Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 CP 2012-001, DR 2012-001, & CUP 2012-01• ITEM # 2 AGENDA REPORT MEET,1NIG _LATE: APRIL 10, 2012 TO: PLANNING COWNIHSSIO�N PROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN 3'U1f9:JFCT: CONCEPT PLAN (CP) 2012 -0 , 01, DESIGN REVIEVAl (DR) 2012 -001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2012 -01 APPLICANT: R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 2955 MAIN STREET, THIRD FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92514 PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF T USTIN LOCATION: SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF EDINGER AVENUE AND NEWPORT AVENUE ADJACENT TO THE STATE ROUTE 55 FREEWAY 1�MITHIN THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN (SIB 11) e (LOTS 2, 3, AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP PLO. 2010- 127 WITHIN TFHE CITY OF TUSTIN AND ON A PORTION OF PROPERTY IDEI\\ITIFIED AS Td HE "WATER WELL PARCEL AND EASEMENT AREA "). GENERAL PLAN: PLANNED COIW0UNITY COMM ERCIA- L/BUSINESS (RCCB) ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC COM) PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 11) EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) 90 -1 FOR THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN ON DECEMBER 17, 1990 AND SUPPLEMENT #1 TO FINAL EIR 90-1 FOR THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN WAS ADOPTED MAY 5, 2003. THE FEIR IS A PROGRAM EIR UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA. "). THE FEIR CONSIDERED THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN. AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT CONCLUDED NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR FROM CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 April 10, 2012 Page 2 APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST CONCLUDES THAT IT CAN BE SEEN WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 1) HAVE BEEN ANALYZED ADEQUATELY IN AN EARLIER EIR PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE STANDARDS, AND 2) HAVE BEEN AVOIDED OR MITIGATED PURSUANT TO THAT EARLIER EIR, INCLUDING REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE IMPOSED UPON THE PROPOSED PROJECT. REQUEST: THE REQUEST IS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR CP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 TO DEVELOP: 1) A 149 - ROOM, FOUR -STORY RESIDENCE INN; 2) A 144 -ROOM, FOUR -STORY FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES; 3) AN 8,885 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT; 4) A 7,295 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING; AND 5) APPROVAL OF CUP 2012 -01 AUTHORIZING A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND JOINT -USE PARKING FOR A COORDINATED AND INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT. CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 April 10, 2012 Page RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4195 approving Concept Plan 2012 -001, Design Revimju 2012 -001, and Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 to develop an approximately 196,000 square foot commercial mixed -use development (hotel and retail) lioith a Master Sign Program and Joint -Use Parking at the southwesterly corner of Edinger Avenue and Newport Avenue adjacent to the SR 55 Freeway within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (SP 11). BACKGROUND Following the completion of a request for proposal process, the Tustin City Council authorized the execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement (UUA 2011 -001) between the City of Tustin and R. D. Olson Development for the proposed site on November 2, 2010. Since that time, the applicant, R.D. Olson Development, has worked with City staff to prepare the currently proposed approximately 196,000 square foot commercial mixed -use development (hotel and retail) at the southwesterly corner of Edinger Avenue and Newport Avenue adjacent to the SR 55 Freeway. The project includes 1) a 149 -room, four -story Residence lnn; 2) a 144 -room, four - story Fairfield lnn and Suites; 3) an 8,885 square foot restaurant; 4) a 7,295 square foot retail building; and 5) approval of CUP 2012 -001 authorizing a Master Sign Program and Joint -Use Parking for a coordinated and integrated site design for the project. The proposed project is located within the Pacific Center East Specific plan. Concept Plan, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit proposals require review and approval of the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Agency. On March 6, 2012, the Tustin City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1415 to authorize the Tustin Planning Commission to act for the now defunct Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency. The Planning Commission's actions on discretionary applications are final unless appealed to the Tustin City Council. The proposed development is located ,Mth the Regional Center land use, Planning Area 5, in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (beloaw). CP 12-001, IDR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 April 10, 2012 Page 4 Suction 4.3 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan land use designation indicates that Planning AToa 5 is intended for the development of a mixed use commercial including retail and ho s-1 uses. Approval of a Concept Paar, Application, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Sec on 5.3 (Development Processing) requires the submission of a concept plan prior to or concurrent vjith the submission of a development project within Planning Area 5 for Planning Commission consideration. The concept plan identifies the proposal's general conformity � the Pacific Center East specific Plan. lnformation to be submitted with a Concept Plan shall include: I. Preliminary geologic and soils report. 2. Overall drainage plan. 3. Conceptual median and parks ,/jay landscaping plan including master signage program. 4. The proposed uses and intensity of square footage and phasing within a planning area, including a conceptual site plan illustrating sub - parcels with a planning area and the overall external /intornal circulation and vehicular access plan. Approval of a Design RaYiel w Application Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 5.3 (Development Project Review), requires the submission of a Design Review, application following or concurrently with submittal of a concept plan for revie�,�j by the Planning Commission as either permitted by right in a land use zone or as a discretionary project (i.e., a land use or development ,project which requires a conditional use permit or other special approval). Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Shared Parking , Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 4.6.A.3 (Joint Use of Parking Areas) alloy s Planning Commission consideration of parking facilities proposed to be used jointly for uses with significantly different peak hours of operation with the approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Requests for shared parking must meet the following requirements: A parking study shall be submitted by the applicant demonstrating that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the uses for which joint use is proposed. The methodology to be utilized in preparing the study shall be the Urban Land Institute's shared parking study. 2. The number of parking stalls which may be credited against the requirements for the structures or uses involved shall not exceed the number of stalls reasonably anticipated to be available during differing hours of operation. 3. Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they will adequately serti ,/e the use it is intended. 4. A written agreement shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development and executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of the number of stalls designated for joint use. CP 12 -001, CR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 April 10, 2012 Page 5 J'wasfor sign Program e Pacific Center East Specific ,'flan Section 3.8 (Signage l land states tl�uat a waster sign plan is required for all nwju developments and is subject to Planning Commission design approval. A raster sign plan submittal shall include the following information on ,] proposed signage program for the site: Galan specifications including the type of texture of materials and colors proposed for tthe signs and the building fagade. • A colored elevation of the proposed signs and true building facade. • Drawings illustrating the lettering styles and sizes ,proposed and the use of logos, if any. * Photographs of buildings and signs on adjacent sites. © Any restrictions on the use of temporary signs. DISCUSSION The discretionary approvals are being presented as a comprehensive and concurrent application for the Planning Commission's consideration. The following discussion articulates each of the project's components by parcel number as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Implementation of DDA 2011 -001 involves the City of Tustin conveying Parcels A, B and C (as depicted on Sheet 1 of the R. D. Olson drawings), and a ground lease of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area to the R.D. Olson Company, for the construction of an approximately 196,000 square foot commercial mixed -use development (hotel and retail). The proposed project meets the minimum development requirements identified for the area as follovvs: Minimum hotel rooms: Minimum site area: Minimum lot width: Maximum height limit: Maximum Floor Area Ratio: Parking: Cumulative: Newport Setback: Edinger Setback: Phasing: * Conditioned to meet minimum Requirements 250 20,000 sq. ft. 100 feet Hotel: 100 feet Retail: 35 feet 0.86 436 spaces 35 feet 35 feet TBD 35 foot requirement. Proposed 293 359,083 sq. ft. (approx.) 360 feet ( approx.) 55 feet (approx.) 28 feet (approx.) 0.55 (approx.) 415 spaces (shared) 33 feet* 74 feet One or two phases. TBD. CP 12-001, DR12-001, CUP 12-01 April 10, 2012 Page 6 k Z m IQ y �. CP 12 -001, ®R12 -001, CUP 12 -01 April 10, 2012 Page 7 Parcel A — The applicant is proposing the construction of a 149- roorn, four -story Marriott Residence Inn containing 105,2 , 40 square feet. T he hotel design includes 107 studio guestrooms, 27 1- bedroom guestrooms, and 15 2- bedroom guestrooms. The property is designed to include a circular passenger drop -off area, 950 square foot meeting room, 'exercise room, lobby, breakfast room, hearth room, study, outdoor pool with decking, spa, and sport court. The architectural design of the building is urban contemporary that is harmonious with the neighboring hotel design and mixed -use commercial buildings, utilizing multiple vertical and horizontal changes in plane, including the roofline cornice; a variety of stucco colors, finishes and textures; and incorporating translucent glass providing interest and excitement to the structure. An entry canopy creates an attractive focus to persons visiting the structure. All rooftop equipment ?,jill be screened from vie�,Aj and one hundred and seventy three (173) parking spaces are provided onsite. See image below. Parcel B — The applicant is proposing the construction of two, one -story, mixed -use commercial buildings totaling 16,200 square feet. The southerly building is proposed as an 8,900 square foot full service restaurant (tenant currently unknown) and the northerly building is proposed as a 7,300 square foot mixed use commercial building (tenants currently unknown) that includes a 4,200 square foot retail component and a 3,100 square foot small restaurant component. The architectural design of the buildings is urban contemporary that is harmonious with the neighboring hotel designs, utilizing multiple vertical and horizontal changes in plane, including at the roofline; a ti,;ariety of attractive plaster finishes and colors, wood siding, fabric awnings, steel and glass. Both buildings are designed with architectural features that utilize canopies to identify building entrances and patio areas intended to create interest along Newport Avenue. Restaurant facilities have been designed with independent service areas with trash enclosures. All rooftop equipment will be screened from view. 101 paring spaces are proposed onsite. See images balmiki. Li � a • l fW a G� { SOUTH ELEVATION "'77T (�• Imo* .�i i� °; �] f i ilFt� � � n NO RTH ELEVATION � I I F � [ai-i- U dA LL:' �i - 'A W I1 4_�ii -jl �J) 1 G- i- IL-j,u]W REAR ELEVATION F]"> u� Elm FRONT ELEVATION Marcel A - Marriott Residence Inn CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 April 10, 2012 Page 8 v m v v v m v m v m v �r ri Fi v mop 4 .. ... 91M, q '�'I "ili._J��I �E!� Parcel B - Restaurant CP 12- 001,'DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 Apd 10, 2012 Page 0 .a_�ILLgBGA — . WTH. F��1iA'TlON NORTH MAuTtON �7 u.r ff f' I + EMWgl1lRWR -y 1. �I,, _T . ' pt -P L ❑ m- m - L. _ t}.p ® I REAR ELEVATION 04iC4AMR000. r � LJ , +_�kMM4ROGt._ r t I I I OIEECW0ROd1 iJ + ASP FRON SMAMON r- airneia inn Parcel C — The applicant is proposing the construction of a 144 -room, four - store Fairfeid Inn & Suites containing 77,010 square feet (image above). The hotel design includes 42 suite guestrooms, and 102 standard guestrooms. The property is designed to include a circular passenger drop-off area, 2,000 square foot meeting room, warming kitchen, exercise room, lobby, Breakfast room, outdoor pool with decking, spa, and fire pit. The architectural design of the Building is urban contemporary that is harmonious )pith the neighboring hotel design and mixed -use commercial buildings, utilizing multiple vertical and horizontal changes in plane, including the roofline cornice; a variety of attractive stucco colors, finishes and textures; and incorporating cultured stone and translucent glass providing interest and excitement to the structure. An entry canopy creates an attractive focus to persons visiting the structure. All rooftop equipment is proposed to be screened from view. Eighty -two (82) parking spaces are proposed on the site (141 total spaces are provided including those parking spaces located on the adjacent Water Well Parcel and Easement Area, discussed below). Water Well Parcel and Easement Area — The applicant has proposed City acceptance of a joint use parking arrangement to allow parking required for any particular use to be located within adjoining parcels on the site through a recorded agreement. A portion of the parking required for the proposed development (59 spaces) is proposed to occur on 'the 37,099 square toot Water Well Parcel and Easement Area, a property owned by the City of Tustin for water production purposes (Note: water well design and construction is not a part of this project). Continuous access to the planned �,ajater well location and pipelines �jffvould prohibit any use of the property other than parking, landscaping, fencing and similar uses. A trash enclosure is also proposed within the site. CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 112-01 April 10, 2012 Page 10 Site resign - An 2'6traotive entrance to the entire site is proposed between the �Nvo mixed use structures. Required landscape setbacks are provided along Edinger Avenue and i\,lawport Avenue and comply ls�ith the Pacific Center East Streetscape Design Plan. Landscape treatments include Magnolia plantings along Newport Avenue and Allepo Pine along Edinger Avenue. Crepe Myrtle, Canary Pine, Redspire Callery Pear, Brisbane Box and Strawberry trees, various shrubs and groundcovers are placed throughout the site. The landscaping plan provides for drought tolerant landscaping and water quality enhancing drainage and retention that complies with the City of Tustin's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. A Line -of -Site Study has been submitted that depicts that the buildings step back; are placed at varying distances away from adjoining streets and the 55 Freeway; are adequately screened by landscaping; and ensure that they are in scale with the site, adjoining right -of -ways and nearby properties. A ��IVMer Quality Management Plan proposing permeable surfaces and other techniques has also been submitted for the project was approved with conditions by the City's Public Works Department. Parking lot and building lighting complies with the City of Tustin's safety requirements and a photometric study has been provided that ensures that lighting is appropriately contained within the project site and �vvill not create glare issues to adjoining roadways or nearby properties. See image above. Joint Parking Proposal - The applicant has ,proposed City acceptance of a joint use parking arrangement to allow parking required for any particular use to be located within adjoining parcels on the site through an agreement recorded on the property. If approved, execution of a reciprocal parking agreement between the City and the developer would be required to ensure access to all shared parking spaces. Based on the City of Tustin's parking requirements, the project must meet the following paving requirements for the proposed uses of the site. Proposed Use City Code Parking Rate Parking FRe uired Parking Provided Difference Hotel (Res.) 149 rooms 1 space per room + 1 space per 2 employees 152 173 +21 6 em to ees Hotel (Fair) 144 rooms 147 141 -6 6 employees Subtotal 293 rooms 299 307 +15 12 employees Restaurant 12,000 SF 1 ��ace per 100 sf 120 101 -36 Retail 4,200 SF 1 space per 250 sf 17 Total Parking Required 436 416 -21 Based on City requirements, the project is required to provide a minimum of 436 parking spaces but only provides 415 parking spaces. However, Tustin City Code Section 9264@ (Joint Use of Parking Areas) allows the processing of a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking �,vhen the following requirements can be met: 1. A parking study (using a methodology promulgated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers) prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer or civil engineer is submitted demonstrating that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the uses for which joint use is proposed. 2. The number of parking spaces credited against the requirements for the structures or uses involved do not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be available during different hours of operation. Cp 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 Apron 10, 2012 Page 11 3. Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they mill adequately serve the uses for �,,Ajhich they are intended. -4. A written agreement shall be executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of parking spaces designated for joint use and availability or reciprocal access easements. 5. The Planning Commission must approve joint use parking through a Conditional Use Permit. A shared parking analysis vias conducted in compliance with the requirements stated above that at project build -out, the various uses would operate with a surplus of 21 parking spaces through the implementation of shared parking between the parcels. The proposed project may be constructed in two phases that conformed that construction of only one hotel and the mixed -use development on the site would have a surplus of 44 partaking spaces. The analysis was determined to have overestimated the combined parking demand since it did not assume any internal "capture" between the proposed uses which would likely occur as hotel patrons visited the nearby restaurant and retail uses. Master Sign (Program The project has proposed the establishment of a Master Sign Program to regulate the design and fabrication of all signage at the site. The Master Sign Program provides certain flexobil°Ity and latitude to standard regulations of signs as typically provided for within the Tustin City Code because of the size and nature of the project. The program includes all primary identification signs, secondary identification signs, on premises directional signage and all tenant signage. The purpose of the >ii aster Sign Program is to create a unique and high quality signage, which is an integral part of the architecture and image of the Pacific Center East. After approval of a master sign plan, no sign may be erected, placed, painted or maintained except in conformance with such plan, and such plan may be enforced in the same way as any provision of the Tustin City !Code unless a modification to the master sign plan is approved. a Primary Pole/Freestanding Freeway Sign & Center identification Sign a"/ Primary Monument Signs/Center identification Single Tenant Directional lull Sign Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A& C Single Tenant Primary Wall signs for parcel B Single Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel 8 On Premise Directional Signs CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 April 10, 2012 Page 12 The submitted N/liv aster Sign flan proposes: I. Temporary Project Identification Signs — Vi Ihile construction is occurring to identify future tenant, project developer, architect, etc. Maximum 32 square feet for up to 160 days. 2. Primary Center identification signs — identifies the theme of the center; design compatible 'VVKh architecture of project buildings. o One 46 foot tall pole sign along the 55 Freeway, identifying up to six tenants (sign type A). o Two eight foot tali monument signs; one located at southwesterly corner of Edinger Avenue and Newport Avenue and the other at the northwesterly corner of Newport Avenue and the S.R. 55 on /off-ramp (sign type B). 3. Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign for Parcel A & C — designed to direct traffic flmAj not to exceed 15% of the elevation up to 75 sq. ft. (sign type C). 4. Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A & C — designed to identify the main anchor tenants in the center. Maximum one per building elevation, not to exceed 75 sq. fZ. or 15% of the building elevation (sign type D). 5. Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel B — designed to identify the mixed use commercial tenants on Parcel B. Maximum one per building elevation, not to exceed 75 sq. ft. or 16 % of the building elevation (sign type E and F). 6. ®n- premise directional signs designed to relay information related to paring, exit/entrance, or similar information inside the center, 4 sq. ft., , 4 ft ta9l (sign type G). 7. Window signs and graphics — maximum of 10% of true �Yvindoli�r area. 1 0 Analysis Proposed Concept Plan 2012 -001 and Design Review 2012-001 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 3.2 (Urban Design Concept) establishes Design Guidelines for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan to provide for an integrated environment of commercial, office, regional and technology uses. Infrastructure and streetscape design has been implemented in the area to ensure that the project site is linked physically through the plan's arterial system and provides opportunities for public transportation and internal pedestrian access. Aesthetic integration has been achieved through the development of streetscape design, landscaping and entry features. The project was reviewed by Community Development (Planning and Building Divisions), Public Works Department, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 April 10, 2012 Page 13 Agency, City Manager's Office, Orange County Fire Authority, Police Department. As conditioned, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Concept Flan 2012 -001 and Dssign Reviel�> 2012 -001 as satisfactorily complying ?, , Ajith the folloNjiving key 171 acific Center East Specific Plan objectives: Design Objectives Commercial and hotel uses are encouraged to take advantage of the existing freeway interchange locations and the market opportunities of the area. Building forms are proposed that promote and relate to the scale and character of surrounding development. • The project utilizes architectural design of the highest quality. • The project's height and bulk conform to the plan's land use intensity. • The proposed development integrates 1,Ad'th existing and future uses. • The proposal respects the existing patterns of land use and the alignment of major streets, the Plan's allocation of building intensities, and the Plan's distribution of uses by land use type. Circulation A thematic gateway entry is proposed to be developed at major intersections that would include special landscape architectural accent features to suggest a "sense of place" oT arrival statement to the project. Setback areas at major arterial intersections are designed to contain project identity and include a setback utilizing an 80-foot right angle or radius distance at Newport Avenue and Edinger Avenue. Setback areas /secondary intersections are also proposed to contain accent landscape and berming. Project Circulation • Access points to individual sites within the project area are located as far as possible from street intersections. The parking areas are designed to link buildings to onsite pedestrian vvalkvvays and the street sidewalk system and to minimize potential pedestrian4vehiclo conflicts. Streetscape /Edge Treatment • The site's streetscape and edge treatment is visually integrated and provides continuity in the streetscape design and landscape treatments for the project, emphasize a human scale to the traveler, and soften building architectural treatments. Buildings, Form, Access, Scale, Siting o The project promotes architectural variety and diversity. o Multiple buildings on the site are situated to create pedestrian spaces, courtyards and create a strong identity for building entries. The project integrates variation of building height and massing. o Building entrances are designed to attract visitors and are placed in such a Altjay that people who approach the building see the entrance. • Building ornaments (color change, change of plane, and the application of patterns) have been used to Identify special parts of the building, break dmiAln elements into comprehensible parts of human scale, give texture to the building, add Interest, and express a common vocabulary for the proposed project. • The architectural form is stepped up and away from the public street, giving depth to the CP 12-001, f Ii ' -1 April 1 Page overall architectural form and site. The street sides of the buildings if removed from pedestrian access are vertical in nature. The use of geometric form, composition and rood variation is also employed to vary the architectural form. Note: a condition of approval has been added to ensure that rooftop screening occurs, appropriately compatible with the overall design of the ,project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The project takes advantage of building orientation and visiMity opportunities at the SR -65 freeway, Newport Avenue, Del Amo Avenue and Edinger I-Wenue. o The proposal uses sufficient vertical and horizontal articulation to avoid "box" architecture and long, uninterrupted blank walls. The proposed built environment is designed to create transition in °Form and scale between large buildings and adjacent smaller buildings. • The proposed site design places buildings in such a jll\1ay to create pedestrian spaces, courtyards and plazas that are visually diverse, stimulating and create a sense of vitality and excitement. • Building materials are coordinated with hardscape to provide a continuous and clearly identifiable walkway to encourage pedestrian movement along designated routes. Note: a condition of approval has been added to ensure that all perimeter fencing is accomplished in an design-appropriate manner, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community !Development. o proposed color, material, textures and finishes will achieve the maximum quality. Proposed Condkionai Use Parmil 2012 -01 Master Sign Program m Tustin City Code Section 9403i2 identifies review criteria applicable to the proposed Master Sign Program for Planning Commission consideration. Staff believes that the proposed Master Sign Program satisfactorily complies with those criteria, as follows: • The proposed Master Sign Program reflects a common theme, incorporating uniform design elements in terms of materials, setter styles, colors, illumination, sign type and sign shape. • The proposed Master Sign Program utilizes materials, colors, and a design motif which are compatible and lylihich reflect the special qualities of the architecture of the buildings on the site in both daytime and nighttime situations. • The proposed Master Sign Program adequately anticipates project development phasing. • The proposed Master Sign Program acknowledges that future, currently unknown tenants desiring signs may not be identified during the design review process or may change over time. • The proposed Master Sign Program designates a person or firm as the primary liaison with the City for the purpose of requesting approval of future modifications to the Master Sign Program or for submitting sign permit requests in conformance with the approved Plan. • The proposed Master Sign Program is entitled to deviate from the specific standards established in the Tustin City Code upon Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit, because the proposal is for a single development project of at least thirty thousand (30,000) building square feet or one (1) acre in project size. ,loins- Jse Parking Tustin City Code Section 9264a identifies review criteria applicable to the proposed Joint -use parking for Planning Commission consideration. Staff believes that the proposed Joint -use parking program satisfactorily complies with those criteria, as follows: CIP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 April 10, 2012 Page 15 I. A parking study (using a methodology promulgated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers) was prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer or civil engineer that demonstrates that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the uses for which joint use is proposed. 2. The number of parking spaces credited against the requirements for the structures or uses involved do not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be mailable during different hours of operation. 3. Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they will adequately serve the uses for which they are intended. 4. A condition has been included in proposed project approvals requiring the execution of a written agreement by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of Parking spaces designated for joint use and availability or reciprocal access easements. As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 as satisfactorily complying 1jAjith the aforementioned criteria: Dana L. Ogdon, AICP , Elizabeth A. Binsack Assistant Director Community Development Director Attachments: A. Location Map LLD. Land Use Fact Sheet C. Submitted Plans and Photographs (enclosed) • Cover Sheet, Site Plan, Details • Alta Band Survey, Title Constraints, Preliminary Grading • Marriott Residence Inn Floor Plans, Elevations, Details • Fairfield Inn & Suites Floor Plans, Elevations, Details • Mixed Use Commercial Floor Plans, Elevations, Details • Site Lighting, LandscapefIrrigation, Details D. Master Sign Program (See Exhibit C of Resolution No. 4195) E. Shared Parking Demand Analysis F. Pacific Center East Specific Plan (not included — see CDD website) G. Resolution No. 4195 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval E 'xhibit B: Environmental Analysis Checklist/Evaluation Attachment 1: Noise Analysis Exhibit C: Master Sign Program Attachment A Location Map Attachment B Land Use Fact Sheet LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): CP 2012 -001, DR 2012 -001, CUP 2012 -01 2. LOCATION: Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map No. 2010 -127 and on a portion of property identified as the "Water Well Parcel and Easement Area" 4. APN(S): TBD 5. PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: None recent 6. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: Lt. Industrial SOUTH: Lt. Industrial EAST: Lt. Industrial, Retail WEST: SR -55 7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: Planned Communitv Commercial (PC Com) — Pac. Center East Specific Plan SOUTH: Planned Communitv Commercial (PC Com) — Pac. Center East Specific Plan EAST: Planned Community Commercial (PC Com) — Pac. Center East Specific Plan WEST: State Route 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) 8. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: Planned Community Commercial Business (PCCB) SOUTH: Planned Community Commercial Business (PCCB) EAST: Planned Community Commercial Business (PCCB) WEST: Planned Community Commercial Business (PCCB) 9. SITE LAND USE: EXISTING PROPOSED Use: Vacant Hotel, mixed use commercial Zoning: PC Com — Pac Center East SP No Change General Plan: PCCB No Change DEVELOPMENT FACTS: 10. LOT AREA: 359.083 S.F. 8.24 ACRES 11. BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: 100 percent MAX. PERMITTED 19% PROPOSED 12. SITE LANDSCAPING: All areas not utilized REQUIRED 11.4% PROPOSED 13. OPEN SPACE: N/A REQUIRED N/A PROPOSED 14. PARKING: 436 REQUIRED 415 PROPOSED 15. BUILDING HEIGHT: 100 feet MAX. PERMITTED 55 feet PROPOSED 16. BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROPOSED FRONT: 35 feet 35 feet minimum (Varies between buildings) SIDE: 35 feet 35 feet minimum (Varies between buildings) REAR: N/A feet 90 feet minimum (Varies between buildings) 18. OTHER UNIQUE CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED TO THE PROPERTY (I.E. SPECIAL STUDY ZONES, EASEMENTS, ETC.) None Attachment C Submitted Plans and Photographs Attachment C is available for viewing at City Hall with the Community Development Department. Attachment D Master Sign Program (See Exhibit C of Resolution No. 4195) Attachment E Shared Parking Demand Analysis ^i 01L P-J'9RJL1n 9 Larch 29, 2012 JN 55- 100817.001 Mr. Anthony Wrzosek 'RD Olsron "®evelop -m n2 2955 Main Street, Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92614 SubjeTnle T iul5s!P Flolelz Shared Parking Demand Analysla Dear Mr. Wrzosek, RBF Consulting has completed the parking demand and shared parking analysis for the proposed hotel, restaurant and retail development located on Newport Avenue adjacent to Edinger Avenue and the SR -55 freeway in the City of Tustin. The northwest corner of the project site is within the City of Santa Ana. The proposed site is surrounded by a mix of retail, office and residential uses. The proposed site plan, which is attached to this letter as Exhibit 1, includes the following uses: • Two 4 -story hotels • Marriott Residence Inn —149 rooms • Fairfield Inn and Suites —144 rooms Free - standing restaurants — 12,000 square -feet total Free- standing retail space — 4,200 square -feet The two proposed hotels would be mid -range priced ($150 - $300) business hotels providing a total of 291 rooms. Conference or assembly rooms would not be included in the proposed hotel uses. Potential tenants of the proposed stand -alone restaurant use include Chili's or Panera Bread. There would be two tenants sharing the second free - standing retail /restaurant building and the retail could consist of retail or service commercial. A total of 415 parking stalls are proposed to be provided for the project site to serve the two hotels and the restaurants and retail uses. The City of Tustin has the following parking requirements for the proposed uses, based on the City of Tustin Municipal Code ((Article 9- Land Use, Chapter 2 - Zoning, Part 6 — Off - Street Parking (9263 — Off - Street Parking Required)): Hotel use — 1 parking space per room /suite, plus 1 parking space for every 2 employees during the largest shift, plus 1 parking space per 50 square -feet of assembly or conference room space. Restaurant use —1 parking space per 100 square feet of gross floor area Retail, general merchandise use --1 parking space per 250 square -feet of gross floor area Table 1 summarizes the City of Tustin parking requirements for the proposed uses on the project site. Based on the City of Tustin parking requirements, the project is required to provide a minimum of 436 parking spaces. The proposed project will provide a total of 415 parking spaces, which are 21 spaces short of the minimum required parking spaces for the site. FLANNINES 3 DESIGN N CONSTRUCTION 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Oceanside, California 92008 -4386 a 760.476.9193 e FAx 760.476.9198 Offices Located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada ■ www.RBF.con Mr. Wrzosek March 29, 2012 Wage 2 - f! &�N5 City ,u'l J v zIn Fr-n76 -dn j I '. y Code �zFh"rg Parking Fr0posec3 U3e Site 2Vn63 SPI S3 arC�onc Rule I e uiPed Provided Difference Hotel - Residence Inn 149 rooms 1 space per room + 1 space per 2 employees 152 173 +21 6 employees Hotel - Fairfield Inn 144 rooms 147 141 -6 6 employees Total Motel Uses 293 rooms 299 307 +15 72 employees Restaurant 12,000 SF 1 space per 100 SF 120 101 -36 Retail 4,200 SF 1 space per 250 SF 17 Total Parking Required 436 Note: SF = Square Feet Shared Parking Demand Analysis — Based on City of Tustin Parking Requirements A shared parking demand analysis was performed for the combined uses on the project site to determine when the peak parking demand of the combined uses would occur and to investigate the feasibility of joint - use parking between the uses on the project site. According to the City of Tustin Municipal Code ((Article 9- Land Use, Chapter 2 - Zoning, Part 6 — (off- Street Parking (9264a — Joint Use of Parking Areas)), a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking may be approved if the following requirements are met: 9. A parking study prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer or civil engineer experienced in the preparation of such study shall be submitted by the applicant demonstrating that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the uses for which joint use is proposed. The methodology to be used in preparing the study shall be that promulgated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 2. The number of parking spaces which may be credited against the requirements for the structures or uses involved shall not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be available during different hours of operation, 3. Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they will adequately serve the uses for which they are intended; 4. A written and recorded agreement shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Community Development Director and executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of parking spaces designated for joint use and availability of reciprocal access easements. Mr. Olson March 29, 2012 Page 3 5. Zbning Administrator ap m`o minor Conditional Use Permit is required for parking areas serving structures totaling less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for all other parking areas w The shared parking anaiypis was conducted using published parking accumulation rates for each hour of ahypical weekday (Shared Parking Urban Land Institute, Second Edition, 2OOB. The hotel parking aoounmdationdeta from Urban band �nstituhe (UU) ia based on surveys ofhotels, restaunants, and rebai� shopping centers. Using the parking accumulation rates from the Shared Parking publication byUL| has become widely accepted by traffic engineers as the methodology to use to determine joint use parking demand. The ITE Parking Generation manual (Third Edition, 2004) provides parking demand data by time of day for many uses, including the proposed hote|, restaurant, and retail uses; however, |TE does not differentiate between visitor/customer and employee/staff parking demand characteristics, which have different peak hours of parking demand. The ;TE and UL{ publications show very similar peak parking demand characteristics for the proposed uses, and it is our professional opinion that the UL| methodology provides a more accurate assessment of determining peak parking demand for the joint uses, and satisfies the fimi requirement for joint-use parking as described imthe City mpTustin Municipal Code. UUprovides separate parking accumulation rates for e Business Hotel and a Leisure Hotel. Business Hotels are distinguished by fewer amenities and primarily cater to business travelers. Leisure hotels provide more amenities such as an in-house maataunant, and cater primarily to tourists. The proposed Residence !nn and Fairfield Inn share more similar characteristics with a typical Business Hotel than a Leisure Hotel. Therefore, the Business Hotel parking accumulation rates from ULI are used in the shared parking demand analysis. The UU parking accumulation rates show that the peak parking demand for ahotel use occurs between 11:00 p.m. and 5:[0e.m, when most hotel guests are in their rooms sleeping. Peak parking demand for a restaurant use varies based on the type of restaurant that will be provided. UL/ categorizes restaurants as either fine/casual dining, family restaurant, or fast-food. The proposed stand-alone restaurant will likely be either e Chili's orapenenaBread. Chili's Restaurant can be described ama casual dining restaurant, which has peak parking demand occurring during the evening hours. Panenm Bread ia more like efamily restaurant with peak demand occurring during the morning and early afternoon hours. Since the peak demand for a casual dining restaurant occurs in the evening hours and closer to the peak demand for o hotel uam the parking accumulation characteristics for e 000ua/ dining restaurant are used for both restaurant uses hu provide a more conservative, worst-case analysis. Tables and 3 present comparisons of parking accumulation for each use on the project site, based on the published UU rabao. over 24-hour periods for typical weekday and m typical weekend day, respectively. The parking demand (occupied spaces) shown for each use in Tables 2 and 3 is based on the minimum parking spaces required by the City of Tustin for each use. The surplus parking (unoccupied spaces) shown in Tables 2 and 3 is based on the actual number of parking spaces provided for the project site (total of 415 spaces). O O f�- r O O L6 LO wi l7 O CN m � a cly %� yy O � N H CSC I') CL L F a. 0 c 1g g E V m Q Q} CL eS O N (V N r N r N fD M LO er M 0 M 0 N O e- t0 T to M M e7 M I M (D O M tf') N O O to Lt) r lal r O q CO r 01 O N M N O N tD h r N . P O M t(tO�7 t��p0p N h LO OO ' N N N N N N N N N N. N N N N M M th (+Y ( M M N O to A C O O 0 0 0 C) O N CO M M M M M' M M M M M N r 0 0 On O S O U LU Q U m ® o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N LO OD r tp o Q O I O S O � O ® N O O O q O ':� 0D �• h h h h h et �Y P P M M c0 OO O t O M CL O W d O U O � � Q M .0 � (D O n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M h co h L° M C° h ' P N N ® O r h M h LU N O � > r t � I U) N M (D (D (D (D (D (0 (0 LTD �tt N A ', �LJ C4,0 7 U 0 ® :9 Cl) M M M M O v Q?' Lo (D P (D tD O (O 0 P I er P w M m! O h OD N 0D N OD N m N M N h N (U N M N a N h h (D (A h h 0D O N N N N N M N d' N h N M N O N > Q 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 w o 0 � 9. 0 0 0 0 0 O lO O W (O h tO P LO P O P O P O O 0 + P P O m q co co O O, 4O h (O q � y� LT1 O I I I ((4 .w Q o LU e.e L 0 0 ® O 0 0 0 0 L 0 L 0 o f N O O O O O tf7 O O M O Ln L() (D O m O ®D O O (TD rn O TDD O CO tO h to o Co ttD Ln .- 0 0 (o f � O O 43 y Y O o 0 0 0 I o 0 0 0 L L• o o L L L ®' a q O o O A0 m Q N O O C O 0 i 0 P N 4 co O (D LSD h M h an h M h LO h LO h (!D h O r O O O O r O O r O r O Ln �� Cp U t0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O 4 O O O O C O O O O 0 0 0 c P u'D �,. O Lo (O tO 10 LO ,q U, t? 0 (D 0 m LO O O! P O c" a Lo f u°D N, Y l9 IL _ = O 0 1 0 t o 0 0 o of o o o 0 o 0 \° 0 Cl \ C 0 \° C 0 \° 0 0 \° 0 0 \° o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a 0 o o c o o j o 0 0 0 0 M 0 rnfo 0 0 0 0 0 o,w Ln h o (D m (n LO 'o m 0 1 0 Mi � r r r L a� ° W w -- O O o o o °° o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 n o o e 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o e c \° ° !P7 O O LO N o O O O LO LO LO LO O O W) O lO LO O O W) O O m W h (D I CD (D 0 (D h h h a0 00 Of d ¢¢¢ aaaa!aa�a¢ a�aa aaaaaada¢' 0 0 0 0, 0 a 0 0 o I O D O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 O O N 0 V 0 0 LO (0 O O a O• O IV 0 l+") 0 'c}' 0' 0 (O 0 ti 0 66 0 f>7 r M j fl- CO 0) j i r r (P r sN C O U B Z N 'E aA _U O s (a vi ((D O O ° � N CL U E 7 N CL O Vl N N J r > L C rn (0 O � N Z O r0• A � 0 7 C = � (D 47 � N O O O O U N � (U E CL Y7 N v- Q 0 N cN d � E tlD Ul E O N U Cu W N U O 0 o E ( Ta cu s CL � N N d � � C G O N O N y 0 41 n O _ a 9 U ° O � � O U tV w A d N �¢ N ca U U 7 C o C N Q Q E (D E E a N 4-1 v m a a c m N q ® U Ol ° O t N (d O N T n N U 41 `O ®' a O 0.s, d U 0 > U f` O O O p C N Co O r 0 N O E E N O O E U L O E O W U y U N N °. O co N ( . O m T C CL Y N C N y N O N N Q 7 ( p N O _C N O N (b O 2 0 1, E N N Q) C a 0 •3 a p Q' ? O N 2 S ° � CL 0- m A I n co O L W, 76C a� O O � v s CO t6 Z> 2CL o b C� 0 rm J@ , D Y M .O V O. O � F- . 2 0 Q 9 V m Q V LL 0 Q 0 V- L9 'Cog 1 PY = d V � J :S C> C C �'✓ 6J F-3 Q-) N = V . cv 08 0 ° S M E v® L) p 0M N N r N r N r � C p Q R t� V coo �p aD r0 N r CO r CO r W r L i r M y r r � Q N l u+ i T o a 0 0 `v\ o a o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o k o � 0.�') ° O O O A tv ® °w t8) Y d � N � CO O O co 0 Ln M N M co N L df NIN N`N N r N n N V N fV O N N W ! w Lo n �y' w I� OS w N N N NjNIN N M M co 0 0 0 0 o � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `- i L88 O O � O O Lc7 O O O LO (0 O co 0 0 O Ln O O Lo ( LO O N 0 O HO — O O ®® O O r r M M co 0� M M c+7 M M (a7 M M N N r O �r w p 6 ( X ®° o O O O O O O L c f N �O _ O O O N MO ti r m Iti(h O O m O O O 7 f,Q o g•�_ � _ p N .N o tl I s w L � O O o Cl 0 0 r r n O c- N r r r r r r r O n N O d O N O O C 7 cu Lry , p °' a a o o 0 0 0 I o ° O o o o c = »°c � ° o o o - 0 ° \O e C u� o! o 0 0 0 o o 0 oo o O� N Lo Lt) LO i Ln o o LC) o 0 0 o U) N N LO LO e2' `cY `7 CD m CA r " m M Lo N L l0 C L() O o o O ® V Ln °° `� �' `�' �' zr (°v V M M M co M UO > m cu r 4 r r J 4) r r ( {� r r (Q U cu y OD � O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O c C 5 (O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c a o 0 O U r 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o Q � L o Lo Lo o ld^ L N OD N N O O Q O o o 0 0 0 O� r 4.n O LO O V '� Iq O '�' CC) N lTl I� 0) - � N m N LTD r LO CD N E a ED 00 w r . L to ae r fS Q7 m -- N L 0 0 � U p O V8 I O 0 0 M CO co LSD LC) O M M M M M N w U Ln Ln ! U L CL n U cD LD n n n co ao w Z> 2 < g aQ,Q¢d¢aaaQQ° aaaaaaaaaa EL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M 0) f•7 C7D t+7 6D (+) W M (� M 1� Co O O M n Cq n CL1 v° CfJ CD d`'- CO I� O C3D LO O O N O N (`�D O v ` Go n M d m 0) OL q N N " CN N CV N N N N r r N N I``��¢¢ N I N N N N N c N Y M . O CLe E w A 12� Nd 868 CD CI. E w O_ (a C, O N O y I .r p U IIII �c nw '� U a) N Q7 X -. A N N p :3 N U 7 C C W U l9 Q E d n O O pE) 'O U O` O ftf N 'C N CL i .0 N rn O C» u a O Y O O L 0 O N n U O ® CL O p cc O w 'm o 0 o r ° 'o E C n y U E a� 3 ° °' v E o E O 0 N U N N N o O ca .A ( a O] �. C O C N N i N B T d CL v = < U N . -, V lT M N O Ofd O C 0 2 c m i w E y-M a O o N C 0.0 LO y N , O O O d O L71 Q d U ua,) _ CL !- O m 9 _. n Z Ln o a 0 0 `v\ o a o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o k o � 0.�') ° O O O O ® °w t8) Y d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `- i L88 O O O O O Lc7 O O O LO (0 O co 0 0 O Ln O O Lo ( LO O N 0 O HO — C 6 ( X ®° o O O O O O O f N �O O O O O N MO ti r m Iti(h O O O O O O 7 f,Q g•�_ tl I s w I � o O C 7 cu Lry , p °' a a o o 0 0 0 I o ° O o o o o � ° o o o - 0 ° \O e C u� o! o 0 0 0 o o 0 oo o O� o Lo Lt) LO i Ln o o LC) o 0 0 o U) r LO LO e2' `cY `7 CD m CA r " m M Lo N L l0 IL a+ J 4) y OD � O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o Q � L o Lo Lo o ld^ L N n CD L L n In co- w ae m -- 0 0 V8 I O 0 0 0 0 O O O LI) LA O O Ln Ln Ln ! cD cD LD n n n co ao w Z> 2 < g aQ,Q¢d¢aaaQQ° aaaaaaaaaa EL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V o w O t0 O h O 66 O 6 � S F O r O tV O M O V O lCj O CO O f+ O 66 O &i C r r N r O_ (a C, O N O y I .r p U IIII �c nw '� U a) N Q7 X -. A N N p :3 N U 7 C C W U l9 Q E d n O O pE) 'O U O` O ftf N 'C N CL i .0 N rn O C» u a O Y O O L 0 O N n U O ® CL O p cc O w 'm o 0 o r ° 'o E C n y U E a� 3 ° °' v E o E O 0 N U N N N o O ca .A ( a O] �. C O C N N i N B T d CL v = < U N . -, V lT M N O Ofd O C 0 2 c m i w E y-M a O o N C 0.0 LO y N , O O O d O L71 Q d U ua,) _ CL !- O m 9 _. n Z Mr. Wrzosek JN: 55-1008100 March 29, 2012 Page 6 'Table 2shows that the peak parking demand for the combined uses on a typical weekday occurs at 10:00 p.m., with 377 occupied parking spaces and a surplus of38 parking spaces. Table 3 shows that on a typical weekend, the peak parking demand 'For the combined uoae also occurs at 10:00 p.m, with 394 occupied parking spaces and a surplus of21 parking spaces. The analysis results shown in Tables Oand 3 demonstrate that based on the City of Tustin parking requirements, there would be adequate on-site parking for the proposed uses if joint-use parking were implemented. Tables 2 and 3 evaluated the shared parking analysis for the proposed uses based on the City of Tustin parking requirements for each individual use onthe site, and does not assume any internal capture between the uses. Therofora, the results ofthe analysis shown in Tables 2 and 3 are conservative and actual shared parking demand for the proposed uses may potentially be lower than what is shown in the previous tables. Proposed Hotel Pea Demand Ratios As previously mentioned, the minimum parking spaces required by the City of Tustin are used as the peak parking demand for the proposed uses. Regarding the proposed hotel uae, howevar, the project applicant has developed several other hotels such as Residence Inns over the years, and historically Residence Inns have had a peak parking demand ratio that io lower than 1:1 (one parking space per occupied room) for enumbor of reasons. First, Residence Inns offer complimentary food and beverage to hotel guests only. Second. not all Residence Inns provide meeting room space, and when prowided, the hotel meeting space is intended for the use of the hotel guests only. Based on the developer's experience with building Residence inns, it is unlikely that recommending o parking rate of less than 1:1 would be underestimating the parking needs of the proposed hotel uses. Parking occupancy surveys to determine the ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms were conducted by RBF Consulting over the last two years at two existing Marriott hotels in San Diego County that are similar to the proposed Tustin hotels: a Courtyard by Marriott in Carlsbad, California, and a Marriott Residence Inn in Oceanside, California. The parking occupancy surveys had been conducted to develop parking demand ratios for e proposed Courtyard by Marriott in Uceanside. California, and a proposed Residence Inn /n San Juan Capistrano, California. The parking studies that were prepared for the proposed Oceanside Courtyard by Marriott and the San Juan Capistrano Residence Inn are provided in the technical appendix following this letter. It is proposed that the peak parking demand ratios that were developed for the proposed Oceanside Courtyard by Marriott and San Juan Capistrano Residence Inn be used ho determine the peak parking demand for the proposed Tustin Residence !nn and Fairfield Inn and Suites. Table 4summarizeo the results of the prior parking occupancy surveys and the parking demand ratios that were developed and are proposed tobe used for the proposed Tustin hotels. Only the highest parking demand ratios from the weekday and weekday surveys are shown in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, the highest weekday ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms (0.88 spaces per room) occurred at the Carlsbad Courtyard by Marriott on a Tuesday, Table 4 shows that the weekend (Saturday) ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms was 0.92 spaces per room for both of the survey hotels, Mr. wrzosek March 29, 2012 Page 7 1 - NQ 6 Basal on JN: 55- 100817.001 The parking demand ratios developed from the RBE parking occupancy surveys are conservative when compared to the findings of parking occupancy surveys conducted in 2005 in the Los Angeles area at two existing Residence Inns. These 2005 surveys had been conducted for a proposed Residence Inn in Burbank, California (Burbank Residence Inn by Marriott Parking Study, LLC Engineers). The Burbank Residence Inn parking study used an existing Residence Inn in El Segundo and another Residence Inn in Beverly Hills for the parking occupancy surveys to derive a recommended parking rate. The findings of the Beverly Hills Residence Inn parking occupancy surveys revealed a peak parking demand ratio of 0.81 spaces per occupied room, while the results of the El Segundo Residence Inn parking occupancy surveys showed a peak parking demand ratio of 0.91 spaces per occupied room. The average peak parking demand ratio for these two hotels was 0.86 spaces per occupied room, which was the parking rate recommended, based on full hotel occupancy, for the proposed Burbank Residence Inn instead of the standard City of Burbank parking rate. The findings of the parking demand analysis from the Burbank Residence Inn by Marriott Parking Study (Table 3) is attached following this report. Shared Parking Demand Analysis — Based on Proposed Hotel Parking Demand Ratios An additional shared parking demand analysis was performed for the combined uses on the project site based on utilization of the proposed peak parking demand ratios developed for the hotel uses based on parking occupancy surveys that had been conducted for similar hotels in Southern California. Tables 5 and 6 present comparisons of parking accumulation for each use on the project site, based on the published ULI rates, over 24 -hour periods for a typical weekday and a typical weekend day, respectively. The parking demand (occupied spaces) shown for the hotel uses in Tables 5 and 6 is based on the proposed hotel peak parking demand ratios as previously shown in Table 4. The parking demand for the restaurant and retail uses are based on the minimum parking spaces required by the City of Tustin for each use. The surplus parking (unoccupied spaces) shown in Tables 5 and 6 is based on the actual number of parking spaces provided for the project site (total of 415 spaces). Survey Ccca2e occupie 7ala' Vccupied ED srrzn-nl and 71m, m Parking Mole] Hotel Occupied Spaces Rooms Rooms Room Ratio (a) Carlsbad Courtyard by Marriott Parking Occupancy Survey Saturday, 6/26/201 b 110 145 120 0.92 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM Tuesday, 6/29/2010 91 145 103 0.88 5:00 AM -5:30 AM Oceanside Residence Inn Parking Occupancy Survey Thursday, 11/4/2010 78 125 97 0.80 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM Saturday, 11/6/2010 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 56 125 61 0.92 JN: 55- 100817.001 The parking demand ratios developed from the RBE parking occupancy surveys are conservative when compared to the findings of parking occupancy surveys conducted in 2005 in the Los Angeles area at two existing Residence Inns. These 2005 surveys had been conducted for a proposed Residence Inn in Burbank, California (Burbank Residence Inn by Marriott Parking Study, LLC Engineers). The Burbank Residence Inn parking study used an existing Residence Inn in El Segundo and another Residence Inn in Beverly Hills for the parking occupancy surveys to derive a recommended parking rate. The findings of the Beverly Hills Residence Inn parking occupancy surveys revealed a peak parking demand ratio of 0.81 spaces per occupied room, while the results of the El Segundo Residence Inn parking occupancy surveys showed a peak parking demand ratio of 0.91 spaces per occupied room. The average peak parking demand ratio for these two hotels was 0.86 spaces per occupied room, which was the parking rate recommended, based on full hotel occupancy, for the proposed Burbank Residence Inn instead of the standard City of Burbank parking rate. The findings of the parking demand analysis from the Burbank Residence Inn by Marriott Parking Study (Table 3) is attached following this report. Shared Parking Demand Analysis — Based on Proposed Hotel Parking Demand Ratios An additional shared parking demand analysis was performed for the combined uses on the project site based on utilization of the proposed peak parking demand ratios developed for the hotel uses based on parking occupancy surveys that had been conducted for similar hotels in Southern California. Tables 5 and 6 present comparisons of parking accumulation for each use on the project site, based on the published ULI rates, over 24 -hour periods for a typical weekday and a typical weekend day, respectively. The parking demand (occupied spaces) shown for the hotel uses in Tables 5 and 6 is based on the proposed hotel peak parking demand ratios as previously shown in Table 4. The parking demand for the restaurant and retail uses are based on the minimum parking spaces required by the City of Tustin for each use. The surplus parking (unoccupied spaces) shown in Tables 5 and 6 is based on the actual number of parking spaces provided for the project site (total of 415 spaces). O 1� 4YD 1 7 W N O C6 � 00 W s: M ( 2i M 0- G t 'L s Y1 .c Il' c cc U rd F ti n ` O� c d l4 C L ^ C R �F aQ co O CL CL AA CL O d W J O a. N tD CO CO fD O O (D O I V N 0 E r co m O m w'o N w O O I N N In I O O M co M O) m co 3 N N N N N N N N O M O OD do III O Q O l4) N N N N N 0f ® o o a o a o 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 e N O ® O O O N N N N N O X m 0 p O O O p O O O p 4n O O O O O r tfj to to 'o en In O O do do O O® O t ° O ° O N M (D 'co 0) — C:) O) 0) O) O W 4p M r Q: d a2 o c o a \ e \ \ '� c \° a o a o O ' ® \° O O \'o o I ° �° O 1 O O C O O t0 O O O O O t17 ', to p 0 O p j O I 0 l0 O °�. -. 117 :. 0) W W ti�� O O O. O O O� W M�. CL E E UJ 0 o r L d � � I .i+ 0 0 0 6 0 0 ° 01 4p o o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 o e a c 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O I ..�. N r (o I I (� N O O d N 4fl I °O 4 C ,,u r O P N" C m I c a- € " 01 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 e \° e o o o! o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 4 ° O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 g o\ o o e a C Q 0 0 0 0 O I O O O O O O O R C) O O) r r r r r r r 4 - W i 4v v i Z a= 0 i 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 o a o � o o o ° ° R N O O i 0 0 0 O O` O O oo LO 4n 0 0 4D O 40 to p CIO 4n O O C r . O O r O �D In tri O 4D 4D p t~ ti 00 471 O O a CC CC C ¢¢ CC cC s� cc cC wQ� 1� CC cc 4L G C C G S C ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢I¢.¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ d 0_ Q 0.10. MIMI m n. 0 0 0`` 0 0 0 0 1 0 O 0 Q 0 O O 1 0 0 0' O O O O p 0 0 J 0- O 9 P O O O i 0 0 0 O O O I O 0 0 0 0 0 cli CV CO '7 (ri (O ti 4b m O r N M` ep' tri (G Ih w m P eN- U) C a D F c m (D ® m E a m .0 a� h m a m O j d C O � a N N w a) N to C • p m O m ®. W H O N U y U m E N N A U m to m Y V m m N s CL U , O Q2 E a `m E r U 4p C W C N @ W E � � m O @ W c� O � .0 a) W .D d H N 2— a2 m O C CL O C N C K O D L y N �« a) O O N � � O l09 E aE a� m a� W � 'a o ; c n m c m aa) Y d m 7 CL n m 2 0 O N -O _ a2 sm L) o 3 O q c h C O O P n • , a7 j m E W g m N U N N J (n u d] dl lT N O7 aI N C m c B D x L O_ c0 m a) � a a m a V o-0. In N � I m 0 In N� O a2 2 c � I O N � � O N 41. m M ®- ` 'B m = N aW7 O U r ca tC2 h h h h h h f f� O O C CO r r I I I`� t t0 N 0 00 P P• t I w w f f0 N N 0 n to O O 00 0 00 1 1 n r 35J C3 I 0 � t I c w z 9) O d d I I c0 c co I 00 � t0 4 47) e et I co 4 4A m t ti a aD O O r r M M L LO n n O O P P• N N ( (n O O l ll7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M 4 4N M M C C N N ark I m a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N M M M M M M M M M M' M M M M M M c co M M M M� N N r r p p 0 0 N V W V W l0 - - S tai � � 1 1 0 1 4N L Lf! U U1 a aN° M M ` `L M M N N N N M M_ M M LD E m m a a! 9 Q Q N N O O O O O O O O O O 1 1. O OD i ice- n n t ti I I f'- 7 7'- T Tt c ct W W M M a aO c c0 0 00 0 00 C CO E r ! ! r 4n E f 9 9 aD 4 U fu U M Mw O O 0 C C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. ( `7 ( (D 4 4D M M 4 4D 2 2 N N N N 4 41 t tD L LS3 O N O U) C a D F c m (D ® m E a m .0 a� h m a m O j d C O � a N N w a) N to C • p m O m ®. W H O N U y U m E N N A U m to m Y V m m N s CL U , O Q2 E a `m E r U 4p C W C N @ W E � � m O @ W c� O � .0 a) W .D d H N 2— a2 m O C CL O C N C K O D L y N �« a) O O N � � O l09 E aE a� m a� W � 'a o ; c n m c m aa) Y d m 7 CL n m 2 0 O N -O _ a2 sm L) o 3 O q c h C O O P n • , a7 j m E W g m N U N N J (n u d] dl lT N O7 aI N C m c B D x L O_ c0 m a) � a a m a V o-0. In N � I m 0 In N� O a2 2 c � I O N � � O N 41. m M ®- ` 'B m = N aW7 O U r ca I h W O O (h Pn N N in O L p CU ca S Q C C �a V M CC 0 d N � V CL 0 0 0 C E . a. a= C� C 2 a. c 0 V d N ea in � e I m' I �T O I O O W O W W W OD M of W N W W h r r O) to h �p N {� c} ti Q) p r r r r N N N 00 fD CO R� I I I -1 O O h h N N O h O h O h B+ O O I O N N r 0 M M `V' O O) QO N M MM O r ��yy N t� p M W O N N N N N N N r N N N N N N N M M 1 09 (•1 M M ® � f O O O O O O co M M M M M M f'D R7 (TD (h M N N p 0 t�t9 0_7 o z () � O y u Ln O CO O 0 0 0 '� p� M N �' Gf M N O- r m h N O O C) 4 � !0 � s � S 0 m ® i O M'oi O O O O O O .'f O ate-- �' CO W W I CA CO 00 O OD V IL j U CL i v Q� W LO ' (o O No rn m W i LO - N O W W W W W W W M U 9 PJ !} 0 ° e w 0 N 0 Cl 0 0 W M W 67 c0 N (O N W W �7 W d' N W N W O P� O) N N W O) W O O I® I '� � N S N N N (��1 N W 0 N 0 N N N N 0 N h N h l N I, O O � O O o 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qi O, 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 W � O O i W P V i m �^ � o I a P & 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 '.R ° o ii o o 0 0 \° o f 0 0 0 0 0 O f CO ) LO ( CO 60D O O to N 0 I t i a I ( 0 0 0 0 0 ii 0 0 'R 0 1.� IV m N O O O O O N M C(0 Wi n. I-- � ti O ® p 0 0 0 j 0 o �. o I 9 CL .� ,u E C o W O L V O y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 i% O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O tR7 O `cf O O �' O W O O) O Q) O O O) pC Of O O O N m R IL J � O O O O p p p o O 0 O 0 O I 0 o i OI 0 o 0 0 o O -0* 0 0 e o C r i r O r M O) O O' O 0 1 0 O O O h W l 0 0 (off t � O O fa m— W L N v 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O p\ "° 0 ° • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) 0 W 0 h 0 W 0 O W O O O O O 0 O � O O O 0 G r T T W W W h h h• c0 00 O) r 0 N y Q O a c¢ O O O a <' O I O < 0 0 1 0 Q 0 O O O t� , ® O! O O O O o;� p n O a a t1 n 0 a n 0 d N a N r tq7 N M Ln 0 0 6 h- 0 0 Op 6f 0 r r r O � 3 N y m A 7 O 3: a0 CL a) _N O (0 O � 5 N O c � B � w 47 w o CJ LO Ti N rj O N c cu d T9 ti O y U O U N N U x B C U N O O O A O N E M U N c O N L c y cu v rU � cc � O � u S O u) F- N o U N O C v C O CL 3 'v N p w s° N a w m n O � U � N •a 2 E O 47 O . p � N jx O U N d N m c �o ID I ON d o O L N •> I w N O O N a f0 C N 0- (1) E � a m C a N O N O (p C d AY N C f8 m O- O U uD 7 _ (6 m W o O N x W c 0 (C , O 0 N m U c N A N O O m ) o N a F- O m Mr. Wrzosek JN: 55-100817.001 March 29, 2012 Page 10 Table 5 shows that the peak parking demand for the combined uses on a typical weekday occurs at 10:00 p.m., with 343 occupied parking spaces and a surplus of 72 parking spaces. Table 6 shows that on a typical weekend, the peak parking demand for the combined uses also occurs at 10:00 p.m., with 372 occupied parking spaces and a surplus of 43 parking spaces. The analysis results in Tables 5 and 6 show that based on the proposed hotel parking demand ratios and the City of Tustin parking requirements for the restaurant and retail uses, there would be adequate on-site parking for the proposed uses if joint-use parking were implemented. Phase One Parking Analysis The proposed project may be constructed in two phases, so a supplemental parking analysis was conducted for the first phase of the project if it is constructed in two phases. The Phase One project would consist of the following uses: ® One 4-story hotel o Marriott Residence Inn — 149 rooms Free-standing restaurants — 12,000 square-feet total Free-standing retail space - 4,200 square-feet A total of 333 parking stalls would be provided for the Phase One project site to serve the Residence Inn and the restaurants and retail uses. Table 7 summarizes the City of Tustin parking requirements for the proposed Phase One uses on the project site. Based on the City of Tustin parking requirements, the Phase One project is required to provide a minimum of 289 parking spaces. The proposed Phase One project will provide a total of 333 parking spaces, which are 44 spaces more than the minimum required parking spaces for Phase One. Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit for joint-use parking would not be required for Phase One of the sm�-� Table 7 Phase One Project - City of Tustin Parking RequiremenL9 Proposed Use Size Unit City Code Parking Rate Parking Spaces Required Pwk ng Provided Difference 149 Hotel - Residence Inn 6 rooms 1 space per room + 1 space per 2 employees 152 173 +21 employees Restaurant 12,000 SF 1 space per 100 SF 120 160 +23 Retail 4,200 SF 1 space per 250 SF 17 Total Parking Required 289 333 +44 Note: SF = Square Feet Mr. Wrzoseb March 2l202 Con cl;z[lon The results of this shared parking analysis do not assume any internal capture between the proposed uses. Due to the close proximity of the restaurant and retail uses to the two proposed hotels, dislikely that o significant proportion of pedestrian trips would occur between the hotels and the restaurant and retail uses, It is probable that this analysis is overestimating the parking demand that is likely to occur, and it is reasonable to assume that there may be a reduction in the combined parking demand due to internal capture between the proposed uses. The seasonal variation /n the parking demand would bea critical factor if the recommended parking ratio was based on the total number of rooms in the hotels instead of the total number of occupied rooms. The ratio of occupied spaces to occupied rooms during peak demand times is not influenced by the number of hotel rooms that are occupied; in fact, the highest parking demand roUm per occupied room from the parking surveys occurred when the fewest number of hotel rooms were occupied. The hotel peak parking demand ratios used in this analysis are based on the ratio of "occupied spaces per occupied room" and assume full occupancy of the hotel. Whather using the City of Tustin minimum parking requirements (1 per room +1per 2 em or the proposed peak parking demand ratio (0.92 per room) for the hotel uses, the results of this parking demand and shared parking analysis show that the 415 padkinQmpeceedhsdonepropoamdforUlaprojoctahemW/be adequate for joint-use parking. Therefore, it is recommended that o Conditional Use Permit for joint-use parking be considered for this project. The proposed project may be constructed in two pboaoa so a supplemental parking analysis was conducted for the first phase of the project ifdis constructed /n two phases. Based on the findings ofthe Phase One parking analysis, a Conditional Use Permit for joint-use parking would not be required for Phase One of the proposed project. If you have any questions pertaining to the analysis results summarized in this letter, please call moat (760) 603-6244. 