Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4195A 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. 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 7) 1 \ % LA JEFF R. THOMPSON Chairperson 1, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4195 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10 day of April, 2012. A/ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A to Resolution No. 4195 -emm EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 4195 FINE CONCEPT PLAN 2012-001, DESIGN REVIEW 2012-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-01 (R. D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EKE91M (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 k 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). 0 9 MNI SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT man"'. (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODEIS (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 provide landscaping incorporating wall vines and 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 01,10 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. 10 (4) 2.4 All trash enclosures shall meet City Standards and shall be covered to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 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 perimeter and 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 4.81F. 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 City Attorney and Director of Community Development. Upon approval of the Director, said agreement shall be recorded against the property with the County Clerk Recorder. (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 agreement, 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 (4) 3.15 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Master Sign Program shall be amended to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development to include provisions for the design and placement of construction/real estate signs for use on the site; and, to increase the overall height and square footage of the "A" Primary Pole/Freestanding Freeway Sign & Center Identification Sign to a total height not to exceed 55 feet to accommodate uses within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan Area. Said provisions shall require review and approval of said signs by the Director of Community Development. 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. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 6 (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. (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 0 & M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Qualit 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. (11) 5.9 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the 1111 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. mmlizlml Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 7 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 0 Street lighting g) Catch basin/storm drain laterals/ connection to existing storm drain system (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 developer and the adjacent property owners would be responsible for the proportionate fair share of 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). Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 8 (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. (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 ME (1) 5.22 Prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the applicant shall submit 24" x usiw 36" reproducible water improvement plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The plans shall be prepared by a California Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 9 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 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 Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 10 8_1 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. (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 fortt 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 Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 11 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 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 V 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. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 12 010 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. (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 Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 13 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 BIVIP 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 CIDID). (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 (HGQ 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. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4195 Page 14 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 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. No- Exhibit B to Resolution No. 4195 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 9278 (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. A. BACKGROUND 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 N 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 EIR 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. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources ❑Hazads and Hazardous Materials ❑Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 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. Z 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: Dana, don AICP Ass Director Date Elizabeth A. Binsack, Assistant City Manager D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached Hill yyW EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN 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 - g a ricultural 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 Fg t� w 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 FROM'. Signcant Severe Previous Impact Impa Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ F ❑ ❑ ❑ F z F r z ❑ r z r - 1 r - 1 z F r - 1 ❑ r - 1 z F r z ❑ r z r - 1 r - 1 z i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the NOUN", ral 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 insubstantial 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 list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, posp, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a IN yt public airport or public use airport, would the project result in II I, 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? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1:1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ r_1 F 0 ❑ ❑ 0 1:1 ❑ 0 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? V111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: ❑ ❑ 0 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge No Substantial New More Change From g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Significant Severe Previous adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Impact Impacts Analysis plan? substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would EJ ❑ 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? V111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: ❑ ❑ 0 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 pen 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 stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Z h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Z 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? ❑ ❑ Z j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or vvr 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? XT. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in M excess of standards established in the local general plan or ill noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1— 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? 0 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 ❑ ❑ E ❑ R 0 ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ F 0 El ❑ X111. 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? ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Signcant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ X111. 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? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Z ❑ F Z ❑ r - 1 Z r - 1 ❑ Z ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ 23 ❑ ❑ ED I'M 11111 a M f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1:1 1:1 0 g Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs �r = supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? I 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? 0 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? XVIL 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 pan effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will WINE, cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ o z ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ z ❑ 1:1 0 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 MitigationlMonitoring 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 11. 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 Yv 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 101 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. MitigationlMonitotim Rewired. 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 Ill. 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 NO 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. MitigationlMonitoring 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 w> 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 §16064.5? 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 1011111 - 17 0- 11111.1 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. MitigationlMonitoring 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, IN including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: MEN 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. 9 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. MifigationlMonitoting 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 0111- 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? Q 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 r Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The FEIR, as revised N e ill- 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. MifigationlMonitoring 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 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 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? f) 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? Q 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 mew 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. MitigationlMonitoring 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 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? 