The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 ITEM #3 ti )J ~) üs<r91 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: JANUARY 23, 2006 DESIGN REVIEW 05-019, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-037 LENNAR HOMES 25 ENTERPRISE All SO VIEJO, CA 92656 ATTN: MIKE BALSAMO PARCEL 265 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16851 NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER AVENUE AND WEST CONNECTOR (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN) PLANNING AREA 4 AND 5 (MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: ON JANUARY 16, 2001, THE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTIFIED THE PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REUSE AND DISPOSAL OF MCAS TUSTIN (FEIS/EIR). IN ADDITION, THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED A SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK LIST FOR THE COLUMBUS SQUARE PROJECT WITH APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16581 WHICH CONSIDERED THE SENIOR HOUSING SITE AND NOTED THAT NO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS WERE ANTICIPATED. PROJECT: 1) DESIGN REVIEW 05-19 - SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 240 SENIOR HOUSING RESIDENTIAL UNITS; AND, 2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-037- A REQUEST FOR NEW PARKING STANDARDS FOR SENIOR HOUSING WITHIN MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 4 AND 5 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4014 approving Design Review 05-019 and Conditional Use Permit 05-037 for site and architectural design of a 240- Planning Commission Report Lennar Senior Housing January 23, 2005 Page 2 unit senior housing project and new parking standard within Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 5 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On February 14, 2005, the City Council approved development of 1,077 residential units for the site that encompasses Planning Area 4 and 5 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan known as Columbus Square. The project required 266 affordable units including 153 units provided in a 242-unit senior housing project that was not approved due to site/architectural design and parking issues. The applicant entered into a Housing Incentive Agreement with the City to satisfy the affordable housing obligations for Columbus Square project site (Tentative Tract Map 16581). However, with the tentative tract map approval, the developer was required to submit a design review and conditional use permit application for the senior housing project under a separate review. This request includes the revised site and architectural design for the senior housing and a new parking standard. Since the number of affordable units provided with this application is consistent with the number required under the Housing Incentive Agreement, no amendment to the agreement is required. The site is a nine (9) acre parcel within the 105.5 acre community to be subdivided by Final Tract Map 16581 (Columbus Square). The project site is bounded by Edinger Avenue on the north, the future fire station site on the east and future residential development on the south and west that are currently under construction (Attachment A - Location Map). Desian Review 05-019 Site Design The site is designed with two vehicular accesses: one immediately north of the main entry to Columbus Square on West Connector Road and another further west across from carriage way detached units, which serves as the main entry to the site. Full circulation is provided throughout the site for emergency fire access (Attachment B - Submitted Plans). The 240 units are divided into ten (10) three story buildings. The buildings are designed as u-shaped clusters containing twenty-four (24) units and are separated by either a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet of open space or a two way drive with landscaping, parking, and sidewalks. Landscaping In addition to the required landscape setbacks along Edinger Avenue and the West Connector, twenty-eight (28) percent landscaping will be provided throughout the site Planning Commission Report Lennar Senior Housing January 23, 2005 Page 3 including two park sites for a total of 2.57 acres of open space, or 467 square feet of open space per unit. The minimum requirement for open space is 400 square feet per unit. The pool park is located across the main entry and includes a pool/spa, a shade structure, and a pool house with restrooms and pool equipment room. The main park is located at the perimeter of the site and the open lawn areas will be visible and open to other residential communities in the vicinity of the project. This park includes a multi- functional recreational building with a courtyard, an office, and restrooms. Building Design/Architecture The project site includes ten (10) three-story cluster buildings each containing twenty- four (24) senior residential units. Each cluster includes twenty (20) single car garage spaces and four (4) residential units on the ground floor and twenty (20) units on the second and third floors. For safety and convenience, the garages are designed with an interior access to the main corridors. Fourteen (14) of the garages take vehicular access from an interior courtyard and six (6) from the private streets. The main lobby, elevator, and trash chutes are located at the center of the building and within a reasonable distance from all units. In addition to the trash chutes, recycling bins are located on the ground floor of each building. The main entry leading to the lobby includes a small veranda that is separated from the street with an ornate wrought iron gate. The elevator tower is designed with decorative brackets and capped with a decorative cupola that is the focal point of the building. This element is also duplicated in the design of the pool building and the recreation center. The buildings are designed with stucco and brick veneer on the first and second floors and wood siding on the third floor. The doors and windows are enhanced with wood shutters and Fypon millwork moldings. The balconies and ground floor patios include wrought iron railings that are compatible with the Colonial and Georgian architectural styles of other residential buildings in Columbus Square. Affordable Housing Approval of Tentative Tract Map 16581 included the requirement of providing 266 affordable units as follows: Planning Area 4: 8 units for Very Low Income (moved 8 units to PAS) 48 units for Low Income 16 units for Moderate Income (moved 14 units to PA5) Total: 72 units Planning Commission Report Lennar Senior Housing January 23, 2006 Page 4 Planning Area 5: 53 units for Very Low Income (37 units + 8 units from PA 4 + 8 units from PA 21) 77 units for Low Income (60 units + 17 from PA 21) 64 units for Moderate Income (50 units + 14 from PA 4) Total: 194 units The senior housing project was required to provide a total of 153 affordable units. Each building will include 15 or 18 affordable units. The affordable units include one bedroom and two bedroom units that are dispersed thought the project site as follows: Plan Tvpe No. of Bedrooms Size No. of Units Income Cateaorv Plan 1 1 bedroom/1 bath 662 sq.ft. 36 units Very Low Plan 1 1 bedroom/1 bath 662 sq.ft. 44 units Low Plan 2 2 bedroom/2 bath 905 sq.ft. 17 units Low Plan 2 2 bedroom/2 bath 905 sq.ft. 23 units Moderate Plan 3 2 bedroom/2 bath 907 sq.ft. 30 units Moderate Plan 4 2 bedroom/2 bath 955 sq.ft. 3 units Moderate Conditional Use Permit 05-037 The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan does not distinguish between senior housing and other residential uses with respect to parking standards; 2.25 parking spaces per unit would be required. In accordance with Condition 2.2 of Resolution No. 05-40 for approval of Tentative Tract Map 16581, any deviation from the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan parking standards for the senior housing would require approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant has proposed a parking ratio of 1.7 parking spaces per unit. A parking demand analysis was submitted by the applicant, which considered trip generation for senior housing units and referred to several examples from other cities (Attachment C - Parking Analysis). The parking ratio in the noted cities ranged from 0.60 to 1.5 per parking spaces per unit. The study determined that the parking demand for senior housing and affordable residential projects is typically lower than family housing and market rate housing development and the proposed ratio of 1.7 parking space per unit was considered to be consistent with the recommendations of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and exceeds the recommended ratio by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The parking study was reviewed by the Public Works Department and was found to contain sufficient technical data to support the conclusion that the proposed parking supply is adequate to serve the proposed development. Condition 9.1 is included to ensure that the use of the site will remain as condominium senior housing with 153 affordable units. Noise Analvsis! Sound Walls With approval of the Columbus Square project, a noise analysis was prepared that recommended installation of a seven (7) foot masonry block wall along Edinger Avenue, West Connector, and the fire station site (Attachment D - Noise Analysis). A supplemental noise analysis was prepared for the senior housing site that reiterated the same mitigation measures for traffic and train noise at the perimeter of the property as previously Planning Commission Report Lennar Senior Housing January 23, 2006 Page 5 City's requirement of interior noise standard. The Study recommended use of 7/8 inch stucco or Hardiplank siding over 3/8 inch plywood on the exterior with R-11 insulation and two layers for ~ inch minimum gypsum wallboard on the interior. The Study also requires specific window and door assemblies and well-fitted joints to provide a minimum outdoor- indoor transmission class (OITC) of 37 for the proposed structures. Condition 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 require that these noise mitigation measures be included in the plan check submittals and adhered to during construction. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin (FEIS/EIR). In addition, the City Council certified a separate environmental check list for the Columbus Square project with approval of Tentative Tract Map 16581 which considered the senior housing site and noted that no additional impacts were anticipated. A decision to approve the proposed project may be supported by the findings contained in Resolution No. 4014 ~~ Minoo Ashabi Associate Planner G.. ---. E'ii?: / Z7:'¿ c:tJ /f' ð WI s-I C lizabeth A. Blnsack Community Development Director Attachments: A - Location Map B - Submitted Plans C - Parking Analysis D - Noise Analysis E - Resolution No. 4014 ATTACHMENT A Location Map Project Location Map Senior Housing Project Columbus Square (Tract Map 16581) Columbus Square Senior Housing Site """'" ....u< ~ ~ ~, i Il i 0 /'~ , ~ I,! ø I iif i ~) , """"'. .~ "'. (~) Columbus Grove Œ) ," RO'."'n '0':" .,""' ,0""" ATTACHMENT B Submitted Plans 2005455.00 COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PACKAGE OCTOBER 12, 2005 REVISED NOVEMBER 2, 2005 REVISED NOVEMBER 30,2005 REVISED DECEMBER 22,2005 Tustin, California Index: 1 . Cover Sheet 2. Conœptua1 Site Plan 3. Open Specc Diagram 4. Building Phase Diagram 5. AfI'onIable Units 6. Atronlable Building Type I 7. AfI'onIable Building Type n 8. Affimlable Building Type 111 9. Conceptual Architectural Building Plan - level 1 10. Conceptual Architectural Building Plan - level 2 11. Conceptual Archit=tural Building Plan - Level 3 12. Com:<:ptual ArchitcçturaJ Roof Plan 13. Conceptual Unit Plans 1-4 14. Conceptual Unit PIIIIIS 5 15. Conceptual Unit Plans 6 16. Conceptual Building Elevations 17. Conceptual Rendering 18. Conceptual S1reet Scene 19. Conceptual Stn:ct Scene - VlCWofEdingcr Ave. 20. Conceptual Clubhouse Structure 21. Conceptual Pool Recreation Stuo:tun: CI.Conceptual Gradin¡ Plan L I. Conceptual Landscape Plan L2. Conceptual Recreation Area Enlargements BUILDERS: Lennar, SouIhem C8IIromi8 [)Maion 25 EnIerprtIe, Sub 300, Þ.IIIo VIejo, CA I28S8 MIke BllIa8rno Ph.: IMI.34I.I33I, Fax: 141.341.0822 ,- ~ WllIi8m Lyon Homes. Inc. 4410 Yon I<8nnan A\OII!ftU8, Newport 1e8ch, CA 92eeO C8tI Mor8bi8) Ph.: 941.833.3600, Fax: 141.478.2178 ,,- ARCHITECT: WllIi8m Hezm8Ih8Ich ArchII8cts, Inc. 2850 RedhiII, Suite 200, s.a AN, CA 12705 Jeff Ch8IwickI Chris RobeI1I Ph.: IMI.250.0807, F8X: 141.250.1529 CONSULTANT: DougI88 Bender 8Dd A8IocI8t8s 557 W8Id. Irvine, CA 12118 AI8n 0Yeisi Ph.: 941.777.4300. Fax: 149.777.4303 - 1 L.ANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Borthwick Guy BetIen'-n 2212 Dupant Drive, Suite "'INine. CA 12112 RGÞert IIor1IIwicI< Ph.: 941.478.8118. F8X: 149.478.8707 .. .. ~~. i i L -j ~i I ~, ~! 81 t-.' [ß! ~! I ¡ ì ;; h: i::j \:::: \ \ \ \ ì Commundy Wag EDINGER AVE Assignød Recmalion Stair Parldng During Designated Hours Only - -- - -. - - -- - -;;.: - -;--- ~57"-- _.. -;~:~. - -..- -- -, - - -- - --- - - -~-:::: ~~~;r~ - -~. - -. - -.,-. ~- - - 0-- -- - -- ~- -- -- -. . ---- -- -. - --. - - - - - - - -. --. iT Trash' Recyc/8 Enciosum - r.- èS -.J FIRE STATION Commumly Wag 24 - Unit Semcrs Residenlial Vicinity Map Project Summary: Tota/ Site Ama' Tota/Units Density. Floor Ama Ralio Open Space Provided. Open Space Pool Rec. ""'a Clubhouse Rec. Ama Total Open $poc.J Per Unit. Landscape Selback Edinger St. Selbaci< H>l>sIConnecJorSI. S- Toial 9.0Acre.. 240 Homes 267 aU/Acres 392.O4()SF/349.690SF= 112 98,119 SF 8.407 SF 5.655 SF 112.181 SF 467SFIUnit 16.136 SF 4.145 SF 20.881 SF Parking Provided' Ccvered Garage 200 Spaces Ca'PO'1 40 Spaces On $de 130 Spaces Streel 28 Spaces OisaiJJed 10 $poc.Js OisaiJJed C8fPO'I ( Ven) I Spaces Residential 409 Spaces (I 10 SpaceslOJ./1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN STANDARDS STANDARD MINIMUM LOT AREA MAXIMUM BUILOING HEIGHT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE COMMON OPEN SPACE MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK FROMe EDINGER A VENUE NORTH LOOP ROAD WEST CONNECTOR PRIVA TE STREET OR DRIVE' INTERIOR SIDE YARD REAR YARD MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACK FROM ----":""_"*,-~,_'..J..--:.-..,...L-C-f::- EDINGER AVENUE "o.o. , NORTH LOOP ROAD ~. , '-' ~'1- WEST CONNECTOR \. Community Wag Nollo Scale CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN REQUIRED PROVIDED NIA NIA 40. 40' 65% 30% 400 SF PER DU 497 SF PER OU 40' NIA 20. 5. 30. 10' 65'. N/A B3O 10' 5.. NIA 30. NIA 20' 30. NIA 2'", NOrEs , "Œe.'N"~cùNCEN~ ,-"""", ".. ,_~,R'a,CH-"", ~,~,-.s ,~~--,,~ M~"'~'~Æ""" ,~,~" , "'ON""'~U~"QMNSK~"'C ~""'£DC_S .. .. LENNAR 25 EnløtpnSe, SuKe 300 ANsa Viajo, CA 92656 (949) 349-8000 COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE :-......."""" ~ ~ WIIIiIII r.,œ Ibaeø WILLIAM L YON HOMES. Inc, 4490 Van Kimnan A"". He- _. CA 92660-2000 (9491833-3600 TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA (~ . . . ......... 18 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS INC """'~c""" "'1E"'SNC""~ """" ~"""'" -,,-~ ~..,".;¡o """'~", ,-,-"",-"", """'0' m""" >,q,."" 2 [DR (EX/STING) EDINGER A VE. ~- ~ -.