411 Robert Davis, PTP Senior Associate Transportation Services I ► �'� 1 �► � 1 i i I I , V , I • i i I ! I I , I I ' 1 I I I I I I 1 i 1 � i I I, I V I 1111 I I II. 1 i i 1 1 1 1 I I,11� I ljll I I 11 1 11 I1 I'1 I I 1 I 1111 � 111 I I I 1 1 .1 I 1 Illj 1 I!j 1 i 1 11 / 11 1� 11 1 1j 1 t1 11I 1 '! 1 9 � \ 11 I / fti a 1 '! / N I 1 L\1 I1 r�k C � I I P ' I t a 3 `I # i a E A Y $ V� Q J a' W 7 mt O CD CL mma °- cc C^ Z Q J G. W H� J J Q, CC w O m w y„I N W w Q ^ 4 e ti UJ Z O co Lb LO ■ s aa56 is ss z V� Q J a' W 7 mt O CD CL mma °- cc C^ Z Q J G. W H� J J Q, CC w O m w y„I N W w Q ^ 4 e ti UJ Z O co Lb LO ■ TECHNICAL APPENDIX San Juan Capistrano Residence inn Parking Demand Study (RBF Consulting, 11124/2010) FBF e GONSMq_rIN- 7D November 24, 2010 Mr. Robert Olson RD Olson DauMl opment 2955 Main Street, Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92514 Subject: San Juan Capistrano Residence Inn Parking Demand Study Dear Mr. Olson, JN 55- 100728.001 RBF Consulting has completed the parking demand study for the proposed Residence Iran 'hotel located at the southwest corner of Camino Capistrano / Stonehill Drive just west of Interstate 5 in the City of San Juan Capistrano. The proposed site is surrounded by a mix of retail and residential uses, and is located approximately one mile north of the Capistrano and oheny beach areas. Tourist attractions and amenities near the proposed hotel site include: o San Juan Capistrano Mission and downtown area • the Capistrano and Coheny beach areas ® Dana Point Harbor • Golf courses, restaurants and retail shopping within 10 minute drive The proposed Residence Inn would be a mid -range priced ($150 - $300) business hotel providing a total of 130 suites. A total of 122 parking stalls are proposed to be provided for the hotel (117 unassigned parking spaces and 5 disabled parking spaces), which provides a ratio of 0.94 parking spaces per guest room. For all hotel and motel uses, one parking space per guest room (1:1 ratio) is required based on the City of San Juan Capistrano off-street parking requirements. Given the number of rooms for the proposed hotel, a minimum of 130 parking spaces are required based on the City's standard parking code. The project applicant has developed several other Residence Inns over the years and historically Residence Inns have had a peak parking demand ratio that is lower than 1:1 (one parking space per occupied room) for a number of reasons. First, Residence Inns offer complimentary food and beverage to hotel guests only. Second, the hotel meeting space is intended for the use of the hotel guests only. Based on the developer's experience with building Residence Inns, it is unlikely that recommending a parking rate of less than 1:1 would be underestimating the parking needs. PLANNING S DESIGN ® CONSTRUCTION 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Oceanside, California 92008 -4386 r 760.476.9193 ■ FAX 760.476.9198 Offices located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada ■ wvow.RBF.co Mr. Olson November 24, 2010 Page 2 P JN: 55- 100723.001 A pari'idng occupancy survey was conducted by RBF Consorting at an existing Residence Inn located at Rancho Del Oro Road / Ocean Ranch Boulevard in the City of Oceanside. The selected existing hotel for the parking occupancy survey is located a few miles from the Oceanside and Carlsbad beach areas and is surrounded by retail and office /business park uses. Tourist attractions and amenities near the existing surrey hotel site include: • Downtown Oceanside and downtown Carlsbad • Oceanside and Carlsbad beach areas • Oceanside Harbor • San Luis Rey Mission • Legoland (located in Carlsbad about 15 minutes from hotel) • Golf courses, restaurants and retail shopping within 10 minute drive The purpose of the parking occupancy survey is to determine the peak parking demand for a lbjpicaI Residence Inn located in a similar environment as the proposed site and compare to the City parking requirement. Detailed information about the selected survey hotel is provided below: inn — 3605 Ocean Ranch Boulevard, Oceanside, CA Nu mber of Rooms 125 suites Number of Parking Stalls 151 Room Rates $139 - $269 • Amenities 1 meeting room with 571 square feet of meeting space, pool, fitness center, breakfast caf6, evening lounge, Internet access in each guest room The Oceanside Residence Inn was built approximately three years ago, and is considered to be fully stabilized. The survey location is one of the top hotels in the City of Oceanside and one of top performing Residence Inns in the nation. The parking utilization characteristics of the existing Oceanside Residence Inn site were observed between 5:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. on three weekday mornings (Monday, Thursday, and Friday) and one weekend morning (Saturday). The survey time was selected based on hotel parking demand data from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking publication. Although the survey hotels from the ULI research were major hotels with restaurants, lounges and convention facilities, peak parking demand at the survey hotels occurred between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Since restaurants and lounges can be open until as late as 2:00 a.m., it is reasonable to assume that the peak parking demand for a hotel without such amenities would occur between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. when the highest number of hotel guests would be in their rooms sleeping. Mr. Olson November 24, 2010 Page 3 JN: 55- 100728.001 Table 1 presents the resuits of the parking occupancy sunoey conducled for each day at the Oceanside Residence Ins, site. V able I Favking Occupancy Survey Existing Oceanside Residence Inn As shown in Table 1, the results of the parking occupancy surreys are as follows: • Thursday, November 4"' (5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 78 occupied parking spaces • Friday, November 5"'(5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 62 occupied parking spaces • Saturday, November 6"'(5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 56 occupied parking spaces • Monday, November 8 th (5:00 a.m. -- 5:30 a.m.): 67 occupied parking spaces Table 1 shows that the highest parking utilization (51.7 %) occurred on Thursday morning, when 78 occupied parking spaces were counted at the survey hotel. Overnight room occupancy information was acquired from the hotel for each evening previous to the parking occupancy counts. The number of occupied hotel rooms and corresponding hotel occupancy rate for each survey morning is listed below: • Wednesday nightri morning (11/3— 11/4):97 occupied rooms (78% occupancy) • Thursday night/Friday morning (11/4— 11/5): 85 occupied rooms (68% occupancy) • Friday night/Saturday mom ing (11/5 — 11/6): 61 occupied rooms (49% occupancy) • Sunday night/Monday morning (11/7 — 11/8): 97 occupied rooms (78% occupancy) As shown above, the highest room occupancy rate occurred on both Wednesday night/Thursday morning (11/3 — 11/4) and Sunday night/Monday morning (11/7 — 11/8), when 97 out of the 125 hotel rooms were occupied. The lowest room occupancy rate occurred on Friday night/Saturday morning, when only 61 out of 125 rooms were occupied. Thursday, IIN2010 Friday, 11/5/2010 Saturday, 111612010 Monday, 111812010 5:00 AM - 6:30 AM 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 5 :00 AM - 6:30 AN 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM Parking Parking -- Type Inventory Occupied POTNno UtiiumaNnn Occupied Parking Utilization Occupied Parkingg Utilization Occupied Parking Utilization spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces General 146 76 52.1% 60 41.1% 54 37.0% 65 44.5% Disabled 5 2 40.0% 2 40.0% 2 40.0% 2 40.0% J Total Parkin 151 78 51.7% 62 41.1% 56 37.1% 67 44.4 As shown in Table 1, the results of the parking occupancy surreys are as follows: • Thursday, November 4"' (5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 78 occupied parking spaces • Friday, November 5"'(5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 62 occupied parking spaces • Saturday, November 6"'(5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 56 occupied parking spaces • Monday, November 8 th (5:00 a.m. -- 5:30 a.m.): 67 occupied parking spaces Table 1 shows that the highest parking utilization (51.7 %) occurred on Thursday morning, when 78 occupied parking spaces were counted at the survey hotel. Overnight room occupancy information was acquired from the hotel for each evening previous to the parking occupancy counts. The number of occupied hotel rooms and corresponding hotel occupancy rate for each survey morning is listed below: • Wednesday nightri morning (11/3— 11/4):97 occupied rooms (78% occupancy) • Thursday night/Friday morning (11/4— 11/5): 85 occupied rooms (68% occupancy) • Friday night/Saturday mom ing (11/5 — 11/6): 61 occupied rooms (49% occupancy) • Sunday night/Monday morning (11/7 — 11/8): 97 occupied rooms (78% occupancy) As shown above, the highest room occupancy rate occurred on both Wednesday night/Thursday morning (11/3 — 11/4) and Sunday night/Monday morning (11/7 — 11/8), when 97 out of the 125 hotel rooms were occupied. The lowest room occupancy rate occurred on Friday night/Saturday morning, when only 61 out of 125 rooms were occupied. fV7r. Olson JN: 55- 100728.001 November 24, 2010 Page 4 The overnight hote? room occupancy infcrmation that was obtained for each of the survey days shows that the weekday occupancy rates are higher than the weekend occupancy rate. WNle the current economic conditions may have some influence on the low weekend occupancy rate, the general manager of the Oceanside Residence Inn indicated that during the summer months the overnight room occupancy rate is highest on the weekends, and during the off- season months the highest occupancy rates occur during the weekdays. Table 2 summarizes the parking demand ratios derived from the parking occupancy and hotel room occupancy data acquired for this analysis. Two sets of ratios are provided: the parking demand ratio per hotel room (occupied parking spaces / total hotel rooms), and the parking demand ratio per occupied hotel room (occupied parking spaces /occupied hotel rooms), As shown in Table 2, the highest ratio of occupied parking spaces 'to total hotel rooms (0.62 spaces per room) occurred on the Thursday morning survey. The lowest ratio of occupied ;parking spaces to total hotel rooms (0.45 spaces per room) occurred on the Saturday morning survey. The highest ratio of occupied paiirking spaces to occupied hotel rooms (0.92 spaces per room) occurred on the Saturday morning survey. The lowest ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms (0.69 spaces per room) occurred on the Monday morning survey, Table Parking Demand Ratios Existina Oceanside Residence Inn Survey Date Occupied Total Occupied Parking Demand FaIn%idg2 Damara d and Time Parkin Hotel Hotel Per Room Occupied ccu iedi Spaces Rooms Rooms Ratio Room Ratio (z) Thursday, 11/4/2010 5:00 AM -5:30 AM 78 125 97 0.62 0.80 Friday, 11 /5/2010 5 :00 AM - 5:30 AM 62 125 85 0.50 0.73 Saturday, 11/6/2010 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 56 125 61 0.45 0.92 Monday, 11 /8/2010 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM II 67 125 97 0.54 0.69 Kauo or occupiea parKing spaces to total number of hotel rooms. Highest ratio indicated in bold. t2i Ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms. Highest ratio indicated In bold. Mr. Olson JN: 55- 100728.003 November24, 2010 Page 5 The parking occupancy surveys shown in Table 1 and the parking demand ratios shown in Table 2 suggest several patterns with Rohs data that was collected at the Oceanside residence Inn site: • Parking occupancy and room occupancy is higher on the weekdays than on the weekends, which suggests that the time of year (early to mid - November) is influencing the low room occupancy on the weekends, and that weekday business travel is influencing room occupancy more so than leisure travel on the weekends. • The ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms is lower on the weekdays than on the weekends, which suggests that there are a greater proportion of business travelers on the weekdays that carpool to the hotel and stay in separate rooms. This phenomenon results in a lower parking demand ratio per occupied room even though the weekday survey days had the highest number of parking spaces and hotel rooms occupied. • The ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied 'hotel rooms is higher on the weekends than on the weekdays, which suggests that there are a greater proportion of leisure guests that are occupying fewer rooms per vehicle arriving at the hotel. This phenomenon results in a higher parking demand ratio per occupied room on the weekend survey, even though the weekend survey had the lowest number of parking spaces and hotel rooms occupied. The four survey days showed hotel room occupancy rates ranging from 49% to 78 %, which implies that the parking occupancy surveys covered the weekly variations in room occupancy that typically occurs at the hotel. Comparison of Parking Occupancy Surveys with ITE Parking Generation Research The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication titled Parking Generation, 3 Edition includes specific parking characteristics data for a "Business Hotel' land use category, which is described as having limited amenities and no on -site meeting or convention facilities. Although the existing Oceanside Residence Inn and the proposed San Juan Capistrano Residence Inn both have small meeting space, the "Business Hotel' category best characterizes the typical Residence Inn, rather than the general "Hotel' category that includes restaurant, lounge and convention facilities. The parking characteristics are derived from research studies conducted by ITE. The research studies include a utilization profile along with a formula that describes the relationship between parking demand and the time of day. The parking demand data for a "Business Hotel' in ITE Parking Generation is limited to only the hour between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., which does not account for the time period in which the parking demand peak may actually occur (2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.). Furthermore, the parking demand ratios provided in ITE Parking Generation only reflect occupied parking spaces to total number of rooms, not occupied spaces to occupied hotel rooms. For the purposes of this report, however, it will be assumed the parking demand ratios generated by ITE for a Business Hotel reflects the peak parking demand based on the ITE research. Mr. Olson JN: 55- 100728.001 November 24, 2010 Page 6 Table 3 summarizes the parking demand data for a Business Hotel as provided in ITE Parking Generation, 3 edition. Fable 3 also provides a comparison between the parking dernand ratios generated by i T E and the parking demand ratios calculated from the results of the parking occupancy surveys. As shown in Table 3, the ITE parking demand data for a Business Hotel indicates a higher parking demand on a weekend than on a weekday, with a peak parking demand ratio of 0.66 vehicles per room. The results of the parking occupancy surveys show a peak parl�dng demand ratio of 0.62 vehicles per room, with the highest peak parking demand occurring on a weekday. The parking occupancy survey results also show a parking demand ratio of only 0.45 vehicles per room occurring on a weekend. Table 3 Comparison of Parking Demand Data ITE Parking Generation vs. Parking Occupancy Surveys ITE Parking Demand Data Parking Occupancy Survey Results pa'Thln-g Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Data Parking Parking Parking Parking Demand Demand Demand Demand Land Use Business Hotel Business Hotel Business Hotel Business Hotel Peak Period 11:00 P.M. - 11:00 P.M. - 5:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. - 12:00 a.m. 12:00 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 5:30 a.m. # of Study Sites 3 3 1 1 Average Size of 130 rooms 130 rooms 125 rooms 125 rooms Study Sites Average Peak 0.64 vehicles 0.66 vehicles 0.62 vehicles 0.45 vehicles Period Parking Demand per room per room per room per room Source: ITE Parking Generation, P Edition (2004). Parking demand ratio is based on the number of occupied panting spaces to total number of rooms. Highest weekday parking demand ratio was used in this table. Table 3 shows that although the weekday parking demand ratios are similar between the ITE and parking survey data, the weekend parking demand ratio based on the parking occupancy surreys is significantly lower than the ITE parking demand data. This is most likely due to the seasonal influence previously discussed. As previously mentioned, the ITE parking demand data does not reflect the demand of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms, which is a more accurate assessment of parking demand for a hotel. The peak parking demand ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms (0.92) that was calculated for the four survey days at the Oceanside Residence Inn occurred on the Saturday morning survey, when the fewest number of hotel rooms were occupied. The peak parking demand based on occupied hotel rooms is not determined by the number of rooms occupied, but rather is determined by the parking characteristics of the people occupying the hotel rooms at a given time. Mr. Olson JN: 55- 100728.001 November 24, 2010 Page 7 02���arn5 �r �r19 rn i 5t2g��IS This section includes information from another parking demand study that was prepared in 2005 for a proposed Residence Inn in BUTbank, California (Burbank Residence inn by M&7i®tt Parking Study, LLG Engineers). T he Burbank Residence Inn parking study used two existing Residence Inns, one in El Segundo and another in Beverly Hills, for the parking occupancy surveys to derive a recommended parking rate. The findings of the Beverly Hills Residence Inn parking occupancy surveys revealed a peak parking demand ratio of 0.81 spaces per occupied room, while the results of the El Segundo Residence Inn Parking occupancy surveys showed a peak parking demand ratio of 0.91 spaces per occupied room. The average peak parking demand ratio for these two hotels was 0.86 spaces per occupied room, which was the parking rate recommended, based on full hotel occupancy, for the proposed Burbank Residence Inn instead of the standard City of Burbank parking rate. The findings of the parking demand analysis from the Burbank Residence inn by Marriott Parking Study (Table 3) is attached following this report. Study Recommendations Based on the results of the parking occupancy surveys and calculated parking demand ratios, it should be reasonable to allow a parking ratio that is less than one parking space per room per the City of San Juan Capistrano off- street parking requirements. The results of the parking occupancy surreys indicate that the parking supply at the Oceanside Residence Inn is almost double the peak parking demand and substantially less parking is needed to meet the actual peak parking demand. While it may be true that the weekend and leisure demand could be higher at the proposed San Juan Capistrano location than the surrey location in Oceanside due to the closer proximity to the beach, the survey location is still located in a beach community (Oceanside) and is one of the more desirable hotels in the city. The seasonal variation in the parking demand would be a critical factor if the recommended parking ratio was based on the total number of rooms in the hotel instead of the total number of occupied rooms. The ratio of occupied spaces to occupied rooms during peak demand times is not influenced by the number of hotel rooms that are occupied, in fact, the highest parking demand ratio per occupied room from the parking surreys occurred when the fewest number of hotel rooms were occupied. The number of required parking spaces that are recommended are based on the ratio of 'occupied spaces per occupied room" and assume full occupancy of the hotel. Mr. Olson JN: 55- 100728.001 November 24, 2010 Page 8 The recommended parking rate of 0.86 spaces per occupied Odom for t"1e Surbank Residance Mn would result in 112 parking spaces being provided for the proposed San Juan Capistrano Residence inn. It is recommended that the more conservative ratio of 1@2 ,parking spaces per occupied room from the Oceanside Residence Inn parking occupancy survey 'be used to determine the minimum parking requirement at the proposed Residence inn in San Juan Capistrano. Applying this ratio to the total number of rooms at the proposed hotel would result in a minimum parking space requirement of 120 parking spaces at full occupancy of the hotel. The proposed hotel will provide a total of 122 parking spaces, which equates to a ratio of 0.94 parking spaces per room and two more parking spaces than the recommended minimum requirement based on our survey. if you have any questions pertaining to the analysis results summarized in 'this istter, please call me at (760) 6036244. Sincerely, Robert Davis, PTP Senior Associate Transportation Services V 9 M TI a 495 P.ONIA33O F -27 � �P. yes a j 4 G"D � I� III A 4 ® t� i W CK Q 93. mr arJ- N $� d a N R II fA �+ � o0 U M I� p O p PM ' � i� a ^ � Q Tlt RE l C � �P. yes a Oceanside Courtyard by Marriott Parking Demand Study (RBF Consulting, 7/12/2010) Mr. Blake Evans RT) Olson 7LN� 2955 Main Street, Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92614 5 ,vbjacz Courtyard by Marriott Parking Demand Study Dear Mr. Evans, RBF Consulting has completed the parking demand study for the proposed Courtyard by Marriott hotel located at the southeast corner of Rancho Del Oro Drive / Seagate Way in the City of Oceanside. The proposed hotel would be a mid-range priced ($100 - $250) business hotel providing a - total of 140 rooms and approximately 2,000 square-feet of meeting/conference room space. A total of 136 parking stalls are proposed to be provided for the hotel (131 unassigned spaces and 5 disabled parking spaces). For a typical hotel use, the City of Oceanside Zoning Ordinance (Article 31) requires 1.2 parking spaces per hotel room, plus I parking space per 50 square-feet of banquet sea area. Based on the number of rooms and the meeting/conference room space a minimum of 208 parking spaces are required based on the City of Oceanside off-street parking requirements. A parking occupancy survey was conducted by RBF Consulting at an existing Courtyard by Marriott located near Palomar Airport in the City of Carlsbad. The selected existing hotel for the parking occupancy survey is located in a business/office park environment similar to the proposed hotel site in Oceanside. The purpose of the parking occupancy survey is to determine the peak parking demand for a typical Courtyard by Marriott located in a business/office park environment, in comparison to the City parking requirement. Detailed information about the selected survey hotel is provided below: Courtyard by Marriott — 5835 Owens Avenue, Carlsbad, CA • Number of Rooms: 139 rooms, 6 suites • Number of Parkinq Stalls: 199 • Room Rates: $159 -$229 • Amenities: 3 meeting rooms with 1,290 square-feet of total meeting space, pool, fitness center, breakfast caf6, evening lounge, intemet access in each guest room PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Carlsbad, California 92008-4386 ■ 760.476-9193 w FAX 760.476.9198 Offices located throughout California, Arizona 8 Nevada ■ v �.RBF.gpm Mr. Evans JN: 55- 100693.001 July 12, 2010 Page 2 The institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) pubiication titled Parking Generation, 3rd Edition includes specific parking characteristics data for a "Business Motel" land use category, which is described as having limited amenities and no on -site meeting or convention facilities. Although the only available parking demand data for a business hotel is between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. in ITE Parking Generation, it is expected that peak parking demand would occur overnight, after 12:00 a.m. and before 6:00 a.m. The ITE parking characteristics data for a business hotel use are provided later in this report. The parking utilization characteristics of the existing Courtyard by Marriott site were observed on three weekday mornings (Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday) and one weekend morning (Saturday) between 5:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. Table 1 presents the results of the parking occupancy survey conducted for each day at the survey hotel site. Table 1 Parking Occupancy Svfnm�y Carlsbad Courtyard by ?Y3zF R As shown in Table 1, the results of the parking occupancy surveys are as follows: • Thursday, June 24 (5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 106 occupied parking spaces • Friday, June 25 (5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 96 occupied parking spaces • Saturday, June 26 (5:00 a.m. —5:30 a.m.): 110 occupied parking spaces • Tuesday, June 29 (5 :00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 91 occupied parking spaces Table 1 shows that the highest parking utilization (55.3 %) occurred on Saturday morning, when 110 occupied parking spaces were counted at the survey hotel. Overnight room occupancy information was acquired from the hotel for each evening previous to the parking occupancy counts. The number of occupied hotel rooms and corresponding hotel occupancy rate for each survey morning is listed below: Thursday, 612412010 Friday, 6125/2010 z3zlurday, 6/26/2010 Tuesday, 6129/2010 5 :00 AM - 5:30 AM 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 5:00 AM - 5:30 A aNI 5 :00 ANI - 5:30 A �arki�� �ar�sir� Type lnvanlwy Occupied Parking Utilization occupied Parking Utilization occupied Parkin: sd O Farming Spaces Spaces m Spaces WHIF -alion 08c S aoss UNization ® General 191 105 55.0% 94 49.2% 106 55.5% 69 46.6% Disabled 6 1 12.5/0 2 25.0% 4 50.0% 2 25.0% Total 199 106 513x/0 96 46.2% 110 55,3% Z) l 45.7% As shown in Table 1, the results of the parking occupancy surveys are as follows: • Thursday, June 24 (5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 106 occupied parking spaces • Friday, June 25 (5:00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 96 occupied parking spaces • Saturday, June 26 (5:00 a.m. —5:30 a.m.): 110 occupied parking spaces • Tuesday, June 29 (5 :00 a.m. — 5:30 a.m.): 91 occupied parking spaces Table 1 shows that the highest parking utilization (55.3 %) occurred on Saturday morning, when 110 occupied parking spaces were counted at the survey hotel. Overnight room occupancy information was acquired from the hotel for each evening previous to the parking occupancy counts. The number of occupied hotel rooms and corresponding hotel occupancy rate for each survey morning is listed below: Mr. Evans July 12, 2010 Page 3 JN: 55-100693.001 • YVednesday nightf rsday mornin (June 23r 144 occu pisd, moms (99% occupancy) • Thursday night/Friday morning (Joins 24 125 occupied rooms (86% occupancy) • Friday night/Saturday morning (Juno 25 120 occupied rooms (83% occupancy) • Monday night/Tuesday morning (June &'-29 103 occupied rooms (71 % occupancy) As shown above, the highest room occupancy rate occurred on Wednesday night/Thursday morning of June 23r when 144 out of the 145 hots-1 rooms were occupied. Table 2 summarizes the parking demand ratios derived from the parking occupancy and hotel room occupancy data acquired for this analysis. Two sets of ratios are provided: the parking demand ra tio per hotel room (occupied parking spaces / total hotel rooms), and 'the parking demand ratio par occupied hotel room (occupied parking spaces / occupied hotel rooms). Table 2 F'zTh!nr@ Demand Ratios C2flsbad Courtyard by Marriott F— Survey Date Occupied Tc2z9 Occupiscl Parking Demand Parking Demand/ and Time Parking HOW H0191 Per Room Occupied Space 'Rooms Rooms Ratio (1) Room Ratio (2) Thursday, 6/24/2010 1 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 106 145 144 0.73 0.74 Friday, 6/25/2010 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 96 145 125 0.66 0.77 Saturday, 6/26/2010 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 110 145 120 0.76 0.9 Tuesday, 6/29/2010 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 91 145 103 —1 0.63 1 — "' Ratio of occupied parking spaces to total number of hotel rooms (2) Ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms. As shown in Table 2, the highest parking demand per room ratio (0.76) occurred on the Saturday morning survey. On Saturday morning the parking demand per occupied room ratio was 0.92. It must be noted that although the peak parking demand for the survey days occurred on Saturday morning, the peak occupancy of the hotel rooms occurred during the Thursday morning survey. Although the hotel was at peak occupancy during the Thursday morning survey, the lowest parking demand per occupied room ratio (0.74) was calculated on that survey day. As previously mentioned, ITE Parking Generation, 3 Edition includes specific parking characteristics data for a Business Hotel. The parking characteristics are derived from research studies conducted by ITE. The research studies include a utilization profile along with a formula that describes the Mr. Evans JN: 55-100693.001 July 12, 20"i0 Fl age 4 realaVoinship between parking demand and the time of day. As noted earlier in this report, lTE only provides parking demand data for a Business Hotel use beto✓een 1',:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., which does not account for the time period in which the parking demand peak may actually occur (12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.). For the purposes of this report, however, it will be assumed the parking demand ratios generated by ITE for a Business Hotol reflects the peak parking demand. Table 3 summarizes the parking demand data for a Business Hotel as provided in ITE Parking Generation, 3r Edition. Table 3 also provides a comparison between the parking demand ratios generated by ITE and the parking demand ratios calculated from the results of the parking occupancy surveys. Table 3 Comparison of Parking Demand Data iTE Parking Generation vs. Parking Occupancy Surveyz ITE Parking Demand Data Parking Occupancy Survey Results i Parking Weekday Wee%znd Weekday Weekend Data Parking ParhinjQ Parking Parhine Demand Demand Demand Demand Land Use Business Business Business Business Hotel Hotel Hotel Hotel Pea% Period 11:00 P.M. - 11:00 P.M. - 5:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. - 12:00 a.m. 12:00 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 5:30 a.m. # of Study Sites 3 3 1 1 Average Size of Study Sites 130 rooms 130 rooms 145 rooms 145 rooms Average Peak Period Parking 0.64 vehicles 0.66 vehicles 0.73 vehicles 0.76 vehicles per room per room per room per room Source: ITE Parking Generation, 3 Edition (2004). Parking demand ratio is based on the number of occupied parking spaces to total number of rooms. Highest weekday parking demand ratio was used in this table. As shown in Table 3, the ITE parking demand data for a Business Hotel indicates a higher parking demand on a weekend than on a weekday, with a peak parking demand ratio of 0.66 vehicles per room. The results of the parking occupancy surveys show a peak parking demand ratio of 0.76 vehicles per room, with the highest peak parking demand occurring on a weekend. Although typically the highest peak parking demand would coincide with the highest hotel occupancy rate, this pattern did not occur during the survey days at the Courtyard by Marriott in Carlsbad. While the highest parking demand per hotel room ratio (0.76) and highest parking demand per occupied room ratio (0.92) occur on a weekend (Saturday morning), the highest number of occupied rooms (144) occurred overnight on Wednesday into Thursday morning, which resulted in the lowest parking demand per occupied room ratio (0.74) of all the survey days. As can be seen in Table 3, this weekday-to-weekend parking demand relationship is consistent with the results of the ITE studies. Mr. Evans JN:55- 00698.001 July 2.2U10 Page 5 The hotel manager reported that there were not any tour or charter buses that a7r ivedom Wednesday evening with Quests but there are F, number of other reasons as tovxhv0he park�ng demand during the Thursday morning survey was so �ow when compared with the number of occupied rooms: • Possible hi proportion of carpomNng hote(gUSStS ta'��dnC separate rooms (more common with business • Hi number of hotel guests gett�mg picked up by the hotel's normpftemtary shuttle at nearby Mo[}|m||on-PalonlarA/rporlthan on weekends. • Higher number of hotel guests checking out before 5:00 a.nn. than onweekends. It is reasonable to conclude that the parking demand tends to be lower du �e week since man, y of the hotel guests are business travelers who may carpool or take shuttles - from the airport instead of renting vehicles. The maj ufhote!gueetaonvxeekendoanebJuMo1S'vvhotvoicaik/mrhveutthe hotel in their own vehicles or in rented vehicles so that they can use the vehicle for sightseeing. Based on the results of the parking occupancy surveys and calcu�ated parking demand ratios, it should ba reasonable tnallow a parking natiuthmtks less than 1.2 parking spaces per noorm per the City of Oceanside Zoning Ordinance off-street p& requirements. The results of the parking occupancy surveys indicate that the parking eVppk/ at the Carlsbad Courtyard by Maniott is almost double the peak parking demand and substantially /eeo parking is needed to meet the actuai peak parking demand. |n support of the project's gooUtoincorponabaoanlonyLEEDaNnnnonts as possible vve are recommending that the project minimize the number of parking spaces provided so that the project is not overparked. ARhough the ratio of peak parking demand to total hotel rooms was found tobeonly 0.76 parking spaces per room in our survey, it is recommended that the more conservative rat of 0.92 parking spaces per gggqgjgd Mohel room found in the survey be used to determine the nninirnunn parking requirement at the proposed Court by K88nioK in Oceanside. Applying this noUn to the total number of rooms at the proposed hotel would resuit in a minimum parking space requirement of 129 parking spaces. The proposed hotel will provide a total of '136 parking spaces, which equates to a ratio of 0.97 parking spaces per room and seven more parking spaces than the recommended minimum requirement based on our survey. The suggested parking ratio (e also conservatively high, since no reduction has been applied due to the hotel's proximity to transit service facilities. Itieour professional opi UlatthaChxnf[cmaneiden*quhenlentforoneodditinna| parking space per 5O square-feet ofbanquet seating (or meeting/conference room) area is not applicable to this tvoa of hotel and vw]Wkj result in 8 si surplus of parking spaces for the proposed hotel. Conference odented hotels typically have over 10,000 square feet of meeting room floor area. The amount of meeting room floor space in the proposed hotel is merely provided as an onlgDitv and convenience to the hotel business guests and is not intended to serve outside conferences. Mr. Evans JN: 55-100693.001 July 12, 2010 Page 6 Furthermore, even at conference oriented hotels, the typica€ event attendees wcu>d be comprised of a mix of hotel guests and business professionals from outside the hotel who park at the hotel to attend the event and then leave. The additional one parking space per 50 square-feet of conference room area requirement is based on an assumption that ail of the hotel guests would rernain parked at the hotel during the hours of an event and that addition parking is needed to accommodate visitors when conferences or other special events are occurring. Based on past parking studies conducted by RBF Consulting at conference oriented hotels, the peak parking demand for conference events and hotel guests occurs in the late afternoon or early evening and this parking demand is approximately the same or less than the overnight hotel guest demand. This suggests that the number of non-hotel guest conference attendees is comparable to the number of hotel guests that are away from the hotel during the conference event. Many hotel guests are in 'transition (checking out or in) or are at destinations outside of the hotel while conferences are occurring. Study Recommendations The study recommendation is to apply a minimum parking ratio of parking spaces per room which equates to a minimum parking space requirement of 12QD parking spaces. If you have any questions pertaining to the analysis results surnmarized in this letter, please call me at (760) 603-6244, Sincerely, Robert Davis, PTP Senior Associate Transportation Services Attachment F Pacific Center East Specific Plan (Not Provided - Please See City of Tustin Web Site below) http:Hwww.tustinca.org/departments/"commdev/ html #planningZoning Attachment G Resolution No. 4195 RESOLUTION NO. 4195 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONCEPT PLAN 2012 -001, DESIGN REVIEW 2012 -001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012 -01 AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 196,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT (R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT) AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF EDINGER AVENUE AND NEWPORT AVENUE WITHIN THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN, INCLUDING: 1) A 149 -ROOM, FOUR -STORY RESIDENCE INN; 2) A 144 -ROOM, FOUR -STORY FAIRFIELD INN AND SUITES; 3) AN 8,885 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT; 4) A 7,295 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING; AND 5) AUTHORIZING A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND JOINT - USE PARKING FOR A COORDINATED AND INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT. 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 Concept Plan 2012 -001, Design Review 2012 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 was filed by R. D. Olson Development requesting to develop an approximately 196,000 square foot commercial mixed -use development including 1) a 149 -room, four story Residence Inn; 2) a 144 -room, four -story Fairfield Inn & Suites; 3) an 8,885 square foot restaurant; and, 4) a 7,295 square foot retail building and authorizing a Master Sign Program and Joint -Use Parking for coordinated and integrated site design consistent with Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) 2011 -01 and the Pacific Center East Specific Plan at Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map No. 2010 -127 and on a portion of property identified as the "Water Well Parcel and Easement Area. B. That the site is zoned as Planned Community Commercial (PC COM) and is within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (SP 11); and designated as Planned Community Commercial /Business (PCCB) by the Tustin General Plan. C. That Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 5.3 (Development Processing) requires the submission of a concept plan prior to or concurrent with the submission of a development project within Planning Area 5 for Planning Commission consideration. D. That Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 5.3 (Development Project Review), requires the submission of a Design Review application following Resolution No. 4195 CP 2012 -001, DR 2012 -001, CUP 2012 -01 Page 2 or concurrently with submittal of a concept plan for review by the Planning Commission. E. That Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 4.6.A.3 (Joint Use of Parking Areas) allows Planning Commission consideration of parking facilities proposed to be used jointly for uses with significantly different peak hours of operation; and Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 3.8 (Signage Plan) states that a master sign plan is required for all new developments, subject to Planning Commission design approval with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. F. That the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, Tustin City Code, and Ordinance No. 1415 authorizes the Tustin Planning Commission to consider and act on all of the proposed applications. G. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for Concept Plan 2012 -001, Design Review 2012 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 on April 10, 2012 before the Planning Commission. H. That the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and Tustin City Code. That Concept Plan 2012 -001 and Design Review 2012 -001 have been determined to satisfactorily comply with key Pacific Center East Specific Plan objectives, as identified in the April 10, 2012 staff report to the Planning Commission. J. That the Master Sign Program (Exhibit C) and Joint -Use Parking proposed as Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 satisfactorily comply with applicable review criteria required by the Tustin City Code, as identified in the April 10, 2012 staff report to the Planning Commission. K. That the Tustin City Council certified Final EIR (FEIR) 90 -1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan on December 17, 1990 and Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90 -1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan was adopted May 5, 2003. The FEIR is a Program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA. "). The FEIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit B). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment Resolution No. 4195 CP 2012-001, DR 2012-001, CUP 2012-01 Page 3 because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 11. The Planning Commission hereby approves Concept Plan 2012-001, Design Review 2012-001, and Conditional Use Permit 2012-01 authorizing the development of: 1) a 149-room, four-story Residence Inn; 2) a 144-room, four-story Fairfield Inn and Suites; 3) an 8,885 square foot restaurant; 4) a 7,295 square foot retail building; and 5) approval of CUP 2012-001 authorizing a Master Sign Program (Exhibit C) and Joint-Use Parking for a coordinated and integrated site design for the project, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 10 day of April, 2012. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN 1, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting on the 10 day of April, 2012. JEFF R. THOMPSON Chairperson hereby certify that I am the Planning California; that Resolution No. 4195 was of the Tustin Planning Commission, held ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 4195 CONCEPT PLAN 2012 -001, DESIGN REVIEW 2012 -001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012 -01 (R. D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL s .•:_ (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform to the submitted plans for the project date stamped April 10, 2012, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Community Development Director in accordance with this Exhibit. In addition, the proposal includes a mixed -use commercial development that will require tenant - initiated exterior design improvements and modifications. The Director may approve subsequent minor modifications to all plans during plan check as well as any subsequent tenant - generated design improvements and modifications if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code or other applicable regulations. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Concept Plan 2012 -001, Design Review 2012 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk- Recorder a revised, notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval' form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 1162(a). SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE /S (7) PC /CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW * ** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.7 The applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision - making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE RDA (1) 2.1 The proposed 12 -foot high wall is nearly double the maximum permitted wall height of 6 -foot, 8- inches pursuant to the Specific Plan. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall revise the sound wall height on the plans to either be consistent with the maximum permitted wall height per the Specific Plan or obtain approval of a Variance or Minor Adjustment from the Community Development Department for any wall higher than the permitted wall height demonstrating there are special circumstances applicable to the property and that approval of the Variance or Minor Adjustment would not constitute a grant of special privileges. (4) 2.2 Given the high visibility and proximity to the S.R. 55 Freeway, and that the above referenced wall will be completely exposed without any landscape screening (e.g. trees, vines on wall, etc.), the subject wall will be extremely susceptible to acts of graffiti. Therefore, the applicant shall demonstrate during the plan check process, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and Successor Agency, how the wall /landscaping are intentionally designed to mitigate acts of graffiti including treatments that will be an architectural enhancement to the feeling of a walled barrier (i.e., decorative pylons with stone facing, staggered setbacks, integration with landscaping). The property owner shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the City for removal of graffiti from the wall. (4) 2.3 The S.R. 55 Freeway portion of the development is the most visible aspect of the development site and of the overall Pacific Center East project as a whole. As proposed, the above referenced 12 -foot high by 810 -foot long wall would be constructed along the property line immediately adjacent to the S.R. 55 Freeway and on /off ramp. While landscaping is proposed along a small portion of the wall (California Gray Rush and Star Jasmine) consistent with the Tustin Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 3 Gateway Master Plan, it was never envisioned that such a 12 -foot high wall might be located immediately behind low groundcover and shrubs at this location. With the nearby freeway and on /off ramp nearly at the same grade as the south end of the project site, the large wall is highly exposed and should be designed to either complement the lower landscaping, or the Developer should consider installing higher landscape elements (i.e. trees and or climbing vines) to complement the wall (including enhancement of the wall design itself) and to enhance the overall project entry as it is already the Developer's responsibility to install and maintain landscaping within the public right -of -way per the DDA. (4) 2.4 The trash enclosure areas have been integrated closer to the buildings for practical purposes for the restaurant and retail buildings as previously requested; however, it is unclear the path of travel for the trash bins from the building to a place where the trash company will have adequate access to empty the bins. It appears that a loading area about the size of a parking space is located nearby with a wheel stop and full- height curb preventing the use of anything on wheels. The plan will need to be revised to clearly demonstrate the adequate path of travel. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall revise the plan to clearly demonstrate an adequate path of travel for the trash bins to be located within the service area for Parcel B restaurant and retail buildings to a locations that are accessible to the trash company, which will require the trash bins to be rolled out to the nearest driveway through an area unobstructed by parking spaces. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (6) 3.1 Prior to permit issuance, the proposed landscape plans shall be revised to ensure the installation of dense landscaping in front of all proposed retaining walls that are prominently visible from the public right -of -way for screening purposes. (1) 3.2 The applicant shall implement noise upgrades per the Tustin Noise Ordinance and submitted Noise Study (Attachment 1). (1) 3.3 Landscaping shall comply with the City's Water Efficiency standards. (1) 3.4 All utilities shall be located underground. (1) 3.5 The applicant shall obtain approval for a proposed Lot Line Adjustment in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the Tustin City Code, and the City of Tustin's Subdivision Manual. (1) 3.6 The parking lot landscaping screening shall comply with PCESP Section 4.8F. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 4 (1) 3.7 A reciprocal access agreement encompassing the entire site (for joint -use parking, site and building access, etc.) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. Upon approval of the Director, said agreement shall be recorded against the property. (1) 3.8 Proposed signs shall comply with visual clearance requirements. (4) 3.9 All building downspouts shall be located inside the building. (4) 3.10 Prior to issuance of building permits for all buildings, exterior color, design and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department to ensure consistency with submitted plans and quality assurance. (4) 3.11 Prior to issuance of a building permit for perimeter fences and /or walls, the specific design, placement, screening, height, and other design components of the proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. The fence and /or wall design proposed to occur along the perimeter of the property shall be compatible with the overall project design, as determined by the Director of Community Development. (4) 3.12 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the design, location, and placement of required screening for rooftop or ground -level equipment (e.g., parapets, fencing, panels, etc.) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. As directed, minor revisions to the parapet design or other building elevation design elements shall be made to ensure that all roof -top equipment is adequately screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. (4) 3.13 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development for approval the proposed construction phasing for the project to ensure that phasing is consistent with the assumptions used in the Joint -Use Parking Analysis, and to ensure that aesthetically appropriate phased development of the site is accomplished. Approval of the phasing plan may result in required revisions to the parking analysis or the installation of interim landscaping, circulation or other design solutions by the Director of Community Development. (4) 3.14 Review of the submitted plans appears to indicate that one of the two commercial buildings may be placed too close to a required street setback from Newport Avenue (35 feet required). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all structures shall be located to comply with Pacific Center East Specific Plan requirements. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 5 BUILDING DIVISION (1) 4.1 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the latest edition of the codes, City Ordinances, State, Federal laws, and regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City of Tustin. (1) 4.2 Prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit to testing the building for compliance with Tustin City Code Section 8950 et. al. (regarding 800 MHz radio frequency for police and emergency communications). PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GRADING AND DRAINAGE CONDITIONS (1) 5.1 This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State, and Regional Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations. (1) 5.2 Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all work related to this development shall be required. (1) 5.3 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a final grading plan, prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted and approved. The plan shall be consistent with the approved site plan and landscaping plans. (1) 5.4 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a grading bond (on a form acceptable to the City) will be required. The engineer's estimate, which covers the cost of all work shown on the grading plan, including grading, drainage, water, sewer and erosion control, shall be submitted to the City for approval. (1) 5.5 A complete hydrology study and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. (1) 5.6 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). If the WQMP has been determined to be a Priority WQMP, it shall identify Low Impact Development (LID) principles and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site to retain storm water and treat predictable pollutant run -off. The Priority WQMP shall identify: the implementation of BMPs, the assignment of long- term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessees, etc.), and reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 6 (1) 5.7 Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the applicant shall submit a deposit of $2,700.00 to the Public Works Department for the estimated cost of reviewing the WQMP. (1) 5.8 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall record a " Covenant and Agreement Regarding O & M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality BMPs, Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification ", with the County Clerk - Recorder. These documents shall bind current and future owner(s) of the property regarding implementation and maintenance of the structural and non - structural BMPs as specified in the approved WQMP. (1) 5.9 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Quality Control Board. (1) 5.10 The applicant shall be required to execute a drainage agreement with the City of Tustin, at no cost to the City, to accept drainage from City of Tustin's property within Santa Ana which will flow onto the private drives /parking areas and into the private storm drain system. This drainage agreement shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit. STREET IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (1) 5.11 Prior to any work in the public right -of -way, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. (1) 5.12 Prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department 24" x 36" reproducible street improvement plans, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, for approval. The plans shall clearly show existing and proposed surface and underground improvements, including construction and /or replacement of any missing or damaged public improvements adjacent to this development. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Curb and gutter h) Domestic water facilities b) Sidewalk, including curb ramps i) Reclaimed water facilities for the physically disabled j) Sanitary sewer facilities c) Drive aprons k) Landscape /irrigation d) Signing /striping 1) Dry utility lines e) Street paving m) Traffic signal f) Street lighting g) Catch basin /storm drain laterals/ connection to existing storm drain system Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 7 (1) 5.13 Prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit for construction within the public right -of -way, a 24" x 36" construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation, shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department for approval. (1) 5.14 Current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements shall be met at all driveways and sidewalks adjacent to the site. City of Tustin standards shall apply, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (1) 5.15 The applicant shall coordinate the relocation of an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) street light with SCE. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of the SCE street light. (1) 5.16 Any damage done to existing public street improvements and /or utilities shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development. (1) 5.17 As the development progresses in the Pacific Center East area, the property owners may feel that the installation of a traffic signal at the project entrance may increase accessibility and convenience for drivers patronizing the businesses in the area. At that time, and at the request and expense of the property owners, the City would investigate the traffic conditions and determine if a traffic signal would be warranted. If warranted and determined to be beneficial, the adjacent property owners would be responsible for the cost of design and construction of a traffic signal to serve their uses. (1) 5.18 The applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City of Tustin for maintenance of parkway improvements within public rights- of-way adjacent to the project along Newport Avenue and Edinger Avenue (along the project frontage and the City of Tustin's property within Santa Ana between the SR55- Freeway and the Tustin City boundary on Edinger Avenue). (1) 5.19 The applicant shall design and construct sidewalk, landscape and irrigation system improvements along the project frontage on Newport Avenue and behind the curb ramp at Newport Avenue /SR55- Freeway onramp. The applicant shall design and construct landscape and irrigation system improvements in the public right -of -way adjacent to the SR55- Freeway northbound onramp, and along the project frontage and the City of Tustin's property within Santa Ana between the SR55- Freeway and the Tustin City boundary on Edinger Avenue. The sidewalk and landscape improvements shall be consistent with the City's Gateway and Landscape design currently being prepared. The applicant shall coordinate the design, the construction and be responsible for all costs associated with the work adjacent to the City of Tustin's property within the City of Santa Ana. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 8 (1) 5.20 The applicant shall design and construct the onsite improvements within the City of Tustin's property in the City of Santa Ana, at no cost to the City of Tustin, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to: paving, concrete curb & gutter, trash enclosure, landscape & irrigation system, parking lot lighting, and signing & striping. COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND AGENCIES (1) 5.21 The applicant shall obtain permission from and coordinate with affected property owners, jurisdictions, and resources agencies for all public and private improvements, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Prior to any work in the public right -of -way, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. b. The applicant shall obtain written approval and /or permits from the applicable utility companies. c. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the City of Santa Ana for Edinger Avenue frontage parkway improvements within the City of Santa Ana. d. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permit(s) from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for work within Caltrans' property. The applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with Caltrans for maintenance of the landscape and irrigation improvements within the public right -of -way adjacent to the SR55- Freeway northbound onramp. WATER IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS (1) 5.22 Prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the applicant shall submit 24" x 36" reproducible water improvement plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The plans shall be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer and shall clearly show existing and proposed water improvements, as well as other topographic features and underground utilities. Plans must follow the latest City of Tustin Water Standards and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) guidelines. In case of a conflict, the City of Tustin Water Standards shall prevail. (1) 5.23 In accordance with the plans, a backflow prevention device may be required to protect the public water system from cross connections. A. If a double check detector assembly (DCDA) is required, an easement for public utility access purposes must be dedicated to the City of Tustin. The easement shall start from the public right -of -way up to the DCDA Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 9 with a minimum distance of five (5) feet all around the DCDA to allow for unobstructed access, inspection, testing, and maintenance. B. If a building sprinkler system is required by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), the applicant shall be required to provide a backflow prevention device at his or her expense to prevent cross contamination with the public water system. C. If the applicant proposes to use an irrigation system, then a separate water meter may be required. If this is the case, a reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA) shall be required to prevent cross- connection with the public water system. (1) 5.24 The applicant is responsible for all costs related to the installation, upgrade, alteration, relocation or abandonment of all existing City of Tustin public water facilities affected by the proposed project. (1) 5.25 A release /approval from the EOCWD shall be obtained prior to receiving water service from the City of Tustin. The applicant shall submit a water permit application to EOCWD, and is responsible for all application, connection and other EOCWD fees. (1) 5.26 The adequacy of a proposed water system plan for a proposed development project, including the number, size and distribution of fire hydrants, must be reviewed by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Plans meeting OCFA fire protection requirements must be stamped and approved by that agency. (1) 5.27 The proposed domestic water system plans must conform to all applicable regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department. (1) 5.28 In the event the construction of the City's water well project is delayed and to eliminate the impact to the newly constructed improvements on the applicant's property, the applicant may be required to construct the City designed water discharge pipeline, storm drain, and sewer lateral from the future City of Tustin water well to the existing improvements in Edinger Avenue through a reimbursement agreement with the City. GRANT IN FEE AND DEDICATIONS (1) 5.29 All legal descriptions and sketches of easement areas or dedications shall be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer or California Licensed Land Surveyor and submitted to the City of Tustin Public Works Department for review and approval. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 10 (1) 5.30 The main entry to the site shall to conform to City Standard Drawing 210 with the appropriate corner cutoffs, which will require dedication in fee title of additional right -of -way, at no cost to the City. (1) 5.31 Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide access and maintenance easements for the construction and maintenance of public utility facilities within the private property, at no cost to the City. The final location and width of easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. (1) 5.32 Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall offer for dedication to the City of Tustin, at no cost to the City, an easement for public utility purposes from the City's future well site to the public right -of -way. The final location and width of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. (1) 5.33 Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall dedicate full access and parking easements to the City of Tustin across all properties, at no cost to the City. (1) 5.34 Prior to issuance of any building permit, reciprocal ingress and egress, parking, and pedestrian access shall be provided across all parcels including the City of Tustin's property within Santa Ana. SOLID WASTE RECYCLING CONDITIONS (1) 5.35 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Reduction Plan (WRRP). A. The applicant /contractor is required to submit a WRRP to the Public Works Department. The WRRP must indicate how the applicant will comply with the City's requirement (City Code Section 4351, et al) to recycle at least 50% of the project waste material. B. The applicant will be required to submit a $50.00 application fee and a cash security deposit. Based on the review of the submitted Waste Management Plan, the cash security deposit will be determined by the Public Works Department in an amount not to exceed 5% of the project's valuation. C. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit the required security deposit in the form of cash, cashier's check, personal check, or money order made payable to the "City of Tustin ". OTHER CONDITIONS (1) 5.36 The applicant shall satisfy dedication and /or reservation requirements as applicable, including, but not limited to, dedication in Fee Title of all required Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 11 street rights -of -way; dedication of all required flood control right -of -way easements; and dedication of vehicular access rights, sewer easements, and water easements defined and approved as to specific locations by the City Engineer (at no cost to the City) and /or other agencies. (1) 5.37 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit(s), payment of the most current Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees (for the Foothill /Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA)) to the City of Tustin (through the Public Works Department) shall be required. Based upon the proposed non - residential project of 198,450 square feet (Marriott Residence Inn - 105,240 sf, restaurants- 8,900 sf & 3,100 sf, retail- 4,200 sf, and Fairfield Inn & Suites - 77,010 sf), at the current rate of $ 4.01 per square foot, the estimated TCA fee is $ 795,784.50. The fee rate schedule automatically increases on July 1 St of each year. (1) 5.38 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit(s), the applicant shall provide written approval of sanitary sewer service connections from the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). (1) 5.39 CADD Requirements - In addition to the normal full -size map and plan submittal, all final maps and plans including, but not limited to, tract maps, parcel maps, right -of -way maps, records of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The standard file format is AutoCAD Release 2007, or latest version, having the extension "DWG ". All layering and linotype conventions are AutoCAD -based (latest version available upon request from the Public Works Department). The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time plans are approved, and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. No project bonds will be released until acceptable "as built" CADD files have been submitted to the City. ENGINEERING DIVISION (1) 5.40 The "Public Circulation" easement proposed at the corner of Edinger Avenue /Newport Avenue is a part of the onsite landscape and sign area, not an easement. Please remove the "Public Circulation" easement submittal package. (1) 5.41 The Utility Access Easement, Water Well Utility Alignment Easement, and Reciprocal Parking & Access Easement need to be reviewed concurrently with the final layout and improvement plans during the final design. Please see attached redlined plats for comments and the Conditions of Approval for requirements. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 12 (1) 5.42 Preliminary Grading Plan (Third request) - Prior to approval of the grading plan, the applicant shall provide more detail for the retaining wall improvements and address the potential for cross flow through the wall from the adjacent Caltrans site. The runoff should not be directed to the wall unless provision is made for openings to allow pass through drainage. Typically, runoff should be directed away from walls, or to a dedicated drainage swale for conveyance. (1) 5.43 Preliminary Grading Plan (Third request) - Offsite watershed and topography is shown between the freeway and the site, but it does not effectively identify how the offsite drainage is conveyed away from the site. Although an assertion is made in the hydrology study and in the response letter that no storm water enters the site from the freeway area, the existing topography and drainage elements still do not adequately show how the adjacent property addresses its drainage, and how the proposed site improvements match up. (1) 5.44 Preliminary Grading Plan (Third request) Prior to approval of the grading plan, an escape route, or additional storage area, needs to be provided for flow that will exceed the 25 year capacity of the detention basin so that the freeway access ramp is not flooded in a major storm event. The escape route or additional storage area needs to be delineated with a horizontal layout and elevation for comparison. (1) 5.45 WQMP /Hydrology - The hydrology study analyzes the runoff for the individual areas of the project, but will need to be revised per comments provided above and below to properly incorporate into the analysis and the calculations deficiencies and controls from downstream systems. It still appears that much is left to assumption at this point, and much of the analysis is being deferred to the final design. The report states that some information was not available at the time this version of the study was prepared, and certain assumptions are made related to combined runoff and the capacity of downstream controls. Also, no provisions are made to describe anticipated sizes for piping, especially in relation to conditions where pipelines are used for storage. Given that there is potential for flooding of the freeway access lanes south of the project, and also given that the WQMP still does not completely follow the procedural analysis for implementation and mitigation through the BMP hierarchy (such as in the northeast corner of the site), it is suggested that the drainage routing, storage and downstream controls be reconsidered in relation with the available studies and per the current requirements of the storm water program. (1) 5.46 WQMP /Hydrology - Redlined comments in the WQMP and the hydrology study for concerns and corrections must be addressed and resubmitted for review and approval (available at CDD). Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 13 (1) 5.47 WQMP /Hydrology - (Third request) An overflow route and limit for storm water from the basin shall be defined to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If additional storage is necessary around the site to minimize back up of the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) in the pipe system, it should be implemented and analyzed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (OCFA) (5) 6.1 The applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Chief for all fire protection access roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the structure. The applicant may contact the OCFA at (714) 573 -6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access." (5) 6.2 The applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The "Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection" form shall be signed by the applicable water district and submitted to the Fire Chief for approval. (5) 6.3 The applicant shall submit plans for the required automatic fire sprinkler system in all proposed structures to the Fire Chief for review and approval. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573 -6100 to request a copy of the "Orange County Fire Authority Notes for New NFPA 13 Commercial Sprinkler Systems." (5) 6.4 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, this system shall be operational in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. FEES (1) 7.1 Prior to issuance of any permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following: • Building Plan Check and Permit Fees • Grading Plan Check and Permit Fees • New Development Fees • School Fees • Orange County Fire Authority Fees • Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees (2) 7.2 Within forty -eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty -eight (48) hour period the applicant has not Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 14 delivered to the Community Development Department the above -noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573 -3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified /Approved Environmental Documents: Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90 -1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Project Title(s): Commercial Mixed Use Development (Hotel and Retail), CP 2012 -001, CUP 2012 -00 and DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) totaling approximately 196,000 square feet. A separate Lot Line Adjustment application (exempt under CEQA) has been submitted to the Public Works Department. Lead Agency: City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Dana L. Ogdon, AICP Phone: (714) 573 -3109 300 Centennial Way Project Location: Portion of Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map No. 2010 -127 within the City of Tustin and on a portion of property located immediately adjacent to a Cal Trans Remnant parcel identified as the "Water Well and Easement Area" within the City of Santa Ana. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Anthony Wrzosek, Vice President, R.D. Olson Development. 2955 Main Street, Third Floor, Irvine, California 92614 General Plan Designation: PC Commercial /Business Zoning Designation: SP 11 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -01 Planning Area 5 (Regional Center) Project Description: The proposal involves: 1) a 149 -room, four story Residence Inn; 2) a 144 -room, four story Fairfield Inn & Suites; 3) an 8,885 sq. ft. restaurant; and, 4) one 7,295 square foot retail building. The project will implement the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Surrounding Uses: • Northerly along Edinger Avenue - Vacant and industrial uses zoned Planned Development (PC) within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and further north residential uses. • Easterly - Vacant, industrial and office uses zoned Planned Development (PC) uses within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and further east of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan industrial, offices and public and quasi - public uses zoned Industrial (M) and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. • Southerly - Industrial and office uses zoned Industrial (M), Planned Community (PC) Industrial, and SP3 - International Rectifier Specific Plan uses. • Westerly - Costa Mesa 55 Freeway and further west of the Freeway industrial and commercial uses within the City of Santa Ana. Previous Environmental Documentation: Final FIR 90 -1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan adopted December 17, 1990. Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90 -1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan adopted May 5, 2003. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources [ and Hazardous Materials ONoise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics [ Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at 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 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: -°-. Date:- S -! Dan don don, AICP Ass Director Date ` Elizabeth A. Binsack, Assistant City Manager D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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? ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? f) 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: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis 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 (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VILHAZARDS 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 fist 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? fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a 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 QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in 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? I) 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? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? 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? XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis 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? 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? 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? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (HOTEL AND RETAIL), CUP 2012-01, CP 2012-001 AND DR 2012-001 (R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT) BACKGROUND On February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council adopted the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and on April 19, 2011 adopted Specific Plan Amendment 11-001. Pacific Center East is comprised of approximately 126 acres and is bounded on the west by the State Route 55 Freeway, on the north by the Santa Ana-Santa Fe Channel, on the east by Red Hill Avenue and on the south by Valencia Avenue. The Tustin City Council certified Final EIR (FEIR) 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan on December 17, 1990 and Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan was adopted May 5, 2003. The FEIR is a Program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA."). The FEIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed "Project" is for Commercial Mixed Use Development (Hotel and Retail), requiring City approval of Concept Plan (CP) 2012-001, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2012-01 for shared parking and a Master Sign Program; and Design Review (DR) 2012- 001 for design review of the approximately 196,000 square foot complex. A separate Lot Line Adjustment application (exempt under CEQA) has been submitted to the Public Works Department. The project developer and applicant is R.D. Olson Development. The Project involves: 1) a 149-room, four story Residence Inn; 2) a 144-room, four story Fairfield Inn & Suites; 3) an 8,885 sq. ft. restaurant; and, 4) one 7,295 square foot retail building that implements the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Improvements will include, but not be limited to buildings, architectural amenities, parking, security lighting, pedestrian amenities, and trash enclosures. Design of all improvements within the City of Tustin on Parcels 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map 2010-127 will be consistent with requirements of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, development standards contained in Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) 2011 -01 between the City of Tustin and Olson Real Estate Group, Inc., and additional requirements contained in any conditions of approval required for the entitlements for the Project. Any improvements to the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area will be consistent with requirements to support the site's use as a public utility as approved by the City Water Department. The Project is located on properties legally described as Parcels 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map 2010-127 ("Development Parcels") and an excess Cal Trans Property ("Water Well Parcel and Easement Area") adjacent to the SR-55 (Costa Mesa) Freeway. The Project was previously envisioned per the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 2 An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that this Project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, the development associated with the Project is not located on a scenic highway, nor will the Project affect a scenic vista. Development of the site was considered within the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site or its surroundings when mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Development of the Project requires Design Review approval; however, as required per the DDA, the Project will have a consistent architecture style evident in all elements of design, from all elevations of the structures and treatment of roofs and parapets, down to smaller elements such as street furniture and trash enclosures. Particular attention is expected to be paid to massing, scale, color, and expression of such quality for the Project to be true to the distinctive and unique elements of Tustin, the Tustin Gateway area and the Pacific Center East Pacific Plan, and that will be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. Provisions of the Specific Plan ensure that all exterior lighting will be required to be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties. The Water Department will review all improvements to the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area for compliance with utility related standards. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 3 Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be included, when specifically applicable, as conditions of the requested entitlement approvals or by the Water Department for development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -001 Tustin General Plan DDA 2011 -01 Submitted Project Plans 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? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, the Project would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non - agricultural use. Also, the property is not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the allowed use involve other changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 4 possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -001 Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Submitted Project Plans 111. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, Final EIR 90- 1 determined that regional ambient air quality conditions, combined with regional cumulative traffic, contribute to the exceedance of daily State and Federal standards for several air pollutants. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90 -1 to minimize these impacts. However, in approving the Specific Plan, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the Tustin City Council on December 17, 1990 for cumulative air quality impacts that could not be mitigated. Since the proposed Project would implement development consistent with the Specific Plan, all environmental impacts related to the project and the development of the site were considered in the adopted FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 5 Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Any applicable mitigation measures will be included in the recommended entitlement approvals for the Project or activities within the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area. However, the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -001 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 6 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, found that implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -001 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, it is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities associated with development of the site. With the inclusion of mitigation measures that require future construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. The proposed Project will Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 7 result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable measures will be included as recommended conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -001 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012-001 AND DR 2012-001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 8 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, Final EIR 90- 1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to the necessary grading activity that would occur to accommodate the various types of development and the resultant change to existing landform and topography. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable mitigation measures will be included as recommended conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans 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 reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 9 result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a 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? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, found that implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -001 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 10 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Q Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 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? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012-001 AND DR 2012-001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 11 potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Development of the Project will include project design and construction of facilities to fully contain drainage of the site that will be required as conditions of approval for the development project. Development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area supports a public purpose that will also be reviewed by the Water Department to ensure that all drainage is contained on the site as a condition of any development on this parcel. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the development of the Project site. At this time, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project will impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed Project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The Project site is not located within a 100 - year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the project site susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Any future drilling of a water well on the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area will be subject to separate environmental review as it relates to any future extractions activities by the Water Department. Construction operations associated with development of the site would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDQ for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with State, City and Water Department regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to water and drainage. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1 that would reduce the potential impacts of the Project to a level of insignificance. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable mitigation measures will be included as conditions for recommended future entitlement approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area . Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012-001 AND DR 2012-001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 12 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -001 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans IX LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land agency with jurisdiction over the the general plan, specific plan use plan, policy, or regulation of an project (including, but not limited, to 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? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. On February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council approved the Pacific Center East Specific Plan which established land use and development standards for development of the Development Parcels and site, and on April 19, 2011 adopted Specific Plan Amendment 11 -001 implementing minor text amendments. The Project will meet the requirements of the Specific Plan. Compliance with state, City (including the Specific Plan) and Water Department requirements would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to land use. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable mitigation measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area . Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001 Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 13 DDA 2011 -01 Submitted Project Plans X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, the proposed Project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Final EIR 90 -1 did not identify any potential impacts related to natural resources. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 14 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, the full build - out of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan would result in short-term roadway and freeway ramp construction noise impacts, and a less than significant permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in and around the project site due to vehicular traffic. Mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90 -1 to minimize the short term noise impacts. The proposed Project could result in implementation activities that generate noise; however, it will not result in substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Any future drilling of a water well on the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area will be subject to separate environmental review as it relates to any future extractions activities by the Water Department. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area . Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -01 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 15 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? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Therefore, there is no direct increase to the City's population resulting from the project. The Pacific Center East Specific Plan has previously been determined to be consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -01 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Final EIR 90 -1 identified impacts to the area including the Specific Plan area related to public services, including Fire and Police protection, schools and public facilities. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90 -1. Final EIR 90 -1 did not identify any potential impacts related to general public services or other governmental services. Any future drilling of a water well on the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area will be subject to separate environmental review as it relates to any future extraction activities by the Water Department. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012-001 AND DR 2012-001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 16 The Project will require Tustin public services such as fire and police protection services, and recreation facilities. Police protection services and recreation facilities for the site would be provided by the City of Tustin rather than the City of Santa Ana. All of the other services listed below would be provided by the same agencies. Fire Protection. The development of the site allowed by the proposed Project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding demolition, construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations in the area surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed Project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services was assessed by the FEIR on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non- residential uses, etc. The Project would increase the need for police protection services. Entitlement conditions of approval for the Project, will require the developer to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access, and address signage are implemented in the project at plan check. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. MitigationlMonitorinq Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable measures will be included as conditions of the entitlement approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-01 Tustin General Plan DDA 2011 -01 Submitted Project Plans Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 17 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, Final EIR 90- 1 did identify potential impacts related to the quality of recreation resulting from development of the Specific Plan area. Proposed development of the site would not generate a significant increase in the use of existing parks. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area . Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -01 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 18 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)? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, Final EIR 90- 1 determined that the ultimate development of the entire Specific Plan area would generate increased traffic in the vicinity. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90 -1 to minimize these impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted to address impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. One mitigation measure required changes in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. A General Plan Amendment re- designating the classification of portions of Newport Avenue and Del Amo Avenue was approved in 1991. Traffic conditions in the Specific Plan area were studied extensively during the preparation of EIR 90 -1. However, due to the age of the traffic study a new study was commissioned in 2000 in conjunction with Supplement #1 to ensure that the traffic analysis and findings were based on the most current data available and consider the refinement of the roadway improvements from those described in Final EIR 90 -1. Traffic conditions and mitigation measures originally in Final EIR 90 -1 were reevaluated in Supplement #1. As part of a recent review of the Project, current land uses were reviewed by the City's Transportation and Development Services Manager to determine the status of development by Pacific Center East phase and by generated traffic volumes. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 19 Based on this review, it was apparent that the proposed land development is within the parameters of authorized Phase I land uses and acceptable Average Daily Trip (ADT) levels of Phase I of the Pacific Center East phasing plan. Further, all of the infrastructure improvements have been completed to facilitate the Pacific Center East Phase I development. Transportation improvements for the 1990 Pacific Center East EIR 90 -1 were modified in Supplement #1 to EIR 90 -1. Some of the improvements were deleted and one new one was added with the revised traffic analysis. Some of the improvements on the list have been completed with other projects, modified through Settlement Agreements with adjacent jurisdictions, or relieved through other environmental documents. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. However, the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. However a review by the City's Traffic and Development Manager have indicated that based on a review of transportation /circulation roadway improvements, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Project without the implementation of additional mitigation measures required in future Pacific Center East Specific Plan phases. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -01 Tustin General Plan DDA 2011 -01 Submitted Project Plans 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 20 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Q 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? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, Final EIR 90- 1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to utilities. Consequently, mitigation measures identified in Final EIR 90 -1 were recommended for implementation that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Any future drilling of a water well on the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area will be subject to separate environmental review as it relates to any future extractions activities by the Water Department. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation /Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area . Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 21 Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -01 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans 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? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease, threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed Project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed Project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -01. The FEIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The Project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: The FEIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. Mitigation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts CUP 2012-001 AND DR 2012-001 (R.D. Olson Development) Page 22 measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR and any specifically applicable mitigation measures, where applicable, would be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-01 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed Project's effects were previously examined in the FEIR, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIR on May 5, 2003, and shall apply, as specifically applicable, to the proposed Project, as applicable. Attachment 1 Noise Analysis for the Marriott Residence Inn City of Tustin, California Report #528801MRIvOl January 11, 2012 C E INVE D COMM UM f Y DEVELOPMENT BY: — Prepared For: R.D. Olson Development 2955 Main Street, Third Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P. E. Matthew B. Jones, P.E. Mike Holfitz, INCE Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 949-349-0671 ■ Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Marriott Residence Inn Paae i Summary of Noise Mitigation Requirements Exterior Noise Mitigation The pool area and sport court area are considered outdoor recreational areas subject to the City of Tustin's 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard. Noise levels are projected to exceed the standard. A 6 foot tall noise barrier along the edge of the pool and fire pit areas located as shown in Figure 5 will be required and will reduce noise levels in these areas to below the 65 CNEL standard. Interior Noise Mitigation Guestrooms are subject to the City of Tustin's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. The analysis shows that all guestrooms on the south side of the building and on the first floor of the north and west sides of the building will meet the City's standard with no mitigation required. The guestrooms indicated in Figures 9 10 and 11 will require one of four levels of window upgrades shown in the figure and described below to meet the interior noise standard. With these upgrades the noise levels in the rooms will not exceed the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. The following describe the window upgrade levels: Upgrade 3: Minimum Window EWNR of 28 (STC =31) Typically 1/2" Single Glazed. Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All Studio rooms on the 2 "d and 3` floors on the north side of the building and all Studio Double Queen rooms on the 2 "d - 4` floors on the west side of the building. Upgrade 4: Minimum Window EWNR of 30 (STC =33) Typically 1/4" Single Glazed. Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All Studio Rooms on the 4` floor on the north side of the building, all Bedrooms of I- Bedroom rooms and Large and Small Bedrooms of 2- Bedroom rooms on the 2 n -4` floors on the north side of the building. Upgrade 5: Minimum Window EWNR of 32 (STC =35) Typically 1/2" Laminated. Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All King Bedrooms of 2- Bedroom Double rooms on the 2 "d and 3r floors on the north side of the building. Upgrade 6: Minimum Window EWNR of 34 (STC =38) Typically 3/8" laminated. Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All King Bedrooms of 2- Bedroom Double rooms on the 4` floor on the north side of the building. These represent window configurations that can typically meet the specified EWNR/STC ratings, and are given for informational purposes only. Glass thickness and airspace configuration are only a part of the overall noise reduction characteristics of a window. Other factors can include the frame construction and seal type. Therefore, noise reduction ratings for windows of a given configuration can vary from one manufacturer to another. Various window configurations may be available that meet the required noise reduction ratings. The EWNR and STC ratings specified above are the critical parameters, and should be used as the basis for selecting the windows for the project. Consult with the manufacturer to ensure compliance of the planned windows with the noise reduction rating requirements. To comply with the Marriott standards for meeting rooms the windows on the north elevation of the meeting room on the first floor will need to achieve a minimum EWNR of 36 (STC of 35). Meatre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division mf Landrum &Brown Page i Table of Contents Summary of Noise Mitigation Re*nu^rements..................~.~...~....~.......~.-..~ ^ ExteriorNoise Mitigation ............................................................................................ i InteriorNoise Mitigation ............................................................................................. i ` List of Tables `' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,~,~~,~,,,,,,,,~,,~,,,~~,,,,,,,,~,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,.~~, Listof FigKUres.~..~....~.~~.~....~~........~^^^^~~^^^~^~^~~~^^^^^^^^~~~~^^^^^~^~~^^^^~^~~^~^`^~~^^^^^^^^~~ '^ 1,0 Introduction ....~~..~.....~........^.^^~^~^^~^^^^^~~~^^^^^^^^~~~~~^^^^^~~^^^^^^~^^^^^^^~^~~^^^^~~~~~~ 1 2,0 City of Tustin Noise Standards,,,,,~,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,~,,,,,,,,~~,.,,,,~,,,,,~,,, 1 3,0 Methodo 1 4.0 Noise Exposure .........................,,~~,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,~,~~,,,,, JK 4.1 Traffic Noise ....................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Railroad Noise Exposure ...................... ............................................................ 5 4.3 Aircraft Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 6 4.4 Total Noise Exposure ......................................................................................... 8 5,0 Exterior Noise M 10 6,0 Interior Noise Mitigation ................................................................... 10 7,0 Marriott Noise Standards ,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,~,,,,,,,~,,,,~~~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,~,~~,,,~,,~,~ 22 7.1 Outdoor Noise Sources .................................................................................... 22 71] Guootroomo ....................................................................... ........... .................................. 22 712 Meeting Space ............................. ................................................................................... 23 7.2 Partition Sound TraOSD1ks8iOD------------------------.. 24 , 7.3 Mechanical System (H\/AC) Noise .................................................................. 24 Appendix ...~................ ,, ~~ ,,,,,,,,,, ~ ,,,,,,, ,,~~~,~,,,,,,~,,~,,,,,,,~~~,,,,~~,,,,,,~~,,,,,~~~,~,,, 25 ~ Traffic Noise Calculations ....................................................................................... 25 Railroad Noise Calculations ................................................................................... 2G ■ Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown List of Tables 0 Marriott Residence Inn Paqe !I Table 1 Traffic Data Used to Calculate Noise Levels .................................................... 4 Table 2 Traffic Distribution by Time of Day ................................................................... 4 Table 3 Distance to Noise Contours for Future Traffic Conditions ................................ 5 Table 4 Railroad Operations Used To Calculate Noise Levels ..................................... 6 Table5 Railroad Noise Levels ...................................................................................... 6 Table 6 Total Traffic & Rail Noise Levels ...................................................................... 8 Table 7 Required Noise Reduction .............................................................................. 12 Table 8 Unmitigated Outdoor-to-Indoor Noise Reduction ........................................... 16 Table 9 Mitigated Outdoor -to- Indoor Noise Reduction ................................................ 18 Table 10 Partition STC Requirements ......................................................................... 24 List of Figures Figure Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure Proposed Site Plan .......................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 John Wayne Airport-Aircraft Noise Contours .................................................. 7 Figure 4 Noise Analysis Receptor Locations ................................................................. 9 Figure 5 Exterior Noise Mitigation ............................................................................... 11 Figure 6 Acoustically Equivalent Rooms —1S Floor .................................................... 13 Figure 7 Acoustically Equivalent Rooms — 2 nd Floor ................................................... 14 Figure 8 Acoustically Equivalent Rooms — 3 `d & 4 t" Floors .......................................... 15 Figure 9 Interior Noise Mitigation —1 Floor ............................................................... 19 Figure 10 Interior Noise Mitigation — 2 nd Floor ............................................................. 20 Figure 11 Interior Noise Mitigation — 3` Floor ............................................................. 21 Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Pacie 1 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of the Marriott Residence Inn project with the City of Tustin noise standards applicable to the project. In addition, compliance with the Marriott design standards for the project are addressed in Section 7.0. The project proposes the development of four -story 142 room hotel on the southwest side of Edinger Avenue between Newport Avenue and the Costa Mesa (SR -55) Freeway. Figure 1 presents a vicinity map showing the location of the project. Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan. The project site is impacted by traffic noise from SR -55, Edinger Avenue, and Newport Avenue. In addition the project is approximately three miles north of John Wayne Airport and nearly directly under the flight path. Further, there is an AT &SF rail line located northeast of Edinger Avenue that will generate noise experienced at the site. 2.0 City of Tustin Noise Standards The City of Tustin specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits applicable to hotel uses. The standards applicable to the guestrooms living areas 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 d13. 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 for observers at exterior common recreation areas. For this project, we are applying exterior the standard to the outdoor pool area. In addition, the City has adopted an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL for hotel guestrooms. 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 1978). 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 barrier interrupts the "line of sight" between the noise source and the observer. As the distance that the noise must travel around the noise barrier increases, the amount of noise reduction increases. The FHWA model was also used here in computerized format to determine the required barrier heights. sn N o c m c n3 1 6, a M. �, .� `4a=.-" '.:° North f?tSEr°f t `tom et?f z Irvine Blvd TUstin Santa Ana E tst & E 1st St 1s St E 1st St a ®' s.# St 1st.5 t w K u , 4 0r Pro Si te' �, s N Edin er Ave E Edin er Av +� B_ - Ed l 9 e v R2 - ag a ij i (Al f Warne Av e E Warner Ave 5 µ t �O `! F Dyer Rd E Direr R d E D1rer" W 4r 1 'a & l IX two Sunflower Ave 1 Bind 5s eQ't arneAve R , ' O w ' ,�i£' Al #Ort Plo p„ J S i 4 -- 8 3 t S'O a John Wayne. it Airport- Otat7ge County, r Ate tO a 4 ® r a jSO N �- Figure 1 Mestr Greve Associates VIctn11y M ap Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 4 4.0 Noise Exposure 4.1 Traffic Noise Buildout traffic volumes for SR -55, Edinger Avenue, and Newport Avenue were obtained from Mr. Dana Kasdan of the City of Tustin Public Works department in January 2012. These traffic volumes are from the Orange County Transportation Authority's OCTAM 3.4 model using adopted 2010 projections and represent traffic volumes anticipated in 2035. The traffic volumes and speeds used to calculate CNEL levels are presented in Table 1. There are no considerable grades on any of the roads that would affect noise levels. Table 1 Traffic Data Used to Calculate Noise Levels Traffic Road Volume Speed SR - 300, 000 65 Edin ger Ave. 43,000 50 Newport Ave. 30,000 45 The traffic distributions that were used in the CNEL calculations are presented in Table 2. The arterial traffic distribution estimate used for Edinger Avenue and Newport Avenue 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. The traffic distribution estimate for SR- 55 was derived from Caltrans data. The vehicle type split was obtained from truck traffic data published by Caltrans Traffic Data Branch (http: / /www. dot. ca. gov /hq /traffops /saferesr /trafdata/) and the time distribution was derived from hourly traffic counts on SR -55 published on Caltrans' Performance Measurement System (PeMS) website (http: / /pems.dot.ca.gov). Table 2 Traffic Distribution by Time of Da Vehicle Type Day Percent of ADT Evening Night SR -55 Automobile 73.6 9.74% 10.05 Medium Truck 3. 07% 0. 41% 0 Heavy Truck -- — -- 2.13% _ 0.28% _ 0.29% _ Edinger Ave_. and Newport Ave. - - — - obile Automobile 7 5.51 % 12.57% 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56% 0.09% 0.1 9% Heavy Truck 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 5 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, 70, and 75 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 * Feet from Centerline of Roadway RW-Contour does not extend beyond roadway right -of -way The results presented in Table 3 indicate that the project will be exposed to a traffic noise levels up to 78 CNEL along SR -55, 55 CNEL along Edinger Avenue, and 67 CNEL along Newport Avenue. 4.2 Railroad Noise Exposure The AT &SF railroad line passes near the western boundary of the site. Freight trains as well as Amtrak and Metrolink passenger trains utilize this rail line. To determine train noise levels, the Wyle Train Model was used ( "Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations ", Wyle Laboratories Report WCR -73 -5, July, 1973). The noise generated by train operations can be divided into two components; noise generated by the engine or locomotive, and noise generated the railroad cars. The characteristic frequency of the engine is different than the characteristic frequency of the cars. The noise generated by the engine is the result of the mechanical movements of the engine parts, and to a lesser extent, the exhaust system. The noise generated by the cars is a result of the interaction between the wheels and the railroad track. A zero source height is used for the car noise, and a source height of 10 feet is utilized for the locomotive. Projected future railroad freight operations were obtained from information provided on the ONTRAC (Orange North- American Trade Rail Access Corridor Authority) website. Projected passenger train operations were obtained from train schedules on the Amtrak and Metrolink web sites. It should be noted that railroads are free to change operations at their discretion. The total number of operations and the times at which they occur are therefore subject to change. The projected future operational data presented in Table 4 was utilized in conjunction with the Wyle Model to project train noise levels on the project site. The results of the train noise projections are displayed in Table 5 terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the railroad line to the contour value shown. These projections do not include topography or barriers that may reduce the noise levels. Distance to Contour* Roadway 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL SR -55 284' 613' 1,320' 2,843' Eding Avenue RW 109' 23 5' 506' Newport Avenue RW �— ---- 9' � 150' 322' -- * Feet from Centerline of Roadway RW-Contour does not extend beyond roadway right -of -way The results presented in Table 3 indicate that the project will be exposed to a traffic noise levels up to 78 CNEL along SR -55, 55 CNEL along Edinger Avenue, and 67 CNEL along Newport Avenue. 4.2 Railroad Noise Exposure The AT &SF railroad line passes near the western boundary of the site. Freight trains as well as Amtrak and Metrolink passenger trains utilize this rail line. To determine train noise levels, the Wyle Train Model was used ( "Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations ", Wyle Laboratories Report WCR -73 -5, July, 1973). The noise generated by train operations can be divided into two components; noise generated by the engine or locomotive, and noise generated the railroad cars. The characteristic frequency of the engine is different than the characteristic frequency of the cars. The noise generated by the engine is the result of the mechanical movements of the engine parts, and to a lesser extent, the exhaust system. The noise generated by the cars is a result of the interaction between the wheels and the railroad track. A zero source height is used for the car noise, and a source height of 10 feet is utilized for the locomotive. Projected future railroad freight operations were obtained from information provided on the ONTRAC (Orange North- American Trade Rail Access Corridor Authority) website. Projected passenger train operations were obtained from train schedules on the Amtrak and Metrolink web sites. It should be noted that railroads are free to change operations at their discretion. The total number of operations and the times at which they occur are therefore subject to change. The projected future operational data presented in Table 4 was utilized in conjunction with the Wyle Model to project train noise levels on the project site. The results of the train noise projections are displayed in Table 5 terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the railroad line to the contour value shown. These projections do not include topography or barriers that may reduce the noise levels. Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Table 4 Railroad Operations Used To Calculate Noise Levels * Feet from Centerline of Tracks Marriott Residence Inn Paae 6 The project site is located approximately 1,200 feet from the project site. Railroad noise levels within the project site will be less than 58 CNEL. 4.3 Aircraft Noise Levels The project site is located approximately three miles northeast of John Wayne Airport and is located approximately 500 feet off the extended runway centerline and flight path. Figure 3 presents the aircraft noise levels, in the CNEL metric, published by the County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission. Note that the project site is located just outside the map area to the north. The Figure shows that 60 CNEL contour does not extend into the City of Tustin, let alone to the project site. Therefore, aircraft noise levels will be considerably less than 60 CNEL on the project site. Typical flight patterns result in arriving aircraft flying nearly overhead of the project site approximately 500 feet to the northwest along the extended runway centerline. Under typical conditions, aircraft depart the airport in the direction away from the project site. During Santa Ana wind conditions the flow of aircraft is reversed, and departing aircraft will fly nearly overhead of the project approximately 500 feet to the northwest along the extended runway centerline. Single even noise contours generated by the FAA's Integrated Noise Model were reviewed to estimate maximum aircraft noise levels within the project. The loudest commercial aircraft flying at John Wayne Airport are Boeing 737- 800's. Based on this information the loudest aircraft would be expected to generate a maximum noise level of 76 to 78 dBA as they pass closest to the project. The same maximum noise levels are experienced for both arriving and departing aircraft. Amtrak Freight Me tro Link Number of T rains Day 20 5 10 Evening 4 1 2 Night 5 3 4 Number of En gines 1 2 1 Number of Cars 5 Ito 4 Speed 50 50 50 Table 5 Railroad Noise Levels Distance to Contour* 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 C NEL AT &SF Rail Line 230' 430' 800' * Feet from Centerline of Tracks Marriott Residence Inn Paae 6 The project site is located approximately 1,200 feet from the project site. Railroad noise levels within the project site will be less than 58 CNEL. 4.3 Aircraft Noise Levels The project site is located approximately three miles northeast of John Wayne Airport and is located approximately 500 feet off the extended runway centerline and flight path. Figure 3 presents the aircraft noise levels, in the CNEL metric, published by the County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission. Note that the project site is located just outside the map area to the north. The Figure shows that 60 CNEL contour does not extend into the City of Tustin, let alone to the project site. Therefore, aircraft noise levels will be considerably less than 60 CNEL on the project site. Typical flight patterns result in arriving aircraft flying nearly overhead of the project site approximately 500 feet to the northwest along the extended runway centerline. Under typical conditions, aircraft depart the airport in the direction away from the project site. During Santa Ana wind conditions the flow of aircraft is reversed, and departing aircraft will fly nearly overhead of the project approximately 500 feet to the northwest along the extended runway centerline. Single even noise contours generated by the FAA's Integrated Noise Model were reviewed to estimate maximum aircraft noise levels within the project. The loudest commercial aircraft flying at John Wayne Airport are Boeing 737- 800's. Based on this information the loudest aircraft would be expected to generate a maximum noise level of 76 to 78 dBA as they pass closest to the project. The same maximum noise levels are experienced for both arriving and departing aircraft. John Wayne Airport Impact Zones LEGEND —60. CNEL CONTOUR RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE CITY BOUNDARIES AIRPORT BOUNDARIES Composite contour from John We" Airport Project Case-1990 and 2005 (see section 2.2,1) CERTIFICATION Adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission for orange County Karl �AFbgoni, �Eutive Officer Date Mostre Grove Associates Figure 3 - John Wayne Airport Aircraft Noise Contours] Note: County Unincorporated areas are shown in white, Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 8 4.4 Total Noise Exposure Using the data presented above, total traffic and rail noise levels were calculated for fifteen building face receptors and four first floor outdoor receptors shown in Figure 4. These calculations account for the distance of each receptor from the roadway and railway centerlines as well as shielding provided by the building structures that will reduce noise levels for observers where the building blocks the line of sight from the observer to the noise source. In addition, the project plans include a 12' high wall along the northern property line between the project and the SR -55 Freeway. The noise reducing effects of this wall is included in the calculation as well. The details of these calculations are presented in the appendix. Table 6 presents the results of the calculations. Table 6 Total Traffic & Rail Noise Levels Receptor Noise Level (CNEL) at Receptor 1st Fir. 2nd Fir. 3rd Fir. 4th Fir. SE 6 6.9 68.3 72. 72.2 N 68.4 76 .1 76. 76.1 N -1 67.9 75.9 75 7 N -2 67.7 75 75 .7 75.7 � N -3 6 7.6 75. 75. 75.6_ � N - �67 75.6 � 75.6 - 75.6 W -1 64.7 66.5 71.0 71.0 SW 66. 67 70 .6 70 S -1 64.5 6 4.6 64.6 64.9 S -2 63.9 64.0 64.0 64 .4 S -3 64.4 64.5 64. 64.9 S -4 63.6 � 63.6 63. 64.3 � S 64.1 64.2 64.6 - - - -P -1 65.0 P -2 � 65 -- -- -- SC -1 -6 4.9 �__- -- SC-2 65.3 65.3 -- -- -- Table 6 shows that along the north side of the building, facing the SR -55 Freeway, noise levels at the face of the building will be as high as 76.1 CNEL at the upper floors, and 68.4 CNEL at the first floor. Noise levels on the south side of the building, facing Newport Avenue are not projected to exceed 66.9 CNEL except at the southeast corner of the building. Along the west side of the building, facing the SR -55 ramps, noise levels are not projected to exceed 71.0 CNEL at the upper floors, except at the northwest corner. Noise levels at the first floor along the west side of the building are not projected to exceed 67.8 CNEL. Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Marriott Residence Inn Paae 10 Buildings are assumed to achieve a minimum of 20 dB of outdoor to indoor noise reduction with windows closed. Commercial buildings constructed under current energy efficiency requirements typically achieve reductions in the range of 24 to 26 dB but calculations are required to demonstrate reductions greater than 20 dB. The building will need to provide up to 31.1 dB of reduction on the side of the building facing SR -55 and up to 24.5 dB of reduction on the opposite side. Therefore, specific noise reduction calculations are required. These calculations are presented in Section 6.0 along with any building upgrades required to meet the applicable noise standards. Table 6 shows that noise levels in the pool area (Receptors P -1 and P -2), sport court (Receptors SC -1 and SC -2), are projected to exceed the City's 65 CNEL outdoor standard. Exterior noise mitigation is discussed in Section 5.0. 5.0 Exterior Noise Mitigation Table 6 shows that noise levels in the pool area and sport court area are projected to be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City's 65 CNEL standard. Construction of a 6 -foot tall noise barrier around the perimeters of these areas, as shown in Figure 5 will reduce noise levels in these areas to less than 65 CNEL. The noise barriers may consist of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two. The noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 318 -inch plate glass, 5/8 -inch Plexiglas, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Outdoor noise levels in all areas subject to the City of Tustin exterior noise standards will be reduced to less than the 65 CNEL standard with construction of the required 6 -foot tall noise wall located as shown in Figure 5. 6.O Interior Noise Mitigation The guestrooms of 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 guestrooms, 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. l■ ■ Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Marriott Residence Inn Paqe 12 Table 7 lists the maximum CNEL levels at the building face for each side of the building where guestrooms are located and the minimum noise reduction required to achieve the City's 45 CNEL standard. In order to account for variations in construction that can result in differences in actual noise Level reductions compared to theoretical calculations a design reduction of 2 dB more than the minimum required will be used to determine any building upgrades required to meet the City's standard. Table 7 Required Noise Reduction Maximum Minimum Building Face CNEL Level Reduction Design Floor at Building Face Required Reduction North I st 68.4 23. 25.4 2nd- 4th 76.1 31.1 33.1 _ So All 67.5.._._._..__ 22.5 24.5 West 1 st�--- ______ 6_7 � � 22.8 � _24. 2nd -4th � 71.0 26.0 28.0�� Room and feature dimensions used to calculate the noise reduction provided by the building were measured from the preliminary architectural drawings prepared for the project by Gene Fong Associates. The following lists the building element construction that was assumed in the noise reduction calculations. Roofs are non- vented single joist built up construction with 1/2" gypsum drywall on the interior surface of the living area. Joist spaces are insulated with fiberglass insulation, and roofs are flat. This roof /ceiling assembly was estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR =42. Exterior walls are wood stud construction with stucco exteriors and minimum 1/2" gypsum drywall on the interior. All exterior walls include fiberglass insulation in the stud cavities. The walls were estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR =40. All windows in the guestrooms were assumed to be operable and estimated to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR =22. (This is roughly equivalent to a noise reduction rating of STC =25). Based upon the construction details and the EWNR values, the exterior to interior noise reduction was calculated for fifteen rooms of seven acoustically equivalent guestroom types. Figures 6, 7 and 8 show the locations of acoustically equivalent guestroom types. The results of the EWNR calculations for the rooms without mitigation are presented in Table 8. The specific data used to calculate the EWNR for each acoustically equivalent room type are presented in the appendix. =o — o �W ,_ � °� CC 'i 00 o y r O W � d.1 cc � O w a a� eo a w as F= 4. r tl rft i' am WIN CA LU cc O CC rA a w�- 0 i I L91 Tn] I 40 am co "A CD CD cc ca CD Ga Q as eo as C4 I T-A L91 Tn] I 40 am co "A CD CD cc ca CD Ga Q as eo as Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Table 8 Unmitigated Outdoor -to- Indoor Noise Reduction Room Type Noise Reduction Provided 1 St -3` Floor 4` Floor I a. 1 Bedroo L iving Area 34.9 34.1 Ib 1- Bedroom, Bedroom 31.3 30.9 2. Studio 31.6 31.1 3a. 2- Bedroom, Large Bedroo 31.2 30.8 3b. 2- Bedroom, Small B 30.9 30.5 3c. 2- B Living Room 33.9 33.2 4. Studio D ouble Queen 27.7 27.4 5a. 1 Bedroom Accessible, 30.9 30.5 Bed room _ _ 5b. I Bedroom Accessible, Living 34.2 33.5 Room 6a. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Dbl. 33.8 33.2 Queen Bedr oom 6c. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen, 34.4 33.5 Living Room 6b. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 29.7 29.3 Bedroom 7a. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, Dbl. Queen 28.9 28.5 Bedroom 7b. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen 31.3 30.9 Accessible K ing B edroom 7c. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen 33.0 32.4 Accessible, Living Room E Marriott Residence Inn Paqe 16 Table 8 shows that all room types provide the reduction required for the south side of the building (24.5 dB) and all first floor rooms provide the reduction required for the first floor of the north side of the building (25.4 dB) and west side of the building (24.8 dB). Therefore, no building upgrades will be required to meet the City's interior noise standard on the south side of the building or on the first floor of the north or west sides of the building. All room types, except type 4, provide the noise reduction required on the upper floors of the west side of the building (28 dB). Therefore, type 4 rooms on the west side of the building will require upgrades to meet the City's standards. Room types la, 3c, 5b, 6a, and 6c provide the noise reduction required on the upper floors of the north side of the building (33.1 dB). All other room types on the upper floors of the north side of the building will require upgrades to meet the City's interior noise standard. Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Pape 17 Calculations were performed to determine the upgrades required to meet the required noise reduction. These calculations determined that one of four levels of window upgrades would result in all deficient rooms providing the reduction required to meet the City's standard. The following describes the window upgrade levels: Upgrade l: Minimum Window EWNR of 28 (STC =31) Typically 1/2" Single Glazed. Upgrade 2: Minimum Window EWNR of 30 (STC =33) Typically 1/4" Single Glazed. Upgrade 3: Minimum Window EWNR of 32 (STC =35) Typically 1/2" Laminated. Upgrade 4: Minimum Window EWNR of 34 (STC =38) Typically 3/8" laminated. The window upgrades listed above represent window configurations that can typically meet the specified EWNR/STC ratings, and are given for informational purposes only. Glass thickness and airspace configuration are only a part of the overall noise reduction characteristics of a window. Other factors can include the frame construction and seal type. Therefore, noise reduction ratings for windows of a given configuration can vary from one manufacturer to another. Various window configurations may be available that meet the required noise reduction ratings. The EWNR and STC ratings specified above are the critical parameters, and should be used as the basis for selecting the windows for the project. Consult with the manufacturer to ensure compliance of the planned windows with the noise reduction rating requirements. Table 9 presents the upgrades required for each deficient room type that will result in the room providing adequate outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction to comply with the City's interior noise standard. The noise reduction provided with the upgraded window is also listed along with the locations on the building where the upgrades are required. The required upgrades are shown graphically in Figures 9, 10 and 11. To meet the City of Tustin interior noise standard the guestrooms listed in Table 9 and shown graphically in Figures 9, 10 and 11 will required upgraded windows meeting either the EWNR or STC rating specified. With these upgrades noise levels in all guestrooms will less than the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. ■ Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Table 9 Mitioated Outdoor-to-Indoor Noise Reduction S Marriott Residence Inn Paqe 18 Room Type Floor(s) Side of Building Noise Reduction w/ Upgrade Upgrade 1: Minimum Window EWNR of 28 (STC of 31) 2. Studio 2nd & 3rd North 33.4 4. Studio Double Queen 2nd & 3rd West 29.5 4. Studio Double Queen 4th West 29.0 Upgrade 2: Minimum Window EWNR of 30 (STC of 33) - ---------- lb. 1- Bedroom, Bedroom 2nd & 3rd North 34.8 lb. I-Bedroom, Bedroom 4th — - - ---------- --- - --- North 34.0 2. Studio 4th North 34.1 3a. 2-Bedroom, Large Bedroom 2nd & 3rd North 34.8 3a. 2-Bedroom, Large Bedroom 4th North 33.9 3b. 2-Bedroom, Small Bedroom 2nd & 3rd North 34.6 3b. 2-Bedroom, Small Bedroom 4th North 33.7 Upgrade 3: Minimum Window EWNR of 32 (STC of 35) 6b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 2nd & 3rd North 33.8 Bedroom Upgrade 4: Minimum Window EWNR of 34 (STC of 38) 6b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 4th North 33.6 Bedroom I-A — --L FE CD a 420 Cw am 1� cot O Im C M r II M II to 11 CO 11 o 0 w 0 co II 0 11 II II E z z z z E w w w w + cc ca a O C W 1 O Z i dmd as c � U O H , cn C ao E W .