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. mis MifigationlMonitoring 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 X11. 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? Mail 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? 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. MifigationlMonitoring 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 MEN 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. MitigationlMonitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 M- Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -01 Tustin General Plan Submitted Project Plans mrso 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 now 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. MifigationlMonitoring 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. MitigationlMonitoring 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? 0 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 on 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. MitigationlMonitoring 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 MINOR Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, was adopted 111 by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. However a review by the City's Traffic PI-1-111 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? 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 RI result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and M I NI ! ma,11111 odors)? I N 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. MifigationlMonitoring 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 XVIL 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 MEMO 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. INT 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 to Exhibit B of Resolution No. 4195 �µV J I I Noise Analysis for the Marriott Residence Inn City of Tustin,. California Report #528801MRIvO1 January 11, 2012 jAN 13 2012 COMMUNifY UEVELOPMENT 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 m� �o�o Residence Inn Mme�mG�ve Amssc��m " Summary of Noise Mitigation Requirements Division of Landrum & Brown Page I Exterior Noise M itigation The pool area and sport court area are considered outdoor recreational areas subject to t 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 and fire pit areas located as shown in Figure 5 duce noise levels in these areas to below the 65 CNEL standard. interior Noise M itigation (]utstroorno are subject 0n the City ofTusdu's 45 (���EL interior noise standard. The ana shovvmthat all gues ^ moanodhcaoudzaidcofdhcboOdbogundnuthcflostflnnroftbcuorthaud 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 fi - gure and described below to meet the interior 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 EWNDRof20 D Typically " 1/2 '^ ~ - All �h�� Rooms Requiring Upgrade: rooms . the oo�bsi ~ oftbobuDdioguoda|lSU/dio[)oub]eQueenroommontbc2««' 4m floors outhe west side of the building. Upgrade 4: Minimum Window EWNRuf3O(8TC=33) Typically 1/4" Single Glazed. m ��� Rooms �T Requiring pgrmdm;��DStudio Flonmuoou the 4 floor ou the nor 10� side ofthe building, all Bedrooms of|-Bedmoonurooms and Large and Small Bedrooms of2-Bcdroomo rooms oothe 2"u-4m floors oo the north side of the building. Upgrade 5: Minimum Window EWNRof32(8TC=35) Typically l/2'`Laminated. Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All King Bedrooms of2-BodnnonuDouble rooms oo t 2 and 3 floors on the north side nf the building. Upgrade 6: Minimum Window BWNRof34 0 3/8 laminated T ypically Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All King Bedrooms of 2-Bedroom Double rooms oo the 4 floor ou the north side of the building. � These represent window configurations that can typically meet the specified EnVNl0STC ratings, ~ and are given for informational purposes only. Glass thickness and airspace configuration are , only u part of the overall noise reduction characteristics ofuwindow. Other factors can include the frame c000bncdou and seal type. Therefore, noise reduction ratings for windows of given configuration can vary from one manufacturer to uondhcr. Various window configurations may be available that nocct the required noise reduction ratings. The BWNR and 37`C rudogo specified above are the oddcul parameters, and should be used as the basis for uc\ccdoQ the vviudovvm for the project. Consult with the manufacturer to ensure compliance of the planned windows with the noise reduction rating requirements. E �3 �� To comply with,the Marriott standards for meeting rooms, the windows on the north elevation of the meeting room on the first Aoor - will need to achieve a minimum EWNR of 36 (STC of 35). Memtre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division oY Landrum & Brown Page | Table of Contents Summary of Noise Mitigation ReqK8^rements..............~...........~~~......~...... ~ Exterior Noise Mitigation u/Swuu -..--._~'---^-^--^-^-~^-----'-^-^--''/ Interior Noise Mitigation -.---.--.-..-.---------------.--.... ~ List �� l��0�0��� `^ -~~^~ -^ ^~~~~^ List �� '^ -`~~ ~^^ Figures ����V0��� ^~^`^^^^~^~^^^~^^^~^^^^~^^~^~^~^~^^^^^^^^~`~~^^^^^^^^~`^~~~~~~^^-^~^^`^^^^^^^^............. �K 1 ,0 Introduction ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,~~,,,~~,,,,,~,,,,~,.~,~~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~~,,,~,~~,~,~,,~, 1 2^0 City of Tustin Noise Standards...................,,,,,~,,,,,~,,,,,~,,~,~,~,,,,,,,,,,~,~, 1 �.� ���������» - - ----'---'���� ^^^^^~^^^^^^^^~^`^^~~^~^~^^^^^~^^^~~^^^^^~`~~^~^^~^~~^^^~~~^^~~^^^~~~^^^~^^^........... U 4 ~0 Noise Exposure ........ 4 4.1 Traffic Noise ' ^-`---`------^-'^-'--~-'--'-^^---.-----..4 4.2 Railroad Noise Exposure ..... ---..---.-......... --...... -....... ----5 4� ����ft Noise Levels �� � ...-.----~.-.,-_--.-.---~-.----.-.-6 4,4 Total Noise Exposure ^-------^^------^---'^-^-^---^^~^'' 5,0 Exterior Noi Mi 10 6,0 Interior Noise Miti ,,,,,,,,,,......~~....~..~...~~~..~,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,~,~~,.,,,, 10 7,0 Marriott Noise Standards ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,..,.~.,..~~......~....~...~.......~~........~.^ 22 7.1 ���tdOO[ �DiS8 ��O�rC8B . _.-..~..-.-.----.-.----,-.-.---..-. 22 7 .1 .1 ' ---------------------------------------.22 712 Meeting Space ........................................ ................ - .............................................. ...... 23 72 Partition Sound Tr8DS[DisSk]O -^-'-~'~'-^-^------^-^--.-._--24 Appendix .~.. , . ,,,, ~ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .~ ,,,,, ~ ,,,,,,,, ~~,,~,,,~,,,,,,,,,.,,~,.,~~~,,,,,,,,,,~.,,,,,,,,,,,,, ~~ ,, 25 Traffic Noise Calculations ..............................`............................................... 25 HBi|[O@d NOkg8 Calculations ---^-^-^^---^^---^---^-'''--.-..-. 26 EVVNR Calculations Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page !I FIN List of Tables 110 Table I 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 Table 5 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 Acoustically Equivalent Rooms — 2 nd Floor ................................................... Table 9 Mitigated Outdoor -to- Indoor Noise Reduction ................................................ 18 Table 10 Partition STC Requirements ......................................................................... 24 List of Figures Figure1 Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 2 Figure2 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 —1 st Floor .................................................... 13 Figure 7 Acoustically Equivalent Rooms — 2 nd Floor ................................................... 14 Figure 8 Acoustically Equivalent Rooms — 3` & 4 th 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 `d Floor ............................................................. 21 Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 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 I 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 dB. These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while sleeping, eating, and relaxing. The City of Tustin has adopted an exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL 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. UWUOB� • 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. b�k ;w Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 4 4.0 Noise Exposure wax 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 Road Traffic Volume Speed SR-55 300,000 65 Edinger 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 73.61% 9.74% 10.05% Medium Truck 3.07% 0.41% ---0.42% Heavy Truck 2.13% 0.28% 0.29% Edinger . Ave. -andl Nelwporlt'Aye Automobile 75.51% 12.57% -------------- 9.34% Medium Truck -- - - - -------- 1,56% 0.09% 0.19% 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. T results are listed in Table 3 in terms of distances to the 60, 65. 70\ and 75 CNE3~ 000knmra. These represent the distances from the centerline of the poodvvuy to the contour value shown. Note t the values given in Table ] do not take into account the effect ofintervening topography that may affect the roadway noise exposure. Table 3 Distance to Noise Contours for Future Traffic Conditions ~Ret from CentermcofRoadway RW-Contour does not extend beyond roadway right-of-way The results presented in Table 3 indicate that the project will be exposed toutraffic noise levels upk)78 CNBL along SR-55, 55 CNED.along Edinger Avenue, and O7CNBL along Newport /+vcouc 4.2 Railroad Noise Exposure Amtrak and Metro}iok ^ bub� dU�cdd rail line, = �o det , puau�o�cr trains x traumno/mckselx, the Wv}��ranB�od�lvvuuuocd(''�oxcnsnn�o�oy�oiac�ovim000zcntx�zouudBiuOroad nua" ^ °p^"" ` , Wvlc Laboratories Report W[}t-73-5,July, 1973). The noise generated by train operations can be divided into two components; noise geocoun:d by the engine or locomotive, and noise generated the cui|nmad ours. The cbuzuctcdmbc frequency of the engine is different than the characteristic frequency of the cars, The noise generated by the engine is the ccmuk of the mechanical movements ofthe engine parts, and tou 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 ooun:c height of lO feet is utilized for the Projected future odboud freight operations were obtained from information provided no the ONTRAC North-American Trade Rai} Access Corridor Authority) wcbsite. Projected passenger tra operations were obtained from tra schedules no the Amtrak and MotroDn) web sites. It should be noted that railroads are brc 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 O/Uume 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 >the train noise projections are displayed in ?uh/c 5 terms of distances to the 60. 