The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC RES 4058RESOLUTION NO. 4058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN ("FEIS/FEIR") AND ITS ADDENDUM IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-002 AND MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (ZONE CHANGE 07-001) AND THAT ALL APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That Development Agreement (DA) 06-002 is proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (the developer), a Delaware limited liability company. The purpose of proposed Development Agreement 06-002 is to give the developer certain assurances that in return for Developer's commitment to the comprehensive planning for the Property that is contained in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and the Specific Plan, the City will in turn remain committed to the DDA and the Specific Plan; B. That MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment (Zone Change 07-001) is proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. (the i-: reloper), a Delaware limited liability company. Zone Change 07-001 does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan. Instead, Zone Change 07-001 generally would allow tandem parking in residential developments and compact spaces in non-residential developments and would specify their required dimensions. Zone Change 07-001 would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; C. That DA 06-002 and the Zone Change 07-001 are considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; D. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential Resolution No. 4058 Page 2 environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin; E. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement Amendment, DA 06- 002 and Zone Change 07-001 for the proposed project, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The Planning Commission finds that the project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15168 (c) and 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 27'h day of March, 2007. ~ ~~ ~~ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN R T FLO Chairperson I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4058 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 27~h day March, 2007. //, ~.~~ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4058 Environmental Checklist and Analysis COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, C4 93780 (7/4) 573-3l00 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Disposition and Development Agreement OS-Ol Amendment, Development Agreement 06-002, and Specific Plan Amendment 07-001 ___ Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 ~I` Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-31 l5 Project Location: Neighborhoods B, D, E, and G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC 26840 Aliso Viejo Parkway, Suite 100 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP-1 Specific Plan), Neighborhoods B, D, E, and G Project Description: Proposed amendment of a previously approved Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA OS-OI-Master Developer), Development Agreement 06-002, between the City of Tustin and Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC, and Minor Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (See attachment A for further project description). Sun•ounding Uses: North: Edinger Avenue and Residential Uses East: Jamboree Road/Indushial Uses South: Light Industrial/Business Parks West: Red Hill Avenue, Business Complexes Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact StatemenUEnvironmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on April 3, 2006. 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 ^Geology and Soils and Water Quality Quality rsportation & Circulation ogical Resources eral Resources icultural Resources ^Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^Noise ^Public Services ^Utilities and Service Systems ^Aesthetics ^Cultural 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 prepazed. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect ])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. [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 t) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standazds, 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 I) have been analyzed adequately in an eazlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standazds, and 2) have ___ been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eazlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that aze imposed upon the proposed project. Prepazer: Senior Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Christine A. Shingleton, Atant City Manager D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Date: J' ~' C' ~ Date .~ ,t' r f Date ~ ~ "'~ See Attachment A attached to this Checklist F.VAhUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. 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 surtoundings'? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glaze 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 Califomia Agrccultwal Land Hvaluation and Site Assessment Model 099'7) prepared by the Califomia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Famtland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant [o the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use'? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Ac[ con[racf? 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. A[R QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district tray be relied upon to make the following detemvnations. Would the project: a) Contlict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan'? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)'? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations'? e) Create objectionable odors atFecting a substantial number of people'? No Suhstuntinl New More Change From Signi/icon[ Severe Previous /mpnct /mpucts ,4nu/vsis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ IV. IIIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse etfec[, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but no[ limited to, mazsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological intenuption, or other means•'? d) Intertere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites'? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance'? t) 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 [o ~ 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: .Vo Substuntinl New More Chunye From Siynifcunt Severe Previou.e /mpuct /mpucts ,9nuh~.ris ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Sub.~7antiul i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Ptiolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the Stale Geologist for [he area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer [o Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking'? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction'? iv) Landslide? b) Result in substantial soft erosion or the loss of topsoil'? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse'? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property'? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater 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 hazazd to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazazdous materials? b) Create a significant hazazd to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment'? c) Emit hazazdous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school'? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to [he 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'? t) 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'? New Mnre Change From .SigniJicun! Severe Prer~lous /ntpucf lnqux7s .anulv.+~is ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 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 tires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands'? VIII. IiYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements•'? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)'? c) Substantially alter [he 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 otT site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or azea, 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 Hooding on- or oY~ site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed [he capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoft7 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 Hood tlows•'? i) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dani? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow'? lX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project a) Physically divide an established community'? Nn Substuntiul N~nr More Chunge From .Signi/icon! Severe Prrrious /mpuct Impncrc Anulvsis ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 b) Cuntlict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited [o the general plan, specitc plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for [he purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect'? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan'? X. MINERAL RESOURCES- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state'? b) Result in the loss ofavailability of alocally-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: al Exposure of persons [o or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING- Would the project: t) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either iirectly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other intiastrucmre)7 h) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere'? No Substantial New rLlore Chunye From Siynifcunt Serene 1'tx~s~ious lmpuct Impacts dnulysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ o ^ ^ No Suhstuntiul Ncw ~1'fore Change From Signi/icunt Severe Previous 6npuc•t lnrpucts Anultsis 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 oti new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the conswction 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•'? Pazks'? Other public facilities•'? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the we of existing neighborhood and regional pazks 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 eYI'ect on the environment'? XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation [o the existing traffic load and capacity of [he 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 leveLof 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 hazazds 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'> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Substantial New .Hfore Change From Signi/icant Sevrre Prwim~s Impact /mpucts ;tnalvsis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bas turnouts, bicycle racks)'? XV[. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would [he project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board'? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stoan water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental etl'ects'? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed'? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments'? t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity [o accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs'? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, subs[anually reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population [o 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 aze 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 etl'ects on human beings, either directly or indirectly'? ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OS-O1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 06-002 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 07-001 NEIGHBORHOODS B, D, E, AND G OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/E[R) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EIS/EIR was prepazed by the City of Tustin and the Department of the Navy (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy (NEPA). The FEIS/EIR analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specitic Plan/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/E[R and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council on January l6, 2001. The DoN published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. "- The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed amulti-year development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan aze proposed, the agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The agency can approve the activities as being within the swpe of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is required. For the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) Amendment, Development Agreement (DA), and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) project, the City prepazed a comprehensive Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided below to determine if the project is within the scope of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and if new etfects would occur as a result of the project. PROJECT LOCATION The property subject to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA OS-OI-Master Developer, hereinafter the "Original DDA"), Proposed DDA Amendment, Development Agreement (DA) 06-002, and Specitic Plan Amendment 07-001 consists of approximately 820 acres at Tustin Legacy. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs and was officially closed in Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-Ol Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 2 July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to tour major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana ([-5), Laguna (SR-l33) and San Diego (I-405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barcanca Parkway on the south. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the north providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. The Property is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. That portion of the Property subject to the Original DDA, Proposed DDA Amendment, Proposed DA 06-002, and Proposed Specitc Plan Amendment is within an 820 acre footprint. The estimate of Property within this footprint that might ultimately be conveyed to the Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC (Developer) for private development as identified in the Original DDA is approximately 420 acres in size. The Property subject to the Original DDA, Proposed DDA Amendment, Proposed DA 06-002, and Proposed Specific Plan Amendment also includes property that will not be transferred by the City to the Developer, including property owned or to be owned by the City of Tustin, the Tustin Unified School District including but not limited to certain public uses, public utilities, and public right-ot=way areas, and approximately 15 acres of property that could be privately developed; however, a final disposition of ownership decision could not be made at the time of execution of the Original DDA (this is the 15 acre "Hangar Parcel"). The majority of the Property subject to the Original DDA, Proposed DDA Amendment, Proposed DA 06-002, and Proposed Specific Plan Amendment is currently owned by the City of Tustin. A portion of the Property is also currently owned by the Department of the Navy and is expected to be transferced to the City of Tustin subject to the Navy's issuance of a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) and deed provisions mutually acceptable to the Navy and City. The City will transfer the Property for private development to the Developer (unless excluded pursuant to the Original DDA) in phases. PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY Historically, the Property was used as a Marine Corps helicopter training facility. Curcently, the actual footprint of the Property is largely undeveloped land that was previously used for interim agricultural out-leasing by the Marines, and also improved with landing strips and tarmac areas. Petmits for demolition of abandoned buildings on the Property have been issued and existing facilities are in the process of being removed, with obsolete infrastructure also programmed for removal. The City has nearly completed a Phase [roadway project, the Valencia/Arcnstrong project, which included some demolition of tarmac areas, landing strips, and demolition of some obsolete utilities. The Valencia/Armstrong project also included the installation of water and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-0I Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 3 sewer Backbone Inti•asttucture on a portion of the Property and interim storm drain retention facilities. Interim earth work and mass grading of the Property by the Developer is also proposed to begin shortly. As required by the Original DDA, the Developer has obtained approval of a Sector A Map which encompasses the entire Property and is completing preconditions to the Phase I conveyance. The Developer has also begun processing the Sector B maps for MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Neighborhoods E and G, and the required accompanying Concept Plans for each Neighborhood (Neighborhoods D, E, and G). Sector B Map for Neighborhood D is expected to be submitted shortly. Certain major amendments or refinements to the DDA and Specitc Plan Amendment are being requested to facilitate submittals and to clarify Original DDA terms and conditions as described in more detail under the DDA section. PROJECT COMPONENTS The project evaluated in this environmental review includes two components described further in sections below: • DDA (Master Developer) Amendments Development Agreement 06-002 Specific Plan Amendment 07-001 AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL DDA Background The Original DDA was entered into by and between the City of Tustin and Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC (TLCP), a Delaware limited liability company on May 3, 2006. The original DDA sets forth the parameters of development and conveyance by the City of Tustin and Tustin Public Financing Authority (hereinafter the "Agency") of certain property at Tustin Legacy (the former MCAS Tustin) to TLCP. Members of the TLCP include Centex Homes, Shea Homes, and Shea Properties (the "Developer"). Under the original DDA, TLCP will serve as the master developer, the land development entity that will entitle the Property, build out certain defined Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, and then sell tinished development parcels to residential builders for construction of vertical improvements (homes) in Neighborhood D and rough graded parcels to builders for construction of vertical residential and non-residential development in Neighborhoods B, D and E. TLCP have indicated that they will also act as vertical builders for a large portion of the Property. The DDA contemplates that certain portions of the Property will be developed by third party -- developers. Evaluation of Environmental Impac~c DDA OS-0I Amendment, DA 06-U02, SPA 07-OU 1 Page 4 Pursuant to the Original DDA, a scope of development (Attachment 28), schedule of performance (Attachment l7), and a variety of terms and conditions required of TLCP were identified. In the Original DDA, the Property was proposed to be developed around four (4) potential conveyance phases to the Developer: Phase l began in September 2006, Phase 2 begins in September 2009, Phase 3 begins in July 2011, and Phase 4 to be defined pursuant to the process defined in the Original DDA. The Original DDA establishes certain key terms, including but not limited to, the phasing and conditions precedent to the Agency's obligation to sell and convey each phase of the Property to the Developer, the purchase price of the property, profit participation payments, obligations of the Developer for deconstruction of the Property, and development of the Property under the established schedule of performance including obligations for construction of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure and Local Infrastructure. Description of DDA Amendments 1. Minot amendments to clarify the language in Sections 1.13, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 of the Origrinal DDA related to default provisions in the Original DDA and the Attachment 17 Schedule of Performance. 