-J r ~ M#Ip Cðmmuntly - Not /0 ScaIB OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM :: PrrJjfIct SummllfY.' T_SiItIAtN: GþM $pøI» ~. qø.,n .SjøoQI Pool RtIc. AtN CIui1hou. RIle. AtN ToI1II I1,O~ !J8. "11 SF 8,«17 SF 5, IJ55 SF 112. '8' SF GþM Sp8œ Per 1Jnir.' LsndM:IIpe s.tbøck.. EdingtJr Sf. S#IItNIck '6, 736 SF I+fNt CorIn«tor St, s.tbIIcIr 4. '45 SF T oIaI 20, 88' SF 467 SFlI/nit DE""L OPIENT PLAN ST ANONIOS STANON<D ~lOTAREA - IIUII..DIHG HEIGHT MAXMJIIlOTCOVFAAGE COIoIWOH OPEN SPACE REQUIRED PROVIDED NIA NIA <0" <00. '"" 30% <OOSf'ÆROU '.'SFÆROU ~ 8U/I.D/NG SE1'!IACI( FROII.' EDINGE1/ A II9«Æ <00. 1150. NORTH LOOP RQOD NIA NIA "",STCONNECTOR 200. 830 PRIVATE STREET OR DRf\Æ' .0. 100. IHTERIOR SIDE YARD 3ft. ... REAR YARD 100. NIA MlNlMJMI.ANDSCAPE SETBACK FROM.. EDINGER A II9«Æ 300 3D0 NORTH LOOP RQ.\D NIA NIA "",ST CONNE'CTOR 20ft. 210. NOTl'S , "",..... FOR """"""'" ",.,"'" "'u , ~'_.ro_'~,~,~ ---- , ---~""'CN<- oõ £E- M~. Sullo 300 A.foo I4oi¡. C4- (H9J :J4.8OI)() COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE I T .. I I~-¡ ~ ~ ,.. I,. ø.. IMtU4M L YON HOUES. Inc. 44tJ(} v... - A... ~ BNch. C4 92680-2000 (1H9) 8:J3.3ØOI) TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA r-s...: WILUAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS INC. ..."""'-.""'"........"......, .",,"" --- ......"" ""_..".""""~......""'- .."'"" ......"" - LDR íEXISTING! -- -- -- EDINGER A VE. ------------------------ -------------- ------- -----------------,------ ---- ----~ "î', ! i i i i i,. I ------------- FIRE STATION i ¡ i i i i i \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \~ im ,~ (J) \--\ ~"" 'i \, J i() V) liJ (j 3:; ~ ltj V) liJ (éJ " ---J I1i:WIHy Ail¥> NOTF NaIto ScØ . ~~-"..._s,"-.'" BUILDING PHASE DIAGRAM r-:": ~ ~ ..... I,. a.. LENNAR 25E_. StM300 Moo I4¥>. CA 92Ø5IJ (919) :N9-8O()() II Œ-i I~-I COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE IKUWLmvhOlE$1nc. TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 4«1"""-....... --. CA 92660-2000 (919) 833-3tJ()() WllUAM HEZMAlHAlCH A.CHOTEC" 'NC ..""""*' """"""""OA ....... .."'.... --- ...."'"" """"""""""'~"""""'OA- .".,,'" .. ..." ,'" .. .. - LDR (EXISTING) FIRE STATION r~/~ .-----.-1---- i ~¡n~~ a ~, ! U! , ~ I I ~' i 0 I VJ : .... i It.i ! 13' (j i ~ I S; ¡ ! fS : I VJ \~ \~ , --.J \"" \:0: i \ i \ AFFORDABLE UNIT LOCATION KEY \ DeSIGNATION . UNITS TOT S.F. PLANt PROGRAM EDINGER A IÆ'. ---------_--_n____- ¡,f II ¡ I 'I Q: I, i c:d i '-oJ" i I :)j....: 1" ~I i , i , ' U'i veRY LOW INCOMe. ,. UNITS" "2 Sf , '8EOOOOMl1BATH LOW INCOME .. UNITS 11 ..2.f , '8EOROOMl18ATH 17 UNITS - ..5 .f 2 2BEOROOM/2BATH MODERATE INCOME 2' UNITS.. ... sf 2 28EOROOMl2BATH ,. UNITS - ..7 sf , 28EOROOMl2BATH Q'_UNITS. 85. .f . 28EORQOMl2BATH TOTAL 15' UNITS Not to ScI* Affordable Units .. . ,; H.J . ~ ~ WIIIm qœ ø-. COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA II IT] (~ WIlLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITeCTS INC. ....- .".--...... - ....... --- ....... .........11>..".",""-""'- """ ".. ...."','" .. .. - =§:t" ~ '. , ..... .......... ... . -- ."", "L ' JfIFr--: +I:l, . I L- I t~ ,..,... ,>- "'. . -~ '. ~",..,I 1,",.',"';"".".,=' :=.¿---~ ~' ",.... '~,-- , '. j ,,""'" f:~ - "'í"'" L*" - ~ , -. "1,.,... " "~,.,... I 1::' 'tf'." ~..:..;;= I l I I """" ""," "~, ~ '- ~."'" - ~--- ~~~=~~~ ~ ,~~ BUILDING 1 AFFORDABLE UNITS IIILDI!I .... --- IIIIILJaIII - \IER't' LOW INCOME 4 UNITS . 32 _LOWINCOME 6 UNITS 8 41 - """"IUTF INCOMF SUN"" 6 >Ill TOTAL UNITS ON SITE 15 UNITS 120 "'""'"""""U,"""""""""",> Concoptuol First Floor' -., .::.,::= -~ ,~,--- Building Type I .. """~n...' ;-"'0- .}\n .. 0 8 16 2. I II I I I II I I I I I COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Lennar / William Lyon Homes WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH '.CHITECTS INC '""""",...............".""'" ..,."" -- ....,.'.. """""""""'" ""....-.-. ..."". ...."','" 6 .. .. , I ÆT~- - ~r{=t--- ",[-- '-- t'~" 0, 'ì ~",,"'I, ,.""""""" :=:::-.-- ~ , ",::' =' ,~""..' '~""" ., - '~l~ - ,.~~;"'" ~ 1 .~ i '~~.:~ I l)W~,---- !~~ L I,,~ I "'~~ffi~' i- q~c - ,Jff3' =. â:,',',~,',". ", '~1 "'"",'.',,. ".,', ~'_._¡ '",-' i')Ò": " , .~¡ß", "'T:,I;T:1,' ,: rL, .,... ';" '-- =' -'~,,", = '-.........--r .' "'::::_-1--- ----'. ,---- ,- , ,.--- - ....... BUILDING 2 AFFORDABLE UNITS IIIJIU8II -.. - IlERV LOW INCOME 4 UNITS - LOW INCOME 5 UNITS - MOOFRATF I""""" . ""mI 1 S TOTAL UNITS ON SITE 15 UNITS ",-,,~ -,- 'W,'"Hn"'""",,^,,,,,. .'H ",. -~ ->, Conceptual First Floor' ~ """, Building Type II ,.--- ",",,20- i~n .. , ',,<,....,,:;0;'" 0 8 16 24 1111111111111 COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA WILLIAM HeZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS INC """"".- om" ..."...".""'" ..oo.." --- """"," ."......-..."".........""'" ....,,'" ....." "" Lennar I William Lyon Homes 15 .. 7 .. .. BUILDING 3 AFFORDABLE UNITS --- - ....... JIIIIIUIIII ~, - VERY Lc:1N INCOME 0 UNITS - LOW INCOME 8 UNITS - MODFRATF I~ 10 UNITS 1 10 ,~--- TOTAL UNITS ON SITE 11 UNITS 18 -., ,~._-- "'","""'","~,"~""~,.", " ~ -~ Conclptuel First Floor' -., -J, -" ,~--- ,~--- Building Type III .. .. 0 8 16 24 I I II I I II I I I I I COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA ""'0 "i" - " ,-,-,-,- ~,-",- Lennar / William Lyon Homes WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS INC .."""'",,'" ..". """"'" ...."" ...."" --- ~....'.. ."......-..,"'........"""* ..." "" ....." "" 8 .. .. n 'J', ~ "==" I "==" , '==" , '==" .... I , '==" , '==" , '==" , '==" '- , '==" PIon 5: 51 i "':"=.= I ,..--- Conceptual First Floor Conceptual Architectural Building Plan .. 0 B 16 2' I I I I I II I I I I I I COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Lennar / William Lyon Homes rID- ':'0 .. 9 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS "C """""',,""'.....""....,,"""'" """"" --- ......,'" """"""""""""""_O""" .".,,'" .....,,'" .. .. ----- "'-- Conceptual Second Floor Conceptual Architectural Building Plan .. 0 8 16 2' II I I II I I I I I I I COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Lennar / William Lyon Homes .. \D-- vU WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS "C. M""""""""""""""""""" ..""", --~ ....,.,.. ..,......"""""""....._~.....,. ....,,'" .....",'" 10 .. .. 2: ....:=.-= Conceptual Third Floor Conceptual Architectural Building Plan .. yH- 11 COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA a , 16 24 1111111111111 Lennar / William Lyon Homes .. WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS "C ..............."",.."...,,""""" ..""'" --- ...."".. ..,......""".............."....'. "'.. ".. ...... "" .. ., Conceptual Architectural Roof Plan .. .. 0 , 16 24 I I I I I I I I I II I I COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA rj,U- """""'"- Lennar / William Lyon Homes WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS ,"C .. """'"..... ...." ""'...." """'" .."'.. --- ...."','" """'-"""""""""""~",,"" ...."... ...."'". 12 .. .. Kitchen Deck Living 11"""~,,, M. Bdrm 12"-$".11'.0- fIm.1 812 a,F, 1_1- 1C8r_~-- Bdrm2 'O'-r.,O'.o- M.Bdrm II '~'<r Deck,'I,I[~7lrr,',rl,. ~=:l..,.,1 ,......11'<r ML ~ '~""""" , ~ fIan..2 1105 a,F, 2_2- 1 C8r e.- GIr8;8 -- Entry Dining 11'....0'-10' Kitchen Entry Bath 2 M. Bdrm '2"-2""2"'" Bdrm2 10'-r,'..<r Living ,......12"<r ,..L.,.ïv.~.o- St., Deck Deck EIiInÆI. 955 S,F. 2_2- 1 C8r E- GIr8;8-- ~ !155 S,F, 2_2- 1 C8r E- GIr8;8 -- Conceptual Unit Plans .. --iOiiiÕD.",,--- 1IIIIIIIIIi,llllllllillllllll,'t COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Lennar / William Lyon Homes '" Dining .......r<r, I:ntry ~ tf11 I,F, 2_2- 1 C8r~~- Dining 11"".r-'" M. Bdrm '2".2".12'-2" st. , ',"',w"","..""."N"'~""""'" .. \",,'.,',:"0- .7\0 13 WILL'AM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECIS INC "".M"""""',",'."""'.""'" ...."" --- ......... .,,"""",.,.,,"" ",e.....o_- ...",'" """'.n> .. .. M. Bdrm '7""'4'4" fIin..3 1485S.F, 2_2- Ic.E_~- Bdrm 2 ¡ "',1cr, ,.'4" ' ¡ I ~ P8Iio L ~ ¡ Dining! "'4",'7'" ~ Patio u~~ ~ """"4"" lc,,~c.c WIC Bdnn 2 ' rl ! Patio Ll Dining ~ "'4""7... ~ omœ [ '~,~. I ~,,~ M. Bdrm ,2'....,4'4" ~ 1485 5,F, 2_2- 1 C. E- G8rogo - Conceptual Unit Plans .....,.',,:..," .. 1"""",i",",",i"'"I,,,'j COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA Lennar / William Lyon Homes M. Bdrm '7....14'4" ~ 1485 5.F. 2_2- 1 C. E- G8rogo - p I ~ Patio !b ~... Dini~ "'4""7... Þ Patio ~ 0IIIce Living ,...... '4"" """'."""""'"""""~,""',,.. .. ":'H- ',',i, i ., 14 W'LL'AM HEZMALHALCH .RCHITECTS INC ""....,'""" "".. ......"...... ....- --- ......'.. ."..........."'."",......""'. .".,,'" ...",."", .. (---¡]..' p : - n...-'- ~, WIC I.Pwdr. I- : L-----:::::'1 M. Bdnn 2 n r "'...,,..... M, Bdrm ""~,'T'" Living 12""","" fIan.R 1757S,F, 2_288111 1 Car E.- Gor8ge- DIning '0""" 1:r... j ~ L- - .,,""""""""""""'^"""""'~ --,-------- Conceptual Unit Plans .. .. "':'ß- '...','¡' n 111111111Ii1l11l1111ÎIIIIIIIII'¡ COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS INC ............., """" ......."..... "2O'" --- ""2O'" ."...-........"'".......""". ..OO"" ....oo"" Lcnnar / William Lyon Homes .. 15 .. .. Rear Right Fin;., Decorol'.. 101.,., Entry G... Left Conceptual Elevations .. .. 0 . 16 2' II I I II I I II I I I COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA -'It \.\." i\ ~"- Lennar / William Lyon Homes WILLIAM HeZMALHALCH .RCHITECTS INC .."""'.... ME.. ......." .""'" .."""'" --- ...."",'" ",""""'CO".."""...........,. .."".. ......,,'" 16 .. .. .~,'" ""~""""'>'~»m""M .. Conceptual Rendering """",,~~ COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ",,',ll--, ;'n .. Lennar / William Lyon Homes WI~~I"M HEZM"~H"~CH ARCHITECTS INC ,."."","'... ""'" .""..c",""'" ..""'" --- ....."'"" ."......""""" ""........".....,. ""., "" ...,," "z 17 .. .. """",w^","""""",~",.",,,~ Conceptual Street Scene .. .. COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA ~II- '-¡",ß ~""""'"~, Lennar I William Lyon Homes WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS "C .."""'..................,,"""" ..s"" --- ....s,'" """"""""""""""""0""" ...",'" ....."m 18 .. .. View from Edinger Avenue """W"""""'W"W"".""""~ .. Conceptual Street Scene .~¡;;¡;- COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ~"u-- \i\U .. Lennar / William Lyon Homes WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH A.CHITECTS INC. oo ....u... s.",. ..... -" ..... .""... --- ....",'.. ."""""'....."""".........-- ..." "" ....." "" 19 .. Bridl SIt-- ,~m__"-----"If.w.'-L Rear Left I 75-r !J--~,,-+-14'..'~~ ,.- - -",' , - - .. - ToVTV ~ :- L.~ -- ' 1'..""',.",.,-,,,-[ þ"-~---- -____,Ji . c-- I--' ~ : . . . . - . . - Clubhouse Floor Plan Conceptual Design Pool Building Structure ï"""",Î'II,"",'Î""",,,'î .. -,,¡a¡;¡¡¡¡;;:-;,;;--- .. Right "-"""""~,~,,~"'-'"""',. Front .. ;-'0 I~I- W'""'AM HEZMAlHALCH ARCHITECTS INC .."""'....."""",""..."".""", ....""'--_......'.. ."."".",,"""'..........>-- ...",'" ......"" COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA Lennar / William Lyon Homes 20 .,~ 19'~---___----i1' .. .. -----, --------- , I I I :: I I :: I I I: I I :1 I ;.., I " I ;or I :: I ~ I ii , I I :: I I :: I I " ~L~ --------_J ----- 9'.0" .,- ,,9',0"., ., .. ~ ~ 2-Space Carport 1/4 Scale "...,.. 1- .: M"" "'"",----'" "'- .,~~.'~...'.Mon,.', ~'=-,~. .¡~l ~~ - , -, ~--... Pool Recreation Building r-i:L .:. ", '~¡ 'II - - ~ Hi Rear Right Brick M.... Goto -Â- Left Frõïìt"~"W"'^.""'" .. Conceptual Design Carport Structure & Pool Recreation Building ï"" "",ï" """,''"""" ,'î \"",',',',/",'It 'i " .. --""'-;;:;0;;--. COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA WILL'AM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS INC ...........""'....."...,,"",,'" ...""'" --- ...."".. ."............."",.......""". ...,,'" ......,,'" Lennar I William Lyon Homes .. 21 .. LEGAl DESCRIPTION: LOT 265 OF TRACT 16581 -', 1 I : 0- I lj , C!:: i :;; , 0- , C!:: ~~ :z: ~ ~ I ¡ I I i I I i L--_~ 1---- L--_- .. if ¡¡. " ~ i<- ~.~ .. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN ~ H.J i .. t! {I-~ .. :.,~ -", * 'y- ~~:1i¡tt!iõ"", ~ - GEORGIA F,j ~ __--f.J .~ ~ ~ STREET .. II1II g Wi11Í11114œ Homes COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE WiLLiAM \~LHALCH -_BY ARCHITECTS INC TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ~ -... .... - a,_.....w..= "".... -- ,"""""""""""'" .."'.. --- .......,.. -- ""-~ "",""""""""'..........."'- -... - 'M(""~ os.."" ......."" @] LENNAR 25 ÐrIofprIN. S- 300 AKso ~ CA 9~ (949) J49-{f}()() W1l./JAM L YeW HOMES. /nc. #90Itw>_A..- '*- -. CA 9266().2O/X) (949) I133-36Of) --..._c-. """"",,,~~~, ....---- "-""'w~,,,.,-.. ----n"'l--' -~ CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - 1] ,.. q. a-. WJW¡W L"t1N HOtÆS. Inc, ___A.., -,.,n -. CA -2000 (M) 833-3800 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA LE_R 25~..._:JOO _v;,;o.CA- (MI- COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE . r¡. r-\..J i LAHOSCAPE AREA CALCULA nONS $HRU8 AREA: 85.505 S.F, 7tmFAÆA: 3.51SS,F, ~.,_._, .,_. ,.,. ~""'"~""M""--"~~- --,.._~~._,,- u_m...._....., -_. "-""'-""""" --, ..-....,-. '-""" -- ..-""...-,-..-.. =,' .................' .,. ..,-...-. '~<H --- -......-, , ..---.",-- ..--....-.... ._--'.... ---.-....... -,,---"'--~'. ._, -,~_. ,~.. .~."~~--~~. - '"'~~._~~... ...,-,,;:---- """""""""'-"" ....... """""-..,....' "..... ....._"""""""' :~~":..., ~-~"....".,".. --,---,"'.,,~.... §~~~- ; ~~~ NO"" ...---...--- , ::::':;;,~;::':COHCE""'" ""'"...""""-~""""'" ---.... > ....--...""....... ,onHW'Ck GU' ""'HHAum<'NC """,--......u..._, n""""""""'~"""',""'~'~"'" - .""", "" .""". Ll ? SWIMMING POOUSPA It. CABANA ------ -- -----.... I <- ~ ; s~ HIGO< WIOOUGMT IIION POOl. FENCE Z 7:~ SQ. X 0""" HIGH """"",... PIlASTER 3 S~HIOH"""IONR'fWAU. . -QUE 5 ~ AREA. 'IYP. (!) CCNCI<ÐE POOl. DECK WI SCORE PA neRN ø METAl POOl. ACCESS GATE (!) LOW W\IOIIiR'f COURn' ARC WAll. (!) eftN LAWN @ ENHANCED CONCRETE COURTYARD PA""'" @ IMSONRV SEAT WAlL @ WOOD SHADE STRUCTURE WI MASON"" PlLASTPS @ NIIT"-' COlOR CCNCI<ÐE WALK @ ~ GAIODEN RECREATION BUILDING &: COURTYARD NOTES ----------.------ , ."""'Æ""""""""~ ..........,..., , ~'~'O~-UUŒ'~~' ---- ~ Conceptual Recreation Area Enlargements :i , ....--.......-- ___m - t1 ~ I,. ..... LE- 2I!~,SuIIo- _YII/o,CA82W (94!J- COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE IMWAMU'OHHDU!fS,In<- TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA UtO~--- ~ - CA _2000 1M) ,33-- ~ ¡.-;...¡ i . lo".won GU' ..m...u".,'.C ~--""'"""" U",,-"~.-"""".Cdb...n6" ,~. c...,., , o~ . c, "'" , L21 ~ ATTACHMENT C Parking Analysis COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE PARKING SUPPLY EVALUATION Tustin, California OCTOBER 2005 PREPARED FOR LENNAR HOMES - ORANGE COAST LAND PREPARED BY t~<U^SSOCI^TES A Corporation COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR VILLAGE PARKING SUPPLY EVALUATION Tustin, California October 2005 Prepared for: LENNAR HOMES - ORANGE COAST LAND Prepared by: KAKU ASSOCIATES, INC. 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500 Santa Monica, California 90401 (310) 458-9916 Ref: 000 I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Parking Code Requirements ................................................................................,........ 4 City Codes - Market Rate Housing ................................................................... 4 City Codes - Senior Housing ............................................................................ 6 Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation ManuaL................... 8 Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Study...................................................... 