Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 CUP 06-024/DR 06-020ITEM #3 `ICY `p. ~~ SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 ~~ DATE: ~ r~ t G C- C O t"Tl ~.,,l~ _S'C~ TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUEJECT. DRAFT RESOLUTIONS OF DENIAL (HAMPTON VILLAGE) ZONE CHANGE 06-002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024, DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 On August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings related to the project. At the September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission denied the project and directed staff to prepare resolutions of denial. The following resolutions have been drafted per the Commission's request: 1. Resolution of finding that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is not adequate for Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 03-020 and recommending that the City Council find that the MND is not adequate for the Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096; 2. Resolutions of denial of Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06- 020; and, 3. Recommendation of denial to the City Council of Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096. -- A-~ ~~ Minoo Ashabi Elizabeth A. Binsack Associate Planner Community Development Director Attachments: Resolutions 4064, 4065, and 4066 S:\Cdd\PCREPORl120071TTM 17096 (Hampton Village)-denial resos.doc ATTACHMENT A Resolutions 4064, 4065, and 4066 RESOLUTION NO. 4064 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-020, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THAT THE MND IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR THE ZONE CHANGE 06-002 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 FOR A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 60-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND DEVELOP A NEW 77-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251- 14351 BROWNING AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. The applicant (Sun-Cal Browning LLC) has requested to rezone and subdivide a 4.1 acre (net area) property currently developed with 60 apartment units for development of a new 77-unit condominium project. The properties are located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue; B. That the requested zone change, conditional use permit, tentative tract map, and design review are 'considered "projects" subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.); C. That the City Council is the final authority for the project and will consider the MND prior to action on Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096; D. That City staff prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024,. and Design Review 06-020 that concluded, with mitigation measures, potential significant impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared; E. That a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published and the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available fora 20-day public review and comment period from August 3, 2007, to August 22, 2007, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines; Resolution No. 4064 Page 2 F. The Planning Commission held public hearings on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007. A petition in opposition of the project with 94 signatures in addition to 19 letters and 23 public comments were received in opposition of the project. The residents of the adjacent communities expressed that the density, height, and traffic impacts were not addressed with the proposed project and not adequately analyzed in the MND. A Final MND with responses to submitted comments was prepared and presented to the Planning Commission on September 11, 2007; and, G. The Planning Commission considered the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds it inadequate for the proposed project (Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and. Design Review 06-020) based on the following: a. The traffic study prepared by the applicant does not adequately address the circulation and parking impacts of the proposed project with respect to the proposed density, site access, and traffic conflicts with the adjacent elementary school that could cumulatively have a negative traffic impact on the neighborhood; and, b. That related impacts from the project at proposed density, height, and setbacks from adjoining R-1 properties would be significant and are not adequately mitigated. II. The Planning Commission hereby adopts Resolution No. 4064 finding that the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit A is not adequate for Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06- 020, and recommending that the City Council find the MND is not adequate for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, for the subdivision and development of 77 condominium units on properties located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 25th day of September, 2007. JOHN NIELSEN Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4064 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4064 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of September, 2007. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4064 Mitigated Negative Declaration COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Hampton Village (TTM 17096) Zone Change 06-002 Conditional Use Permit 06-024 Design Review 06-020 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Phone: (714) 573-3126 Project Location: 1972 Mitchell Avenue 14251-14351Browning Avenue Project Sponsor's SunCal-Browning LLC Name and Address: c/o Southwind Realty Group 18301 Von Karman, Suite 710 Irvine, CA 92612 General Plan Designation: High Density Residential Zoning Designation: Existing -Suburban Residential (R-4) Proposed -Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Project Description: A request to demolish an existing apartment complex containing 60 units on a 4.1-acre (net area) site and redeveloping the site with 77 three story condominium units Surrounding Uses: North: Residential (R-2) East: Residential (R-1) & MHP South: Residential (R-1) West: Residential (R-1) Other public agencies whose approval is required: ® ^ Orange County Fire Authority ^ O City of Irvine ^ range County Health Care Agency ^ S h City of Santa Ana out Coast Air Quality Management ^ Orange County ^ District Other EMA B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ^Land Use and Planning ^Population and Housing ^Geological Problems ^ Water ^Air Quality ^Transportation & Circulation ^Biological Resources ^Energy and Mineral Resources ^Hazards ^Noise ^Public Services ^Utilities and Service Systems ^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 NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects I) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATNE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers Minoo Ashabi Title Associate Planner -'"ii ~~ ~ -s-' Date ~'.7 Elizabeth A. Bmsack, Community Development Director I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway'? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources ,are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be 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, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Sign cant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ 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? fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES• -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ O i) 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) 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 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 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 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? ~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Sign cant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ (~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan'? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER pUALITY -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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation ~ Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ (~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Q ^ ^ 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established 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, 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? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project,result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Sign scant Potentially Signiftcant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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 excess noise levels? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Less Than Sign scant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control 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? Less Than Signiftcant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Sign cant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® Q ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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? 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, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S:\Cdd\MR•IpplROd Hill CondoslRcd Hill Towohoma- initul stndy.doc DRAFT EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 ZONE CHANGE 06-002 HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWN HOMES BACKGROUND The property is located within the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district and High Density Residential land use designation. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue and surrounded by single family residential units on the south and west, Browning Avenue, single family residential units and a mobile home park to the east and Mitchell Avenue, and duplexes and apartment units to the north. The proposed 4.9-acre site (gross area) is currently developed with a 60-unit apartment complex known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. All existing units at the site are proposed to be demolished. The existing zoning designation would allow a maximum of 71 units on the existing 4.9 acre (gross) site that includes property to be dedicated to the City for a street right-of--way. The applicant has requested a zone change to rezone the property to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to redevelop the site with 77 condominium units. As previously indicated, the proposal would also include dedication of property along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue, which would reduce the net site area to 4.1 acres. The proposed rezone would allow development of the site with a density of 18.8 du/acre, consistent with the current general plan High Density Residential designation of 15-25 du/acre. In addition, for subdivision and development of the site a tentative tract map, design review, and conditional use permit applications are required. Approval of the design review would address the site and architectural design of the site. Approval of a conditional use permit is required to construct structures over 20 feet in height adjacent to single family residential uses (Tustin City Code Section 9226c). This analysis evaluates the environmental impact of the proposed 77-unit condominium project in comparison to the existing 60-unit apartment complex. The site is proposed to include one 6-plex, eleven 5-plex buildings, and four 4-plex buildings designed as town homes with garage access through private alleys. Ten of the 5-plex buildings are connected with a covered breezeway. Units along Mitchell Avenue have direct access to the street by raised stoops and the units located along Browning Avenue are accessed by the breezeway from the street and from the interior green courts. The units are designed as three stories and two stories with a loft and include 2-3 bedrooms that range in size from 1,803 square feet to 2,068 square feet. The main entry drive to the project curves to the south as it provides access to the private alleys. The pool and recreation area are nestled between buildings located south of the project entrance on Browning Avenue. L AESTHETICS Items a, & b - No Impact• The subject property is not located on a scenic vista. The property is a 4.1-acre parcel currently developed with one story apartment buildings and is surrounded by developed parcels. Significant landscaping in the form of mature pine trees exists along the Mitchell Avenue right-of--way that will continue to be maintained. Additional trees are Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 2 proposed along the perimeter and interior of the site with emphasis at the corner and project entry. For redevelopment of the site, the existing on-site trees are proposed to be removed and new landscaping will be installed. The proposed project would not disturb any rock outcroppings or historical buildings, and the site is not located on a State scenic highway. Items c & d -Less than Significant Impact• The project would involve construction of new three-story and two-story with loft structures that would change the visual character of the area. The existing one-story apartments were developed in the 1960s and appear dated; therefore, redevelopment of the site would enhance the visual characteristics of the area with new contemporary structures and new landscaping. The project is designed to adhere to the Multiple Family Residential development standards with respect to setbacks, height, parking standards, and landscaping guidelines and the City's Private Street Improvement Standards. Although the project proposes three-story structures to replace existing one-story structures, the proposed buildings have been designed to be sensitive to the existing neighboring residences. The site abuts a single family residential neighborhood on two sides. The applicant has placed the buildings 10 feet from the westerly property line and 16 feet from the southerly property line. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines have been designed at two stories with a loft that are 2-5 feet lower in height than other proposed units on the site. To provide a green screen, significant landscaping in the form of upright trees is proposed on the westerly and southerly site boundaries. In addition, no balconies will be located within these areas and window openings are smaller in size and carefully placed to minimize intrusion of privacy on the adjacent existing residential properties. The proposed buildings are set back 15 feet from Mitchell Avenue and 10 feet from Browning Avenue. The proposed setbacks meet the minimum development standards for front and side yard setbacks; however, since the primary streetscape is oriented along Browning Avenue, the applicant will be required to maintain the same setback on both street fronts to provide for improved streetscape design and better livability of these units with more privacy and fewer noise impacts from Browning Avenue. Additionally, the increased setback would allow for architectural relief and added articulation along the streetscape. The proposed condominium complex would generate new light sources with the installation of new exterior lighting for streets, alleys, .landscape areas, patios, and parking areas. In addition, the developer would be required to install additional street lights on Browning Avenue to meet the City's standards for public streets. However, the new sources of light would not adversely affect day- or night-time views in the area since the number of lights would be compatible with a typical residential project and would be required to comply with the City's security code standards. In addition, all lights would be required to be arranged so that no direct rays would shine onto adjacent properties. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 3 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Section 8103(w)15 Private Street Standards Tustin Security Ordinance II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a b & c - No Imnact• The project site is currently improved with residential buildings and surrounded by other developed residential buildings. The proposed project will have no impact on any farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project will not result in the conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Field Inspection Submitted Plans III. AIR QUALITY Items a b c d & e -Less Than Si ificant Im act: The project will temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the area due to the proposed demolition, grading, and construction activities at the property. Since the site is relatively flat, only minor grading will be required. Redevelopment of the site would result in 17 additional residential units that are well below the thresholds of significance established by Tables 6-2 (operation thresholds) and 6-3 (construction thresholds) of the Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which notes that construction of fewer than 297 condominium units is not considered a significant impact. In addition, cumulative construction within the area does not exceed the established AQMD thresholds. Less than significant short-term emissions associated with demolition, grading, construction, and operation of the proposed project will comply with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual, which include requirements for dust control. As such, the proposed project will not create a significant impact related to air quality. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook City of Tustin Grading Manual Project Application Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 4 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a, b, c d e & f - No Impact• The project site is currently improved with residential buildings and surrounded by other developed residential buildings. The site is not inhabited by any sensitive species of animals and would have no impacts on animal populations, diversity of species, or migratory patterns. No wetlands exist within the project site. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Inspection Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a - No Impact• The project site is currently improved with residential buildings built in the 1960s and surrounded by other developed residential buildings. The property is not located in an area where any cultural or historic resources have been previously identified on the site. Mitigation Measures%Monitoring Required: None Items b, c & d -Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation The proposed project is redevelopment of an existing residential site and is not located in an area with undisturbed land. However, as a standard grading condition of approval, if buried resources are found during grading within the project area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the resource and recommend appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint would be considered during this process. With the mitigation measures listed below, potential impacts to archeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: If buried resources are found during grading within the project area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 5 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS Items a-ii a-iii b & d -Less Than Si 'ficant Irri act: The proposed buildings will be located within an area of the City that is known to contain expansive soils which may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction. However, a sails report is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits per the 2001 California Building Code to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure seismic stability in sites depending on their soils or geological concerns. No significant impact is anticipated since the project must comply with the 2001 Uniform Building Code related to Chapter 18. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin Grading Manual 2001 California Building Code Chapter 16 and 18 Items a-i, a-iv c & e - No Impact• The project site is not located within an area identified as a fault zone on the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. However, a soils report is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits per the 2001 California Building Code to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure seismic stability in sites depending on their soils or geological concerns. The project will be required to be engineered to withstand unstable soils, possible landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse as they relate to the this specific site. Since all new buildings in the City are required to operate on the existing sewer system, the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be necessary. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code 2001 California Building Code Chapter 16 and 18 California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001 VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 6 Items a, b c d e f g and h- No Impact: The proposed project involves construction of 77 condominium units. No storage or transport of hazardous materials is anticipated from the proposed residential development. The project would not result in exposure to hazardous substances other than the possibility of household hazardous waste which residents could properly dispose of at approved County drop-off locations. A residential project is not anticipated to store or emit hazardous materials which could create a hazard to adjacent properties, schools, or the general public if released into the environment. The scope and location of the project has no potential to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The site is in an urbanized area and has no potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk due to wildland fires. All grading and construction is subject to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. As such, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant hazards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Approved Fire Master Plan Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required VIII. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Items a, b, f. ~ h i j and p - No Impact• The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a relatively flat site with improved site drainage and additional landscaping. A significant amount of stormwater received on-site will percolate into the soil where landscaping is provided and the remaining stormwater will be conveyed through a fossil filter prior to entering a City stormdrain. City stromwater infrastructure is currently available to accommodate storm water from the project. The applicant must provide a drainage and hydrology report to the City and demonstrate that the private storm water drainage system will be able to handle the capacity of any storm water directed into the system. Best Management Practices are required to be implemented during construction to deter water from flowing off-site. Best Management Practices will also be implemented to ensure that, once the project is constructed, storm water leaving the site will be filtered prior to entering the storm drain. As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality in the area. The project by nature would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project is located within Zone X (areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood), as mapped on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. Accordingly, the project will be designed and graded with an appropriate drainage system to avoid any potential flood hazards. The project site will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 7 by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Nor would the project increase significant erosion at the project site or surrounding areas. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code 4900 et al Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map 06059C0281H, February 18, 2004 Items c d e k l m n& o -Less Than Si 'ficant Im act: The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a relatively flat site with improved site drainage, including drive aisles, curbs and gutters, and additional landscaping. With new construction, there is the potential to impact stormwater runoff from construction and post-construction activities with stormwater pollutants from landscaped areas and trash enclosures. There is also the potential for the discharge of stormwater that could affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters and changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. However, the project is required to comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and most recently adopted NPDES permit (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order R8- 2002-0010), thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Together, these regulations minimize water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into local waters. As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality in the area. Mitigation Measures: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Section 4900 et al IX. LAND USE PLANNING Items a & c - No Impact• The proposed project would not divide an established community since it includes construction on an existing site that is already improved with multiple-family residences. The proposed project is not located in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable conservation plan. Item b -Less Than Significant Impact• Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 8 The property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as High Density Residential and is currently located within the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district. The proposed 4.9-acre site (gross area) is currently developed with a 60-unit apartment complex. The existing zoning designation would allow a maximum of 71 units on the 4.9 acre site including the street right-of--way. To redevelop the site with 77 condominium units, the applicant has requested a zone change to rezone the property to Multiple Family Residential (R-3). The proposal would also include aright-of--way dedication along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue, which would reduce the net site area to 4.1 acres. The proposed rezone would allow development of the site with a density of 18.8 du/acre, consistent with the allowable general plan residential density of 15-25 du/acre. If approved, the proposed project would increase the percentage of ownership housing consistent with Goal 3 of the City's Housing Element, the project is accessible through the City's current street system, and the project could be supported with existing transportation and public facilities. Mitigation Measures Required: The development exceeds the allowable number of units under the current zoning requirements. Approval of a zone change by Tustin City Council to rezone the property from Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) is required for development of the proposed project. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code Tustin Zoning Map X. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a & b - No Impact• The proposed project is not located on a mineral resource recovery site. The construction of a condominium project on a lot which is improved with existing apartment buildings will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE Item a -Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation The project site is located at the southwest corner of Browning and Mitchell Avenues, and therefore is exposed to significant traffic related noise. The City's noise ordinance requires a maximum 45 dB value for interior noise and 65 dB for exterior noise. The City's General Plan recognizes that residents adjacent to major and secondary arterials are typically exposed to a CNEL over 65 dB. Table N-2 of the Tustin Noise Element Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 9 identifies potential conflicts between the land uses and the noise environment. Per Table N-2, most of the project site falls within Zone A through Zone B. Zone A requires no mitigation measures for noise while Zone B requires minor soundproofing as needed. An acoustical study was submitted by the project proponent, which indicated that the private outdoor living areas along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise of 60.7 CNEL and 59.7 CNEL along Mitchell Avenue. The proposed project would meet the City's noise requirement for outdoor areas; therefore, no mitigation will be required. To meet the interior noise standards, the buildings along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue would require a noise reduction of 15.7 dB to achieve a maximum interior 45 dB value. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reduction of at least 20dB. The noise analysis also indicates that the noise attenuation of a building falls about 12 dB with windows open and recommends mitigation measures to provide adequate ventilation for homes along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue (Exhibit -Noise Analysis). The noise reduction technique recommended by the acoustical analysis would be implemented and required as a condition of approval. With the mitigation measures listed below, potential noise impact would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: All units along Browning and Mitchell Avenue as indicated in the attached noise analysis shall be equipped with air conditioners with a summer switch for fresh air intake to allow adequate ventilation and noise attenuation. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code 4611 et al Tustin General Plan Acoustical Study (Exhibit 1) Items b, c & d- Less Than Significant Imnact• Although the grading and construction of the site may result in typical temporary construction noise impacts, the Tustin Noise Ordinance only allows construction activities to occur during the daytime on Monday through Saturday. The pro osed project will not create excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a permanent inc ease in the existing ambient noise levels beyond the City's established standards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Section 4611 et al Tustin General Plan Item e & f- No Imnact• Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 10 The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two (2) miles of a public or private airport/airstrip. The proposed project is three stories in height consistent with the City's maximum height limit and similar to other structures in the vicinity. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a, b and c - No Impact: The project involves the proposed construction of a condominium project on a site that is currently improved with apartment complexes including 60 units known as Rancho Siena Vista Apartments. The proposed project would remove and replace the existing 60 units with 77 units that would not result in significant population growth in the area. The existing apartment units are rented at market rate (not considered as affordable units) and the existing residents are on a month-to-month lease. While there will be displacement of existing residents as a result of the proposed project, the displacement would not be substantial nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere since the impact could be absorbed by the local rental market. The project is privately financed and no public funds are involved that would trigger relocation pursuant to state law. However, the applicant has submitted a Tenant Leasing and Relocation Plan that indicates that a minimum 120-day notice will be provided prior to vacation of the property, tenants would continue to be on a month-to-month lease basis and the last month's rent would be waived, which should provide the tenants with adequate tune and monetary incentives to relocate. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a -Less Than Significant Impact• The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area where fire and police protection are currently provided. While police patrols to the area may be needed from time to time to ensure safety, no new additional police protection would be required as a result of the proposed project. The Police Department has recommended measures to reinforce safety and effectively patrol .the area, which will be included as conditions of approval. The project would utilize existing infrastructure and is not anticipated to increase the need for new streets, public services, or infrastructure. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 11 The proposed project is located within the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). The proposed 17 additional units are not anticipated to cause a significant rise in the number of students served by local schools. The TUSD will receive its statutory school impact fees per Senate Bill 50 from the residential developer as a condition of approval for the project prior to issuance of the building permit. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the project would only result in a minor library demand which can be accommodated with the existing library facilities. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources:. Submitted Plans Tustin City Code XIV. RECREATION Items a & b - No Impact The project would include a private community pool recreation area to benefit the residents of the project. However, since the size of the recreation area does not comply with the minimum criteria for parkland dedication, the project would be conditioned to pay in lieu fees for parkland dedication in accordance with Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code. The developer has indicated that they will pay in lieu fees to comply with Tustin City Code. While the residents of the project may use existing City parks, the increased use of these parks would not be such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, nor does the project propose recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Mitigation Measures/IVlonitoring Required: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay parkland in lieu fees based on Tustin City Code Section 9331.d.3 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a -Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation A traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the City's Engineering Division (Exhibit 2). The study concluded that the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 737 average daily trips, which in comparison with the existing development, would be an increase of 334 daily trips. The traffic analysis considered the traffic impacts to the Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue intersection and concluded that there is adequate Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 12 capacity to accommodate the proposed project under short-term (2008) and long-term (2025) conditions. The project does not create a significant impact under the City of Tustin's performance criteria. The AM and PM peak hour volumes for the entire project are approximately 70 vph, or just a little over one vehicle per minute. Based on the submitted traffic analysis, no delay with entering and exiting the site is expected during any time of day. The internal circulation system for the project is basically a "T" shaped pattern with a single entrance. The main street is 36 feet wide and provides for parking on both sides and the alleys are 25 feet wide with no parking permitted. The site is located near an elementary school with the main entrance off of Browning Avenue. The school's morning drop-off time coincides with the AM peak hour of the project. During that time an additional 17 project vehicles will be traveling southbound on Browning Avenue. The traffic study concluded that the project-generated traffiic volume is not expected to create significant increase to traffic congestion at the school entrance and no impacts are anticipated in the PM peak hour. For development of the project, the developer will be responsible for implementing roadway improvements on Browning Avenue to provide more accessibility and visibility at the new four-way intersection of the main entrance to the project with Sandfield Place. With incorporation of the following mitigation measures on Browning Avenue, the traffic impacts for this project will be reduced to less than significant: Mitigation MeasureslMonitoring Required: • The traffic signage and striping plan shall incorporate all requirements outlined in the traffic impact analysis, including turning lanes on Browning Avenue and parking restrictions adjacent to the site. • Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a Construction Management Plan, as required under the Traffic Impact Analysis, for the site to address safety issues, such as regulating construction access to the site during children's arrival and departure from the nearby school. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 2) Items b, c, d e and g - No Impact• The project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth, result in changes to air traffic patterns, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. Seventy-seven units are proposed, which require atwo-car garage per unit and 20 guest parking spaces at one guest parking space for every four units. In accordance with the R-3 requirements, Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 13 the project provides 25 on-site parking spaces, which is sufficient parking to comply with current parking requirements for the proposed use. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Item f -Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation In accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9226, all units include atwo-car garage and 25 guest parking spaces are provided. The on-site street layout results in a short T intersection that may be inadequate for access and circulation of disposal service trucks; therefore, the applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan that includes storing trash and recycling carts within 11 parking spaces during trash pick up days. To minimize the anticipated parking impact, the plans indicate that the emptied carts are quickly returned to garage alleys by an employee of the homeowners association. With the submitted plan any temporary impacts to the projects on-site parking is expected to be reduced an insignificant level. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Residents are required to store their trash and recycling carts within the area designated within the garage. Prior to collection day, the residents need to move the carts to an area immediately outside their garage, where a homeowner association employee will be in charge of relocating them to the designated parking stalls that are marked and designated accordingly. The carts shall be placed in the common drives no earlier than noon on the day before scheduled collections and removed within twelve (12) hours of collection. Any changes or modifications to the approved waste management plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a, b c d e f& g- No Impact• The proposed project will not exceed the requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. If approved, the proposed project will utilize the existing sewer and storm drain systems and thus will not require construction of a new storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. The project proponent would be required to submit a hydrology report to ensure proper grading, drainage, and connection of planned sewer systems. The project will be served by the City's existing trash hauler contract, thus will not require a new trash hauler. Adequate water supply from existing resources will be available to serve the proposed project. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 14 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a, b & c - No Impact• The site is located in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district and currently improved with 60 apartment units. The project includes redevelopment of the site with 77 condominium units. The proposed project design, construction, and operation will comply with applicable City codes and regulations. The project, by nature of its location and as designed, does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or, eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-term. The proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan S:\Cdd\MINOO\Hampton Villagc\Hampton - ND analysis.doc Exhibit 1 Noise Analysis NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN Report #06-320 December 11, 2006 Prepared For: Sun Cal -Browning, LLC 2392 Morse Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Bill Vasquez Mestre Greve Associates 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone (949) 349-0671 FAX (949) 349-0679 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN Report #06-320 December 11, 2006 Prepared For: Sun Cal -Browning, LLC 2392 Morse Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Bill Vasquez Mestre Greve Associates 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone (949) 349-0671 FAX (949) 349-0679 Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 2 of 9 SUMMARY NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION The project must comply with the City's 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. For the exterior living areas which are exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL, some form of noise mitigation is required. An effective method of reducing the traffic noise to acceptable levels is with a noise barrier. Representative cross-sections along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue (see the Appendix for analysis data) were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary noise barrier locations and heights. The results indicate that observers in private outdoor living areas along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 60.7 CNEL. The first floor exterior observers along Mitchell Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 59.7 CNEL. Therefore, the project will meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will not be required along Browning Avenue or Mitchell Avenue. INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units, the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent upon the transmission loss of each element, and the surface area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 3 of 9 Building surfaces along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of 60.7 CNEL. Therefore, these buildings will require 15.7 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore all rooms alon Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue are ro'ected to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building u grades. ADEQUATE VENTILATION Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable Uniform Building Code. Adeauate ventilation will be required for those homes listed in Table S 1 and shown in Exhibit S 1. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet adequate ventilation requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted. Table S1 VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BUILDING Alone Browning Avenue Units in Buildings 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Along Mitchell Avenue Units in Buildings 8,9 0 r..~ G~ .~ .o .,., A a~ .~ .,.., W O --1----- -------,~--~-_ -- ------------ ~ , f~Z~ ` ~1 ~'-~ ~~_ ,, ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~"i. i ~ ~ ~ ~l' 'r L_J i ~~- -1 i ~ 1 anwo ~ ~~ ~--- --~ noounN~ ,' - , bl) ~ 's;, •~ ~~ a~ ~ ~~ wo ~ ,~ a ~~ :~ ~ ~~ ~4 ~ Q U Q Q W :~ n U ~ L~J l~z J ~ ^~J ~~, Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 4 of 9 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose ~~f this report is to demonstrate compliance of the "Hampton Village Townhomes" Project with the noise related `Conditions of Approval' placed on the project by the City of 'Tustin. The project calls for the development of multi-family homes. The project is located in the City of Tustin, as shown in Exhibit 1. The project will be impacted by traffic noise from Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. In addition, aircraft noise from the John Wayne Airport will be addressed. This report specifies any mitigation measures necessary to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. Site plan and grading information was obtained from the grading plans for "Site Plan T.T. No. 17096 for Condominium Purposes" by Hunsaker & Associates, December 4, 2006. Building construction details were obtained from the architectural drawings for the project by the KTGY Group. Ir~~., December 5, 2006. 2.0 CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE STANDARllS The City of Tustin specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for traffic noise levels at residential land uses. Both standards are based upon the CNEL index. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour time weighted annual average noise level based on the A- weighted decibel. A-weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain noise-sensitive time periods is given more significance because it occurs at these times. In the calculation of CNEL, noise occurring in the evening time period (7 p. m. to 10 p. m.) is weighted by 5 dB, while noise occurring in the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a. m.) is weighted by 10 dB. These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while sleeping, eating, and relaxing. The City of Tustin has adopted an exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL and an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL for residential. '~0 ~- ~~~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ LF` s ~~ o~ ~~- `~~~ p~ PROJECT ELF L CAT/ON ~p G~ P~ ~~ ,~J~ Exhibit 1 -Vicinity Map MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 5 of 9 3.0 METHODOLOGY The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December 19'78). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level". A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the observer. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the noise source and the observer is interrupted by the barrier. As the distance that the noise must travel around the noise barrier increases, the amount of noise reduction increases. 4.0 NOISE EXPOSURE The existing traffic volumes for Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue were obtained from Mr. Terry Lutz at the City of Tustin on December 5, 2006. The projected (year-2026) traffic volumes were calculated from the existing (year-2006) ADT's using an overall 10% growth factor. The traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and roadway grades used in the CNEL calculations are presented below in Table 1. 