65. and 70 CNBL contours. These n:pcoucot the distances from the railroad Uoc to the contour value shown. These projections do not include topogrupbyoc barriers that may reduce the noise levels. Distance taContour* Edinger Avenue RW 109i 235' 506' Newport Avenue RW 69' 150' 322' ~Ret from CentermcofRoadway RW-Contour does not extend beyond roadway right-of-way The results presented in Table 3 indicate that the project will be exposed toutraffic noise levels upk)78 CNBL along SR-55, 55 CNED.along Edinger Avenue, and O7CNBL along Newport /+vcouc 4.2 Railroad Noise Exposure Amtrak and Metro}iok ^ bub� dU�cdd rail line, = �o det , puau�o�cr trains x traumno/mckselx, the Wv}��ranB�od�lvvuuuocd(''�oxcnsnn�o�oy�oiac�ovim000zcntx�zouudBiuOroad nua" ^ °p^"" ` , Wvlc Laboratories Report W[}t-73-5,July, 1973). The noise generated by train operations can be divided into two components; noise geocoun:d by the engine or locomotive, and noise generated the cui|nmad ours. The cbuzuctcdmbc frequency of the engine is different than the characteristic frequency of the cars, The noise generated by the engine is the ccmuk of the mechanical movements ofthe engine parts, and tou 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 ooun:c height of lO feet is utilized for the Projected future odboud freight operations were obtained from information provided no the ONTRAC North-American Trade Rai} Access Corridor Authority) wcbsite. Projected passenger tra operations were obtained from tra schedules no the Amtrak and MotroDn) web sites. It should be noted that railroads are brc 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 O/Uume 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 >the train noise projections are displayed in ?uh/c 5 terms of distances to the 60. 65. and 70 CNBL contours. These n:pcoucot the distances from the railroad Uoc to the contour value shown. These projections do not include topogrupbyoc barriers that may reduce the noise levels. Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 6 Table 4 Railroad Operations Used To Calculate Noise Levels Table 5 Railroad Noise Levels Distance to Contour* 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL AT&SF Rail Line 230' 430' 800 Feet from Centerline of Tracks The project site is located approximately 1,200 feet from the project site. Railroad noise levels FINE within the project site will be less than 58 CNEL. MINE M 1 01 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 Metro Link Number of Trains pay 5 10 . 111-1-11111 ---------- Evening 4 1 2 Night 5 3 4 Number of Engines 1 2 Number of Cars 5 Ito 4 Speed 50 50 50 Table 5 Railroad Noise Levels Distance to Contour* 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL AT&SF Rail Line 230' 430' 800 Feet from Centerline of Tracks The project site is located approximately 1,200 feet from the project site. Railroad noise levels FINE within the project site will be less than 58 CNEL. MINE M 1 01 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 1 e% —6O. CNEL CONTOUR • RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE - �l•-• CITY BOUNDARIES --r-�- AIRPORT BOUNDARIES Composite contour from John We" Airport project CaW1990 and 2005 (see section 2.21) CERTIRCATION - — Adopted by the Avport land Use Commssion for Orange Comly AKarX igoni, � FZOMC - er q"/ Da - i�� � • s r s +r • SeiV h f•t mostre Greve Associotes Figure 3 - john Wayne Airport Aircraft Noise Contours Note: County Unincorporated areas are shown in white. I Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 8 SOMM 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 Noise Level (CNEL) at Receptor Receptor I st Fir. 2nd Fir. 3rd Fir. 4th Fir. SE 66.9 68.3 72.2 72.2 NE y 68.4 76.1 76.1 Y 76.1 N-1 67.9 75.9 75.9 75.9 N-2 67.7 75.7 75.7 75.7 N-3 67.6 75.6 75.6 75.6 NW 67.8 75.6 75.6 75.6 W-1 64.7 66.5 71.0 71.0 SW 66.1 67.1 ----- ----- - ---- 70.6 ^ 70.6 S-1 645 64.6 64.6 64.9 S-2 63.9 64,0 64.0 64.4 S-3 64.4 64.5 64.6 64.9 S-4 63.6 63.6 63.8 64.3 S-5 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.6 P-1 ....... ...... 65.0 ----- - --------- , - -------- . .... ..... . P-2 65.3 -- SC -1 64.9 --1--1 - --------------- SC-2 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 comer. Noise levels at the first floor along the west side of the building are not projected to exceed 67.8 CNEL. �e�n�R���omh� �eo�e��xo�w��|��o Page 10 Division of Landrum Brown Bui\dioas are auuuozcd to uob)ove u odoinounm of 20 dB of outdoor to indoor noise reduction with windows closed. Commercial buildings constructed under current energy efficiency NI� requirements typically achieve reductions in the uuogc of 24 to 26 dB but cubuiu1iooa are required tn demonstrate reductions greater than 2UdB. The building will need to provide upto 3\.ldBof reduction oo the side of the building facing SR-55 and upto24.5dB|of reduction nn the opposite aide. Thcmcforc, specific noise reduction calculations are required. Theme 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 Pcl and P sport court 5- | and 3C-2), are projected to exceed the City's 65 CNEL outdoor standard. Exter noise mitigati io discussed in Section 5{l 5.0 Exterior Noise Mitigation Table h shows that noise levels in t pool area and sport court area are projected to be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City's 65 CNEL atuoduoj. [ouubncbnu of u 6-foot tall noise barrier around the pednnctccs of tbcau areas, as Vhovvo in Figure 5 will reduce noise levels in these areas \o less than 65 CNEL. The noise barriers may consist ofu wall, 4 berm, oracombination 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 vvnU may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, 5/8-inch r/cxig/us, any masonry material, or acnmbiuudou of these ouutcdulo. MIN Outdoor noise levels in all areas subiect 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. 6.0 Interior Noise Mi The guestroomuofthe ��m���yv�� C��BL To meet the � interi noise standard, the huikbogo must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation k` reduce the noise k) acceptable levels. The outdoor k` indoor noise reduction characteristics ofa building are determined bycombining the transmission loss ofeach of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building o\coeot has u chucoctodadc transmission loss. For gucm1roomos, the critical building c\co|eotm are the roof, vvoKm, p/iodovvu doV,s, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent upon the b'uoondouioo loom of each c}croeot and the surface area of that c)erueoL in cc\ubou to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. IN- l44 7- iN; oi :r ZD 1 4 V w 4) Co 4) o ' Wil w a. CK I I t-f in o n Lo a JA W 0 Ii ca oil , as Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 12 0 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 Reauired Noise Reduction Maximum Minimum Building Face CNEL Level Reduction Design Floor at Building Face Required Reduction North I st 68.4 23.4 25.4 2nd-4th 76.1 31.1 33.1 South All 67.5 22.5 24.5 West 1st 67.8 22.8 24.8 2nd-4th 71.0 26.0 28.0 NUNN 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 tip 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 112" 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. Q CO a Mae 42 OX Ova COD LZ cc 42 ii E.� 4.- r 9 Whom coo cc cr sm 24 ttttr cc 0 ea uo 4, ar - I ow E go a CD coo co cc E: CCU CD El Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 16 Table 8 Unmiticiated Outdoor-to-Indoor Noise Reduction 1 0 SOON 10 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 1 of the building will require upgrades to meet the City's interior noise standard. I WIN-, I Noise Reduction Provided Room Type 1 "-V Floor 4th Floor Ia. 1- Bedroom, Living Area 34.9 34.1 I b. ---------- 1- Bedroom, Bedroom 31.3 30.9 2. Studio 31.6 31.1 3a, 2-Bedroom, Large Bedroom 31.2 30.8 3b. 2-Bedroom, Small Bedroom 30.9 30.5 3c. 2-Bedroom, Living Room 33.9 33.2 4. Studio Double Queen 27.7 27.4 5a. I Bedroom Accessible, 30.9 30.5 Bedroom 5b. I Bedroom Accessible, Living 34.2 33.5 Room 6a. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Dbl. 33.8 33.2 Queen Bedroom 6c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, 34.4 33.5 Living Ro 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, King Bedroom 7c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen 33.0 32.4 Accessible, Living Room 1 0 SOON 10 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 1 of the building will require upgrades to meet the City's interior noise standard. I WIN-, I J� � Memtme Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division ofLandrum &Brown Page 17 Cu}cu|uboou were performed in duk:cndoe the upgrades required to meet the required noise reduction. These culzu)u1inna determined that one of four levels of window upgrades would result in all deficient nnooma providing the reduction required 0u meet the City's standard. The following describes the window upgrade levels: Upgrade 1: Minimum Window EV9N}lo[20(8TC=3l) Typically 1/2" Single Glazed. Upgrade 2: Minimum Window EWNRof3O(STC=33) Typically |/4" Single Glazed. Upgrade 3: Minimum Window BWNRof32(STC=]5) Typically 1/2" Laminated. Upgrade 4: Minimum Window EWNRof]4(8TC=]0) Typically 3/8" laminated. T window upgrades listed above represent window configurations thatcautypica mo�de specified SV���}�S7�� ratings, and are given for informational purposes only. Gluuthickuooa and airspace configura are only u part of the overa noise reduction characteristics of window. Other factors can include the hunuc construction and seal type. Therefore, noise reduction ratings for windows of u 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 huxim for selecting the windows for the project. Consult with the manufacturer to �� ensure compliance of the planned vviudovvu with the noise reduction rating requirements. Table 9presents the for each deficient room n�t�wUl�a�iu��� providi o�d���-indoor noise reduction to comp��with the City's interior noise standard. The unimo reduction provided with the upgraded vvbndovv is also Umkxd alon the |ocudonuondehuik6n*w1xrodxe are required. The required - are shown io 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 I I will 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 Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 18 Table 9 N Mitigated Outdoor -to- Indoor Noise Reduction _ Side of Noise Reduction Room Type Floor(s) Building wl Upgrade Upgrade 1 Mini mum Window EWNR of 28 (STC of 31) 2. Studio 2 nd & 3rd North 33.4 .... 4. Studio Dou ble Queen 2nd & 3rd West 29.5 __ - - 4. Studio Double Queen 4th West 29.0 Upgrade 2: Min imum Window EWNR of 30 (STC of 33) lb. I- Bedroom, Bedroom 2nd & 3rd North 34.8 Ib. I- B edroom, Bedroom 4th North 34.0 2. Studio 4th �o h rt 34.1 3a . 2- Bedroom, Large Bedroom 2nd & _ _._ -- _ __ _ __ 3rd _ North 34.8 ._ _._ __ __..-.. ____ _ _ _ _._ ___ __ . . ... 3 2- Bedr oom, Large Bedro 4 North 33.9 3b. 2- Bedroom, Small Bedroom 2 & 3rd North 34.6 3b. 2- Bedroom, Small Bedroom 4th North 33.7 Upg 3: Mi nim u m Wind EWNR of 32 (STC of 35) --- 6b. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King__u 2nd & 3rd North 33.8 Be droom ti_E Upg 4: Minimum Window EWNR of 34 (STC of 38) ,x 6b. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 4th North 33.6 Bedroom +rlc-lll 1� r-1--ll d � — J-, CD If" Cy _o Cri 0 c CO LO CO ow 0 0 0 C 00 N 11 o m 11 eq m II 'e m 11 E z z z z E w w w w c + C v e a 0.2 N ei 19 19 "a I ca am es to II M M II in 11 00 11 ow 0 0 0 C4 II (n II m it m II E = z 3: z 3: z 3: z 3: E w w w w c + !g es to � W C W � 1 0 dEd i� C V- M It M M II LO M II O M it 3 ow U E- U t- 0 U 1-- 0 U E- 0 G 00 N O M N M et M = 7► E W W w W C+ `0 4s CLf r� a `t m 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 Guestroorns 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 1. � 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 meeting 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 Requirements Wall Type Required STC Fl C Assembly _55 Guestroom Party Wall (Including shaft/chase 55 walls between guest baths Guestroom Walls Common With Equipment 55+ Rooms, Public Spaces, or Fitness/Exerc Rooms_ _ Shaft &Ch W alls Between Bat 50 _ Elevato Sha ft Walls .___-- ----- .__._____ ------ 51+ -_�___ _ Corridor Walls 50 Walls Adjoining Public, Meeting, Service Areas, 55+ Elev E qui p me nt, La an d Similar Spaces _ Meeting Space Perimeter Walls v- ^ 55__.__.___. Meeting Space Operable Partitions 50 Office Partitions 48 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. FINE v E Mestre, Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 25 UTSO-= Traffic Noise Calculations 4) :2 (A 4) 0 L. m �j� 0 0 4A Gi 0 z IE WON a rwR R -j 17 ! lc � a! rl � kjR 00 Ll m .? t.R 0 ri Im 14 Uj Z w 00 r` h tD �t to w vi (D LA w LA w U t.0 W W %0 cm tD w w ko I'D Ln �q 00 r 1 p Lr! U! r, *• 11 : U� ll� tD l Ui Lft =I LA LU . zT , r r- r r r� cn . (14 r , Zr Ln U) Ln Ln Ln to to w . , w w . Ln Ln o Ln Ln Ln Ln U t.0 > (U Ln LAJ Z u t jE 0 Lq r- U) 0) N Ln 4 Ln M OL m 00 00 cyl fn m rn N r-4 4 4 zi .4. 4) Ln W (.0 W W to W Lo W "D tD Z Qj " r14 HIH r4 M O O O C ? Cl 0 C, r: 00 o6 o0 o0 o6 r, r, o o a d d o o 0 0 LA. Ln T 0 q C) 0 a o o o C1 m a', C1 m 00 0 9 N fN cc m a a o o o m rvi OO r 00 00 00 r-j co H r, v-4 r- -4 00 -1 00 r-i "0 to ao 4) WbA000000 00 C) 0 C) C) 0 0 0 0 C) 0 I . s m m m m m m 4 m m m m m m m ,, m (A '0 Oa LU - .E t 0 C) (71 aI a� 0 00 0 0 C: , 0 C) (=) 0 (:, c:) ci rn 00 00 00 (Ii ci ci 6 ci C5 6 ci ci ci C5 1-4 z m ttt " R w 0 10 r- w _4 0 0 0 0 N M M M M N ( M M III r4 rN A 1-4 Q1 Ql 0 -4 0 -4 -f 0 h 0 N 0 eT 0 tD 'CT w o6 ci 6 6 -4 �4 -4 6 6 6 6 0 ai 0 m m :6 ­4 r-4 -i N r4 r4 C CJ N N C N r r -' -4 -- q Lu t 0 m C) ai N O ai 06 ci co ai ci o6 h o6 r ­4 1-4 1-4 14 14 z turf (.0 Ln m w 0) RZT f14 Ln t" 14 m r- N M r" L.0 q d ZY o Ln tD -,r b o r- w -i at m rq N F4 Fq m -q -q E W rN 00 1:31 w Iq H Pq L n 0 C Ln 01 00 Q7 r- h ko .4t .9T C�t Cr Irr -t m "� , r.4 , V., 00 o L, o C� 0) h w w w a , 1.4 14 I r4 UJ V t O 0 CL r w m 0 -4 N N N m m r rZj -4 fN -4 N N -i -I rq -4 Z 1-4 N rn I m -tr M v V) Z z z ul V') LA ;) (A on CL . a u Ul u ul 0 0 4A Gi 0 z IE WON a rwR R ar E Ii LAJ fti 'I (n h 'D 1 '4 I w R I to tD H H q I T Z 00 W I LM F, LM NIN "i L� r1 w w r-Z w ;o tZ wi I en ct LA to LA w to ko w w1w w w LA Ln Ln . q r � 'p Lq 0 9 h Oo 09 ()q W 1-o t0 N N N N 4 4 -tzr u) N w w to w (A w r h r� r� P kD w Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln tw _ m r-4 Cn H N (n N Ln H N m � � � 06 ryi ryi cyi (Yi r� r� 4 N � t0 N t0 l0 tD t0 0 t0 W t�D t0 t�0 C) C? 0 a 0 q 9 m Lfi 6 0 ci 6 Lri vi ci ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Go I tn Ln 0 a 0 00 oo cr Ln Ln LA Ln M In I'* CD w en 0 0 0 C� C M M -,o 00 w w w 1.0 w N r" V to , 1-4 1-4 14 H 14 14 14 1-4 OD tw 0 C C! r- m m m m m ry) m m m m m m m m m m AA V LLJ t o CL 0 N U " U� C? 0 C) q C) C) 0 q q CO 3 'f i 00 1-4 w 4 00 -4 m rn o o a ci Z tA L � 'D t - 0 � h oq N 0 h h - o o a 0 N m m m C14 m m (N (14 W 1-4 vi 4 v4 -4 r-4 H -4 H r-4 -1 --4 -4 r-4 1-4 1-4 H -4 tU E lu 01 cn Ln -I Ln -4 '4 0 r to N 0 * cn k'O Q o C 00 00 (n o o '4 '-4 -1 o 6 0 6 0) cn 0) (n (n -0 — — — 1 4 ( C fN (N CIJ ( r4 r4 -4 r-4 r-4 -1 H LU 0 H i2 C) o q q "q L 'I c n CD 4 14 ­4 1-4 4 -4 r " r-4 0 -4 m w m w m m w r-Z w N Z Ln w Ln 0 Ln �I c) q w Ln 0) 1 0 N k.0 N 1-4 r4 1-4 m 1 .0 m t.0 N I�r v & Ln m C4 rq rIj (141 (N m 'IT m cn m m m m m m E C Q1 CO h t0 d t0 f o0 d to 0 M M N r (14 h" Ln 4: S 00 00 0 0 '-q r-4 ' '. Ln 4 0 a% 0) cn cu ' a ' 4 r•1 ' 4 ' 4 UJ m V t ES 0 CL h to r rNiml V r*j 0 r" -1 rn ­4 w 0 (N ( 1-4 yS Ln w w o rn w o r c oo r o r-, ko r, w 1-4 fN C14 C-4 M rn r*4 rIJ H ('Q r4 N r4 r-4 r-4 H -4 Z Lu UJ U z 0 z z z VI Ln V) LA LA d- CL ++ • 10 u (A 0) cc 4.0 4-A 0 L. m rJ E L. 0 0 m V IN . Z li"I'll, r i Oi r, � tp I 46 � � E 0 Z N 4D Ln Ln L m ui m wt LM Ln LA w LA N P. N P% P% N N N ko W %D w ko ko ko LA Ln 0 C31 r� 1 - 0 U' 00 1,, ( U ID Ln tO rl� rl� L'i LI) w -4 W Ln Ln LI) Ln C C) 't Ln Lf) W W r r-% r V r- r r h r r- h W Ln Ln Ln to till Ln Ln Ln Ln 4i t > CU tw Lu z t 0 M I -1 N 0 M N Ln 1 -1 Ln CL H (yi M M M N M 4 0 Co LA q goo ca r r- O q 00 th r- N r i O o 066 m ctt - r, r- ul Ln W LD 4) w tka 0 0 0 C) = r- M* m M M m rn m N1 cri m M M M M M n9 Ln M LAJ 0 CL 0 00°0 ( 1 ,0 4 0 CD 0 C, 0 10 0 0 0 0 ID r " m ci ci do o C3 C) 0 c; z Ln (n Ln CD h 00 0) W r, 00 r4 r-I 1-4 0 1-1 O rl rl 4 0 Ci 0 0 0 r, ,j Cn 11 Ili Iq I In li 14 14 4) E cn a) Ln -i Ln .-i -i o r- Ln cj 0 et cn LD d 0 w w c71 6 6 14 m m CI m m M c t M r O C) 00 a I w Ln M a , O �4 4 r� 0' 6 06 m oo m m oo r- oo I- �l Z tD Ln 0) w m �T rq Ln P- r i M h N M m r" 14 4tr q:t Ln to 1.6 �* 0 0 h LD - - 1.0 W 'tT 1 r rj rN N C-4 C-4 M Cr 'IT M M M M M M�M M Ni E 61 0 to Ln 00 r, m w w rl ItT w -c1' m r- N In w w LA N Ln c� C� CA cp c7i ai � l UJ m V t 0 CL h lD M Ln W W a M W 0 r% 0 N W N N 0 N rl 1-4 W 1-4 rIltD 1-4 ei ,-4 N r-4 N M M tN CN 1-4 1-4 I Z 0 ' r- - Lu r y r � T 3: r" 3: 7, -4 V i n z z z z z § V) 1 V) .A LA 0. V) u vi L. 0 0 m V IN . Z li"I'll, cu Li (A (U ce. 4.0 4.4 0 L. m `� E L. 0 0 LL (A (A .5 G m E 'I Q4 h kD kR q w (n -T 01 M IIR cq q c Ln rl Z N w L/i L'i A LM w w to w w cp Ln U C7 !a) r- I ' D U') 00 r , r , "R r. LL. 6 L'i Ln Lf) Ln r, N CO 01, 0 O O C; w VS V1 u1 V5 Ln w (Z w w Z > _j cu 0 uj z O N (n q r� Ln C1 U� .-E 1 V5 m 3 ryl . m rn (yi r� I rj zzr "i "1 4 1.0 ',o �o t.0 LO w W LD LO W z M .� 0 ola o�O�o 0 0 0 0 o�0�a 0 0 0 0 M U. Ln 00 0000 a o ul I-P ko L*i Lq m In en In Ln Ln m rm 'A 1-4 -4 -4 --4 4 1-4 an a 000000 00 000 0'000000 tA 1-4 tto uj C 0 0. C) o (10 r r 00 3: 6 (Yi U-) Ln Ln m m 6 6 6 6 o 0 0 0 0 0 z . , I L Ln ai Lo 1 - 0 r W cr w fl- 00 1 C 14 0 r- h fA � '.4 0 0 0 o o N (yi rei m m N r14 m m rq r-4 M (3) 0) Lf i Iq Lr ! -4 V-1 q h Ul IN C n t 131 1 1 0 ll f q 06 o6 cy) o a -q i q o d o o a) a) ai cn c3) N r14 cli r*4 rlq N N 14 14 1-4 1-4 uj m 0 CL 0 00 Cl It W Ln rn ri "i Ili oq M ,4 _4 _q �q (N 4 1 0 (3) 00 (7) 00 0) camn) 00 r- 00 r, Z I Ln T klo I L D n On (N Ln t*- 1-4 Us r N (3) rn h kD 0 I . 11t c 0 0 r t.D 14 1-4 (.0 t.0 it .1 1= rn r1i ( C14 tN r1l m Z3 lzr rn m M rn M rn m rn I k E co a, 00 r- 1.0 0 ` h O N n 0) r � r� 00 LA r a - , av r, r� U" co co oo a, C) r-j r r '-! - t C � c t C) 0) CY) r-i a) W -1 r-4 -4 4 4 t 0 CL (N rn 11 N 1 0 N r -4 M �4 Ln r4 �o N 00 rj 0 m m N 1 r- -I C) co rl kD N w 1 N (N 1-4 N N 1-4 V-4 � 4 1.4 Z O ZI uj m v z z z z 1A V) (11 LI, Ln O. CL u u 0 l z Ln V) L. 0 0 LL (A (A .5 G m E IE Mestre Greve Associates Ell Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 26 Railroad Noise Calculations E Marott Residence Inn Railroad Noise Levels - 1st Floor Location Distance to RR Level (CNEL) Bldg. ShIdg. (dB) Noise Lvl (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 19.1 35.3 SW 1,616 54.5 3.0 51.5 S-1 1,561 54.7 10 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 52.7 P-1 1,439 55.4 3.0 52.4 P-2 1,357 553 3.0 52.9 SC-1 1,356 55.9 3.0 52.9 SC-2 1,299 1 56.2 1 3.0 53.2 E Marott Residence Inn 16 Railroad Noise Levels • 2nd Floor Location Distance to RR Level (CNEL) Bldg. Shidg. (dB) Noise Lvl (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 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 5-2 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 52.7 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 - 3rd Floor Location Distance to RR Level (CNEL) Bldg. Shldg. (dB) Noise Lvl (CNEL SE 1 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 S-4 1,431 55.4 3.0 52.4 S-5 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 E Fairfield Inn and Suites E Railroad Noise Levels - 4th Floor Location Distance to RR Level (CNEL) Bldg. Shldg. (dB) Noise Lvl (CNEL SE 549 63.0 0.0 63.0 E-1 545 63.1 0A 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 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. 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 P F 621 62.0 3.0 59,0 mm Mestre Greve Associates Marriott Residence Inn Division of Landrum & Brown Page 27 EWNR Calculations E E Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1st-3rd Floors 1 a. 1 - Bedroom, Living Area 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft-2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 26,3 0.0 0.0 259,8 76.2 26 0 0 60 40 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.074 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 0 Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 28 0 0 60 40 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.049 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.6 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A 10"( -E/10) Window 0 Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 30 0 0 60 40 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.034 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) Window 0 Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 32 0 0 60 40 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.024 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 39.7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) Window 0 Ceiling Wall (net) 26,3 0.0 0.0 259.8 76.2 34 0 0 60 40 0,010 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.018 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 41.0 0219��L.VN 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 26 0 0 60 40 0,079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.086 10 Log S/A .3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 28 0 0 60 40 0.050 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.057 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.1 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 30 0 0 60 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.039 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 32 0 0 60 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.027 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 34 0 0 60 40 0.013 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.020 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.7 rIll0i�,,l- PREM MEN YMMEJAM] E Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1st-3rd Floors 2. Studio 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) 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-IOA(-Fjlo) Window Ceiling Wall (net) TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.6 0,058 0.000 OMO 0.000 0.013 3a. 2-Bedroom, Large Bedroom 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) 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 0,005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-IOA(-Fjlo) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 57.8 0.0 0.0 2682 126.7 30 0 0 60 40 0,058 0.000 OMO 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(-E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 57.8 0.0 0.0 268.2 126.7 34 0 0 60 40 0,023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.036 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.0 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 Window Ceiling Wall (net) TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.2 0.032 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.005 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR - -A BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) 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 0.055 10 Log S/A -3 60 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0A 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 - -A Window 31.5 32 0.020 0.0 0 U00 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 139.9 60 0.000 Wall (net) 53.3 40 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 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 139.9 60 0.000 Wall (net) 53.3 40 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 AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 Wall (net) 44.2 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 206.34 A'10A(.E/10) 0.084 10 Log S/A -3 0.032 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.004 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.9 0.036 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.7 44.2 28 0 0 60 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,004 TOTAL AREA 206.34 0 0.054 10 Log S/A -3 60 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.8 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 206.34 A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft-2) EWNR A'10A(.E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net)_ 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.7 44.2 30 0 0 60 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.004 TOTAL AREA 206.34 0.036 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.6 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.7 44.2 32 0 0 60 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 TOTAL AREA 206.34 0.024 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 34 0.013 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 L29 S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 Wall (net) 44.2 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 206.34 A'10A(-E/10) 0.017 10 Log S/A .3 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.8 0.056 3c. 2-Bedroom, Living Room 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 246.1 26 0 0 60 40 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.085 10 L29 S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 246.1 54.1 28 0 0 60 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.056 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 246.1 54.1 30 0 0 60 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,005 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.037 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.5 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 246.1 32 0 0 60 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.026 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 39.1 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 246.1 54.1 34 0 0 60 40 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.018 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 40.6 IN MINE 111 Page 3 of 8 I E Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1st -3rd Floors 2 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A Window 73.5 26 0.185 0.134 0.0 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 224.8 60 0.000 Wall (net) 173.7 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 471.98 0.091 0.202 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.1 TOTAL REDUCTION: 27.7 0.037 5a. 1 Bedroom Accessable, Bedroom 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.134 0.0 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 122.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 207.58 0.091 0.085 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.1 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.9 0.037 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA 2) EWNR A'10A(.E/10) Window 73.5 0.0 0.0 Ceiling 224.8 Wall (net) 173.7 28 0 0 60 40 0,116 0.000 OMO 0.000 0.017 TOTAL AREA 471.98 0.050 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.005 0.134 10 Log S/A 0 0 0.055 TOTAL REDUCTION: 29.5 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window 73,5 0.0 0.0 Ceiling 224.8 Wall (net) 173.7 30 0 0 60 40 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,017 TOTAL AREA 471.98 EWNR 0.091 10 Log S/A 0 31.5 0.0 0.0 122.0 54.1 30 0 0 60 40 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.1 207.58 37.6 0.037 10 Log S/A BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A Window 73.5 0.0 0.0 Ceiling 224.8 Wall (net) 173.7 32 0 0 60 40 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 TOTAL AREA 471.98 0.064 10 Log S/A 0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.7 Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 122.0 54.1 32 0 0 60 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-Et10) Window 73.5 0.0 0.0 Ceiling 224.8 Wall (net) 173.7 34 0 0 60 40 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 TOTAL AREA 471.98 0.047 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A*10A(-Ej10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31,5 0.0 0.0 122.0 54.1 28 0 0 60 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 207.58 0 0.055 10 Log S/A -3 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.7 60 0,000 Wall (net) 54.1 40 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 122.0 54.1 30 0 0 60 40 0.032 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 207.58 37.6 0.037 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.5 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 122.0 54.1 32 0 0 60 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 207.58 0.025 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.1 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A"I0A(-E/10) Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 122.0 60 0,000 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 207.58 0.018 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.6 Page 4 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn and Suites EWNR Calculations 1st-3rd Floors 5b. I 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) 26.3 26 0,066 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 215.3 60 0.000 Wall (net) 57.8 40 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 A-1 OA(-E/10) 0.072 10 Log S/A -4 0.017 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.006 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.2 0.023 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window (fixed) 26.3 28 0.042 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 215.3 60 0.000 Wall (net) 57.8 40 0,006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 A-1 OA(-E/10) 0.048 10 Log S/A -4 0.017 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.006 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.0 0.023 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 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 0.000 Ceiling 234.0 60 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 263 0.0 0.0 2153 57.8 32 0 0 60 40 0.017 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.086 0.023 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 39.2 33.8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A 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 28 0.016 10 Log S/A -4 0.0 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 40.6 IM"I'MM017-= BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EW A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 234.