2. Neighborhood E: A modification to the scope of development to relocate the Sports Pazk/detention basin originally proposed at Red Hill and Warner Avenue. The detention basin component would be incorporated into detention facilities within the Linear Park and constructed with Phase l of the Lineaz Park, whereas the Sports Park component would be relocated to Phase 2. Commercial business uses would replace the original sports park site in Phase 1. The sports pazk relocation site would be at the southeast of the extension of Carnegie and the Lineaz Pazk. This amendment required a financial review to confirm that the amendment has not created net positive financial impacts on land value when all DDA Amendments are considered, based on the Final DDA Pro Forma (more specifically, the Business Plan residual land values) considered in the Original DDA (this is when all DDA changes requested are taken into consideration). Based on the proposed DDA Amendment language and conditions including revisions to Attachments 17 and 28, a determination has been made that the DDA Amendment will have an immaterial impact on the original value assumptions as contained in the DDA Business Plan cash Clow model and would not require an adjustment in proposed land payments to the City of Tustin. 3. Neighborhood G: A modification to relocate and defer construction of a Congregate Care facility at Valencia and Tustin Ranch Road until Phase 2 and to replace the original Congregate Care site in Phase I with residential uses. The Proposed DDA Amendment also required a financial review to confirm that the amendment has not created a net positive impact on land values when all DDA amendments are considered based on the Final DDA Pro Forma (more specifically, the Business Plan residual land values) considered in the Original DDA (this is when ail DDA changes requested are taken into consideration). Based on the proposed DDA [valuation of Environmental Impacts UDA OS-O1 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 5 Amendment including revisions to Attachments 17 and 28, a determination has been made that the DDA Amendment will have an immaterial impact on the original value assumptions as contained in the DDA Business Plan cash Clow model and would not require an adjustment in proposed land payments to the City of Tustin. 4. Neighborhood D: The Developer modified the square footage distributions within the portion of the Community Core located south of Warner Avenue (Planning Areas 13 and l4) consistent with the Implementation Strategy required by the Original DDA that was previously considered and approved by the City Council for this area. The Proposed DDA Amendment has also required a financial review to confirm that the DDA Amendment has not created a net positive impact on land values when all DDA Amendments are considered based on the Final DDA Pro Forma (more specifically, the Business Plan residual land values) considered in the Original DDA (this is when all DDA changes requested are taken into consideration). Based on the proposed DDA Amendment including revisions to Attachments 17 and 28, a determination has been made that the DDA Amendment will have an immaterial impact on the original value assumptions as contained in the DDA Business Plan cash flow model and would not require an adjustment in proposed land payments to the City of Tustin. 5. Minor alterations to the Original DDA Schedule of Performance (Attachment l7 and Exhibit F of Attachment 28) are proposed. 6. The Developer proposes to delete a grade separated vehicular under-crossing at Tustin Ranch Road just north of the Community Pazk that is currently shown as a Developer required Backbone Infrastructure Improvement in Attachment IO of the Original DDA (improvement 129) and replace it with a grade separated pedestrian bicycle bridge over- crossing between the Neighborhood and Linear Park proposed along the east side of Tustin Ranch Road and the north side of the Community Park located on the west side of Tustin Ranch Road north of Legacy Crossing. Costs associated with this modification will need to be considered pursuant to item #7 below. 7. Instead of six (6) arches within the Linear Park as required by the Original DDA's provisions for Local Infrastructure Improvements, the Developer will be required to construct an iconic grade separated pedestrian bridge structure with functional purpose that incorporates arch features for the pedestrian bridge at Warner Avenue/Community Park, and unique iconic pedestrian bridges over Tustin Ranch Road/Community Park, and Armstrong/Lineaz Park, subject to approval of the design by the City. This proposal requires that the cost of all grade separated crossings have costs associated with the complete construction of these facilities that are at a minimum equal to the total costs of the six (6) arches and three (3) bridges as originally identified in the Original DDA (a total cost of $19,813,005), as will be certitied by the Public Works Director and Assistant City Manager. Any cost escalations necessary to accommodate construction of the iconic bridge structures will be a Developer obligation. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-O1 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 6 8. Moditication of Attachment l0 entitled Description of Developer's Backbone Infrastructure Work and Attachment I1 entitled Description of Local Infrastructure Work. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the California Legislature adopted the Development Agreement Statute of the Government Code. Pursuant to the Statute, the City may enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property and to provide for the development of such property and to establish certain development rights therein. Development Agreement (DA) 06-002 is proposed by Tustin Legacy Community Partners, LLC. Pursuant to Section 1.7 of the Original DDA entered on May 3, 2006, the City agreed to consider a future application for a Development Agreement by TLCP to assist in the implementation of the DDA and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The general purpose of Development Agreement 06-002 is to give the following assurances to Developer: Assurance to Developer that, in return for Developer's commitment to the comprehensive planning for the Property that is contained in the DDA and the Specific Plan, the City will in turn remain committed to the DDA and the Specific Plan; 2. Assurances to Developer that as Developer becomes obligated for the costs of designing and constructing the public improvements included in the DDA and the Specific Plan, and makes dedication, Developer will become entitled to complete the private development portions of the DDA and the Specific Plan that justify those obligations; and Assurances to Developer that in the City's administration of the DDA and the Specific Plan, Developer will be allowed the flexibility, consistent with the DDA and the Specific Plan, to respond to the marketplace in terms of housing types and intensities, the development of mixed uses, and reconfiguration of land uses, so long as in so doing overall intensity and density of development, and the range of uses within sectors identified in the DDA and the Specitc Plan are not exceeded. These assurances require the cooperation and participation of the City and Developer and could not be secured without mutual cooperation in and commitment to the comprehensive planning effort that has resulted in the DDA and the Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-Ol Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 7 The DA will include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: • The term of DA 06-002 which will commence on the elective date and will continue for a term of twenty (20) years thereafter unless the term is terminated, moditied, or extended by circumstances set forth in DA 06-002. • The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the design improvement and construction standard and specifications applicable to the development of the Property, and provisions for the reservation and dedication of land for public purposes, as set forth in the DDA and Existing Land Use Regulations which includes City's General Plan, Zoning Code, Specific Plan, and all other ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations of the City governing the development and use of the Property in et~'ect as of the effective date of the DA. • Vested Right to carry out and develop the Property in accordance with DDA, Development Plan, Existing Land Use Regulations and the provisions included in DA 06-002. • The timing of development as set forth in the DDA. • Construction of infrastructure and public facilities as set forth in the DDA. • Dedications as set forth in the DDA, Specific Plan, and dedication of certain right-of--way areas to the applicable agencies as necessary for construction of required off-site traffic and circulation mitigation as required by the DDA, Specific Plan, or by Developer pursuant of the Final EIS/EIR far MCAS Tustin, as amended. • Annual review of Developer's performance. • Indemnity by the Developer to indemnity, defend, and hold harmless the City from any and all actions, suits, claims, liabilities, etc: SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Minor Amendments to the MCAS Specific Plan are proposed to support improvements planned within the TLCP footprint. The amendments include, but are not limited to, the following: • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Table 3-4 for all residential housing types that the covered parking requirements can be satisfied with tandem parking. Up to forty (40) percent of the attached units within Neighborhood G can satisfy their covered parking requirement with tandem parking spaces. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 8 • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specitc Plan, Section 3.13.2, to clarity that a covered tandem gazage is a minimum dimension of 10 feet by 40 feet, and an open tandem parking condition within a parking structure is a minimum dimension of 9 feet by 36 feet. • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Section 3.13.1(J), to allow 9 feet by 18 feet standard parking stall and 24 foot two-way drive aisle. For parking structure conditions, the column will be held back 2 feet from the drive aisle as measured from centerline of the column. At an end condition where a parking stall abuts a solid wall within a parking structure, an additional l toot and 6 inches will be added to the end stall. • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Section 3.13.1(J), to allow 8 feet by 16 feet compact parking stall and 24 toot two-way drive aisle. At an end condition where a parking stall abuts a solid wall within a parking structure, an additional (foot and 6 inches will be added to the end stall. • Amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Section 3.13.t(J), pennitting (without qualifying) up to twenty (20) percent of the required parking spaces for non-residential developments maybe designated for compact parking. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. 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 iu the area? :Vo Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause aesthetic impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program EEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been tound to have no demonstrable negative aesthetic etlect on the site. There aze no designated scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed DDA Amendment and Development Agreement would not result in a substantial adverse effect Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-01 Amendment, DA 06-002. SPA 07-001 Page 9 on a scenic vista. Although the project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway, the FEIS/ElR concluded that the loss of both historic blimp hangars would be a significant visual impact, the loss of only one hangar would be less than signiticant. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not change the conclusions of the analysis from the FEIS/EIR relative to these visual changes since the status of the hangars would not be affected by the proposed DDA changes. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not modify the land use plan adopted in the Specific Plan but rather modify and refine the Master Development Plan in the DDA only. No changes in original uses identified or permitted in the Specific Plan are being requested; therefore, the types of uses to be developed are consistent and would result in similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. While the loss of the six (b) proposed arch structures in the Lineaz Park as outlined in the Original DDA wuld pose a visual change, the Master Developer will be required to construct an iconic made-separated pedestrian bridge that incorporates arch features for the pedestrian bridge at Wamer Avenue/Community Park and unique iconic pedestrian bridges over Tustin Ranch Road/Community Park and Armstron~f Lineaz Park. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable to the project have been implemented with adoption of original Specific Plan. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Soztrces: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan [[. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-Ol Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page IO 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? Nn Substantial Change frnne Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new etTects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project. The physical impact area for the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment is the same as that identified in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would continue to impact aeeas mapped (though not used) as Prime Farmland. Designated Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Specific Plan area is outside of the Master Developer footprint and is located north of Barranca Parkway, west of Harvard Avenue, and east of Jamboree Boulevard. The area is currently under development. Additionally, there aze no areas subject to a Williamson Act contract, and conservation of fazmland in this area was deemed unwan•anted by NCRS. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the impact conclusions presented in the FEIS/EIR. The loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEIS/EIR are still infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with the loss of mapped designated farmland. There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would reduce the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to urban uses. Mitigation options identified in the FEIS/EIR determined to be infeasible aze still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. There would not be a substantial increase in the severity ofproject-specific and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; however, these impacts would continue to be significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. The Tustin City Council adopted a Statement of Ctvemding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• [n certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page I l Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through l 14) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) Resolution No. 00-90 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan II[. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation. of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? @) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No SubsTantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause Air Quality impacts. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project. Consistent with the conclusion reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would result in si~mificant short-term construction air quality impacts. Because the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment only involve redistribution of land uses within the threshold of the Specific Plan and the previously approved FEIS/EIR and its Addendum, the project would not substantially increase the type or severity of construction related air quality impacts from those identified in the FEIS/EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-O1 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-OOI Page 12 change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FE[S/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR for operational and construction activities. However, the FE[S/EIR and Addendum also concluded that the Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/E[R was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90). No new mitigation measure is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 throughl53, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts UDA OS-OI Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 13 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The physical impacts resulting from development uses proposed with the DDA amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would be similaz to those identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Specifically, impacts to on-site vegetation and loss of habitat for the loggerhead shrike, a CDFG species of special concern, would be less than significant. It would be noted that project construction activities would be completed in compliance with federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. The FEIS/E[R and Addendum found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species; however, the FEIS/EIR detemuned that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project site) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle, which is identified as a "species of special concern' by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation measures were included in __ the MCAS Tustin FEIS/E[R to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative off-site habitat, and to require the applicant to obtain Section 404, Section - 1601, and other permits as necessary for areas on the project site at~'ecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. :Yfitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28 through 5-40) ~_ MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-0l Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-OOl Page 14 Tustin General 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 formal cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause impacts to cultural resources. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FE[S/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one azchaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan azea, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. There is no new technology or methods available to reduce the identified significant unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts to historical resources associated with the removal of Hangars 28 and 29 to a level considered less than significant. Therefore, these unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts also occur with implementation of the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment. A Statement of Ovemding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January l6, 2001, to address potential significant unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from the removal of both blimp hangars. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. tifitigarion/Monitoring Regteired: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FE[S/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-O1 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-OOI Page 15 for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/E(R mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 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: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special. Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not cause any direct impact to geology or soil. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative geology or soil et4ect on the site. The FE[S/EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan ~-' and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudtlows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-0l Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-UOl Page 16 mound failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and tlooding associated with dam failure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of sifmiticant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigatior/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No new mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VI[. 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 reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts UDA OS-Ol Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page l7 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a signiTicant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not involve the creation of a hazazd or hazazdous materials. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would result generally in the same types of land uses being developed within the project area. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, these uses would generate and use small amounts of hazardous materials for operation and maintenance activities. The FEIS/EIR and its addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and then- - -- current hazazdous material use and hazazdous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration pro~ams in response to releases of hazazdous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the DoN would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazazdous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR and the Addendum, the project site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not propose changes to height limitation included in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger azea. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigatiort/Monitoring Required: Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No new or modified mitigation is required for the project. C•valuation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-Ol Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-OOl Page 18 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49 through 5-55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (POST) for Southern Pazcels 4-8, 10-2, l4, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 4l Finding of Suitability to Lease (POSE) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding 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 storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? fJ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of 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, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-01 Amendment. DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 19 No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Pro~am FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative hydrology and water yuality etlect on the site. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a WQMP in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from the development activities to a level of insignificance. Implementation of the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR. The types of land uses proposed are substantially the same, with minor squaze footage distribution among planning areas. The amount of impervious surface proposed for construction would not change substantially; therefore, analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed; therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patters, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56 through 5-92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 20 specific plan; local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ,'Vo Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The project being evaluated involves an amendment to the Orilrinal DDA, a new Development Agreement, and modifications to parking standards. The proposed project would not substantially alter the land uses proposed for development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the Specitc Plan area, rather the distribution of land uses has been slightly modified and minor adjustments to Planning areas and development phases aze proposed. The Specific Plan azea is surrounded by existing development and development on-site would not physically divide an established community. The proposed development would result in the continuation of similaz uses. Also, the proposed project will not contlict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously. identified in the FEIS/E[R and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation and no new mitigation measures aze required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a 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? No Substantal Change from Previous Analysis The FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicated that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or [valuation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-01 Amendment, DA Ob-002, SPA 07-OOl Page 2l identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FE[S/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and Addendum (Page 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE -Would the project: 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 ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would slightly modify the land use distribution within the Specific Plan which would result in a slight redistribution of the traffic generated by the implementation of the project. However, the backbone circulation system identified for the implementation of the project is substantially the same or less Average Daily Trips as that presented in the original DDA and Specific Plan. Consequently, the severity of the long- term tratTic related noise impacts would not be increased more than previously identified in -- the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-Ol Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-0U1 Page 22 With respect to the short-term noise impacts, implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specitic Plan Amendment would be required to comply with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding si~tificant short-term wnstruction-related noise impacts. As discussed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of the project site. Based on review of the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the project site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not involve the development of any uses that would expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to noise. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not increase the severity of the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no retinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures would be required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3- 162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & 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? ,Yo Substantial Change from Previous Ana/ysis. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment provide a similar amount and type of housing as that included in the original DDA and the Specitic Plan. The amendment proposes a slight redistribution of development activities within the project boundary. No additional new housing, removal of existing housing, or displacement of any people to necessitate construction of additional housing are proposed with the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specitic Plan Amendment beyond the number of units already analyzed in the Specific Plan and previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Similar to the conclusions Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-O1 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 23 reached in the FE[S/EIR, the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not have an adverse effect on population and housing. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as. may be required by law. No substantial change is expected tiom the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Req:~ired: Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum related to population housing. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not change the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum and no new mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-lOlthrough 5-112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 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: The FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails; however, new facilities will be provided within the Master Developer footprint to which the applicant will contribute a fair shaze. Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of existing fire stations in the areas surrounding the site and a future fire station proposed at Edinger Avenue and the West Connector Road will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage ofnon-residential uses, etc. Implementation of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-Ol Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 24 the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/E[R and Addendum. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be reyuired to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. The FEIS/E[R and Addendum previously considered future development of the portion of the Specific Plan area within the SAUSD as being non-residential uses resulting in an indirect student generation impact. However, the TLCP is now proposing minor refinements to their development plan that would result in both non-residential and residential development uses which would result in both indirect and direct student generation impacts. The impacts to schools resulting from the implementation of the proposed DDA Amendment, DA and Specific Plan Amendment would be similar to that identified in the FEIS/EIR. Consistent with SB 50, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation measures that require the Master Developer to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD, IUSD, and SAUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the issuance of building permits. The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide "full and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development of real property on school facilities (Government Code 65995). SB 50 provides that a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real property on the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50. Other Public Facilities (Libraries. Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that will directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area. Developers within the Specific Plan area aze required to make a fair shaze contribution to a portion of the development costs of the library expansion. To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the site proceeded. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not increase the demand more than what was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no substantial change is expected. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 25 Mitigation/Monita•ing Required: The FEIS/E[R and Addendum concluded that there would be no signiticant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEIS/E[R and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. Sources.• Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-i 12 through 5-122) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would include a modification to relocate and defer construction of the sports pazk originally proposed at Red Hill and Edinger Avenue until Phase 2 and to replace the original sports pazk site in Phase 1 with commercial/business uses. The new sports pazk relocation site would be at the southeast of the extension of Carnegie and the lineaz pazk. Since the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment only involves a relocation of a sports park, impacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services compazed to conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. ~ . Evaluation of Envirottmental Impacts DDA OS-01 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 26 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin City Code Section 933 I d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/['RAFFIC -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)? The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build out of the Specific Plan. The FEIS/E[R concluded that there wuld be significant impacts at 18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/EIR for a complete list) and the levels of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no-project condition. The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips. The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sutTicient ADT capacity exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would result in a redistribution of trips that would not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. No Significant changes to on-site circulation would occur with the proposed project. Austin Foust Associates, Inc. has prepared the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis - March 2007 (Exhibit A) to identify and evaluate how the tragic impacts from the proposed Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA OS-Ol Amendment, DA Oh-002, SPA 07-OOl Page 27 project differ from the original analysis as presented in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The study has shown that the proposed Legacy Park land use and arterial circulation changes within the TLCP footprint have not resulted in new si~riticant impacts that would require mitigation. Therefore, there are no changes to the previous tratlic findings included in the ori~rinal FEISJEIR and Addendum. Moreover, the proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Tratl'ic Engineer also has reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the revised analysis. .'Llitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendments than were originally considered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3- 142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5- 127through 5-147) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1) YVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA US-Ol Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 28 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment will not directly cause impacts to utilities and service systems. Development activities proposed by the TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed new ot~ site and on-site backbone utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEIS/E[R and Addendum, the applicant is required to pay a fair shaze towazds otF site infrastructure and installation of on-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and ot~ site, and water availability. As wncluded in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, no unavoidable significant impacts would result. The proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the FEIS/E[R. A4itigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures aze required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-] 04 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 05-O1 Amendment, DA 06-002, SPA 07-001 Page 29 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FE[S/EIR and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment. With the enforcement of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly nor decade the quality of the envirottment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populafions to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address cumulative impacts, a Statement of Ovemding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90) for issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural resources, and traffic/circulation. The project does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) - and Addendum Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project. implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial change is expected fiom the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Exhibit A Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis March 2007 By Austin Foust Associates, Inc. City of Tustin LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY Traffic Analysis March 2007 _~_ _`_ RUST/N-FOUST ASSOC/AYES, /NC. DRAFT City of Tustin LEGACY PARK OF TUSTIN LEGACY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Prepared by: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 2223 East Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 (714)667-0496 March 6, 2007 CONTENTS l .0 INTRODUCTION Background .................................................................................... Scope and Methodology ................................................................ Performance Criteria ...................................................................... Relationship to Other Studies ........................................................ References ..................................................................................... 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use and Trip Generation ....................................................... Proposed Project ............................................................................ Trip Budget for Non-Residential Uses .......................................... 3.0 ON-SITE ROADWAY SYSTEM Planned Circulation System ........................................................... Intersection Controls ....................................................................... Intersection Lane Geometry ........................................................... 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS Daily Traffic Forecasts ................................................................... Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................ Turn Pocket Lengths ....................................................................... Conclusions .................................................................................... APPENDICES: A: Land Use and Trip Generation B: Intersection Capacity Utilization Calculations C: Turn Pocket Length Methodology D: External Traffic Volumes City of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffe Analysis ............................... t - I ........................:...... I -3 ...............................1-4 ...............................1-4 ..............................1-8 .......................... 2-1 .......................... 2 -1 .......................... 2-6 3-l 3-1 3-6 Austin-Porn:[ Asaxiatn, Inc. v'~?U(W1pU.doc LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND EXHIBITS Figures l-1 2007 Tustin Legacy Master Developer Footprint .......................................................................... l-2 2-l 2007 Tustin Legacy Master Development Footprint .....................................................................2-3 2-2 Legacy Park Circulation System ...................................................................................................2-5 3-1 Legacy Park Circulation System ...................................................................................................3-2 3-2 Recommended Trat~c Control Measures -Community Core Area .............................................3-3 3-3 Recommended Tragic Control Measures - Neighborhood E .......................................................3-4 3-4 Recommended Trat2'ic Control Measures - Neighborhood G (Planning Area 15) .......................3-5 3-5 Intersection Lane Configurations -Community Core Area ..........................................................3-7 3-6 Intersection Lane Contgurations -Neighborhood E .................................................................... 3-3 3-7 Intersection Lane Configurations - Neighborhood G (Planning Area l5) ....................................3-9 4-1 Legacy Park ADT Volumes ...........................................................................................................4-2 4-2 Intersection Location Map .............................................................................................................4-5 A-1 Tustin Legacy Traffic Model (TLTM) Traffic Analysis Zone System ........................................ A-3 B-I Intersection Location Map ............................................................................................................ B-2 C-1 Turn Pocket Length Methodology ................................................................................................ C-2 Tables 1-1 Volume/Capacity Ratio Level of Service Ranges for Intersections ..............................................1-5 1-2 Performance Criteria for Analyzed Intersections .......................................................................... l-6 1-3 Level of Service Descriptions -Signalized Intersections .............................................................. l-7 2-1 Land Use and Trip Generation Summary ......................................................................................2-2 2-2 Tustin Legacy Trip Generation ......................................................................................................2-4 2-3 Tustin Legacy Trip Budget ............................................................................................................2-7 2-4 Planning Area Trip Budget Comparison (Non-Residential Uses) ...............................................2-11 4-t Peak Hour Intersection ICU Summary ..........................................................................................4-3 4-2 Left-Turn Storage Length Requirements .......................................................................................4-7 4-3 Right-Tum Storage Length Requirements ...................................................................................4-10 A-1 ADT and Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate Summary .................................................................. A-2 City urTustin Austin-Foust .ASU~ciales, Inc. Lr,ary Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis ii N??U114rptAdrx Chapter 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents traffic findings for proposed changes to the development plan in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 portion of Neighborhood G of the Master Developer area in the Tustin Legacy project in the City of Tustin. The revised portions of the Master Developer footprint (see Figure 1-1) will be known as Legacy Park and will henceforth be referred to throughout this report as the "Proposed Project." The purposes of this report are l) to determine that the land use changes by the Master Developer do not exceed the "trip cap" established for the Master Developer's footprint at Tustin Legacy, 2) to identify and evaluate the traffic impacts of the Proposed Project on-site as well as at the external off-site intersections on the periphery of Tustin Legacy, and 3) to present data that will be the basis of design for key on-site project roadways in the Legacy Park area of Tustin Legacy (Neighborhood D including the area referred to as the "Community Core" south of Warner Avenue, Neighborhood E, and Planning Area 15 portion of Neighborhood G). BACKGROUND A Final Join[ Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was certified as complete in January 2001 for the Reuse and Disposal of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Tustin. The EIS/EIR also evaluated the adoption of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. All elements were identified as [he original "project." A comprehensive traffic report was prepared for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and that report was used in preparing the Circulation section of the Final Joint E[S/EIR. The "Program EIS/EIR" mitigation measures identified for the original project were the subject of agreements with the adjacent Cities of Irvine and Santa Ana, and those in Tustin were planned to be implemented in phases according to a phasing plan described in the traffic study. [n 2006, a traffic report was carried out in support of an Addendum to the EIS/EIR in which certain Specific Plan Amendments were adopted including certain administrative clarifications and minor Specific Plan modifications that largely affected property within the Master Developer footprint including the Neighborhoods being analyzed in this report. The former site of the MCAS Tustin is now referred to as "Tustin Legacy" and Legacy Park is a portion within this site. City oFTuum 4uslin-Foust Assimiates, Inc. Lceacy Park of Twtin Lrgacy Traffic Analysis I-1 y»ppq~tg ~„~ ~~ ~ J ,^ ~z a'a Ea H ua ¢o O ~~ ~~-~~~-~, ~ ` y ~ N ~ ~ a z N ~ a ,~ z N J W ' N ~ w (V o r ~ ~~ U Lf~ r {y, )l WNl' d J. < TT VJ ~^ < ~ 1 - r' ~~ ;~ ~7 1 M W r' ~~ M ~ (~ r ~ r i a © c ~ ~../. V m ~/~ ~i~+~Jy, c 0. , .. ~ V ., ¢ y -n a .~, „ V u N ~ c G ~ ~ ~°c N _ ~ ~Ls r `i 'o~C ~ mmz L i ^J yN ` S /~ Q M r~.~. r, ~ c c .~~' c c ~ u m e ~'y n. a n. Z ` ~ p U ri N `; ~n I X~O 3 . ~ v ;~ Y S. ~~ ~, ~~ ya ¢' r~ H J ~o -~ F~ ~~ ~~ UJ The total trip generation with the Proposed Project for Tustin Legacy (including the portion in City of Irvine) is the same as the trip cap established in the original Specific Plan in 2001 and included in the current Specitic Plan with 216,440 average daily trips (ADT). SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The subject areas addressed in this report are as follows: 1. Proposed Project and Current Specific Plan Land Use and Trip Generation 2. On-Site Roadway System 3. Traffic Forecasts and Intersection Evaluation The tirst of these describes the Proposed Project and its relation to the trip generation ceiling established as part of the original Specific Plan and contained in the current Specific Plan. Also discussed is the non-residential land use/trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood in the current Specitic Plan and for the Proposed Project. The second subject area being addressed involves the on-site circulation of the Proposed Project in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G (collectively referred to as Legacy Park). The Legacy Pazk circulation system information presented here includes rnidblock lanes, intersection lane geometries, and type of intersection control. The third subject area provides traffic forecasts for on-site and adjacent intersections that reflect the land use refinements and the focal roadway system in the Proposed Project site. Average daily traffic and peak hour levels of service at signalized intersections are derived and rum pocket lengths for intersections within the Proposed Project site are estimated. Because the changes included in the Proposed Project compared to the current Specific Plan as amended in 2006 are minor and that the ADT projections outside the Proposed Project boundaries show minimal change compared to the 2006 Specific Plan assessment, the only off-site intersections analyzed are along the periphery of Tustin Legacy (Edinger Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Barranca Parkway). To derive the long-range traffic forecasts for this analysis, updated tratlic forecast data was prepared from the recently updated Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM). The [TAM was approved by OCTA as meeting all of the County's consistency guidelines, and the particular version City ul'Tustin ~ -- -~-- ~-_-~~~-----~~~_- - ---Austin-Foust Asaix:iati's. Inc. Legacy P;vk of Tustin Lcgaey TraOic Anulyais I-3 9~?004rpi5.Jce selected for this application is [hat recently used for transportation planning work in Irvine which includes projects that were approved prior to the end of 2006 (i.e., various residential projects in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and the Heritage Fields/Orange County Great Park project in the former MCAS El Toro site). It includes an update to the land use and circulation for Tustin Legacy. The model provides intersection data in the City of Tustin as well as in the City of Irvine. The forecasts in this report are based on the ITAM described here and include the year 2025 time frame for traffic forecasting with corresponding assumptions with respect to local and regional transportation improvements. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Traffic level of service (LOS) is designated "A" through "F" with LOS "A" representing free flow conditions and LOS "F" representing severe tratfc congestion. Table 1-1 summarizes the volume/capaci[y (V/C) ranges that correspond to LOS "A" through "F" for intersection locations. The traffic analysis evaluates the peak hour intersection volumes for the Proposed Project. The intersection findings are based on intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. Table 1-2 describes the intersection evaluation criteria. The threshold levels established here reflect levels of significance applicable in this report and are consistent with previous assessments of the project azea. Table 1-3 describes the general LOS conditions for intersections. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STUDIES Several traffic studies that have been carried out in this area are of relevance to the traffic analysis presented here. The projects and studies briefly summarized below have all been approved and have been incorporated where appropriate as background conditions in this analysis. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Disposal and Reuse Traffic Study (Reference 1) - This traffic study dated November 17, 1999, was included as Appendix F of the EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin dated December 1999. The tratfc study presented the results of a circulation analysis performed as part of the EIS/EIR addressing the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. This traffic study includes the traffic impact results related to the preferred alternative (Reuse Alternative 1). The land use and circulation plan for Reuse Alternative I is known as the original Specific Plan. Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis (Reference 2) -This traffic study dated February 22, 2006, was referenced in the 2006 Addendum to the Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. City of Tustin Austin-Foust Associates. Inc. Lrgacy Park of Tustin Lc~acy Tmltic Analysis I-A 422(HUrpH.Jik Table I-I VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of Service (LOS) Volume/Capacity (V/Cl A 00 - .60 B 61 -.70 C J1-.80 D .81 - .90 E 91 - I.00 F Above L00 City uI Tusiin Austin-Foust ASaOClallS, Inc. Legacy Park ol'Tustin Legacy TmRic Analysis I-5 9LOOJi7x5.duc Table 1-2 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS [. V/C Calculation Methodology Level of service to be based on peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values calculated using [he following assumptions: Saturation Flow Ra[e: 1,700 vehicles/hour/lane Clearance Interval:.OS Right-Turn-On-Red Utilization Factor*:.75. * °De-facto" right-tum lane is assumed in the ICU calculation if 19 feet from edge to outside of through-lane exists and parking is prohibited during peak periods. 11. Performance Standard Level of Service "D" (peak hour ICU less than or equal to .90). City of'Tustin ~~------ -- -Austin-Foust Associates. Inc. Legacy Park ot'Tustin Legacy TmRic Analysis I-h 92?OtWrptS Jnc Table l-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS - SIGNALI-LED INTERSECTIONS Levels of service (LOS) for signalized intersections are defined in terms of control delay as follows: LOS DESCRIPTION DELAY PER VEHICLE A LOS "A" describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive dttring the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend [o contribute to low delay values. B LOS "B" describes operations with conVOl delay greater than l0 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS "A", causing higher levels of delay. < (0 10-20 C LOS "C" describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds 20 - 35 per vehicle. These higher delays may result f}om only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. "fhe number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D LOS "D" describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds 35 - 55 per vehicle. At LOS "D", the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and [he proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle Failures are noticeable. E LOS "E" describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds 55 - 80 per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. F LOS "F" describes operations with conVOl delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. > 80 This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversatumtion, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occw at high ViC ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manua12000, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council City of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis .4mtin-Foust Associates, Inc. I-7 0220(11rpt5.dw This report presents traftc tndings relative to MCAS Specitic Plan Amendments and a proposed evelopment Plan for the Master Developer area of the Tustin Legacy project in the City of Tustin. The purpose of this report is to identity and evaluate how the project proposed in the Master Developer footprint area compares to the original Specific Plan in terms of traffic impacts. The land use and circulation plan presented in this report is referred to as the current Specific Plan in the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis. City of Irvine Planning Areas 30 and 51 Heritage Fields GPA/Zone Change (Reference 3) - This report presents the findings of a traffic study carried out to determine the impacts of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change For the former MCAS El Toro site which is now being referred to as the Heritage Fields/Orange County Great Park project located in Planning Areas 30 and 51 (PA30 and PA51) in the City of Irvine. The PA30 and PA51 project was approved and is included in the background conditions of this report. REFERENCES Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Disposal and Reuse Traffic Study, Austin- Foust Associates, Inc., November 17, 1999 (same as Appendix F of the EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin dated December 1999). 2. "Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis," Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., February 22, 2006 (referenced in the 2006 Addendum to the Final EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin). 3. "City of Irvine Planning Areas 30 and 51 Heritage Fields GPA/Zone Change [former MCAS El Toro site]," Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., September 7, 2006. ury of t usun Austin-Foust Asstx:iates. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traliic Analysis I-8 9?'!(N)4tp15.dnc Chapter 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT The information presented in this chapter summarizes land use and trip generation for the Proposed Project as well as for the entire Tustin Legacy area. The purpose is to make tindings relative to the trip cap established in the current Specific Plan. A review of the trip budget for non-residential uses is also re-evaluated in this chapter. LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Table 2-i provides a summary of the land use and trip generation for the Proposed Project, and includes the corresponding data for the current Specific Plan. The trip generation has been determined based on the trip generation rates summarized in Appendix A, and detailed land use and trip generation summaries by Planning Area can also be found in Appendix A. The daily trip generation rates are consistent with those used in the original Specific Plan. The land use data presented in this chapter includes the Proposed Project and approved development for other areas in Tustin Legacy. The land uses in Planning Areas 4, 5, 16, 17, 19-22 as approved for the Marble Mountain Partners (Lennar and William Lyon Homes) residential development, the Vestar commercial development and the John Laing residential development have also been incorporated into the land use database (see Figure 2-1 for Planning Area boundaries). Comparing the total revised trip generation projection with the approved (current) Specific Plan shows that the Proposed Project does not exceed the trip budget established for the Specific Plan. PROPOSED PROJECT A trip generation comparison between the current Specific Plan and revised plan for the entire Tustin Legacy including the Proposed Project is summarized Table 2-2. The table shows that the established "trip cap" of 216,440 average daily trips (ADT) remains the same as do the trips within the Proposed Project and remaining non-project areas within Tustin Legacy. The proposed arterial circulation system for the Proposed Project in Legacy Park is presented in Figure 2-2. [ncluded are the roadways in the current Specific Plan and the addition of proposed local City of Tustin Legacy Park oFTustin Legacy Trattic Analysis ?- I Auxlin-Foust Associates. Inc. y22004rp15.J«~ Table 2-I LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Current 5 ecitic Plan Pro osed Pro'ect Difference Land Use Cate or Units Amount AD'f .Amount ADT Amount ADT 1. LDR (I-7 DU/Acre) DU 1,033 9,888 1,147 10,978 114 1,090 2. MDR (R-IS DU/Acre DU 1,449 11,592 1,335 10,680 -1 l4 -912 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) DU 1,897 12,576 1,897 12.576 0 0 4. Transitional Housin Room 192 941 192 941 0 0 5. Hotel Room 500 4, l 15 500 4, I I S 0 0 6. Elements /Middle School Slu 2,400 2,448 2,400 2,448 0 p 7. Hi h School Stu 1,850 3,312 1,850 3,312 0 0 R. Leamin Center TSF 1,293.86 7,920 1,293.86 7,920 0 0 9. Nei hborhood Commercial TSF 147.38 16,480 143.07 !5,999 -4.31 -481 l0. Communi Commercial TSF 419.85 28,621 509.64 34.740 89.79 6,119 l 1. Sho in Center E TSF 930.6 28,608 930.6 28,608 0 0 l2. General Office TSF 2,679.73 35,562 2,068.73 27,451 -61 L00 -R,l 1 I 13. Of3ce Park (E TSF 2,343.75 20,869 2,865.73 26,105 521.98 5,236 14. Milita Office TSF 40.85 542 40.85 542 0 0 I5. Li ht [ndustriaVR&D TSF -- -- 456.03 3,699 456.03 3,699 16. Industrial Park (E TSF 627.05 R,O88 33228 4,196 -294.77 -3,892 17. Park Acre 100.4 509 75.3 379 -25.1 -130 l8. Re ions! Pazk Acre 84.5 423 84.5 423 0 0 21. Multi lex Theater Seat 3,500 6,300 3,500 6,300 0 0 22. Senior Con re ate TSF 158.99 970 158.99 970 0 0 24. Theatre Seat 1,000 1,250 1,000 1.250 0 0 25. Health Club TSF 30 988 20 659 -l0 -329 26. Hi h-TumoverRestaurant TSF 18 2,289 -- __ _]g -2289 27. Senior Housin Attached DU 242 840 242 840 0 0 28. S rts Park Acre 94.6 5.089 94.6 5,089 0 0 29. Tustin Facilit SG -- 6,220 -- fi,220 - 0 TOTAL 216,440 216,440 0 Abbreviations: ADT -average daily trips DU -dwelling units EQ -Equation based trip rate used LDR -Low Density Residential MDR -Medium Density Residential MHDR-Medium High Density Residential R&D - Reseazch and Development SG -special generator Stu -student TSF -thousand square feet City ul'Tustin ~ Amon-Faust Assrniatrs, Inc. Legacy Purk of Tustin Legacy Tmtiic Analysis ?-2 v220tWrytS.doc 4~ ~F vZ as f ,, r~ ~~ e o ^+ :; ~ ~ C a ~~ ii. z a O c. ~ n F ~ W ~ ~ ~i 7 a G _ a C m 9 '~ 7 7 L ~ p C t fJ 'a y ~= c y Z v v Q ^, >. N ~ N 9 C 6 z: J ~ ~ i m ? a c ..1 0 ~ ~ CO Z a ~ e¢Fz c c v f a c c g c n ~ v a a i Z V ~ C i . ~ ~~ "1 h ~~ Q n ~~ lj fl ~. m ry -~ a F. T v .1 c F c x F0. :~ _T V ~..~ 'c'able 2-2 TUSTIN LEGACY TRIP GENERATION l Current Area* S ecific Plan Pro osed Pro'ect Difference Nei hborhoods D, E and G (PA I S)*' 128,336 128,336 0 Nei hborhood G (PA20-PA21) & H (PA22) 12,218 12,21 R 0 Remainder of Tustin Le ac 75,886 75,886 0 Total Avera a Dail Traffic IADT) 216,440 216,440 0 * See Figure 2-I for neighborhood map. •• Legacy Park proposed project. City ofTustin .4usrin-FULLIt Asocia[cs, Inc. Legacy Park ol'Tuuatin Leeacy Tragic Analysis ?-0 9??UflM1rptS.drx: - _ _ - - - - ~~, ~, „, r I ~, ~,j', _ 9_.-. ! _i __.1.--. ~. I A ~\ i ; -..T - `- 1ra~n ,(\ ~~i~ LL I- II » a - -_ . __.... n / -Iy ':I ~~ --~ NPk 1 i ~ ~ ~ . ~_.-.--- I fi ~ \~~ ~. n, :'i,~', \ V F, ~ > I.VE ? , b 1 ' `~ / _ ~ n 4 i ._~ II _ __ __ _ ~ _ ___ __ _ iiii ___._. I ____ _ _ .... ___ _ T _ I II +~ = I > . . ;; +. a il' ~' ~, i. ;- ..;, ~. i I` ~ ~ -r-_- ~! a - - 4 ,o ~ .~ ~ vL ~~ ~l ~ is-/ fi yWF11'', .:V ~ i a14..'II.A :'Yf WI' Legend x Midblock lanes Figure ?d LEGACY PARK C[RCU CATION SYSTEM City of Tustin Austin-FOUSI Associates, Inc. Legacy Park ot'Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis ?-5 42?IIIFM1rpUftg2-?.Jwg roadways, mostly two-lane local arterials, in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area I S of Neighborhood G (see previously referenced Figure Z-1 for neighborhood map) to serve the Proposed Project. TRIP BUDGET FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES This section discusses the non-residential land uses/trip budget tracking system included in the current Spec:itic Plan. Table 2-3 compares [he current Specific Plan [rip budge[ [o [he Proposed Project. Table 2-5 presents a summary table comparing the results. The overall trip budget is similar for both with differences occurring within individual neighborhoods that result in slightly less trips (50 ADT) for the Proposed Project compared to the trip budget established in the current Specific Plan. City of Tustin ~-~----~- Austin-Foust Associates. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Tral}ic Analysis ?-h 9?^OIWrytS.doc -. i0 M O Y ~ N N 7 R O C O ~ (~ ~c vt N T M O N N M h M h /1 O N T t~ T r O~ N O' N T N T • Q r rrt ~p r r r - W DO rn rn M ~ d - 9 .N L ~ a p C ~D r`I 00 00 ~D 7 M M ~n Vl n ~~ o0 - O; 0\ Y O W DO r ~ r r O C 0 O 0 M t~ O C M K V `7 vt ~ N X z a OL IN ^I ~ 0 - 7 - N N ~ - 0 O P ~ `0 ~ ~ O P f^ qy Y 0 v 1 1 ~ ., W y Q d - - (`1 3 ~ A O ~ - N ~ O N r'I 00 O ~~ 9 C .7 r`1 T .-. Y N r M - M 7 h - ~ ~ 00 d ~i .~ O a - ~O O N M to O N Y M T I+1 N v1 N N 7 t~ Q r O N O N O N ~ [.. ~n D: C N n r O O< T O~ a Ow O~ I~ M b r r r .--• W 00 M M ro e d - u 9 `^ F W C a O b N o0 00 ~D 7 M M ~/1 M V1 C7 ~ 0. ~ C ~ ~ m .- ~ T 7 O m ao r ~ r ~ 0 0 ~ rl N N r N O - ~ N N ~ ~ ~ Z S ~ ~. a .y d ~ - M ~ cS F ~ v ~. e ~ F °ri a °M° rn ~ o °a cvi v V sc' ~ `~ a ~ - „ - ri E - U V 0 . a [ i] z a a - ~ 7 N i~ ~' m o _ ~ - - - ~ - ~ ~ °~ g a ~a F r/~ vf C7 ~ ~ O rn ~ '~ O '~ ~ ~ vi ~ vi ~ w ~ vi 7 rn F F N Q a F ~ D ~ Q ~ ~ F F F F ¢ F :0 r r r A . ~~ a ; T a . r O u v `0 v 01 v s ~ u v s m .u a o y °' a 'u o y °' w F = u `v° u Q <''a `v F t°. 'o v F ° ~a a v ~ o `w E ~ o o m v `u d ¢ ¢ Q 2 £ °' 0.1 ~ °i ° PO _ ~ q . O ~i . V ` U w ~ I , ` V v ~ c _u ~ ~ m L ~ A ~ ~"" p ,,., - ~ c u e N o ~ ~.- m a e F' a m a e F ~ R i d m 'v ^ .. o ~ A t.r.. ._ ~ ~"' ,a a y .° ; Vt d o m ~ = oo o ~ oo "' a 0 2 ~~ ~ 0 ~ . v F" rn ~ m o V ~ ~ A o C F" v, U O j QI y 4 .c n .. ~ N p d 7 O Q C~ Q ~C O S ~~~ _ E m c 1~ p 'o O Q F ._ ~O V O O p .a °' F d o ° r ` O ~ J a ° i o Q U v d ~ ° Z ` ~ ~ il - z ', n . vi F o o p ~ rn ~ ~ ~n C7 o : O . o o ~ O m s ~+ z O m s d z 0 m s v z ~ ~ V ri M Z L v ~n r 'Z V ~o z d --_-- °" Z Z ~ _ _ 2 ~~ n 0 N ri a rv -- 2 ,` -"o v F H 8m N K e R 0 O 00 - 0` - ~ ~n ~- o• O c EM i a ~Q n O ' ~n r~ ~n n iD ' T ao b D` 1 ~M F M rry 00 b 00 nl N _ vt N o0 ~p : - '~ CO ~~ M L'Y • O 7 ~O N I~ ~ r 1 W N C Q . - M r d d 4: O a0 ~ 00 - ~O O ~D O -~ rl O O 1~ W ? cf -S a0 ~O O ~ ~ M M rn m h c T O r rn r•i r ~ r v N 00 .p r r o ~p i 0. o z oC - e ~ N M o0 ~ o ~ M .e ~~ 9 G ¢ ( _ o0 00 i 0 y 1 F „' ~ rn ~ a C N vi i, Q 3 n ~ ~ O ~ - i 7 I 7 p p ^ ~ Q N ^ vi ~ (~ 7 O 00 M O 1~ 00 v'i - O\ 0 00 vi ~O a0 00 ~D rl a b r Vl 00 - ~ 4 O Y1 M ~O M M T 00 R ~ r'f M r N W n 7 - O O\ O T ~n ~ n oo b N 1~ nl Y •C ~ M l~ N ~ r o0 •Y .