'Table 1 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SPEEDS, AND ROADWAY GRADES ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED GRADE Browning Avenue 4,840 35 Mitchell Avenue <3% 6,160 30 <3% The traffic distributions for Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue that were used in the CNEL calculations are listed below in Table 2. This arterial traffic distribution estimate was compiled by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and is based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the Orange County area. Arterial traffic distribution estimates can be considered typical for arterials in Southern California. Mestre Creve Associates Report #06-320 Page 6 of 9 Table 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile 75.51 12.57 9 34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 . 0 19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 . 0.08 Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are listed in Table 3 in terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 3 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may affect the roadway noise exposure. Table 3 DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS DISTANCE TO CONTOUR (FT) ROADWAY -70 CNEL- -65 CNEL- -60 CNEL- Browning Avenue RW 26 56 Mitchell Avenue RW 24 51 RW -indicates noise contours falls within Roadway right of way * -Contour distances in this table are based on the centerline of the roadway representing the noise source. The site plan (Exhibit 2) indicates that exterior observers along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 60.7 CNEL. The exterior observers along Mitchell Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 59.7 CNEL -__I________T I I I I I I I ~ I I I I 1 I I ~ I I j __J~_.r_____1_.__ I I I I fJ ~ I I~ ~ I ! I l~ / I ! ~~ ~ ~ t -L ~. 1 1 ~~ ~ I ^ / ~~,~ I \11 ~ ~( / 1 r - -' I / ~ i, I. ! I) ~) I i I ~'- ~=--- I I i I I I i 1 i I ~ I I I I I I I I ~ I -~ 1 ~------ I ~nnr~nv riaH~~aw -- T __ -` i `lit ^ ~ ,. I -- I -- I -~ • ~- ~--------- I ~ a m I I iv. r V I f ( i I I -I I ~-----------' ' 4.S ~ •~ ~ ~ I I ~ i I ~' n i :~. ._. ~~` I I A cI ----- sue- I --- ---------- 1 1 ~ I ~I I /~ ~\ ~ ~.- V I I~ - Q 1 I I ~ _ I I C~ t I ~ ~ , --,!~ ~ _J I ~~~ S~ t yam-- I ~, I I \' ' ~'-~---' `~ I I 7 _ _ an~~o ~ , I,~ ~----- ---MOOU~aNw ~ ~ I i` -~ • z \ ----- /~____ f ~.___. I I f I L_ 1 I I I 1 t!3 a .~ N .,-, .t~ .,., W Q U O W W C7 E-~ Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 7 of 9 4.1 Aircraft Noise Exposure The project is located northeast of the John Wayne Airport. The future CNEL noise contours were acquired from the "EIR 508/EIS -John Wayne Airport and Land Use Compatibility Program". The project is located 5 miles from the John Wayne Airport and 3 miles from the 60 CNEL contour. Analysis of the project location indicates that worst-case aircraft noise levels at the project site will be far less than 60 CNEL. Therefore, aircraft noise will not significantly impact the project site. 5.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION The project must comply with the City's 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. For the exterior living areas which are exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL, some form of noise mitigation is required. An effective method of reducing the traffic noise to acceptable levels is with a noise barrier. Representative cross-sections along Avenue pp b Browning Avenue and Mitchell (see the A endix for analysis data) were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary noise barrier locations and heights. The results indicate that observers in private outdoor living areas along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 60.7 CNEL. The first floor exterior observers along Mitchell Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 59.7 CNEL. Therefore, the project will meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will not be required along Browning Avenue or Mitchell Avenue. 6.0 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units, the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent upon the transmission toss of each element, and the surface area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 8 of 9 Building surfaces along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of 60.7 CNEL. Therefore, these buildings will require 15.7 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore all rooms along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue are ro'ected to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building u grades. 7.0 ADEQUATE VENTILATION Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable Uniform Building Code. Adequate ventilation will be required for those homes listed in Table 4 and shown in Exhibit 3. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet adequate ventilation requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted. Table 4 VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BUILDING Along Browning Avenue Units in Buildings 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Along Mitchell Avenue Units in Buildings 8,9 L~____1 L___~ 1 l t~J ~~ 0 ___~ _______T_ I I I I t I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I -_J__r_____L_~ 1 I ~ \ ~~ ~/ --i `~ ,, ,J _.~ ~ I _---~- ,~ I I I I 1 ~ ----_- 1 I I ~__- =. I ~ _'~--'-'"~ I rl ~ 1 ~------- I n ., m I I ~ V I I _ -- i 1 I I \ I I I . ~ ~ A ~ ~ ----------- ~ s `^ 1 ~` n I .~. I I ~ ~ " --1_'__--- ---- 6~-~- -F I - \ ' - ------- I I ~ ~ `- i__ .-- ---- \\~~~~ ~ I I I ~~ ~ ~ ~` \ > ~ ~ i~ n-- I ~,~5~- y,--~~ I ~~ ~ I ~ -_L____. i ~~., ~ 1 i ~ 1 in1Yo 1 ~------- ~oawa ~' ~. GA ~ •~ '~ ~~ ~~ a~ ~ ~~ wo " .5 `~ b ~ MM~ ~ ~i~ O R~ C,~ .~ O •^y '~ ~M •~y r..l Q~ w Q U O Q W u~ ua F~ Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Pale 9 of 9 APPENDIX CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS DATA USED TO DETERMINE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ~~ Q: F a ~ N ~i g O 'Ja Uz ~~ om 0 z m U E y o x ~. Y 3 ..] Z U ~ E " ' F ~ z ° ~ ~ ~ . ~, o ~; ~~ ti .o - = Qz _ .~ z ~ E E ~ c ~ ~^. ~~ on ~~ o~ ~~ on ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~^~ '~ao t- 00 00 0 , S o0 00 0 oc 00 o0 U ~ C y ctl C O O pp ~~pp ~ ~ C ~ 00 ~ ~ N V' O N O~ ~p <f N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r^, M ~ N _ ~ 'p= N F ~ ~ 00 00 00 OC. s L OO OO OO Op a ~ c 0 5 m F ~ pppp p ~p Z ~ v1 ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ 00 00 00 00 U ¢ 0 0 O C O C O C f~ 3z~ I oo~ oo~ oo~ o0 v x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~S ~b d ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ V v a = ~ ~ U > ^ V w C y~ C N O O N C Ip~ p ~/1 0 v, ... ~O ~O~pp~ N •C L ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vim vt~i v7 ~ v~ O fL O , , , v O O O y O z c CI' O _- v U p o p p p p ~ N ~ c~^, 7 7 ~1 v1 ~O ~ ~ r 00 Q S ~ ~ ~ O ~ C ~ O O h u Q O E... a m ~ o 0 00 00 E x~~~c ~3 o ~ 0 c ~ of m z o L x v ~ - -O ~ y ~ -<r~o~ o0 9,0 w v C T u N F~ A~~~~ m 'D o Z o~ b~ E O Y y~ ¢ 2 ~ °~' v v~7 ~ FF Es~C v ~°- ~¢z ~ v E ; t ~~ ~ c o L] ~ c i ~.a .y ~ o m o ~o :v a~ ~ ~, FoC7~~ ~~ vZ~ ~ _ ° ~ 3 F r ~ 3 g 3 GO 7. ~ c 'm U '~ _ ~ „ 3 _ ~ J ~_ ~? O -C c =0. v ~ s m~g~ ._ m c 3 0 [D QI ~j c U ~ U m U cD m ~; - =x a wE- w ,~ oz ~~ ~ `° zm c z w a ~ a W ~ S u.. z 3 w z 0 x 0 r c T .y ~ ~ ~ N F ^ ~ . ~, ~ A E `1 v o t ~ C 3 ~ ~ FC7$_1 C ?' ~ Q] ~ ~ 3`n~~ M s N rt~_ .G !f~ ~ O b Zv~oo ~_ cad ~ N ~ O ~ a c m to q~~~~ -o r- m t w 0] ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ b ~ ¢. ~ 'v v > ~ ro ~ V ~ ~ N ~ (X 6/ z ~ > ~ ~ ~' U t w s ~ a~ O ~ ,°`n a `~ 'c ¢z _ ~~ ~~ .~ z ~ C o ~ or = O~ o~ c p( r~+ r~ ~ ~ = O O O O ~ ~ y w C O ~ y O ° ~ ~ ^ rl v ~ °a°~w~°r°,~~~N_ ° u 'per N ~"' ~ ° ° ° ° '.c s ~ 00 00 5 0 5 ~? v . o ~ °~ F ~ Zvri~vai$~a~~~e~~°l~~n° ~ _ °° 00 U ¢ 00 00 3~~ ~ ~cI o0 g .} q .. v~ ;, .~z O U > y d c ~ v cr C. ~ C p o cu s c ' o ~ ~ ~ p e~-}} p p po Q ~ ~ N ~ M ~ 7 V`, V'f ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 Q~ `-' ("' A ~' ~ V1 4 m Q 1 O F a ~ - ~3 op' 0 m ~T~~~~ ~3 '* ~ ~ o " - L] E- J w z z F ~~ ~M~, ~ .o ri ~v-;~~ o ~ p p ~ O ~C S[ ~ > > ~ O 2~~F- E '~ ~ ~ =o ~ S c rI ° 3' rn c 3 0 m`_ J 61 W t U .Y U U m m Exhibit 2 Traffic Analysis i i i i i r i i i i i D= CITY OF TUSTIN BROWNING & MITCHELL TOWN HOME PROJECT Traffic Analysis June 2007 ~~~AUST/N-FOUST ASSOC/AYES /NC. Draft CITY OF TUSTIN BROWNING & MITCHELL TOWN HOME PROJECT Traffic Analysis Prepared by: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 2223 East Wellington Avenue Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 (714)667-0496 June 14, 2007 e CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ................................. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ...................................................... PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................ EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS .......:........................................ PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................... PROJECT ACCESS AND INTERNAL, CIRCULATION ................. SCHOOL IMPACTS ........................................................................... CMP ANALYSIS ................................................................................. PARKING ............................................................................................ CONCLUSIONS .................................. REFERENCES ...................................................................................... APPENDICES A: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets B: Delay Calculation Worksheets .................................................. 1 .......................................:.......... 1 .................................................. 4 .................................................. 4 ................................................. 8 ................................................. S ......................... ..................... 19 .............................................. 21 .............................................. 23 .............................................. 24 ............................................. 24 ............................................. 25 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Project Location ...................... 2 ... Proposed Site Plan .................. ....................................................... 3 ... Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ....................................................... - 2006 4 Project Distribution ............... .......................................... 5 6 ..... Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........................................:.......... -Project-Generated ............. : 7 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes .. ..... - 2008 No Project ................ 8 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........ - 2008 With Project ............. 9 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ......... - 2025 No Project ................ Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ......... - 2025 With Project ...................... LIST OF TABLES ................ 3 ... 9 ....................................... 11 ....................................... 12 ....................................... 14 ...................................... 15 ...................................... 17 ...................................... 18 1 Level of Service Descriptions -Signalized Intersections ............... 2 City of Tustin Performance Criteria ..................... •~•••~•~~~~•~~•~~~~~~•~~~~~~••~•"'•'•'"'•"~' S 3 Land Use and Trip Generation Su .. ....................................................................... 6 4 Level of Service (LOS) Summar i~~ary -Proposed Project ...................................................... 7 5 Level of Service OS S y -Existing ................ . ............................................................ 10 (I- ) ummary - 2008 No Project and With Project .................................... 16 6 Level of Service (LOS) Summary - 2025 No Project and With Project ............ 7 Traffic Dela and g y ~y ••••••••••••~~••••••.... 20 y Queuin Surve Results - W.R. Nelson Element School ........................ 22 8 Parking Code Criteria ................................................................................................................. 24 ~s BROWNING & MITCHELL TOWN HOME PROJECT Traffic Analysis This report presents the results of a traffic analysis performed for the proposed construction of 77 residential town homes in Che City of Tustin. It has been prepared for submittal to the City in support of the project application and proposed zoning amendment (to allow two and three-story town home products). The report contains documentation of the methodology and assumptions used in the analysis, and presents the results and findings of the traffic impacts of the proposed project. INTRODUCTION The proposed project is located on a 4.1-acre site in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue in the City of Tustin. The project location is illustrated in F' figure 1 and the proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. The site is currently occupied by the Rancho Sierra Apartment complex, which contains 60 residential units. The proposed project consists of redevelopment of the site with 77 residential town homes. Access to the project will be via a driveway on Browning Avenue around 500 feet south of Mitchell Avenue. ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The study area consists of the intersections of Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue, and Browning Avenue at Sandfield Place. Intersections beyond these locations would not meet the one percent impact criteria used by the City for traffic studies such as this. Existing (2006) peak hour intersection turn movement volumes are first presented. The project is then analyzed under two time frames, ashort-range representing project buildout and along-range representing City General Plan buildout. The short-range time frame used in this analysis represents the amount of growth that is projected to occur by the time the proposed project is built out in the next two years, and is referred to as year 2008. Year 2008 No Project volumes were formulated using the 2006 traffic volumes as a base, and applying a one percent annual growth factor for two years (two percent total). Project-generated traffic was then added to the 2008 No Project volumes, resulting in the 2008 With Project traffic volumes. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project l Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 10670p1rpt.doc ~d: ,~ L~~J rf/;3. Figure 1 PROJECT LOCATION Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-figl.dwg __. .Frnc~ 3RN3~tY 773H~1lW. ~,- --1 --~-=-, 1 ., _~,, -~l, ,_ . q l j eK r /.vki r M'N /«hvN Y M'dLd ~ M'id /«IMd ,. __ e _ r wow ~, w.ui •:Y,~ XVy Y M'ld / M'Ll Y M'4/ /~N/1J _ 7 hF , ~_~ r I . - - r , ,, ~ _ ~ ~ . ~ . ! ~ r~HVIJ f M'id 1 M'N II IlYL [ NVM .~~' i . . ~ ' !' ~. t .,.vv i `irm 1 i:~. ~ a M'lI f NvN I 4 -i c m~ r nr7v i ~ rirv c nrw I •+• - r wnd r line ! ma c hru c ixy ..~ ~ '* ,. ~, , ~. ~ , ~ -- -.. ~.r,~a ~ ~~ - r Nvy a NY4! 1 NV4/ thri! C rmy ~~ C M'1v L ~u.r bn.~ .vn•b NYy ! JNId I NVH C NYy ~ ;p. -` -~-- t t .. ...... . P~F .LF-_ _. _ r ., , }-?" i n.. ~ - m 'O h , , ~ I o c wvts i +Yvu 1 nw a ~ P 1N4 ~ ~ ~ ~. r'_. i t ~' ~ ~j r 3; ~. i .nJ 11 1 HAY x[ i0 7 .. ..... 1 ~~ I _ v .. ~ ry .. riM",;l"M%~.1"~!i i"rv;. c`,a~, 1-~r- t ' ! w.w ^Ij ».,., ,....H, ,~,.1..,, -j M'1+ a iww 1 rvw z nnis s mgr. ,. I 3 _.. _., _. _ u. ~ ~ , .._ . F ~f(hL K4~JI Ktl.Y ffY4, f MVM a AY7d 1 M'U [ NYM ~ ~ r .- - , ~ - .,, rr ~ - ~ , _ . ::_ _ _ r _ . 3~ti'1'd ----- - i ., - -- ~ _ _ + O73ljON' - ~ - j-- , yy F r ~- ~~ ~~ i t k t t f r p 'r R f t I I ( - ( I~ I {; I I I I 1 I I .~ I ~ I I I ~ry v ll"" I I I I I I `I I I I I i i I ~` 9~ 1. L ___~ ~# ,.1 ~:.~..~ ~ ~~ 6 .. i ~s x 4 a~ . M'M • NVIy I,M/ld / AYiy ~Et ~' ~ ~ 'I I I .. .: .: ~{ ~ - ~ 1 I~ ' `. 1, r I ,Lf Off , I 3 A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `I ry ygjq J ' ~ . ~ ~ 1 I '1 ~' I 11L r w N ~i Q 0 a I t11 .o ay G q H 3~ >~ iF I ~ U 'D~ ti cV l]p O w ~g ~_~ ~~ W .