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 64.5 40 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 31.5 28 0.050 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 234.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 64.5 40 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) gg _ f Window 31.5 30 0.032 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 234,0 60 0,000 Wall (net) 64.5 40 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 31.5 32 0.020 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 Ceiling 234.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 64.5 40 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 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0,000 0.0 0 0,000 Ceiling 234.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 64.5 40 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 I st-3rd Floors 6b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 6c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Living Bedroom Room 2 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 154.4 60 0,000 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0 0.097 10 Log S/A 0 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 29.7 60 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10-(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) 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*10A(-Ej10) 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 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 0.049 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-2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A 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'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 34 0,013 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 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-JOA(-EjjO) Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 OMO Ceiling 293.1 60 OMO Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.083 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0A 0 0,000 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 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 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 60 0.000 Wall (net) 163.5 40 0,016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 A'10A(-E/10) 0.148 10 Log S/A 0 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 28.9 0.069 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 52.5 0.0 0.0 244.0 163.5 28 0 0 60 40 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0 0.100 10 Log S/A 0 0 0,000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.6 60 0.000 Wall (net) 50.9 40 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 52.5 0.0 0.0 244.0 163.5 30 0 0 60 40 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 31.3 0.069 10 Log S/A 0 0.037 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.2 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 52.5 0.0 0.0 244.0 163.5 32 0 0 60 40 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 32 0 0 60 40 0.050 10 Log S/A 0 0.025 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.7 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.6 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 52.5 0.0 0.0 244.0 163.5 34 0 0 60 40 0,021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 34 0 0 60 40 0.037 10 Log S/A 0 0.018 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 7b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, King Bedroom 1 Wall Exoosure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A*10-(-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 146.3 60 0.000 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.084 10 Log S/A -3 A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.3 0.032 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.005 I oil I IN Page 7 of 8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 146.3 50.9 28 0 0 60 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0,000 0M5 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.055 10 Log S/A .3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 146.3 50.9 30 0 0 60 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.037 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 146,3 50.9 32 0 0 60 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.025 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.6 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 146.3 50.9 34 0 0 60 40 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.018 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.1 I oil I IN Page 7 of 8 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR Marriott Residence Inn and Suites Window Ceiling Wall (net) EWNR Calculations 28 0 0 60 40 1st-3rd Floors TOTAL AREA 7c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, 0 Livingroom 10 Log S/A 1 Wall Exposure 0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A 2) EWNR A-10-(-E110) TOTAL REDUCTION: Window 31,5 26 0.079 60 0.0 0 0.000 Wall (net) 0.0 0 0.000 40 Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 AREA (ftA2) Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 A TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.083 31.5 0.0 0.0 193.2 35.7 10 Log S/A -4 0,032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(.E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 193.2 35.7 28 0 0 60 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0 0.054 10 Log S/A -4 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 60 OMO Wall (net) 35.7 40 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 193.2 35.7 30 0 0 60 40 0,032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 40.0 0.035 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.7 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 193.2 35.7 32 0 0 60 40 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.024 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-Ej10) Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 193.2 60 OMO 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 E E Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 1a. 1- Bedroom, Living Area I Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/10) Window 26.3 26 0.066 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0,000 0 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 259.8 42 0.016 Wall (net) 76.2 40 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 A"10A(-E/10) 0.090 10 Log S/A -4 0,050 0,000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.1 0.065 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_E110) Window 26.3 28 0.042 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 0 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 259.8 42 0.016 Wall (net) 76.2 40 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 A"10A(-E/10) 0.066 10 Log S/A .4 0,050 0,000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.4 0.065 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_E110) Window 26.3 30 0.026 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 0 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 259.8 42 0.016 Wall (net) 76.2 40 0,008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 A"10A(-E/10) 0.050 10 Log S/A _ -4 0,050 0,000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.6 0.065 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_E110) Window 26.3 32 0.017 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 0 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 259.8 42 0.016 Wall (net) 76.2 40 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 A"10A(-E/10) 0.041 10 Log S/A -4 0,050 0,000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.5 0.065 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A E110) Window 26.3 34 0.010 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 0 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 259.8 42 0.016 Wall (net) 76.2 40 0.008 TOTAL AREA 362.24 A"10A(-E/10) 0.034 10 Log S/A -4 0,050 0,000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 38.2 0.065 M 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 26 0 0 42 40 0.079 0.000 0.000 0,008 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0 0.094 10 Log S/A -3 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.9 42 0.008 Wall (net) 70.9 40 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 28 0 0 42 40 0,050 0,000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 36.2 0.065 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.5 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 30 0 0 42 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.047 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 130.3 70.9 32 0 0 42 40 0.020 0,000 0.000 0.008 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.035 10 Log S/A .3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.2 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 130.3 42 0.008 Wall (net) 70.9 40 0.007 TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.028 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.2 1 1- 10 IS 0_1 ME it tz-.11 Page 1 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 2. Studio 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft-2) EWNR A - 10^ -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 42 0,017 Wall (net) 126.7 40 0,013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0,032 0.000 0,000 0.009 0.005 0.175 10 Log S/A -3 A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.1 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.013 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 57.8 0.0 0.0 268.2 126.7 28 0 0 42 40 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0 0.121 10 Log S/A -3 42 0.017 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.7 40 0,013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0,032 0.000 0,000 0.009 0.005 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA,2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 57.8 0.0 0.0 268.2 126.7 30 0 0 42 40 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.087 10 Log S/A -3 A-10A(-E/10) Window 31,5 0.0 0.0 Ceiling 139.9 Wall (net) 