� M to co M M M O N et W W W w 0 w 0 w 0 m i d i Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 22 7.0 Marriott Noise Standards Marriott has specified a variety of noise standards for the project. These standards can be separated into those relating to outdoor noise sources, those relating to limiting transmission of sound through partitions separating rooms, and those related to mechanical (HVAC system) noise. These standards are discussed below. Compliance with the outdoor noise standards is also addressed. Compliance with the partition sound transmission requirements will be demonstrated by the project architect and the mechanical engineer will demonstrate compliance with the mechanical noise standards. 7.1 Outdoor Noise Sources Marriott has specified interior noise standards for outdoor noise sources for guestrooms and meeting rooms. These standards and compliance with the standards are discussed below. 7.1.1 Guestrooms Guestrooms are required to limit highway noise levels to an hourly equivalent noise level ( Leq(h)) of 45 dBA during the daytime and 40 dBA during the nighttime. Aircraft noise levels are not to exceed 45 DNL. Short -term noise from sources such as sirens or low level helicopter flights is required to be less than 50 dBA. Aircraft noise levels are not to exceed 45 DNL. The analysis presented above demonstrates compliance with the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Daytime peak hour noise levels (i.e., the highest hourly equivalent noise level during the daytime) generated by traffic on the arterial roadways, Edinger Avenue and Newport Avenue, are expected to be less than the CNEL level based on typical arterial traffic patterns. In addition, nighttime peak hour noise levels (i.e., the highest hourly equivalent noise level during the nighttime) generated by traffic on the arterial roadways are expected to be more than 5 dB lower than the CNEL level based on typical arterial traffic patterns. Therefore, noise from traffic on the arterial roadways would not be expected to exceed the Marriott Leq(h) standard for highway noise. Hourly variations in traffic noise levels on SR -55 were calculated based on measured traffic volumes published on Caltrans' Performance Measurement System (PeMS) website (http: / /pems.dot.ca.gov). The PeMS website publishes traffic counts recorded by sensors on state and federal highways in California. This data shows that the daytime peak hour noise level generated by traffic on SR -55 will be lower than the CNEL level. While the daytime peak hour traffic volume would indicate a slightly higher noise level (0.2 dB), congestion during this period results in slowing and reduces the noise level compared to the CNEL level. Therefore, traffic on SR -55 will not result in the Marriot daytime Leq(h) standard for highway noise being exceeded in the guestrooms. On average, Nighttime hourly equivalent noise levels from traffic on SR -55 are approximately 8.8 dB lower than the CNEL level. The nighttime peak hour noise level, during the 6 a.m. hour, is approximately 3.8 dB lower than the CNEL level which would result in an interior noise level of 41.2 dBA Leq(H) if the outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction were designed to meet the 45 CNEL interior standard with no safety factor. However, as discussed above, a 2 dB safety factor was used in determining compliance with the City's noise standard and most of the rooms achieve the more outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction than is required with the safety factor. Therefore, the nighttime peak hourly equivalent level will be less than 40 Leq(h) with, at least a 0.8 dB safety factor. Therefore, traffic on SR -55 will not result in the Marriot nighttime Leq(h) standard for highway noise being exceeded in the guestrooms. Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 23 As discussed in Section 4.3, the project site is located well outside the John Wayne Airport aircraft noise 60 CNEL contour. Therefore, aircraft noise levels on the site will be clearly less than 60 CNEL and likely less than 55 CNEL. Note that the CNEL and LDN noise metrics are nearly identical but that the CNEL level is slightly higher than the LDN level in all conditions. The guestrooms will provide at least 30 dB of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction for aircraft and therefore, interior aircraft noise levels will be less than 30 LDN and likely less than 25 LDN. Therefore, the Marriott standard for aircraft noise will not be exceeded in the guestrooms. Based on the distances from the building to the nearest travel lane on the roadways on the perimeter of the project, a siren generating 100 dBA at 5 feet would not be expected to exceed 73 dBA at the building face. The building will provide at least 30 dB of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction for siren noise and therefore, interior noise levels from sirens will be less than the Marriott 50 dBA standard. Helicopter overflights would not be expected to generate noise levels exceeding 80 dBA on the project site. As discussed above, the guestrooms will provide at least 30 dBA of outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction for aircraft noise. Therefore, interior noise levels from helicopter overflights will be less than the Marriott 50 dBA standard. There are no other sources of noise that would be expected to generate short-term noise levels greater than sirens and helicopter overflights. Therefore, the Marriot 50 dBA short -term noise standard will not be exceeded in guestrooms. The project will comply with all Marriott standards for guestrooms exposed to outdoor noise levels with the mitigation measures required to meet the Citv of Tustin noise standards. 7.1.2 Meeting Space Meeting space noise levels are to be less than 40 dBA Leq(h) to comply with the Marriott standards. A further, the maximum noise level from outside sources within meeting rooms is not to exceed 58 dBA. The project includes a single meeting room located on the first floor on the west side of the lobby. The outdoor -to- indoor noise reduction of the meeting room was calculated to be 30.4 dB with the standard building construction described in Section 6.0. Table 6 shows that the total noise exposure at the meeting room is 64.7 CNEL (Receptor S -2). Therefore, the interior of the meeting room is projected to have an interior noise level of 34.3 CNEL. As discussed above, peak hour Leq(h) on the Newport Avenue, which is the primary noise sources impacting the meeting room, levels would be expected to be somewhat lower than the CNEL levels, therefore hourly equivalent noise levels in the meeting room will not exceed the 40 dBA Leq(h) standard. With this level of reduction, outdoor noise levels would need to be greater than 88 dBA at the building face to exceed the maximum noise level from outdoor sources standard of 58 dBA. There are no sources of noise anticipated to generate this level of noise. Therefore the me e ti ng room will comply with the Marriott standards as designed with no upgrades required. Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 24 7.2 Partition Sound Transmission To limit noise transmitted between adjacent rooms partitions are required to achieve the following Sound Transmission Classification (STC) ratings shown in Table 10. The project architect will be required to ensure that the partitions of the structure will meet the following STC ratings. In addition, construction details for the required rated assemblies shall be provided with the architectural plans. These details shall show that acoustical sealants are required close to perimeter joints and opening where mechanical (duct work), plumbing (pipes), electrical (receptacles and conduits) and other devices penetrate through sound rated walls. In addition, in stud framing, the sill and top plates shall be set in continuous sealant. Table 10 Partition STC Reauirements Wall Type Required STC Fl oor Ceilin A ssembly 55 Guestroom Party Wall (Including shaft/chase 55 walls between izuest baths Guestroom Walls Common With Equipment 55+ Roo P ubli c Spac or Fitn Rooms _ Shaft _& C hase W Between B athro oms 50 E leva to r Sha Wal 51+ Corridor Walls 50 Walls Adjoining Public, Meeting, Service Areas, 55+ Ele vator, Equ Lau and Similar Spaces Meeting Space Perimeter Walls 55 Meeting Space Operable Partitions Office Partitions 50 To limit the transmission of impact noise Floor /Ceiling assemblies are required to achieve an Impact Insulation Class (IIC) rating of at least 50. This will be implemented by the project architect. 7.3 Mechanical System (HVAC) Noise The mechanical engineer for the project shall design systems and select mechanical equipment to minimize the transmission of sound and vibration. Ductwork, piping, and equipment suspended from structures shall be isolated. Equipment, air distribution systems, and air devices shall be selected so they do not exceed NC -35 in guestrooms and public areas and NC -40 in back of house spaces. I Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown UT*ol= Marriott Residence Inn Page 25 Traffic Noise Calculations O m iE� L. 0 0 I LLJ 0 Z to 00 w co t.0 W P t 0 v-4 k6 t0 Ln 1 4 1 to M rti %D VT '0 0 1 .14 M . t.0 w w ol LAI w Lil 141 L/i to to 1 ko Ln LA 00 r-- to Ln Lr! r--: Ln Ln t0 Ln Ln LLJ fi r ,. z r r t.0 r r t.0 m rN LD LA - 7 Ln # U6 Ln Ln Lti Ln Ln Lfi Ln Ln Ln Ln > O uj z 0 0. fli Ln - r M . t0 0 . 00 Ln ' 00 Ln M 'D M tD M to M C r to to to Zo Zo .D Io f0 L 3: Ln r-r` " co � i (N 1 00 E € � 06l 06 o6 m r� O r- • C) o � 0 � � [ 0 0 ,6 61 0 � I 0 0 0 cil 010 m 1 Ln Ln 0 0 a c oa o o � C 0 C � 11 9 clo N EN C'i o a o 610 "i m C* C* co i 00 1 w r-I r- j 00 1 C ao000oOo C* C) m o 0 m a 1 3 c fn rn cfi o "i C) C) 0 "i ryi co fri m rn m I rn rvi t • 0 rL 0 o Q1 D1 101 0 0 f 0 0 , C) oio 1 0 I 9 9 CO 3 C: , " 00 00 r i " i �6 0066 ci o a c) Ln Ln cn U-1 w r, 00 c� t.0 r oq 4 1-4 0 1-4 O r-i I 0 010 -4 1-4 1.4 C4 •-I rn 1.4 M 1-4 M 1-1 I M rJ r4 1.4 1-1 1.4 rn ­4 (y) EE (4 (N 14 r-I g r-q Ln E M to m a� Ln L . r-f 11-1 0 r- p Ln rN 0 V cn -D f :Zl: C 00 00 0) 6 � o' i o" o* o m ai ail 0) 0) r-4 r-I N N N N N r C N -4 -4 -4 1 r•4 II c U5 ro t 0 CL 0 00 CD CT 00 1 Lq lo� r-I rn 1 I N Ln 00 m r-4 r- N r, ci 6 0 ai o6 c oo cn ai o6 r o6 r-: Ln to Ln cn 'D § a) d• N Ln r, -i m r- N m M l r, w 0 M chid N N Ln Ln to N r-j N 4 o :T S -I- r M to -i 'I m m m w M to �r q M rn rn vi E tu cn 00 r- %0 -.0 N co I cT ko O w Ln ' oo 00 r- I w d' rz C � -, •, rn , , -q - -4 "I 0 L r- C � C � U*) a) r, I r-i a) UJ r-I r-4 t 0 1 1.0 r w M -4 Ln rj W r-4 00 10 M r-4 I cn E rn N C N r- 1-4 0 rN 00 N a 1-1 N C r, 1-1 W = ­4 q -4 Z N Ln 0 L rq &iu u 2 zjzlz (A LO VI 0 !,A Ln V) L. 0 0 I (A (1) cr. 4.0 4.1 0 0� 0 jQ LAJ rl% to C.0 Ln �4 tm " W 0 Ln 4 - 4 VRt O Ct z U 00 w r, L� L'i L'i Ln N Ni rl N '6 W r-� tz .4 4 vi to W ! 4 W i Mo 1 W 1 LA n w ko to t.0 Ln 'n! L Ln 'p ul 00( 00 qq COR a) lz' Lr! ri ri cr Z to z t.0 Ln Ln Ln Ln i i- l r- LA to .4 F to .4 tzr LA I Lfi Ln Ln I Ln Ln '.0 '�o to '.0 Ln Ln Ln Lr) O Lu t 0 M 0. C-4 - m en o6 I ro cn ­4 r m . Ln M rn M fi r� C-4 Ln -q Ln .4 4, 4 li t.o i Ln '.0 to to w w '.0 Z Lo '.D to C 0 0 0 C? 0 O 9 9 i m Ln 0 6 o o c Ln Ln c; c c 0 0* C:) C 1 C ) LA . I Ln to 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 1 9 t3: Lq Lf1 Lq 111 m ati t ,t ma C) 0 C51 0 to rn co co co co co w LD h r-� 4A w ba C) C? 9 0 q 0 Ln .10 0 0 q 0 9 9 - 'a m m m m cri rei "t I L» ui jj t o CZ 0.0 0 Ln - Ln Ln 0 00 co 00 0 9 0 q 0 1 9 1 , 16 0 ' 6 9 cyi -4 ryi C -6 0 1 C5 610 ci i Ln U� 0) Ln '.D j r- 09 a� w CK� 14 9 9 h C5 r� M - I M rn , M r-4 N cq M (N f-4 ­4 1-4 ,, 1616 1-4 r-4 r-f •-4 r-4 r-4 r-41 '41 'q '-q r-q I ­4 v-4 '-f (U E (U (a N 0) (3 lfl Ln r-4 r l 0 r Ln rN j 0 1 "t a) LD �T 10 r-4 4 -1 (-4 (N C C r4 0`0 ry r4 r4 m m mim r-4 r-1 rl ­4 U5 (U t M z o 0. 0 cl � 0 1 00 Lf v-q ­4 r-41 r-4 (:Y 0 '4 rn Ln co -4 r l " r 1-4 1-4 r-f q r-4 r-1 a) co a) oo a) l (:,i 00 r, 00 r, Ln L n W 0 Ln ICT 0) QD CY) "t Ln Ln U D N 4 Ln 0 r- h N Ol' 1 .0 r-1 r-4 a) cn 1 110 f.0 kD �T C1' M N C r-4 rIj r'4 m :T n ry) rn T rn C (y) m rn ry) E 0 U Ln 00 00. 0) i 'T i 'T '�T -zzr f 0 ' 00 1 6% r Ln c, rH w :I . '-i r'j Ln W a) 00 a) CO 00 r- "I! r4 1-11 r4l 1"t -t, r-j C�j 1:� Cn C�, ai r, -4 , 01 a) u UJ m V, t CL r a ., to L N q r- r4 M ' w 6 i rn rn cn W0 - 1 r-j 0 C'j r- rn W 1C =1 001, . -, 4 ( v-41 r4 C4 0 r*4 C 1-4 r- t.0 r- W ­4 '4 "4 it W w -4 rj ­4 (N L� -44- 1 , U u U "n Z ;i ;i Z z 3: !(A LA L� L, a . 1 � Ln! (n • • 4) Z L u (A 0 L. m m LLJ 1 (71 D l lO O tO LD O td 001 N rn tR I r4l w 1 O Z N ,i L'i L'i 1 gi �41 ci M 1.4 4 1 .4 w w LA ZD L n L A g w wo ZD Ln W Lr) 0 0) r- 1p Un Ln Ln Ln Ln clO r- ai 0l Lri l-R i U' 1.0 r Ln Ln t0 t6 r, h rl Ln i Ln z tA r- r- rl r� r- r� r Lo Ln Ln Ln Ln to Ln Ln I Ln Ln cu > (u M LLJ o c V t i t ci cn ..4 Lq 0) C'j i Ln 1 r-q Ln M CL it 3: (.0 m C-4 r� t.0 wo 1.0 to I (.o -.0 t.0 (tD t0 cu M 0 0 0 0 CIO a 0 0 0 0 0 CidOt 0 6 0 ci C) 6 0 C) (D M CO L6 LA co 0 0 C) 0 0 6 a s 0 0 r- I r _ , ^ r _ , r, : a) r, m Ln W tD Ln C tw 0 0 0 0 19 9 9 9 1010 0 C) 0 0 C mi rvi I nri m C, I rn '4 1P rn rri j rn rn 1 cyi yi cyi "i yi uj 0 CL CO oq co 00 C) r- I r-� I rll*' 0 .1 .1 . 9 9 0 Oloo 3: O rfil rn rn 0 cilololo Ln m Lr) to rl� 100 0) -.0 00 - C r r� cl: .i co 010 0 r14 rn m m M, t-4 r-4 rn m r4l(-4 &A to G rn rn Lq -I Ll I -I -1 9 " - 0 I'Zt 6 1 6 M 171 M lO I �t M ai 00 -4 00 " a) O 0' ­4 -4 N I N r4 1H C4 N r4 N C'41 Lu 0 CL 9 00 9 ' 00 Lf1 IT, eq cn c r� O1 C:) -4 ­4 r-4 0 wim h 00 h LM w 0 Ln a) .o 1 011 r �T Ln Ln L-0 r-41 l* n 0 r- I .-c a) r, N 0 f, "D -1 -4 m tD m r- 1'.0 to d -* vi r*4 1 Cj r-4 r-4 r-4 rn, vi rn m rn m M M i rn • E Ot 00 r, 'o 0 to N 00 �r to ­4 Cj Ln 0 ta Ln cn 00 m r ED -ZT r- cI " rj r4 M N rIlLn W Ln : r 0 m r, q -4 ­4 11 V UJ I m V) O . -zt rj 0 r- -I Mir -1 t.0 0 NIC-411-4 m Ln! rN W co 0 rn CN r1l M rn t01 N 0 N r- 0 00 c-41 o 1-4 CN .i CIJ r-4 r toir-lw 1 -4 1 ui V) Z :;il:�'z § 'n LA 'AlLW A u V), Ln 0 0 4) -i 4) IA . Z m 0 H 4-0 0 L- m i� m L. 0 0 Z m N W N ci N kD w 0 w (n M rm tm 00 00 �q Z N I Ln L tD di Lti 1 u Ln Ln Lr) 0 cn N to Lf) C O r� r� 1 LD r, r14 rn r-4 N W Z h -�6 Ln U1 vi U1 t- r- r- I r I h 6 a) r-1, to r, r, Lr) Lr) r-: 00 1 00 Ln Ln Lf) 610 0§ 0 tz I Lo L0 � V) txo r N 0 LLJ Z M CL c 1 r- cn N Lr M rn ro cyi N rj C. cf Lb w1w m C 0 0;0 0! C? C? C? 0 91cic 0 COD 0 0 m 6 6ic:)'6 ci 0 0 0 0 OlOiC 0 030 C 0 LM 0 0 0 0 a o Ln l-q 1 p r" r* : r li r Lq i Un as rfi 6 1 o ; 6 ci 0 M rf) U-) Lf) Ln j Ln Ln ro rn m # m :2 4) C 0 0 Ol 0 0 0 00 0 0 c) CIO 010 ryi rei rri ryi rvi rri m oi rn* m rn ry) M ri 1 rri ri ryi tka uj g 0 co CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ? C ? C ?I (: ? O � o rri Lr; Lf) Lrl ryi ryi 0 0 0 010 0 010 6 1 1 6 4) LM Ln 0) Ln i L.0 r- 00 { Q1 I I �.q r oo rj r-4 r-i ' 19 -1 q r-4 6 ai i 61 6 c; ­4 -1 r-4 t H j -4 N ryi r-4 1.4 ryi yi r.4 -q (yi N r rH -4 4 r-4 ro rn r N r 1 1-4 r-1 1-4 4A id - tw Qi cl ul 11 U� 1� I M 1 - 0 1--f 0 .2, 00 00 ! a) CIO H CIO 010 m a) (n 0) 0) 0 r-q rH t H r4 C CIJ r CIJ C-4 C I C rlJ r-1 -1 -4 -q r.1 U5 a t m 0 CL 0 ai .17 00 f i 1-4 i N c 1 r-1 0 cr; rn m L/i 00 rn w m m 1-4 r" r14 r, 00 r- i 00 3 r� r•i 00 Ln to W O Ln I a) W 0) � T T -:3- Ln Ln w rN Ln 11-Ir i 0 r, i 0 h 01 - , w 1-1 cr (A M C'4 , r�4 C-4 CN C { � mi r y' m � m m rn f rn M M rn � g 3 1 g � i j � � `s E h 01 a) 00r 0 0 r-! Lo 0 U L- 'V S Ln cn oo w -:t Cr m I r- i c � co I a), t ro r- Ln -4 00 Ln r-4 a 0 Ln 0 r-1 LU V, CL r- Lo r, r rn rq i c r, 1 r-I m r, i ID o N (N '.4 M Ln iLoioololm M M w 0 r-4 r-4 p- 0 r1 N w C 0 41N N l r tl o rl w m W Ln W r m Z Ln (N rq z z 3:1 (1 V 0 CL ' L i vi L. 0 0 Z m N Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown 0 Marriott Residence Inn Paoe 26 Railroad Noise Calculations Marott Residence Inn Railroad Noise levels -1st Floor Distance Level Bldg. Shldg. Noise Lvl Location to RR (CNEL) (dB) (CNEL SE 1,282 56.3 0.0 56.3 NE 1,286 56.3 0.0 56.3 N -1 ? 1,365 55.8 3.0 52.8 N -2 4 1,456 55.3 3.0 52.3 N -3 1 1,536 54.9 3.0 51.9 NW 1,634 54.4 3.0 51.4 W -1 1,631 54.4 19.1 357 SW 1 1,616 54.5 3.0 51.5 S -1 1,561 54.7 3.0 51.7 S -2 1,537 54.9 3.0 51.9 S -3 1,474 55.2 3.0 52.2 S -4 1,431 55.4 3.0 52.4 S -5 1 1,376 55.7 3.0 52.7 P -1 1,439 55.4 3.0 52.4 P -2 1,357 55.9 3.0 52.9 SC -1 1,356 55.9 3.0 52.9 SC -2 1,299 56.2 3.0 53.2 Marott Residence Inn Railroad Noise Levels - 2nd Floor Distance Level Bldg. Shldg. Noise Lvl Location to RR (CNEL) (dB) (CNEL SE 1,282 56.3 0.0 56.3 NE 1 56.3 0.0 56.3 N-1 1 55.8 3.0 52.8 N-2 j 1,456 55.3 3.0 52.3 N-3 1,536 54.9 3.0 51.9 NW 1,634 54.4 3.0 51.4 W-1 1,631 54.4 18.6 35.8 SW 1,616 54.5 3.0 51.5 S -1 1,561 54.7 3.0 51.7 S-2 1,537 54.9 3.0 51.9 S-3 1,474 55.2 3.0 52.2 S-4 1,431 55.4 3.0 52.4 S-5 1,376 55.7 3.0 52. P-1 1,439 55.4 3.0 52.4 P-2 1,357 55.9 3.0 52 SC-1 1,356 55.9 3.0 52.9 SC-2 1,299 56.2 3.0 53.2 Marott Residence Inn Railroad Noise Levels - 3rd Floor Distance Level Bldg. Shldg. Noise Lvl Location to RR (CNEL) (dB) (CNEL SE 1,282 56.3 0.0 56.3 NE 1,286 56.3 0.0 56.3 N -1 1,365 55.8 3.0 52.8 N -2 1,456 55.3 3.0 52.3 N -3 1,536 54.9 3.0 51.9 NW 1,634 54.4 3.0 51.4 W -1 1,631 54.4 16.9 37.5 SW 1,616 54.5 3.0 51.5 S -1 1,561 54.7 3.0 51.7 S -2 1,537 54.9 3.0 51.9 S -3 1,474 55.2 3.0 52.2 5 -4 1,431 55.4 3.0 52.4 S -5 I 1,376 55.7 3.0 52.7 P -1 1,439 55.4 3.0 52.4 P -2 1,357 55.9 3.0 52.9 SC -1 1,356 55.9 3.0 52.9 SC -2 1 1.299 56.2 3.0 53.2 Fairfield Inn and Suites Railroad Noise Levels - 4th Floor Distance Level Bldg. Shldg. Noise Lvl Location to RR (CNEL) (dB) (CNEL SE 549 63.0 0.0 63.0 E -1 545 63.1 0.0 63.1 NE 551 63.0 0.0 63.0 N -1 618 62.1 3.0 59.1 N-2 676 61.4 3.0 58.4 N -3 749 60.5 3.0 57.5 N -4 809 59.9 3.0 56.9 NW 842 59.6 3.0 56.6 W -1 845 59.6 16.2 43.4 SW 840 59.6 3.0 56.6 S -1 809 59.9 3.0 -56.9 S -2 760 60.4 3.0 57.4 S -3 707 61.0 3.0 58.0 S -4 652 61.6 3.0 58.6 S -5 603 62.3 3.0 59.3 P -1 791 60.1 3.0 57.1 P -2 738 60.7 3.0 57.7 FP 723 60.8 3.0 57.8 PF 621 62.0 3.0 59.0 Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Marriott Residence Inn Page 27 EWNR Calculations Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1 a. 1 -Bedroom, Living Area 1 Wall Exposure Wall Exposure Window 31.5 26 0.079 U]] O 0.000 (lU U 0.000 Ceiling Wall (net) 180.3 70.9 GU 40 0.00 0.007 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 263 0.0 OD 2608 762 26 0 O GO 40 0.066 0.00 (lOOO 8.000 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.074 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 28 0 U 60 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 Window O Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 28 0 O 60 40 0.042 0.000 0.000 0,000 0,008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.049 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.1 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.6 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft-2) EWNR A BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/10) Window O Ceiling Wall (net) 28.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 30 O O SU 40 0.026 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.034 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.8 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.3 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 1303 70.9 32 O O 00 40 0.020 0.000 UM0 0.000 0.007 Window U Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 32 U O 80 40 0.017 0.000 0.800 0.000 0,008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.024 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 39.7 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 34 O O 60 40 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 Window 0 Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 34 O 0 60 40 0.810 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.018 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.7 TOTAL REDUCTION: 41.0 Wall Exposure Window 31.5 26 0.079 U]] O 0.000 (lU U 0.000 Ceiling Wall (net) 180.3 70.9 GU 40 0.00 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.086 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.3 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 28 0 U 60 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.057 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.1 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft-2) EWNR A Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 30 O O 80 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.039 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.8 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 1303 70.9 32 O O 00 40 0.020 0.000 UM0 0.000 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.027 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 34 O O 60 40 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.020 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.7 Page 1 of 8 I I Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1st-3rd Floors 2. Studio 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) Window 57.8 26 0.145 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 0.0 0 0.000 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 268.2 60 0.000 Wall (net) 126.7 40 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.158 10 Log S/A -3 A*1 OA(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.6 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 57.8 0.0 0.0 268.2 126.7 28 0 0 60 40 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0 0.104 10 Log S/A -3 60 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.4 40 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A*1 OA(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 57.8 0.0 0.0 268.2 126.7 30 0 0 60 40 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.071 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.1 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 57.8 0.0 0.0 268.2 126.7 32 0 0 60 40 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.049 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.6 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window 57.8 34 0.023 Window Ceiling - Wall (net) 0.0 0 0.000 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 268.2 60 0.000 Wall (net) 126.7 40 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.036 10 Log S/A -3 A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.0 0.032 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.005 3a. 2-Bedroom, Large Bedroom 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 Window Ceiling - Wall (net) 0.0 0 0.000 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 139.9 60 0,000 Wall (net) 53.3 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.085 10 Log S/A -3 A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.2 0.032 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.005 Page 2 of 8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/ 0) Window Ceiling - Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 139.9 53.3 28 0 0 60 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.055 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.1 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 139.9 53.3 30 0 0 60 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.037 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 139.9 53.3 32 0 0 60 40 - A - 10A(-E110) 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.025 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.5 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 139.9 53.3 34 0 0 60 40 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.018 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.0 Page 2 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1 st-3rd Floors 3b. 2-Bedroom, Small Bedroom 1 Wall Exposure 246.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 ELEMENT AREA(it-2) EWNR A'10-(-E/10) _BLDG Window 31.5 26 0.079 Window 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 Wall (net) 44.2 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 206.34 0 0.084 10 Log S/A -3 60 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.9 60 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A 2) EWNR A Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.0 0 0.000 0,0 0 0.000 Ceiling 246.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.085 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A"10ACE/10) Window 31.5 28 0.050 Window 31.5 28 0.050 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 Ceiling 246.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 44.2 40 0.004 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 206.34 0.054 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.056 10 Log S/A -3 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.8 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR Window 31.5 30 0.032 Window 31.5 30 0.032 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 Ceiling 246.1 60 0.000 Wall (net)_ 44.2 40 0.004 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 206.34 0.036 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.037 10 Log S/A -3 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.6 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.5 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 32 0.020 Window 31.5 32 0.020 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 Ceiling 246.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 44.2 40 0.004 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 206.34 0.024 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.026 10 Log S/A -3 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 39.1 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 34 0.013 Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 Ceiling 246.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 40 0.004 Wall (net) 54,1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 206.34 0.017 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.018 10 Log S/A -3 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.8 TOTAL REDUCTION: 40.6 Page 3 of 8 N 0 Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1st-3rd Floors 4. Studio Double Queen 2 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 73.5 26 0.185 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 224.8 60 0.000 Wall (net) 173.7 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 471.98 0 0.202 10 Log S/A 0 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 27.7 32-7 5a. 1 Bedroom Accessable, Bedroom 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window 31.5 26 0.079 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 122.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 207.58 0 0.085 10 Log S/A -3 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.9 32-7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA 2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) Window 73.5 28 0.116 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 224.8 60 0.000 Wall (net) 173.7 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 471.98 0 0.134 10 Log S/A 0 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 29.5 32-7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/10) Window 73.5 30 0.074 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 224.8 60 OMO Wall (net) 173.7 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 471.98 0 0.091 10 Log S/A 0 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.1 32-7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 28 0.050 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 122.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 207.58 0 0.055 10 Log S/A -3 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.5 32-7 0.000 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 30 0.032 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 122.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 207.58 0 0.037 10 Log S/A -3 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.5 60 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A*10A(-E/10) Window 73.5 32 0.046 Window 31.5 32 0.020 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 224.8 60 0.000 Ceiling 122.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 173.7 40 0.017 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 471.98 0.064 TOTAL AREA 207.58 0.025 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.7 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.1 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 73.5 34 0,029 Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 224.8 60 0.000 Ceiling 122.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 173.7 40 0.017 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 471.98 0.047 TOTAL AREA 207.58 0.018 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.6 -•!M-* Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1 st-3rd Floors 5b. 1 Bedroom Accessable, Living 6a. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Dbl. Queen Room Bedroom 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 57.8 26 0 0 60 40 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.072 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 57.8 28 0 0 60 40 0.042 0.000 0.000 0,000 0,006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.048 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A 2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 57.8 30 0 0 60 40 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.032 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 57.8 32 0 0 60 40 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.023 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 39.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 57.8 34 0 0 60 40 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.016 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: " 40.6 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 26 0 0 60 40 0,079 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.086 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 28 0 0 60 40 0.050 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.057 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 30 0 0 60 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.038 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 32 0 0 60 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.027 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 34 0 0 60 40 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.019 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 40.3 Page 5 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1 st-3rd Floors 6b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King Bedroom 2 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/1 Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.0 0 MOO 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 60 0.000 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.097 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 29.7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 28 0.050 Window 31.5 28 0.050 Ceiling 0.0 0 0.000 Wall (net) 0.0 0 0.000 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 60 0.000 Ceiling 293.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.067 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.054 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A" 10^( -E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 30 0.032 Window 31.5 30 0.032 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 60 OMO Ceiling 293.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.049 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.035 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.6 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.1 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A 2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window 31.5 32 0.020 Window 31.5 32 0,020 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 60 0.000 Ceiling 293.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.037 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.024 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.8 TOTAL REDUCTION: 39.8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"I0A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/12) Window 31.5 34 0.013 Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 60 0.000 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.030 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.8 Ceiling 293.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.016 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 41.4 6c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Living Room 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 293.1 60 0.000 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0,003 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.083 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.4 Page 6 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1 st-3rd Floors 7a. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, Dbl. Queen Bedroom 3 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 52.5 26 0.132 BLDG ELEMENT 0.0 0 0.000 BLDG ELEMENT 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 1615 40 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0 0.148 10 Log S/A 0 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 28.9 0 7b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, King Bedroom 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft-2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling Wall (net) 146.3 60 0.000 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.084 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.3 Ceiling Wall (net) 244.0 60 0.000 163.5 40 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.037 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10-(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 52.5 28 0.083 Window 31.5 28 0.050 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 Ceiling 244.0 60 0.000 Ceiling 146.3 60 0.000 Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.100 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.055 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.6 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 52.5 30 0.053 Window 31.5 30 0.032 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 60 0.000 Ceiling 146.3 60 0.000 Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0,005 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.069 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.037 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.2 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 52.5 32 0.033 Window 31.5 32 0.020 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 60 0.000 Ceiling 146.3 60 0.000 Wall (net)_ 163.5 40 0,016 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.050 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.025 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.7 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.6 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 52.5 34 0.021 Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling Wall (net) 244.0 60 0.000 163.5 40 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.037 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 Ceiling Wall (net) 146.3 60 0.000 50.9 40 .0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.018 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.1 Page 7 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1st-3rd Floors 7c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, Livingroom 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.083 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(.E110) Window 31.5 28 0.050 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.054 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A Window 31.5 30 0.032 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.035 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 32 0.020 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.024 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.016 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 40.0 Page 8 of 8 �� �� =" Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 1 a. 1-Bedroom, Liv Area 1 Wall Exposure 1b. 1-Bedroom, Bedroom Wall Exposure Window 31.5 26 0.073 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling Wall (net) O]] 130.3 70.9 0 42 40 0.000 0.008 0.007 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 OD OD 259.8 76.2 26 O O 42 40 0.066 0.000 0.000 0D16 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.090 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.9 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.1 Window Ce Wall (net) 31.E 0.0 0.0 1303 70.9 28 O O 42 40 0,050 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.007 Window O Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 28 U U 42 40 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.066 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.5 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.4 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 30 O O 42 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0D08 0.007 Window U Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 [iU 259.8 76.2 30 U O 42 40 0.026 0.008 0.000 0.016 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.050 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.6 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 32 O O 42 40 0.020 8.000 0.000 0.008 0.007 �A indow U Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 32 O U 42 40 0,017 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.041 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.2 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.5 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 1303 70.9 84 O U 42 40 0.013 0.000 8.000 0.008 0.007 Window O Ceiling 26.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 34 U O 42 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.016 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.034 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.2 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.2 1b. 1-Bedroom, Bedroom Wall Exposure Window 31.5 26 0.073 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling Wall (net) O]] 130.3 70.9 0 42 40 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.094 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.9 Window Ce Wall (net) 31.E 0.0 0.0 1303 70.9 28 O O 42 40 0,050 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.065 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.5 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 30 O O 42 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0D08 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.047 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.0 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 32 O O 42 40 0.020 8.000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.035 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.2 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 1303 70.9 84 O U 42 40 0.013 0.000 8.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.028 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.2 Page 1 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 2. Studio 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft-2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 57.8 26 0.145 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 268.2 42 0.017 Wall (net) 126.7 40 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0 0.175 10 Log S/A -3 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.1 42 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 57.8 28 0.092 Window 31.5 28 0.050 Ceiling 0.0 0 0.000 Wall (net) 0.0 0 0.000 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 268.2 42 0.017 Ceiling 139.9 42 0.009 Wall (net) 126.7 40 0.013 Wall (net) 53.3 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.121 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.064 10 Log S/A -3 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.7 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.4 , BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (W2) EWNR_ A Window 57.8 30 0.058 Window 31.5 30 0.032 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 268.2 42 0.017 Ceiling 139.9 42 0.009 Wall (net) 126.7 40 0.013 Wall (net) 53.3 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.087 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.046 10 Log S/A -3 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.1 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.9 - BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(_Ej1 0) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_E110) Window 57.8 32 0.036 Window 31.5 32 0.020 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 268.2 42 0.017 Ceiling 139.9 42 0.009 - Wall (net) 1261 40 0.013 Wall (net) 53.3 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.066 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.034 10 Log S/A -3 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) _BLDG ELEMENT AREA_(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/ Window 57.8 34 0.023 Window 31.5 34 0.013 0,0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 268.2 42 0.017 Wall (net) 126.7 40 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.053 Log S/A -3 - 10 - TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 Ceiling Wall (net) 139.9 42 0.009 53.3 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.027 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 I I q 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 139.9 42 0.009 Wall (net) 533 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.093 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.8 Page 2 of 8 Y Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 5b. 1 Bedroom Accessable, Living Room 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 57.8 26 0 0 42 40 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.085 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.5 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A 2) EWNR A Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 57.8 28 0 0 42 40 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.061 10 Log S/A -4 . TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 2153 57.8 30 0 0 42 40 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.046 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 573 32 0 0 42 40 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.036 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A*10A(-E110) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 57.8 34 0 0 42 40 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.014 0,006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.030 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.0 6a. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Dbl. Queen Bedroom I Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 234.0 42 0.015 Wall (net) 64.5 40 0.006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.100 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 28 0 0 42 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.071 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 30 0 0 42 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.053 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(.E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 32 0 0 42 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.041 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft-2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 34 0 0 42 40 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.034 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.9 Page 5 of 8 J J Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 6b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 6c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Living Bedroom Room 2 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A 2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 Window 0.0 0 0,000 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0 0.106 10 Log S/A 0 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 29.3 42 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Window 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 293.1 42 0.018 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0 0.101 10 Log S/A -4 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.5 42 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 28 0.050 Window 31.5 28 0.050 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 Ceiling 293.1 42 0,018 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.077 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.072 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.7 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 30 0.032 Window 31.5 30 0.032 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 42 0,010 Ceiling 293.1 42 0.018 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.058 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.053 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: - 31.9 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_E110) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA 2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 32 0.020 Window 31.5 32 0.020 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 Ceiling 293.1 42 0.018 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.047 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.042 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -4 - TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.8 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 34 0.013 Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 Ceiling 293.1 42 0.018 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 Wall (net) 34,9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.040 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.035 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.6 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.2 Page 6 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 7a' 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, 7b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, Dbl. Queen Bedroom King Bedroom 3 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft-2) EWNR A-10A(.E110) Window 52.5 26 0.132 0.0 0 0.0 0 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft -2) EWNR A Window 31.5 26 0.079 OMO 0.0 0 OMO 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 42 0.015 Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.164 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 28.5 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 146.3 42 0.009 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.093 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.9 . BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 52.5 28 0.083 Window 31,5 28 0.050 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 OMO 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 42 0.015 Ceiling 146.3 42 0.009 Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.115 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.064 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.5 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(.E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft A2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 52.5 30 0.053 Window 31.5 30 0.032 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 42 0.015 Ceiling 146.3 42 0.009 Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.084 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.046 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -3 T OTAL REDUCTION: 31.4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.0 - BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10-(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 52.5 32 0.033 Window 31.5 32 0.020 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 42 0.015 Ceiling 146.3 42 0.009 Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 - TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.065 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.034 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -3 - TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.5 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10)_ Window 52.5 34 0.021 Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 42 0.015 Ceiling 146.3 42 0.009 Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.053 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.027 10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 Page 7 of 8 'Y Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 7c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, Livingroom 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 Ceiling Wall (net) 0.0 0.0 193.2 35.7 0 0 42 40 OMO 0.000 0.012 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.095 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft-2) EWNR A*10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 193.2 35.7 28 0 0 42 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.066 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0,0 0.0 193.2 35.7 30 0 0 42 40 0.032 OMO 0.000 0.012 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.047 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 193.2 35.7 32 0 0 42 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.036 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.6 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 193.2 35.7 34 0 0 42 40 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.028 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.6 Exhibit C P # r R.o.oLsaN DEVELOPMENT March 29, 203.2 Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retait Master Sign Program Anthony Wrzosek, Vice President RD Olson Development— 2955 Main Street Irvine, CA 9 261 4 T: 949 -2 73-1209 Prepared for by: Terry Productions 3 7 3 3 Townhurst Houston, TX 77043 RaDmOLSON DEVELOPMENT" Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail 1 2 Introduction The Master Sign Program Establishes requirements for the design and fabrication of all signage at the Tustin Hotels — Pacific Center East Parcels 2, 3 & 4 of Parcel Map No. 2010 -127 of Tustin, CA 92780. This program includes all Primary Identification Signs, Secondary Identification signs, On- premise Directional signs and all tenant Signs. The objective is to create unique and high quality signage, which is an integral part of the architecture and image of Pacific Center East. The intent of this criteria is to insure that all tenant signage is designed and executed in a manner which will achieve these objectives while providing superior identification of tenants and tenants' businesses, including incorporation of brand identification. TABLE OF Contents Written Criteria - 3 7 4,..5 Master Site plan 6 Primary Pole/ Freestanding Freeway Sign Et Center Identification sample sign 7 Primary Monument Signs/ Center Identification signs 8, g Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign 10 Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A Et C sample signs 11, 12, 13 Single Tenant Primary Et Secondary Wall signs for parcel B sample signs 14 15 On premise directional sign sample 16 RaMOLSON DEVELOPMENT Tenant Sign Criteria Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retails 3 The following are works to be provided by the tenant or landlord. Tenant signage shall be designed, fabricated and installed by the tenant at their own expense. Tenant Signage must be constructed from durable materials and shall be maintained by the tenant. All signage must comply with applicable codes and maintained in good repair and all are subject to landlord's approval. Any individual tenant sign on each hotel, retail and restaurant space will require separate permits. Please refer to the site plan on page 6 for sign locations. Temporary Project Identification Signs- Temporary signs identifying the future occupant, project developer, architect, engineer, contractor or other participating in the construction on the property are allowed. Project Identification Signs for all Parcels to be allowed at 32 sq feet and one per street frontage. These signs can be attached to a fence, wall or may be ground mounted as long as proposed signs meet the visual clearance requirements. Signs are allowed during the construction and for a period ofi8o days from issuance of first occupancy permit. a. Primary Center ldentification Signs (sign type A& B) — Designed to reflect the theme of the center in which it identifies and incorporates similar design elements, materials, colors and special qualities of the architecture of the buildings in the center and is compatible with existing or proposed signage in the center. Proposed signs shall comply with the visual clearance requirements. The Pacific Center East Primary Center Identification Sign shall be identified with (i) Primary Pole Style Sign positioned along S. R. 55 Freeway and (z) Primary Monument signs along Newport Avenue. These signs serve as the principal project identifiers. A. Primary Pole Style Sign- Center Identification Sign /Freeway Sign (sign type A) —A total of (1) sign along S. R. 55 Freeway with the height of 46'to accommodate visibility above the 1z' high sound wall. This Pole sign will house up to (6) tenants, which make up the tenants for Pacific Center East in its entirety. B. Primary Monument Signs (sign type 13) — A total of (z) signs i ocated at the comer of Edinger Ave and Newport Ave & Newport Ave and the On /off Ramp to S. R. 55 with the height of 8'to house up to a total of (6) tenants. Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign for Parcel A & C (Sign Type C) — Designed to direct traffic flow through the Porte- cochere entrance. Sign to incorporate similar design elements, materials & colors & be compatible with existing or proposed signage in the center. A. Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign — A total of (1) Sign inside Parcel A & C. Sign shall not exceed 15% of the elevation on which it is located up to a maximum of 7S sq ft. 3. Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A& C (sign type D) - Designed to Identify the Main Anchor Tenants in the Center. Signs to incorporate similar design elements, materials & colors & be compatible with existing or proposed signage in the center. C. A total of (4) Internally Illuminated Primary Wall signs. If approved as requested, one wall sign per building elevation, not to exceed one sign installed per elevation. Primary Wall Signs not to exceed 75 sq ft. each or a total of 15% of building elevation. RoBoOLsaN DEVELOPMENT Tenant Sign Criteria Continued Pacific Center Tustin Hotels & Retain ► 4 4. Single Tenant Wall signs for Parcel a (Sign type E & F) - Designed to Identify the Tenants which makeup parcel Bin the Center. Parcel B tenants are allowed one primary identification sign at storefront entry and one secondary identification sign. No electrical or structural members shall penetrate the "Shell Building" and signs shall contain only that information which is necessary to identify the business and its brand or uses of the property on which the sign is located. D. Single Tenant Primary Wall Sign (Sign type E) - A total of (z) internally illuminated primary wall sign permitted per business on front storefront elevation. Primary signs shall be limited to :L sq ft of signage per each linear foot of Front Elevation up to 75 sq ft. E. Single Tenant Secondary Wall Sign (Sign type F) - A total'of (2 -2) internally illuminated secondary wall signs permitted per business on rear elevation & East & West Elevation depending on location of tenant. Secondary signs shall be limited to 25 sq ft. 5. On- premise directional signs (sign type G) — Designed to relay information relating to parking, exit /entrance, directional and similar information inside the center. Signs shall be designed to be viewed from within the site by pedestrian and /or motorists. May provide more than (i) per entrance in order to faciliate smooth internal circulation. F. A total of (2 -4) on- premise directional signs permitted and must be less than 4 sq ft in maximum sign area and 4' in height. 6. Window signs and graphics— Designed to apply directly to the storefront glass. Window signs and graphics can relay hours, address, phone number, emergency information or special announcements. Window signs and graphics are not permitted to to have illumination, credit card logos, posters, advertising or menus, unless otherwise approved in writing by the landlord. Window signs and graphics are alloted a maximum of of lo% of the total window area. RaMOLSON DEVELOPMERT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels &t Retail 1 5 _. 1.1..1 .111.. _.._ _ ._....._.....:.. 1. 11.. _ -, ___ . 1.111_. 1- __ ____ . __. _ - . 111 _ Fabrication Ft Installation Is in intended that all finished work be of the highest qualityto pass eye -level examination and scrutiny by the Landlord and Designer. General Fabrication Specifications Construct all work to eliminate burrs, dents, cutting edges and sharp corners. All Finished welds on exposed surfaces to be imperceptabl e. Conceal all fasteners, except where approved otherwise by the Landlord. Make access panels tight- fitting, light proof and fl ush with surfaces. Conceal all transformers and conduit. Sign Lighting Electric Signs shall be either illuminated from the i nteriorofa sign, behind the letters (back lighting) or channel lighting. All primary and secondary sign elements must be internally and /or externally illuminated except for window graphics. Hot spots and leaks are not permitted. All illuminated signs shall be fabricated, installed a nd comply with national /local building and electrical codes and shall bare the U.L. label. To protect the visual environment, all tenant's lightfixtures in regards to brightness and glare shall be subject to approval. Tenant's primary and secondary sign (if applicable) shall remain illuminated after hours as designated by the landlord. Lighting is required to be circuited and switcfhed separately from other store fixtures on the tenant's panel and controlled by a time - clock. Required Signs Address Numbers as provided for in sections 41118 4112 of the U niform Building Security Code, street address numbers or suite numbers shall be displayed in a p rorninent position so as to be easily visible to approaching vehicles. The Numerals shall be no less than 6 inches in hei ght and shall be of a color contrasting with the background and located so they can be clearly seerand read, Landlord to provide all address /suite numbers. RwDwOLSON DEVELOPMENT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail | A R 0 0 0 1019hu OLOUN DEVELOPMENT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail 1 6 .� µ.. ,, a w Y IAARA fA1RF1 45' -, ! ELD 8 slrms t' 4C •+• 144 "c • i ....... ..w e 7 i w �.rr t. - i Asa ._.� Y�+ m '\ ..� �}j j•. m, { cur. �✓ ri jib i Primary Pole /Freestanding Freeway Sign & Center Identification Sign B Primary Monument Signs /Center Identification l Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A & C Single Tenant Primary Wall signs for parcel B Single Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel B On Premise Directional Signs RaBoOLSON mot DEVELOPMEN Pacific Center Tustin Hotels & Retail 1 7 0 Primary Pole /Freestanding Freeway Sign & Center Identification Sign Materials: Per the City's Sign regulations, and general criteria listed in section 9403i, this sign shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors which are compatible and reflectthe special qualities of the architecture of the buildings. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. Location & Qty: This pole sign /Freestanding Freeway Sign shall be located in a landscaped area and is limited to (i). Sign shall maintain a minimum of so' from another pole or freestanding sign located on an adjacent site. Size: If approved as requested, this sign shall not exceed a height of 46'tall and 200 sq ft of sign area. R DEV CT 7 T 1,�.1, O tit E �! T Pacific Center Tustin Hotels & Retail (B } Primary Monument Signs /Center Identification Materials: Per the City's Sign Regulations, and general criteria listed in section 9403i, these signs shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors which are compatible and reflect the special qualities of the architecture of the buildings. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. Location and Qty: These Primary Monument Signs /Center Identification Signs shall be located in the landscaped Corner of Edinger Avenue and Newport Avenue and at the landscaped corner of Newport Avenue and the On /Off ramp to S. R. 55. These signs are subject to clearance requirements and are limited to (z). These signs shall maintain a minimum of z5' separation from the property line or 5o' from another existing pole or monument sign on an adjacent site, whichever is less restrictive. Size: If approved as requested, these signs shall not exceed a height of 8' tall and 125 square ft of sign area each. i RoM DEVELOPMENT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail f 10 Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign for Parcel A & C Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters with a maximum of 3 sign coDors. Per the City's Sign regulations, Can signs are not permitted as wall signs. These letters shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors similarto other proposed signs on site and be only forthe purpose of business Identification. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. Location and Qty: This Single Tenant Directional signs for Parcel A & C, if approved as requested, can be located on the entry drive elevation per drawing shown to help traffic flow through the Porte- cochere. Size: If approved as requested, sign shall not exceed 1-5% of the elevation on which it is located up to a maximum Of 4 0 sq ft. /,J RoDoOLSON DEVELOPMENT Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A& C Pacific Center Tustin Hotels ft Retait 11 Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters with a maximum of 3 sign colors. Per the City's Sign regulations, Can signs are not permitted as wall signs. These letters shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors similar to other proposed signs on site and be only for the purpose of business Identification. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. Location and Qty: These Single Tenant Wall signs for Parcel A & C, if approved as requested, can be located on each individual elevation, up to a maximum of 3 signs total per Building Address. Size: If approved as requested, these signs shall not exceed 15% of the elevation on which it is located up to a maximum of 75 sq ft per Ordinance No. 1323- page 56 of 71. IV is 11 It4 ; A l I F .', TjfjN imam -� ' _ J RwDw8LS DEVELOPMENT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail 2 Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A& C ANN 44 ELXVAn,oN . ............ . NORTH ELEVATION REM IELEVAT" _ R DEVELOPMENT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels 8 Retail 13 0 Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A& C ?0 2a° sr - -- ---- __— _------ ------- - - -- -- Al r rI r'! Aa rnott PrcriMwc Frey ILLUM INATED CHANNEL LET TERS (43.4 SO FT) M � §. A i•1'Mner�s gAF (i$l37 w m M Wd3WX SNd COL SPECIFICATION Wfi Pw Jnpt 3M#VT 1 -•.,., - - ! Pam Meiprews tmp 9$937 W Sam rmixn W1Me Aayk Pmmi (Retums) Pmt a$776 Gpiq ...., .��.� 3A Jeweh(e - GOLD Tnm Caps FAin H EU 1"N 1XV 0 X4 u bUITIES Aarnotl -](-P R.B.OLSON DEVELOPMEI'�iT Single Tenant Primary Wall signs for parcel B Pacific Center Tustin Hotels 8t Retail 14 Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters or Backlit Halo Illuminated letters with a maximum Of sign colors (excluding logo colors). Perthe City's Sign regulations, Can signs are not permitted as wall signs. These letters shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors similar to other proposed signs on site and be only for the purpose of business Identification. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. Location and Qty: Each tenant is allowed (1) primary sign per business storefront. Signs shall be located either on building wall elevation or canopy elevation as long as approved by landlord and consistent with other signage on the same elevation. Size: Primary signs shall be limited to 1 sq ft of signage per each linear foot of elevation up to 75 sq ft. i Single Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel B Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters or Backlit Halo Illuminated letters with a maximum of 3 sign colors (excluding logo colors). Per the City's Sign regulations, Can signs are not permitted as wall signs. These letters shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors similar to other proposed signs on site and be only for the purpose of business Identification. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. Location and Qty: Each tenant is allowed (1 -2) secondary signs, depending on location per business storefront. Signs shall be located either on building wall elevation or canopy elevation as long as approved by landlord and consistent with other signage on the same elevation. Size: Secondary wall signs shall be limited to 25 sq ft. RaDmOLSON DEVELOPMENT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels F1 Retail) 15 * Single Tenant Primary Wall signs for parcel 8 (see site plan on page 6 for location) * Single Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel B (see site plan on page 6 for location) EAST ELEVATION SCALE alb I '-O RESTAURANT BUILDING WEST ELEVATION SCALE IM - 1'.0 SOUTHIELEVATION SCALE IM'.I'-O EAST ELEVATION SCALE its .n -n. WEST ELEVATION SCALE W NOR TH ELEVATION SCALE are-- Y-0- RoMOLS DEVELOPMENT Pacific Center Tustin Hotets Et Retait 16 ' On Premise Directional Signs Materials: Metal or acrylic permanent material. These signs shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors similar to tenants' Primary and Secondary wa ll signs and be only forthe purposes related to parking, exit /entrances, directional and similar information, but in no case business or product identification. Signs shall be designed to be viewed from within the site by pedestrians and /or motorists. Location and Qty: If approved as requested, (1) per Business Address at primary intersections shown on page 6 location map. Size: On Premise Directional signs shall be limited to 4 sq ft and a maximum of On height per Ordinance No. 1321 page 58 of 71. r� a ■. 0 d ■ rim ■ R