AGENDA REPORT - City of Tustin

AGENDA REPORT 

ITEM # 2 

MEET,1NIG _LATE: APRIL 10, 2012 

TO: 

PROM: 

JFCT: 3'U1f9: 

PLANNING COWNIHSSION 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN 

CONCEPT PLAN (CP) 2012 -0 01, , DESIGN REVIEVAl (DR) 2012 -001, 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2012 -01 

APPLICANT: 

R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT 

2955 MAIN STREET, THIRD FLOOR 

IRVINE, CA 92514 

PROPERTY OWNER: 

CITY OFTUSTIN 

LOCATION: SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF EDINGER AVENUE AND 

NEWPORT AVENUE ADJACENT TO THE STATE ROUTE 55 

FREEWAY 1MITHIN THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC 

PLAN (SIB 11) e (LOTS 2, 3, AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP PLO. 2010- 

127 WITHIN TFHE CITY OF TUSTIN AND ON A PORTION OF 

PROPERTY IDEI\\ ITIFIED AS TdHE "WATER WELL PARCEL AND 

EASEMENT AREA "). 

GENERAL PLAN: 

ZONING: 

EXISTING LAND USE: 

PLANNED COIW0UNITY COMM ERCIA- L/BUSINESS (RCCB) 

PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC COM) 

PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 11) 

VACANT 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

STATUS: THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ( FEIR) 90 -1 FOR THE 

PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN ON DECEMBER 17, 

1990 AND SUPPLEMENT #1 TO FINAL EIR 90-1 FOR THE 

PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN WAS ADOPTED MAY 

5, 2003. THE FEIR IS A PROGRAM EIR UNDER THE 

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA. "). THE 

FEIR CONSIDERED THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 

PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN. 

AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS PREPARED FOR THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT THAT CONCLUDED NO ADDITIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR FROM

CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 2 

APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

ANALYSIS CHECKLIST CONCLUDES THAT IT CAN BE SEEN 

WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT THE 

ACTIVITY IN QUESTION MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT 

ON THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE ALL POTENTIALLY 

SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 1) HAVE BEEN ANALYZED 

ADEQUATELY IN AN EARLIER EIR PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE 

STANDARDS, AND 2) HAVE BEEN AVOIDED OR MITIGATED 

PURSUANT TO THAT EARLIER EIR, INCLUDING REVISIONS OR 

MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE IMPOSED UPON THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT. 

REQUEST: 

THE REQUEST IS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL 

FOR CP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 TO DEVELOP: 1) A 149 - 

ROOM, FOUR -STORY RESIDENCE INN; 2) A 144 -ROOM, 

FOUR -STORY FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES; 3) AN 8,885 SQUARE 

FOOT RESTAURANT; 4) A 7,295 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL 

BUILDING; AND 5) APPROVAL OF CUP 2012 -01 AUTHORIZING 

A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND JOINT -USE PARKING FOR A 

COORDINATED AND INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN FOR THE 

PROJECT.

CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 

RECOMMENDATION 

That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4195 approving Concept Plan 2012 -001, 

Design Revimju 2012 -001, and Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 to develop an approximately 

196,000 square foot commercial mixed -use development (hotel and retail) lioith a Master Sign 

Program and Joint -Use Parking at the southwesterly corner of Edinger Avenue and Newport 

Avenue adjacent to the SR 55 Freeway within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (SP 11). 

BACKGROUND 

Following the completion of a request for proposal process, the Tustin City Council authorized 

the execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement (UUA 2011 -001) between the City 

of Tustin and R. D. Olson Development for the proposed site on November 2, 2010. Since that 

time, the applicant, R.D. Olson Development, has worked with City staff to prepare the currently 

proposed approximately 196,000 square foot commercial mixed -use development (hotel and 

retail) at the southwesterly corner of Edinger Avenue and Newport Avenue adjacent to the SR 

55 Freeway. The project includes 1) a 149 -room, four story - Residence lnn; 2) a 144 -room, four - 

story Fairfield lnn and Suites; 3) an 8,885 square foot restaurant; 4) a 7,295 square foot retail 

building; and 5) approval of CUP 2012 -001 authorizing a Master Sign Program and Joint -Use 

Parking for a coordinated and integrated site design for the project. 

The proposed project is located within the Pacific Center East Specific plan. Concept Plan, Design 

Review and Conditional Use Permit proposals require review and approval of the Planning 

Commission and the Redevelopment Agency. On March 6, 2012, the Tustin City Council 

adopted Ordinance No. 1415 to authorize the Tustin Planning Commission to act for the now 

defunct Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency. The Planning Commission's actions on 

discretionary applications are final unless appealed to the Tustin City Council. 

The proposed development is located ,Mth the Regional Center land use, Planning Area 5, in 

the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (beloaw).

CP 12-001, IDR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 4 

Suction 4.3 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan land use designation indicates that Planning 

AToa 5 is intended for the development of a mixed use commercial including retail and ho s-1 

uses. 

Approval of a Concept Paar, Application, 

Pacific Center East Specific Plan Sec on 5.3 ( Development Processing) requires the 

submission of a concept plan prior to or concurrent vjith the submission of a development 

project within Planning Area 5 for Planning Commission consideration. The concept plan 

identifies the proposal's general conformity the Pacific Center East specific Plan. 

lnformation to be submitted with a Concept Plan shall include: 

I. 

Preliminary geologic and soils report. 

2. Overall drainage plan. 

3. 

Conceptual median and parks jay ,/ landscaping plan including master signage program. 

4. 

The proposed uses and intensity of square footage and phasing within a planning area, 

including a conceptual site plan illustrating sub - parcels with a planning area and the 

overall external intornal / circulation and vehicular access plan. 

Approval of a Design RaYielw Application 

Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 5.3 (Development Project Review), requires the 

submission of a Design Review, application following or concurrently with submittal of a concept 

plan for revie,j by the Planning Commission as either permitted by right in a land use zone or as 

a discretionary project (i.e., a land use or development ,project which requires a conditional use 

permit or other special approval). 

Approval of a Conditional Use Permit 

Shared Parking , Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 4.6. A.3 Joint ( Use of Parking Areas) 

alloy s Planning Commission consideration of parking facilities proposed to be used jointly for 

uses with significantly different peak hours of operation with the approval of the proposed 

Conditional Use Permit. Requests for shared parking must meet the following requirements: 

A parking study shall be submitted by the applicant demonstrating that no substantial 

conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the uses for which joint use is 

proposed. The methodology to be utilized in preparing the study shall be the Urban 

Land Institute's shared parking study. 

2. The number of parking stalls which may be credited against the requirements for the 

structures or uses involved shall not exceed the number of stalls reasonably anticipated 

to be available during differing hours of operation. 

3. 

Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they will adequately 

serti e,/ 

the use it is intended. 

4. A written agreement shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the 

Director of Community Development and executed by all parties concerned assuring the 

continued availability of the number of stalls designated for joint use.

CP 12 -001, CR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 5 

J'wasfor sign Program e Pacific Center East Specific ,' flan Section 3.8 (Signage l land states tluat 

a waster sign plan is required for all nwju developments and is subject to Planning Commission 

design approval. A raster sign plan submittal shall include the following information on ,] 

proposed signage program for the site: 

Galan specifications including the type of texture of materials and colors proposed for tthe 

signs and the building fagade. 

A colored elevation of the proposed signs and true building facade. 

Drawings illustrating the lettering styles and sizes ,proposed and the use of logos, if any. 

Photographs of buildings and signs on adjacent sites. 

Any restrictions on the use of temporary signs. 

DISCUSSION 

The discretionary approvals are being presented as a comprehensive and concurrent 

application for the Planning Commission's consideration. The following discussion articulates 

each of the project's components by parcel number as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1 

Implementation of DDA 2011 -001 involves the City of Tustin conveying Parcels A, B and C (as 

depicted on Sheet 1 of the R. D. Olson drawings), and a ground lease of the Water Well Parcel and 

Easement Area to the R.D. Olson Company, for the construction of an approximately 196,000 

square foot commercial mixed -use development (hotel and retail). The proposed project meets 

the minimum development requirements identified for the area as follovvs: 

Minimum hotel rooms: 

Minimum site area: 

Minimum lot width: 

Maximum height limit: 

Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 

Parking: Cumulative: 

Newport Setback: 

Edinger Setback: 

Phasing: 

Conditioned to meet minimum 

Requirements 

250 

20,000 sq. ft. 

100 feet 

Hotel: 100 feet 

Retail: 35 feet 

0.86 

436 spaces 

35 feet 

35 feet 

TBD 

35 foot requirement. 

Proposed 

293 

359,083 sq. ft. (approx.) 

360 feet ( approx.) 

55 feet (approx.) 

28 feet (approx.) 

0.55 (approx.) 

415 spaces (shared) 

33 feet* 

74 feet 

One or two phases. TBD.

CP 12-001, DR12-001, CUP 12-01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 6 

kZ 

m 

IQ 

y 

.

I 

CP 12 -001, ®R12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 7 

Parcel A — 

The applicant is proposing the construction of a 149- roorn, four -story Marriott Residence 

Inn containing 105,2 40, 

square feet. 

The hotel design includes 107 studio guestrooms, 27 1- 

bedroom guestrooms, and 15 2- bedroom guestrooms. The property is designed to include a 

circular passenger drop -off area, 950 square foot meeting room, 'exercise room, lobby, breakfast 

room, hearth room, study, outdoor pool with decking, spa, and sport court. The architectural 

design of the building is urban contemporary that is harmonious with the neighboring hotel design 

and mixed -use commercial buildings, utilizing multiple vertical and horizontal changes in plane, 

including the roofline cornice; a variety of stucco colors, finishes and textures; and incorporating 

translucent glass providing interest and excitement to the structure. An entry canopy creates an 

attractive focus to persons visiting the structure. All rooftop equipment ?, jill be screened from vie,Aj 

and one hundred and seventy three (173) parking spaces are provided onsite. See image below. 

Parcel B — 

The applicant is proposing the construction of two, one -story, mixed -use commercial 

buildings totaling 16,200 square feet. The southerly building is proposed as an 8,900 square foot 

full service restaurant (tenant currently unknown) and the northerly building is proposed as a 7,300 

square foot mixed use commercial building (tenants currently unknown) that includes a 4,200 

square foot retail component and a 3,100 square foot small restaurant component. The 

architectural design of the buildings is urban contemporary that is harmonious with the neighboring 

hotel designs, utilizing multiple vertical and horizontal changes in plane, including at the roofline; a 

ti,; ariety of attractive plaster finishes and colors, wood siding, fabric awnings, steel and glass. Both 

buildings are designed with architectural features that utilize canopies to identify building entrances 

and patio areas intended to create interest along Newport Avenue. Restaurant facilities have been 

designed with independent service areas with trash enclosures. All rooftop equipment will be 

screened from view. 101 paring spaces are proposed onsite. See images balmiki. 

Li 

a • l fW a G { 

SOUTH ELEVATION 

77T 

Imo* i. 

i °; ] f i ilFt 

NORTH ELEVATION 

n 

IF ai-i- [ U 

dA LL:' i A- W I14_ii ' -jl J) 1 G- i- IL-j, u]W 

REAR ELEVATION 

F]"> 

u 

FRONT ELEVATION 

Elm 

Marcel A - Marriott Residence Inn

CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 8 

v m v v v m v m v m v r ri Fi v 

mop 4 .. ... 

91M, qI ili._J I " E! 

Parcel B - Restaurant

ff 

CP 12- 001,' DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

Apd 10, 2012 

Page 0 

a_ILLgBGA — . 

WTH. F1iA' TlON 

NORTH MAuTtON 

7 

u.r 

EMWgl1lRWR - 

pt -P 

y 1. I,, _ T . ' 

L 

t}. p ® 

L. _ 

f' 

I 

m- m 

REAR ELEVATION 

04iC4AMR000. 

r LJ 

kMM4ROGt._ 

r t I 

OIEECW0ROd1 

ASP 

iJ 

I I 

FRON SMAMON 

r- airneia inn 

Parcel C — 

The applicant is proposing the construction of a 144 -room, four - store Fairfeid Inn & 

Suites containing 77,010 square feet ( image above). The hotel design includes 42 suite 

guestrooms, and 102 standard guestrooms. The property is designed to include a circular 

passenger drop-off area, 2,000 square foot meeting room, warming kitchen, exercise room, lobby, 

Breakfast room, outdoor pool with decking, spa, and fire pit. The architectural design of the 

Building is urban contemporary that is harmonious )pith the neighboring hotel design and mixed -use 

commercial buildings, utilizing multiple vertical and horizontal changes in plane, including the 

roofline cornice; a variety of attractive stucco colors, finishes and textures; and incorporating 

cultured stone and translucent glass providing interest and excitement to the structure. An entry 

canopy creates an attractive focus to persons visiting the structure. All rooftop equipment is 

proposed to be screened from view. Eighty two - (82) parking spaces are proposed on the site (141 

total spaces are provided including those parking spaces located on the adjacent Water Well 

Parcel and Easement Area, discussed below). 

Water Well Parcel and Easement Area — 

The applicant has proposed City acceptance of a joint 

use parking arrangement to allow parking required for any particular use to be located within 

adjoining parcels on the site through a recorded agreement. A portion of the parking required for 

the proposed development (59 spaces) is proposed to occur on 'the 37,099 square toot Water Well 

Parcel and Easement Area, a property owned by the City of Tustin for water production purposes 

Note: water well design and construction is not a part of this project). Continuous access to the 

planned ,ajater well location and pipelines jffvould prohibit any use of the property other than parking, 

landscaping, fencing and similar uses. A trash enclosure is also proposed within the site.

CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 112-01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 10 

Site resign - An 2'6traotive entrance to the entire site is proposed between the Nvo mixed use 

structures. 