-. h O M H O d r .~ O ~ ~ c O ~n P ~o r o oo , - vi ~O n O o ~O r -. N -. O M rl - ~O ao ,- T 1~ v O o ~ - o t~ w d o o °O. ~ r~ n a c c: '^ o` '^ p ._ Mme, vi o .~ N `L E r n _ M - ~ - = . ~n r •~ a ~~ ~: ~ ~` F N V' vi -nr 1~ c V1 ~O L ` e ~' a 0 ¢ N h U a ~ ~ u ~ M C ~D K - ~ O~ 7 • - rl - ~ O '~ F ~n v~ rn ~n ~n C a' ~ O O ~n r~''i, rn rn ~ ~n ¢ rn v~ ~ ¢ " ri ~ v~ F F F F F Q ¢ Q O O F F F F ¢ F ~ F F F~ ~n F~ N f~- I~- ~ x a z ` u ~ ~ ` ° a ` F F o :: v c O o F, ¢ v 9 ~~ y ~ L° e F .~ ` _ e F w w F !L a ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ U C ri L A ~ u C ii v ~ 7 p~ ~ y 'a j Y .~ O to N V O U v :/I F ~ ~ O U .y VI Cl ~ d . m ~ o ~ C Y i :., ~ .o F F g ' :. ~ o o o ~ e ~ o m ~ F ~ 7 r° £ O 9 A _ 'O ` ~ , , W OOi L . ~ O CJ 3 N v •L . _ C O : A' C~~ ~ V ~ S C rn O r ~ d . ~ ~y ~' F •• CC .M.. ~ ~ ~ u ^~ v` F ~ ' w o ~ C r C v y p - Y G DO ~ N N v C V S . '. L ~ v C v U AI F T O~ } v ^ 2 L z N C7 ~ 4. • O D . 5 ~ 3 N ¢ o ~ ~ O S ' O 2' d F O N O ~ i R l y F ~ a C U 7 ~ C D L . .~ = ¢ 7 L y a = . a v, . z U V ~ C F - i o . e~~ l ~ o W ~ o i ~. L ~ z ~ C m fl R = Y vF C i v m M ^f Z ~ A ¢ ~ - = FF a z o v s Y J O i T 1 L ~~ q F'- Lnl ~; cw ~J J oa ~n Y ~D 1~ O t`1 CI ~ ~ N CI - O -- O 3 F N O Y - Y O~ O` - O - N T 1~ 1~ r` r 7 •} Y ? V ~ R ~n Q~ M O M O~ .G In T •~ G t`i O~ N 7 - O~ M M -+ M ~O . O~ Iq C d - - ~ 7 N d ~ C n1 ~ P - G M op N - ~n ~ ~ 00 T 00 Y h Y f~ Y ~ O ~n oo i0 y~ O O ~D ~ ~ Iry T y C J 0o T C~ N ~D ~O 7 Y C O m ~ . O d. O z O =. .- oo b m m ~ - O IY Y Y Y M ~n T O d d w O C nl ~' O i a ~ F - Y ~ ~ ~ a a 3 a ~ C m o0 9 ~ O ~p N ~ ~ a a 00 lp ~ V1 f'7 N N ~n vt fl l`1 ~ O R F N 0 .--~ 0 7 O~ 00 N t~ f~ h 1~ t~ r` ~ Y Y ? In Y v1 O~ M O M T ~O T 0 N n M ~ t~ r1 M ~ M lp T Vl e d - - - - - n 9 .~ ~ O R ~ C M - ` V1 Y •rl + 00 00 1~ r vl Vl b O ',O IA 1 - ! T vt 1 1 Y 7 Y V o0 00 ~ O ~ ~! ~ zo E - ri o ~o v Y V M ~n e '~ d - ~ M O~ C A F Y v'^i ~ ` O e a = d U R C ~ N Y C C o0 CI C - L ~ d .`_3 Lc. Li k. [s. Lr. v] yJ ~ 4s. [x. ~ [x, Lu Ls. F d Lt fi e fn fn rn ~ ~ ~ ti ~ fn v, ~ rn ~ L- F F- F F ¢ a F F- F F F N F F R is n n •~ F F Ta ee a vi ~~ F F o v °' d o 0 o F o w y ~ C] 9 F F F o f R ~ _ ^G 4~I O 7 J C1 Y L L O ~ LLI C7 R V V m y ~ i ~ ~ y A 9 ~ 0~ O Y a . R Y o . . U ' U • U ' . . V F I 9 'i ° a ° L R ° q ~ W :. r ~ v c ~ ~. d W o m a. d ~ c a ln W c_ F .c F F c ±+ F Vi 0 ~ L n = ~ W o ~ .r. . O. ~ O. {i >- Q "u v i a A ° o ~ O z° d ° n d _ - d s .=1 <I e i U = z C7 C .= ..7 a v) ` ~ = vi 0. i 0. ~ 0.1 fni 2 0. ` ~ ^d ~ i ~ ~ o d o o ~. a _ . ~ O t °1 O ~ s d M ~ m z m ~ •_ z I Z z I Z vF a ` V ~ C ', ` ° r z = 'F 0.d z P I z °- C i .o r~ i a 0 W r- L s ~y =• _L JJ OO O T ~ vl Vlq! O ~ F a a a a oe I oe j ' Q N o0 , ~ Y ' T C .. Y L d ~ O b N ~ ~p V O O a Z ~ b 0 G of - - - Y T d I e O N T O O fn f- T N O ' N o0 ao M O~ O~ O O N ~ O~ ~ ao Y Y M ~O a ~ F o fi ni oo -7 ao rw ,n °~ ~a L L a 0 d ~ rn - f~l ... . M L ~+~ ~' 3 ~ r" ~n N O O~ ~n ~D U ~n IUD n O D 2 p _ ~ U ~ ~ r w ~ ~0 7 ~ .Y , M rl r n - == G d - ~ ti M o0 T O vi 1n O ` N a0 - 7 Y G e d - 9 ~ L O w [~ m m m P M O O G b b ri °; ~° ~ r ~ Z E N o o m ~ I ~ o. 4 . a v ~_ N O N M f- R N C 7 o0 v M T T O I°~ ~ M ~ C y Y F T fl N N l r Y O W N r e0 V1 P ~O ~ W y L ~ ~ vi rvt -•. - N ~ M - - r - U ~ ° y ~ M M O~ t`I O~ O O P Y ~- .r ~ P oa vl `O ~O M Q O v O 6 7 ~ v i R ~ ~ ~ d s O a - 2 e ~ » F V Cc u a [c ~ » ~~ » ~ ~ ~ e i i v n r v i . ` w ° ~`-° is OF F o FF o L O ~ ° 8 m `o Y y ° r y °' v ¢ ~ ~ ~ F U ` A e ` ~ m v Q N ~ G N G ~ C..i U J m N J O L L ~ ~ L L L ~ ~ O v~, ~.o ~ S ~ ~ ` . U ~ol ~ ~ F' O v, ~ ~F 1 ~'a , ~" ~' ' p O a C a ~ ~ .- N r ~ O 'u L ~. °_ v r ° ., Q = a av C• p °o C a a C v Z o° 9 f A t V ~ ~ ~ tu v Z U U R a d 4 ~ () ~ i ~ = 0 [] ~ u p ~ ,-. ; r v~ rn ' 0 0 .-l ~ i~o ^ zz ~ i L w 7 ov 0.' ° R' o ° =~ O a ~& O w s v r~ z ~ m 2 _ z, m z ~° a N F- a i L. n -_ o _. '_°' L I S V ' Z ~ ;~ N N I N F a Z ~ Z _ I 7 ~c Y ^.O rl ri < a c 0 ~~ r- e ~o ='~ J ~ a 0 [• un ~: Table 2~ PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET COMPARISON (NON-RESIDENTIAL USES) Current S ecific Plan Pro osed Pro'ect Difference Nei hborhood Plannin Areas Units Amount ADT Amouut ADT Amount ADT A I-3 "iSF 1,320.98 17,734 1,320.9R 17,734 0 0 B 4,5,7 TSF 248.3 8,974 1 248.3 8,974 0 0 C 6 TSF 57.5 3.920 57.5 3,920 0 0 D 8,13,14 TSF 4.762.87 74,489 4,566.8 72,293 -196.07 -2,196 E 9-12 TSF 1,267.33 17,273 1,406.11 19,420 138.78 2,146 F 16-19 TSF 1,041.45 35,450 1,041.45 35,450 0 0 G 15,20,21 TSF 4fifi.fi3 14,855 466.63 14,855 0 0 H 22 iSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 i Notes: I) See Figure 2-1 for neighborhood map. 2) Park uses are not part of the non-residential trip budget. City of Tustin Austin-Fuwt Aswciatrs. Inc. Legacy Park otTwtin L•gacy Tral7ic Analysis '_-I I 9??UIWrp15.duc Chapter 3.0 ON-SITE ROADWAY SYSTEM This chapter discusses the on-site roadway system of the Proposed Project in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G. The purpose is to show the type of on-site roadways, intersection controls and intersection lane geometries that are proposed within the project area and confirm that the proposal meets the established operational criteria. PLANNED CIRCULATION SYSTEM The circulation system assumed for the traffic analysis study area for buildout 2025 conditions is illustrated in Figure 3-1. Included are the roadways in the current Specific Plan and the addition of several roadways, mostly two-lane local arterials. The on-site circulation system includes two six-lane major arterials, Tustin Ranch Road and Wamer Avenue, secondary arterials (Valencia North Loop, Legacy Road, North Loop Road; Park Avenue, Armstrong Road, "A" Street between Red Hill Avenue and "C" Street, "F" Street, "C" Street and "B" Street north of Tustin Ranch Road in Neighborhoods D and E), and local roadways in Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area IS of Neighborhood G to serve the Proposed Project. The arterial circulation system is virtually the same as established in the 2006 Addendum to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan EIS/EIR with the primary difference being the addition of the local roadway networks in the Proposed Project area (Neighborhoods D and E and Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G). INTERSECTION CONTROLS The assumed on-site traffic control measures are shown in Figures 3-2 through 3-4, for Neighborhoods D (Community Core Area), E and G (Planning Area 15). Traffic control measures are not project mitigation measures. Rather they address the traffic operational needs of the project site depending on individual capacity and include a combination of trat3'ic signals and all-way and one-way stop signs. A detailed analysis of traffic control measures, including traffic signals, stop-sign control and pedestrian crossings, will be performed with the associated development's master plan and street improvement plan reviews, and in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, when specific project Ciry of Tustin --~- ---- ------ --- L~~acy Purk of?ustin Lesxy Trranic Analysis 3-~ Altilin-Foust Associates, Inc. 9_~OlWrpli.doe i I -_~__ I I I~,,, p, NFL eIFk rv n, '' / /, 8. ~~ f. // I/ n I~ I ~ - i~ -r n.l.-.:.NIp INNi _ Major Arterial 161anes) - Primary Arterial (4 lanes) ~ Sewndary Arterial (2-4 lanes) Local Collector (2-J lanes) L~xal Street (2 lanes) City of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis Figure 3-I LEGACY PARK CIRCULATION SYSTEM Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. -~-Z 92'_(NNrpt5fig3-Ldw¢ T i ,I I ~ ~I T ~ I ,.. - -.t t- --- *-- 1 '~~ \, ,~r.. `''~. /. Ltgend Sign:dized Intersection Stop Sign r~Vl !p ~` _IF. "4.. q: ~ ~ _ ~ ,~ .. __._T ,1 ~~ ~ i , t~~, ,,,i ,Att ~, kU ~ _ i a ?" 1 V- ~ ` ~~~ c\ Figure 3-? RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES - COMMUNI"I'Y CORE AREA Cily of'fustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-3 Austin-Foust AssoeiaCes, Inc. UZ_INlarpU Fig3-Ldwg x ~\ 1~ I i _ _ -- •.\I 1, . ~. ~'~ ~ I I I r ~~na --~ - I i~ i~ j'.', '= I~ I I ~~, i ,;v~~ -- I I° ~. w I -~ ~ i I f w ~i w ~ J 7.0 M OS ~O o w t;, m a ~~ qz W E O a i C L ~ u C J ~ _~0 aCO o n n •j %0 C ~ . j N NI U ~„ A 00 C 'n Z R .. X ~~ ii M T 4 2 vii .' .1 c F= c ~ .. s --S ^'~ Ci J i • t ~ ~ ~ ~ `' , ~„ ,i i ~ / i I i, i ~ '~ ' I 1 I ~ _ -~_ ,, ~ ,~ \ ~, ~ ,,\\ ,,` I11 CIF' j 1, ~ \ ~,~ i ii _ - ~ ~ ;~ ,~ ~„ 1 ~ ~' ,~" _A - / 1 I ~ ~\--_' 1 ' -/j/' I i I I ~~-, _ _--____ _. I __._ ~ ~ _. ____ L_-___- Legcnd Signalized Intersection Stop Sign Figure 3-4 RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES - NEIGHBORHOOD G (PLANNING ARF-A IS) City of Tustin Leary Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis i-i Austin-Foust Associates. Inc. 9? 2111Fi rpu t ig ;-J. Jwg details are available. Appropriate traffic control measures will be in accordance with City Standards, as directed by the City Traffic Engineer, and implemented in the design of the development with the approval of the street improvement plans. INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY This section provides the proposed intersection lane geometry information for Neighborhoods D (Community Core Area), E and G (Planning Area I5). [[ has been prepared to assist in the design of the backbone roadway system for Tustin Legacy's Legacy Park. The intersection lane geometries for each analyzed neighborhood area are illustrated in Figures 3-5 through 3-7. A detailed analysis of intersection lane geometry will be performed with the associated development's master plan and street improvement plan reviews, and in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, when specitic project details are available. Appropriate intersection lane geometry will be in accordance with City Standards, as directed by the City Tratlic Engineer, and implemented in the design of the development with the approval of the street improvement plans. -------------.-- --- -------------------- City of Tuuin Auslin-Faust Asx~cia(c~. Inc. Lagac} Park ufTustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-6 4'_ZIIIUmtS.Joc 4 h~df ~~ q1. i !_ i _ I - __ _- -i ~A ~~~- y - _ __\ i ~ l , i f~\ ~ \ J~ . ,, ~: ~ II'' y I~ / ~ n'1~ „I~ ;'r~ `~! ~r~ t~ ~ ,. w, '-r ~t~ i - --; ~~- - ~ - ,~ ~ ~ ''-~ ~- ~~ ~~~ ry , ~ ~ ~_ ~_ ~;~+~i7t ,, ,;~~, .., ~ - ;- ` III ~ ~ ~~ ~;~ ;, ~ r ,'~ '`~'l ~~~,.. ~~ r ,. - _ ~ ~\ Figure 3-5 INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS - COMML'NlTY CORE AREA City of Tustin Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis 3-7 922(Ml4rpt~fig3-S.dwg x ,~ i ~;~ ~ FI ~ ~~~ ~~ttti _ \~ /~% ~` r~ ~.: ~ r. ~~ J~ ~ ~ --- V ~ !J. ~] i 1~7 ~ Iy, ~ - _ 1. /.4 i] ___ ~~~ .~ ;- ,~ ~ is ;.~ j~ z __. ~f tf ' ~ ~t ' ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1- I~~~ I v z 0 a ~~ oa z~ o~ ~z ;, z m ~. s = a~ ~z a z z J H ~~ _s _~ v~ ~s L S H J C H G ~ Y 7 n T O e _T ,p r ~ Ii ~: i ,I i I I I '~. \~~ ~; ~r ,' 1 ~~ ~\ ~a.r~ ~~ ~~ ` ~' ~~ /r % ~ i "~~- r '~~i ~ j i ,' ~---- +', --~ - j i `~ i i ~I ~ i~ ,.~ ~~i \ /~ji 1 1C, i ~ 1 ni eU -- '1 ~ ~f~ '~ ~ I ~ -- / ~ ~ ~~ I I"' ! i i i I IL i ~ Figure 3-7 INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS - NEICiHBGRHOOD G (PLANNING AREA IS) City of Tui[in Austin-Foust Aspicia[cs, [nc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy "PrafFic Analysis 3-9 Y?7lNlJrptilig;-7 dwg Chapter 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS This chapter discusses the pertormance of the circulation system of the Proposed Project. As noted in the methodology section, the Proposed Project is analyzed under long-range (year 2025) traffic conditions, and project land uses and circulation are expected to be completed by this time. The purpose is to contirm that the proposed roadway supporting the project will work within the established performance criteria. DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS Under year 2025 with-project conditions along with buildout of the on-site roadways, Red Flill Avenue, Edinger Avenue and Barranca Parkway along the periphery of the project are expected to be built out with their ultimate lanes. Tustin Ranch Road is assumed to be connected between Walnut Avenue and Edinger Avenue with a grade separation of the railroad and Edinger Avenue, and then an indirect connection to Edinger Avenue. Access to and from the north is provided via three roadways on Edinger Avenue (West Connector, Tustin Ranch Road and East Connector), three from the east (Moffett Drive, Jamboree Road and Warner Avenue), four on Barranca Parkway (Aston Street, Armstrong Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road and District Road), and three on Red Hill Avenue (Valencia North Loop, Warner Avenue and Carnegie Avenue) Figure 4-1 shows the average daily tratiic (ADT) vohrmes for the on-site roadways. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) Table 4-1 provides the results of [he intersection analysis for the intersections illustrated in Figure 4-2. Because the changes included in the Proposed Project compared to the current Specific Plan as amended in 2006 are minor and that the AD'C projections outside the Proposed Project boundaries show minimal change compared to the 2006 Specific Plan assessment, the only off-site intersections analyzed here are along the periphery of Tustin Legacy on Edinger Avenue, Red Hill Avenue and Barranca Parkway (see volume map in Appendix D). City ufTustin - ~----- ----- ---- ---~-~-~---- Austin-Fouuit Asuuiatrs, Inc. Lrgacy Park ul Tustin Legacy Tmttic Analysis 4-I 9~~0(WrP15.Joc I I -- __4.~- -- J - y `~ P I ~ / ~ / { _ IY 4 ~ { '1 ~ i ~~ ~, ~.~..M -rnr' vR4wun r6eii~i`,- i~ I _' 7J _- I 1 7 4 /I J5 M1 .,~ 57 51 14 ~. ~, ~y OJ " A11 ,I, I 'AAFtf.~ '.;T tl. ~L / •h __.-".--^:aviLe :.v-_ - - N • _ r ~ :~ .. • r ..: n~ "'f ~~ • ~ la .: ,di dill .. ~~ <, tii 4 1 .: _ /~ .~ ~ •~ ,7 ~~ D IO Y ~1 ~. It „ ~ - :. roll A Legend III -~~ ADT Volumes IIHIUs) Citv of Tustin Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis Figure 4-I LEGACY PARK ADT VOLUMES Austin-Foust Assncia[zs, Inc. -~ y'?2IX)4rpt~fig~t-I.Jwg Table 4-I PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I Intersection* ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Armstron & Valencia N Loo 60 A .55 A 2. Tustin Ranch Rd & Valencia N 73 C 64 B 3. Tustin Ranch Rd & Warner N 69 B .80 C 4. Tustin Ranch Rd & Warner S 58 A _ 65 B 5. Atms[ron & Warner .65 B .64 B 6. Armstron & A St .47 A .4R A 7. Tustin Ranch & C SUPark Ave 60 A .69 B R. Loo Rd & Warner .67 B .64 B i 9. Loop Rd & Jamboree SB Rams .20 A .31 A ~10. N Loo Rd & Moffett 24 A .20 A I I. N Loo Rd & Valencia N Loo .15 A 16 _ .4 13. Loo Rd S & District Rd .38 A .35 A 14. B St & Tustin Ranch Rd .45 A .49 A 15. Warner & F SULe ac .70 B .63 B 16. Annstron & C SUI St .28 A 30 A I8. Armstron & E St .32 A .26 .4 19. Warner & D Sf .29 A .38 A 20. Tustin Ranch Rd & Le ac .79 C .R I D 21. Armstron & B S[ .40 A 26 A 22. Drivewa A & Warner .72 C 80 C 23. Drivewa B & A St .43 A .46 A 24. B St & A St .38 A .35 A 25.CSt&ASt .41 A 59 A 26. Drivewa C & B S[ .25 A .l4 A 30.JSt&GSt .13 A 14 A 31.BSt&GSt 09 A .11 A I 32. L St & G SUH St .08 A .I2 A 33. 1 St & H St 07 A 09 A 34.JSt&ESt .25 A .32 A I 35.BSt&ES[ 15 A .23 A 36.LSt&ESt 12 A .28 A 37. C SUF St & E St 35 A .40 A 38. I St & F St 38 A 55 A ~ 39.JSt&ASt ?9 A .45 A 40. B St & A St 36 A 57 A ~ 41.CSt&ASUDSt i 45 A ~ .53 A City of Tustin --- ~-----_-Austin-Fuus[Assucialc~. Inc. Legacy P;uk ofTuuin Legacy Tratlic Analysis ~-J v~?U(Wrpr t$.Juu Table 4-1 (cont.) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS SUMMARY AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection* ICU LOS ICU LOS 42.NSt&DSt Il A _ .IR A 43. M S[ & A St .35 A 32 A 44.KSt&ESt 08 A 10 A 45. K St & G St OS A I I A 46.BSt&[St 10 A 09 A 47.JSt&ISt .16 A 17 A 50. B St & Valencia N Loo 25 A 22 A S1.NLoo Rd&BSt .14 A 14 A 52. East Connector & B St l g A 17 p 53.DSt&BSt 14 A 14 A 58. D St & MotYet[ 35 _ A 28 A 59. C St & Moffett 45 A 37 .q 60. N Loo Rd & Le ac 34 A 30 A 52. C St & Le ac .10 A .16 A ~ h3. N Loo Rd & G St .IO A 14 A 101. Red Hill &Edin er R7 D 7R C 102. Red Hill & Valencia .R4 D 73 C 103. Red Hill & Wamer 81 D 90 D 104. Red Hill & Came ie .53 A .57 A 105. Red Hill & Barranca 70 B R 1 D 106. Aston & Barranca 52 A 62 B 107. ArmsVOn & Barranca .58 A .61 B 108. Tustin Ranch Rd/Von Karman & Barranca .79 C 74 C 109. West Connector &Edin er .53 A .70 B 110. Tustin Ranch Rd Connector &Edin er ,70 B 79 C 111. East Connector &Edin er .65 B .69 B I12. Tustin Ranch Rd & Tustin Ranch Rd Connector .74 C .77 C 113. Tustin Ranch Rd & Walnut ,g3 p R2 D '" See intersection location map in Figure 4-2 ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS - Level of Service City of Tustin Austin-Foust As>,xia0.s, Inc. Legacy Park ufTustin Legacy TrutTie Analysis 4-4 `)'_'?OlWtptS.dce __-. I ~ ' , I+ 1114 I~ 1 I D ~ i 101 ~~-~ - ~,7u:.~ ~:, .. _- - ~ .. -_~ _ *ll2 _ -- , - Ill ~,~ ~ + ~ . i it ~ ~ ' ~ ' ;, i._ 53 I S2«~ + X ~ ~ / II it i /~ . 1 I ~ " ;~ _ ~ ~ . , ~ 102 _ _ • .\ ~. ~ ')~ I . ~ Sx I ~~) _I _-_..---. MMW f-11 ~~H 'I ~ ~ ';\ ~\ I. ~ 62 II 60 - ~, ~I 1 ~ ~ ~- •~ 103 ~~ __ _. 15 ~~ :-+ ~ 19 ;. ~x _ ... ~ i ~ • --_ ~ - ~ ~ ~ _ I ~1 q~: 45~ I'~37~ ~~ 2 4 ~, . ~ •47 -~~A31 `fc36 ^41 ~ i~ ~~ lfM ~ 23 ~~'- •16 ~~30 X354 ,~J3 ~a7 ~j -c:r:.~,riF,. ,~ rT-~?4 ~ •34 ~.~ ~, ~,'.. ~ 40 ~lx 13 ~ i i' ~ •?5 ~14 \ t ,~ ~ 39 III ,,,,~ ~ Ins 10¢. 107 lux ~, Figure 4-2 INTERSECTION LOCATION HAP City nf'Cus[in Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Legary Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis d-5 92211114rp15fig4-2.Jwg "fhe intersection criteria involve the use of peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ICU ranges that correspond to LOS "A" through "F" were described in Chapter 1.0, and by practice the [CU methodology assumes that intersections are signalized. Based on the peak hour intersection performance criteria and impact thresholds discussed in Chapter L0, all intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels (i.e., !CU value is .90 or less). (See Appendix B for detailed ICU worksheets.) TURN POCKET LENGTHS This section addresses tum pocket lenlnhs for left-turn and right-turn lanes at future signalized intersections with exclusive right-turn and left-turn lanes. They are based on vehicle storage requirements, and are thereby exclusive of transition lengths (typically, transitions are 90 feet for a single lane and 120 to 150 feet for a double lane). The recommended [um pocket lengths for left-turns and right-turns are summarized in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. A detailed analysis of the left- and right- turn pocket lengths will be performed with the associated development's master plan and street improvement plan reviews, and in coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, when specific project details are available. CONCLUSIONS This analysis has shown that the proposed Legacy Park land use and arterial circulation changes within the Master Development footprint of Tustin Legacy have not resulted in significant changes to the projected trip generation or in any new significant project impacts that would require mitigation. Therefore there are no changes to the previous traffic findings included in the original Program EIS/EIR and the subsequent addendum completed in 2006. Moreover, the proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied here. Cnvo(Tustin --~------_---_-- _______ __.