~ Q Buildout (2025) volumes without the proposed project were derived from 2025 Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) ADT forecasts and assume the southward extension of Tustin Ranch Road to Barranca Parkway southeast of the project (see Reference 1). Project-generated traffic volumes were then added to these volumes to give the 2025 With Project volumes. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA The traffic analysis utilizes a set of performance criteria for evaluating intersection capacity to determine potential project impacts. Traffic level of service (LOS) is designated "A" through "F" with LOS "A" representing free flow conditions and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. Table 1 summarizes the general LOS descriptions. The intersection capacity analysis examines AM and PM peak hour volumes and intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values at the intersection of Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Since this intersection is currently signalized, ICU methodology is used. The methodology used at the intersection of Browning Avenue and Sandfield Place is consistent with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures for unsignalized intersections. The performance criteria for each is summarized in Table 2. The City of Tustin has determined that Level of Service "D" is the minimum acceptable level of service for peak hour operation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is located on a 4.1-acre site in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue in the City of Tustin. The site is currently occupied by the ~, , Rancho Sierra Apartment complex, which contains 60 residential units. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of the site with 77 residential town homes, resulting in a net increase of 17 residential units. Table 3 summarizes the existing and proposed land uses and the corresponding trip generation estimates. As shown, redevelopment of the project site results in a net increase of 334 average daily trips (ADT), with 27 of these occurring in the AM peak hour and 40 occurring in the PM peak hour. This increase has been used for the impact analysis results presented here. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 4 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc Table 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS -SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS DELAY PER LOS DESCRIPTION VEHICLE A LOS "A" describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per (<10 vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. B LOS "B" describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds er vehi l Th 10 - 20 p c e. is level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS "A" , causing higher levels of delay. C LOS "C" describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. These hi her del 20-35 g ays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this l l C eve . ycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles and fl , over ows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still ass p through the intersection without stopping. D LOS "D" describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds er vehicl A LO ` " 35-55 p e. t S 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 vehicl es stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. ~s~ E LOS "E" describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds er vehi l Th 55-80 p c e. ese high delay values enerall e progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Indiv dual cycle failures are frequent. F LOS "F" describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 seconds > g0 per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers often , occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the ~~ capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths ma y also contribute significantly to high delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manua12000, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council VOLUME-TO- CAPACITY RATIO 0-.60 61 - .70 71 - .80 .81 - .90 91 - 1.00 > 1.00 Browning & Mitchel] Town Home Project 5 Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 10671>olrpt.doc Table 2 CITY OF TUSTIN PERFORMANCE CRITERIA V/C Calculation Methodoloev (Signalized Intersections) Level of service to be based on peak hour intersection .capacity utilization (ICU) values calculated using the following assumptions: Saturation Flow Rate: 1,700 vehicles/hour/lane e Delay Calculation Methodology (Llnsignalized Intersections) Level of service to based on peak hour intersection delay (seconds per vehicle) based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Ideal Saturation Flow Rate: 1,900 vehicles/hour/lane Performance Standard Level of Service "D" Signalized Intersection Peak hour ICU less than or equal to .90. Unsignalized Intersection Peak hour delay less than or equal to 35 seconds. Project Imaact Signalized Intersection -Project causes an increase in ICU of greater than .01, when the "With Project" ICU is more than .90 (LOS "E" or "F"). Unsignalized Intersection -Project causes an increase in delay of greater than 2 seconds, when the "With Project" delay is more than 35 seconds (LOS "E" or "F"). Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 6 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001 rpt.doc f k P ...~ kE r E 4 s F s Land Use p Generation Town Home (Pro'ect)~ Apartment (Existing Use Increase p Rates Town Home Table 3 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY - Proposed Project ~ AM Peak Hour Amount ~ In -put r r Total 77 DU 15 43 58 60 DU 6 _ 25 31 17 DU 9 18 27 DU .17 .50 .67 DU .10 .41 .51 DU .19 .56 .75 In PM Peak Hour _ Out Total ADT 49 28 77 737 24 13 37 403 25 15 40 334 .45 .33 .78 7.89 .40 .64 .22 .37 .62 1.01 6.72 9.57 tITE Land Use Category 231. (Given as a reference only. The Single-Family Detached trip rate was used to calculate the project trip generation. ZITS Land Use Category 220 3Town Home ADT rate was interpolated between the TTE Single-Family Detached (land use category 210) and Apartment (land use category 220) ADT rates. 4ITE Land Use Category 230 SBecause of the size of the town home product type, the project trip generation was calculated using the higher Single-Family Detached trip rates to assume aworst-case scenario. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 7 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc t EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The existing arterial highway system in the vicinity of the project consists of Browning Avenue, ~ Mitchell Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Browning Avenue is a two-lane secondary roadway in the project vicinity and carries approximately 4,500 vehicles per day. Walnut Avenue is a four-lane secondary arterial located south of the project and currently carries approximately 19,500 vehicles per day. e Existing (2006) peak hour volumes are illustrated in Figure 3, and the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values and delay (for the highest stopped leg) for these volumes are summarized in Table 4. ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix A and Delay calculation worksheets can be found in Appendix B. The target LOS for intersections is LOS "D". According to this criteria, the study azea intersections are well below the target LOS for existing conditions. Traffic volumes at the school driveway are not being analyzed as part of this analysis but are included in the graphics to give the reader a complete understanding of the intersection volumes north and south of the school entrance that are part of the analysis. For purposes of this analysis, traffic volumes at the school were estimated based on an elementary school of about 300 students using ITE trip generation rates. (A discussion on "School Impacts" is provided later in this document.) PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS Distribution of project-generated traffic was based on prevailing traffic patterns at the study area intersections and is illustrated in Figure 4. The project-generated traffic volumes aze illustrated in Figure R. Sand are representative of the "net increase" of 17 units on the project site as discussed earlier. However, the "total" project-generated volumes are given at the project driveway to calculate capacity. Short-Range (2008) Project Impacts The short-range time frame used in this analysis represents the amount of growth that is projected to occur at the time this project is built out in the next two yeazs, and is referred to as year 2008. Year 2008 No Project volumes were formulated using the 2006 traffic volumes as a base, and applying a one Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 8 Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rptdoc .r st 1 s ~~-1 Legend Figure 3 f~-~ Project Location PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES - 2006 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-fig3.dwg r f r f r~.1 e Y f 3 f ;I r s Table 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY - Existing Signalized Intersection AM Peak Hour 1. Brownin Ave. & Walnut Ave. ICU LOS 53 . A Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour 2. Browning Ave. & Sandfield Dela LOS Place/Project Driveway 19.2 C Note: Seconds per vehicle average. Abbreviations: ICU -intersection capacity utilization LOS -level of service Level of service ranges (ICUs): .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Level of service ranges (Delay): <10 A 10 -15 B 15-25 C 25-35 D 35 - 50 E > 50 F Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 10 Traffic Analysis PM Peak Hou_r_ ICU LOS .48 A PM Peak Hour lela LOS 12.3 B Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc Legend ~;~ "_-1 Project Location Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 11 Figure 4 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-1"ig4.dwg e a Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 12 Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-5g5.dwg percent annual growth factor for two years (two percent total). The 2008 No Project traffic volumes are € illustrated in Figure 6 and include the existing use on the site (60 apartment units). Project-generated volumes, representative of the net increase of 17 units on the project site, were then added to the 2008 No Project traffic volumes resulting in the 2008 With Project volumes. These are illustrated in Figure 7. Table 5 summarizes the corresponding peak hour ICU values at the intersection of Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue. As shown, the intersection operates at an acceptable level of service under both scenarios. ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix A and Delay calculation worksheets can be found in Appendix B. Buildout (2025) Project Impacts "'"~ Peak hour buildout (2025) volumes without the proposed project were derived from 2025 Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) ADT forecasts and assume the southward extension of Tustin Ranch Road to Bananca Parkway southeast of the project. Growth factors, derived from base year (2000) and 2025 TTAM forecasts at the three mid-block approaches to the study area intersection, were applied to the 2006 volumes used in this analysis to represent a 2025 time frame. The ADT volumes show no increase on Browning Avenue, and an increase from 26,240 to 27,000 between 2006 and 2025 (three ~ percent) on Walnut Avenue. The 2025 No Project volumes are illustrated in Figure 8 and include the existing use on the site (60 apartment units). Project-generated volumes, representative of the net increase of 17 units on the project site, were then added to the 2025 No Project traffic volumes resulting in the 2025 With Project volumes. These are illustrated in Figure 9. Buildout of the proposed project has been assumed in both the 2008 and 2025 analysis. As such, 2008 and 2025 project-generated traffic volumes entering/existing the site are the same. Likewise, no future development is anticipated in the existing Sandfield Place residential neighborhood and volumes entering/exiting the neighborhood are also the same in both time frames. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 13 Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-fig6.dwg •.,..,,., =~wli Home rrolect 15 Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-fig7.dwg Table 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY - 2008 No Project and With Project Signalized Intersection 1. Browning Ave. & Walnut Ave No Protect Wrth Pro ect Increase Due to PrOiPrr Unsignalized Intersection 2. Browning Ave. & Sandfield P No Protect Wrth Protect Increase Due to Pr(YI P!`.t AM Peak Hour ICU _ LOS .53 q .55 A .02 __ AM Peak Hour )eta _L05 t Drivewa 19.7 C 22.3 C 2.6 __ Note: Seconds per, vehicle average. Abbreviations: ICU -intersection capacity utilization LOS -level of service Level of service ranges (ICUs): .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Level of service ranges (Delay): <10 A 10 -15 B 15-25 C 25-35 D 35-50 E > 50 F Browning & Mitchell Town Home project Traffic Analysis 16 PM Peak Hour ICU __ LOS --.--___ .50 A .50 q .~ -- PM Peak Hour )elay LOS 12.4 B 14.1 B 1.7 __ Austin-Foust Associ 1067001rptdoc Austin-Foust Associates, Inc, 1067001-fig8.dwg li ~j: ~/. Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-fig9.dwg Because the ITAM ADT volumes used to derive the future peak hour intersection vol this analysis showed no increase (see discussion above) and because of the built-out nature of the ad acent land uses, no increase is assumed for the through volumes on Brownin Avenue. J on Walnut Avenue, however, were increased three percent based on the ITAM ADT volume n fumes between 2000 and 2025 at this location. rease Table 6 summarizes the peak hour ICU values for the 2025 No Project and With Project conditions and shows that the intersection of Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue operates at an acceptable level of service under both scenarios. ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix A and Dela calculation worksheets can be found in Appendix B. y PROJECT ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION The existing apartment complex on the proposed project site has vehicular access to both Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue. Sole access to the proposed project will be taken via a drivewa on Browning Avenue located around 500 feet south of Mitchell Avenue opposite Sandfield Place. The total project-generated volumes at this intersection were given previously in Figure 9. Since this intersection does not meet a signal warrant with the inclusion ofproject-generated traffic, the drivewa an unslgnalized full movement access point. With an ADT volume of 4,500 and most projeclt drivewa s movements being right turns, no significant delays to existing traffic on Browning Avenue or S y Place are anticipated. andfield Currently, Browning Avenue is striped as a two-lane roadway with left tum lanes in the center median. Upon completion of the project with its new entrance driveway oriented directly opposite Sandfield Place, the existing double-double yellow median should be converted to a left turn lane to t accommodate left turns into the project. Virtually all project traffic (about 95 percent) is expected to utilize the segment of Browning Avenue southerly of the site to Walnut Avenue. Thi northbound Ieft turn volume entering the main driveway of 14 vehicles per hour ( h s will result in a hour and 47 vph in the PM peak hour. Conversion of the existing double-double yel ow median heo Sandfield Place to a left turn lane will effectively provide a 200-foot long left turn storage lane on Browning Avenue at the project entrance which will be more than adequate to accommodate a maximum peak arrival of 47 vph northbound on Browning Avenue. The AM and PM peak hour volumes for the entire project are approximately 70 vph, or just a little over one vehicle per minute. With such limited Browning & Michell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 19 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001 rpt.doc k Table 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY - 2025 No Project and With Project Signalized Intersection AM Peak Hour 1. Brownin Ave. & Walnut Ave. ICU LOS No Project With Project .54 A Increase Due to Project ~55 A .O1 __ Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour 2. Brownin Ave. & Sandfield Place/P ' ct ri LOS r No Project o e D vewa With Project 19.7 C Increase Due to Project 22.3 C 2.6 __ Note: [Seconds per vehicle aver age. Abbreviations: ICU -intersection capa city utilization LOS -level of service Level of service ranges (ICUs): •00- .60A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Level of service ranges (Delay): <10 A 10 -15 B 15 - 25 C 25 - 35 D 35 - 50 E > 50 F Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 20 PM Peak Hour ICU ~L-OS .50 A .50 ---,~ .00 __ PM Peak_Hour_ )el- a f LOS 12.4 B -" 14.1 B 1.7 __ Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc ` traffic there is not expected to be any delay associated with entering or exitin the si the day. g to during any time of The internal circulation system for the project is basically a "T" shaped pattern with a sin le entrance off the stem of the "T". In effect, the circulation plan is essentially a main cul-de-sac g shorter cul-de-sacs along the main spline. The main street is 36 feet wide with 25-foot wide "alle et ~ itch driveways each serving about four or five residential units. P y yp spline, but no parking is permitted on the 25-foot alley driveways pW ttad on the main 36-foot wide ~ total peak hour two-way } volume of less than 70 vph at the entrance and progressively less as one proceeds into the develo ment ao traffic safety, circulation or delay issues are anticipated. The internal traffic situation will by calm with virtually no opportunity for excessive speeds or congestion as lon g as cars are not parked on the 25- foot wide alleys. SCHOOL IMPACTS An existing public elementary school is located nearby the proposed project in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The main entrance to the s located on Browning Avenue and serves pedestrians, and those arriving by car or bicycle. The school is morning drop-off time for students coincides with the AM peak hour on the adjacent circulation system. During that time, an additional eight project vehicles will be traveling northbound on Brownin Avenue and an additional 17 project vehicles will be traveling southbound on Brownin g generated volumes are not expected to create any significant increase to traffi ~ ongestion ateth project- entrance and the public safety requirements related to schools already enforced at this location willsahoi 1 to the project traffic as well. No impacts are anticipated in the PM peak hour, pp y During the construction phase, a Construction Management Plan should be implemented that would address safety issues. This would give the City the ability to regulate construction traffic b limiting (or prohibiting) access to the project site during the time frames when children are alrivin at and departing the school. g A traffic delay and queuing survey was conducted in May 2007 to document the operational characteristics of traffic on Browning Avenue in the project vicinity during the school's mornin dro -off and afternoon pick-up times. The results are summarized in Table 7. g p Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 21 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rptdoc Table 7 TRAFFIC .DELAY AND QLTEiIING SURVEY RESULTS - W.R. NELSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES ON BROWNING AVENUE Variable Mornin Observation Results S Afternoon Observati R chool starts: 8:00 AM on esults Surve Time Total Peak School dismissal: 2:14 ply Surve Duration 7:30 am - 8:20 am 7:40 am- 8:00 am Total 1:30 m - 3:00 m Min. stacked vehicles 50 mutes 20 minutes m 2:00 2:30 ~ 90 minutes Max. stacked vehicles 0 ~ 30 minutes 0 Av .stacked vehicles 24 24 0 14 ~ 16 14 4 10 ~'1'~TBOUND VEHICLES EXI TING SANDFIELD PLACE Variable Mornin Observation Results School starts: 8:00 AM Afternoon Observation Results Surve Time Total Peak School dismissal: 2:14 PM Surve Duration Total 7:30 am - 8:20 am 7:40 am- 8:00 am 1:30 m - 3:00 e Vehicles Exitin Sandfield Place SO mutes 20 minutes m 2:00 m 2:30 m 90 minutes Maximum Dela ~ 23 30 minutes 53 Maximum Dela Occurrence 40 seconds 40 seconds 3 times 29 40 seconds 40 second Avera e Dela 3 times 11 seconds s 3 times 3 times 15 seconds 9 seconds 8 seconds Browning & Mitchel] Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 22 Austin-Foust Associ- ~ares )n~ 1067007rptdoc The distance between the Browning Avenue crosswalk north of the school's exit-onl to the centerline of Sandfield Place is approximately 250 feet. The total number of vehicles tdraveliny southbound on Browning Avenue and "stacking" from the crosswalk to be and S g (interfering with that neighborhood's ability to exit} were counted in five minute increm ntds duanPlace school's peak periods. The number of vehicles exiting Sandi>eld Place, and the d g the also observed. elay 1n seconds, was As indicated., the worst-case maximum number of vehicles stacked on southbound Brownin beginning at the crosswalk is 24 in the morning, with an average of about 16 vehicles g peak traffic period (7:40 AM- 8:00 AM .during the school's f ) However, it should be recognized that this traffic "queue" was, in reality, a "rolling" or "creeping" queue whereby most simply slowed to a crawl speed and roceed creep past the school. Motorists existing the side streets were able to enter this rollin ueu ed to across it with little delay encountered. D g q e or turn exited the Sandfield Place neighborhood. Themes imam dpeak traffic period for the school, 23 vehicles due to the southbound traffic queue on Browning Avenue and this onl eoccd by any driver was 40 seconds delay for motorists exiting Sandfield Place was 15 seconds. Y erred three times. The average As stated earlier, the proposed project will add 17 southbound vehicles to Browning Avenue in the AM peak hour. Because the PM peak hour of residential uses occur much later than the afters dismissal time for a school, onl ooh y nunimal project trips will affect the afternoon school-related congestion. It can be anticipated that approximately half of the 17 project-generated trips (nine) would occur ri the school-related congestion which be in p or to the school-related congestion. It can be concluded that he add~i0 ~ and half (nine) would occur during the southbound traffic queues will not rod on of nme project-generated vehicles to p ace any measurable increase in delay to vehicles exiting Sandfield Place. CMP ANALYSIS State legislation creating the Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires that local governments analyze the impacts of their land use decisions on the regional transportation system. The Orange County CMP requires that land use projects analyze their traffic impacts to an intersec " identified on the CMP Y hon Highway System. Projects with the potential to create an impact of more than three percent of LOS "E" capacity on CMP Highway System Links, or generate 2,400 or more dail y traps Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 23 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rptdoc are required to prepare a CMP analysis. If a project has direct access to a CMP link, the threshold is reduced to 1,600 or more daily trips. The proposed project does not meet these requirements, there are no CMP intersections in the project study area and therefore no CMP analysis is r wired. PARKING The City of Tustin has established parking space requirements to ensure that new developments provide adequate parking for their use. They vary by land use type and number of units, and the criteria is sununarized in Table 8. ~ Table S PARKING CODE CRITERIA Resident S ace -- -- ""`°"" rro ect Re uirement 2 s aces er unit 154 Visitor S ace 1 s ace er 4 units Total 20 174 As shown, based on the proposed project's occupancy of 77 units, a total of 174 parking spaces are required under the City's parking code. The proposed project will provide 154 parking garages and 26 open parking spaces (total of 180 spaces) to fulfill these requirements. Also, 11 on-street parkin spaces are provided on Mitchell Avenue (but do not count towards meeting the on-site parking requirements). No on-street parking will be allowed on Browning Avenue along the project frontage. This entire section should be red-curbed to comply with the City of Tustin's sight distance standards. CONCLUSIONS The study area intersection, Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue, has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project land use under short-term (2008) and buildout (2025) conditions, and the proposed project does not create a significant impact at this location under the City of Tustin's performance criteria. To fulfill the City's parking code requirements, the proposed project will also provide 154 parking garages and 26 open parking spaces. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 24 Austin-Foust Associates, ]nc. i (X7001 rpt. doc The project will be responsible for implementing roadway improvements on Browning Avenue that will provide increased visibility and accessibility at the new four-way intersection with Sandfield Place (project driveway). These consist of striping changes and additions that wi southbound right turn lane and a northbound left turn lane into the project. 11 provide both a Currently, Browning Avenue is striped as a two-lane roadway with left turn lanes in the center median. The project will convert the existing double-double yellow median to a left t accommodate left turns into the project. Conversion of the existing double-double yellow median south of Sandfield Place to a left turn lane will effectively provide a 200-foot long left turn stora e 1 Browning Avenue at the project entrance which will be more than adequate to accommodate a max m m peak arrival of 47 vph northbound on Browning Avenue. The project will also provide a southbound right turn lane on Browning Avenue into the project driveway. Approximately 100-110 feet of on-street parking will be eliminated to accommodate this improvement. REFERENCES 1. "City of Irvine Planning Areas 30 and 51, Heritage Fields GPA/Zone Change, Traffic Study", September 2006. 2. "2005, Orange County, Congestion Management Program," OCTA, November 2005. 3. "Highway Capacity Manual 2000," Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2006. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 25 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc Intersectio Appendix A n Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets This appendix summarizes information pertaining to the intersection analysis presented in traffic report. this ICU Calculation Methodology The ICU calculation procedure is based on a critical movement methodology that shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical movement at an intersection. A capacity of 1,700 vehicles hour per lane is assumed together with a .OS clearance interval. A "de-facto" right-turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and ri t- _`'~ turn traffic (ty icall w" ?~ P y Ith a width of 19 feet or more from curb to outside of through-lane with parking prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped right-turn lanes durin the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in lace of a numerical entry for right-turn lanes. p The methodology also incorporates a check for right-turn capacity utilization. Both right-turn-on- green (RTOG) and right-turn-on-red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the total right-turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made t capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made, o the total Example for Northbound Right 1____RiQht-Turn-On Green (RTn~;~ If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG = V/C (NBT) Otherwise, RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL) 2. Rir7ht-Turn-On-Red (RTOR) If WBL is critical move, then: RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) _ V/C (EBT) Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis q_ 1 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc 3. Ri>>ht-Turn Overlap Adinctma„r F If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows: RTOG T RTOG + V/C (~L) RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL) 4. Total Right-Turn Capaci (RTC) Availability Fir 1.rRR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (0% for County intersections, 75% for intersections in all other jurisdictions within the study area) Right-turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) -RTC A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately accommodate the right-turn V/C, therefore the right-turn is essentially considered to be a critical movement. In such cases, the right-turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that aright-turn adjustment is required for more than one right-turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual ri t-turn movement reference, and the right-turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total cah aci utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right-turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right-turn adjustment credit should be applied. Shared Lane V/C Methodology For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn movement (e.g., left/through, throw gh/right, ]eft/through/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: Example for Shared Left/Through Lane 1 ~ Average Lane Volume (ALVI ALV = Left-Turn Volume + Total Left + Throw A Through Volume ~ pproach Lanes me u mg s are ape) Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis A_2 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (067001 rpt.doc 2. ALV for=reproach ALV (Left) = Left-Turn Volume Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV (Through) = Throu Volume Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane) 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted E If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left-turn approach is warranted. Left-turn and through V/C ratios for this case are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane) V/C (Through) = Throu Volume Through Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) k~ Similarly, if ALV (Through) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the through approach is warranted, and left-turn and through V/C ratios are calculated as follows: ' V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) V/C (Through) = Throu Volume Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane) E 4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted If ALV (Left) and ALV (Through) are both less than ALV, the left/through lane is assumed to be truly shared and each left, left/through or throw a volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined leftlthrough V/C ratio is calculated as follows~buted V/C (Left/Through) = Left-Turn Volume + Throw Volume Total Left + Through Approach Ca aci P ty (including shared lane).. This V/C (Left/Through) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Throw movement analysis and ICU summary listing. P~) ratio for the critical If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Through) that is attributed to the left-turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left-turn (including shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = V/C (Through) Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis A-3 Austin-Foust Associates, inc. ] 067001 rpt.doc If approach has only one left-turn lane (shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = Left-Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity If this left-turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left valu ' posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. ) e ~s ` These same steps are carried out for shared throu through/right lane to the right-turn movement is w gh/nght lanes. If full dedication of a shared three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG caa canted, the right-turn V/C value calculated in step P ty. When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., left/through and through/right), steps one and two listed above three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for eiout for the shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another,tstep three is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved in the other shared lane. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, lnc. A-4 1067001 rpt.doc i k t :~7 i. Browning Ave b Walnut Ave Existing Count (2006) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 G 0 0 SBL I 1700 290 .19* 177 10* SBT 0 0 0 0 . SBR 1 1700 293 .19 57 .05 EBL 1 1700 198 .09* 65 05* EBT 2 3900 700 .21 662 . 19 EBR 0 0 0 0 . WBL 0 0 0 0 W'BT 2 3900 781 .30* 937 33* WBR 0 0 228 183 . TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,53 48 2008 With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 D 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 259 .15* 192 11* SBT 0 0 0 0 . SBR 1 1700 256 .15 61 .05 EBL 1 1700 159 .09* 71 05* EBT 2 3900 719 .21 675 . 20 EBR 0 0 0 0 . WBL 0 0 0 D WBT 2 3900 803 .31* 956 39* WBR 0 0 238 206 . TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 55 . .50 A-5 2008 No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 p 0 ~ NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 295 .19* 181 11* SBT 0 0 0 0 . SBR 1 1700 298 .15 58 .05 EBL 1 1700 151 .09* 66 05* EBT 2 3900 719 .21 675 . 20 EBR 0 0 0 0 . WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3900 803 .30* 956 39* WBR 0 0 233 187 . TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 53 . .50 2025 No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT p 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 295 .19* 181 11* SBT 0 0 0 0 . SBR 1 1700 248 .15 58 .05 EBL 1 1700 151 .09* 66 05* EBT 2 3900 721 .21 682 . 2p EBR 0 0 0 0 . WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3900 811 .31* 965 39* WBR 0 0 233 187 . TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 54 . .50 1. Browning Ave 6 Walnut Ave 2025 With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR p 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 259 .15* 192 11* SBT 0 0 0 0 . SBR 1 1700 256 .15 61 .05 EBL 1 1700 154 .09* 71 05* EBT 2 3900 121 .21 682 . 20 EBR 0 0 0 0 . WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3900 811 .31* 965 39* WBR 0 0 238 206 . TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 55 . .50 A-6 Appendix B Delay Calculation Worksheets Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis B-I Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001 rpt.doc 2006 - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations NCR SQL SaT Sign Control ~, Stop ~ ~ ~ ~ SBR '~ Grade 0% Stop. . Free ' Free Volume (veh/h) 0 _0 0 2 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 0.95 0.95 0 0.95 2 0.95 0 0.95 1 0.95 0 0.95 361 0.95 8 0 0 95 0 95 466 0 0 9 Pedestrians 0 0 23 0 1 0 380 . . g p . 5 0.95 q91 0 Lane Vllidth (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent :Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Norte Median storage veh) None Upstream ~signat~~~) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol 872 879 491 $75 875 384 491 388 vC2, stage 2 c©nf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, Ingle (s)- 872 7 879 491 875 875 384 491 3 tC, 2 stage (s) :1 6.5 6.2 7:1 6.5 62 4.1 88 4.1 tF (s) p0 queue free % 3.5 4.0 3.3 0 3.5 4.0 ,3.3 22 2:2 cM capacity (vehlh 20~ 286 57 8 270 288 00 66 100 100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 3 SB 2 1073 1170 Volume Total Volume Left 0 24 0 388 0 491 bolume Right 0 0 23 1 0 0 0 0 cSH Volume to Capacity 1700 0 0 p 8 0 0 277 1700 1700 1700 1700 Queue Length 95th (ft) .0 0 0.09 0:00 7 0.23 0.00 0.29 Control Delay (s) 0.0 19;2 0 0.0 0 0:0 0 0 0 ~ Lane LOS A C . 0.0 Approach Delay (s) 0,0 19;2 0 0 Approach LOS A C : 0:0 Intersection Summa Avaranc nai~„ ---~~ ~..,~,. 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5% 1CU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 A Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [6614) s-z 2006 - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin f: `/f: M ~ "~ ovement Lane Configurations EBL EBT EBR WBL ~ WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Sign Control Stop ~ ~ ~' ~ '~, Grade ° Stop Free _ -Free Volume (veh/h) 0 ~ ~ 0 0% Q% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 0.95 0.95 0.95 14 0.95 ~ 0.95 1 0.95 0 0.95 223- 25 ~ 1 0 95 0 95 0 95 220 0 . Pedestrians 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 . . . 235 26 1 0.95 0.95 Lane .Width (f#) 232 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) None Upstreamrsignal;(~ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, eonflicting.vglume vC 1 stage 1 conf v l 469 495 232 482 482 248 232 2 , o 61 vC2, stage 2 cohf col vCu, unblocked vol tC, single {s) 469 495 232 482 482 248 232 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 $:5 6.2 4:1 261 41 tF (s) p0 queue free % 3.5 100 4.0 3:3 100 100 3:5 4:0 3:3 2,2 2.2 cfvl capacify (veh/h 503 47E- 808 97 495 100 484 100 ' 100 100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 79 1.. 1 NB 2 SB 1 336 1303 Volume Total 0 16 0 2 4 SB 2 Volume Left 0 15 6 1 232 Volume Right 0 0 1 0 1 0 cSH Volume to Capacit 1700 O Q 0 507 1700 26 1700 1 0 303 1 0 700 y Queue Length 95th (ft) . O 0 0.03 t).00 0..15 0:00 0.14 Control Delay (s) 0.0 2 ~ 12.3 OA 0 Q 0 0 7 8 0 Lane LOS A g . : . 0.0 Approach Delay{s) 0.0 12:3 0 0 A =` Approach LOS A . B 0.0 Intersection Summa Average Delay Intersection. Capacity Utilization Analysis Period i 0.4 23:3% ICU Level of Service A (m n) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [6614] B-3 2008 No-Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin M ~ ~ '~ ovement Lane Configurations EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Sign Control ~ Stop `~' ~ ~ ~ '~, SBR Grade 0 O Stop. . Free Free Volume (veh/h) 0 ~ 0 0% 0% p% Peak Hour Factor Hourly-.flow rate (v h) 0.95 0.95 0.95 22 0.95 ~ 0.95 ~ 0.95 0 0.95 369 0 95 8 0 0 95 4Z6 0 p Pedestrians 0 0 0 23 0 1 0 . .388 . 0.95 8 0 0.95 0.95 Lane 1Nidth (ft) . . 501 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent-'Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) None Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, con#licting volume 891 ' 898: 501 894 894 89 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 3 501 397 vC2; st~ge2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) 891 7 898 501 894 894 393 501 tC, 2 stage (s) .1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6:5 6.2: 4:1 ` 397 4 1 tF (s) p0 queue free % 3,5 100 4.0 3.3 ' 100 3,5 4.0 3.3 2:2 : 2 2 cM capacity (veh/h) 263 100 279 570 91 262 100 100 100 . 100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 281 656: 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 063 1162 Volume Total 0 ' SB 1 S B 2 Volume Left 0 24 0 23 39 7 0 501 Volume Right 0 0 1- 0 0 0 cSH Volume to Capacity 1700 0 00 0 269 1700 1 8 700 1 ~ 700 1 0 700 Queue Length 95th (ft) . 0 0:09 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.29 Control Dela s y O 0:0 7 0 1 9.7 0.0 0 0:0 0 0 Lane LOS A C 0:0 0.0 Approach Delay (s) 0:0 T9:7 0 0 Approach LOS A : C 00 Intersection Summa ~ Average Delay Intersection Capacity Ufilization 0.5 35 1 % Analysis Period (min) : ICU Level of Service A 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [B614J s-a 2008 No-Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin M '+~ ovement Lane Configurations EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Sign Control ~ Sto ~' ~ ~ SBT SBR ~ Grade p 0 Stop Free ~ Free Volume (.veh/h) p 0 0 0% ' 14 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (v h) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 0.95 0.95 1 0.95 0 0.95 228 0 95 25 1 225 0 0 95 p Pedestrians p ~ 0 15 0 1 0 . 240 . 0.95 0.95 0.95 26 Lane Width (ft) 1 237 p Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent• dockage Right turn flare (veh) M~edan,typ~ - Nohe Median storage veh) None Upstream sign~l.;(ftj PX, Platoon unblocked vC; conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol 480 505. 237 492 492 253 237 vC2', stagy 2 conf vol 266 vCu, unblocked vol tC, Single {s) 480 7 505 237 ' 492 492 253 237 tC, 2 stage (s) .1 6.5 6.2 7:1 6:5 6.2 4:1 266 tF (s) p0 queue free % 3:5 4,0 3:3 3'S 4:0 3;3 2':2 4.1 cM capacity. (veh/h) 100 495 100 100 469 802 97 100 100 100 22 100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 487 477 786 1330 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 1298 Volume Total - SB 1 S B 2 Volume Left ~ 0 16 0 266. 1 237.. Volume Right 15 0 0 1 cSH Volume to Capacit 1700 0 1 0 499 1700 1 26 n p 700 1298 1700 y Queue Length 95th (ft) .00 p 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.:00 0 .14 Control Delay (s:) 0.0 2 0 12.4 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 o Lane LOS A . g . 7.8 0.0 Approach Delay (s) 00 1.2:'4 0 0 A Approach LOS A . B 00 Intersection Summa Average Delay Intersection>Capacity Utilization 0.4 `23 5% Analysis Period (min) . ICU Level of Service A 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report (B614J s-s 2008 With-Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin M ovement Lane Configurations EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NB R SBL Sign Control ~ Sto `~' ~ ~ ~ SaT SBR Grade p, 0 0 /° Stop Free ~, Free Volume (veh/h) 2 0 41 0% 2 0%° 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourlyflow rate (vph) 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 0 ~ 0.95 0.95 0.95 14 0.95 363 8 0 0 95 0 95 4'52 1 Pedestrians 2 0 43 23 0 1 15 . . 0.95 382 8 0.95 0.95 Lane Width (ft) 0 476 1 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) None Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, .conflicting volume 889 896 476 93'5 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol . 893 386 477 `391 vC2, stage,2 eorif.~ol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) 889 896 476 935 893 386 477 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.1 ~.5 62 7.1 65 6.~ 4,1 391 tF (s) PO queue free % 3.5 ~4.0 3:3 3.5 `, 4.0 ~.;3 2r2 4.1 cM capacity (veh/h) 99 :261 100 93 276 589 90 100 100 2.2 100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 225 277. 662 1 085.. 1168 Volume Total 45 N B 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Left 2 24 1'~ 391 0 477 Volume Right 43 23 15 0 0 0 cSH Volume to Capacity 556 0 08 1 0 232 1085 1700 1700 1700 Queue Length 95th (ft) . 7 0..10 O:D1 0.23 0.00 0.28 Control Delay (s) 12.0 9 1 22.3 g 4 0 0 0 0.0 Lane LOS B . C Q'0 0:0 Approach Delay (s) 12.0 A 22.3 0 3 Approach LOS g . ~ Q:0 Intersection Summa Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 1.3 38 S% Analysis Period (min) ' ICU Level of Service A 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [B614j B-6 2008 With-Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NRT AIRI~ poi Lane Cnnfirn ~~~+~,,.,,. ..~.....,....~~~ Sign ControF ~ Stop ~' ~ - ~ vt~~. )CSI 5~f'1 ~ ~ ~ Grade ° Stop Free Free Volume (veh/h) 1 ~ 0~ 27 14 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 0.95 ~ .0.95 1 0.95 47 205 25 1 212 2 0.95 0 95 0 95 0 9 Pedestrians 0 28 15 0 1 . . . 5 0.95 0.95 49 °216: 26 1 Lane Width (ft) 223 2 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent.Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None. Median storage veh) None Upstream`signal (ft) PX, platoon unblocked vG, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf v l 542 . 567 224 °582 555 .229 225 o 242 vC2; stage'2 eonf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) 542 567 224 582 555 229 225 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 _ 7.1 6:5 6:2 4:1 242 4,1 tF(s) p0 queue free % 35 100 40 3.3 100 3:5 4:0 33 2.2 2 2 cM capacity (veh/M) 43$ 97 417 815: 96 398 100 423 100 . 96 100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 810 1. SB 1 343 1324 Voltj~e Total' 29 a6 49 242 SB 2 Volume Left 1 15 1 225 Volume Right 28 49 ~ 1 0 1 0 cSH Volume to Capacity 791 0 04 0 2,6 Q 412 1343 1700 1324 1 2 700 Queue Length 95th (ft) . 3 0.04 0:04 0:14 0:00 0.13 Control Delay (s) 9:7 3 3 14:1 7.8 0 0:0 0 7 7 0 Lane LOS A B A . O:p Approach Dela y fs) 9.7 4 1 1 3 A Approach LOS A . . B p.p Intersection Summa Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utiliz ati n 1.6 o Analysis Period (min) 33.1 %° tCU Level of Service A 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [6614) s-~ 2025 No-Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin 0 Movement Lane Configurations EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL • NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Sign Control ~ Stop ~ ~ '~ -~ ~, Grade . 0 / . Stop Free Free Volume veh/h ( ) 0 ° 0 0 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 0.95 0 0.95 0.95 22 0.95 0 0.95 1 0.95 0 0.95 369 g 0.95 0.95 0 9b 0 95 g0 Pedestrians 0 0 23 0 1 0 . 0. 388 8 0 501 0 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent ;Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None N ne Median storage veh) o . ~pstrea~ ignap (fit) pX, platoon unblocked vG,. conflicting volume vC 1, stage 1 conf vol 891 898 501 894 894 393 501 397 vC2~,~ stage~2~ eo,~f vol vCu, unblocked vol tC single (~) 891 898 501 894 894 393 501 397 , tC, 2 stage (s) 7:1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tF (s) p0 queue free % 3.5 100 40 100 3.3 3.5 4.0 3:3 2.2 2.2 cM:capacity (veh/h) 263 279 100 570 91 262 100 281 100 100 100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 656 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 063 1162 Volume Total Volume Left 0 24 0 397 0 501 Volume Right 0 0 23 ~ 0 p 0 0 0 cSH Volume to Capacit 1700 0 0 8 269 1700 1700 1 0 700 1 0 700 y Queue Length 95th (ft) . 0 p 0.09 0:00 ~ 0.23 0.00 0.29 Control Delay (s) 0.0 19.7 0 0,0 0 0.0 ~ 0:0 0 0 0 Lane LOS A C . Approach Delay (s) -0:0 19.7 0.0 OD Approach LOS A C Intersection Summa Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization 35. 0.5 1% Analysis Period (min) ICU Level of Service A 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [6614) s-a 2025 No-Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin Movement ~ --~- ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NRR coi nn~- Lane Cnnfin~ ~~~r~,...,. Sign Control St p ~'' ~ '~ --• ..~.~ tS vu i JCSK ~ Grade 0o Stop Free ' Free Volume (ueh/h) 0 ~ 0 0 /o p% ~% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (u h) 0.95 0.95 0.9 14 5 0.95 0 0.95 1 0.95 0 0.95 228 0.95 25 1 0 95 0 95 225 0 p Pedestrians 0 0 0 15 ~ 9 0 240 . . 