8 Affordable Housing Parking Demand ................................................................ 10 Summary ........................................................................................................... 10 Parking Field Data ......................................................................................................... 12 Southern California Experience......................................................................... 12 San Francisco Affordable Housing Surveys .............................................."...... 15 Valencia Senior Housing Survey....................................................................... 17 Summary ........................................................................................................... 17 IV. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 18 NO. NO. 1 2 3 4 5 LIST OF FIGURES 1 2 Site Plan """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ................................... 2 Parking Occupancy Bar Chart............................ """"""""""""""""""""""""""'" 13 LIST OF TABLES Parking Rates for Market Rate Housing....................................................................... 5 Parking Rates for Senior Housing """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 7 ITE Parking Rates .................................................................................................... 9 Parking Occupancy Summary Southern California .................................................. 14 San Diego Parking Surveys...................................................................................... 16 I. INTRODUCTION Lennar Homes - Orange Coast Land proposes to construct a residential project in Tustin California. The project, Columbus Square Senior Village, would include 240 condominium dwelling units that would be restricted to seniors. The project would also include a recreation center whose use would be limited to residents of the project. A total of 64% of the project dwelling units (du) would be allocated as affordable units. Figure 1 shows the site plan for the proposed project. The project, located on the west side of Edinger Avenue between Red Hill Avenue and Jamboree Road just north of West Connector, proposes to supply a total of 421 parking spaces (sp) to serve the 240 dwelling units in the following format: Covered Garage 200 sp Carport 40 sp On-site uncovered 124 sp On-street 39 sp Disabled 5 sp Recreation Center 12 sp Rec Center Disabled 1 SP Total 421 sp The proposed parking supply equates to 1.7 sp/du. City staff is concerned that the proposed parking supply may not be adequate to meet the overall parking demand of the project. This report investigates the parking demand patterns at residential projects, concentrating on parking at condominiums and affordable units. Where available, the parking demand patterns at condominiums and affordable units focused on seniors are discussed. R38' I 5' RfU' -----===-- - lIT ~ 65' 124' R1Æ 118' 1~' ----.LJ!' ... I: Çc R;' ~ -C .;.. ti"'" '111111 ~J 1IDTfRTIT 11lli' ~ k I 'IIIII~. ~JqTmT'fT IIII LdJ ~ ~ I b [I--- 1 nlC:fLn- ,- _;::!81-:':""'lllllrT n,-"-tì -nn~1 R1B 6f1'" ~ x U ;0: 1 24 III "¡"lol'lolololl 1 LLlm n ~ r=+ n,n ri-.R38 - 24' 1 1;::¡ ~ 1 24' F - 1 ~' ~ ~þ of- , I ~ 11 -6 0 - 1 44' ---' U!I-II-\J ~ ~= 79 ~ I---" I - ~ 34"¡ ~ b ~ '-' '--I. q - ;::.=::::;. I = "~" 8 .. ~ ~J", < ~ [I ~ ~ <f- ] ,--IJ, J - ~ ~ 1['1 , -54' T - ~°-r o~ - 4J :; >--- ~ I' '- - I ~ ~ - II I - I d LJ LJU L U, 119' '"'" L r 1 II - 9'------0 n -, o;;r ~ .r:::: Lf , u.;¡ ~ 1\ I - d II = II f:¡";- I=- II ==h b r=; III - I --k: = t::y¡=. III ,~ TTTII1L 12 ~~p.;Illlllll el~I~--.1.Q' ?Ç5\; ~~~1r1111111 ~~kimlll 1I1I ~~LR1' , : R15' 24' R20~"\""-' n,-,- ~8LnR 'n - - n n 8.1D'-~ 24' R15' IB' R38 l\~' I ß39' s.-, n ~ ( n nR 22 24' -\ ìtf¡4O'n n ~ - rn I I 4- 1!!:. ~ 0_]1 11 - f--~ 1"-~24.f- l.",r:.uJ - I-- 1,;,38'II'lllrT 14f,3flJ~,~R' \ P-70.0 ,l .......;:::: ~ 9f- ,;...;c- ~ p-- - 'II d II :; ~ \ --:;<'" 1 , 5' ::'í 1 ~ 9f-- [ , 1>-1ir34'1- ;::>.=.. '-- ~'IiUn-1i==p 7= \, '-- ~ [ ~ f-- 5' 1>-1', ¡ - ~ ~ I-- ;-w 1;" III 1'-70.3 I' 44' p-- ¡ ~ . - ~ f- -II(' 28' P-- ~ ~ I-- §: -, 24' - I' l'~ Cl~ -=- 1-- LJ~~ { ~I í~'-rrrl¡r57'- '-700 bn ~ -.n=' fWF20' "--, XX' >:--' II ~ 1~' ~ 1 ~ r = f--73'- ~[ U ........ ~ ~~~ /' ..L -'----, - , "" - -= - ,'2S.? L- --- L ~~ n ~ " n r _,~~~R25' ~ "100 ~ ~ ~oo- --+---~ ,~122'i6'+-i,20~IH"~J!p5' -"'" ~ ,- ~ - ~~'¡OO, ~ 131j ~ l II I l E \\ -"""'i I ~ I ~ ~ T ;'<, ",,\\ I I r I ,-- = -.::::-~,- ',/' '\.\ ~ I-- ] - ----' - ~ - ='=' -- -r ~ '\ =;¡, " ';"" ~ - \ ~l I T 5' I J::1:t1~11 tI:f?, ~' ,\\\ I I ¿LJ \ I I)\~ -.02 P-e72 .-<172 I R25' 24' III ~I MO. ""2 "".1 ..... ...." ""'" '-<17,0 ~7.1 .-. ""2 .-eog ........ ._, 1'-647 l ~ n -----:ì 24' n ~ \ ,¡ ~I I - - - - - - - I P-e72 .-<17.1 - - - - - - - --, : J x J ~ ~ 24' f - II II~' \~ -,-- I : " I P-- If 9 - I p; t I>-lir 34'1 - [- "'2 I P-e7,5 "-7 r [' l þ' 25' I'--I'J", - \ --j I I " I-'J:- -r LL MO,' ""2 ""D MO.7 '-6OA MO., .-<179 I '-<17,1 MO.. '-<16.2 .-eog ........ ......, 1'-647~: Cl ~ I r'~ "'.1 P-e7> ..-~ ~ = II = (Qy -----, --= L - ,- - - - II __15 -1P' '/, / /' "1IIIiIi 2.00 ,~~_'J:OO.,_l"ø,.,,-~-,-+ ~-'r~,-""""'OO -~...I -~~-+--'t00 .!Ja.,~~ ~,,~ :-..~r-38' "'100 ~-, ]".. ~ ~ I ~ .,,~, III ~~ \'In ~.~"'~ ~~ - -~, :~ I :~ : !ltir rí;;;¡J4fl -,--- - - - - 1'-7t, '-712 '-710 1'-70> - Source: WH Architects, Inc. E<^E<U AS saci ^ TES FIGURE 1 PROJECT SITE PLAN The report is divided into discussions of parking code requirements and parking demand studies. 3 II. PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS Senior and affordable residential projects typically have lower parking demand ratios than comparably sized market rate housing developments that serve a mixture of tenants including families. The number of occupants per du is typically lower at senior housing developments than at market rate projects where families may occupy a portion of the units. The reduced occupancies often lead to a reduction in the number of automobiles per unit, resulting in a lower overall parking demand ratio. Surveys 1 have shown that 5-10% of the units in a senior housing development have no automobile at all, further reducing the overall parking demand requirements. CITY CODES - MARKET RATE HOUSING Many cities and counties recognize the difference between market rate housing and senior and/or affordable units by reducing the amount of parking required for these types of developments. Table 1 shows a summary of parking ratios and required parking supplies for a sample market rate development of 100 du made up of 10 studios, 40 one-bedroom units, 40 two-bedroom units, and 10 three-bedroom units. The required parking for the development would range from 125 to 325 spaces, with Tustin requiring 225 spaces. As can be seen, Tustin is near the top of the list in terms of the most stringent requirements. The parking rates shown in Table 1 apply to market rate developments with no discounts for seniors or for affordable housing. 1 Parking Study at Valencia Senior Residential Project, Korve Engineering, City of Burbank Community Development Staff Report, June 2001 4 TABLE 1 PARKING RATES FOR MARKET RATE HOUSING City Minimum Required Parking Spaces per Unit for Hypothetical100-unit Multi-family Development Development (by Unit Type. Guest for all Units) Total Spaces per Studio 1'BR 2 BR 3 BR Guest Spaces Unit Cathedral City 1 1 1.5 1.5 Not Stated 125 1.25 Los Angeles 1 1 1.5 2 Not Stated 130 1.30 Irvine 1 1.4 1.6 2 0.25 175 1.75 Riverside (City) 1.5 1.5 2 2 Not Stated 175 1.75 Ventura (City) 1 1 2 2 0.25 175 1.75 Santa Monica 1 1.5 2 2 0.2 190 1.90 Long Beach 1 1.5 2 2 0.25 195 1.95 West Hollywood 1 1.5 2 2 0.25 195 1.95 Santa Barbara 1.25 1.5 2 2 0.25 198 1.98 Pasadena 1 2 2 2 0.10 200 2.00 San Bernardino (City) 1.5 1.5 2 2.5 0.20 200 2.00 City of Orange 1.2 1.7 2 2.2 0.20 202 2.02 San Clemente 1.5 1.5 2 2.5 0.33 213 2.13 Oxnard 1 1 2 2 1.0 < 30 du 0.5 after 30 du 215 2.15 Tustin 2 2 2 2 0.25 233 2.33 Huntington Park 2 2 2 2 0.33 233 2.33 Anaheim 1.25 2 2.25 3 0.25 238 2.38 Santa Ana 2 2 3 4 25% of units req 325 3.25 Hypothetical Development based on 10 studios, 40 1 BR units, 40 2 BR units, and 10 3BR units Source: Southern California Association for Non-Profit Housing, 2004 See Appendix for full report CITY CODES - SENIOR HOUSING Table 2 shows parking requirements for the same 100-unit development constructed as senior housing. The five cities listed recognize that senior residential units generate a lower parking demand than market rate housing and thus reduce the senior parking requirements by 19-58%. The average reduction for senior housing parking requirements is approximately 40% when compared to market rate housing requirements. The proposed ratio of 1.7 sp/du for the Columbus Square Senior Village project would exceed all five of the City senior parking ratios for the six cities listed in Table 2. This does not even take into affect the fact that 64% of the proposed Columbus Square Senior Village project is affordable units, which would tend to reduce the parking ratio even further. The Cities of Burbank and Berkeley reduce the market rate parking requirements by 25% for senior housing projects, consistent with the data shown in Table 2. The City of Santa Monica requires a parking ratio of 1.45 sp/du for senior housing that is limited to low-income seniors, (and 0.45 sp/du for downtown low-income senior housing), indicating that the combination of the two factors yields a substantial discount in on-site parking requirements. 6 TABLE 2 PARKING RATES FOR SENIOR HOUSING City Hypothetical100-unit Hypothetical 1 OO-unit Market Development Senior DeveloDment Percent Reduction Total Spaces per Total Spaces per for Senior Development Spaces Unit Spaces Unit Cathedral City 125 1.25 100 1.00 20% Anaheim 238 2.38 150 1.50 58% San Clemente 213 2.13 122 1.22 43% Ventura (County) 185 1.85 150 1.50 19% West Hollywood 195 1.95 60 0.60 38% Hypothetical Development based on 10 studios, 40 1-BR units, 40 2-BR units, and 10 3-BR units Source: Southern California Association for Non-Profit Housing, 2004 See Appendix for full report INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS PARKING GENERATION MANUAL The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has just published the Third Edition of Parking Generation,2 a national compilation of measured parking occupancy studies at various land uses. This edition has many new land uses, including Senior Housing, and is based on a much more extensive set of data than the Second Edition. Table 3 shows the relevant data from the publication. The data indicates that the actual parking demand for market rate residential ranges between 1.04 and 1.96 sp/occupied duo The Parking Generation Manual recommends the use of the 85th percentile data point as the appropriate planning level for new projects. In the case of the market rate housing, the 85th percentile parking demand was measured at 1.68 sp/du, exactly the supply level proposed for the Columbus Square Senior Village project. The market rate housing data was based on counts at eight developments, five of which were in Southern California. Data is also presented for two senior housing developments in Huntington Beach, California where the peak parking demand was found to be 0.50 sp/du. This field data verifies the parking code reductions for senior housing discussed above and shown in Table 2. URBAN LAND INSTITUTE SHARED PARKING STUDY The Urban Land Institute (ULI) is in the process of updating the 1980 study entitled Shared Parking. The Second Edition of Shared parkinif recommends the use of 1.85 sp/du for multifamily condominiums. This ratio is broken into 1.7 sp/du for tenants and 0.15 sp/du for visitor parking. 2 Parking Generation, Third Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Ransford McCourt Editor, Washington D.C., 2004 3 Shared Parking, Second Edition, Urban Land Institute, Mary Smith Editor, Washington D.C., 2005 8 TABLE 3 PARKING GENERATION MANUAL -- DATA FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING DEMAND INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Land Use Category Number of Peak Parking Demand Sites Measured in Field Surveyed Low High Average 85th Percentile Market Rate Condominium 8 1.04 1.96 1.46 1.68 Senior Housing 2 0.34 0.5 Source: Parking Generation, Third Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004 The ULI Shared Parking report does not include senior housing as a separate land use and therefore it does not recommend a specific parking ratio for senior housing. The report does explain, however, that parking ratios for land uses not included in the study should be added to the Shared Parking considerations based on the parking characteristics of that individual land use. With 1.85 sp/du recommended for market rate housing, it is clear that a parking analysis using the ULI methodology would begin with a parking ratio of at most 1.67 sp/du even if only a 10% reduction for senior housing was applied (1.85 sp/du x 90% = 1.67 sp/du). AFFORDABLE HOUSING PARKING DEMAND The Appendix to this report includes Parking Requirements Guide for Affordable Housing Deve/opers4. The report speaks to the rationale for providing less parking for affordable housing than for market rate housing, and it cites examples of cities that recognize parking reductions for senior and/or affordable housing. City Market Rate Reauirement Affordable Project Reauirement Los Angeles 1.3 sp/du 1.25 sp/du 1.05 sp/du (near transit) 0.75 sp/du 1.00 sp/du 1.45 sp/du Long Beach Santa Barbara Santa Monica 1.95 sp/du 1.98 sp/du 1.90 sp/du SUMMARY The parking ratio proposed for the Columbus Square Senior Village residential project is consistent with the ULI study and it exceeds the parking ratios recommended by the Institute of 4 Parking Requirements Guide for Affordable Housing Developers, Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, 2004 10 Transportation Engineers. It exceeds the required parking ratios for all of the cites shown in Table 2 that have a specific requirement for senior housing and it exceeds the parking ratios for affordable housing projects for the cities that recognize this land use category. 11 III. PARKING FIELD DATA While the comparison of the proposed parking ratio to parking rates required by other cities is informative, the City of Tustin is interested in the actual parking demand field experience at other similar developments. Data for condominiums reserved for seniors (with a portion allocated to affordable units) is limited, but the field data summarized below has application to the proposed Columbus Square Senior Village project. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE In 2001, Kaku Associates conducted a parking demand study for residential developments in Southern California urban residential developments. This study was submitted to the California Coastal Commission in support of a City of Long Beach approval of a parking supply that was below the 2.16 sp/du required in the City's Local Coastal Plan for projects along Ocean Boulevard. The parking demand study measured the peak residential parking demand at 11 residential projects spread among downtown/waterfront Long Beach, Marina del Rey, downtown/waterfront San Diego and downtown/waterfront Santa Monica. The peak parking demand at these 11 sites averaged from 0.66 to 1.59 sp/du. Figure 2 and Table 4 show the results of the parking demand study. Since the City of Tustin is interested in the parking demand at condominium projects, the counts at condos have been highlighted. While these projects were not necessarily senior housing projects, they were primarily non-family units. Their location along the coast and/or in urban centers made them high cost units that were primarily occupied by senior "empty nesters" or young urban professionals. The auto ownership patterns and the income levels at the surveyed condo sites can be expected to be higher than the proposed Columbus Square Senior Village project. 12 3.00 .-.-..-..- 2.50 2.00 :J 1:1 - U <LI U «I a. 1 50 (/) . m ~. c: ..... ~ ... «I D.. 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 supply C demand Proposed 350 E Ocean Supply 1 .4 3. 1.26 1.00 San Diego . See discussion in tex!. .- 2.40 1.55 1.59" 0.93 Long Beach Figure 2 Parking Supply and Demand Survey 2.09 1.57 Marina del Rey 2.18 1.32 Santa Monica TABLE 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE RESIDENTIAL PARKING SURVEY SITE I UNIT LOCATION TYPE STUDIO 1 BR A R 181 176 B C R San Dieao 56 F G H 87 2 144 328 K NOTE: NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS 2 BR 3BR TOTAL I % OCCUPIED OCCUPIED DU 98% 379 30 387 26 55 63 15 204 145 0.77 1.26 1.59 1.22 455 0.91 700 1.32 Unit Type: R = Rental * 212 spaces are provided for resident parking. An additional 185 spaces are shared between residential guest parking and visitor parking for the on-site retail in this mixed-use development. The study results show that the condo developments studied had parking demand rates well below the 1.7 sp/du proposed for the Columbus Square Senior Village project. The parking studies showed a range of actual parking demand of 0.93 to 1.43 sp/du with an average peak parking demand of 1.31 sp/du, or 22% less than the parking ratio proposed by the Columbus Square Senior Village project. The remaining six sites measured were rental projects in the same geographic areas and the same financial level as the condo projects. The rental projects had peak parking demands ranging from 0.66 to 1.59 sp/du with an overall average of 1.07 sp/du. In 1996, Darnell & Associates measured the peak parking demand at seven residential sites in the University City area of San Diego. These sites were all rental projects. Table 5 shows the peak residential parking demand at the seven sites ranged between 1.15 and 1.52 sp/du. All 18 of the studies cited above have higher income levels (and higher auto ownership) than is expected in the Columbus Square Senior Village project. The proposed project would be expected to have a lower parking demand than the studies cited because of the expected lower auto ownership levels. Of the 18 sites surveyed above, not one location had a parking demand that exceeded the 1.7 sp/du parking supply proposed in the Columbus Square Senior Village project. SAN FRANCISCO AFFORDABLE HOUSING SURVEYS A parking study of 12 low-income projects in San Francisco showed that the parking demand never filled the one space per unit parking supply required by the City zoning code. A Palo Alto low-income residential project was approved in 1989 with 1.6 spaces per unit (25% below the City's market rate zoning code requirements). The project was required to set aside a landscape reserve that could be converted to additional on-site parking supply if needed. After 15 years, the landscape reserve area is still dedicated to open space, not parking. 15 TABLE 5 PARKING OCCUPANCY COUNT RESULTS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA SITE UNIT NO. OF PARKING SUPPLY PARKING DEMAND TYPE UNITS NO. OF RATIO SPACES RATE SPACES (sp/du) OCCUPIED (sp/du) Nobel Court R 685 1,296 1.89 786 1.15 La Regencia R 560 1,185 2.12 851 1.52 La Cima R 514 902 1.75 607 1.18 La Scala R 354 699 1.97 511 1.44 Las Flores R 312 566 1.81 431 1.38 Trieste Villas R 302 669 2.22 428 1.42 Valencia at Renaissance R 318 616 1.94 482 1.52 NOTE: SOURCE: Unit Type: R = Rental Darnell & Associates, Inc., Parking Study for Aventura Apartment Complex, December 1996 VALENCIA SENIOR HOUSING SURVEY As part of a 2001 consideration of a senior housing application, the City of Burbank retained Korve Engineering to survey the parking demand at a 169-unit senior housing development in Valencia, California. Parking occupancy surveys conducted throughout the day showed that the peak parking demand for the project occurred at 6 a.m. when 124 spaces were occupied. The resulting peak parking demand ratio was 0.73 spaces per dwelling units - approximately one-half of the parking ratio proposed for the Columbus Square Senior Village project. SUMMARY The field studies of both rental units and condominium units showed that the peak parking demand at the surveyed sites were less than the proposed parking ratio at the Columbus Square Senior Village project. In over 32 parking occupancy studies, the peak parking demand never reached or exceeded the 1.7 sp/du proposed for the project. 17 LENNAR HOMES Fax:949-598-9181 Oct 12 2005 14 :42 . P.02 IV. CONCLUSIONS The proposed Columbus Square Senior Village project wíll construct 240 senior condominium units, 64% of which will be reserved as low-income units. The project proposes a parking supply of 421 spaces to serve the prOject. The parking supply would provide one garage or carport reserved space per unit with the remainder in an unreserved parking lot configuration. The review of parking Zoning Code requirements in California cities showed that many cities recognize the fact that auto ownership and unit occupancy rates are lower tor senior units and low-income units than for comparable rental or condominium market rate units. Thus, many cities lower their required parking supplies for senior and low-income units. Surveys of peak parking demand Occupancy rates at condominium and rental projects measured the peak parking demand at comparable projects. The field data showed that the measured demand at these projects was considerably below the proposed 1.7 spfdu parking supply at the Columbus Square Senior Village project, Based on the results of the survey data, we believe that the proposed parking supply of 421 parking spaces (1.7 spaces per dwelling units) will be adequate to serve the proposed Columbus Square Senior Village project. IS ~.. ._~. ", ."\' ;,;:' APPENDIX Parking Requirements Guide For Affordable Housing Developers Southern California Assoeiation of Non-Profit Housing 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1005 Los Angeles, CA 90010 www.scanph.org 02.17.04 Table of Contents Parking Requirements. Fact Sheet page 3 List of Relevant Resources 4 Best Practices Policies 6 Example Best Practices Policy - Los Angeles 7 Sample SO.uthem callfomlaMillimu.m Parking Requiremems 8 Related ..w$paJl8' ArtiCles 11 aRethlnklng Resldemi.a' Parking: Myth & Facts" Appendix A Report by the Non~Profít Housing Association of Northern California So......... California Associ.ihJII of ~tHø..."'" 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1 005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 PH: 213-480-1249 'www .scanph""QW - 2- Parking Requirements and the Cost to Afford.leN_slng Fear of traffic congestion and overcrowded street parking has led many cities to estabRsh minimum parking requirements calling for developments to provide often excessive amounts of off-street parking. Aside from creating excess parking and adding to congestion by encouraging automobile usage, parking requirements have a tremendous negative impact on development of all kinds, especially affordable housing. Problems for AffOrdable Housing Developers . Increases hveloømeat Coats - Parking requirements drive up the cost of development. resulting in less units of housing. Needing to spend more on parking means less funds available to provide housing. Some developments end up having more space for cars than for people. . Reduces tlte Potential_Other AnøNûtiø and Uses. W--Land - Parking requirements also mean that less money and land is availoblefor other purposes. Childcare facilities, community rooms, and ploy areas may all be sacrifICed in order to accommodate parking. The possibility for mixed-use, such. as ground- floor retail, are also reduced, leoving.other community needs Unmet in the name of parking. . Leea Aftråctive Desi.- - Meeting parking requirements becomes a focal point in the design process and eliminates opportunities to incorporate open space. With less þdr1<ing to consider. a building can be designed that more reflects a neighborhood's context and needs, Is AJI This Parking Needed? No. Parking requirements have largely been arbitrarily determined and do not usually reflect the verifiable parking needs of the people who will make use of a development, . Parking requirements have often been set using a "one-size fits all" approach using information gathered during peak periods at developments with ample parking in areas with few public transit options. . The likely residents of affordable housing do not require a great deal of parking. Studies show that the correlation between income and vehicle ownership is strong, with the likelihood of owning more than one vehicle increasing with Sou""'" Callfomia Anoclationof~t Housing 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1005. Los Angeles. CA 90010 PH: 213-480-1249 www.scQnph.orq -3- income. low-income families, seniors, and spedal needs populations are less likely to require the use of more than one parking space, if that at all. The need for parking also decreases for residents in dense areas near transit. SOuthern California Aøoclatlon of NO""Pro'llt Housing 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 PH: 213,480,1249 4- Resources Planning for Residential ParkIng: A Guide for Hot.lSing Developers and Planners. Website created by NPH to help developers be more effective in arguing for reduced parking. Contains data, recommendations, and a model for determining the amount of parking needed by a specific site. htt P: II dcrp. ced .berkeley .edu Istuden ts/rrusso lparking/Develooer%20Ma nua.lli n dex.htm Donald Shoup Professor, Urban Planning. UCLA. Has written numerous reports regarding parking requirements. Argues for reduced parking requirements for numerous developments. including affordable housing. ~.heup@ucla .ed u Reøorts Parking Requirement Im.pactson Housing Affordabillty Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Victoria, B.C" Canada, 1999. www.vtpi.ora/park-hou,odf Pavement Busters Guide: Wh.y and How to Reduce the .Amount of Land Paved for Roads and Parking facilities Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Victoria, B,C., Canada, 2000. www,vtpi.erglpav-bust,pdf Smart Growth Zoning Codes: A Resource Guide Local Government Commission. Sacramento, 2003. To order a copy, visit wwwJqc.org Travel Characteristics of Transit..Oriented Development In California Hollie Lund (CSU Poly, Pomona), Robert Cervero (UC Berkeley), Richard Wilson (CSU Poly, Pomona). California, 2004, Please contact SCANPH for a copy. Rethinking Residential Parking: Myth & Facts Southern california Aøociatio...Non-Proftt MouØtg 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1005, Los Angeles. CA 90010 PH: 213-480-.1249 5- Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH). San Francisco, 2001. WWW . nonprofit housi no .org lac tìoncen ter ¡toolboxl parking/mythsa ndfacts. pdf Reducing HousingCosfs by Rethinking Parking Requirements San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR). San Francisco, 1998, www.spur.oro/documenfs/spurhsQPkg.pdf ReDOrts. eont. Buying 11me at the Curb Donald Shoup, UCLA Department of Urban Planning. .Los Angeles, 2003. www.sppsr,ucla.edu/up/webfiles/buyinQtìme.pdf The High Cost of Free Parking Donald Shoup, UCLA Department of Urban Planning. LQS Angeles, 1997. www.sppsr.ucla.edu/ /duD/people/faculty /Shoup%20Pub'%204.pdf In Ueu of Required Parking Donald Shoup, UCLA Department of Urban Planning. Los Angeles, 1999. www .sppsr.uda.edulldup/oeoplelfaculty IShoup1020Pub%202.pdf The Trouble WIth Minimum Parking Requirements Donald Shoup, UCLA Department of Urban Planning, Los Angeles, 1999. www .sppsr,uda.edulldup/oeople/faculty IShouo%20Pub'%203.,pdf Housing Sholtage/ParkingSurplus: Silicon Valley's Op"rtunity to Address Housing Needs and Tran$þQrtation Problems with Innovøtlve Pal'king Policies Transportation and Land Use Coalition. San Jose, 2002. www.transcoalìtion.org/reoorts/housing s/housing shortaGe home.html SOUthern canfomia AÞoclatiOlt of Non-Prolit Ho"""9 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 PH: 213.480-1249 www.$canphJ2r,g 6. Best Practice Policies Here Is a quick list of jurisdictions and practices that can be used as examples: Combined Reductions in Parking Requirements for Affordable Housing and Proximity to Transit City of Los Angeles City of San Diego Using Square Feet Rather Than Bedrooms for Pari<ing Requirements City of Berkeley In R-4 district. parking requirements are 1 per 1 .000 ft of gross floor area. This reduces the penalty that minimum parking requirements typically have on smaller units. (Section 23DAO.O8O) Lower Parking Requirements for Unassigned Parking Lots versus Assigned Parking Spaces San Jose For 1 bedrooms and studios only. San Jose has a 0.5 spaces per unit red\Jcfion in MPRswhen a facility is "AU Open Parking" vs. "One-Car" or "rwo-CarGarage" (Municipctl Code 20.12.215) If open lot. parking reqUirernents are 0.3 to 0.4 spaces per unit lower than deve!oÞmønts using OAe-'fuUy enclosed garage. (Municipql Code 19.46.050) Sunnyvale Southern California Association of Noø-Prolit HousIng 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1005. Los Angeles. CA 90010 PH: 213"480-1249 www.scon.Qh.Qtg -7- Berkeley One-fifth the regular parking requirement for housing specifically designed for and occupìed by senior cìtizens or physically handicapped persons. (Article 1 .5. Section ill) 25% reduction of parking requirement for housing exclusively for persons over the age of sixty-two (6.2). One space per 5 residents for nursing homes. (Section 230.40.080) rtBy-righf' reductions in parking requirements for Senior and disabled housing San Francisco SOUtllem C"Komta As$ociatiOft of No"""l'DØt Housing 3345 WIlshire Blvd. Suite 1005. Los Angeles, (;A 90010 PH: 213.480-1249 8- city of Los Angeles Municipal Code Chapter 1, General ProYisions & Zoning Section 12.22 A 25 (d) 25. Affordable Housing Incentives/DeR$ify Bonuses. (d) Affordable Housing Production Incentives. Notwithstanding any previsions of this article to the contrary, density bonus projects, and other development projects with any restricted affordable units or any affordable accessible units, shall be granted the following incentives: (1) In calculating dwelling units or guest rooms, density shall be rounded upwards from fractions of one-half (1 /2) and morettom that permitted by the applicable zone to allow one additional dweling unit or guest room. (2) Parking requirements for each restricted affordable unit only shall be as follows: For a project located 1 .00 parking space per within 1 ,500 feet of a mass dwell-ing unit, regardless transit station or major bus of the number of route habitable rooms For a project containing 1 1 .00 parking space per or2 habitable rooms and dwelHng unit not lo-cated within 1 .500 feet of a transit station or major bus route For a project containing 3 1 .50 parldng spaces per or more habitable rooms dwelling unit and net located within 1 .500 feet of a transit station or major bus route For any project conta.ining 0.50 parking space per units designed for senior dwell-ing unit or guest citizens and/or disabled room persons For a single-room 0.25 parking space per occupancy hotel dwell-ing unit or guest room, With a minimum of 5 parking stallS per facility SðutIIemcailfomla AhOCIatl.on Of No""Pndlt Housing 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 PH: 213-480-1249 v.tWw.scanph.QfQ -9 Sample of Southern California Minimum Parking Requirements Below is a table of many Southem California cities' minimum parking requirements (MPR) for multi-family housing. For comparison purposes, the required off-$treet parking spaces. including guest parking, was calculated for a hypothetical 1 00 unit development consisting ot 10 studios. 40 one bedroom units, 40 two bedroom units, and 10 three bedroom units. The municiþqllties me listed from the lowest required spaces to the highest, Cafhedrå City Los Angeles Irvine Riverside (City) Ventura (City) Santa Monica Long Beach West Hollywood Santa Barbaf(] Pasadena San Bernardino (City) City of Orange Son ClementeU Oxnard Tustin Huntington Park Anaheim Santa Ann"' Note: These are merely the number of required pari<lng spaces. This list does not include the Qddlfional regulafìons cities impose such as requiring that at least one space per unit be covered. These additional requirements may further impede development. Southam California ~i.tf~ "'-.ProfIt Housing 3345 Wilshire ~Ivd. $\,JÎte 1005, Los Angeles, c.A900tO PH: 213-48()..1 249 www.sconph.orq - 10- . Santa Ana recently changed theIr MPRs to more reasonable ranos. Santo Ana's municipal code still refleds these requirements OS of 9/16/03. .. Son Clemente may also use net floor area to determine MPRs. Whichever method yields the larger amount will be employed. Breakdown is os follows: To 900 sq. ft -- 1.5 spaces To 1800 sq. ft -- 2.0 spaces To 2700 sq. ft - 2.5 spaces Over 2700 sq. ft - 3.0 spaces 8ctuthem California .ASsOcIation ofJlon..PI'OtIt Housing 3345 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 PH: 213-480- 1249 y::/ww.scano.b.,9L9 11... Sample of Altemative Mlaimum Parking Requirements Below is a table of alternative minimum parking requirements for various types of multi-family developments. Various cities have recognized that the standard requirements may not be fitting for every population, such as low income families or seniors, and have developed more reasonable requirements for sites serving to these groups. For comparison purposes, the same hypothetical development has been employed. Cathedre¡1 city - Senior Long Beach - Spedal Needs U or Senior U Los Angeles - Affordoble San Clemente Senior Santa Barbara -]00% Affordable Santa Monica - Affordable Venture¡ County - Low income or Senior wøst HoHywood $.enior Souihem CalIfOrnIa Adt'JCidoo of NOn-Profit 1IO_'og 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suile 1005, LOS Angeles, CA 90010 PH: 213-480-1249 www.sconoh,org - 12- References Access municipal code language for all cities listed via the internet CitY Section Anaheim 18.06.050 Cathedral City9 .58.020. F Huntington Park Irvine 4-34 Website bttp:l/www.amleaaLcom/anaheim cal b.tl:I;?:l/ ord link. com I ÇS)~s / cathedral/index.him 9-3.804 h ttp://orgJiDK.com/codes/huntingjgn/index.htm Long Beach 2L4L216 http://ciJong-beach.ca.u$/citycl~k/tbmcJfjtle-21/f(Qme,htm Los Angeles 12.21.A.4 City of Orange 17.34.060 Pasadena 17.68.030 Riverside (City) 19.74.010B http://WWWJacity.ora/lacityI02.htm http://bpc.iseryjtJ.n~codeslorange/index.htm h ttp: Ilwww. cí.pas~dena.ca.us/cityclerk/munjcode .asp httR:{l~~9Jjverside.ca.us/municipal code/Default.htm Son Bernordino (City) 19.24.040 htto://www.CÎ.san- bernardino. ca. us/sITe Ih fm I DevelopmentCode2002. h tm San Clemente 17.64.050 Santa Ana 4-1322 Santa Barbara 28.90.100 Santa Monica 9.04.10.08.040 http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/sanclement§ðl Tustin 9226 Ventura 24.415.030 West Hollywood 19.28.040 h ttp://www.weho.on;;J/index.cfm?f useae tion=nQv&navid=24&I'TiOde= W eb SOuthern CallfôtnI8 Abctciation of No..,pNtlt HoWling 3345 WilshIre Blvd. Suite 1005, Los Angeles, CA 90010 PH: 213.480-1249 .13 - Making a House Call Less Downtown Parking Is Part of Proposal to Streamline Home Building by Jason Mandell, Los Angeles Downtown News The city's restrictive building codes have caused many developers to shy away from tackling much-needed housing in the Central City. But a plan released last week by a business advocacy group hopes to make the prospect more attractive to residential builders by streamlining the process. It states that revising certain codes and zoning laws could reduce construction costs by $20,000 to $30,000 per unit, A major focus of the plan, authored by the Centrol City Association, is to create more high-density housing by cutting bock on open space requirements and steering development toward public transportation spots. It also has the controversial aspect of diming to reduce the number of parking spaces. required for a project. The 19-pqge "white paper," which was unveiled last Tuesday at the Subway Terminal Building, hos won the support of Mayor James Hahn ond Ninth District Councilwoman Jon Perry. The plan states what most Angelenos olready know - LA. is in the midst of a housing crisis. According to the CCA, the city has a net deficit of between 8,000 and 10,000 housing units. Additionally, about 15% of all units are considered substandard, and 30% of the units are overcrowded, according to the report. Developer Greg Vi/kin, who heads CCA's housing production committee and oversaw the white paper, said the idea is to curb what residents consider their right to private open space and a parking spot for every car. "LA. needs to grow up:' said Vilkin, whose company Forest City Residential West is developing several Downtown projects, including the 277 -unit Subway Terminal Building. Vilkin said the CCA plan's ultimate goal is to force people to live near where they work, use public transit or rideshare, and use neighborhood parks rather than backyards. Vi/kin admitted that lowering the requirements for parking spaces for new projects would negatively impact Downtown, whose lack of affordable parking has long deterred visitors and potential residents. 'There will be some short-term pain," said Vilkin. However, he said thdt in the long run, cutting down on parking spaces will transform the area's lifestyle. Southern Califonda ~øn Of No..,.ProfitHousing 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1005. Los Angeles. CA 90010 PH: 213-480-1249 ~\tfw.~Of)ph.org - 14- Hahn said the high cost of meeting the current parking requirements drives away developers. He said that if more housing is constructed near bus and subway stops, the need for parking spaces will diminish, Making a House Call, cont. A potentially controversial measure of the CCA plan is the elimination of prevailing wage requirements for public and private housing projects. The plan states that wage restrictions often deter developers from taking on projects because of high labor costs. The report also calls for the city to abandon certain policies that require developers to include affordable housing in market-rate prQjects. The pion suggests providing better incentives and subsidies for mixed-income housing. Among the plan's additional recommendations are: . Create a housing advisory committee to help developers meet code requirements. . Change building codes and zoning laws to cut costs and increase the speed of the approval and construction processes. . Develop a workforce housing campaign and offer financial assistance to "critical empbyees" such as police, fire, nurses and teachers, . step up lobbying efforts for state and federal funds for market-rate and low-income housing. As part of the effort to encourage residential development Hahn announced during the press conference that his business team is being renamed the Los Angeles Housing and 8usiness Team. He said theCCA plan offers real solutions for building housing quickly and at lower costs. Hahn said he does not endorse every component of the initiative, and plans to further examine it. He expressed hesitation about the proposal to reduce open space requirements in development projects, "I'm not an advocate of that yet," said Hahn. Perry praised the report for seeking to entice developers to tockle projects. "I Oke the fact that this paper provides incentives, not punitive measures." SOuthern Callfomla Association ofNoD"Proøt Housing 3345 WilshIre Blvd. Suite 1005. Los Angeles. CA 90010 PH: 213-400-1249 www.sconphQrq - 15- Perry said the plan provides a blueprint for the city's effort to increase housing production. "I'm looking forward to using this paper as a mecsure of our success as we move forward," ATTACHMENT D Noise Analysis r "Å ~ ACOUSTICAL EV ALUA TION FOR THE COLUMBUS SQUARE SENIOR HOUSING IN TUSTIN Project File 783-05 December 2005 Prepared for: Lennar Homes of California, Inc. 25 Enterprise, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Prepared by: J. T. Stephens, Associate Consultant David L. Wieland, Principal Consultant Wieland Associates, Inc. 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 114 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949/829-6722 Fax: 949/829-6670 WWW, wi elandassoc. com ~ ~ .~ Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Columbus Square Senior Housing 1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 4 5 5.1 5.2 6 7 8 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION. ..................................................... 1 NOISE STAN DARDS................................................................................ 1 TRANSPORTATION NOISE .......................................,...................,............2 STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES.... .... .. .. ... . .. .. .... .. .... .... .. .. . . .... ..... .... .., . .. ...... ... 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE INSULATION STANDARDS......................"............,..,... 2 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ........................................................................3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 TRAFFIC NOISE...........,................... ,..................,................"..,.........., 3 TRAIN NOISE ....................................................................................3 COMBINED TRAFFIC AND TRAIN NOISE .EXPOSURES.............."""".,..........."",...... 4 FIRE STATION ...................................................................................4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT............... ............................... ..... ...................... 4 NOISE CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................4 EXTERIOR NOISE .CONTROL.....,.......................................... .....................4 INTERIOR NOISE CONTROL "................"."..............."",.................,.,.......5 SEPARATION ASSEMBLIES .......................................................................6 CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 6 REFERENCES....................................................................................... 8 List of Tables Table 2-1. City of Tustin Noise Ordinance Stand ards............................................. 2 Table 3-1. Data Used in Traffic Noise Analysis ..................................................., 3 List of Figures Figure 1 -1. Project Site Location.................................................................... 1 Figure 5-1. Acoustical Baffle for Attic Vent......................,.....,........................... 7 List of Appendices Appendix I. Appendix II. Appendix III. Appendix IV. Glossary of Terms Traffic Noise Analysis Train Noise Analysis Interior Noise Analysis Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Project File 783-05 i December 2005 y¿ Wieland Associates, Inc. FI NAL Columbus Square Senior Housing 1 Introduction/Project Description The proposed project involves the construction of approximately 240 condominiums at the Columbus Square Senior Housing development in Tustin. The site is bounded on the northeast by Edinger A venue, on the southeast by West Connector Road, and on the remaining two sides by other portions of the Columbus Square development. Figure 1-1 identifies the location of the project site. Figure 1-1. Project Site Location The following report provides a description of the City of Tustin's noise standards for residential developments, an analysis of the future noise environment at the site, an assessment of impact relative to the City's standards, and recommendations for mitigating the significant impacts. 2 Noise Standards The City of Tustin provides noise standards for both transportation-related noise and noise from stationary (non-transportation) sources. The City's standards for each of these noise sources are discussed further in the following sections, along with the State of California's standards for multi- family construction. Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Project File 783-05 1 December 2005 .. Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Columbus Square Senior Housing 2.1 Transportation Noise For residential properties, the City of Tustin requires that the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) does not exceed 65 dB at the exterior living areas or 45 dB atthe habitable interior living areas. The Noise Element of the City of Tustin General Plan defines exterior living areas at multifamily developments as patios and decks with a depth of 6 feet or more, and common recreation areas. Refer to Appendix I for a glossary of acoustical terms used throughout this report. 2.2 Stationary Noise Sources Chapter 6 of the Tustin City Code (Sections 4614 and 4615) identifies the following standards for noise intrusion onto residential properties from stationary (i.e., non-transportation) noise sources: Table 2-1. City of Tustin Noise Ordinance Standards Exterior Interior Noise level that may not be Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime exceeded for more than '" 7 am - 10 pm 10 pm - 7 am 7 am - 10 pm 10 pm - 7 am 30 minutes in any hour (denoted Lso) 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Not Specified Not Specified 15 minutes in any hour (denoted L2s) 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Not Specified Not Specified 5 minutes in any hour (denoted La) 65 dB(A) 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 1 minute in any hour (denoted Lz) 70 dB(A) 65 dB(A) 60 dB(A) 50 dB(A) At any time (denoted Lmax) 75 dB(A) 70 dB(A) 65 dB (A) 55 dB(A) In the event that the existing ambient noise level exceeds any of the above standards, the standards are increased to reflect the ambient noise level. Each of the above noise limits shall be reduced by 5 dB(A) for impact noise, simple tone noise, or for noises consisting of speech or music. 2.3 State of California Noise Insulation Standards All multifamily projects must comply with the State of Cali fomi a's noise insulation standards (CAC Title 24, Chapter 2.5, Section 2-3501). The State's Title 24 standards specify that the intrusion of noise from exterior sources (such as traffic) shall not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB within the interior of any habitable space. In addition, the State staridards set minimum ratings for the sound and impact transmission of party wall and floor/ceiling separation assemblies. This report only provides an evaluation of, and recommendations for, the exterior-to-interior requirements of the State standards. It is the project architect's responsibility to ensure compliance with the separation assembly requirements of the State standards. Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Project File 783-05 2 December 2005 .~ Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Columbus Square Senior Housing 3 Exterior Noise Levels The primary sources of noise affecting the project site are traffic on Edinger Avenue and West Connector Road, and train movements on the rail line northeast of, and parallel to, Edinger Avenue. In order to identify the existing noise environment at the project site, a continuous 24-hour noise measurement was conducted at the approximate location of the nearest proposed façade to Edinger Avenue. The data from this measurement was then used to calibrate the traffic and train noise models used to estimate the future noise exposure levels that will be experienced at the project site. The results of the modeling efforts are described in the following sections. 3.1 Traffic Noise The following data (Reference 3) were used in our analysis of traffic noise exposures at the site: Table 3-1. Data Used in Traffic Noise Analysis Traffic Parameter Edinger Avenue W. Connector Rd. Future Roadway Configuration 6 lanes, divided 4 lanes, undivided Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) 55,000 11,000 Traffic Speed 50 mph 40 mph % Medium Trucks 1.84% 1.84% % Heavy Trucks 0.74% 0.74% Based on the above traffic data, it is estimated that the future unmitigated traffic noise exposure will be up to 72 dB CNEL at the nearest façades adjacent to Edinger Avenue and 63.5 dB at the nearest facades adjacent to West Connector Road. At ground floor locations, which will be buffered from the traffic noise by a proposed 7-foot high barrier to be constructed at the property lines, the future CNEL will be about 63.5 dB at facades adjacent to Edinger Avenue and 56.5 dB at facades adjacent to West Connector Road. At the pool and clubhouse recreation areas, the future traffic noise exposure is estimated to be much less than 65 dB. (Refer to Appendix II for the analysis.) The traffic noise analysis was conducted using the FHWA RD 77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The remaining streets within the project site are local collectors and are not expected to contribute significantly to the overall noise exposure. 3.2 Train Noise Based on information provided by Metrolink, Amtrak, and a prior site study (Reference 4), there are currently about 61 train passes per day on the rail line northeast of the project site parallel to Edinger Avenue. Using models developed by the Federal Transit Administration and Wyle Laboratories, an analysis was conducted to estimate the noise exposure at the project site from this activity. (Refer to Appendix III.) The results of the analysis indicate a CNEL of65 dB at upper floor facades and 60 dB at ground floor facades that will be buffered from the train noise by the proposed 7-foot high barrier on the property lines. Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Project File 783-05 3 December 2005 .~ Wieland Associates, Inc. FI HAL Columbus Square Senior Housing 3.3 Combined Traffic and Train Noise Exposures The combined noise exposure at any location on the project site is obtained by adding together, on an energy basis, the contributions from the individual sources. Based on the analytical results of Sections 3.1 and 3.2, it is estimated that the combined CNEL at the nearest units adjacent to Edinger A venue will be up to 73 dB at third floor facades and up to 65 dB at first floor facades. At the nearest units adjacent to West Connector Road it is estimated that the combined CNEL will be up to 67 dB at third floor facades and less than 65 dB at first floor facades. The combined CNEL is expected to be less than 65 dB at the common recreation areas. 3.4 Fire Station A stationary noise source that could potentially affect the project site is the future fire station to be located near the northeast corner of the project site. However, it is assumed that the fire station developer will consider potential noise impacts in the design of the fire station. Potential annoyance due to station-related noise can be reduced by keeping doors and windows closed at nearby units. 4 Assessment of Impact As indicated in the previous section, the exterior traffic noise exposure at the proposed development is estimated to be as high as 73 dB at the nearest residences to Edinger A venue, and 67 dB at the nearest residences to West Connector Road. These exceed the City's standard of65 dB; therefore, mitigation will be required that provides a reduction of up to 8 dB at locations considered to be exterior living areas. It is noted that the upper floor decks facing the noise sources are less than 6 feet deep; therefore they are not considered to be exterior living areas. The exterior traffic noise exposure at the common recreation areas is estimated to be below the City's standard of 65 dB; therefore, no further mitigation (beyond the proposed 7-foot high barrier to be constructed at the property lines) is required at these locations. As the exterior traffic noise exposure is estimated to be as high as 73 dB, the building construction will need ~o be designed to provide a noise reduction of up to 28 dB in order to comply with the City's interior CNEL standard of 45 dB. 5 Noise Control Recommendations 5.1 Exterior Noise Control El. A noise barrier with a minimum height of 7 feet shall be constructed along the northeast and southeast property lines adjacent to Edinger Avenue, West Connector Road, and the proposed Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Project File 783-05 4 December 2005 .. Wieland Associates, Inc. FI HAL Columbus Square Senior Housing fire station, as indicated in the referenced plans. The height of the barrier is relative to the elevation of the project site or the adjacent arterial, whichever is greater. E2. The noise barrier identified in El, above, shall be constructed of materials having a minimum density of 4 lbs per square foot. E3. The noise barrier shall be a continuous structure, without gaps, including at the base for drainage. The recommended barrier height is based on the elevations indicated on the referenced plans. If the site or grading plans change during the final design of the project, the adequacy of the recommended barrier should be re-examined by a qualified acoustical consultant. 5.2 Interior Noise Control I-I. All window and door assemblies used throughout the project shall be well fitted and well weather-stripped. For some residential units the window and door assemblies shall also be sound rated with outdoor-indoor transmission class (OITC) ratings as high as 32. The exact locations and ratings of these assemblies shall be determined as part of the final engineering design of the project and shall be based on the final site and architectural plans. OITC is per ASTM E 1332-90. 1-2. All exterior walls shall provide a minimum OITC rating of37. This may be achieved in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, the following: a. 7/8" stucco, 2x4 studs, stud space filled with minimum R-l1 insulation batts, and minimum 1/2" type X gypsum wallboard on the interior. OR Hardiplank@ siding over minimum 3/8" plywood, 2x4 studs, stud space filled with minimum R-II insulation batts, and two layers of minimum 1/2" type X gypsum wallboard on the interior. 1-3. b. All joints well fitted and/or caulked to form an airtight seal. The interior noise standard shall be met in all units with windows and doors closed. Therefore, ventilation is required in all units per the Unifonn Building Code standards in order to provide a habitable environment. This may be achieved with standard air conditioning or a fresh air intake system. Wall-mounted air conditioners shall not be used. 1-4. Any air intake ducts at buildings adjacent to Edinger Avenue or West Connector Road shall be oriented away from the street and shall incorporate at least 6' of flexible fiberglass ducting and at least one 90° bend. There shall be no other openings (mail slots, vents, etc) in the exterior walls facing either arterial. The roof system at all buildings shall have minimum W' plywood sheathing that is well sealed to fonn a continuous barrier to the noise. Minimum R-19 insulation batts shall be placed in the rafter space. 1-5. Lennar Homes of Califomia, Inc. Project File 783-05 5 December 2005 y~ Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Columbus Square Senior Housing 1-6. Attic vents, if any, at buildings adjacent to Edinger Avenue or West Connector Road shall be oriented away from the street. If such an orientation cannot be avoided, then an acoustical baffle shall be placed in the attic space behind the vent as shown in Figure 5- I (page 7). It should be noted that the recommended interior noise control measures are based on the assumption that standard building construction (with a 3-coat stucco façade) provides a noise reduction of at least 20 dB with windows and doors closed. 6 Separation Assemblies The State noise insulation standards (Title 24) specifY minimum sound ratings for party wall and floor/ceiling separation assemblies. The design of these assemblies is beyond the scope of this report. It is the project architect's responsibility to verify compliance with the party wall assembly requirements of the State standards. 7 Cone lusion Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels of noise as a result of traffic on Edinger Avenue and train movements on the SCRRA rail line. However, it is concluded that, with the recommendations provided herein, the project will comply with the City's exterior standard for residential construction. Preliminary recommendations have also been provided for compliance with the interior noise standards for residential construction as required by the City of Tustin. The actual noise control measures needed should be determined by a qualified acoustical consultant as part of the final engineering design of the project, and should be based on the final site and architectural plans. Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Project File 783-05 6 December 2005 .~ Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Columbus Square Senior Housing (!) PlYWOOD (OR EQUIVALENT) BACKING ø 2X4 SUPPORlS ATTACHED TO ROOf" JOIST 0 MINIMUM 3.5" INSUlAllON STAPLED TO BACKING ø OPENING ABV. FOR ROOf VENT @ INSULA l1ON TO BE A MAX. Of 12" DOWN FROM BOTTOM Of ROOf JOIST. ..JÐ- MIN :h- ~ lJ /AttiCVent -0- -- u--~ 8' to 10" /R-11 Insulation Batts - Baffle Height = 48' Figure 5-1. Acoustical Baffle for Attic Vent Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Project File 783-05 7 December 2005 .. Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Columbus Square Senior Housing 8 References I. Rough Grading Plan for Columbus Square, Tentative Tract No. 16581. Tait and Associates, Inc. July 19,2005. 2. Columbus Square Senior Village. Conceptual Design Package. William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. Revised November 30, 2005. 3. Columbus Square Traffic Impact Study. RK Engineering Group. October 21,2004. 4. Exterior Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract No. 16581 (Columbus Square), Tustin, California. PCR. February 19,2004. 5. Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations. Wyle Laboratories. July 1973. 6. General Transit Noise Assessment Model. Federal Transit Administration. 1997. 7. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108. December 1978. Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Project File 783-05 8 December 2005 APPENDIX I Glossary of Terms ATTACHMENT E Resolution No. 4014 RESOLUTION NO. 4014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 05-019 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-037 AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 240 SENIOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH A NEW PARKING STANDARD OF 1.7 PARKING SPACE PER UNIT ON A NINE (9)- ACRE SITE BOUNDED BY EDINGER AVENUE ON THE NORTH, THE FIRE STATION SITE AND WEST CONNECTOR ROAD ON THE EAST, AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE WEST AND SOUTH WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4 AND PLANNING AREA 5 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (PARCEL 265 OF TRACT 16581) The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Design Review 05-019 and Conditional Use Permit 05-037 was submitted by Lennar Homes for development of a 240 unit senior housing project with a new parking ratio of 1.7 parking spaces per unit for a nine (9) acre site within Columbus Square within Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 5 of the MCAS-Tustin Specific Plan (Lot 265 of Tract 16581); B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on January 23,2006, by the Planning Commission; C. That the site is located within Tract 16581 previously approved for development of 1,077 residential units including 242 senior housing units within Planning Areas 4 and 5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, which is designated for Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential; D. That the Columbus Square project included 266 affordable units including 153 affordable housing units (36 Very Low, 61 Low, and 56 Moderate Income units) in the senior housing project as required by Resolution No. 05-40 for approval of Tentative Tract Map 16581; E. In accordance with Condition 2.2 of Resolution No. 05-40 for approval of Tentative Tract Map 16581, a design review and conditional use permit application for site/architectural design and the parking standard for the senior housing project was submitted; F. Pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 2 E. proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Height, bulk, and area of buildings. Setbacks and site planning. Exterior materials and colors. Type and pitch of roofs. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 13. Proposed signage. 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. 7. 8. 9. That the proposed parking ratio of 1.7 parking space per unit for senior housing development will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, in that: 1. In accordance with the submitted parking study affordable senior housing projects have lower parking demand in comparison with the family housing and market rate units that can be accommodated with the proposed 1.7 parking spaces per unit. 2. The Traffic Engineer has determined that the parking analysis contains sufficient technical data to support the conclusion that the proposed parking supply is adequate to serve the proposed development. 3. The proposed ratio of 1.7 parking space per unit was considered to be consistent with the recommendations of the Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 3 Urban Land Institute (ULI) and exceeds the recommended ratio by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). F. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin (FEIS/EIR). In addition, the City Council certified a separate environmental check list for the Columbus Square project with approval of Tentative Tract Map 16581 which considered the senior housing site and noted that no additional impacts were anticipated. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review 05-019 and Conditional Use Permit 05-037 for development of a 240 unit senior housing project on a nine (9) acre site and establish parking standards within Planning Area 4 and Planning Area 5 of the MCAS-Tustin Specific Plan (Lot 265 of Tract 16581), subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of January, 2006. JOHN NIELSEN Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4014 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 23rd day of January, 2006. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary GENERAL (1 ) (1 ) 1.2 (1 ) 1.3 (1 ) 1.4 (1 ) 1.5 EXHIBIT A DESIGN REVIEW 05-019 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-037 RESOLUTION NO. 4014 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.1 The proposed project shall conform with the Tustin City Code and Tustin guidelines and standards and be consistent with submitted plans for the project date stamped January 23, 2006, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code, and other applicable codes. Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified or prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway within 24 months. All time extensions may be considered if a written request is received within thirty (30) days prior to expiration date. Approval of Design Review 05-019 and Conditional Use Permit 05-037 is contingent upon the applicant 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 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. As a condition of approval of Design Review 05-019 and Conditional Use Permit 05-037, 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 SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (2) CEQA MITIGATION (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (4) DESIGN REVIEW (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (7) PC/CC POLICY *** EXCEPTION Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 2 (*) 1.6 (*) 1.7 (*) 1.8 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. As required by Resolution No. 05-40, prior to issuance of the 420th building permit for the production units of the entire Columbus Square project, building permits for the senior housing shall have been issued and the first footing inspection for the senior housing shall have been completed. All conditions of Resolution No. 05-40 related to private on-site infrastructure shall be implemented. The "Affordable Housing Plan and Density Bonus Application" approved for the Columbus Square and Columbus Grove developments shall be amended to include the revised design and location of the affordable housing units provided in the senior housing project. GRADING PLAN SUBMITTAL (1 ) 2.1 Four (4) sets of final grading plans, including a site plan, and consistent with the landscaping plans, as prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted and shall include the following: A. Technical details and plans for all utility installations including telephone, gas, water, and electricity. Three (3) copies of a precise soils report provided by a civil engineer and less than one (1) year old. Expanded information regarding the levels of hydrocarbons and ground water contamination found on-site shall be provided in the soil report. All pavement "R" values shall be in accordance with applicable City of Tustin standards. Information demonstrating that all site drainage shall be handled on-site and shall not be permitted to drain onto adjacent properties. Information demonstrating that drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drains shall comply with the City of Tustin's "Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drain and On-Site Private Improvements," revised April 1989. Two (2) copies of a hydrology report. Information demonstrating that vehicle parking, primary entrance to the building, primary paths of travel, sanitary facilities, drinking fountain, and public telephones for the recreation building shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. Building and landscape setback dimensions and dimensions for all drive aisles, back up areas, each covered parking stall, and open parking stalls. B. C. D. E. F. G. Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 3 (1 ) 2.2 (1 ) 2.3 (1 ) 2.4 (1 ) 2.5 The engineer of record must submit a final compaction report to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The engineer of record must submit a pad certification to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall be required to provide a performance bond to assure grading work is completed in accordance with approved plans. The engineer's estimated cost shall be submitted to the Building Official for determination of the bond amount. A note shall be provided on the final plans indicating that a six (6) foot high chain link fence shall be installed around the site prior to grading. A nylon fabric or mesh shall be attached to the temporary construction fencing. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles. BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTAL (3) 3.1 (3) 3.2 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), 2001 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2001 California Plumbing Codes (CPC), 2001 California Electrical Code (CEC), California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations, Title 24 Energy Regulations, City Ordinances, and State and Federal laws and regulations. Building plan check submittal shall include the following: . Seven (7) sets of construction plans, including drawings for mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. . Structural calculations, two (2) copies. . Title 24 energy calculations, two (2) copies. . Elevations that include all proposed dimensions, materials, colors, finishes, and partial outlines of adjacent buildings on-site and off-site where applicable . Details for the proposed windows and doors. . Roofing material shall be fire rated class liB" or better. . The location of any utility vents or other equipment shall be provided on the roof plan. . Details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated pattern of light distribution of all proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be consistent with the architecture of the building. All exterior lighting shall be designed and arranged as not to direct light or glare onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent streets. Wall- mounted fixtures shall be directed at a gO-degree angle directly toward the ground. All lighting shall be Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 4 (3) (3) (3) (1 ) (4) (1 ) (3) 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 developed to provide a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of light coverage, in accordance with the City's Security Ordinance. . A note shall be provided on the plans that "All parking areas shall be illuminated with a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of light, and lighting shall not produce light, glare, or have a negative impact on adjacent properties." . Cross-section details showing the installation of the proposed rooftop equipment. Rooftop equipment shall be installed and maintained so as not to be visible from the public right-of-way. An elevation showing rooftop equipment installation related to the height of the parapet and proposed equipment must be identified at plan check submittal and all equipment must be six (6) inches below the top of the parapet, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. . Noise attenuation features as required by Conditions 14.1 through 14.3 of this Resolution. . Note on plans that no field changes shall be made without prior approval from the Building Official and architect or engineer of record. 3.3 Sufficiently sized concrete pad in front of mailbox structures shall be provided to allow mail carrier to place mail and homeowner to retrieve mail without standing in the street or landscape area. Vehicle parking, primary entrance to the pool and recreational building, the primary path of travel, sanitary facilities, drinking fountains, and public telephones shall be accessible to persons with disabilities as per State of California Accessibility Standards (Title 24). Parking for disabled persons shall be provided with an additional five (5) foot loading area with striping and ramp; disabled persons shall be able to park and access the building without passing behind another car. At least one (1) accessible space shall be van accessible served by a minimum 96 inch wide loading area. Provide area analysis for all buildings (residences and garages), and show compliance with allowable floor areas based on 2001 California Building Code Chapter 5, Table 5-B. Escape or rescue windows shall be provided in all sleeping rooms, in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code (Section 310.4). Dwelling units shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a temperature of 70 degrees at a point three (3) feet above the floor in all habitable rooms in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code (Section 310.11). The clear and unobstructed interior garage dimensions for each parking space shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width and twenty (20) feet in length and shall be shown on the plans. Information to ensure compliance with requirements of the Orange County Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 5 Fire Authority shall be submitted including fire flow and installation of fire hydrants subject to approval of the City of Tustin Public Works and/or Irvine Ranch Water District. (1 ) 3.10 If determined feasible by the Building Official, the applicant shall implement one or more of the following control measures, if not already required by the SCAQMD under Rule 403 during construction as follows: a) Apply water twice daily, or chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces at all actively disturbed sites. b) Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes, but is not limited to, rerouting construction trucks off congested streets, consolidating truck deliveries, and providing dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on-site and off-site. c) Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline-powered generators. d) Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. e). Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles. f) Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for four days or more). g) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders according to manufacturers' specifications to exposed piles of gravel, sand, or dirt. h) Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, and maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard (Le., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and top of the trailer). i) Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads (use water sweepers with reclaimed water when feasible). j) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. k) Use low VOC architectural coatings for all interior and exterior painting operations. Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 6 (1 ) 3.11 Add notes that all utilities placed under private streets are located a minimum of 36 inches below grade and revise street cross sections accordingly. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (1 ) 4.1 (1 ) 4.2 (1) 4.3 (1 ) 4.4 A separate 24" x 36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for all construction within the public right-of-way along Edinger Avenue and West Connector Road. Construction and/or replacement of any missing or damaged public improvements will be required adjacent to this development. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: a) Curb and Gutter b) Sidewalk c) Drive aprons d) Catch basin/storm drain laterals! connection to existing storm drain system e) Domestic water facilities f) Reclaimed water facilities g) Sanitary sewer facilities h) Underground utility connections In addition, a 24" x 36" reproducible construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation may be required. Preparation of plans for and construction of: a. All sanitary sewer facilities shall be submitted as required by the City Engineer and Irvine Ranch Water District. b. A domestic water system shall be designed and installed to the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. The adequacy and reliability of the water system design and the distribution of fire hydrants shall be evaluated. The water distribution system and appurtenances shall also conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department. Any required reclaimed water system shall meet the standards as required by the Irvine Ranch Water District. 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. Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities shall be repaired before issuance of a certificate of Occupancy. Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 7 (1) 4.5 (1 ) 4.6 (1 ) 4.7 A complete hydrology study and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final development 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 are also required to be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file format is AutoCAD Release 14 or 2000 having the extension DWG. Likewise, layering and linetype conventions are AutoCAD-based (latest version available upon request from the Engineering Division). In order to interchangeably utilize the data contained in the infrastructure mapping system, CADD drawings must be in AutoCAD "DWG" format (i.e., produced using AutoCAD or AutoCAD compatible CADD software). The most current version of AutoCAD is Release 2000. Drawings created in AutoCAD Release 14 are compatible and acceptable. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. The subdivision bonds will not be released until the "as built" CADD files have been submitted. 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. Multi-Family Recycling a. The Applicant, Property Owner and/or tenant(s) are required to participate in the City's recycling program. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a solid waste recycling plan identifying planned source separate and recycling programs shall be submitted and approved by the City of Tustin Public Works Department. WATEB QUALITY (1 ) 5.1 The applicant shall comply with the following conditions pertaining to the requirement for a Water Quality Management Plan: A. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 8 (1 ) 5.2 (1 ) 5.3 shall identify the structural and non-structural measures specified detailing implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the project; the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. B. Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the applicant shall submit a deposit of $5,000.00 for the estimated cost of review of the WQMP to the Building Division. The actual costs shall be deducted from the deposit, and the applicant shall be responsible for any additional review cost that exceeded the deposit prior to issuance of grading permits. Any unused portion of the deposit shall be refunded to the applicant. C. Prior to issuance of any permits, the property owner shall record a Notice of Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with the County Clerk Recorder on a form provided by the Community Development Department to inform future property owners of the requirement to implement the approved WQMP. D. The Community Development and Public Works Departments shall determine whether any change in use requires an amendment to an approved Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that the NOI has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. In addition, the applicant shall include notes on the grading plans indicating that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities. The following requirements shall be defined on permit plan cover sheets as either general or special notes and the project shall be implemented in accordance with the notes: A. Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that an anticipated storm does not carry wastes or pollutants off the site. B. Discharges of material other than stormwater are allowed only when necessary for performance and completion of construction practices and where they do not cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard; cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance; or, contain a hazardous substance in a quantity reportable under Federal Regulations 40 CFR Parts 117 Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 9 and 302. C. Potential pollutants include, but are not limited to, solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives, and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flake or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water, concrete, detergent or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; and chlorinated potable water line flushing. During construction, dispo~al of such materials shall occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on-site, physically separated from potential storm water run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, State, and Federal requirements. D. Dewatering of contaminated groundwater or discharging contaminated soils via surface erosion is prohibited. Dewatering of non-contaminated groundwater requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit from the California State Regional Water Quality Control Board. MODEL HOME PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING (1 ) 6.1 (1 ) 6.2 A site and striping plan for the model home complex shall be submitted for the model homes site shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. All required improvements for streets, landscaping, ADA compliance, emergency access, security lighting, etc. shall be installed prior to final inspection for the model homes and the sales office. The developer shall close and convert the model homes to occupancy within 90 days from the last home sale of the same style home. Prior to issuance of building permits for the model homes, the developer shall submit a bond to ensure the conversion. LANDSCAPING/HARDSCAPE (1 ) 7.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for all landscaping areas, including the model complex, consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping requirements. The plans shall include the following: . Include a summary table identifying plan materials. The plant table shall list botanical and common names, sizes, spacing, location, and quantity of the plant materials proposed. Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 10 . Show planting and berming details, soil preparation, staking, etc. The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing, and coverage. Details for all equipment must be provided. . Show all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plans, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. . The Community Development Department may request minor substitutions of plant materials or request additional sizing or quantity of materials during plan check. . Add a note that coverage of landscaping and irrigation materials is subject to inspection at project cqmpletion by the Community Development Department. . Turf is unacceptable for grades over 25 percent. A combination of planting materials shall be used. On large areas, ground cover alone is not acceptable. . Shrubs shall be a minimum of five (S) gallon size and shall be placed a maximum of five (5) feet on center. . Fences, wall, and equipment areas shall be screened with walls, vines, and/or trees. . All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy vigorous condition typical to the species and shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, trimming, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of diseased or dead plants. . Landscape adjacent to the right-of-way shall be in compliance with the requirements of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Perimeter walls should be treated with vines to relieve large expanse walls with greenery and color. Vines shall be informally grouped and installed with training devices. (4) 7.2 On-site walls and fences shall be noted on the plans with specific materials, colors, and decorative treatments. Interior wall/fences shall be made of durable materials subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (1) 8.1 The subdivider shall comply with the obligations contained in Resolution Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 11 No. 05-40 regarding affordable housing units. The senior housing project shall contain a minimum of 153 affordable units including 36 Very Low, 61 Low, and 56 Moderate Income units and at locations depicted on the submitted plans approved on January 23, 2005. PARKING (*) 9.1 The approved parking ratio of 1.7 parking spaces per unit is contingent on the property remaining a condominium senior housing complex for persons of 55 years and older with 153 affordable units. A minimum of 200 one-car garage spaces and 40 carports shall be provided. The project site shall also include a minimum of 130 open guest parking stalls and 28 parallel street parking and six (6) parking spaces assigned for exclusive use of the recreation center staff for a total of 169 open parking spaces. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (5) (5) (5) (5) 10.1 Prior to the issuance of any grading, the applicant shall submit a fire hydrant location plan to the Fire Chief for review and approv,al. (5) 10.2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit evidence of the on-site fire hydrant system to the Fire Chief and indicate whether it is public or private. If the system is private, it shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief prior to building permit issuance, and the applicant shall make provisions for the repair and maintenance of the system in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website for a copy of the "Guidelines for Private Fire Hydrant &/or Sprinkler Underground Piping." 10.3 Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the hydrant location on the street as approved by the Fire Chief, and must be maintained in good condition by the property owner. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573- 6100 or visit the OCFA website for a copy of the "Guideline for Installation of Blue Dot Hydrant Markers." 10.4 Prior to the issuance of any grading, 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. If sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available an automatic fire extinguishing system may be required in each structure affected. 10.5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, a note shall be placed on the plans stating that all residential structures (R-1 occupancies) and any structure exceeding 6,000 square feet (per amendment) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. (5) (5) (5) (5) Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 12 (5) 10.6 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for any required automatic fire sprinkler system in any structure to the Fire Chief for review and approval. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573- 6100 for additional information. (5) 10.7 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, this system shall be operational in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. 10.8 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, 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 every structure on site. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access, or Bulletin number 08-99, "Fire Department Access Requirements for A Single Family Residence." 10.9 Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and City Staff of plans for all public or private access roads, streets and courts. The plans shall include plan and sectional views and indicate the grade and width of the access road measured flow-line to flow-line. When a dead- end street exceeds 150 feet or when otherwise required, a clearly marked fire apparatus access turnaround must be provided and approved by the Fire Chief. Applicable CC&R'S or other approved documents shall contain provisions which prohibit obstructions such as speed bumps/humps, control gates or other modifications within said easement or access road unless prior approval of the Fire Chief is granted. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access." 10.10 A note shall be placed on the fire protection access easement plan indicating that all street/road signs shall be designed and maintained to be either internally or externally illuminated in a manner meeting approval of the Fire Chief. 10.11 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit plans and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for fire lanes on required fire access roads less than 36 feet in width. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbs and signage and include a detail of the proposed signage including the height, stroke and colors of the lettering and its contrasting background. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573- 6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access Roadways and Fire Lane Requirements," or Bulletin 06-99, "Fire Lane Requirements on Private & Public Streets Within Residential Developments." (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) NOISE (1 ) (1 ) Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 13 (5) 10.12 Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the approved fire lane plan. The CC&R'S or other approved documents shall contain a fire lane map, provisions prohibiting parking in the fire lanes, and an enforcement method. 10.13 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall obtain the approval from the Fire Chief for the construction of any gate across required fire department access roads. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Design and Installation of Emergency Access Gates and Barriers." 10.14 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for combustible construction, the builder shall submit a letter on company letterhead stating that water for fire-fighting purposes and all-weather fire protection access roads shall be in place and operational before any combustible material is placed on site. Building permits will not be issued without OCFA approval obtained as a result of an on-site inspection. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573- 6100 to obtain a copy of the standard combustible construction letter. 10.15 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Chief if required per the "Orange County Fire Authority Plan Submittal Criteria Form." Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 for a copy of the Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans prior to submittal. 10.16 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plans for the fire alarm system shall be submitted to the Fire Chief for review and approval. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guideline for New and Existing Fire Alarm Systems." 10.17 This system shall be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 11.1 Noise attenuation measures as recommended by the noise analysis shall be included with the construction drawings for plan check, which ensure a minimum outdoor-indoor transmission class (OITC) of 37. The interior and exterior noise levels (including balconies of six feet in width) shall comply with City of Tustin noise requirements. 11.2 In accordance with the noise analysis, all units are required to include air conditioning units or fresh air intake systems to achieve the minimum interior noise level standards shall have these units installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to final inspection and issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the developer shall provide an independent noise analysis verifying that interior noise levels comply with Title 25 and City noise requirements. Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 14 (1 ) 11.3 The perimeter sound walls are included as part of the master wall plans for Columbus Square currently under review. ENVIRONMENTAL 12.1 Additional measures related to development of this project as noted in the adopted EIS/EIR and are not previously identified in this exhibit as a condition of approval are required as follows: (1 ) A. FEES (1)(5) 13.1 Prior to issuance of any permits, the developer shall retain a County-certified archaeologist. If buried resources are found during grading within the reuse plan area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. c. The developer shall comply with the requirements established in a Palentological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) prepared for the site, which details the methods to be used for surveillance of construction grading, assessing finds, and actions to be taken in the event that unique paleontological resources are found. D. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Community Development Department that a County-certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct salvage excavation of unique paleontological resources if they are found. E. Prior to issuance of any permit, the developer shall provide traffic operations and control plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. The plans shall address roadway and lane closures, truck hours and routes, and notification procedures for planned short-term or interim changes in traffic patterns. Such plans shall minimize anticipated delays at major intersections. Prior to approval, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall review the proposed traffic control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction. Prior to issuance of any building permits,. payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. Resolution 4014 DR 05-019, CUP 05-037 Page 15 (1 ) a. Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. b. Engineering plan check and permit fees to the Public Works Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. c. Orange County Fire Authority plan check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. d. Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the Tustin Public Works Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. e. Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), Benefit Area "B" fees in the amount of $3.31 per square foot of new or added gross square floor area of construction or improvements to the Community Development Department. f. Water and sewer connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District. g. h. New development tax is $350.00 per unit. School facilities fee in the amount as required by Tustin Unified School District. i. Other applicable parkland in-lieu fees and Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program fees as required by Resolution No. 05-40. 13.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of final approval of the project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of forty-three dollars ($43.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that 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.