Miller, P.E. Principal '.n Diego 6tO.6B3.2'" f."'619.603.7082 San B.,n"dino 00>.8>a.0." fa", >a>.BOO.>.', Ilä'in \TUSTINVM7'" R'dMII-EiCnm;"\R'I""'ITUßCnmi..RM/-TMfi;, Smd, Rn.«dd" Resolutio~ No. 05-44 Page 38 of 47 _Katz, Okitsu & Associates . ..... r"(("!",i"""."dT""il""'~"P1..,,," 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 EJ 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 wili 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. EXISTING CONDmONS El Camino Real has two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane running parallel to 1-5 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 El 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. PrepaId fN Nevis Hom" Limitod Triiffi' Srudy lor a Rosid,qllal Proj'" iH ,h, City of T usrin O,amb" 2004 Resolution NO. 05-44 . '=~\1e 39.of 47 Vi Main 51. f.M.inSI. N t -~ Katz, Okitsu & Associates Residenüal Project City ofTustin ...... ~'Nt!Jd. {)fir.I""*,,;,, PI""", Page 40 of 47 Figure 1 Project Location r _n-~-n-_n- --- - _n._____------- --- -----------------------" ,"5 'f~ r:::::s '-". I '-:, - r¡ [j ,- .. " ]1 I<i ~~ .~ ~; ;-«.J l> 1--0 ,' P:.i8'JKatz, Okitsu & Associates Residential Project City 01 Tustin _r"f(;'E,g;"m",JT"",..".,,",P¡m,,, N t Figure 2 Resolution NO. O!i~lan _age 0 _Katz, Okitsu & Associates r"t«E,.,;."""..Jr"""..",.,P/a""" 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 eàch site, trips in and out of site are counted, trip rate modifiers are identified and regression analysis is used to derive a "best fit" for a particular land use. An equation is developed which calculate 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'" 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. P""..cd (m N,vi, Homes Lim¡¡,. Traffic Siudy (or a Residential Pro;", ¡" th, Ci<y o(TuStin D"'mbtr 2004 Resolution No. 05-44 Page 42 of 47 _Katz, Okitsu & Associates T,ofIi< E.,".m..¿ T""f"""'" PI""," Table 1 Project Trip Generation land Use Measure Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I Total In Out Total In Out , " "",.. TijpGene¡ation Rates'" """", ,,' " Cow-Rise Residential ondonñnium/T ownhouse DU 8.00 0.67 0.17 0,50 0.78 0.45 0.33 TE Code 231 Cow-Rise Apartment DU 6.59 0.46 0.10 0.36 0,58 0,38 0,20 TE Code 221 , '" ' '",', ",'" YehicleTrips" ",,' '.'. ,'" ," ", Existing Active Use (Trip Credits) 65DU 428 30 6 24 38 25 13 Low-Rise Apartment TE Code 221 roposed Use Low-Rise Residential 93DU 744 62 16 46 73 42 31 ondonñrùurnlTownhouse TE Code 231 NET Project Trip. 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 35 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 normally defined when project related traffic would cause level of service to deteriorate to below the minimum acceptable level by a measurable amount. Impacts may also be significant if the location is already below the rnirùmum acceptable level and project related traffic causes a further decline. h"",ed fo, N"is Ho"", Limilui haffic Stud" fa, a Residential Proi'" in th, City af TuStin D,,'mba 2004 5 Resolution NO, 05-44 E.age .:I~_()f 4] ._Katz, Okitsu & Associates ..... TMffÜE"¡"""",JT,..",."..¡"PL",,,< The project will have 744 vehicles per day going out onto EJ Camino Real. This is an increase of 316 vehicles per day above the existing land use. The resulting "NET Project Trips' 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 òf 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 ð 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 £1 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 £1 Camino Real seemed to' have more of an impact on traffic aLong £1 Camino Real than the high school or the existing apartment complex. As the vehicles turning left into the project on £1 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 EJ Camino Real. On-site Circulation lit Access The project is proposed to access EJ 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 horn 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. Prepared (or Nevi' Homes Limited Traffic Srudy for a Residential Proiea in the CiW orTus/ÌlI Refo'fG~~~ 2~~ 05-44 Page 44 of 47 _Katz, Okitsu & Associates ...... r'!'ffi,E~~'""""dr""."""."PI",",. Gate Requirements The entrance gate must be designed to provide for a daily volume of about 744 vehicles. The maximum houdy 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 &om the gate to El 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 gues.ts 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 requiref!1ent of two vehicles is recommended. This will require a storage area of approximately 50 feet &om the security gate to the back end of the queue storage area. Table 2 Queue Length Probability - Random Arrivals at Gate Forecasted Demand Residents Visitors Arrival Rate 88 veh! hr 4 veh/ hr Process Rate 1 Veh/8 seconds 1 Veh/60 s,econds Load Factor 0.08 0.07 0 vehicles 91.6% 98.3% 1 vehicles 7.7% 6.2% 2 vehicles 0.7% 0.4% 3 vehicles 0.1% 0.0% 4 vehicles 0.0% 0.0% p"rared for Nevis Hom" Limited Tra((i' Study (or a Residential Prol'" in ¡he, City o(Tusrin D"embcr 2004 7 Resolution NO. 05-44 , J:age 45 of 47 _Katz, Okitsu & Associates ii,'!Ir" n.ffl' Eo""""",.1 r""'I',mmlco PI""", Traffic conditions should be adequate with stop sign control and the exits provide adequate width for one outbound and two inbound lanes, 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 over 560 feet 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 wkh 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 in the AM peak hour, 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 & Associatès 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. P"pard. for Nevi., Homes Limired Traffic Stud ' for a Reside""a! Projea in the City of TuStin Decemhv 1004 Resolution No. 05-44 Page 46 of 47 'if,' It ¡': ~.t " r t t 2003 Edition :r 600 e. > :r: 500 U t;;~ 400 We. ~~ 300 a:w 0::; ;¡::3 200 ::;~ ffi 100 :r: C) :E E I Co"II"1i ¡¡Hi í "f ll¡( CD'H' 1(~ Figure 4C-3. Wa"ant 3, Peak Hour Page 4C-7 NES 'ISO '100 -'II, 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1800 1700 1600 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as Ihelower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4, Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 10 kmlh 011 ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) :r: e. > 5 400 >-ð We: ~!t 300 ~< e:w ~~ 200 ::;;~ ffi 100 :r C) :E Novomber 2003 '100 '75 ~{, 300 400 600 900 1300 1100 1200 600 1000 500 700 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume tor E minor-street approach with one lane. S,Ct.4C.06 Resolution NO. 05-44 ':a!;)e 4?of 47