__ __ 4mtin-Foust Aswcia[cs. Inc. Lrgaey Putk ur Tustin L~_acy Tialtic Analysis 4-fi 92?Ut?trptAduc Table 4-2 LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS i Intersection N/S Rd at E/W Rd) ~ Movement Peak Hour Volume Lanes Volume/Lane I Len th ' 2. Tustin Ranch & Valencia N Loop SBL PM 38 2 19 I50' NBL AM 317 2 159 X00' EBL PM 521 2 _ 2fil I 300' WBL PM 27 1 27 150' 3. Tustin Ranch & Wamer N SBL PM 727 2 364 400' WBL AM 1,675 2.9* 578 600' 4. Tustin Ranch &Wamer South NBL PM 17l 2 R6 150' EBL PM 989 2 495 500' 5. Armstrong &Wamer SBL PM 135 1 135 150' NBL PM 418 2 209 250' ~ EBL AM 201 i 201 250' WBL AM 150 1 I50 I50' 6. Atmstrong & A St SBL AM 229 1 229 250' NBL AM 107 l 107 I50' EBL AM I50 I i50 150' WBL PM 216 1 2l6 250' 7. Tustin Ranch & C StlPark Ave SBL PM 25R 2 l29 I50' NBL AM 259 2 130 I50' EBL PM 222 I 222 X50' WBL PM 248 1 248 250' R. Loop Rd &Wamer SBL PM ~ 30 1 30 150' NBL PM 221 1 221 250' EBL PM 51 2 26 150' WBL PM 90 2 45 150' 9. Loop Rd & Jamboree SB Ramps SBL PM 171 1 171 200' NBL PM 46 1 46 150' EBL PM 60 1 60 150' WBL AM 325 2 163 200' 10. N Loop Rd & Moffett SBL PM 69 1 69 l50' WBL AM 279 1 279 300' 1 I. N Loop Rd & Valencia N Loop NBL AM 76 l 76 150' EBL AM 86 1 86 150' 14. B St & Tustin Ranch SBL PM 278 1.9* 147 l50' 15. Warner & F St/Legacy EBL SBL AM PM 252 558 2 3 126 279 150' 300' NBL PM 51 1 51 150' EBL PM 516 1.9* 272 300' WBL AM 23 l 23 l50' 20. Tustin Ranch & Legacy SBL PM 146 1 146 150' NBL AM 330 1 330 350' EBL PM 353 t 353 400' WBL PM 116 1 116 150' City ,if Tustin -~- --------,4uain-Foust .4ssociatcs. Inc. Lrgaty Park of Tustin Leeacy Ttattic Analysis J-7 y??Illµrpti.t{uc Table 4-2 (cont.) LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENG'T'H REQUIREMENTS Intersection N/S Rd at E/W Rd) Movement Peak Hour Volume Lanes Volume/Lane ' Len th 22. Driveway A & Warner .SBL PM ~ 110 I 110 I50' NBL PM 137 l 137 I50' EBL AM 346 I 346 350' i WBL AM fi3 I 63 190' 23. Driveway B Nt A St ~ SBL PM 268 I 268 300' NBL PM 46 I 4fi 150' EBL AM 326 I 326 350' WBL AM I59 I 159 ~ 200' 25. C S[ & A St SBL AM I l6 I 116 150' NBL AM 261 I 261 300' EBL AM 21 I 21 150' WBL PM 269 I 269 ~ 300' 40. B St & A St SBL PM 253 l 253 300' NBL AM 295 2 148 l50' EBL PM 40 I 40 I50' r WBL PM 22 1 22 I50' 4l. C St & A St/D St SBL AM I 1 1 150' NBL AM 471 2 '_36 250' EBL PM 57 1 57 150' WBL PM 38 I 38 150' fi0. N Loop Rd & Legacy SBL AM I I I 150' NBL AM 79 1 79 190' EBL PM 165 I 165 200' WBL PM fi3 I 63 150' 102. Red Hill & Valencia SBL AM 270 2 135 150' ~ NBL PM 1,120 2 560 fi00' EBL .4M 40 I 40 150' WBL AM 580 2 '90 300' 103. Red Hill & Warner SBL AM 600 2 300 300' NBL PM 480 2 240 250' EBL PM 280 ~ 140 150' WBL AM 290 2 l45 150' 104. Red Hill & Carnegie SBL AM 500 2 250 250' NBL AM 120 1 120 150' EBL PM 90 I 90 f 50' WBL PM 220 I 2?0 250' 106. Aston & Barranca SBL PM 150 I 150 150' NBL PM 130 I 130 l50' EBL AM 300 1 300 300' WBL AM RO 1 RO l50' 107. Armstrong & Barranca SBL PM 340 I 340 ~ 350' ~ NBL PM 100 1 100 150' EBL .4M 360 l 360 ~ 400' WBL AM 170 1 I70 200' City of Tuslin - - ~-_ Auxin-Puuat Asmrciaks. Inc. L~~ucy P:vk ofTus[in Lesacy iraRic Analysis 4.8 9??OUJIptS.d~>< Table 4-2 (cont.) LEFT-TURN STORAGE LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Intersection (N/S Rd at E/W Rd) Yiovcment Peak Hour Volume Lanes Volume/Lane Len th IOR. Von Karman/Tustin Ranch SBL PM 540 2 270 300' i & Barranca NBL PM 500 2 250 250' EBL PM 360 2 IRO 200' WBL AM 670 2 335 ~ 350' I l0. Tustin Ranch Rd Connector NBL PM 430 I 430 ~ 400' & Edin er WBL AM 430 2 215 250' I 11. East Connector & Edinger SBL PM 300 1 300 300' NBL AM 130 1 130 I50' EBL PM 130 t 130 I50' WBL PM 90 I 90 l50' 112. Tustin Ranch & SBL PM 260 1 260 300' Tustin Ranch Rd Connector WBL AM 700 2 350 350' 113. Tustin Ranch & Walnut WBL PM 370 2 IRS 200' Abbreviations: Adj. -Adjacent ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Ln(s) -Lane(s) N/S Rd. E/W Rd - North/South Road, East/West Road RT -Right-Tum Vol- Volume Notes: The mm pocket length for right- tum lanes is detemtined from the estimated queue length of the highest adjacent through movement (or left-turn movement at a T-intersection) in the AM or PM peak hour with a minimum of l50' and rounded into increments of 50 '. Only intersections [hat are anticipated [o be signalized with dedicated left- tum lanes are analyzed here. * The right-turn volumes (or through at a four-way intersection) are assumed to use five (5) percent of the shared left- turn/right-tum lane. C'i[y ol'Tustin Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Legacy P;vk of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis J-9 9221Nkirptidoc `~ c ooo o n o oo~0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ eoov1~noovl ~n ~n ono O~n vl vlOO~n ~n ~n vl ~n vlO ~n M M N N M M N PI N rl M M rl N N M M N N N N N N M N 7 4 y°d a a ¢ a Q < a a Q d ~~r`~I~I~~irI1~ V'I~I7I OBI OaII ~INI~OI rI NINIr I Q~ M M ~--~ N rl N N rl fi M M M ^~ N N M M N - - ~- - M M N `~ z ~ ~O M ~p O ~ `D O O N vl T p. ~ T 00 00 r 000 fl O~ 7 ~p r+t T M ~ O R 00 p^ a0 ^ ~ t` ~ W ~ a0 ~ M O O - [1J d ' .~ m m m ~ m m lF w F F F F I- (-. F F E-' F --I F .-1 F E' F ~" a e d~ ~ z w 3 z 3 Cq 1n ~l r ~ m ln m w m v, m z m w m v, ~ m w m m W P7 m m m p] m . z 3 z 3 ~ w ~ 3 ~ 3 s ~ F M Y z V 1 \ ~ O ~ N b M M Y fl N r I b N 00 ~ y " 'J ~ n f' vl ~ R V M rl U N ~O 00 t` r• N ~ rl O N O\ N .. M ^ M ~(,` N O N O~ ~ M N ~ - - ~ - ~ M ~ D 00 M Yt M ~- ~ e{ M rl N n ? F V 1 LL OF F ° - - - ~, v, h - - _ - ~. - - - - v, - VI C , .~ - - - rl Z F ~ 0 ~ ^ ~ ..... 'S M m n P o ^^ n V O D\ n ~ b O ~ ~ M N e0 ~ ~ M ~ ~ T M b U Y _ N N vt N M M N N - ~ fl ~n a0 ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ d a a a. a a d a a d d a a d a c. d a d a d a d a d f I m ~ ~ m ~ ~ m m ~ ~ m m I C ' ° a 1 C 1 " 6 C l m m m m m m W m m m W ~ cQ Nzwl3z3,~wrnwtizwrnzw3z3~wN$N3 a ~ ~z ~ u R I > z I ~ . z v cO 3 ~ ~ c i > ~ s. v N 3 ~ ~ c' 1 ~ ~d = ? Jl ~ > ~ R y % v ~ r2 F ~ 3 a! d a ? ~ ~ ° ~ ~ z o 0 w z a z A ~ ~° ~ ~ a a w r z V ~' y ~ n m ~ w ~ 3 rl M Y ~ v i f - a 0 O _ 7 v, 9 9 a c ~O. .a ~¢ T a F J 1=~ =1 r 9 - S "o "., J I i E. o 'o 0 0 o io 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 o c y~ C ~n nO n n vt ` n .n v, vi vl ,n o O O O V1 n n n ~n o O O O O O L ~ M Nt~t rl N l I N N N M M N T ? 7 ,n N N N N N M M M M ~n t~f ~~ cc G ~ c L CC G cc L c G c G c G CC G ~ CC L cc G CC L ~= a n. is a . s a. Q Q a a n. Q a O ~O vi I~ o1 7 7 O 1~ -- T T ` '00 a0 7 ,n V', ~V1 I I :M 00 T I Vl `O l~ n d C A 9~ P M N [~ ~n N ,n ~ O O ~~ •T h h N vt ~O v1 M 00 Y ~n C l~ vt O ,n O Vi 0 0 0 0 0 ,O 0 oo 00 ? O ~O O M Y 1~ Q O V1 ~O hl tit - ,n M N ~n V ~n Vt 1~ M M M M V ~O N •~ L a~ M - M - N - M `7 N 7 7 M M M ^- ~n ~- M M ~S '.{ '- M ~ h M 'T ~ h _ O ~,~ 7 ~ O m O b O 0 P 0 pp 0 r 0 h 0 h O O O O O a0 O a O P O 7 0 O rl L r O ~~ ~ ,~ v1 7 ~ ~ b ~ N CSI N ^ .~ O M 7 ~ O Q N - N - - .--~ N N m m F 7 o Q m m m m --~ m m m m m m m m ~ m m m ~ m Cl m m m CG m m ~ w ~n w w z w v, w w ti z 3 ~ z w 3 z I w ~ z ~ z w 3 z w 0 a ~ h r ~ n ~0 ~ ~ O ry O O ' ~ ~O O O O O 7 h Y ~' P ~ N M o ~ a 0 r n ~ O ~O h ~ b b i M n vi N R - ~O N N N ~O ^ N M ~-- V1 M Y - vt I CG.] - - - - - - ^ -- - - ^ ^ - - - - - 0 vi M 7 - 00 M V1 v1 ~D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (~ I~ M ? ~ vt ~ N 7 ~ r1 b r N N N ~D ~ O 7 M ~ M VNi M ~7 ~ vt ~i N F.. w A~ G G G L G L G L G L G G ~ G G ~ L a= Q a a Q a a. a G a a Q G a Q , Q 4 a Q G a a G a ¢ L a L s ¢ L a a Q L 1 Q ~ F., > c x x s s x c ce x x x a' ~ eG x a' x ~ oe eG CG CG CC ~ s' a ~ a ~~ ~ m m w z m ~ v~i m w m z 3 m z m 3 z ~ 3 °7 z m z ~ 3 z w . , v i x F- ~J z s "~ R w J \ ` W V A L y ro .v R 'J c td Y ~ o 4 CG R ' y w ~ 3 to cC G N ~ y ° o z s Q I i z:, ~ A 3 A m > ~ .-~ ~ ' ~ ~ o ~ > v ~ ~ ~ ~ t v oY z ~ Q m ` . n ~ ~ g a al ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ C c ~ A :a I Q Q = _ =_ ~ K J O . L I L w ~ ~ O ' x _ z 1 . ~ m . ~ w I ~ I ~ N I ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ v 2 ~ ~i r F - ~ D W U Z I Q i - F f a f~S~ ~ ~ I nl N M Y' T L N ~ re O ~ 1 - 0 ~ ~ C - I i p V I=-O~ C = Y I'a~ O o ~ ?d LL III C Y a 9 ~u c 6 T ~o L I ~ t0 N [-. e d~ oo ob RL a i ~ o ~ c o o - ~ ~ i ~ v v c ~ L °' a R~ ~ ~ °'~ ~ a a ~ ~ v ~ L N ~ O` t~ v m U `c. ~ ~- °. ~ 0 C "v o ~ r r M C .C ~ I ~ O O V ~ ~ C 7 q Q ~ ~ M M N ~~ , U G A ~ d ~ ' 0 O O O ~ N ~ Q ~! N N N O ~ L u ~ S . O y ~ ~ m m F m ~ w v ~v [0 m <E ~ z 3 z .3 '40 N C p~ C .~ 7 A X 0 0 0 O O 7 0 ~ r ~ ON M N ° a A >> F y v .~ A s w j o o o o c ~ ,3, F °O- ~ ~ M cPV .5 ~ a ~s ~~v ~" .~ 6 L i a Odi .y~.i o. Q ¢ Q ~` ~ ti ~ F ~ ~ N a F l m m m m m 3 b ~g ~ s z 3 z 3 ~ ~ ^~v w S ~c~ o .~ H z ~ o v ~ '- c m .o ~ ~ ~ ~ U = w v c L G L ~ A r L0 ~ a v -c °' o a' ~ i s ~ ~° ~~ u z ~ .-n ZI v ~~ ? acv O I ~ Y o c 'n ~~ 3 ~ 7 z ~~ o U ~ ~ ~ c ti N 0 3 u '^ v 5 ~' . .. ~ ~~ ~ uJ F ~ m"ti. v ~ ~^~ ~~ ~ ~ N ' F-' yi C ~~- r ~ ~ ~ C i ~I1 'O C Z F'y ~ ~ ,--~ Z ~ ~ -~ ~ G ~,9 ~ ~? I ~ f' ;, DILL 0 ~¢ I J L ;o Appendix A LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Table A-1 ADT and Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate Sununary Figure A-I Tustin Legacy Traffic Model (TLTM) Traffic Analysis Zone System Cify u(Tustin Austin-Foos[ A>wciair5. Inc. Legacy Park o(Tustin Legacy Tial7ic Analysis A-I V?2o(Nryl?.doe Table A-I ADT AND PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION RATE SUMMARY AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use ,Units ~In Out _ Total In Out Total ADT I. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) DU .19 .56 .75 .65 .36 1.01 9.57 2. MDR (8-IS DU/Acre) DU 13 .51 .64 .56 .24 .80 8.00 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) DU OR 43 .51 .42 ?0 .62 6.63 ' 4. Transitional Housin Room 2l 17 .38 .18 .22 .40 4.90 5. Hotel (190 TSF) Room .34 .22 .56 .32 29 .61 8.23 6. Elementa /Middle School Stu l7 l2 .29 .00 .00 .00 1.02 7. Hieh School I Stu I .32 .14 .46 .06 A9 .l5 1.79 ~ 8. Leamin Center TSF .66 .07 .73 .l5 .34 .49 6.12 9. Nei hborhood Commercial TSF 1.63 t.05 2.68 4.68 5.06 9.74 111.82 10. Communit Commercial TSF I.00 .64 1.64 2.85 3.09 5.94 68.17 12. General Office TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 13.27 14. Milita (Ottice TSF 1.65 .23 1.88 .31 1.49 1.80 13.27 15. Li >ht IndustriaVR&D TSF 1.03 .21 L24 .16 .92 1.08 8.11 t7. Park Acre .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5.00 18. Re Tonal Park Acre .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5.00 19.GoIfCourse Acre 38 .10 .48 22 .50 .72 8.00 20. Communit Facilit TSF 2.00 .25 2.25 .89 1.97 2.86 25.00 1. Multi lex Theater Sea[ .00 .00 O1 .09 .06 .14 1.80 22. Senior Con>re ate I TSF .l9 .19 .38 ZO 22 .42 6.10 23. S ecialty Retail Center TSF .00 .00 .00 L l9 1.52 2.71 44.32 24. Theatre (29 TSF , Seat .00 .00 .00 .OI .O1 .02 1.25 25. Health Club TSF .5l .70 1.21 2.07 1.98 4.05 32.93 26. Hi ~h-Turnover Restaurant TSF 5.99 5.53 11.52 6.66 4.26 10.92 127.15 27. Senior Housin Attached I DU .04 .04 .08 .07 .04 .11 3.48 28. S orts Park Acre 01 .00 .Ol 3.40 4.10 7.50 53.80 29. Tustin Facilit SG 3.32 1.O1 4.33 2.27 4.76 7.03 62.20 Note: For a land use over 300 TSF that can be defined as a campus, the square footages are combined and the equation-based rates are applied [o determine trip generation (i.e., Shopping Center, Office Park and Industrial Park). The land use-based trip rates for these uses are based on the following equation: LN(T)=AxLN(X)+B where X=land use amount and T=daily trips ----- AM Peak Hour ----- ----- PM Peak Hour ----- Coefticients Pk/ADT Pk/ADT Land Use Type Units A B Ratio In Out Ratio In Out 11. Shopping Ctt TSF .643 5.866 .024 61% 39% .087 13.Office Park TSF .768 3.654 .080 76% 24% .087 16. Industrial Park TSF .768 3.654 .079 77"/0 23% .089 Abbreviations: ADT -average daily trips DU -dwelling units LDR -Low Density Residential MDR -Medium Density Residential MHDR -Medium High Density Residential R&D -Research and Development SG -special generator Stu -student TSF -thousand square feet Trip Ra[e Sources: MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR and ITE Trip Generation Manual, TI' Edition. 48% 36% 32% 52"/0 64% 68"/0 I City,~f Tustin Austin-Foust 4swciatrs. Inc. Legacy Park nF Tustin Legacy Tialtic Analysis A-? 92_'111Wrp[5 Jac ~ I r / N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a' I N .~ .. ~_--_____ I a ~ I o ~, o~ °" U ~ ~, ~ -. ' ~ ~ O r ~ o ~ ~ ^, a ~n r °` ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~~1 a ~ M M ~ b ~ r ~ P a ~ ~ ~ .~. ~~,o.. ~c o ~ r '" O 1 N N ~ ~ ` ' ' ^~ ti . r~ ~ ' ' .. I .-~ N ~ P, Y ~ ~ ~p / ~ ' ^ I M to I ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~m a ~ ~ ~~ ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ ` ` ~ 7 .--I ~ .^ I gyn. ~n ~.,. ~J ~ rn,r,~ .--i 4" F FW wn w o~ C w L ZO u C wN 4ea, on ~ (.~ J W UZ Z` ~w .~ s. z~ F E.., N7 F G p~ L 9 C c ~ a a - e z ~._~ a N m a ~._ ~~ ~9~ J ~ C ~z' ~ :i 9 L /L ~ L Q \ L C eo 'OWN c c s v c c ~ n a ;~ ~ ao. Z~ IX`_N i _~ ~a 9 _n :~ s ~_ ~i a Q T V :il L J c F J Fa c m v~ NEIGI®ORNOOD A LAND U8E AND TRIP GENERATION SUM8IRY -- AM Peek tlous -- -- PH Peak flour -- Lantl Uee Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT PIJ~NNING ARG 1 IEOnea 1-10) 6. Eleerntazy/MidDla School 550.00 93'0 94 66 160 0 0 0 561 8. Learning Center 1293.86 TSP 852 92 941 196 440 63fi 7920 9. NalgAbozhood Co®ercial 2].12 TSF 44 28 72 127 137 264 3033 29. Tustin Fae111ty 100.00 SG 331 101 433 227 476 703 6220 TOTAL 1322 287 1609 550 1053 1603 17734 PLANNING AREA 2 IEOnea 11,121 28. Sports Pack 24.10 ACRE 0 0 0 82 99 183 1297 PLANNING AREA 3 (tone 13) 4. Tranaitlonal Nouslnq 192.00 ROOM 40 33 73 35 42 77 941 NEIGN80RNOOD A TOTALS 4. Transitional Rousing 192.00 ROOM 40 33 73 35 42 77 941 6. Elemantazyl6fiAdle Sclwol 550.00 319 94 66 160 0 0 0 561 B. Learning Centez 1293.86 SST 852 92 944 196 440 636 7920 9. Neighbozhoetl Cooeroreial 27.12 TSF 44 2B 72 127 137 264 3033 2B. Sporta Park 24.10 ACRE 0 0 0 82 99 183 1297 29. Tustin Faeility 100.00 SG 332 101 433 227 476 703 6220 TOTAL 1362 320 1682 667 1194 1861 19972 A-4 [.egmy Palk of Tustin LeyLy 3/07 922.004 Land Uee Type PLANNING AREA 4 (tones 19,15) 1. LDR I1-7 DU/Aerel 2. MDR (B-15 DU/At re) 27. Senior Nouaing Attached TOTAL PLANNING AREA 5 (LOnes 1fi-20) 2. MDR (8-15 DV/Acre) 3. t4FiDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 27. Senior Housing Attached TOTAL PLANNING AREA 7 Eona Lantl Uss Typa 22 10. Coemunity Cowroicial 12. General Offip SUB-TOTAL 23 10. Coaamtnlty Coomareial 12. General Office SUB-TOTAL PLANNING AREA 7 TOTALS 10. Core,uni[y Commemisl 12. General Otfice T07AL NEIGXBORR000 B TOTALS 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acid) 2. MDR (B-15 DU/Acre) 3. MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) 10. Coomunity Coemarcial 12. General Office 27. Senior Housing Attached TOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD B LAND U3E AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY -- AN Peek Nour -- -- PM Peak NOUr -- Unite In Out Total In Out TCCal ADT 145 .00 DV 28 81 309 94 52 146 1333 120 .00 DU 16 62 78 63 28 96 960 72 .00 DU 2 2 4 6 2 3 250 46 145 191 163 82 250 2593 132 .00 W 17 67 34 75 30 105 1056 433 .00 W 35 188 227 135 33 273 2903 170 .00 W 5 5 30 10 5 15 590 57 260 317 270 123 393 9599 -- AM Peak Hour -- -- PM Peak Noui -- Unite In Out Total In Out Total ADT 51.73 TSP 52 33 35 147 160 307 3526 72 .42 TSF 119 17 136 22 103 130 961 171 50 223 169 263 437 4437 51 .73 TSF 52 33 35 147 160 307 3526 72 .42 TSF 119 17 136 22 103 130 961 171 50 221 169 26B 437 4437 103. 46 TSF 104 fib 170 294 320 614 7052 144. 84 TSF 238 34 272 44 216 260 1922 342 100 412 338 536 371 8974 145. 00 W 28 B1 109 99 52 196 1338 252. 00 DU 33 129 162 143 53 201 2016 '~ 433. 00 DU 35 133 223 135 38 273 2903 103. 46 TSF 109 66 170 294 320 614 7052 144. 84 TSF 238 31 272 44 216 260 1922 242. 00 DO 7 7 14 16 7 23 340 945 505 950 776 741 1517 16321 A-3 Legary Patlc of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 LanE Dee Type NEIGNBORNOOD C/PLANNING AREA fi (Eons 21t 10. Community Commercial 18. Regional Park TOTAL NEI GXBORAOOD C/PA6 LAND UXC AND TRIP GENEPATION SU9TfARY -- AN Paak Xour -- -- PN Peak Xouc -- Units In Out Total In Out Total ADr 5].50 TEP fiE 3] 95 161 176 312 3920 81.50 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 SB 37 95 161 17B 312 1313 A-6 upry Puk of Tustin I.egeLy 7107 922.004 NEIGNBORNOOD D LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Zone Lsnd Uee Type Unite PLANNING AREA E (NEIGNBDRXDQD D NORTN OF NARNER) -- AM Peak Xour -- -- PM peek Hour -- In Out Total In Out Total ADT 21 ]. Xigh School 1350.00 STU 592 259 551 111 167 278 3312 SUB-TOTAL 592 259 351 331 167 273 3312 25 23. Sports Perk 46.00 ACRE 0 0 0 156 189 315 2475 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 156 1B9 315 2975 26 9. Neighborhood Coneafreial 1.19 TSF 12 8 20 34 36 70 309 13. Office Park (EQ) 135.10 TSF 89 28 117 46 32 128 1978 (Equation base ~ 235.30 TSF 1 SUB-TOTAL 101 36 137 BO 113 193 2232 27 9. Neighborhood Commercial 27.99 TSF 45 29 79 123 139 267 3069 13. Office Paxk (EQ) 522.72 TBF 239 76 315 123 219 392 3963 IEquatian base - 1153.94 TSF 1 SUB-TOTAL 231 105 3B9 251 353 609 7032 28 13. Office Perk (EQ) 299.07 TSF 137 43 180 ]0 125 195 2267 IEquetion base ~ 1153.99 TSF 1 SUB-TOTAL 337 93 160 70 125 195 2267 29 9. Neighborhood Comrocei nl 17.23 TSF 28 18 46 81 87 168 1929 13. Office Perk IEpI 326.70 TSF 149 97 196 l] 137 214 2976 (Equation base - 1153.94 TSF ) SUB-TOTAL 177 65 242 153 224 3B2 4400 30 9. Neighborhood Comerreial 5.23 73F 9 5 11 24 26 50 534 13. Office Pstk IEQI 100.20 75F 66 23 37 34 fil 95 1096 (Equation bass - 235.30 TSF ) SUB-TOTAL 75 26 101 SB 87 145 1680 31 17. Park e.]0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 32 17. Park 1.60 ACHE 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33 15. Lignt Industrial/R90 162.70 TSF 163 3/ 202 26 150 176 1319 SUB-TOTAL 163 34 202 2fi 150 176 1319 39 9. Neighborhood Convnercial 4.32 TSP ] 5 12 20 22 92 933 12. General Office 38.31 TSF 64 9 73 12 58 l0 515 SVB-TOTAL ]1 19 BS 32 80 112 998 35 15. LSght Industrial/R9D 156.82 TSP 162 33 195 25 144 169 1272 SUB-TOTAL 162 33 195 25 141 169 12]2 36 12. General Offics 1]2.50 TSF 285 90 325 53 25] 310 2289 SUB-70TAL 2B5 90 325 53 257 310 2239 PLANNING ARE71 S (NEIGNBORNOOD D NORTX OF NARNER) TOTALS ]. Nigh School 1350.00 STU 592 259 351 111 16] 278 3312 9. Neighborhood Commercial 61.38 TSF 101 65 166 2i7 310 597 6364 12. General Office 211.31 TSF 349 49 398 65 315 380 2304 13. Offlca Pszk (EQ) 1333.79 TSP 630 215 895 350 629 9l4 11280 15. Light Industrial/R4D 319.51 TSF 330 67 397 51 294 345 2591 17. Park 10.30 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 23. Sports Pezk 9fi.00 ACRE 0 0 0 156 139 395 2475 TOTAL 2052 655 270] 1020 1899 2919 293]3 PLANNING AREAS 13 ANO 14 (NEIGNBDRXOOD D SOUTN OF NAIWER) PLANNING AREA 13 54 9. Neighborhood ConeN+zcial 9.]6 TSF lfi 10 26 46 49 95 1091 12. General Office 39.03 TSF 69 9 73 12 53 ]0 513 SUB-TOTAL 30 19 99 53 107 165 1609 55 10. Community Comma rciel 6.00 TSF 6 4 10 1] 19 36 409 17. Pszk 12.00 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 SUB-TOTAL 6 4 30 17 19 36 469 56 12. General Offiea 127.68 TSP 211 29 290 90 190 230 1694 SUB-TOTAL 211 29 290 40 190 230 1699 57 3. MXDR (16-25 OU/Acre) 59.00 DU 1 23 27 23 11 39 35B SUB-TOTAL 9 23 2] 23 11 34 358 58 3. NNDR (16-25 Du/Acre) 76.00 DU 6 33 39 32 15 4] 504 ll. Park 0.30 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 SUB-TOTAL 6 33 39 32 15 I7 506 n•~ tf~ry rBa: Df rD911D Legacy 3ro~ 9z2.004 NEIGHBORHOOD D LAND USE AND TRIP GEN61U1TIODi SIM4ARY (cont.) -- AN Peak Xour -- -- PH pack Four -- tone Lantl Uea Type Un1ta In Out Total In Out Total ADT PLANN ING AREA 13 (CORC.) 59 3. MXDR 116-23 W/Acre) 106 .00 DU B 16 59 /3 21 66 703 10. Covmunity Covmereial 26 .00 TSF 26 1] 43 ]4 30 159 17]2 SVB-TOTAL 31 63 9l 719 101 220 2475 60 3. MBDR (16-25 DV/Acre) 147 .00 DU 12 63 75 62 29 91 973 17. Park 0 .50 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 SUB-TOTAL 12 63 73 62 29 91 978 61 3. MRDR (1fi-23 DU/Acre) 292 .00 W 19 104 123 102 9B 150 1604 308-TOTAL 19 10/ 123 102 48 150 1609 62 3. MNDR (16-23 DU/Acre) 38 .00 W 3 16 19 36 B 2/ 252 SUB-TOTAL 3 16 19 16 B 24 252 63 1]. Park 1 .00 ACAB 0 0 0 0 0 0 S SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 69 3. NNDR 116-23 OU/Aerel 96 .00 W B /1 49 40 19 59 636 10. Conmunity Coamarcial 27 .00 TSF 27 17 4/ 77 83 160 1B/1 SUB-TOTAL 33 SB 93 117 102 219 2477 63 3. NIIDR (16-23 DO/ACral 96 .00 W B 41 99 40 19 59 636 10. Conmunity Comazelal 31 .00 SSF 31 20 S1 SB 96 189 2117 SOB-SOTAL 39 61 100 128 115 213 2719 6fi 10. Communi[y Coaavercial 7 .00 TSP 7 1 11 20 22 42 977 12. General Office 100 .00 TSP 163 23 138 31 119 130 1327 SOB-TOTAL I]2 27 199 51 171 222 1309 67 3. MRDR (16-23 DU/Aerel 10 .00 W 1 / S 4 2 6 66 10. Community Conmereial 22 .00 TSP 22 1/ 36 63 68 131 1300 12. General Otfiee 60 .00 TSF 99 14 113 19 E9 lOB 796 SUB-TOTAL 122 32 151 86 159 295 2362 68 12. General Oftica 63 .00 73F IOl 13 122 20 9l 117 863 17. Park 1. 00 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 9UB-TOTAL 107 15 122 20 97 117 868 69 13. Office Park (EOI 947. 20 TSF 255 B1 336 131 233 3fi4 9193 SUB-TOTAL 233 81 336 131 233 369 4193 70 5. Notel 1190 TSF) 230. 00 ROOM 83 SS 190 BO 73 133 2058 SUB-70TAL 85 SS 190 80 73 153 2038 71 3. MNDR 116-23 DU/ACSeI 17. 00 DU 1 ] 8 7 3 30 113 10. Community Conmmrcial ]3. 00 TSP ]3 17 120 208 226 434 9976 12. General Office 191. 00 TSP 233 32 265 94 210 259 1871 23. Health Club 20. 00 TSF 10 1/ 24 41 40 81 639 SUB-TOTAL 317 100 117 300 479 779 7619 ]2 3. I9iDR 116-23 OU/Acre) 9. 00 W 7 / 5 4 2 6 60 S0. Community Coamarcial 18. 00 TSF 1B 12 30 51 36 107 122] 12. General Office 1]8. 00 TSF 291 91 335 SS 265 320 2362 24. 9Taatra (2B TSF) 1000. 00 SEAT 0 0 0 SO 10 20 1250 SUB-TOTAL 313 57 370 120 333 953 9899 73 9. Natal (190 TSF) 250. 00 ROOM 83 SS 190 80 73 153 2058 12. General Office 123. 00 TSF 20fi 29 235 39 186 223 1659 SUB-TOTAL 291 B4 373 119 259 378 371] PLANNING AREA 13 TOTALS 3. MXDR (16-23 DU/Acre) 891 .00 DD ]1 382 453 375 17] 352 590] S. Hotel (190 TSP) 500 .00 ROOK 1]0 110 280 160 146 306 4115 9. Neighborhood Commercial 9 .76 TSF 16 10 26 46 19 95 1091 10. Community Coamezeial 210 .00 TSP 210 133 349 396 650 1216 14313 12. Genarel Office 833 .71 TSF 1379 192 1373 260 1294 1304 11090 13. Otfiea Perk IEO) 447 .20 TSP 233 BI 336 131 233 364 4193 1]. Park 14 .80 ACAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 29. Theatre 128 TSF) 1000. 