26 1 0.95 0.95 237 Lane Width (ft) p Walking Speed (ft/s) P~sr~cenYBlockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) None UpstFearn aignal- (ff) pX, platoon unblocked - vC, conflicting volume vC1 stage 1 conf l 480 505 237 492 492 253 237 , vo -266 vC2; sta~e'2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vot tC, single (s) 480 505 237 492 492 253 237 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.1 6:5 6.2 7:1 6.5 62 4:1 266 ` .4.1 tF O p0 queue free % 3.5 100 4.0 100 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 22 2 2 cM ca aci P ty (veh/h) 495 469 100 802 97 487 100 100 100 100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 . WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 477 786 SB 1 1330 1298 Volume Total' 0 16 0 S B 2 Volume Left 0 15 266 1 237 Volume Right 0 ~ 0 0 1 0 cSH Volutne.to Capacity 1700 0 0 499 1700 26 0 1700 1298 1 0 700 Queue Length 95th (ft) .00 0 0.03 0:00 2 ~ D.16 0::00 0..9.4 Control Delay {s) 0,0 12:4 0 0' ~ 0: 0 0 Lane LOS A g . ; 7:8 0:0 Approach Defy (s) 0.0 12:4 0 0 A Approach LOS A B . 0:0 Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) U.4 23.5% IGU Level of Service A 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [6614) B-9 2025 With-Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin {r Movement I Inn (`....t.._..__i~ --- ~ i~ '~ '~ *~ WBL WBT WBR NRI WIRY n~c~r~ SBL EBL EBT EBR ......y,,,a~,,,~„ Sign Control ~ St ~ ..~„ - ~ SBT SBR ~ '~ 1~ . Grade Ooop Stop ~ Free Free ' Volume (veh/h) 2 0 41 22 0 /° 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) 0.9 5 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 0.95 1 0.95 14 363 $ 0 452 1 0.95 0 95 0 95 0 95 Pedestrians 2 0 43 23 ~ 1 . . . 0.95 0.95 15 382 8 0 4 Lane Width {ft) 76 1 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage. Right turn flare (veh) Median type: None Median storage veh) None DAStr.~am ignal.(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, confliethg volume vC1 stage 1 conf l 889 896 476 935 893 386 477 , vo 3g1 vG~2,stage<:2 confiwol vCu, unblocked vol tC, 'si~gfe (s~ 889 896 476 935 893 386 477 3 tC, 2 stage (s) 7.1 65 6.2 7.1 6.5 6:2 91 4:1 4.1 tF {$) p0 queue free % 3.5 99 4:0 100 3.3 go 00 2;2 2:2 eNl capacity (veh%h 26'1 276 . 93 589 225 00 277 6 99 100 Direction, Lane #t fl EB 1 , . WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 6 2 1 SB 1 SB 2 085 1'168 V lume Tofal Volume Left 45 24 15 391 0 477 Volume Right 2 43 23 ~ 15 0 0 0 cSH Volume to Capacity 556 0 08 0 8 232 1085 1700 0 1700 1 1 700 Queue Length 95th (ft) . 7 0:1.0 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.28 Control Delay ts) 12.0 g 22.3 1 8:4 0 p:0 0 00 0 Lane LOS B C 0.0 Approach Delay(s) 1.2:0 22 3 A 0 3 Approach LOS g . C . 0.0 Intersection Summary Average Delay Intersection.:Capacity :Utiliz atio 1.3 n Analysis Period (min) 38.5% JCU Level of Service A 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [B614j B-io 2025 With-Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Brownin M ovement Lane Configurations EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NCR Sign Control S ~' ~ SaL ~ SeT SBR Grade top 0 / ° Stop ~ Free ~, Vglurrie .(veh/h) ° 1 0% ~% Free Peak Hour Factor 0.9 ~ 27 5 0.95 0 95 a4 ~ 1 0 95 47 -205 0% Hourly flow rate (vph) . 1 0 28 . 0.95 0.95 15 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 95 0 95 Pedestrians 0 1 49 216. 26 1 . . 223 _ Lane Vyidth (ft) 2 Walking Speed (ft/s) Fe~cent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) None Norie Upstre~i-n signal'(#t), pX, platoon unblocked vC, .G~rt~li~fing v©lume 642 56.7 224 5$2 vC1, stage 1 conf vol . 555 229 225 242 vC2, stb~e~~ EOnf vbf vCu, unblocked vol 542 567 224 582 tC, single (s) 7.1 6:5 6 2 555 229 T 225 242 tC, 2 stage (s) . .1 6;5 6,2 4'.1 tF (s) PO queue free % 100 p~ 3:3 35 4:Q 3.3 2;2 4.1 cM'capacity (veh/hj 438 _417 97 815 96 100 100 gg 2:2 100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 398. 423 81.0: 134 3 1324 Volume Total 29 NB 1 6 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Left 49 1 242 1 225 Voi~me Right 28 15 49 0 1 0 cSH Volume to Capacit 791 0 1 0 412 1343 1 26 0 _2 700 1324 1700 y Queue Length 95th (ft) :04 3 0:04 0.04 0.14 0:00 0. T3 Control Delay. {~) 9:7 14 1 -7 8 0 0 0 Lane LOS A . , g 00 7.7 0.0 Approach.Delay (s) 97 A 14:1 1 3 A Approach LOS , 0.0 A B Intersection Summa Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utiliz ation 1 6 33 1 / Analysis Period (min) : o ICU Level of Service 15 A oiuwnmg ~ Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin-Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [6614) B-i~ Exhibit B Planning Commission Resolution No. 4064 Mitigation Monitoring Report 00 ~ a za 0 p ~ ~ 4a ,O o c p .Q W a~ ~. ~ ~ i ~" ~ `~ a~ ~ p p .o .o ~ .~ ~~ .~ ~~ ~~ ~~ _p 3 ~ 0 0 w° +.., O U O H O ~ ~ U N •~ ~ O ~ ~ O .o ~~ .-~ v p 00 Q„ U w° ~ 'b sa, -v° ..fl '~ •-.. 'C ~ ~ ~ Q„ 'o ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ '~ ~ ~ yO ,~ CCS ~ 0 Q ~ N ~ ~o ~~ zoo 'L7 ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~~.. ~ . U N Q •~ ~ a~ ~o ~. a. w O O .~ 0 U p 0 "C1 CCf h .~ ..o U O U .~ _o b G~ a~ .~ O .~ _o 0 a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ Q ~ ~ a , °°' ~a ; a~ ~, U (~ „ o a~ v p ~ ~ ~ U Q p~ W a ~,~, w o ~~ ~ ~° U(~ ~''~ U Q '~ a O ~ .. p ~ :Q a~ O .,. "'~ y ~, C ~ U z b H ~a •.+ .o a p O ~ U ~ b ~ p ~ N U o ~ CC ~.+ ~ o O v ~ p ~ U ~ ~ •~ ~ cy ~ :~y o ~ ~ .c a ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ob a ~~ of o ~ ,~ ~ U a~ "~ c~ a~ ~ ~.o ~ ° 3va~'d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ U O O ~ 'O O '.~+ ~ ~ +~-~ ~~ ~ 3 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ o . y Q N U ~i c~C O L1.. ' Z" U ~ ~ ~i ~~~Q~~~ ~.., ^o a~ . > ~ O. ~~~~z~z~ V ~ ~ ~ bD bA ~ ~ ~ O ~'~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ^O ' ^ '.~ ~ 'O . ~ '~ C ~~~~ o ~ ~ b a ° ~ ~ ~~ ~ a~ o ~" O Q~ ~ N r.. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ M 3 ~ o ~ ~ ~; ~~.~' y ~ ~'b ~ O ~ ~ U ~ b b 'd ~ ~ ~ ~ h o ~ ,~ ~ o N ~, ~ .~ ~. r.+ O ~ ~ ~ ~ a0i ~ ~ v] w ~ ~~~, _o _O v ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ '~ .,~ -d ~ ~ ~, ~ o Q N -~y ~ a. N ~ ~ '~ ~ ~. ~'~ ~ ~ ~ `~ 'b Q ..O c~ ~-, ~ ,~ ~" ~ O 3 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~>, ; '~ -d~~y ~ a3 ~ ~ GJ ~ ° `~ ~ ~ ,~ ~" .~ ~ .3 ~~~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~•~_~ c~0a•~b ~ ~ O r~+ V ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ z¢.~3.~~ b q 0 ~° ~~ .~ 0 o o 0 o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c c '~ ~ 3 Q .~' °' .~ ~ ~ 3 3 ~~•~ ~ ~~. Q0.! ~ ~ a ~Q ~~Q 0 0 a" a U o U ~, -o ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ '^ ~ y > O O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ O ~, y U 'd ~''" 'b ~ a .a .o a ~, .o .o a ~ o ~~`~ O _U O ~ C~ ~ a~i U '~ U O _O O U «i E" ~ ~" O Cl • O • a> '~ cd" O a ar x . ~ c, ~y U ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ •~ 4r U ~ ,S7 U +-+ cC r--~ cd .C N ~ ~ U ,b 'b ..~' .L; .,~" .C . ~U! CU Q ice. ~ in .~ ~" „GU' -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U N .""".. ~ ~ s-+ v~ U .O ~. N ^n v~ ~ +~-' ~I'.+ cd O H U U ~ N +.+ ca OJ b N 4~ N ~ y U ~ ~ N ~ .-.. U U N N ~ U U ~ +"p-+ ~ cd~" O cc1 yam"' TJ ~ U yt"r ~ cd y U ~ bA ~ U .-~ .~ UcV ~ 4, • ~ ~ ~ `n O y i~+^O., U U bip ~ "p ~ • ~ O ~ •; cv ~ . ~ • U y ,~ `n O .t~ ,-~ O ~ C/~ s~, ca v G.a ~ • • i ~ o~ e i ~ O 0 0 .~ ~ ~o ~~a RESOLUTION NO. 4065 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 77-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON A 4.1-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 was submitted by Sun-Cal Browning LLC requesting authorization to demolish 60 apartment units and construct a 77-unit condominium project on a 4.1-acre (net area) site located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue (APN 432-342-30); B. That the site is located in the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan land use designation and Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district; C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, by the Planning Commission; D. A petition in opposition of the project with 94 signatures in addition to 19 letters and 23 public comments were received in opposition of the project. The residents of the adjacent communities expressed that the density, height, and traffic impacts were not addressed with the proposed project and not adequately analyzed in the MND. E. At the conclusion of the September 11, 2007, hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare resolutions of denial for the project including the following findings: As proposed, the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density and three-story development; Even though the proposed project is limited to 77 dwelling units, rezoning the property to R-3 would provide fora future opportunity for development of a higher density project of up to 100 units on this site, if this project is not implemented; Resolution 4065 CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 2 Approval of a high density project that is not compatible with the existing community would set a negative precedent for future in-fill development in Tustin; The proposed height, size, and scale of the project are too large for the site in physical relationship to the existing adjacent structures; The traffic study prepared by the applicant does not adequately address the circulation and parking impacts of the proposed project with respect to the proposed density, site access, and traffic conflicts with the adjacent elementary school and could cumulatively have a negative traffic impact on the neighborhood; and, • That the density, aesthetics and traffic impacts of the proposed tentative tract map or the proposed improvements were not adequately addressed in the mitigated negative declaration. F. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and will be injurious and detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin in that: a) The buildings along the R-1 adjoining properties are proposed at 10 feet from the westerly property line and 16 feet from the southerly property line. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines are designed at two stories with a loft with an overall height of 32'-6" that is not compatible with adjacent single story residences. The current zoning allows a maximum height of 20 feet within 150 feet of Single Family Residential (R-1) district unless a conditional use permit is granted; b) Even though the units along the westerly property lines are designed with two stories with a loft, the overall project includes mostly 3-story structures at an undesirable distance from the single story, single family residences to the west of the property; and, c) The project site is within an established single story, single family neighborhood, where 3-story structures will negatively Resolution 4065 CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 3 impact the aesthetics, privacy, views and quality of life of the adjoining properties. The proposed setbacks and stepped height design do not adequately reduce the aesthetic and livability impacts to adjacent properties. G. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk, and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings. 6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. 7. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination. 8. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 13. Proposed signage. 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. H. The proposed height and architecture do not fit the single story ranch style architecture characteristic of that area; Without approval of a zone change from R-4 to R-3 by the City Council, the proposed subdivision would not be in conformance with the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district regulations; and, J. The applicant has requested approval of Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096 in conjunction with the application for Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020, and the Planning Commission is recommending denial of the project related to Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096. Resolution 4065 CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 4 II. The Planning Commission hereby denies without prejudice Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 for development of a three-story 77-unit condominium project on a 4.1-acre site located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission .held on the 25~' day of September, 2007. JOHN NIELSEN Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4065 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of September, 2007. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary RESOLUTION N0.4066 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE ZONE CHANGE 06-002 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 TO SUBDIVIDE AND REZONE AN EXISTING PARCEL CONTAINING 60 APARTMENT UNITS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 77-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096 was submitted by Sun-Cal Browning LLC requesting approval to rezone and subdivide a 4.1-acre (net area) parcel for development of a 77-unit condominium complex on properties located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue; B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for zone change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007 by the Planning Commission; C. A petition in opposition of the project with 94 signatures in addition to 19 letters and 23 public comments were received in opposition of the project. The residents of the adjacent community expressed that the density, height, and traffic impacts were not addressed with the proposed project and not adequately analyzed in the MND. D. At the conclusion of the public hearings, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare resolutions of denial for the project including findings as follows: • As proposed, the site is not physically suitable .for the proposed density and three-story development; • Even though the proposed project is limited to 77 dwelling units, rezoning the property to R-3 would provide for a future opportunity for development of a higher density project of up to 100 units on this site, if this project is not implemented; • Approval of a high density project that is not compatible with the existing community would set a negative precedent for future in- fill development in Tustin; Exhibit A Resolution No. 4066 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096 Page 2 The proposed height, size, and scale of the project are too large for the site in physical relationship to the existing adjacent structures; • The traffic study prepared by the applicant does not adequately address the circulation and parking impacts of the proposed project with respect to the proposed density, site access, and traffic conflicts with the adjacent elementary school and could cumulatively have a negative traffic impact on the neighborhood; and, • That the density, aesthetics and traffic impacts of the proposed tentative tract map or the proposed improvements were not adequately addressed in the mitigated negative declaration. E. That a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was published and the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available fora 20-day public review and comment period from August 3, 2007, to August 22, 2007, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission did not find the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequate in relation to the proposed Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 and recommended denial of the project to the City Council. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny without prejudice Zone Change 06-002, and Tentative Tract Map 17096 to rezone and subdivide a 4.1-acre (net area) parcel for development of a 77-unit condominium project located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 25"' day of September, 2007. JOHN NIELSEN Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A Resolution No. 4066 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4066 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,'held on the 25th day of September, 2007. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary