CITY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE A CITY CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD - ALTERNATIVE B A-12 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010
Table 2 TUSTIN TOWN CENTER – CENTER CITY LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount/Unit In Out Total In Out Total ADT Trip Rates 1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) DU .10 .41 .51 .40 .22 .62 6.65 2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) TSF .61 .39 1.00 1.83 1.90 3.73 42.94 3. Office (ITE 8th 710) TSF 1.36 .19 1.55 .25 1.24 1.49 11.01 4. Motel (ITE 8th 320) Room .16 .29 .45 .25 .22 .47 5.63 6. Industrial (ITE 8th 110) TSF .81 .11 .92 .12 .85 .97 6.97 Existing 1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 763 DU 76 313 389 305 168 473 5,074 2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 358.82 TSF 219 140 359 657 682 1,339 15,408 3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 72.21 TSF 98 14 112 18 90 108 795 4. Motel (ITE 8th 320) 230 Room 37 67 104 58 51 109 1,295 6. Industrial (ITE 8th 110) 271.52 TSF 220 30 250 33 231 264 1,892 TOTAL 650 564 1,214 1,071 1,222 2,293 24,464 Alternative A 1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 1,780 DU 178 730 908 712 392 1,104 11,837 2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 445.1 TSF 272 174 446 815 846 1,661 19,113 3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 106.6 TSF 145 20 165 27 132 159 1,174 4. Motel (ITE 8th 320) 177 Room 28 51 79 44 39 83 997 TOTAL 623 975 1,598 1,598 1,409 3,007 33,121 Changes over existing -27 411 384 527 187 714 8,657 % changes over existing -4.2% 72.9% 31.6% 49.2% 15.3% 31.1% 35.4% Alternative B 1. Residential (ITE 8th 220) 1,614 DU 161 662 823 646 355 1,001 10,733 2. Retail (ITE 8th 820) 389.2 TSF 237 152 389 712 739 1,451 16,712 3. Office (ITE 8th 710) 860 TSF 1,170 163 1,333 215 1,066 1,281 9,469 TOTAL 1,568 977 2,545 1,573 2,160 3,733 36,914 Changes over existing 918 413 1,331 502 938 1,440 12,450 % changes over existing 141.2% 73.2% 109.6% 46.9% 76.8% 62.8% 50.9% Abbreviations: ADT – average daily trips DU – dwelling unit ITE – Institute <strong>of</strong> Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual – Eighth Edition (2008) achieved because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> close proximity to <strong>the</strong> I-5 northbound on-ramp. The same movement on Red Hill Avenue at El Camino Real presents more <strong>of</strong> a challenge even with two left-turn lanes because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> signals at <strong>the</strong> I-5 northbound ramp intersection that are approximately 130 feet away. Although no data is available to make a definite determination, <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice in Alternative B will likely create a hot spot at El Camino Real/Sixth Street intersection with a potential need to improve/provide northbound left on El Camino Real and eastbound right on Sixth Street. Should <strong>of</strong>fice be desirable <strong>the</strong> intensity <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r land uses in <strong>the</strong> area would need to be reduced accordingly so that overall trip generation is less than Alternative A. A proposed vacation <strong>of</strong> El Camino Way is identified under Neighborhood Plan Alternatives A and B. The vacation would not be an issue provided <strong>the</strong> current access is not completely eliminated and is relocated and o<strong>the</strong>r access driveways are built and/or modified. STRATEGIC GUIDE 09.21.2010 THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER A-13 MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PLANS