00 SEAT 0 0 0 10 30 20 1230 25. Nealth Club 20. 00 TSP 10 14 24 91 90 N1 639 TOTAL 2111 924 3033 1621 2349 4170 42693 PLANNING AREA 11 71 10. Community Coveter<tal 8. 00 TSF B 3 13 23 25 48 543 12. General Offite 37. 40 TSF 62 9 73 12 56 6B 496 13. Office Park (EO) 321. 43 TSF 178 36 234 92 163 253 2933 (Equation baaa - 302.64 TSF 1 SUB-TOTAL 248 ]0 316 127 244 371 39]4 73 13. Office Park IEp) 181. 18 TSF 101 32 133 52 92 144 1653 (Equation base - 302.64 TS F ) SUB-TOTAL 103 32 133 32 92 144 1633 A-8 Legacy Palk of TmtlD Legary 3/07 922.004 NEIGHBORHOOD D LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUM[MRY Icont -- AM Peek Hour -- -- PM Peak Hour -- Zane Lend Uea Type Unite In Out Total In Out Total ADT PLANNING AREA I{ (cont.) 76 13. Office Park IEOI 302.10 TSF 389 60 299 97 173 270 3102 SUB-TOTAL iB9 60 299 97 173 270 3102 PLANNING AREA 19 TOTALS 10., COOmunlty Coamarelal 8.00 TSF B 5 13 23 25 98 5{5 12. General Offiu 37.90 TSF 62 9 71 12 56 68 996 13. Offlea Perk (Epl 809.79 TSF 168 148 616 241 {2B 669 ]688 TOTAL 538 Ifi2 700 276 509 785 8729 PLANNING AAEAS 13 AND 19 (NEIGMBORF1000 D SOUTH OF NARNER) 3. IlBDR (16-25 DO/Acre) 891.00 DU 71 382 153 375 177 552 5907 5. Hotel 1190 TSF) 500.00 ROOM 170 110 280 160 19fi 306 9113 9. Neighborhootl Conmerc iel 9.76 TSF 16 10 26 46 99 95 1091 10. Covmuni[y Coamareial 218.00 TSP 218 110 358 621 675 1296 1{860 12. Genezal Office 873.11 TSP 1941 201 1692 272 1300 1572 11586 13. Office Park (EO) 1251.99 TSF 723 229 952 372 661 1033 11381 17. Park 19.80 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2{. Theatre (2B TSP) 1000.00 SEAS 0 0 0 10 10 20 1250 25. Health Club 20.00 TSF 30 19 21 41 90 81 659 TOTAL 2649 1086 3735 1897 3058 9955 51929 NEIGNBORXOOD D TOTALS 3. MIIDA (16-25 DU/ACrsl 891.00 DU ll 382 953 375 177 552 5907 5. Hotel (190 TSF) 500.00 ROOM 170 110 280 160 146 306 9115 7. Niqh School 1850.00 STU 592 259 851 111 167 278 3312 9. Neighborhood Conmercisl ]1.19 TSF 117 75 192 333 359 692 7955 10. Conmuniiy Conniescial 218.00 TSF 218 140 358 621 675 1296 19860 12. General Office 1084.92 TSF 1790 250 2090 337 1615 1952 19390 13. Olfiee Park (EO) 2fi35.73 TSF 1903 9/{ 1897 722 1285 2007 23161 I5. Light Industrlel/R9D 319.52 TSP 330 67 397 51 299 395 2591 17. Pazk 25.10 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 24. Theatre (2B TSF) 1000.00 SEAT 0 0 0 10 30 20 1250 25. Nealth Club 20.00 TSF 10 19 24 {1 40 81 659 28. Sports Perk 96.00 ACRB 0 0 0 156 189 395 2475 TOTAL 4701 1791 69{2 2917 9957 7879 80802 A-9 Legacy Puk of TualiD Legacy 3/07 922.004 T-. 7F ~ zlr - NEIGHBORHOOD E/PA9-12 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUNHARY -- AN Peak Nour -- -- PM peak Hour - 2one Land Usa Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT 37 12. General Office 150.09 TSP 298 35 283 17 221 271 3992 16. Industrial Pack (EOI 196.90 TSF 136 91 177 69 335 199 2233 SUB-TOTAL 381 76 160 113 359 170 4225 38 12. General OfEiee 48.]9 TSF 80 11 91 15 73 BB 647 16. Industrial Park (Epl 56.63 TSF 52 16 6B 21 52 76 858 SVB-TOTAL 132 2] 159 39 125 161 1505 39 12. General Offlea 48.79 TSF BO 11 91 15 73 BS 617 15. Light Industrial/R6D 56.63 TSF SB 12 70 9 52 61 959 SOB-TOTAL 138 23 Ifil 21 125 119 1106 40 12. General Office 60.03 TSF 99 1/ 113 19 89 108 797 16. Industrial Park (EOI 78.76 TSF 67 20 87 31 67 98 1105 SOB-TOTAL lfi6 3/ 200 50 156 206 1902 11 12. Ganezal Offiea 60.89 TSF 100 31 111 19 91 110 BOB 13. Light Industrial/R6D 79.88 TSF 82 1] 99 13 73 86 648 SOB-TOTAL 182 31 213 32 161 196 1156 /2 17. Pazk 10.10 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 SOB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 {3 12. General Office 12fi.00 TSF 208 29 237 39 188 227 16]2 SUB-TOTAL 208 29 237 39 188 227 1672 1/ 17. Pazk 16.20 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 B1 S~-TOTAL o D o 0 o a B1 IS 9. Neighborhood Cosmareial 8.]1 TSF 11 9 I3 41 I{ BS 971 12. General Office 35.00 TSF 58 8 66 I1 52 63 461 SUB-TOTAL 72 17 B9 52 9fi 118 1938 16 9. Neighborhood Covmereial 5.88 TSF SO 6 16 28 30 58 fi58 12. Genazal OfLiee 72.05 TSF 119 1] 136 22 107 129 956 SVB-TOTAL 129 23 152 50 137 187 1611 47 13. Offiee Park (EOI 59.73 TSF /9 ifi 65 25 {5 70 808 (8quation base - 91 .89 TSF 1 SUB-TOTAL 49 16 65 25 15 70 BOB /B 13. Office Pazk (EOI 32.16 TSF 26 8 34 11 2/ 38 435 (Equation Dase ~ 91 .89 TSP ) SUB-TOTAL 26 B 31 14 21 38 135 19 9. HaigMOrhood Consasrelal 3.51 TSF 6 1 30 17 18 35 396 12. General Office 87.56 TSP 111 20 161 27 130 157 1162 S~-TOTAL 150 24 1]1 91 198 192 1558 50 28. Sports Park 3.20 ACRE 0 0 0 11 13 21 172 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 11 13 29 172 51 13. Office Park (E01 64.1] TSF 4B 15 63 25 9{ 69 ]94 (Equation base - 138. 10 TSF ) 9UB-TOTAL 48 15 63 25 41 69 791 52 28. Sporte Pazk 1.80 ACRE 0 0 0 16 20 36 258 SOB-TOTAL 0 0 0 16 20 36 258 53 13. Office Psrk (¢OI 73.fi1 73F 55 1] 72 28 51 79 907 (Equation Dase - 138. 10 TSF 1 SUB-TOTAL 55 1] 72 2B 51 79 90l NEIGBBORX000 E/PLANNING AREAS 9-12 TOTALS 9. Naighborhootl Covmercial 18.13 TSF 30 19 49 Bfi 92 178 2028 12. Gana ral Offiea 689.19 TSF 1136 159 1295 211 1027 12{1 9145 13. Office Park IEOI 230.00 TSF 178 56 239 92 16{ 256 2911 15. LSgA[ Industrisl/R6D 136.51 TSF 190 29 169 22 125 117 3107 16. Industrial Park IEOI 332.28 TSF 255 77 332 119 254 373 4196 17. Psrk 26.30 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 28. Sports Park 8.00 ACRE 0 0 0 27 33 60 430 TOTAL 1739 340 20]9 560 1695 2255 19982 A• 10 Legary Park of Tustin Legacy 3/07 922.004 Lantl Uea Type PLANNING AREA 16 (Lone 112) 11. Shopping Center (Ep) PLANNING AREA 17 (Lone 113) 11. 5hoppinq Cen ter (Ep) PLANNING AREA 18 (Lone 111) 11. Military IOffiee) PLANNING AREA 19 (Zone 115) 11. Shopping Center IEq) 21. Nultiplex Theater TOTAL NEIGXBORROOD P TOTALS 11. Shopping Center (Ep) 19. Military (Office) 21. Multiplex Thee tat TOTAL IEIGXBORN000 F LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMlARY -- AM Pesk Nour -- -- PM Paak Nour -- Units In Out Total In OUC Total AOT 998.00 TSF 202 129 331 5]5 623 1198 13772 97.00 TSF 21 19 35 60 65 125 1995 40.85 TSF fi7 9 76 13 61 79 542 935.60 TSF 196 125 321 559 606 1164 13391 3500.00 SEAT 11 11 22 301 203 504 6700 207 13fi 393 860 309 1669 19691 930.60 1SP 919 263 637 1191 1299 2433 23608 90.35 TSF 67 9 76 13 61 79 592 3500.00 SEAT 11 11 22 301 203 504 6300 997 288 735 1508 1553 3066 35150 A-Il Legacy Park of 7lstin Legacy 7/07 922.004 Zone Lantl Use Type PLANNING AREA 15 ]] 9. Neighborhootl Conmroroial 12. General Office SUB-]'0'fAL 7B 22. Seniot Congregate SUB-TOTAL ]9 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) SUB-TOTAL BO 17. Park SUH-TOTAL SS 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Aerel SUB-TOTAL 82 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) SUB-TOTAL 83 17. Park 22. Saaior Congregate SOB-TOTAL HI 10. Community Coaoerelal 12. General Offiw SUB-TOTAL B5 2. MDR (B-15 DU/Acre) SUB-TOTAL 86 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) SUB-TOTAL 87 1. LDR (3-7 DU/Acre) SUB-TOTAL BS 1. LDR (I-7 DO/Here) SUB-T07AL H9 1. LDR (1-7 00/Acre) SUH-TOTAL 90 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Aerel SUB-TOTAL 91 2a. Sporte Perk SUB-TOTAL 92 1. LDR (1-7 DU/ACIeI SVB-TOTAL 93 17. Psrk SUB-TOTN. 94 28. Sports Pask SUB-TOTAL 95 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) SUB-TOTAL 9fi 1. LDR (1-] DU/Acre) SUB-TOTAL 97 2. MDR IB-15 DU/Acre) 1]. Park SUB-TOTAL 9B 6. Elementary/Midtlla School SUB-TOTAL 99 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) SUB-TOTAL 100 1. LDR (1-l DU/Acre) SUB-1'(YIAL 101 1. LDR Q-7 DU/Acre) SUH-TOTAL 102 1. LDR (1-] DU/Acre) 1l. Park SUB-TOTAL 103 1. LDR I1-7 DU/Acre) SUB-TOTAL NEIGNBORX000 G LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY -- AN Peak Nouc -- Unite In Uut Total 26.68 TSF 45.74 TSF 79.50 TSF 308.00 W 9.50 ACRE 31.00 OU 40.00 DU 3.90 ACRE 79.50 TSF 730.65 TSF 104.54 TSP 54.00 OV 20.00 DU 9.00 W 44.00 DO 55.00 W 61.00 DU 11.50 ACRE 34.00 DU 10.60 ACRE 5.00 ACRE 47.00 W 35.00 DU 65.00 DU 2.50 ACRE 1200.00 STU 37.00 DU 65.00 DU 35.00 DU 61.00 DU 2.10 ACRE 49.00 DU A-12 93 28 71 75 11 B6 118 39 157 15 15 30 19 15 30 16 55 69 11 55 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 17 23 fi 17 23 8 22 30 B 22 30 0 0 0 15 15 30 15 19 30 131 81 215 1]2 29 19f 303 108 111 ] 28 35 l 28 35 4 11 15 9 11 15 2 5 7 2 5 7 8 25 33 8 25 33 10 31 I1 30 31 91 12 31 16 12 31 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 19 25 6 19 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 26 35 9 26 35 7 21 25 7 21 28 9 35 44 0 0 0 9 35 94 204 144 348 201 111 398 7 21 28 7 21 28 12 36 48 12 36 95 7 21 28 7 21 2B 12 31 96 0 0 0 12 31 46 B 25 33 8 25 33 -- PM Peak Houc - In Out Total ADT 125 135 260 2983 14 66 82 607 139 203 342 3590 16 17 33 485 16 17 33 485 60 26 66 864 60 26 66 86{ 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 23 20 11 31 297 20 I1 31 297 26 3{ 90 383 26 14 {0 383 0 0 0 20 16 17 33 465 16 17 33 505 372 404 776 8906 32 156 186 1387 904 560 964 30295 30 13 43 432 30 13 43 432 13 ] 20 191 13 7 20 191 6 3 9 86 6 3 9 66 29 I6 IS 921 29 16 45 121 36 20 56 526 36 20 56 526 10 22 62 584 40 22 62 SBI 39 97 86 619 39 {] 86 fi19 22 12 34 325 22 12 3{ 325 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 53 17 21 36 269 17 21 36 269 31 17 48 450 31 17 46 450 25 31 39 369 25 19 39 369 36 16 54 599 0 0 0 19 38 16 54 558 0 0 0 1224 0 0 0 1224 29 13 37 351 21 13 37 35{ 92 23 65 622 92 23 65 622 25 11 39 364 25 19 39 361 40 22 62 569 0 0 0 11 90 22 62 595 29 16 45 921 29 16 95 421 Legacy Pah of 7YL9tin Legary 3/07 922.004 NEIGXEORNOOD G LAND USE AND TRIP GENEMTION SUMMAAY (cont.) -- AN Psek Noar -- -- PM peak Rouz -- 2one Lend Uae Type Unib In Out Total In Out Total 104 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 23.00 DU 1 13 17 15 8 23 SVB-TOTAL 4 13 17 15 B 23 105 2. NDR IB-15 DU/Acre) 70.00 DU 9 36 45 39 17 56 SUN-TOTAL 9 36 45 39 17 56 109 2. MDR (9-15 DU/Acre) 75.00 W 10 38 4B 42 18 60 SUN-TOTAL 10 3B 48 42 1B 60 111 3. NNDR (16-25 DU/ACrel 192.00 W IS 53 98 81 39 119 SUB-TOTAL 15 E3 9B 81 35 119 PLANNING AREA 15 TOTALS 1. LDR (1-7 W/Acre) 2. NDR (8-15 DU/Aeie) 3. NHDR (16-25 DO/Acre) 6. Elementary/Middle School 9. Neighborhood Coae»tc1e1 10. Camunity Coe4Remial 12. Gnerel Offlce 17. Park 22. Ssnioi Congragata 28. Sports Perk TOTAL PLANNING AREA 20 697.00 W 122 361 483 375.00 W 49 192 241 192.00 W 15 83 96 1200.00 STU 204 144 348 26.68 TSF 43 2B ll 130.68 TSF 131 64 215 150.28 TSF 247 35 282 23.90 ACRE 0 0 0 158.99 TSP 30 30 60 16.50 ACRE 0 0 0 841 957 1798 423 232 655 209 90 299 B1 3B 139 0 0 0 125 135 260 372 404 776 46 224 2l0 0 0 0 32 34 66 56 68 124 ADT 220 220 560 560 600 600 1273 1273 fi192 3000 1273 1224 2983 8908 1994 121 970 eee 27553 3. NXDR Ilfi-25 DU/Acre) PLANNING AREA 21 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre( 2. MDR (8-15 DU/Acre( TOTAL NEI GNBORX000 G T07AL5 1. LDR (F-7 DU/Acre) 2. NDR (9-IS DU/Acre) 3. lOIOR (16-25 DU/Acre) 6. Elementary/Middle School 9. Naighbachood Com~roreial 10. Coe4nunity Commercial 32. General 0[fice 17. Perk 22. Senior congragete 28. Sports Park TOTAL 1344 1225 2569 376.00 W 30 162 192 158 75 233 2493 189.00 DU 36 106 142 123 68 197 1809 465.00 DU 60 237 297 260 112 372 3720 96 343 439 383 180 563 5529 83f.00 DU 158 967 fi25 546 300 946 8001 840.00 W 109 429 539 169 202 671 6720 569.00 W 45 245 290 239 113 352 37fi6 1200.00 STD 204 144 348 0 0 0 1224 26.68 TSF /3 28 71 125 135 260 2993 130.69 TSF 131 B4 215 372 404 776 9908 150.28 TSF 297 35 292 46 224 270 1994 23.90 ACAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 158.99 TSF 30 30 60 32 34 66 970 16.50 ACRE 0 0 0 56 69 124 999 96i 1462 2429 1995 1490 3365 35575 A-I3 Legacy Park of TDatin Legary 3/07 922.004 _ _ R ~~ NE IGNBORN000 N/PA22 LAND OEE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY -- AN Peak Xour -- -- PN Peak Nour -- Land Uae Type Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT 1. LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) 16fi .00 W 32 93 125 108 60 168 1589 2. NDR 18-15 DU/Acre) 293.00 DU 32 129 156 136 5E 199 3999 6. Elementary/Niddls School 650.00 ETU 111 7B 189 0 0 0 663 TOTAL 178 295 970 219 118 362 9196 A• 14 lagary Palk of TDat1D I.egecy 3/07 922.004 Appendix B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) CALCULATIONS City oFTwtin L~ttaey Park uFTuw[in Lr~y Traf}ie ,4nulysb ----~ ~-- ----- ~ - .awtin-Fuual A..akialrs. Inc. - - _ r z z i IIII -. . •_ " y.. 'x ID9 __-_- .:~.._.. ... _.. T. 113 n I l 112 - •Ill ~~ I ~ ~ ~I 51 • ~,' 5~~:,, 53 .~, ~I~ i ~ +_ _ 150 _ i ~.i T ill ~ i- -. 1 I(12.__-_ ~ i~ -,~\ i 6~ i r I' ~ I „n ~ Y ~ ~ , {63, .r_.~~~~~ '' i - F- - - _- '~ I _ -j--- - 2 _ 5 • -. ~-- - _ l63 ~ ~ w,.-~4fi : ~: ~' 33_.tgg. "/ l9 l3 ~ S ~ ~ _ /..,.I~tH L! ~~I ~ 45~~~ j37 •42 i ~ / ~6. •47. •3I 1!,36 .~41 r, _ 1 104 ;:. 3 ~ ~ • .,, .. ,~~ 16 •30 .: r3 ~ 43 • 7 ~ I~ •'-5 •39 {14 ~;; --~ 6 F.-~ i - ._ 105 I_0_fi __ __ _ I III 17 _ I IIIR ~~i __. __ _ -r ~ ~ L+NNHANI:A VV.wY '~ ~~ 19gUif B-I IN"fERSECTION LOCATION MAP City of Tustin Austin-FUUS[ Associates, Inc. Legaq~ Park ol'fustin Legacy Traffic Analysis B-2 0??INWrptStigB-Ldwg 1. Armatxonq L Valencia N Loop 2025 ;'EL ~ 31GC :56 ll' ..' tIER d 1-00 iUS .On ?59 .~ ;EL i-00 ll .ul S .81 :'ET 1 1-G0 1- .7'.' 15 .02' oE3 C 0 ;7 IS >EL 1 1-OG 12 .71 ?s _ EET L ,'. i0 ~Oi .05' 2G ._. SER 1 1 9C 5;5 ._.. a27 .__ I'9R 0 ., b .~ Right 4»rn rdjustr=nt EER _ 'JEP, .i5' ..~axs~ce inter~~sl .^v5' .05' 2. Tustin Ranch Rd L Valencia N Loop 2025 r.4 F6 'G';n PiI rn 2:iUR L!::i=5 CF.r-C1TY ~;L J; ~_ \'OL 'v/L i7EL ~ ;a 00 .. .0°' 2'L .V5 .!ER 1 1;10 !- ..- .;n .... ;ET 5 5100 GiF2 .I,' 122 .29 3ER _ :-9C -59 .`.5 X90 .i~ EEL .. _;.0 155 .05` S21 .15' EdT 1-gin yCi r..,5 '_65 .'.0 iIBL i 1~C0 _. .~:. _~ .:2 i1ZT 2 :750 2'S .05' :O1 .0=' VBR 1 1-00 2? .O1 39 .02 rleararce .r.`.exval .;, 5' .,_ TOTAL CAPILCITI OTILISATION .13 .6L TOTAL CAPACITS UTILIZATIOA .60 .55 3. Tustin Ranch Ad i Naznez N 2025 7A F N HOoR iiI PK i5:;;iR ~EP!ES ::4PAC 1Ry ?CL tVC l'OL `J/C !iBL 0 ~ 0 ^.~ NET 2.5 55GG Boi j.IJi' 12 G5 .i91' iIER _... Sad i.09j 1352 JZi G .~.?GG i P .1 ' L .21~ CET . S00 :250 .t'S 691 .:9 ~BP. ~ U G ~ cEL 0 0 U EET 0 0 0 0 EER 0 0 0 0 ~!EL ..._ 10-5 595 ~.i=a.a nze Int er+e~ .OS' .D5' 4. Tuatin Ranch Rd i AarnaL S 2025 =i9 :h HC~;R Plf PK Eti~7R Lid9ES C APACITY 'C'OL ~~/C CJL V/C NaL _ ?900 a0 .vi' 1-i .05 '~~ 'rIET ? S1 C0 ?E9 .1' 1001 1' NER 9 0 0 0 SEL 0 0 0 0 33T 2.S 65{0 '-91 dS !. . _3! SER 1.S ll-? 9_'S ; .~i91 EET 0 0 G G EER 1 1~G0 7- .G3 2-i .ln vIEL 0 0 xET 0 r. 0 ii idER 0 0 0 0 ..'ea rancu lnt=x `al .05' .~i5' TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZAI'ION .69 .SO TOTAL CAPACITS UTILISATION .58 .65 6-3 Lc_acy Park of Tustin Legacy 3107 9?2.OrW 5. Armstrong i Wazaer 2025 ~~.r~GS ~..F=J,Tr !:Es ~ '=Gr Hc. ~ ,CC i7ER 0 0 SPL 1 1-'0 .GT ~ X00 SPR i 1 JO eaL 1 i-;.- aT ? 40C EER i-rp F:EL t -^9 i.'ET iIC0 WER d 1"OG P_ahr Tarn F.d srm?nt ' OL VC 4CL V/~' 156 .03~ .';@ ,12' 1:. ! 3 06 .., i» .G6 i o .L% .-N .C~' 2-a .la zaa .a 1-_'fi0 .25 -53 .,~ cC2 .~0 .cC .aG .CQ :16 .C ' :330 ..6' I,:-3 .29 6" i0 i3i .li SER ~. .G3` GS' TOTAL CAPACITI OTILIZATZON .65 .61 7. Tustin Aaach L C St/Pazk Ave 2025 :~^. Pn h'GpR F.'! PR NGOR LrLJES CbFnCI T~( `~iGL Y/C ._~ Y/L' P:EL 2 3-0OC Z59 .J&' 2G3 .G6 79T 3 S:OG "-a .i5 1: 6A .2.' IiBR i 1"GG da' .GS 31" .;9 SPL _ iiJG aP .G1 2fN .08` SuR l S ~IJ ti''2 .i 1 L .1J °PL i i"C~i ?3 .~~5 222 .li eeT 1-Ge ai .GS~ 23y .:a' JEL 1 1-!!'i '_?J .L" .aS 1i` dBT. _ :;CC i.52 .._ 2i5 .12 ;)ER 0 '1 ;~ ... ~l aC3 .^. :E I:LF C°31 ,'q' .13c, TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATION .60 .69 6. Armvtroag i A St 2025 :i?I i _-~00 !!cT ;BUG IJcR 9 7 ;EL 1 -np oET ~ iaG0 APR 0 C GEL _ ~"C5 LER V G dPL 1 ! GC tiE. ,Cp PIER 7 0 __a:aree Inge rv,I =i~ r:G R Fit Pn .iC'~1F. 10" .G5 ." .JS ~.:2 .ice' --- .~~; ';F .-5 i± -_ .~._ .;C .0. I q 'c iv .C°' .G^u .C6' i;3 .GS '.6a .i0 i') c c .lo 135 .p9 2.5 .13 iF2 .~8' ;G9 .ii' 5" 2i1 d;' GS' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .41 .48 S. Loop Ad i Narper 2025 W1 PR 5C;R -11 FR 4O~;R L.RIJES ChFFCIT3 ' GL '/!C l'Ch !!~: UET 2 ~7 DG .~ .G1 a5 .J1 i?ER 1 i"GO is .C1 272 .i2 SPL 1-7G 'S .Oi 30 SET ,. .... _~. .i;3' 13 .., JeP. _ i v0 ~s5 .16 LJ ... EEL ? ;a m', i .Oi' .p2 EPT SiOG 1G5- ."'. 1S3S .i 3' 7iET 3 S1G0 -- .a3 -5 ._~ k'lER 1 1_'.1 _'3 .iii chi .C2 R!ah`. T~:rn kd~cst^~aat JEr .__ C1?d3ffCB IIIfB[`/6i .i~5' .~i`' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .fi4 B-1 Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy 3N17 4?2JA41 9. Loop Rd i Jamboxea SA Aatsps 2025 JCL . ~'0 ... as .CJ iIET ~ i~00 .:° .Ci 51 .._ i!ER fi 'I 7 li ~~.. ~ .-no ~6 .o~ "~ io' oER 0 0 u9 .u4 .•~e EBL i '.-GC 13 .Ci 58 .v4 EcT 1 1"9? .Gi' ~. ..~ EeR 0 C _.. 95 keL 2 i!f-0 .2S .10' 1~, .GS' i3R 0 G 52 ;3 CLar m_e Inter /a1 .CS' .~_` TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOM .20 .31 11. M Loop Rd L Valencia A Loop 2025 :19 76 ruOR e:1 Fl nOUR ~'-.iti33 CF °FCITY ~/CL 9/C JCL V/C ;:eL 1 1"Od "6 .04' 45 .U3` t3R 0 C 0 0 S5L G it C' J SET. ."OC .- .,_ ". .54, feF, 1 '. GG .C4 sl .02 reL I 1"Cfj 4E .fi5' ^" v=' E&i C C 0 C ~eF 1 1-OU ..~ .G? 94 .0` /;qr p p 'ET it p C .) iIBF ri 9 'J TOTAL CAPACITY OPILIZATIOM .15 .16 10. R Loop Rd i Moffett 2025 Si". 2iC Hf,UF 711 ?.. :'C'13 EdL G G 0 ~,eR 1 i-cn _- .c~ i,a ii ;eT _ ;1c~, ~. n o~ seR e o ~) E9L ^ .. ~ Ed? 0 0 o i ~eR 1 C 7 ~.._ t _-pC _-n ... .i-0 r:aT o n v o h'ER i '."GC cl .CS ~5 ..P F.lac[ Tcrr. Adjas_enL P!e3 .10' :iea-zree :c'ernl .~.;- .~5. TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATIOA .24 .20 13. Loop Ad 9 L District Rd 2025 -:". [ri IiGCR PC Fti H003 Lrt!ES ':&FkCL':Y 'IOL 7/v '. ?L ~i /C l.eL 1 1"OC C .d7 ? .~i9 IET I-no I9 .oi n~ .13' IdeR 1 1 CO 158 .GO 4~ .~5 S?L i 1"90 ? .Op I .~J S3T _ '".1C 1~C3 .)6' 2J- ..2 EEL 1 1"GO .00 2 .29 EET ' 3400 19 .ni' "" .C2' EeF. 9 C C 0 IeL 1 1-~°•r, 44- 2r' ia4 .1" 49EP ? 3;00 C° .~'.) 1 1 .a4 TIER .' C 7; ., Rzghr ?~.rn Fjj~r±~enc list .d4' rlc3:anf,? 'r~ra r-al .C6• TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATIOA .3R .35 Li-i Le__acy ParA of fus)in Le_zcy 3Aq 42201x1 14. B St 4 Tustin Aaoch Ad 2025 u1 ?S PCiin P.9 P .'.OLR =~lic~ :!.Tr.C ITY ,._ ~'/S PCL J%S N5T C 0 0 0 :ck 0 ~ 0 U bT ~ §i 0!i 0 i.i~i' 32k 1.5 :' :...~ 429 fBT ., 5190 :075 0 L10 .32` f9R 0 ; 0 5 39L G 0 ;i ~ieT. 3 9105 14 E5 1~ 160 .25 'ri9R i I'00 ~ S .;5 109 .Oo TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOII .45 .99 16. A~atrong 4 C St/I St 2025 ~N ..°F: °GUR ?f1 Pn BCUa L21ifS CF.PFCI".Y "rCL "/'C VCL 'v/C idBL 0 ^ 0 0 IdBT 2 :;SG ,12 .iS d6" .i1 M9R 0 ll0 1" ;eL a ,~ 0 0 j SBT ? :iC.p ;fit .-, _~ .i6• z'~6P 0 5 ., 52 fEL l ;I fl Q EBT fi ~ 0 0 `r.BL 0 i, lie:? .I i, iJ i:bR I 1-~i9 li- .:- '-n .:G !il qf:f - ,C1 ri; 75 .m?ii `. 7lBR ..J fiBR Ji' _'ii iiT :? If.'? I"dl .OS .l'~5' TOTAL CAPACITY PIILIZATION .28 .30 15. Narnar L F St/LegaoY 2025 PiBL 1 1-Sn .~';0 :1 .03 !.ca C '1 1 1 CSL_ ;;OS "J- .-- _~ .~.6' 3BT 7 Si:!C 13- .69 id 93 .'_i 3Ea i .-JO -i=; .~. `li .ifi Tai '..2 300 'P.' ..6 .-_ EnT i.~ X100 ffri .J- 2T1 .i9 EBfi G f i;bT i .-'JO BGB .i5' G6'o .18' iyR 2 X900 Pi 25 -S 22 C1?z sin c? Ia+er; zl .97' ,_ ;rG'a: ~53'~~R?5 c/?i 3'.__7 F`I]5'_oy TOTAL CAPACITS UTILIZATION .10 .63 18. Armstrong G E St 2025 rig PI; "r.C'JR F!1 P6 cOOa Lriif5 _EFr.C F:"' i:, ~/C "CL ';/C []9L 0 :tea n c as ~2 EeL i I"oo 192 .11' 131 as ` SE^ 2 ,".i0 3c1 .79 427 .i; 56R fi fj :) fi Eb'u , ! J J EBT _ G 0 EBR f 0 0 i6; G 0 0 'tlET f. (I Q TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .32 .26 l3-n L~_nn~ PurA of Tustin Le__acy _/117 Y??.Ilya 19. Wazaez i D St 2025 '.iFL 0 G n iET ~ S1C0 1~'.9 ."!` ~:Oti .i2 ~pR G ~ ~ ~ _ .., C u G i iilGG ui Ga Ir-` [~' ;ER 0 ~ 1L' 95 36L G u C 0 ccF G G n SL G ` il3T C 9 G 0 PEk U O G U Si:; l'.t turr. Fdius trtent EEk .:i' TOTAL CAPACITI UTILIZATIOW .29 .38 21. Azmstzonq i B St 2025 _d9 Pf; HOUR ?:1 Fr; .iGCR L '1cS C,=.PAC iT'f rrOL "/C i'OL 'l/C DIES i 1-cG 232 .i9' 10 .Ol' i;ET 2 9GC 29' .04 6i~ .~:5 JER 0 U U U 3EL 0 G G 0 ~cR ii G ]i? 51 3EL '' 0 G E5T 0 u ~! G iIEL U ~' ~ ~ ~' %iE': '~ a n fl ...k ~. ~ Q kS7;a T'd_.i rv']5r„i9p; c:F. G?` 20. Tustin Aaach Ad i Legacy 2025 L„lI~S .F.°P"-C iT7 ';OL V/C ,~., 0/s' i!F~T ~ ~.'.0 iG29 .~) .9~8 .dG' 'FR i1 'J _'~ LU4 SL'T ~1G0 ,- .~;` 1:52 .t? ..LR 1 ~-d7 --i .., 39~ .i3 E9T. 2 c?9J ;0 .G2 IZI - EBS G _9 :Si .G9 Pl9T. .`.9 15- .u5` 35 .0 n' h'BR 0 0 i2. 191 .08 Sight T~r_n fidj usrmer= oEk .fi5' TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOW .79 .91 22. Drq A i Wamez 2025 Ln".JcS CrF;C'T'i ~.~OL ~;'C 'lOL '/;C '.t2L '. i-P7 ;0 .u2' li- .Od IiET ? i-)0 2 .OL 8 .C9' NER G n 9 i50 SeL 1 1-00 '_9 .O1 i_E .db` SeT - 00 Z .Cv"` ..~0 SER 1 1-CO i:h .0" .-, .F2 'LeT '. 51 GO 1959 .._ 20'.9 .'3 ~.°. 1 1-0G 169 .i: ~~ .i3 1151 1_-GO `3 .C9 25 .G2 n'ET ~ ~~Q .. ~ .iJ` 26 yea n 1r a Righ t T:rn 6~.ijusrr,~ent S°_k ... TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATIOW .40 .26 TOTAL CAPACITY DTILIZATIOB .72 .60 N-7 Ix=uv Pnrt: of Tustin Laaucv j,ll7 ~~?2U01 23. DrYB LA St 2025 •..^ FS °_C9R :.! F~ 'FOR .,:1~ES .,~.PF~ii. ';Ci :/'~ dOL 'J/C =T roc .cl c aa' iIBF 0 l' :;; SBL 1-OC S2 ."3 256 .15' GET ' t"c0 C .v6' 0 ._9 °_BR 0 7 ,- 23i ' E3L 1 1"C-0 ~.6 .i9• 5b .G4' E3T '-O C 225 .13 i:i .~- _cR 1 /~/ ~ J~/ Jl .Ji .. .Jl Y;EL 1 1"GC .59 .09 ~5 .02 WBT 2 :!.00 Zia .:2` ~6? ~.' r;ER 0 0 1F3 -0 TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOB .43 .46 25. CSt LA St 2025 Fl^.:F EOuR i'1: FE; 2~LR Lr'.NL'$ CkFAE?TY ''GL ... VCL v/° PiEL i 1"OV C61 .15 __ .03' IaET 1 1 n0 ;C .:1' 3 .GS ;'ER ~ 0 153 "9 SeL i i GO 116 .0 ' Zl .Gl S3T _ :?G E .02 64 .Co` SER 0 G .-0 45 EEL 1 ~-00 _'1 .9. is .J: EET i r0o ~?1 .J5' 342 .29' EER 0 0 ~o :'.5 i13L i"00 ~- .0 cog .i5" TIER 0 V 9 Csar.r.e~ IDt?r:~:: .ii5' .6' 24. BSt 4A St 2025 ~F';iEc C:,PLCi':Y `~;pL 6'/l; ,,., ~iC !BL 0 G 0 , ti "' 0 L ~ i flak ._ 0 p 7 sd:. ? ii , ,CT 0 V G p sER ~..GG a5 .0? 55 .04 EBL , 0 C 0 r,cT 1 i CC 295 ,. SL2 .;C' E3R C C C .k3~ 0 J ~ G WBT i 1-00 !58 ._, ]93 .23 GBR 0 0 V R:gt TU.n &C~GSt^'e1:C ~3R .Va. _lea-ance Irate rv,_ .CS` .u5' TOTAL CAPACITT OTILIZATI~I .38 .35 26.DrYC4BSt 2025 h.'^: Fn .^.17 ~,~ FBI PI\ :I G~JN LF.NES ".,: P.CiT!' 'i Oi ?/C 1;CL V/'; ;+BL 0 0 0 N5T G G 0 la3R o o u c £EL 9 0 ;a JE 1 ('G V .i,V' it .'JS• ;3d n C p ;? EEL 0 0 5 0 E3T 1 i'iQ ~ .00 ii ,Vii EER !1 i! G 0 HBL it U ,DER n u ~; •1 CLasance inr=.r "al 55` u5' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATIOB .41 .59 TOTAL CAPACITY OPILI2ATIOB .25 .1/ B-8 I_e_ucy Park nF~l'us~in Le_acv 3/07 V22UIF3 10. JSt GGSt 2025 YI°L ii fj 0 0 IiBR '.i ~'I :b 3L 0 0 0 0 oT 1"00 11 .C1 it .'uG' sea ~ e ES:, 0 G 0 E5T 9 0 0 .7 EBR 0 7 C e5L r, G o 4iBT 1 1"GO .G3' G .0" W5R 0 0 JF, i- ', ' Clearanr~ =nte•va1 .G~' .~,. '. TOTAL CAPACITI PTILIZATION .13 .14 32. L St i G St/8 St 2025 '!4 Fl: 3GUk r^!9 F S 2COR LAiIES Cr.FRCTTY 70L ~~/C VCL J/I, :vBL 0 0 ?6 ~.G~I' 1C3 I.G5i' !:3?. 0 ~ G 0 S5L i D - 5 S'BT 1 1"00 0 .GO' 0 .GG' SBR 0 C EBL U 0 , 0 E5T 1 :?~D 2 .50 21 .Cd E5R G 6 9 ''+eL 0 0 iIBT ' :"09 .OU' 0 ..- iBF I 2 1 ';Larne Ir[=na1 .''~' .C~6' 1. NSC LGSt 2025 :3L 0 0 1 NBR ~~ ~ fi Jf, 95L 0 ~ 0 Cci 1 :-ri0 G .Oi` 0 .vi ;eR G 0 1: 12 `- G 0 0 E3T i i"00 G .dl .OG ~59 0 G reL ~ G 4BT I I JU .? .vJ' S J;'. tiSR 0 0 3! a5 C1_a. ance Inte-,,1 .Gi .OY TOTAL CAPACITI PTILIZATION .09 ,11 33.IStLNS[ 2025 ri^. ?n ~iCC5 PIl F6 E71'3 LhI~EJ I;ti ~A:.':Y ~V.. ~~il. '/~a '!/I~ 90L 0 0 2 li {,i~l)' ', N5T 1 1-00 30 .Gs` ;1 .02 6'SR 0 0 0 SBL G 0 0 0 S5T 1 1-00 I .00 i5 .0.' SBR 7 0 CGL V U G G E5T '."';0 J .00 J .Oc' H57, 0 ) 9 _li S.5T G G r "s3 0 rl 0 it ':12a,;nre traee:.':~i .~IS' ,Oi" OTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .08 .12 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .07 .09 B-9 Legacv Park ul l'uain I. egacy 3i O7 ~n_?.UU4 34. JSt cB St 2025 ilSL J .i - 5 ~ .L~I' !i~R Il 5 ~- 53L 0 9 _. .C:. 1:S ~5T 1 07 ;fi .02 _, ._i' .:~R 'J ^. :: .~ -L G 4- -1 _eR C 0 _G4 ._ i4eL 7 0 , YleR 0 C h9 lU „lsaxance ?nt~:~rl .:i' .85, TOTAL CAPACITY PTILIZATION .25 .32 36. LSt iB St 2025 ;-11 3ti HOUR Fi'! ?S iIOUR =FrlES ? b?A.C I:'P "'CL ~'/C 'rOL "/. IBL ~i 0 lie? 1 1-C"c .)3" Z, .I9' NnR 0 0 _. 2G- seL 0 0 J 0 SBT 0 0 G 0 ;eR a n 0 ECL f f; (j ~ .a,. t i G~ ~_ 1. .~2 33R G o .~ °a '~IBL G 0 6 ?; 'ieP. 0 0 9D 91 Clearance :nter ral .x:.S' .'i5` TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOB .12 .28 35. BSt iB St 2025 'I °^. gi b: e0'Jk C'4 ~~ °C'.;., i42L 0 ~ ;3 ;. G;~' S !IcR 9 f. q FeL ) , ~nT 1 ,G .C,' h9 .u4 JC'R f. ~' f' ~ .,oL G G c5T 1 OC 1 .G,` .Ic` E3R --, ~i;eT ; i-00 _ .G3 5 .04 ?IER J G 13 23 TOTAL CAPACITI UTILI2ATIOH ,15 .23 31. C St i B St/F St 2025 rN Ali 50:.'3 ?I1 P[i 900R LF1iz.5 C~rA:'=I `.Y 'JOL 7/C 7CL G'/:" NBL _ 1-90 .GO G .GG PioT 1 1 YG 3 .,G , .0_ ?R u J G G SBL fi 9 B 0 SeT 1 1"r C. .a0 ..d' 4J5 19` 05L -iO li .,. 45 .UJ' ~5T G G 0 u ec n n i g ,:eT, 0 0 .) F;e3 Q 1 9 a',)ht T:xn .."-.d'a°trtent EEP, .^:' L2R ... . ~.ee_30iE Int ii 7di .,. .,':j, TOTAL CAPACITI OTILI2,ATION .35 .40 B-10 Leeacy PurA ul'Tu.1in Lc_ac} 3/Iq 92?.Ulk 38. IStiYSt 2025 IFL G j „ J 3BS 1 .. ~ .. .~ .CL' _5. 1 1-',~G ~ .nt' J .Gl .,9k 7 n _. 9 L]L 1 ~~ G .UG 1 .6J tCT 1 i '~~J .~ .Gt ii'~0 .~ EER 0 i .n 'u:3L i 1~C0 IBS .il '.56 .09 seR ! 1"'iC a6 .J? iG2 .u5 Riahr ;crn ;~djusr;n=r,t ;JBR .71' ;IB2 .15'' TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATION .38 .55 /0. BSt4ASt 2025 Fld Pri FC J4 i:1 F`n rCOR Cri7fS CHPF.C:TY 7C:. ~%/:: 7C:. './C IJBT 1 1"CO 16~ .i: 12~ .G9` iEh J r ~% iG .,9L 1 1"G'J dG .~;[ LSJ .1S' 23E ~ 0 F,2 lu~ ___ 1 1"00 19 .nl' 4B ... EBT . :BOG .., .C2 1 .G2 ?2R 1 1"u7 '_3A ,nA Sli .3C aL i :-~ 1. J1 ~_ of uBT _ ~a„ Bsa 1?' ~'~- oa' 'aB3 '.1 ~ iJ~ -_ nzghr. Tn.n A.dj ustmer,: "LBR .1S' CLa~ dr~ce Sntz r'al 0`.' .JS. 39. 7 St t A St 2025 :_4 .., 'G:i 2id F6 :., ..~ ~r1.GS _: Pr~_iTt rCL ./C ~~C~ ur^_ ::BL l . 19 ;? BL 0 ~ G ,:dT 1 .-GG C .~'Q' 1 .iG' $e F. U ~ '.i i-. P.'.v 1 . i7 1J .il ~' 6 .~~U ?Bn ^, ~ ,,. 52 'sET ~ iJ70 J11 .:- ;~3 ... t!3R G C 1F9 iB C'_ea_ :,r.~r inr= r: al .iii' .::, .r,?; .cc=R:cS u/$ cFi._ Ph35`_C7 TOTAL CAPACITI UTILIZATI~ .29 .45 ~~ 41. C St f A St/D St 2025 H1 fri iiGGf. ?i1 ?n ;iCOR. LriJES CrPA.C1TY ''CL ~//C '^L •.r/L .;eL _ JOG J~1 .U _':. ..- @9^' 1 ;"GO 3i2 .~, X69 .20 I Ficn 0 7 ::G `.- 3BL 1 1-70 C .,70 1 .CJ 'eeT 1 r:'J i qG __ .G1 ~BR i i '"i 1,1 .09 ,~5 .20 ~,BL 1 1-L9 1J ... BB .J'~ RuR n p c ,i Righ' Tarn =~icstment ,~BR .__ EE3 .: 5' -=ca nes 'n*er•~dt ... .u`,~ TOTAL CAPACITY O'TILIZAI'ION .36 .57 TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATION .45 .53 f3-I I Legacy ParA of Tu>tin Legacy ±iU7922.00~ 42. NSt LDSt 2025 I f,Ei. ~ G G ~. i(P. . 0 ~ 0 '.°n ? 0 0 0 EL U ;! :° 3R 0 0 E ~ 1' 'eBL i. C G LC1 J 1 00 20 .0. d ..;0 E3R 0 0 G 0 +9L 0 7 0 0 P;3R 0 7 35 39 TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATION .11 .18 44. RStf ZSt 2025 r11 "t; EG~JR F19 ?S f:CJR LrS7EE CFPFCiTY 'oJL "/C ''7i, 'I/C bBL 0 0 0 0 i!9T 0 0 0 :19R 0 0 u 0 aa:, u a tl a ..PiT 1 ~ u0 ~ .G1' 0 .OJ' 59R 0 0 _, 2- Ee. o o a o LtlT 1 00 _ .00 10 .al PBR J ~ IJ rEL 0 0 ~. 0 i;ER ? ? ~ 0 ._aacsac_ Lr:reel .i~g' ,':~5' 43. NSt GASt 2025 i9t G 0 I ~ .:9': ..0 . iQ a .. , i1ER U ~. i'i3 s'9L J n 51 -Jh ~,.Ifii~ _T 1 .-n0 .u5' J .0~. c'':. 1 i ~~ .. .._ ... ^uT ~ ,i'JO ~ .Li L~L .:':G E5R 0 :0 S :;3T 2 ~+'00 i36 .La' 3Zd .11~ E~BR 0 0 ;~~ ~.1 .:S Jleaea~c~ Interval .~.; .., TOTAL CAPACITI UTILIZATION .35 .32 45. RSt4GSt 2025 iiBL J 0 0 0 1C9T 0 7 0 NBA 0 C 0 0 SBL N ',.i n .I s9T 9 7 ~ 1 .9R EEL 0 ~~ r. ,~ ~9'i l 1 '.~.~ J ,~iB _, .._ EBR _ G ~ 17 'AP.i, li G 15 ;4 ~n'ER !1 ~ n TOTAL CAPACITI UTILIZATION .OS .10 TOTAL CAPACITT UTILIZATION .OS .11 H-I? L~~acv PnrA of Twain Lrgacy .i,`W 4"_UW 96. BStiISt 2025 -i4 cn :::iii F14 F'F, PCp4 i1B^. 1-GO 0 .. 0 .i'~~ 7:ER 'i 0 1 ~aL G G o 0 .1ET 0 fi i' 3Bn i ) G EIL 'i G G 'i dBR G o TYRE G ~ 1) is nET 1 1-GC i! .C:' 12 .CZ' ~IBR G 0 0 0 Ci55c 5nc5 :n+_ =,.~~~1 .G6' .;5' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATIOB .10 .09 50. 8 St i Valencia B Loop 2025 AA ER HCGR PI1 ?K nCLR I, I LFNES Cb6nCiTY 'rCL 7/C ~~%CL J/C 113E ~ G 1- i .Jl l' 9 1. ilj' 4BT 1 '-90 C .02 C .Cl IIBR C 0 ZO i~ SEL G ~ ~ 3 SBT 1 1~CG fJ ."9" 0 .GS` SER i G 1S6 ii ,.~.L I-J7 'J .Oi' 50 .GS EEi I-GG .- .CS '?: .1C' EBR G C 1G l'. 'rfBL 1 1-'1C 9 .O1 21 .fQ ' IICT I ~'-GG 119 .C9' 0'I .d9 ~ae5c anc5 infer+51 .Cc' .OS' DOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOB .25 .22 47. JStiISt 2025 :.28ES CF.2i,Ci TT 'GL ;/C 'COL ~/C '1LT i 1~G7 C .G~ ~ .G9 I:c l 0 .. ~~.. ) G . ~..=T r. ;~ r, o 3B3 9 U 9 BBL G 0 u 0 aeT t roo 1 .oo ~ .vl _cR '.G. L- h'BL C ~ _: ~.GI ~' 6 47E9 ~~ G C ae5s5ne= _r:~xval . .GS~ .ii' ~'~ TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATIOB .li .11 51. B Loop Rd i B St ~^ 2025 P-)4 2R NC':R E!1 2n 5::GR LF1'ic.i CnPF.CITY 'iOL ~,'/C !'CL V/C I7_'L 1 1 u0 - .GG - .CG i°_T 0 0 0 NBR 1-00 ICI .05 104 .G6 sBL C 0 G 0 65T f 0 C C 3En ) c EBB 0 ~ 0 4 =cR n U i 6;6L 1 .-'lr 6; ,06' 11i ..~ y!GR ~1 (I G i~ clq^.t T~JCn Fd',;;trlu.t IIEP. ._ I'ER C;' C 155 ZnC? i7'Si"3i ..'~` .G, TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOB .14 .14 U-13 Legacy Pad of Twlin Le_acy ;,'Oi UI?.OI}i 52. Bast Conoectox d B St 2025 .ES ,..v"eF.C iTi 1'C_ '. 1~~ `:L V/C " 2L 0 O ~ d tle" ) G n CcR i n n p ~BT ; ^. 0 G EE:, i 1-i0 i79 .C5' ~5 .C4' EBT . t~OJ A .OC G .G2 E°_R G v:BL G G iSBT 1 :-i0 i .G9' it .G2' 9EF 1 i"'GG 40 .GS 2) .fit 4iaht Tu-_~ Acius=-ent n2R .fit' SPR TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATION .18 .11 58. D St i Moffett 2025 ~t^. FF; rGOR iDl r5 r.JoR ~~?NES ~:??F.Ci?Y '~:'OI F/C 6'OL 'J/~~ :JBL i 1-GO 0 .CO 0 .00 hiET 1 1-70 i1 .G1 ? .''v5' i1BR C C - 154 S2L 1 1?0 .SG 22 .0?' ilk 9 u 3 EBL _ 1"CO 5 .GO 56 .;_ E2T 1 fiG 'J ,G; ii9 .12` E6R 0 0 G HBL 1 1 50 ,_ .GS 12 .Ci' 41ER. G 9 '.i E 21ea-a nee Inte!-ial .GY .55' 53. DSt LB St 2025 [,w F~ u~,l'% ols on 401;8 LAkES ~?.~6~I T~i .~i~L ,./,~ ..OL V/C i;BL _~tG 4? .G;' 19 .Cl' >LT 0 ~ 7 G N2R i 1-OC 0 .CO G .n0 SEL 0 0 0 ;~T n G 0 SER 0 0 G C EBL 0 0 G 0 E6T i 1 00 - .Ol >1 .0-' E2R 6 G E1 'iiBL 1 _-90 _2 .C1 20 .G'.' ;dER ) G 0 9 CL=ar an~e Is`.er~al .OS' .,_ TOTAL CAPACITY iTILIZATION .14 .16 59. C St d Moffett 2025 Fs9 Pi NC7R 2f9 PR r07R 1F.NE5 C.':FnCiTT "i0L V/C `v'~L ~,:/r 1JBL i :-00 1 .GO 2 .CO NET 1 i-GC ? .06' 1 .C1' idBR 0 0 iGi .- SEL i-~i0 15 .G1' i0 .G1' SBT 1 1-C^u .^uG 4 .Jv nR G G 1 G EBL 1 1-00 .J9 5 .'JG E2T 1 ."GG 52 .G4 394 .2I" EBR 0 G ., 14 ' iiBL i '-OG .GC '51 S,i. 'iES [I Q 2~ J4 CL.,_.:..-e lnter~al .GS' .OS" TOYAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .28 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .45 .31 U-11 Le@acy ParA of Tustin Lc~acy 3; U7 92?.0111 60. N Loop Rd c Legacy 2025 ~. _. ..- :?PnCI"Z ~~OL 't/C 'vJL 9/C .iEL 1 i-(~G -4 .CS !8 .Gs' 6oT ~ '.ACC 16 .G. e6 .U4 ..E3 ~ U :? o.S ssL 1 reG .^G o .Gn ::5R C C 23 .14 :,2 .OS EEE 1 1 Go 26 .~~ 167 .1G' EET i 1-GO `9 .Oi 1--1 .iC EER '_ "00 :: .C~ _E5 .71 (.EL 1 . GG ]~ .G2 Gj .:9 r.c^t 1 1'GO 166 .1C' 153 .C9' rrEA G G nig~:+ vrr dd;us+.^.ent SEA .C~ C_e=.ance Ir.te~~rl ..~ .GY TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .34 .30 63. N Loop Rd 4 G St 2025 Fig PK HGI]R Fig P5 HG93 LnR'tS CkPACiT( '/CL '/h~ VGL ~~i/C "'EL C G U G rET 2 :4GO °- .n. 1-0 .G6 NER C G 2- 34 SEL 1 i CO 4 .CC 3S .G2 SET 2 J9JC 191 ._. 2h2 .Cd' SEA C 0 C G EEL ~ C G C 5ET 0 i G EER '? C C C 7;3L 1-OC 19 ... 23 ... NET C G N'P.A i 1 CD ;1 .'J~ 10 .G1 ~:xz ra~~ce =nNr:al .ti 5' .GS' TOTAL CAPACITI UTILIZATION .30 .14 62. C St G Legacy 2025 :.3aE5 CF.P2.i'°1 '.L V/C 6i~L 4'/S !'EL '_ 00 1? .Cl' S .c0 h1ET 1 i CO .GZ 10 .ul ilEn ~ C 1 set 1-00 _ .oG 7 .GJ SET 1 1-JC 1 .~:1' 1 .io' 52F. 0 C .. iib EdL 1-CO Sd .GS' 3 .JO EET i i-aG 4 .oJ 16 .C1' EEA , G - o i7EL ~ C ~ I. SET '. 1-GG 0 .CJ' C .JJ I W.BR C C G G ~.aearance Ic terva: .C;' .Ji' TOTAL CAPACITY O'TILIZATION .10 .16 B-15 L~sac} Park of Tustin Legacy 3,'07 U22.U01 lol. And eiu i Adinye= 2025 ~'1 F6 E::i3 Fit F'i -C6i PEEL . :~'9 1TJ .~J` _`50 .10 6iET 3 S:CO ,OG .7.E .,_, .:6' I~ER 1 1"09 iiG .0'i c50 ..A .._~ _ ; JO i00 .6'9 .-G ..~ .~~. ~i0n 1500 .:9' ,2C ..,. SER 1 1"DO -~0 .;4 ~2D .~.: seL 2 ,gas 2ao .a-' 12~. .. 6%T ' :1CG 650 ._- i500 .:.3 BBL i 3707 650 19 2:0 .. .:ET 5100 1650 .i2' 1!CC .2-' MER i i~CO i30 .09 ::0 .1d Ri gtft Tern Ad jus[~ent 3ER ..G' ;JER ... ~leerance icC?_r'd~i .Lr .CS' '?o*.e: Fss~arfes R:cht-Turn Cv=x'_~p _`c:133 TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIEATION 103. Aed Bill t Aunax 87 .19 102. Aed 9i11 i Valwcia 2025 HET ;FUO ~, .ll 'lni, .21 .'ER 1";C 'Yi0 .16 'i:0 ..~ GEL -?~~U .-. .u6 "5U .OS seT .90 _ BJ ... r,On 1~' 'ER _-'gin -_J ..- ~C .U1 EER .:SG -=J hIER 1 1-OC -C .6; 2^0 .13 ~Iut=_. :sg.;^os 3',k`-.. m. ~rl=_c -~r ' ~3 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATI08 .84 .73 2025 ONES Ce,?ACITY REL 2 i00 !eET r` 6aG~1 lJER 1 1-f,0 eL ° A~J JET i ;,HUG JE i 5J ZEL :JOU EE'I ., °'100 EER 1-G^ iIEL _ ;;~!' n=. Si ~ 'k ER 1 i^~ A.7 FK ROUR ?17 iR ~iCUR `CL ./C POL V7C CC .0<' inC .19 --~ .11 i3d0 .25' °00 .12 2fs0 .16 3C0 .:5 :i. f; .:6' 7.0 ..~ d6C .2 210 Oi 2h'^v .C9' lr ~ .~~` .;30 .JO Si0 .11 f:i0 .11 U:, .2A ~_0 .~_ ;;n .:" 6-;~ .3y ~,~, ,,5: _~ Fti F7JU.', 2i-I ?K JOUR L:.iI EG CF.PbCI T't ?OL ;!': "v CL Pi'' IIEL 1-dG '20 .C= ' - .03 IdET J 6300 930 .2 2250 ._; PIE?. 1 '.-00 30 .G`. d0 .~9 ses _ .. sc~a .''<a .. .3T BCii~ '310 .., f, Iii .i5 JdR i1 :~0 1J __~ 1 '_ Ofj _. .~r. iC .GJ' EBT _ '-".U 1'~ .91' 20 .Ci TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATI09 .81 .90 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATIOA .53 .57 104. Affd 8i11 i Caznagia 2025 Lf-Ifi L.e@ac. Park ul-florin Legacy 1ru74~?.(NW 105. Aed Aill 6 Barzanca 2025 MET 1 i;6C0 ~'7 .11' :':C, .24 uER , l-rr,,~ wr, .n5 '-0 2 3ER i"~.; I-C .i0 :30 .li '~3T 4 6S'i0 lEh' .'.' :':; .:5 c3k '_"GC i65 ._~ iGG ._. ',zT ~ 56r,o .CSC .ls lhlC ..a' . _e.~t.[c~ '... r'rl .Cc' .d~' TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATION .10 .B1 107. Armstrong i Barranca 2025 F;4 2~ EOGR 21d -"n NG9k ;.,=.4iES ~~~FGCITY '!OL i/L GOL V/% [13L i I-C~ 60 .0;' lii0 .G6 1;3T i 1-CO 19 .C1 1G .G1' L3k 1 : CO ;v .i2 .i0 .OS SEL ~ 1 00 0 .fiq ~9G .<~' E3T I"^0 is .^:' :G .O1 6?k 1 :-GO life .GR 3-0 .22 c2T ~ 6hiGC 1."G .~1 1'i:0 .25 F'Ek C 0 ''G fj i!Ek 0 G 156 i_Q TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATION .58 .61 106. Astoa t Bazranca 2025 ~:SC l;r.P~':i"Y "OL e/C .w 'Ci ' ..3T 1"i0 Li .G:' .. .ice !iF,k U i0 59 $nT. 1 00 i0 .O1 19 .3' cck r ~ 1G ~1G .~1 d :u0 ', oV .28 16nfi .LS 5c, 0 0 1:.; .G li3s 1-ii0 c~ .v5 [C .O1 +'ek G ~~ _~G 1G _:~a_ ar.c~ Ir.. ~rial .v5' .Ji' ~. TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOB .52 .62 108. Tuetin Ranch Rd/VOa Raman f Bazranca 2025 LF."+ES rz-PkCI7: '.OL 'J/C '; r,L p!r IdBL _ 3dOC ~;0 .J-` 500 .:5 :C3T _ 5100 E]0 .1: i170 £EL ,. :S GO .60 .09 5AC .16' S3k ;~Ofi .~. .G9 ?9G .:1 EET 7 h5G0 -OG .:fi' li.~0 ..-~ ;.3k 1 1-00 5'0 .._ 32S .:~ ;~d': 6HG0 Ui0 .:1 s20 .Ic kL?hi .'.rn :--j; s'. ~~~' ~~F .16'' iEk .i:5' TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOB .19 .74 t3-17 Lceacc PotrA al'T'ustin Letacv 3/07 42.'..UIW 109. Rest Connector f Edinger 2025 _}~]EJ .: P;CST't 60L .'/C ^Ol 'uiC ~_ ~ E 0 .,_ 0 :1 cT 9 ..Fn 0 r. ~. ~. ESL f f~ f, f, 5T .iit'v _'~'c f,~ .., 15f,0 .,i ic3 ~ ~ i 0 .._=y.a^ce Inter a ... .OS' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .70 111. East Connector f Edinger 2025 .'d4 F6 HCSR Fii F~ HCGR ~F7ES ?F.FAC=IY YCL ~i/C GOL '1/r 15L i-GL' .:0 .69 6G .04 ;BT 1 .~7C 10 .iii' ;d .71' eaF. I 1-cG -o .oa ?o .~z >BL '. 1"00 129 .0"' 300 .19' 9ET i : 'i9 G .b"v 10 .'il ;ER _~.~ 1.f. _1n .Ce GET `.170 5 G .1. i3:~~ .40` EFR a 10 UO iiET 7 ..- _-N'a . _ .,797 ?5 °!ER - 1 t~0 ._. ."9 100 .05 °iyht .ecn :a':_tm~nt 35R .04' ;1-3 P.C'9 In'~r'a1 .l'S' . ~. TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 110. Tustin Aanch Ad Connector f Edinger 2025 .. ,.. ,..i... F . 'r.i ii J'i?. :.?ilES C62i~.'aTY 'i0L u/2 '; JL ';/~" P!i" F [IB3 1 I~00 1-0 .ii :6~i .C~ 52:, 0 C 0 yE,T 0 n ii EFL 0 ~ G C E3T SiCO SfiC .11 2020 .40. EE4 I .-.,. 55G .;,. .-, .c2 !;9L 2 ~~CO 4:C .lf 120 .03` itiET ? ;10 _lOG .4i' :22G ._, Pa n a G ~_ez_:rce .rr~_.._ .~. ... TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .10 .19 112. Tustin Raneb Ad i Tustin Ranch Rd Connector 2025 P14 'rS 37GR F51 26 HG!~a :.F!IES ~_. r.C LTY 7C1 '~/° vr,L '!/^_ MBL G e~ 0 0 'rlBT i SOG n'iG .i? ~'_HJ .4;` NeR 1-no ~sG ~I 33G .13 53L 1 1-CO 2s0 .li 250 .15' S9T ~ 5100 2{30 .4n' 150 .25 SER ~ G J EEL 0 9 G J E3T 0 J ~i 0 EER fj fl G G I ",'ST 7 ,. J Ri7P.[ ".u~ .=d]'u3i'est 'TIER .0 ` ~_i-a_znce Inr~c..al .',i' 69 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .14 .17 B-18 Legacy Park aYl'u.+tin Legacy 3in7 U?LUO~ 113. Tustin RaneL Rd G Falnut 2025 '~A r~~ hG 1F, '.f F'.~ 2.7i)a NET ~ i1 L'0 _:0 .~ hi~G .3.' ii~a a 100 S_'0 .._ L'~0 .1 S'L .. ]!LG siG .L I!V .UY LET .~ OJ 2G~G .IC' S(,G ... SE'a d ". D' 'S0 .G3 '_6G ._. EEL _ iJJC 3i0 .G9 210 .05' ceT '_ 3J90 0 .t.' ;?0 .10 £3ft i 1"00 320 .:5 220 .i3 i:ET 2 :; CC 230 .~79 9"C .29' fEa j i oo ,, a' 3~0 .21 CL a:anru L^.terv,l 'iY :~ TOTAL CAPACITI UTILIZATIOR .83 .82 8-19 Le_aey Park of Tustin Legacy 3iU7 922UUJ Appendix C TURN POCKET LENGTH METHODOLOGY These guidelines address turn pocket lengths for left-turn and right-tum lanes at signalized intersections. They are based on vehicle storage requirements, and are thereby exclusive of transition lengths (typically, transitions are 90 feet for a single lane and 120 to 150 feet for a double lane). The results can be used as recommendations for design purposes. LEFT-TURN LANES The tum pocket lengths for left-tum lanes are determined from the graph in Figure C-i which is based on vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) and signal cycle length. Minimum Lenbrth: I50' (Serves up to l50 vphpl) The length for more than 150 vphpl is derived as follows: BASS: The storage length is based on the number of vehicles to be stored during one signal cycle. A[ lower volumes, the calculated length is increased to account for random arrivals (i.e., relatively high standard deviation in relation to the average). At higher volumes, the standard deviation in relation to the average decreases. Hence the graph is curved rather than a straight line. ME"fHOD: Estimate the probable signal cycle length and select pocket length from the curve. Round off to nearest 25' or 50' depending on the application. If the cycle length is not known, use the dashed line in the graph. RIGHT-TURN LANES The turn pocket length for right-tum lanes is determined from the estimated queue length of the adjacent through movement. The graph in Figure C-1 is based on the following: Minimum Length: 250' (adequate for ICU up to .65) Length for higher ICU is derived as follows: BASIS: Derived from the estimated 95'h percentile queue for [CU values greater than .65 (taken from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) queue lengths for different levels of service). METHOD: Use [he highest ICU (AM or PM) to access the graph and round off to nearest 25' or 50' depending on the application. Ciry ul Tusiin Amon-Puusl .4ssocm~n. Inc. Legacy P;uk ufTuaitin L~guey Trat7ic Analysis C-I 92?UU4ryL5.Jix LENGTH LEFT TURN POCKET LENGTH (Feet) 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 - + - - . _- --- --- --- -- - ----r- - _ ~- - ----- - -- - - ~. ~,y- ~, -- --- - ~r-fir f _ ; .' ,. ~ _ _I ._, .' --. t. '150200 300 400 500 600 700 800 LEFT TURN VOLUME PER LANE LENGTH (Feet) 500 450 400 350 300 250 65 10 .70 15 __ i---- _~_--- _ - - -- -- --~- .75 .80 .85 .90 .95 25 35 45 55 67 ICU or HCM Delay (highest AM/PM) _ _ __, 1.00 80 Figure C-I TURN POCKET LENGTFI METfiODOLOGY RIGHT TURN POCKET LENGTH L ~ ~ j I ~ j i -~-- I i City of Tustin Austin-Faust Ass<ici;nes. Inc. Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis C-~ 9?'_(k1~1rpt5figC-1.Jwg Appendix D EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES C uy of l usun ,4ustin-FuusL4uociatrs, Inc. Lrgacy P:trA oFTustin Lrgacy Traltic Analyse D-I `t'_'Ol WrptS.doc Red Hill Avenue r..l...e _ eui 1/31/2007 e. i _130 ~ °a o ~- 1650 - i i I ,ill ~ 6tt50 ECinger .. ___ - 2J0 '~' it I lip X50- 390 . o 2 ~ ~.. 10 " -0 ' .~l: i.i' 20 0= 1~ 20 Ito t I~:i jil i;l J50 vl I b_~N . ~r 5W Vallncia ,~~~ 1 J20 ~i"'T oT TIC tOSP-.'.~ ~ .° rv ]Y 1 :, 1.-630 g jjjj Id10 _.. al ~. i~~ 1~ 200 210_ n~ T'f i±~.~ 1E]0- ~$ ~ g K'a.ner 2]0-, -- o~ _ ° ~. -200 ~ =10 '- .~. 1~6 ii~~~l` 120 Carnegie 10 ~ g ' 3o m 1 i of ~` -160 _ S ~~1050 _ . 1.:_ R 1510.- ]90'' Red Hill Avenue Future - PM 1/31/2007 ~. ~. am t._ uaa i 1 ~ i~ ~. 100 Etlin er . _ O Y 420 '~ i i ~ i 1500 ~! ~ a m { I60 , „ _ .'i. ~i :'.~~ w no i I :I 280...: lei i ~ T i. "'--+~..-^~+.~ K'arnar 15:10-_ B $ rv 180 , a °~ o_ _ ~`I I~ - ~ ~ _._ I I I iry. ~ _ 1e1u `~190 Bartanca _ P 1110_ P zoa---; i o ,``-OZZ o e o3~ _ m a ~ .r049 ,_ ~P11.~ ll 18~ovz ,... ,,,~...Q...,.o...,..~,~ w aal osz/;(~~T T T T ~' 0 0 0~ OBOL-~~ ~~ ~ ~ oze~~ A 3 Y A a m V C A II!H Pab 7 3 LL Ol y $ n 0~ # ~O m~ O{: j ~~8 o }~OZL a $~ ~~ ~ $~OOE N 0 049 ~ RI~ I lol I p -y OLt~# m uo~sy m 3 Y v A a m v c A 0 0 N r i E 5 ~~-OZS °- ~'L111~.'~~aa9 aai oa9-T '~'~T T T T f" o a 09L~ n m n -' O6£~ _y 0 j$~ i X09 <- .1111L~~oe euons~wy orof , ~T ~1R -, ozy ,. OLE~i .- ~o o OS <- .d1JiL~~oe~ uolsy OSOZ~ 'ST T~ ~ ~ ore @ 0 t~ ]~ i~09f o ~~009L r 8, Sr- rl lll~~w'r o90~ ssa~.~, os~ 3'~~T of T~ o£e~ i 7 ti.~: a m Y LL f~, yO Old i /N f ^ S /r~~[ OZ~ .„ Opp 0.y 2 ~"°'~,~_ ~~ ou l 1L~ ~ ~"a g ~'*,,. d C d Q m OI C W Q N r ~+ 7 LL TTT~~p' N N c55~~ 0~3 o ° '056 \~~.-099 ~ ~.n#.'J4.,*~."h^~~G~'+~. Al 0£4Z~ ~Ti e =0S TrT~" -~ o m TT i ~OZS 3 ° g ~ ~-04Z n: ~ o m c- Z ~ ueM ~'1s ~ F- gal ~.~L ~OZ , p~ .. _ ` 0402-~ .~ r N ~ " " "' 091-~~, 0 m o N f7 N N II y~1 .~ oo ~o iR 00 ~~ ~ oss o~ --' R "'"~. ~~' ~1 ~'aTd~ , } ~ P 6 m d 7 a m a _c W ?T c - ~O6Z . 3 000 ~099L ~rn n ~ ~ ~ ~~~ - BOOS ~ loT 09~ T 0£6- N of N OS£- 1 ~~} G a m Y 3 LL N N ~ ~09L l L 1~'v a r-oer e: ~~~~~, ,. N F N n V ~ U y i 5 o ~$ .° EE 1 ° youe9 misn 1i~1 `~-O9ZZ ~ 092L~ O `O ~ ~ R OO .~ ~ .~ ~ : r O6Z ~:..,. ~: ~- .:, -caa ;P~P~' N