53.3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.1 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.034 10 Log S/A -3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10-(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 57.8 0.0 0.0 268.2 126.7 32 0 0 42 40 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 Window 31.5 0.0 0.0 Ceiling 139.9 Wall (net) 53.3 0.066 10 Loci S/A -3 0.027 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 57.8 34 0.023 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.009 0,005 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A -3 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 268.2 42 0.017 Wall (net) 126.7 40 0,013 TOTAL AREA 452.63 0,032 0.000 0,000 0.009 0.005 0.053 10 Log S/A .3 10 Log S/A -3 - TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 33.9 n- ��, •• I q I Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.009 0,005 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A -3 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 139.9 42 0.009 Wall (net) 513 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0,032 0.000 0,000 0.009 0.005 0.093 10 Log S/A -3 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.8 33.9 Page 2 of 8 _ BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A Window 31.5 0.0 0.0 Ceiling 139.9 Wall (net) 53.3 28 0 0 42 40 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.009 0,005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.064 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(.E/10) Window 31.5 0,0 0.0 Ceiling 139.9 Wall (net) 53.3 30 0 0 42 40 0,032 0.000 0,000 0.009 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.046 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.9 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E/10) Window 31,5 0.0 0.0 Ceiling 139.9 Wall (net) 53.3 32 0 0 42 40 0.020 0.000 0,000 0.009 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.034 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 31.5 0.0 0.0 Ceiling 139.9 Wall (net) 53.3 34 0 0 42 40 0.013 OMO 0.000 0,009 0.005 TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.027 10 Loci S/A .3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 Page 2 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 5b. 1 Bedroom Accessable, Living Room 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) 26.3 26 0.066 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0000 Ceiling 215.3 42 0.014 Wall (net) 57.8 40 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 A 0.085 10 Log S/A -4 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.014 0M6 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 315 0.036 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) 26.3 28 0.042 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0,000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 215.3 42 0.014 Wall (net) 57,8 40 0.006 TOTAL AREA 299.25 A 0.061 10 Log S/A -4 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.014 0M6 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 0.036 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A"10A(-E/10) Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 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 Window (fixed) Ceiling Wall (net) 26.3 0.0 0.0 215.3 57.8 32 0 0 42 40 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.014 0M6 TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.036 10 Log S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 37.2 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 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, MI. Queer Bedroom f Wall ExDosure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR- A-10A(-E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 26 0 0 42 40 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.015 0006 TOTAL AREA 330 0.100 10 L29 S/A -4 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.2 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 234.0 64.5 28 0 0 42 40 0.050 0.000 OMO 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 00 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(-Ej10) 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 (ftA2) EWNR A 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 nmn MM Page 5 of 8 Marriott Residence Inn EWNR Calculations 4th Floor 6b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 6c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Living le'ans Bedroom Room 2 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_E/10) Window 31.5 26 0.079 30 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 358.35 Wall (net) 0.106 10 Log S/A 0 0 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.5 29.3 0.010 1 Wall Exposure BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A2) EWNR A-10A(.E/10 Window 31.5 26 0.079 30 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 293.1 42 0.018 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 359.46 Wall (net) 0.101 10 Log S/A -4 0 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.5 0.058 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_E/10) Window 31.5 28 0.050 30 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0,017 TOTAL AREA 358.35 Wall (net) 0.077 10 Log S/A 0 0 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.7 0.058 BLDG ELEMENT BLDGELEMENT AREA 2) (ftA EWNR A-1 0 A(-E/10) 31.5 Window 31.5 30 0,032 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 0.000 Ceiling 0.0 0 0.000 Wall (net) Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 359.46 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 0 TOTAL AREA 358.35 35.0 0.058 0.010 10 Log S/A 0 42 0.018 Wall (net) TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.9 0.017 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 293.1 42 0.018 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0 0.072 10 Log S/A -4 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.0 42 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 293.1 42 0.018 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0 0.053 10 Log S/A -4 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 42 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 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 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(,E110) Window 31.5 34 0.013 0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.040 10 Log S/A 0 T OTAL REDUCTION: 33.6 _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 293.1 42 0.018 Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.035 10 Log S/A -4 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 Accessiftle, Dbl. Queen Bedroom King Bedroom I 3 W BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window 52.5 26 0.132 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 244.0 42 0.015 Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 A*10A(-E/10) 0.164 10 Log S/A 0 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.016 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 28.5 0.084 I 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 146.3 42 0.009 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 40 0.093 10 Log S/A -3 A*10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.9 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.016 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft-2) EWNR A*10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 52.5 0.0 0.0 244.0 163.5 28 0 0 42 40 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0 0.115 10 Log S/A 0 0 0.000 TOTAL REDUCTION: 30.0 42 0.009 Wall (net) 50.9 40 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A*10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 52.5 0.0 0.0 244.0 163.5 30 0 0 42 40 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 32.5 0.084 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 31.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A Window Ceiling Wall (net) 52.5 0.0 0.0 244.0 163.5 32 0 0 42 40 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.065 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.5 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A*10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 52.5 0.0 0.0 244.0 163.5 34 0 0 42 40 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.016 TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.053 10 Log S/A 0 TOTAL REDUCTION: 33.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10-(-E/10) Window 31.5 28 0.050 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 146.3 42 0.009 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 A 0.064 10 Log S/A -3 0.020 0,000 0,000 0.009 0,005 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.5 0.034 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 146.3 50.9 30 0 0 42 40 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.046 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.0 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 146.3 50,9 32 0 0 42 40 0.020 0,000 0,000 0.009 0,005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.034 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.3 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Window Ceiling Wall (net) 31.5 0.0 0.0 146.3 50.9 34 0 0 42 40 0.013 0.000 0,000 0.009 0.005 TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.027 10 Log S/A -3 TOTAL REDUCTION: 36.3 Page 7 of 8 ORION; BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR Marriott Residence Inn Window EWNR Calculations 28 4th Floor TOTAL AREA 7c. 2-Bedroom MI. Queen Accessible, 0 Livingroom 10 Log S/A 1 Wall Exposure 0 _ BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(-E/10) Ceiling Window 31.5 26 0.079 42 0.0 0 0.000 Wall (net) 0.0 0 0.000 40 Ceiling 193.2 42 0.012 TOTAL AREA Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 A'10A(-E/10) TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.096 10 Log S/A 10 Log S/A - -4 0,013 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.004 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.4 BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(-E110) Window 31.5 28 0.050 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0.000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0.000 Ceiling 193.2 42 0.012 Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 A'10A(-E/10) 0.066 10 Log S/A -4 0,013 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.004 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.0 0.028 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A 1 0 - E110) Window 31.5 30 0.032 TOTAL AREA 0.0 0 0,000 10 Log S/A 0.0 0 0,000 Ceiling 193.2 42 0.012 Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 TOTAL AREA 260.4 A'10A(-E/10) 0.047 10 Log S/A .4 0,013 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.004 TOTAL AREA TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.4 0.028 BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR 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 0.0 193.2 351 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 �M' Exhibit C of Resolution No. 4195 INS P 01 - 1 - 1 RO 0111,10-1 Pacific Center Tustin Hotets Et \/ 2 \}\ T.- 4 RuMOLSON 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 o Parcel Map NO, 2020-3.27 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, 4, 5 Master Site ptan PENN 6 11111 Primary Pote/ Freestanding Freeway Sign EL Center Identification sample sign 7 Primary Monument Signs/ Center Identification signs 8 9 Single Tenant Directional Watt Sign 11 Single Tenant Watt Signs for Parcel A Ft C sample signs ill, 12, 13 Single Tenant Primary Et Secondary Watt signs for parcel B sample signs 14, 15 On premise directional sign sample 16 RoMOLSON Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail 3 -_-_ ��^��������� ��.���� Criteria °�� Tenant m��mw�� �����°� ��� ����� N�� The following are works tmbe provided by the tenant orlandlord. Tenant dgnage shall bedesigned, fabricated and installed by the tenant attheir own expense. Tenant Signage must be constructed from durable materials and shall be maintained "y 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. TenpvrwyPoject Identification Signs- Temporaryd n identifying the future 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, wa 11 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 of:18o days from issuance of first occupancy permit. :L. Primary Center identiftation 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 F Sk- Identified with (i) Primary Pole Style Sign positioned along S. R. 55 Freeway and (2) Primary Monument signs a­ along Newport Avenue. These signs serve ms the principal project identifiers. L� � A. Primary Pole Style Sign- Center Identification Sign/Freeway Sign (sign type A) —A total of (:L) sign along S. R. 55 Freeway with the height Of 46'to accommodate visibility above the 3.2'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 B) — A total Of (2) signs located at the comer of Edinger Ave and Newport Ave & Newport Ave and the On/off Ramp toS.R. s5 with the height uf8'to house vp toa total nf<6>tenants. 2. Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign for Parcel A&[ (Sign Type [] —Dedgnedtodkecttraffic 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 Direct Wall Sign —A total uf(i) Sign inside Parcel A&C. Sign shall not exceed :LS% of the elevation on which it is located up to a maximum Of 75 sq ft. 3. Single Tenant Wall Signsfor Parcel A& C in the [enter. Signs to` incorporate similar design elements, materials &colors &be compatible with existing pr proposed signage in the center, [Atotal 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 toexceed 75 sq ft. each or a total of 3.5% of building elevation. ReMOLSON Pacific Center Tustin HoteLs Et Retail |4 Tenant Sign Criteria Continued 4 Single Tenant Wall signsfor porce8(SigntypeE&F)- Designedto Identify the Tenants mhb6 make up parcel B in 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 toidentify the business and its brand or uses of the property mnwhich the sign islocated. O. Single Tenant Primary Wall Sign (Sign type 8'A total of(3) internally illuminated primary wall sign permitted per business front storefront elevation, Primary signs shall be limited tozsq ft of signage per each linear foot of Front Elevation up to 75 sq ft. E. Single Tenant Second Wall Sign (Sign type total of(1,z) internally illuminated secondary wall signs permitted per business on rear elevation & East & West Elevation depending on location of tenant. Secondary signs shall 6e limited t625 sqft. 5. On-premise directional signs to relay information relating to parking, exk/enLranue, directional and similar information inside the center. Signs shall be designed tobe viewed from within the site 6y pedestrian and/or motorists. May provide more than b0 per entrance |n order tofacU|ate smooth internal circulation. F. A total of(z-4) on-premise directional signs permitted and must be less than 4sqftinmaximum sign area and 4'|nheight. 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. RwOnOLSON _ _Pacific Center Tustin Hotets Et Retail, \ 5 Fabrication Et Insta/>ation 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 to6ehnpemeptaNe. ConcmaaUfastenecs,exceptwhereapproveJot6enwbebytheLamd|ord. Make access panels tight~Rtting. light proof and Hwshwith surfaces. Conceal all transformers and conduit. Sign Lighting ON Electric Signs shall be either illuminated from the ioteriornfusig n, behind the letters (back lighting) nrchannel � All primary and secondary sign elements must be i ntemally 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 nationa I/local building and electrical codes and shall bare the U.L. label. To protect the visual environment, all tenant's |ightUxtures in regards to brightness and glare shall besubject to approval. Tenants primary and secondary sign (if applicab le) 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 bva time-clock. Required Signs Address Numbers as provided for in sections 4z2084112of the Unifonn Building Security Code, street address numbers or suite numbers shall be displayed in a p rominent position so as to be easily visible to approaching vehicles. The Numerals shall be no less than 6 inches in height andshall be of a color contrasting with the background and located so they can be clearly seomandread, Landlord to provide all address/suite numbers. k&OLSON ) © \: «, +/ �NT Pacific Cent Tustin Hoteh E Ret !| ? : _ \ « \ � \ O � RatOLSON `w i � _ rte Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail � m- c� Primary Pole /Freestanding Freeway Sign & Center Identification Sign 0 Primary Monument Signs /Center Identification Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A & C Single Tenant Primary Wall signs for parcel B Single Tenant Secondary Udall signs for parcel B On Premise Directional Signs c� RaMOLSON ELORN-1 !-`X Pacific Center Tustin Hotells Ft Retait I 4 ) 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 reflect the special qualities of the architecture of the buildings. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. Location & City: This pole sign/Freestanding Freeway Sign shall be located in a landscaped area and is limited to (:L). 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. CEO% r Oil RaMOLSON C)PI MENI Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail, 0 8 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 City: 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 (2). These signs shall maintain a minimum of 25' separation from the property line or 5o' from another existing pole or monument sign on an adjacent site, whichever is less restrictive. Mj Size: If approved as requested, these signs shall not exceed a height of WWI and 225 square ft of sign area each, RuBsOLSON Pacific Center Tustin Hotels It Retail 4 Single Tenant Directional Wail Sign for Parcel A & C 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 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 25% of the elevation on which it is located up to a maximum Of 4 sq ft. v r���. R Dt'VELOPMEN'T' Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail 0 Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A & C 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. 2321 page 56 Of 7 1ASSUMM= Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A& C RILAR ELFVAV" El MI MI r FRONT, V-pVATION I- IV SOUTH RLWATION RILAR ELFVAV" El MI MI r FRONT, V-pVATION RwDwOLSON _..w w._._ .. _.. Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail ! Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A & C RaMOLSON _ Podfic Center Tustin Hoteb bt Retait | �� (1) Single Tenant Primary Wall signs for parcel g Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters or Backlit Halo Illuminated letters with a maximum of3sign colors (excluding logo co|ons). 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 baonly for the purpose of business Identification. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted, Location and Oty: Each tenant is allowed b> primary sign per business storefront. Sb7ms 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:L sq ft of signage per each linear foot of elevation up to 7S sq ft. * Single Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel B Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters or Backlit Halo Illuminated letters with a maximum of]sign colors (excluding logo mlors),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 (3.-2) secondary signs, depending on location per business storefront. Signs shall be located either on building wall elevat or canopy elevat as long as approved by landlord and consistent with other signage on the same elevation. Size: Secondary wall signs shall be limited toa5 sq ft. RINSE &Dw0L SON LOP Pacific Center Tustin Hotels F1 Retail 010-10 Single Tenant Primary Wall signs for parcel B (see site plan on page 6 for location) Single Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel B (see site plan on page 6 for location) 1 RON-- 1 1 EAST ELEVATION art -, ., —ur RETAIL BUILDING WEST ELEVATION co NORTH ELEVATION SiAtS RESIAURA ICI T.SUILDING RuMOLSON Pacific Center Tustin Hotels & Retail 6 Dn Premise Directional Signs _ Materials: Metal or acryl permanent material. These signs shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors similar to tenants'Primary and Secondary wall 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 tobe viewed from within the site bv pedestrians and/or motorists. Locat and Oty: if approved as requested, (3.) per Business Address at primary intersect shown on page 6 location map. Size: On Premise Directional signs shall be limited to4sq ft and a maximum Of 4'in height per Ordinance No. 2 page fDOf7z. - _-� V mn ' � ' � � ` > , V a - ISBN- LE