Required landscape setbacks are provided along Edinger Avenue andi\, 

lawport 

Avenue and comply lsith the Pacific Center East Streetscape Design Plan. Landscape treatments 

include Magnolia plantings along Newport Avenue and Allepo Pine along Edinger Avenue. Crepe 

Myrtle, Canary Pine, Redspire Callery Pear, Brisbane Box and Strawberry trees, various shrubs 

and groundcovers are placed throughout the site. The landscaping plan provides for drought 

tolerant landscaping and water quality enhancing drainage and retention that complies with the City 

of Tustin's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the Guidelines for Implementation of the 

Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. A Line -of Site - Study has been submitted that depicts that 

the buildings step back; are placed at varying distances away from adjoining streets and the 55 

Freeway; are adequately screened by landscaping; and ensure that they are in scale with the site, 

adjoining right -of ways - and nearby properties. A IVMer Quality Management Plan proposing 

permeable surfaces and other techniques has also been submitted for the project was approved 

with conditions by the City's Public Works Department. Parking lot and building lighting complies 

with the City of Tustin's safety requirements and a photometric study has been provided that 

ensures that lighting is appropriately contained within the project site and vvill not create glare 

issues to adjoining roadways or nearby properties. See image above. 

Joint Parking Proposal - The applicant has , proposed City acceptance of a joint use parking 

arrangement to allow parking required for any particular use to be located within adjoining parcels 

on the site through an agreement recorded on the property. If approved, execution of a reciprocal 

parking agreement between the City and the developer would be required to ensure access to all 

shared parking spaces. Based on the City of Tustin's parking requirements, the project must meet 

the following paving requirements for the proposed uses of the site. 

Proposed 

Use 

City Code Parking 

Rate 

Hotel (Res.) 149 rooms 1 space per room + 

6 em to ees 

1 space per 2 

employees 

Parking 

FRe uired 

Parking 

Provided 

Difference 

152 173 21 

Hotel (Fair) 144 rooms 147 141 6 

6 employees 

Subtotal 293 rooms 299 307 15 

12 employees 

Restaurant 12,000 SF 

ace 1 per 100 sf 120 101 36 

Retail 4,200 SF 1 space per 250 sf 17 

Total Parking Required 436 416 21 

Based on City requirements, the project is required to provide a minimum of 436 parking spaces 

but only provides 415 parking spaces. However, Tustin City Code Section 9264@ (Joint Use of 

Parking Areas) allows the processing of a Conditional Use Permit for shared parking ,vhen the 

following requirements can be met: 

1. A parking study (using a methodology promulgated by the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers) prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer or civil engineer is submitted 

demonstrating that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for 

the uses for which joint use is proposed. 

2. 

The number of parking spaces credited against the requirements for the structures or uses 

involved do not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be available during 

different hours of operation.

Cp 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

Apron 10, 2012 

Page 11 

3. 

Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they mill adequately serve 

the uses for ,,Ajhich they are intended. 

4. 

A written agreement shall be executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued 

availability of parking spaces designated for joint use and availability or reciprocal access 

easements. 

5. The Planning Commission must approve joint use parking through a Conditional Use 

Permit. 

A shared parking analysis vias conducted in compliance with the requirements stated above that at 

project build -out, the various uses would operate with a surplus of 21 parking spaces through the 

implementation of shared parking between the parcels. The proposed project may be constructed 

in two phases that conformed that construction of only one hotel and the mixed -use development on 

the site would have a 

surplus of 44 partaking spaces. The analysis was determined to have 

overestimated the combined parking demand since it did not assume any internal "capture" 

between the proposed uses which would likely occur as hotel patrons visited the nearby restaurant 

and retail uses. 

Master Sign (Program 

The project has proposed the establishment of a Master Sign Program to regulate the design and 

fabrication of all signage at the site. The Master Sign Program provides certain flexobil°Ity and 

latitude to standard regulations of signs as typically provided for within the Tustin City Code 

because of the size and nature of the project. The program includes all primary identification signs, 

secondary identification signs, on premises directional signage and all tenant signage. The 

purpose of the >iiaster Sign Program is to create a unique and high quality signage, which is an 

integral part of the architecture and image of the Pacific Center East. After approval of a master 

sign plan, no sign may be erected, placed, painted or maintained except in conformance with such 

plan, and such plan may be enforced in the same way as any provision of the Tustin City !Code 

unless a modification to the master sign plan is approved. 

a 

Primary Pole/Freestanding Freeway Sign & Center identification Sign 

a"/ Primary Monument Signs/Center identification 

Single Tenant Directional lull Sign 

Single Tenant Wall Signs for ParcelA& C 

Single Tenant Primary Wall signs for parcel B 

Single Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel 8 

On Premise Directional Signs

CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 12 

The submitted N/livaster Sign flan proposes: 

I. Temporary Project Identification Signs — Vi Ihile construction is occurring to identify future 

tenant, project developer, architect, etc. Maximum 32 square feet for up to 160 days. 

2. Primary Center identification signs — identifies the theme of the center; design compatible 

VVKh architecture of project buildings. 

o 

o 

One 46 foot tall pole sign along the 55 Freeway, identifying up to six tenants (sign 

type A). 

Two eight foot tali monument signs; one located at southwesterly corner of Edinger 

Avenue and Newport Avenue and the other at the northwesterly corner of Newport 

Avenue and the S.R. 55 on /off-ramp (sign type B). 

3. Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign for Parcel A & C — designed to direct traffic flmAj not to 

exceed 15% of the elevation up to 75 sq. ft. sign ( type C). 

4. Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A & C — designed to identify the main anchor tenants in 

the center. 

Maximum one per building elevation, not to exceed 75 sq. fZ. or 15% of the 

building elevation (sign type D). 

5. Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel B — designed to identify the mixed use commercial 

tenants on Parcel B. Maximum one per building elevation, not to exceed 75 sq. ft. or 16 % 

of the building elevation (sign type E and F). 

6. ®n- premise directional signs designed to relay information related to paring, 

exit/entrance, or similar information inside the center, 4 sq. ft., 4 ft , ta9l (sign type G). 

7. Window signs and graphics — maximum of 10% of true Yvindolir area. 

10 

Analysis 

Proposed Concept Plan 2012 -001 and Design Review 2012-001 

Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 3.2 (Urban Design Concept) establishes Design 

Guidelines for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan to provide for an integrated environment of 

commercial, office, regional and technology uses. Infrastructure and streetscape design has been 

implemented in the area to ensure that the project site is linked physically through the plan's arterial 

system and provides opportunities for public transportation and internal pedestrian access. 

Aesthetic integration has been achieved through the development of streetscape design, 

landscaping and entry features. The project was reviewed by Community Development (Planning 

and Building Divisions), Public Works Department, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment

CP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 13 

Agency, City Manager's Office, Orange County Fire Authority, Police Department. As conditioned, 

staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Concept Flan 2012 -001 and Dssign 

Reviel> 2012 -001 as satisfactorily complying ?, Ajith , the folloNjiving key 171acific Center East Specific 

Plan objectives: 

Design Objectives 

Commercial and hotel uses are encouraged to take advantage of the existing freeway 

interchange locations and the market opportunities of the area. 

Building forms are proposed that promote and relate to the scale and character of 

surrounding development. 

The project utilizes architectural design of the highest quality. 

The project's height and bulk conform to the plan's land use intensity. 

The proposed development integrates 1,Ad' th existing and future uses. 

The proposal respects the existing patterns of land use and the alignment of major streets, 

the Plan's allocation of building intensities, and the Plan's distribution of uses by land use 

type. 

Circulation 

A thematic gateway entry is proposed to be developed at major intersections that would 

include special landscape architectural accent features to suggest a "sense of place" oT 

arrival statement to the project. 

Setback areas at major arterial intersections are designed to contain project identity and 

include a setback utilizing an 80-foot right angle or radius distance at Newport Avenue and 

Edinger Avenue. 

Setback areas /secondary intersections are also proposed to contain accent landscape and 

berming. 

Project Circulation 

Access points to individual sites within the project area are located as far as possible from 

street intersections. 

The parking areas are designed to link buildings to onsite pedestrian vvalkvvays and the 

street sidewalk system and to minimize potential pedestrian4vehiclo conflicts. 

Streetscape /Edge Treatment 

The site's streetscape and edge treatment is visually integrated and provides continuity in 

the streetscape design and landscape treatments for the project, emphasize a human scale 

to the traveler, and soften building architectural treatments. 

Buildings, Form, Access, Scale, Siting 

o 

The project promotes architectural variety and diversity. 

o 

o 

Multiple buildings on the site are situated to create pedestrian spaces, courtyards and 

create a strong identity for building entries. 

The project integrates variation of building height and massing. 

Building entrances are designed to attract visitors and are placed in such a Altjay that people 

who approach the building see the entrance. 

Building ornaments (color change, change of plane, and the application of patterns) have 

been used to Identify special parts of the building, break dmiAln elements into 

comprehensible parts of human scale, give texture to the building, add Interest, and 

express a common vocabulary for the proposed project. 

The architectural form is stepped up and away from the public street, giving depth 

to the

CP 12-001, f Ii ' - 1 

April 

1 

Page 

o 

o 

overall architectural form and site. The street sides of the buildings if removed from 

pedestrian access are vertical in nature. The use of geometric form, composition and rood 

variation is also employed to vary the architectural form. Note: a condition of approval has 

been added to ensure that rooftop screening occurs, appropriately compatible with the 

overall design of the ,project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 

The project takes advantage of building orientation and visiMity opportunities at the SR -65 

freeway, Newport Avenue, Del Amo Avenue and EdingerI-Wenue. 

The proposal uses sufficient vertical and horizontal articulation to avoid "box" architecture 

and long, uninterrupted blank walls. 

The proposed built environment is designed to create transition in °Form and scale between 

large buildings and adjacent smaller buildings. 

The proposed site design places buildings in such a jll\1ay to create pedestrian spaces, 

courtyards and plazas that are visually diverse, stimulating and create a sense of vitality 

and excitement. 

Building materials are coordinated with hardscape to provide a continuous and clearly 

identifiable walkway to encourage pedestrian movement along designated routes. Note: a 

condition of approval has been added to ensure that all perimeter fencing is accomplished 

in an design-appropriate manner, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community 

Development. 

proposed color, material, textures and finishes will achieve the maximum quality. 

Proposed Condkionai Use Parmil 2012 -01 

Master Sign Program m Tustin City Code Section 9403i2 identifies review criteria applicable to the 

proposed Master Sign Program for Planning Commission consideration. Staff believes that the 

proposed Master Sign Program satisfactorily complies with those criteria, as follows: 

The proposed Master Sign Program reflects a common theme, incorporating uniform 

design elements in terms of materials, setter styles, colors, illumination, sign type and sign 

shape. 

The proposed Master Sign Program utilizes materials, colors, and a design motif which are 

compatible and lylihich reflect the special qualities of the architecture of the buildings on the 

site in both daytime and nighttime situations. 

The proposed Master Sign Program adequately anticipates project development phasing. 

The proposed Master Sign Program acknowledges that future, currently unknown tenants 

desiring signs may not be identified during the design review process or may change over 

time. 

The proposed Master Sign Program designates a person or firm as the primary liaison with 

the City for the purpose of requesting approval of future modifications to the Master Sign 

Program or for submitting sign permit requests in conformance with the approved Plan. 

The proposed Master Sign Program is entitled to deviate from the specific standards 

established in the Tustin City Code upon Planning Commission approval of a conditional 

use permit, because the proposal is for a single development project of at least thirty 

thousand (30,000) building square feet or one (1) acre in project size. 

loins- Jse Parking 

Tustin City Code Section 9264a identifies review criteria applicable to the proposed Joint -use 

parking for Planning Commission consideration. Staff believes that the proposed Joint -use parking 

program satisfactorily complies with those criteria, as follows:

CIP 12 -001, DR12 -001, CUP 12 -01 

April 10, 2012 

Page 15 

I. A parking study (using a methodology promulgated by the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers) was prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer or civil engineer that 

demonstrates that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for 

the uses for which joint use is proposed. 

2. 

The number of parking spaces credited against the requirements for the structures or uses 

involved do not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be mailable during 

different hours of operation. 

3. 

Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they will adequately serve 

the uses for which they are intended. 

4. A condition has been included in proposed project approvals requiring the execution of a 

written agreement by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of Parking 

spaces designated for joint use and availability or reciprocal access easements. 

As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 

2012 -01 as satisfactorily complying 1jAjith the aforementioned criteria: 

Dana L. Ogdon, AICP , 

Assistant Director 

Elizabeth A. Binsack 

Community Development Director 

Attachments: 

A. Location Map 

LLD. Land Use Fact Sheet 

C. Submitted Plans and Photographs (enclosed) 

Cover Sheet, Site Plan, Details 

Alta Band Survey, Title Constraints, Preliminary Grading 

Marriott Residence Inn Floor Plans, Elevations, Details 

Fairfield Inn & Suites Floor Plans, Elevations, Details 

Mixed Use Commercial Floor Plans, Elevations, Details 

Site Lighting, LandscapefIrrigation, Details 

D. Master Sign Program (See Exhibit C of Resolution No. 4195) 

E. Shared Parking Demand Analysis 

F. Pacific Center East Specific Plan ( not included — see CDD website) 

G. Resolution No. 4195 

Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval 

E 'xhibit B: Environmental Analysis Checklist/Evaluation 

Attachment 1: Noise Analysis 

Exhibit C: Master Sign Program

Attachment A 

Location Map

Attachment B 

Land Use Fact Sheet

LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 

1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): CP 2012 -001, DR 2012 -001, CUP 2012 -01 

2. LOCATION: Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map No. 2010 -127 and on a portion of property identified 

as the "Water Well Parcel and Easement Area" 4. APN(S): TBD 

5. PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: None recent 

6. SURROUNDING LAND USES: 

NORTH: Lt. Industrial SOUTH: Lt. Industrial EAST: Lt. Industrial, Retail WEST: SR -55 

7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: 

NORTH: Planned Communitv Commercial (PC Com) — Pac. Center East Specific Plan 

SOUTH: Planned Communitv Commercial (PC Com) — Pac. Center East Specific Plan 

EAST: Planned Community Commercial (PC Com) — Pac. Center East Specific Plan 

WEST: State Route 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) 

8. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 

NORTH: Planned Community Commercial Business (PCCB) 

SOUTH: Planned Community Commercial Business (PCCB) 

EAST: Planned Community Commercial Business (PCCB) 

WEST: Planned Community Commercial Business (PCCB) 

9. SITE LAND USE: 

EXISTING 

PROPOSED 

Use: Vacant Hotel, mixed use commercial 

Zoning: PC Com — Pac Center East SP No Change 

General Plan: PCCB 

No Change 

DEVELOPMENT FACTS: 

10. LOT AREA: 359.083 S.F. 8.24 ACRES 

11. BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: 100 percent MAX. PERMITTED 19% PROPOSED 

12. SITE LANDSCAPING: All areas not utilized REQUIRED 11.4% PROPOSED 

13. OPEN SPACE: N/A REQUIRED N/A PROPOSED 

14. PARKING: 436 REQUIRED 415 PROPOSED 

15. BUILDING HEIGHT: 100 feet MAX. PERMITTED 55 feet PROPOSED 

16. BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROPOSED 

FRONT: 35 feet 35 feet minimum Varies between buildings) 

SIDE: 35 feet 35 feet minimum Varies between buildings) 

REAR: N/A feet 90 feet minimum Varies between buildings) 

18. OTHER UNIQUE CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED TO THE PROPERTY (I.E. SPECIAL STUDY 

ZONES, EASEMENTS, ETC.) None

Attachment C 

Submitted Plans and Photographs

Attachment C is available for viewing at City Hall with the Community 

Development Department.

Attachment D 

Master Sign Program 

See Exhibit C of Resolution No. 4195)

Attachment E 

Shared Parking Demand Analysis

Larch 29, 2012 

i 

01LP-J' 9RJL1n 9 

JN 55- 100817.001 

Mr. Anthony Wrzosek 

RD Olsron "®evelop -m n2 

2955 Main Street, Suite 350 

Irvine, CA 92614 

SubjeTnle 

T iul5s!P Flolelz Shared Parking Demand Analysla 

Dear Mr. Wrzosek, 

RBF Consulting has completed the parking demand and shared parking analysis for the proposed hotel, 

restaurant and retail development located on Newport Avenue adjacent to Edinger Avenue and the SR -55 

freeway in the City of Tustin. The northwest corner of the project site is within the City of Santa Ana. The 

proposed site is surrounded by a mix of retail, office and residential uses. 

The proposed site plan, which is attached to this letter as Exhibit 1, includes the following uses: 

Two 4 -story hotels 

Marriott Residence Inn —149 rooms 

Fairfield Inn and Suites —144 rooms 

Free - standing restaurants — 12,000 square feet - total 

Free- standing retail space — 4,200 square feet - 

The two proposed hotels would be mid -range priced ($150 - $300) business hotels providing a total of 291 

rooms. Conference or assembly rooms would not be included in the proposed hotel uses. Potential 

tenants of the proposed stand -alone restaurant use include Chili's or Panera Bread. There would be two 

tenants sharing the second free - standing retail restaurant / building and the retail could consist of retail or 

service commercial. A total of 415 parking stalls are proposed to be provided for the project site to serve 

the two hotels and the restaurants and retail uses. 

The City of Tustin has the following parking requirements for the proposed uses, based on the City of 

Tustin Municipal Code ((Article 9- Land Use, Chapter 2 - Zoning, Part 6 — Off - Street Parking (9263 — Off - 

Street Parking Required)): 

Hotel use — 

1 parking space per room /suite, plus 1 parking space for every 2 employees during 

the largest shift, plus 1 parking space per 50 square -feet of assembly or conference room space. 

Restaurant use —1 parking space per 100 squarefeet of gross floor area 

Retail, general merchandise use --1 parking space per 250 square feet - of gross floor area 

Table 1 summarizes the City of Tustin parking requirements for the proposed uses on the project site. 

Based on the City of Tustin parking requirements, the project is required to provide a minimum of 436 

parking spaces. The proposed project will provide a total of 415 parking spaces, which are 21 spaces 

short of the minimum required parking spaces for the site. 

FLANNINES 3 DESIGN N CONSTRUCTION 

5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Oceanside, California 92008 -4386 a 760.476. 9193 e FAx 760.476. 9198 

Offices Located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada 

www.RBF. con

Mr. Wrzosek 

March 29, 2012 

Wage 2 

f! N5& 

City ,u'l JvzIn Fr-n76 -dn 

j I '. y Code zFh"rg Parking 

Fr0posec3 U3e Site 2Vn63 SPIS3 

arConc Rule 

Provided 

I e uiPed 

Hotel - Residence Inn 

Hotel - Fairfield Inn 

Total Motel Uses 

149 rooms 

6 employees 

144 rooms 

6 employees 

293 rooms 

72 employees 

1 space per room + 

1 space per 2 

employees 

Restaurant 12,000 SF 1 space per 100 SF 120 

Retail 4,200 SF 1 space per 250 SF 17 

Total Parking Required 436 

Note: SF = Square Feet 

Difference 

152 173 21 

147 141 6 

299 307 15 

101 36 

Shared Parking Demand Analysis — Based on City of Tustin Parking Requirements 

A shared parking demand analysis was performed for the combined uses on the project site to determine 

when the peak parking demand of the combined uses would occur and to investigate the feasibility of joint - 

use parking between the uses on the project site. According to the City of Tustin Municipal Code ((Article 

9- Land Use, Chapter 2 - Zoning, Part 6 — (off- Street Parking (9264a — Joint Use of Parking Areas)), a 

Conditional Use Permit for shared parking may be approved if the following requirements are met: 

9. A parking study prepared by a California licensed traffic engineer or civil engineer experienced in 

the preparation of such study shall be submitted by the applicant demonstrating that no 

substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the uses for which joint use is 

proposed. The methodology to be used in preparing the study shall be that promulgated by the 

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); 

2. The number of parking spaces which may be credited against the requirements for the structures 

or uses involved shall not exceed the number of spaces reasonably anticipated to be available 

during different hours of operation, 

3. Parking spaces designated for joint use shall be located so that they will adequately serve the 

uses for which they are intended; 

4. A written and recorded agreement shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and 

Community Development Director and executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued 

availability of parking spaces designated for joint use and availability of reciprocal access 

easements.

Mr. Olson 

March 29, 2012 

Page 3 

5. 

Zbning Administrator ap mò minor Conditional Use Permit is required for parking areas 

serving structures totaling less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet Planning Commission 

approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for all other parking areasw 

The shared parking anaiypis was conducted using published parking accumulation rates for each hour of 

ahypical weekday (Shared Parking Urban Land Institute, Second Edition, 2OOB. The hotel parking 

aoounmdationdeta from Urban band nstituhe (UU) ia based on surveys ofhotels, restaunants, and rebai 

shopping centers. 

Using the parking accumulation rates from the Shared Parking publication byUL| has become widely 

accepted by traffic engineers as the methodology to use to determine joint use parking demand. The ITE 

Parking Generation manual (Third Edition, 2004) provides parking demand data by time of day for many 

uses, including the proposed hote|, restaurant, and retail uses; however, |TE does not differentiate 

between visitor/customer and employee/staff parking demand characteristics, which have different peak 

hours of parking demand. 

The ;TE and UL{ publications show very similar peak parking demand 

characteristics for the proposed uses, and it is our professional opinion that the UL| methodology provides 

a more accurate assessment of determining peak parking demand for the joint uses, and satisfies the fimi 

requirement for joint-use parking as described imthe City mpTustin Municipal Code. 

UUprovides separate parking accumulation rates for e Business Hotel and a Leisure Hotel. Business 

Hotels are distinguished by fewer amenities and primarily cater to business travelers. Leisure hotels 

provide more amenities such as an in-house maataunant, and cater primarily to tourists. The proposed 

Residence !nn and Fairfield Inn share more similar characteristics with a typical Business Hotel than a 

Leisure Hotel. Therefore, the Business Hotel parking accumulation rates from ULI are used in the shared 

parking demand analysis. 

The UU parking accumulation rates show that the peak parking demand for ahotel use occurs between 

11:00 p.m. and5:[ m, 0e. when most hotel guests are in their rooms sleeping. Peak parking demand for 

a restaurant use varies based on the type of restaurant that will be provided. UL/ categorizes restaurants 

as either fine/casual dining, family restaurant, or fast-food. The proposed stand-alone restaurant will likely 

be either e Chili's orapenenaBread. Chili's Restaurant can be described ama casual dining restaurant, 

which has peak parking demand occurring during the evening hours. Panenm Bread ia more like efamily 

restaurant with peak demand occurring during the morning and early afternoon hours. Since the peak 

demand for a casual dining restaurant occurs in the evening hours and closer to the peak demand for o 

hotel uam the parking accumulation characteristics for e 000ua/ dining restaurant are used for both 

restaurant uses hu provide a more conservative, worst-case analysis. 

Tables and 3 present comparisons of parking accumulation for each use on the project site, based on 

the published UU rabao. over 24-hour periods for 

typical weekday and m typical weekend day, 

respectively. The parking demand (occupied spaces) shown for each use in Tables 2 and 3 is based on 

the minimum parking spaces required by the City of Tustin for each use. The surplus parking (unoccupied 

spaces) shown in Tables 2 and 3 is based on the actual number of parking spaces provided for the project 

site (total of 415 spaces).

I 

I 

OO 

f- 

r 

OO 

L6 

LO 

a 

cly 

O 

N 

H 

yy 

CSC 

I') CL 

tp 

QO 

O 

S 

CL M 

d 

O 

D 

eS ON V N rN rN fDM LO er M0 M0 NO e-t0 TM to M e7 

lal 

O 

M I MD OM tf') N O Oto rLt) 

r O q CO r 

01 O MN O tD h r P O t(tO 7 tp0p N h LO OO ' 

N N N N N N N N N N N.N N N N M M th Y M M N 

to 

AC O O 0 0 0 C) O N CO M M M M M' M M M M M N r 0 0 

On 

O 

S 

U 

O 

LU 

Q 

U m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N LO OD r 

o 

O 

O N O O O q O 0D 

h h h h h et Y P P M M c0 OO O t O 

O 

O 

0 

OU 

QM 

W 

n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mh co 

h L°M C°h P N NO 

U) N M D D D D D 0 0 LTD tt N 

r hM h LUN O 

r t 

LJ 

N N 

A ', 

C4,0 

7 

d 

C 

D tD O O 0 P 

U 0 9 Cl) M M M M O v Q?' Lo D P I er P w M m! 

O h OD N 0DN ODN mN MN hN UN MN aN h h D A h h 0D ON N NN MN Nd' 

hN MN ON G O NO 

CO 

U 

Z 

E 

U 

s ( 

vi 

B 

N 

aA 

O 

a 

D O O 

N 

CL U 

E 

O 

7 

Vl 

NCL 

N 

N 

rn ( 

O 

Z 

C = 

J r 

L C 

0 

N 

O 

r0• A 

0 7 

D 

N 

O 

47 

O 

O ON 

U 

U E CL 

Y7 N 

v- Q 

0 

d 

N 

cN 

E tlD Ul 

E 

O 

NU Cu W 

N U O 

0 o 

E 

Ta cu 

s CL 

wi 

l7 OCN 

m 

L F 

a. 

0 c 

1g g 

E 

V m 

Q 

Q} 

CL 

f 

o 

O 

4 .w 

Q o 

e.e 

Q 

0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0o w0 

o 0 

9. 0 0 0 0 0 O lO OW Oh tOP LOP OP OP OO P0 PO + mq coco O,4Oh Oq yLT1 O 

LU 

L 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 L f o N O O O O O 

tf7 O OM OLn L() D Om OD O O TDrn OTDD OCO tOh to CottD Ln 0 0 

O43 

y Y O o 0 0 I o 0 0 0 L L• o o L L L a q O o 

O A0m Q N O O CO 0 i 0 PN 4co OD LSDh Mh anh Mh LOh LOh Dh Or O O OO r Or Or OLn 

U 

Cp 

t0 

7 

0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O4 

U, t?0D 0m LOO O!P Oc" aLo u°DN, 

O O O CO O O O 0 0 0 c P u'D OLo OtO 10 LOq 

Y 

IL l9 

O 0 1 0 t o 0 0 o of o o o0 

c 

o0 0Cl C0 C0 0 0 o 

II 

o0 0 0 0 0o a0 

o0 

o 

j 1 o o o 0 0 0 0M 0rnfo 0 0 0 0 0 o,w Lnh 

r r r 

oD mn LOo m 0 0Mi 

W 

La ° 

w -- 

O O o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 o0 no oe o0 

0 0 0 0 0 o e c 

P7 O O LO m N o O O O LOLO LO OD O0 W) D Oh lO h LO h Oa0 00 O W) Of O O 

W h D I CD 

d 

a 

0 • 3 a p 

a¢ 

aaaa!aaa 

aaaaaada¢' Q' ? O N 2 

0 0 0 0,0 a 0 0 o I O D O O O O O O o 0 S ° 

0 0 0 O O a O• O 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 O O 

CL 0- 

r N M V LO ( j 0 

IV l+") 

fl- CO 0) j i r r c}' P O ti 66 f>7 r sN 

m A 

I 

N y 0 

41 n O _ 

a 

9 U ° 

O 

O 

U tV w A d 

N ¢ 

N 

o C N Q 

Q E ( D 

U 

ca 

U 7 C 

E 

E a N 4-1 

v 

a c m 

N 

ma 

q ® 

U 

O 

Ol 

t 

N (d O N T n N 

U 41 

O ®' a O 0.s, d 

U 0 

U 

f` O 

N 

O r 0 

O 

Co 

Op C 

N O E 

O O 

E N 

O E E U L 

O W 

U y U N O 

N °. 

co 

N ( . O m T 

C 

Y N C N y 

N 

CL 

O N N Q 7 

p N O _ C 

N O N ( 

E N N 

Q) C 

b O 20 1,

ff 

o 

I 

n 

co 

O 

L 

0 Q 

0 V- 

N N 

N 

r r 

T 

df 

NIN !w 

N 

r 

Cp QR tV coo paD r0 

N r 

CO 

r 

CO 

r 

Wr Lir 

My 

r r Q 

i 

N l u+ 

CO O O co 0 Ln M N M co N 

Lo n y' w I OS w N 

N N 

NjNIN N M M co 

NǸ N rN nN VN fV O N N 

W 

A 

L 

o 

tv 

N 

CLe 

W, 

76C a 

O O 

v 

s CO t6 

Z> 2CL 

M 

o 

b C 

0 rm 

J@ , 

D Y 

O V 

F- 

O. 

O 

20 

V 

Q 

V 

LL 

Q 

9 

m 

L9 

PY = 

Cog 1 

C> 

C 

F-3 

HO HO 

d V 

C 

Q-) 

J S: 

6J 

N 

V 

cv 

08 0 ° 

S M 

v® L) pE 

0M 

kk oo aa 00 00 v\ v\ oo aa oo oo 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.') OO OO OO O ww 

00 oo aa oo t8) t8) 

oo 

YY 

dd 

O O O O r r M M co 0 M M c+7 M M a7 M M N N r O r 

w p 

0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oo 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 

i L88 L88 OO OO O O O Lc7 Lc7 OO OO OO LO0 LO0 Oco 00 00 OO Ln Ln OO OO Lo Lo ( ( LO LO OO NN 00 OO 

C6 6 ( X 

77 f,Q 

ss 

I o 

7cu 

ww 

oo 

OO OO O O O OO 

O O O N MO ti r g•_ mIti( 

N O O O O O N MO ti r m 

L c 

m 

o 

p N 

N L 

O 

c = »° c 

N 

N N 

C 

zr V M M M co M UO m cu 

vr 

r r r r Q 

Ucu 

c 

C 

5 ( O 

O 

OD 

U r 

N N 

E 

a 

r 

L 

ED 00 

to 

r fS Q7 

N L 

p O 

U 

M CO co LSD LC) M M M M M N 

w U 

U 

L CL 

n U 

CfJ CDd`'- COI OC3D LOO ON ON D Ov `Gon Md m0) OL q 

N I N N N N N c N 

Y 

M 

O 

O_ O_ ( ( aa C, C, OO 

NN 

yy 

OO 

rr pp UU 

IIII I IIII . cc nw nw ' ' 

a) a) 

UU 

NN 

Q7 Q7 X X -. -. 

AA 

NN 

NN p p : : 33 

NN 

UU 77 CC 

CC 

WW 

UU 

l9 l9 

QQ EE dd 

nn OO 

OO OO 

pE) 'O UU O` O` 

ftf ftf 

NN 

CC NN CL CL 

i 0 

rn i . 0 

rn 

C» C» 

NN 

OO 

0u a O Y O O L 

h O O O 

Iti(h O O O O O O 

0u a O Y O O L 

O NO 

n U O 

tl p 

cc 

tl I 

O NO 

n U O 

p 

cc 

O 

CL CL ww 

O 

mm 

O O o Cl 0 0 rr n O c- N r r r r r r r O n N O d O N 

L()O o o O V Ln 

oo oo 

a o o 0 0 0 o O 

o o o 

o o o 

0 O 

e 

p a°' 

a o o 0 0 0 I o O o O 

o o o o o o o 

0 O 

e 

OC CO Lry Lry 

CC uu o! o! oo 00 00 00 oo oo 00 

ILl0 

a+ 

JJ 4) 4) 

yy OD OD OO O 0 

O 0 

0O O0 

c 

a o 0 

LL NN 

4 

r 

r 

O O Q O o o 0 0 0 O r 4.n OLO OV Iq O CC) NlTl I0) Nm NLTD rLO CDN 

o O o Lo Lo Lt) Lt) LO LO ii Ln Ln oo oo LC) LC) oo 00 00 oo U) U) 

r LO LO LO LO e2' e2' cY cY ` ` 77 CD CD mm CA CA r r "m "m MM Lo Lo NN 

O O0 

OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO 

c a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0o 00 00 00 0o 00 0o Q Q nL L oCD o LLoLo Ln Lo Lo oIno ld^ ld^ 

co- 

ae ae 

m m -- -- 

E 

w 

A 

12 

Nd 868 

CD 

CI. 

E 

w 

Ln 

ww 

M0) f•7 C7D 6D t+7 W M M1 Co 

N N CN N CV N N N 

00 00 

O O O LI) LA O O Ln 

V8 V8 I OO 00 00 0 0 

O Mn Cqn CL1 v° 

r 

I``¢¢ 

N N 

Ln Ln ! cD cD cD LD LD nn nn nn co co aow 

Z> Z> 22 gg 

aQ,Q¢ 

d¢aaaQQ°aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa EL EL 

OO OO OO O 

oO O 

O 

O 

OO OO OO O O O 

O O 

O O O O O O O O O 

V w t0 h 66 6 S F r tV M V lCj CO f+ 66 i 

Cr r 

Nr 

Nr 

00 

oo 

oo r r ° '' oo EE 

EE 

a a 

33 ° ° °' °' 

CC nn yy UU 

EE oo E 

O 

E 

O 

vv 

00 NN UU NN NN NN oo 

OO ca ca . . A A ( ( aa O] O] . . 

CC OO CC NN NN ii NN 

BB 

TT 

dd 

CL CL 

v v = = < < 

UU N N . -, . -, VV lT lT 

MM NN OO Ofd Ofd OO CC 

22 cc 00 

mm ii 

ww 

EE y-M aa OO oo 

NN CC 0.0 LO y 

LO y 

N N , , 

OO OO OO dd OO L71 L71 

QQ 

dd UU ua,) ua,) _ _ 

m 

CL CL !- OO m 

!- 

99 _. _. n Z

Mr. Wrzosek JN: 55-1008100 

March 29, 2012 

Page 6 

Table 2shows that the peak parking demand for the combined uses on a typical weekday occurs at 10:00 

p.m., with 377 occupied parking spaces and a surplus of38 parking spaces. Table 3 shows that on a 

typical weekend, the peak parking demand 'For the combined uoae also occurs at 10:00 p.m, with 394 

occupied parking spaces and a surplus of21 parking spaces. The analysis results shown in Tables Oand 

3 demonstrate that based on the City of Tustin parking requirements, there would be adequate on-site 

parking for the proposed uses if joint-use parking were implemented. 

Tables 2 and 3 evaluated the shared parking analysis for the proposed uses based on the City of Tustin 

parking requirements for each individual use onthe site, and does not assume any internal capture 

between the uses. Therofora, the results ofthe analysis shown in Tables 2 and 3 are conservative and 

actual shared parking demand for the proposed uses may potentially be lower than what is shown in the 

previous tables. 

Proposed Hotel Pea 

Demand Ratios 

As previously mentioned, the minimum parking spaces required by the City of Tustin are used as the peak 

parking demand for the proposed uses. Regarding the proposed hotel uae, howevar, the project 

applicant has developed several other hotels such as Residence Inns over the years, and historically 

Residence Inns have had a peak parking demand ratio that io lower than 1:1 (one parking space per 

occupied room) for enumbor of reasons. First, Residence Inns offer complimentary food and 

beverage to hotel guests only. Second. not all Residence Inns provide meeting room space, and 

when prowided, the hotel meeting space is intended for the use of the hotel guests only. Based on 

the developer's experience with building Residence inns, it is unlikely that recommending o parking 

rate of less than 1:1 would be underestimating the parking needs of the proposed hotel uses. 

Parking occupancy surveys to determine the ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms 

were conducted by RBF Consulting over the last two years at two existing Marriott hotels in San Diego 

County that are similar to the proposed Tustin hotels: a Courtyard by Marriott in Carlsbad, California, and a 

Marriott Residence Inn in Oceanside, California. The parking occupancy surveys had been conducted to 

develop parking demand ratios for e proposed Courtyard by Marriott in Uceanside. California, and a 

proposed Residence Inn /n San Juan Capistrano, California. The parking studies that were prepared for 

the proposed Oceanside Courtyard by Marriott and the San Juan Capistrano Residence Inn are provided 

in the technical appendix following this letter. 

It is proposed that the peak parking demand ratios that were developed for the proposed Oceanside 

Courtyard by Marriott and San Juan Capistrano Residence Inn be used ho determine the peak parking 

demand for the proposed Tustin Residence !nn and Fairfield Inn and Suites. Table 4summarizeo the 

results of the prior parking occupancy surveys and the parking demand ratios that were developed and 

are proposed tobe used for the proposed Tustin hotels. Only the highest parking demand ratios from the 

weekday and weekday surveys are shown in Table 4. 

As shown in Table 4, the highest weekday ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms (0.88 

spaces per room) occurred at the Carlsbad Courtyard by Marriott on a Tuesday, Table 4 shows that the 

weekend (Saturday) ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms was 0.92 spaces per room 

for both of the survey hotels,

Mr. wrzosek 

March 29, 2012 

Page 7 

JN: JN: 55- 55- 100817.001 

1 - NQ 6 

Basal on 

occupie 7ala' 

Survey Ccca2e 

Vccupied ED srrzn-nl 

and 71m, m Parking Mole] Hotel Occupied 

Spaces Rooms Rooms Room 

Ratio (a) 

Carlsbad Courtyard by Marriott Parking Occupancy Survey 

Saturday, 6/26/ 201 b 

110 145 120 0.92 

5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

Tuesday, 6/29/ 2010 

5:00 AM -5:30 AM 

91 145 103 0.88 

Oceanside Residence Inn Parking Occupancy Survey 

Thursday, 11/4/ 2010 

78 125 97 0.80 

5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

Saturday, 11/6/ 2010 

5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

56 125 61 0.92 

The The parking parking demand demand ratios ratios developed developed from from the the RBE RBE parking parking occupancy occupancy surveys surveys are are conservative conservative when when 

compared compared to to the the findings findings of of parking parking occupancy occupancy surveys surveys conducted conducted in in 2005 2005 in in the the Los Los Angeles Angeles area area at at two two 

existing existing Residence Residence Inns. Inns. These These 2005 2005 surveys surveys had had been been conducted conducted for for aa proposed proposed Residence Residence Inn Inn in in 

Burbank, Burbank, California California ( ( Burbank Burbank Residence Residence Inn Inn by by Marriott Marriott Parking Parking Study, Study, LLC LLC Engineers). Engineers). The The Burbank Burbank 

Residence Residence Inn Inn parking parking study study used used an an existing existing Residence Residence Inn Inn in in El El Segundo Segundo and and another another Residence Residence Inn Inn in in 

Beverly Beverly Hills Hills for for the the parking parking occupancy occupancy surveys surveys to to derive derive aa recommended recommended parking parking rate. rate. 

The The findings findings of of the the Beverly Beverly Hills Hills Residence Residence Inn Inn parking parking occupancy occupancy surveys surveys revealed revealed aa peak peak parking parking 

demand demand ratio ratio of of 0.81 spaces spaces per per occupied occupied room, room, while while the the results results of of the the El El Segundo Segundo Residence Residence Inn Inn 

parking parking occupancy occupancy surveys surveys showed showed aa peak peak parking parking demand demand ratio ratio of of 0.91 spaces spaces per per occupied occupied room. room. The The 

average average peak peak parking parking demand demand ratio ratio for for these these two two hotels hotels was was 0.86 spaces spaces per per occupied occupied room, room, which which was was 

the the parking parking rate rate recommended, recommended, based based on on full full hotel hotel occupancy, occupancy, for for the the proposed proposed Burbank Burbank Residence Residence Inn Inn 

instead instead of of the the standard standard City City of of Burbank Burbank parking parking rate. rate. The The findings findings of of the the parking parking demand demand analysis analysis from from 

the the Burbank Burbank Residence Residence Inn Inn by by Marriott Marriott Parking Parking Study Study ( ( Table Table 3) 3) is is attached attached following following this this report. report. 

Shared Shared Parking Parking Demand Demand Analysis Analysis — — Based Based on on Proposed Proposed Hotel Hotel Parking Parking Demand Demand Ratios Ratios 

An An additional additional shared shared parking parking demand demand analysis analysis was was performed performed for for the the combined combined uses uses on on the the project project site site 

based based on on utilization utilization of of the the proposed proposed peak peak parking parking demand demand ratios ratios developed developed for for the the hotel hotel uses uses based based on on 

parking parking occupancy occupancy surveys surveys that that had had been been conducted conducted for for similar similar hotels hotels in in Southern Southern California. California. Tables Tables 55 

and and 66 present present comparisons comparisons of of parking parking accumulation accumulation for for each each use use on on the the project project site, site, based based on on the the 

published published ULI ULI rates, rates, over over 24 24 - -hourhour periods periods for for aa typical typical weekday weekday and and aa typical typical weekend weekend day, day, respectively. respectively. 

The The parking parking demand demand ( ( occupied occupied spaces) spaces) shown shown for for the the hotel hotel uses uses in in Tables Tables 55 and and 66 is is based based on on the the 

proposed proposed hotel hotel peak peak parking parking demand demand ratios ratios as as previously previously shown shown in in Table Table 4. 4. The The parking parking demand demand for for the the 

restaurant restaurant and and retail retail uses uses are are based based on on the the minimum minimum parking parking spaces spaces required required by by the the City City of of Tustin Tustin for for 

each each use. use. The The surplus surplus parking parking ( ( unoccupied unoccupied spaces) spaces) shown shown in in Tables Tables 55 and and 66 is is based based on on the the actual actual 

number of parking spaces provided for the project site (total of 415 spaces).

I 

I 

O 

1 

4YD 

35J C3 

tC2 hh hh hh f OO CO rr II I` t0 N 00 PP• to OO 

I ww f0 NN 0 n 

00 00 1 n r 

CC 

DD 

U) U) 

aa 

1 

7 

w z 9) O dd II c0 co 

ark 

0 t I 

00 t0 47) et cco 4A m tti aD OO rr MM LO nn OO P• NN ( n OO ll7 

N NN NN NN NN NN NN MM 4N M C NN 

FF 

D D ® ® 

cm cm 

mm 

s Y1 

S 

G 

t 

L 

c 

LD 

N VV 

tai 

l0 - 

ma 

WW 

E 

m a! 

aD 

0 00 00 0 NN MM MM MM MM M' MM MM MM co MM NN rr pp 00 

M 

Lf! 

10 14N 

U1 aN° MM ` L MM NN NN MM_ MM 

9 

QQ NN OO OO OO OO 

O 1. OD ice- nn tti II f'- 

4n 

Ufu 

EE 

U Mw OO 

7'- Tt ct WW MM aO c0 00 00 CO 

r !r 

f 

99 

M 

0 C) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0. 7 ( D 4D 4D 2 NN NN 41 tD LS3 O 

N 

O 

EE 

aa 

m m . . 00 aa 

mm 

hh 

aa 

mm 

OO 

jj dd CC 

O O 

NN 

a) a) 

mm 

WW 

aa 

NN 

ww 

Nto 

C C • • pp 

m m ®. ®. 

OO 

HH 

OO 

NN 

UU 

yy UU mm 

EE NN NN 

AA UU mm 

to to m Y m Y 

VV mm mm 

NN ss U U , , 

CL CL 

Il' c 

J O a. 

N tD CO CO fD O O ( D O I V N 

0 E 

r 

OO 

Q2 Q2 

EE 

aa 

mm 

EE 

rU rU 

4p 4p CC 

W 

N 

O C6 

00 

W 

s: M ( 

2i M 0- 

cc 

F 

U 

rd 

ti n 

Oc 

d 

l4 

C 

F 

C 

L 

R 

aQ 

co 

CL 

O 

CL 

AA 

CL 

O 

d 

W 

3 

0f ® 

X 

m 

m O m w'o N w O O I N N In I O O M co M O) m co 

O M O OD do O O l4) 

Q 

N N N N N 

N N N N N N N N 

o o a o a o 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 

N O ® O O O N N N N N 

O 

4n O O O O O r to to ' 

tfj 

o en 

M ( D 'co 0) — 

N 

Q: 

d 

O ' ® \° 

E 

a2 

0 p O O O p O O O p 

C:) O) 0) O) O W 4p M r 

In O O do do O O® O t ° O ° O 

o c 

O 

a \ e \ \ ' 

I 

o 

c \° a o a o 1 

O °. -. O O t0 O O O O O t17 ', to p 0 O p j O I 0 l0 

117 :. 

O \' o 

O O 

C 

° ° 

O 

0) W W ti O O O. O O O W M. 

CL E 

UJ 0 

o r 

Ld 

I 

i+ 0 0 6 0 0 ° 

22 00 OO N N - - OO 

01 4p o o a a o 

o 

0 0 0 0 0 e a c 0 

a2 a2 

C u 

4 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 

I ... N r (o 

I I ( N I ° O O d N 4fl O 4 

smsmL) 

oo 

C 

r O P N" 

c 

m I 33 OO qq CC OO cc OO Pn • , a7 

hh 

a7 

jj mm EE WW gg mm 

a- € 

01 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 e \° e o o o! o o o 

O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 g 0 o\ o o 0 e 0 a 

4 

C 

Q 0 0 0 0 O I O O O O O O O R C) O 

O) r r r r r r r 

4 - W i 

4v v 

VV o-0. In In N I mm 00 In In N N OO 

O O i 0 0 0 a2 a2 22 c c 

O O` O O oo LO 4n 0 0 4D O 40 to p CIO 4n O O C 

i 

i 

Z a= 0 0 0 0 0° t~ ti 00 471 O O a 

r . O O r O D In tri O 4D 4D p 

cC s 

cc cC wQ 

1 CC cc 

I¢.¢ ¢ ¢ 

CC CC C ¢¢ CC 

G C C G S C 

d 0_ Q 0.10. MIMI m n. 

BB m m = = NN aW7 aW7 

OO 

0 0 0`` 0 0 0 0 1 0 0O 0 Q 0 O O 1 O0 I O0 00' 0O O0 0O O p 0 0 J U 

0 

r 

ca 

CV CO ' 7 ( ri (O ti 4b m O cli 

r N 

M` ep' tri ( G Ih w m P eN- 

0- O 9 P O O O i 

4L 

WC WC 

@@ 

NN 

E E 

WW 

mm O O @@ 

WW 

c c 

O O 

00 a) a) 

WW 

DD 

dd HH NN 2— 

a2 a2 mm OO CC 

OOCL 

CC 

NN CC KK 

OO DD LL 

OO 

yy 

NN 

a) a) OO 

N N 

OO 

l09 l09 

EaE 

aa 

a a 

o o ; ; 

mm 

W W ' ' 

nn mm cc 

aa 

cc 

mm 

aa) aa) 

YY dd mm 77 CL CL 

nn 

mm 

N UU N 

N N 

NN 

J (( nn uu d] d] dl dl lT lT 

NN O7 O7 aI aI NN CC 

mm cc BB DD xx 

LL 

c0 c0 mm a) a) 

aa aa mm aa 

OO N N 

NN 

O_ O_ 

OO 

41. 41. m M m M

e 

I 

j 

I 

h 

WO 

h 

Pn 

N 

N 

inO 

L p 

CU ca 

C 

S 

C) 

4 ! 

s 0 

Q 

C 

a 

V 

M 

0 

d 

N 

V 

CL 

0 

CC 

0 

i 

0 C 

E .a. 

a= 

C C2 

a. 

c 

0 

V 

d 

Nea 

in 

m' I T O I O O WO WW WOD M of W NW Wh r r O)to h p N 

c} 

r r 

r r N N N 00 fD CO 

ti Q)p 

R 

I I 

I O O 

1 

O) 

h h Oh Oh Oh B+O I O ON Nr 0 M M V' O 

N N 

N N N N N N N r N N N N N N N 

QO 

M 

N 

M 

MM 

1 

O 

09 

ryy 

1 

Nt 

M 

pM 

M 

WO 

0 tt9 

0_7 o 

z 

O 

f 

O O O O O O 

y u Ln O CO O 0 0 0 

S 0 

m 

i O 

IL M'oi 

CL 

U 

i v Q W 

PJ 

co M M M M M M f'D R7 ( TD h M N N p 

p 

M 

N Gf M N 

O- r m h N O O 

O O O O O O f O CO W W 

ate-- CA CO 00 O OD V 

I 

LO o O No rn m Wi 

LO N O W W W W W W W M 

U 

9 

0 ew 0 N N0 SCl N0 N0 NW 1M NW 67c0 NO NW W7 Wd' NW NW OP O) N N W O) W O O 

W 0N 0N N N 0N hN hN I, l 

I® 

I 

m ^o 

OO 

O 

Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 

O o 0 0 0 0 

QiO, 0 O0 0 O0 0 W O O 

W 

p 

P V iv N 

P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 

0 0 0 0 0 R o ii o o 0 0 

o f 

f i 

I 

0 0 0 0 0 O 

CO ) LO CO 60D O O to N 0 I t a 

0 0 0 0 0 ii 0 0 R 0 

1. 

IV m N O O O O O N M C(0 Wi n.I-- ti O 

p 0 00 j 0 o o 

9 CL 

W 

E C o 

O L 

V O y 

4 

I 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O tR7 Ocf O O OW OO) OQ) O O) pCOf O ON 

I 

0 i%O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 

m 

IL 

J 

C 

fa 

m—W 

N v 

O O O O p p p oO 0O 0O I 0OI o i 

0* 0 e0 

r i r Or o0 0 o O 

M O) O O'O 0 1 0 O O O h W l 0 0 

O 

O O O 

O I O 0 0 

1 

Q 

0O 

O 

O OO! O 

N r 

tq7N M 

p O 0 0 

Ln 

0 0 

6 h- Op 

0 

6f 

I 

aI 

a 

n O 

u 

R 

o 

off t O O 

0 

r r r 

L 

O 

N 

y 

a 

o 

3 

m A 7 

3: a0 

O 

CL 

a) _ N O 

O 

w 

0 O 

5 N 

c B 

47 w 

o CJ 

LO 

Ti N rj 

O 

cu 

T9 

N 

c 

d 

ti 

O 

y U 

O U N 

N 

U 

x 

B C 

U 

N 

O 

O 

O 

A 

O 

N E M 

U N c 

O 

c N L 

cu 

u 

y 

rU 

O 

v 

cc 

S 

O 

u) F- 

U NN oO C 

v C 3 

OCL 

w s° 

N 

w 

m 

U 

Na 

2 E O 47 

O . 

p N 

jx 

O 

U 

N 

d N 

m 

c o 

ID 

ON d o 

O L N •> 

w N O 

O N a 

f0 C N 

0- 1) ( 

E a m C a 

N O N O 

p C 

d AY N C f8 

m O- 

O U uD 

7 _ ( 6 

0 

O O O O O p\ 

m 

0 0 0 0 0 00 0O) 0W 0h 0W 0W O OO O O 0 O O O O0 G 

W o 

r T T 

W W W h h h• c0 00 O) r0 N 

O N x W 0 

y 

, 

O 0 

N 

C 

N 

c 

N 

A 

m U 

N O 

c 

O 

Q a c¢ a

Mr. Wrzosek JN: 55-100817. 001 

March 29, 2012 

Page 10 

Table 5 shows that the peak parking demand for the combined uses on a typical weekday occurs at 10:00 

p.m., with 343 occupied parking spaces and a surplus of 72 parking spaces. Table 6 shows that on a 

typical weekend, the peak parking demand for the combined uses also occurs at 10:00 p.m., with 372 

occupied parking spaces and a surplus of 43 parking spaces. The analysis results in Tables 5 and 6 show 

that based on the proposed hotel parking demand ratios and the City of Tustin parking requirements for 

the restaurant and retail uses, there would be adequate on-site parking for the proposed uses if joint-use 

parking were implemented. 

Phase One Parking Analysis 

The proposed project may be constructed in two phases, so a supplemental parking analysis was 

conducted for the first phase of the project if it is constructed in two phases. The Phase One project would 

consist of the following uses: 

One4-story hotel 

o Marriott Residence Inn — 149 rooms 

Free-standing restaurants — 12,000 square-feet total 

Free-standing retail space - 4,200 square-feet 

A total of 333 parking stalls would be provided for the Phase One project site to serve the Residence Inn 

and the restaurants and retail uses. 

Table 7 summarizes the City of Tustin parking requirements for the proposed Phase One uses on the 

project site. Based on the City of Tustin parking requirements, the Phase One project is required to 

provide a minimum of 289 parking spaces. The proposed Phase One project will provide a total of 333 

parking spaces, which are 44 spaces more than the minimum required parking spaces for Phase One. 

Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit for joint-use parking would not be required for Phase One of the 

sm- 

Proposed Use Size Unit 

Hotel - Residence Inn 

Table 7 

Phase One Project - City of Tustin Parking RequiremenL9 

149 

6 

City Code 

Parking Rate 

rooms 1 space per room + 

employees 

1 space per 2 

employees 

Parking 

Spaces 

Required 

Restaurant 12,000 SF 1 space per 100 SF 120 

Retail 4,200 SF 1 space per 250 SF 17 

Pwk ng 

Provided 

Difference 

152 173 21 

160 23 

Total Parking Required 289 333 44 

Note: SF = Square Feet

Mr. Wrzoseb 

March 2l202 

Concl;z[ lon 

The results of this shared parking analysis do not assume any internal capture between the proposed 

uses. Due to the close proximity of the restaurant and retail uses to the two proposed hotels, dislikely 

that o significant proportion of pedestrian trips would occur between the hotels and the restaurant and 

retail uses, It is probable that this analysis is overestimating the parking demand that is likely to occur, and 

it is reasonable to assume that there may be a reduction in the combined parking demand due to internal 

capture between the proposed uses. 

The seasonal variation /n the parking demand would bea critical factor if the recommended parking 

ratio was based on the total number of rooms in the hotels instead of the total number of occupied 

rooms. The ratio of occupied spaces to occupied rooms during peak demand times is not influenced 

by the number of hotel rooms that are occupied; in fact, the highest parking demand roUm per 

occupied room from the parking surveys occurred when the fewest number of hotel rooms were 

occupied. The hotel peak parking demand ratios used in this analysis are based on the ratio 

of "occupied spaces per occupied room" and assume full occupancy of the hotel. 

Whather using the City of Tustin minimum parking requirements (1 per room + 1per 2 em 

or the 

proposed peak parking demand ratio (0.92 per room) for the hotel uses, the results of this parking demand 

and shared parking analysis show that the 415 padkinQmpeceedhsdonepropoamdforUlaprojoctahemW/be 

adequate for joint-use parking. Therefore, it is recommended that o Conditional Use Permit for joint-use 

parking be considered for this project. 

The proposed project may be constructed in two pboaoa so a supplemental parking analysis was 

conducted for the first phase of the project ifdis constructed /n two phases. Based on the findings ofthe 

Phase One parking analysis, a Conditional Use Permit for joint-use parking would not be required for 

Phase One of the proposed project. 

If you have any questions pertaining to the analysis results summarized in this letter, please call moat 

760) 603-6244. 

411 

Robert Davis, PTP 

Senior Associate 

Transportation Services

I 

VV 

rk 

a' a' 

QJ 

QJ 

mm 

ww 

I 

1 1 ii 

I1 

C 

mt mt 

CD CD 

mma mma °- °- 

WW 

77 

OO 

CL CL 

I 

cc cc 

I 

C^ C^ 

V 

I 

i i I ! I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

II 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

1 

i 

1 

i I 

I, I 

V I 

1111 

I 

III. 

9 

1 '! 

1 

11 

I 

I 

I # 

' P 

t a 3 

a 

i 

E A 

Y $ 

s aa56 is 

ss 

ZZ 

QQ 

JJ 

G. G. 

WW 

HH 

JJ 

JJ 

Q, Q, 

CC CC 

ww 

OO 

1 i 

11 

I 

i 

fti 

a 

1 '! 

I 

1 

N 

z 

I,11 

Iljll 

II 111 

11 

I1I' 

II 

1 

I 

1111 

I 

111 

I 1 1 

I 

1 I 

1 

Illj 1 

I!j 1 

y„I 

NN 

WW 

ww 

44 Q Q ^ ^ ee ti ti 

UJ UJ 

ZZ 

Oco 

Lb Lb 

LO LO 

i 1 

11 / 

11 1 

11 1 

1j 1 

t1 

11I 

L\1

TECHNICAL APPENDIX

San Juan Capistrano Residence inn Parking Demand Study 

RBF Consulting, 11124/2010)

FBF 

e 

GONSMq_rIN- 7D 

November 24, 2010 

JN 55- 100728.001 

Mr. Robert Olson 

RD Olson DauMlopment 



Subject: San Juan Capistrano Residence Inn Parking Demand Study 

Dear Mr. Olson, 

RBF Consulting has completed the parking demand study for the proposed Residence Iran ' hotel 

located at the southwest corner of Camino Capistrano / Stonehill Drive just west of Interstate 5 in the 

City of San Juan Capistrano. The proposed site is surrounded by a mix of retail and residential uses, 

and is located approximately one mile north of the Capistrano and oheny beach areas. Tourist 

attractions and amenities near the proposed hotel site include: 

o 

San Juan Capistrano Mission and downtown area 

the Capistrano and Coheny beach areas 

Dana Point Harbor 

Golf courses, restaurants and retail shopping within 10 minute drive 

The proposed Residence Inn would be a mid range - priced ($150 - $300) business hotel providing a 

total of 130 suites. A total of 122 parking stalls are proposed to be provided for the hotel (117 

unassigned parking spaces and 5 disabled parking spaces), which provides a ratio of 0.94 parking 

spaces per guest room. 

For all hotel and motel uses, one parking space per guest room (1:1 ratio) is required based on the 

City of San Juan Capistrano off-street parking requirements. Given the number of rooms for the 

proposed hotel, a minimum of 130 parking spaces are required based on the City's standard parking 

code. 

The project applicant has developed several other Residence Inns over the years and 

historically Residence Inns have had a peak parking demand ratio that is lower than 1:1 (one 

parking space per occupied room) for a number of reasons. First, Residence Inns offer 

complimentary food and beverage to hotel guests only. Second, the hotel meeting space is 

intended for the use of the hotel guests only. Based on the developer's experience with building 

Residence Inns, it is unlikely that recommending a parking rate of less than 1:1 would be 

underestimating the parking needs. 

PLANNING S DESIGN ® CONSTRUCTION 

5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Oceanside, California 92008 -4386 r 760.476. 9193 FAX 760.476. 9198 

Offices located throughout California, Arizona & Nevada 

wvow.RBF. co

Mr. Olson 


Page 2 

JN: 55- 100723.001 

P 

A pari'idng occupancy survey was conducted by RBF Consorting at an existing Residence Inn located 

at Rancho Del Oro Road / Ocean Ranch Boulevard in the City of Oceanside. The selected existing 

hotel for the parking occupancy survey is located a few miles from the Oceanside and Carlsbad 

beach areas and is surrounded by retail and office /business park uses. Tourist attractions and 

amenities near the existing surrey hotel site include: 

Downtown Oceanside and downtown Carlsbad 

Oceanside and Carlsbad beach areas 

Oceanside Harbor 

San Luis Rey Mission 

Legoland (located in Carlsbad about 15 minutes from hotel) 

Golf courses, restaurants and retail shopping within 10 minute drive 

The purpose of the parking occupancy survey is to determine the peak parking demand for a lbjpicaI 

Residence Inn located in a similar environment as the proposed site and compare to the City parking 

requirement. 

Detailed information about the selected survey hotel is provided below: 

inn — 3605 Ocean Ranch Boulevard, Oceanside, CA 

Number of Rooms 125 suites 

Number of Parking Stalls 151 

Room Rates $139 - $269 

Amenities 1 meeting room with 571 squarefeet of meeting space, pool, fitness center, 

breakfast caf6, evening lounge, Internet access in each guest room 

The Oceanside Residence Inn was built approximately three years ago, and is considered to be 

fully stabilized. The survey location is one of the top hotels in the City of Oceanside and one of 

top performing Residence Inns in the nation. 

The parking utilization characteristics of the existing Oceanside Residence Inn site were observed 

between 5:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. on three weekday mornings (Monday, Thursday, and Friday) and 

one weekend morning (Saturday). The survey time was selected based on hotel parking demand 

data from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking publication. Although the survey hotels from 

the ULI research were major hotels with restaurants, lounges and convention facilities, peak parking 

demand at the survey hotels occurred between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Since 

restaurants and lounges can be open until as late as 2:00 a.m., it is reasonable to assume that the 

peak parking demand for a hotel without such amenities would occur between the hours of 2:00 a.m. 

and 6:00 a.m. when the highest number of hotel guests would be in their rooms sleeping.

Mr. Olson 


Page 3 

JN: 55- 100728.001 

Table 1 

presents the resuits of the parking occupancy sunoey conducled for each day at the 

Oceanside Residence Ins, site. 

Vable I 

Favking Occupancy Survey 

Existing Oceanside Residence Inn 

Thursday, IIN2010 Friday, 11/5/ 2010 Saturday, 111612010 Monday, 111812010 

Parking 

Type 

Parking 

5:00 AM - 6:30 AM 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 5 :00 AM - 6:30 AN 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

POTNno 

Inventory Occupied 

UtiiumaNnn 

Parking 

Parkingg 

Occupied 

Occupied 

Occupied 

spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 

Utilization 

Utilization 

Parking 

Utilization 

General 146 76 52.1% 60 41.1% 54 37.0% 65 44.5% 

Disabled 5 2 40.0% 2 40.0% 2 40.0% 2 40.0% 

Total 

Parkin 

151 78 51.7% 62 41.1% 56 37.1% 67 44.4 

J 

As As shown shown in in Table Table 1, 1, the the results results of of the the parking parking occupancy occupancy surreys surreys are are as as follows: follows: 

Thursday, Thursday, November November 4"' 4"' (5:00 a.m. — 

5:30 a.m.): 78 78 occupied occupied parking parking spaces spaces 

Friday, Friday, November November 5:00 5"'( 


Saturday, Saturday, November November5:00 6"'( 

5:30a.m.): 56 56 occupied occupied parking parking spaces spaces 

Monday, Monday, November November 8th (5:00 a.m. -- 5:30 a.m.): 67 67 occupied occupied parking parking spaces spaces 

Table Table 11 shows shows that that the the highest highest parking parking utilization utilization ( ( 51.7 %) occurred occurred on on Thursday Thursday morning, morning, when when 78 78 

occupied occupied parking parking spaces spaces were were counted counted at at the the survey survey hotel. hotel. 

Overnight Overnight room room occupancy occupancy information information was was acquired acquired from from the the hotel hotel for for each each evening evening previous previous to to the the 

parking parking occupancy occupancy counts. counts. 

The The number number of of occupied occupied hotel hotel rooms rooms and and corresponding corresponding hotel hotel 

occupancy occupancy rate rate for for each each survey survey morning morning is is listed listed below: below: 

Wednesday Wednesday nightri nightri morning morning ( (11/3— 

11/4): 97 97 occupied occupied rooms rooms ( ( 78% 78% occupancy) occupancy) 

Thursday Thursday night/Friday morning morning ( (11/4— 


Friday Friday night/Saturday mom mom ing ing ( (11/5 — 


Sunday Sunday night/Monday morning morning ( (11/7 — 


As As shown shown above, above, the the highest highest room room occupancy occupancy rate rate occurred occurred on on both both Wednesday Wednesday night/Thursday 

morning morning ( (11/3 — 

11/4) and and Sunday Sunday night/Monday morning morning ( ( 11/7 — 

11/8), when when 97 97 out out of of the the 125 125 hotel hotel 

rooms rooms were were occupied. occupied. The The lowest lowest room room occupancy occupancy rate rate occurred occurred on on Friday Friday night/Saturday morning, morning, 

when only 61 out of 125 rooms were occupied.

fV7r. Olson 


Page 4 

JN: 55- 100728.001 

The overnight hote? room occupancy infcrmation that was obtained for each of the survey days 

shows that the weekday occupancy rates are higher than the weekend occupancy rate. WNle the 

current economic conditions may have some influence on the low weekend occupancy rate, the 

general manager of the Oceanside Residence Inn indicated that during the summer months the 

overnight room occupancy rate is highest on the weekends, and during the off- season months the 

highest occupancy rates occur during the weekdays. 

Table 2 summarizes the parking demand ratios derived from the parking occupancy and hotel room 

occupancy data acquired for this analysis. Two sets of ratios are provided: the parking demand ratio 

per hotel room (occupied parking spaces / total hotel rooms), and the parking demand ratio per 

occupied hotel room (occupied parking spaces /occupied hotel rooms), 

As shown in Table 2, the highest ratio of occupied parking spaces 'to total hotel rooms (0.62 spaces 

per room) occurred on the Thursday morning survey. The lowest ratio of occupied ;parking spaces to 

total hotel rooms (0.45 spaces per room) occurred on the Saturday morning survey. 

The highest ratio of occupied paiirking spaces to occupied hotel rooms (0.92 spaces per room) 

occurred on the Saturday morning survey. The lowest ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied 

hotel rooms (0.69 spaces per room) occurred on the Monday morning survey, 

Table 

Parking Demand Ratios 

Existina Oceanside Residence Inn 

Survey Date 

and Time 

Occupied Total Occupied 

Parkin Hotel Hotel 

Spaces Rooms Rooms 

Parking 

Demand 

Per Room 

Ratio 

FaIn%idg2 

Damara d 

Occupied 

iedi 

Room 

Ratio (z) 

Thursday, 11/4/ 2010 

5:00 AM -5:30 AM 

Friday, 11 /5/2010 

5 :00 AM - 5:30 AM 

78 125 97 0.62 0.80 

62 125 85 0.50 0.73 

Saturday, 11/6/ 2010 

56 125 61 

5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

0.45 0.92 

Monday, 11 /8/2010 

67 125 97 

5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

0.54 0.69 

II 

Kauo or occupiea parKing spaces to total number of hotel rooms. Highest ratio indicated in bold. 

t2i Ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms. Highest ratio indicated In bold.

Mr. Olson JN: 55- 100728.003 

November24, 2010 

Page 5 

The parking occupancy surveys shown in Table 1 and the parking demand ratios shown in Table 2 

suggest several patterns with Rohs data that was collected at the Oceanside residence Inn site: 

Parking occupancy and room occupancy is higher on the weekdays than on the weekends, 

which suggests that the time of year (early to mid - November) is influencing the low room 

occupancy on the weekends, and that weekday business travel is influencing room 

occupancy more so than leisure travel on the weekends. 

The ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms is lower on the weekdays than 

on the weekends, which suggests that there are a greater proportion of business travelers on 

the weekdays that carpool to the hotel and stay in separate rooms. This phenomenon results 

in a lower parking demand ratio per occupied room even though the weekday survey days 

had the highest number of parking spaces and hotel rooms occupied. 

The ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied 'hotel rooms is higher on the weekends 

than on the weekdays, which suggests that there are a greater proportion of leisure guests 

that are occupying fewer rooms per vehicle arriving at the hotel. This phenomenon results in 

a higher parking demand ratio per occupied room on the weekend survey, even though the 

weekend survey had the lowest number of parking spaces and hotel rooms occupied. 

The four survey days showed hotel room occupancy rates ranging from 49% to 78 %, which 

implies that the parking occupancy surveys covered the weekly variations in room occupancy 

that typically occurs at the hotel. 

Comparison of Parking Occupancy Surveys with ITE Parking Generation Research 

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication titled Parking Generation, 3 Edition 

includes specific parking characteristics data for a "Business Hotel' land use category, which is 

described as having limited amenities and no on -site meeting or convention facilities. Although the 

existing Oceanside Residence Inn and the proposed San Juan Capistrano Residence Inn both have 

small meeting space, the "Business Hotel' category best characterizes the typical Residence Inn, 

rather than the general "Hotel' category that includes restaurant, lounge and convention facilities. 

The parking characteristics are derived from research studies conducted by ITE. The research 

studies include a utilization profile along with a formula that describes the relationship between 

parking demand and the time of day. The parking demand data for a "Business Hotel' in ITE Parking 

Generation is limited to only the hour between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., which does not account for 

the time period in which the parking demand peak may actually occur (2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.). 

Furthermore, the parking demand ratios provided in ITE Parking Generation only reflect occupied 

parking spaces to total number of rooms, not occupied spaces to occupied hotel rooms. For the 

purposes of this report, however, it will be assumed the parking demand ratios generated by ITE for a 

Business Hotel reflects the peak parking demand based on the ITE research.

Mr. Olson JN: 55- 100728.001 


Page 6 

Table 3 summarizes the parking demand data for a Business Hotel as provided in ITE Parking 

Generation, 3 edition. Fable 3 also provides a comparison between the parking dernand ratios 

generated by i TE and the parking demand ratios calculated from the results of the parking 

occupancy surveys. 

As shown in Table 3, the ITE parking demand data for a Business Hotel indicates a higher parking 

demand on a weekend than on a weekday, with a peak parking demand ratio of 0.66 vehicles per 

room. The results of the parking occupancy surveys show a peak parldng demand ratio of 0.62 

vehicles per room, with the highest peak parking demand occurring on a weekday. The parking 

occupancy survey results also show a parking demand ratio of only 0.45 vehicles per room occurring 

on a weekend. 

Table 3 

Comparison of Parking Demand Data 

ITE Parking Generation vs. Parking Occupancy Surveys 

ITE Parking Demand Data 

Parking Occupancy Survey Results 

pa'Thlng 

Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend 

Parking Parking Parking Parking 

Data 

Demand Demand Demand Demand 

Land Use Business Hotel Business Hotel Business Hotel Business Hotel 

Peak Period 11:00 P.M. - 11:00 P.M. - 5:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. - 

12:00 a.m. 12:00 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 

of Study Sites 3 3 1 1 

Average Size of 130 rooms 130 rooms 125 rooms 125 rooms 

Study Sites 

Average Peak 0.64 vehicles 0.66 vehicles 0.62 vehicles 0.45 vehicles 

Period Parking 

Demand 

per room per room per room per room 

Source: ITE Parking Generation, P Edition (2004). 

Parking demand ratio is based on the number of occupied panting spaces to total number of rooms. Highest weekday parking 

demand ratio was used in this table. 

Table 3 shows that although the weekday parking demand ratios are similar between the ITE and 

parking survey data, the weekend parking demand ratio based on the parking occupancy surreys is 

significantly lower than the ITE parking demand data. This is most likely due to the seasonal 

influence previously discussed. 

As previously mentioned, the ITE parking demand data does not reflect the demand of occupied 

parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms, which is a more accurate assessment of parking demand 

for a hotel. The peak parking demand ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms 

0.92) that was calculated for the four survey days at the Oceanside Residence Inn occurred on the 

Saturday morning survey, when the fewest number of hotel rooms were occupied. The peak parking 

demand based on occupied hotel rooms is not determined by the number of rooms occupied, but 

rather is determined by the parking characteristics of the people occupying the hotel rooms at a given 

time.

Mr. Olson 


Page 7 

JN: 55- 100728.001 

02arn5 r r19 rn i 5t2gIS 

This section includes information from another parking demand study that was prepared in 2005 for a 

proposed Residence Inn in BUTbank, California (Burbank Residence inn by M&7i® tt Parking Study, 

LLG Engineers). The Burbank Residence Inn parking study used two existing Residence Inns, one 

in El Segundo and another in Beverly Hills, for the parking occupancy surveys to derive a 

recommended parking rate. 

The findings of the Beverly Hills Residence Inn parking occupancy surveys revealed a peak parking 

demand ratio of 0.81 spaces per occupied room, while the results of the El Segundo Residence Inn 

Parking occupancy surveys showed a peak parking demand ratio of 0.91 spaces per occupied room. 

The average peak parking demand ratio for these two hotels was 0.86 spaces per occupied room, 

which was the parking rate recommended, based on full hotel occupancy, for the proposed Burbank 

Residence Inn instead of the standard City of Burbank parking rate. The findings of the parking 

demand analysis from the Burbank Residence inn by Marriott Parking Study (Table 3) is attached 

following this report. 

Study Recommendations 

Based on the results of the parking occupancy surveys and calculated parking demand ratios, it 

should be reasonable to allow a parking ratio that is less than one parking space per room per the 

City of San Juan Capistrano off- street parking requirements. The results of the parking occupancy 

surreys indicate that the parking supply at the Oceanside Residence Inn is almost double the peak 

parking demand and substantially less parking is needed to meet the actual peak parking demand. 

While it may be true that the weekend and leisure demand could be higher at the proposed San 

Juan Capistrano location than the surrey location in Oceanside due to the closer proximity to 

the beach, the survey location is still located in a beach community (Oceanside) and is one of 

the more desirable hotels in the city. The seasonal variation in the parking demand would be a 

critical factor if the recommended parking ratio was based on the total number of rooms in the 

hotel instead of the total number of occupied rooms. The ratio of occupied spaces to occupied 

rooms during peak demand times is not influenced by the number of hotel rooms that are 

occupied, in fact, the highest parking demand ratio per occupied room from the parking surreys 

occurred when the fewest number of hotel rooms were occupied. The number of required 

parking spaces that are recommended are based on the ratio of 'occupied spaces per occupied 

room" and assume full occupancy of the hotel.

Mr. Olson JN: 55- 100728.001 


Page 8 

The recommended parking rate of 0.86 spaces per occupied Odom for t"1e Surbank Residance Mn 

would result in 112 parking spaces being provided for the proposed San Juan Capistrano Residence 

inn. It is recommended that the more conservative ratio of 1@2 ,parking spaces per occupied room 

from the Oceanside Residence Inn parking occupancy survey 'be used to determine the minimum 

parking requirement at the proposed Residence inn in San Juan Capistrano. Applying this ratio to 

the total number of rooms at the proposed hotel would result in a minimum parking space 

requirement of 120 parking spaces at full occupancy of the hotel. The proposed hotel will provide a 

total of 122 parking spaces, which equates to a ratio of 0.94 parking spaces per room and two more 

parking spaces than the recommended minimum requirement based on our survey. 

if you have any questions pertaining to the analysis results summarized in 'this istter, please call me 

at (760) 6036244. 

Sincerely, 




II 

495 P.ONIA33O F -27 

j 

G"D 

4 

P. P. 

I III A 

4 ® t 

yes yes 

aa 

i 

W 

mr 

CK 

Q arJ- 

93. 

N 

d 

a 

R 

N 

fA 

V 

o0 

9 

M 

U 

TI 

a 

pOp 

PM 

M 

I 

i 

a ^ 

Q 

Tlt 

RE 

l 

C

Oceanside Courtyard by Marriott Parking Demand Study 

RBF Consulting, 7/12/ 2010)

Mr. Blake Evans 

RT) Olson7LN 



5 ,vbjacz Courtyard by Marriott Parking Demand Study 

Dear Mr. Evans, 

RBF Consulting has completed the parking demand study for the proposed Courtyard by Marriott 

hotel located at the southeast corner of Rancho Del Oro Drive / Seagate Way in the City of 

Oceanside. The proposed hotel would be a mid-range priced ($100 - $250) business hotel providing 

a - total of 140 rooms and approximately 2,000 square-feet of meeting/conference room space. A 

total of 136 parking stalls are proposed to be provided for the hotel (131 unassigned spaces and 5 

disabled parking spaces). 

For a typical hotel use, the City of Oceanside Zoning Ordinance (Article 31) requires 1.2 parking 

spaces per hotel room, plus I parking space per 50 square-feet of banquet sea area. Based on 

the number of rooms and the meeting/conference room space a minimum of 208 parking spaces are 

required based on the City of Oceanside off-street parking requirements. 

A parking occupancy survey was conducted by RBF Consulting at an existing Courtyard by Marriott 

located near Palomar Airport in the City of Carlsbad. The selected existing hotel for the parking 

occupancy survey is located in a business/office park environment similar to the proposed hotel site 

in Oceanside. The purpose of the parking occupancy survey is to determine the peak parking 

demand for a typical Courtyard by Marriott located in a business/office park environment, in 

comparison to the City parking requirement. 

Detailed information about the selected survey hotel is provided below: 

Courtyard by Marriott — 5835 Owens Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 

Number of Rooms: 139 rooms, 6 suites 

Number of Parkinq Stalls: 199 

Room Rates: $159 229 -$ 

Amenities: 3 meeting rooms with 1,290 square-feet of total meeting space, pool, fitness 

center, breakfast caf6, evening lounge, intemet access in each guest room 

PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION 

5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Carlsbad, California 92008-4386 760.476- 9193 w FAX 760.476. 9198 

Offices located throughout California, Arizona 8 Nevada 

v 

ṘBF.gpm

Mr. Evans JN: 55- 100693.001 

July 12, 2010 

Page 2 

The institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) pubiication titled Parking Generation, 3rd Edition 

includes specific parking characteristics data for a "Business Motel" land use category, which is 

described as having limited amenities and no on -site meeting or convention facilities. Although the 

only available parking demand data for a business hotel is between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. in ITE 

Parking Generation, it is expected that peak parking demand would occur overnight, after 12:00 a.m. 

and before 6:00 a.m. The ITE parking characteristics data for a business hotel use are provided later 

in this report. 

The parking utilization characteristics of the existing Courtyard by Marriott site were observed on 

three weekday mornings (Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday) and one weekend morning (Saturday) 

between 5:00 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. Table 1 presents the results of the parking occupancy survey 

conducted for each day at the survey hotel site. 

Table 1 

Parking Occupancy Svfnmy 

Carlsbad Courtyard by ?Y3zFR 

Thursday, 612412010 Friday, 6125/2010 z3zlurday, 6/26/ 2010 Tuesday, 6129/2010 

arki 

Type 

arsir 

lnvanlwy 

5 :00 AM - 5:30 AM 5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 5:00 AM - 5:30 AaNI 5 :00 ANI - 5:30 A 

Parking 

Occupied 

Parking 

occupied 

Utilization 

occupied 

Utilization 

Spaces Spaces m Spaces 

Parkin: 

WHIF alion - 

Osd 

Farming 

UNization 

S 08c aoss 

General 191 105 55.0% 94 49.2% 106 55.5% 69 46.6% 

Disabled 6 1 12.5/ 0 2 25.0% 4 50.0% 2 25.0% 

Total 199 106 513x/0 96 46.2% 110 55,3% Z) l 45.7% 

As As shown shown in in Table Table 1, 1, the the results results of of the the parking parking occupancy occupancy surveys surveys are are as as follows: follows: 

Thursday, Thursday, June June 24 24 ( (5:00 a.m. — 


Friday, Friday, June June 25 25 ( (5:00 a.m. — 


Saturday, Saturday, June June 26 26 ( (5:00 a.m. —5:30 a.m.): 110 110 occupied occupied parking parking spaces spaces 

Tuesday, Tuesday, June June 29 29 ( ( 55 : 00 : 00 a.m. — 


Table Table 11 shows shows that that the the highest highest parking parking utilization utilization ( ( 55.3 %) occurred occurred on on Saturday Saturday morning, morning, when when 110 110 

occupied occupied parking parking spaces spaces were were counted counted at at the the survey survey hotel. hotel. 

Overnight Overnight room room occupancy occupancy information information was was acquired acquired from from the the hotel hotel for for each each evening evening previous previous to to the the 

parking parking occupancy occupancy counts. counts. The The number number of of occupied occupied hotel hotel rooms rooms and and corresponding corresponding hotel hotel 

occupancy rate for each survey morning is listed below:

1 

1 

Mr. Evans 

July 12, 2010 

Page 3 

JN: 55-100693. 001 

YVednesday nightf rsday mornin (June23r 144 occu pisd, moms (99% occupancy) 

Thursday night/Friday morning (Joins24 125 occupied rooms (86% occupancy) 

Friday night/Saturday morning (Juno25 120 occupied rooms (83% occupancy) 

Monday night/Tuesday morning (June &'-29 103 occupied rooms (71 occupancy) 

% 

As shown above, the highest room occupancy rate occurred on Wednesday night/Thursday morning 

of June 23r when 144 out of the 145 hots-1 rooms were occupied. 

Table 2 summarizes the parking demand ratios derived from the parking occupancy and hotel room 

occupancy data acquired for this analysis. Two sets of ratios are provided: the parking demand ratio 

per hotel room (occupied parking spaces / total hotel rooms), and 'the parking demand ratio par 

occupied hotel room (occupied parking spaces / occupied hotel rooms). 

Table 2 

F'zTh! nr@ Demand Ratios 

C2flsbad Courtyard by Marriott 

F— 

Survey Date 

Occupied Tc2z9 Occupiscl 

and Time Parking HOW H0191 

Space Rooms Rooms 

Parking 

Demand 

Per Room 

Ratio (1) 

Parking 

Demand/ 

Occupied 

Room 

Ratio (2) 

Thursday, 6/24/ 2010 

5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

Friday, 2010 6/25/ 

5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

Saturday, 6/26/ 2010 

5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

106 145 144 0.73 0.74 

96 145 125 0.66 0.77 

110 145 120 0.76 0.9 

Tuesday, 2010 6/29/ 

5:00 AM - 5:30 AM 

91 145 103 

1 

Ratio of occupied parking spaces to total number of hotel rooms 

2) Ratio of occupied parking spaces to occupied hotel rooms. 

0.63 

As shown in Table 2, the highest parking demand per room ratio (0.76) occurred on the Saturday 

morning survey. On Saturday morning the parking demand per occupied room ratio was 0.92. 

It must be noted that although the peak parking demand for the survey days occurred on Saturday 

morning, the peak occupancy of the hotel rooms occurred during the Thursday morning survey. 

Although the hotel was at peak occupancy during the Thursday morning survey, the lowest parking 

demand per occupied room ratio (0.74) was calculated on that survey day. 

As previously mentioned, ITE Parking Generation, 3 Edition includes specific parking characteristics 

data for a Business Hotel. The parking characteristics are derived from research studies conducted 

by ITE. The research studies include a utilization profile along with a formula that describes the

Mr. Evans JN: 55-100693. 001 

July 12, 20"i0 

Flage 4 

realaVoinship between parking demand and the time of day. As noted earlier in this report, lTE only 

provides parking demand data for a Business Hotel use betoeen 1',: 00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., which 

does not account for the time period in which the parking demand peak may actually occur (12:00 

a.m. to 6:00 a.m.). For the purposes of this report, however, it will be assumed the parking demand 

ratios generated by ITE for a Business Hotol reflects the peak parking demand. 

Table 3 summarizes the parking demand data for a Business Hotel as provided in ITE Parking 

Generation, 3r Edition. Table 3 also provides a comparison between the parking demand ratios 

generated by ITE and the parking demand ratios calculated from the results of the parking 

occupancy surveys. 

Parking 

Data 

Land Use 

Table 3 

Comparison of Parking Demand Data 

iTE Parking Generation vs. Parking Occupancy Surveyz 

ITE Parking Demand Data 

Parking Occupancy Survey Results 

Weekday Wee%znd Weekday Weekend 

Parking ParhinjQ Parking Parhine 

Demand Demand Demand Demand 

Business Business Business Business 

Hotel Hotel Hotel Hotel 

Pea% Period 11:00 P.M. - 11:00 P.M. - 5:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. - 

12:00 a.m. 12:00 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 

of Study Sites 3 3 1 1 

Average Size of 

Study Sites 

Average Peak 

Period Parking 

130 rooms 130 rooms 145 rooms 145 rooms 

0.64 vehicles 0.66 vehicles 0.73 vehicles 0.76 vehicles 

per room per room per room per room 

Source: ITE Parking Generation, 3 Edition (2004). 

Parking demand ratio is based on the number of occupied parking spaces to total number of rooms. Highest weekday parking 

demand ratio was used in this table. 

As shown in Table 3, the ITE parking demand data for a Business Hotel indicates a higher parking 

demand on a weekend than on a weekday, with a peak parking demand ratio of 0.66 vehicles per 

room. The results of the parking occupancy surveys show a peak parking demand ratio of 0.76 

vehicles per room, with the highest peak parking demand occurring on a weekend. 

Although typically the highest peak parking demand would coincide with the highest hotel occupancy 

rate, this pattern did not occur during the survey days at the Courtyard by Marriott in Carlsbad. While 

the highest parking demand per hotel room ratio (0.76) and highest parking demand per occupied 

room ratio (0.92) occur on a weekend (Saturday morning), the highest number of occupied rooms 

144) occurred overnight on Wednesday into Thursday morning, which resulted in the lowest parking 

demand per occupied room ratio (0.74) of all the survey days. As can be seen in Table 3, this 

weekday-toweekend 

parking demand relationship is consistent with the results of the ITE studies.

Mr. Evans 

July 2.2U10 

Page 5 

JN:55- 00698.001 

The hotel manager reported that there were not any tour or charter buses that a7rivedom Wednesday 

evening with Quests but there are F, number of other reasons as tovxhv0he parkng demand during 

the Thursday morning survey was so ow when compared with the number of occupied rooms: 

Possible hi proportion of carpomNng hote(gUSStS ta'dnC separate rooms (more common 

with business 

Hi number of hotel guests gettmg picked up by the hotel's normpftemtary shuttle at 

nearbyMo[}|m|| on-PalonlarA/ rporlthan on weekends. 

Higher number of hotel guests checking out before 5:00 a.nn. than onweekends. 

It is reasonable to conclude that the parking demand tends to be lowerdu e week since man, y 

of the hotel guests are business travelers who may carpool or take shuttles from - the airport instead of 

renting vehicles. The majufhote!gueetaonvxeekendoanebJuMo1S' 

vvhotvoicaik/mrhveutthe 

hotel in their own vehicles or in rented vehicles so that they can use the vehicle for sightseeing. 

Based on the results of the parking occupancy surveys and calcuated parking demand ratios, it 

should ba reasonable tnallow a parking natiuthmtks less than 1.2 parking spaces per noorm per the 

City of Oceanside Zoning Ordinance off-streetp& requirements. The results of the parking 

occupancy surveys indicate that the parking eVppk/ at the Carlsbad Courtyard by Maniott is almost 

double the peak parking demand and substantially /eeo parking is needed to meet the actuai peak 

parking demand. |n support of the project's gooUtoincorponabaoanlonyLEEDaNnnnonts as possible 

vve are recommending that the project minimize the number of parking spaces provided so that the 

project is not overparked. 

ARhough the ratio of peak parking demand to total hotel rooms was found tobeonly 0.76 parking 

spaces per room in our survey, it is recommended that the more conservative rat of 0.92 parking 

spaces per gggqgjgd Mohel room found in the survey be used to determine the nninirnunn parking 

requirement at the proposed Court by K88nioK in Oceanside. Applying this noUn to the total 

number of rooms at the proposed hotel would resuit in a minimum parking space requirement of 129 

parking spaces. The proposed hotel will provide a total of '136 parking spaces, which equates to a 

ratio of 0.97 parking spaces per room and seven more parking spaces than the recommended 

minimum requirement based on our survey. The suggested parking ratio (e also conservatively high, 

since no reduction has been applied due to the hotel's proximity to transit service facilities. 

Itieour professional opi UlatthaChxnf[cmaneiden* 

quhenlentforoneodditinna| parking space 

per 5O square-feet ofbanquet seating (or meeting/conference room) area is not applicable to this 

tvoa of hotel and vw]Wkj result in 8si surplus of parking spaces for the proposed hotel. 

Conference odented hotels typically have over 10,000 square feet of meeting room floor area. The 

amount of meeting room floor space in the proposed hotel is merely provided as an onlgDitv and 

convenience to the hotel business guests and is not intended to serve outside conferences.

Mr. Evans JN: 55-100693. 001 

July 12, 2010 

Page 6 

Furthermore, even at conference oriented hotels, the typica€ event attendees wcu>d be comprised of 

a mix of hotel guests and business professionals from outside the hotel who park at the hotel to 

attend the event and then leave. The additional one parking space per 50 square-feet of conference 

room area requirement is based on an assumption that ail of the hotel guests would rernain parked at 

the hotel during the hours of an event and that addition parking is needed to accommodate visitors 

when conferences or other special events are occurring. Based on past parking studies conducted 

by RBF Consulting at conference oriented hotels, the peak parking demand for conference events 

and hotel guests occurs in the late afternoon or early evening and this parking demand is 

approximately the same or less than the overnight hotel guest demand. This suggests that the 

number of non-hotel guest conference attendees is comparable to the number of hotel guests that 

are away from the hotel during the conference event. Many hotel guests are in 'transition (checking 

out or in) or are at destinations outside of the hotel while conferences are occurring. 

Study Recommendations 

The study recommendation is to apply a minimum parking ratio of parking spaces per room 

which equates to a minimum parking space requirement of 12QD parking spaces. 

If you have any questions pertaining to the analysis results surnmarized in this letter, please call me 

at (760) 603-6244, 

Sincerely, 




Attachment F 

Pacific Center East Specific Plan 

Not Provided - Please See City of Tustin Web Site below) 

http:Hwww. 

tustinca.org/ 

departments/"commdev/ 

html #planningZoning

Attachment G 

Resolution No. 4195

RESOLUTION NO. 4195 

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 

THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONCEPT PLAN 

2012 -001, DESIGN REVIEW 2012 -001 AND CONDITIONAL 

USE PERMIT 2012 -01 AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT 

OF AN APPROXIMATELY 196,000 SQUARE FOOT 

COMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT (R.D. OLSON 

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT) AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY 

CORNER OF EDINGER AVENUE AND NEWPORT AVENUE 

WITHIN THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN, 

INCLUDING: 1) A 149 -ROOM, FOUR -STORY RESIDENCE 

INN; 2) A 144 -ROOM, FOUR -STORY FAIRFIELD INN AND 

SUITES; 3) AN 8,885 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT; 4) A 

7,295 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING; AND 5) 

AUTHORIZING A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND JOINT - 

USE PARKING FOR A COORDINATED AND INTEGRATED 

SITE DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT. 

The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 

The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 

A. 

That a proper application for Concept Plan 2012 -001, Design Review 

2012 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 was filed by R. D. Olson 

Development requesting to develop an approximately 196,000 square foot 

commercial mixed -use development including 1) a 149 -room, four story 

Residence Inn; 2) a 144 room, - four -story Fairfield Inn & Suites; 3) an 

8,885 square foot restaurant; and, 4) a 7,295 square foot retail building 

and authorizing a Master Sign Program and Joint -Use Parking for 

coordinated and integrated site design consistent with Disposition and 

Development Agreement (DDA) 2011 -01 and the Pacific Center East 

Specific Plan at Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map No. 2010 -127 and on a 

portion of property identified as the "Water Well Parcel and Easement 

Area. 

B. 

That the site is zoned as Planned Community Commercial (PC COM) and 

is within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (SP 11); and designated as 

Planned Community Commercial /Business (PCCB) by the Tustin General 

Plan. 

C. That Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 5.3 ( Development 

Processing) requires the submission of a concept plan prior to or 

concurrent with the submission of a development project within Planning 

Area 5 for Planning Commission consideration. 

D. 

That Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 5.3 (Development Project 

Review), requires the submission of a Design Review application following

Resolution No. 4195 

CP 2012 -001, DR 2012 -001, CUP 2012 -01 

Page 2 

or concurrently with submittal of a concept plan for review by the Planning 

Commission. 

E. 

That Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 4.6. A.3 (Joint Use of 

Parking Areas) allows Planning Commission consideration of parking 

facilities proposed to be used jointly for uses with significantly different 

peak hours of operation; and Pacific Center East Specific Plan Section 3.8 

Signage Plan) states that a master sign plan is required for all new 

developments, subject to Planning Commission design approval with the 

approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 

F. 

That the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, Tustin City Code, and Ordinance 

No. 1415 authorizes the Tustin Planning Commission to consider and act on 

all of the proposed applications. 

G. 

That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for Concept Plan 

2012 -001, Design Review 2012 -001 and Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 

on April 10, 2012 before the Planning Commission. 

H. That the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Pacific 

Center East Specific Plan and Tustin City Code. 

That Concept Plan 2012 -001 and Design Review 2012 -001 have been 

determined to satisfactorily comply with key Pacific Center East Specific 

Plan objectives, as identified in the April 10, 2012 staff report to the 

Planning Commission. 

J. 

That the Master Sign Program (Exhibit C) and Joint -Use Parking proposed 

as Conditional Use Permit 2012 -01 satisfactorily comply with applicable 

review criteria required by the Tustin City Code, as identified in the April 10, 

2012 staff report to the Planning Commission. 

K. 

That the Tustin City Council certified Final EIR (FEIR) 90 -1 for the Pacific 

Center East Specific Plan on December 17, 1990 and Supplement #1 to 

Final EIR 90 -1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan was adopted May 

5, 2003. The FEIR is a Program EIR under the California Environmental 

Quality Act ( "CEQA. "). The FEIR considered the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the development of the Pacific Center East 

Specific Plan. 

An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that 

concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval 

of the project ( Exhibit B). The Environmental Analysis Checklist 

concludes that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that 

the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment


CP 2012-001, DR 2012-001, CUP 2012-01 

Page 3 

because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed 

adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have 

been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions 

or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 

11. 

The Planning Commission hereby approves Concept Plan 2012-001, Design 

Review 2012-001, and Conditional Use Permit 2012-01 authorizing the 

development of: 1) a 149-room, four-story Residence Inn; 2) a 144-room, four-story 

Fairfield Inn and Suites; 3) an 8,885 square foot restaurant; 4) a 7,295 square foot 

retail building; and 5) approval of CUP 2012-001 authorizing a Master Sign 

Program (Exhibit C) and Joint-Use Parking for a coordinated and integrated site 

design for the project, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A attached 

hereto. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular 

meeting held on the 10 day of April, 2012. 

ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 

Planning Commission Secretary 

JEFF R. THOMPSON 

Chairperson 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF ORANGE 

CITY OF TUSTIN 

1, Elizabeth A. 

Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning 

Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4195 was 

duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held 

on the 10 day of April, 2012. 

ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 

Planning Commission Secretary

Exhibit A

RESOLUTION NO. 4195 

CONCEPT PLAN 2012 -001, DESIGN REVIEW 2012 -001 AND 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012 -01 (R. D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT) 

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 

s .•:_ 

1) 1.1 

The proposed project shall substantially conform to the submitted plans for the 

project date stamped April 10, 2012, on file with the Community Development 

Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Community 

Development Director in accordance with this Exhibit. In addition, the proposal 

includes a mixed -use commercial development that will require tenant - initiated 

exterior design improvements and modifications. The Director may approve 

subsequent minor modifications to all plans during plan check as well as any 

subsequent tenant - generated design improvements and modifications if such 

modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code or other 

applicable regulations. 

1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be 

complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, 

subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. 

1) 1.3 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for the 

proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway within 

twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be 

considered if a written request is received by the Community Development 

Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. 

1) 1.4 Approval of Concept Plan 2012 -001, Design Review 2012 -001 and Conditional 

Use Permit 2012 -01 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner 

signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized 

Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and 

recording with the County Clerk- Recorder a revised, notarized " Notice of 

Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval' form. The forms 

shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence 

of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. 

1) 1.5 

Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the issuance of an 

Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 1162(a). 

SOURCE CODES 

1) STANDARD CONDITION 5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT 

2) CEQA MITIGATION 6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES 

3) CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE /S 7) PC /CC POLICY 

4) DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTION

Exhibit A 


Page 2 

1) 1.6 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary 

code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable 

notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by 

ordinance. 

1) 1.7 The applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, 

and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, 

from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, 

its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, 

void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any 

other decision - making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City 

agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against 

the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, 

at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action 

under this condition. 

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE RDA 

1) 2.1 The proposed 12 foot - high wall is nearly double the maximum permitted wall 

height of 6 foot, - 8- inches pursuant to the Specific Plan. Prior to issuance of 

grading permit, the applicant shall revise the sound wall height on the plans 

to either be consistent with the maximum permitted wall height per the 

Specific Plan or obtain approval of a Variance or Minor Adjustment from the 

Community Development Department for any wall higher than the permitted 

wall height demonstrating there are special circumstances applicable to the 

property and that approval of the Variance or Minor Adjustment would not 

constitute a grant of special privileges. 

4) 2.2 Given the high visibility and proximity to the S.R. 55 Freeway, and that the 

above referenced wall will be completely exposed without any landscape 

screening (e.g. trees, vines on wall, etc.), the subject wall will be extremely 

susceptible to acts of graffiti. Therefore, the applicant shall demonstrate during 

the plan check process, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community 

Development and Successor Agency, how the wall landscaping 

/ 

are 

intentionally designed to mitigate acts of graffiti including treatments that will be 

an architectural enhancement to the feeling of a walled barrier (i.e., decorative 

pylons with stone facing, staggered setbacks, integration with landscaping). 

The property owner shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the City for 

removal of graffiti from the wall. 

4) 2.3 The S.R. 55 Freeway portion of the development is the most visible aspect of 

the development site and of the overall Pacific Center East project as a whole. 

As proposed, the above referenced 12 foot - high by 810 -foot long wall would be 

constructed along the property line immediately adjacent to the S.R. 55 

Freeway and on /off ramp. While landscaping is proposed along a small portion 

of the wall (California Gray Rush and Star Jasmine) consistent with the Tustin

Exhibit A 


Page 3 

Gateway Master Plan, it was never envisioned that such a 12 -foot high wall 

might be located immediately behind low groundcover and shrubs at this 

location. With the nearby freeway and on /off ramp nearly at the same grade as 

the south end of the project site, the large wall is highly exposed and should be 

designed to either complement the lower landscaping, or the Developer should 

consider installing higher landscape elements (i.e. trees and or climbing vines) 

to complement the wall (including enhancement of the wall design itself) and to 

enhance the overall project entry as it is already the Developer's responsibility 

to install and maintain landscaping within the public right -of -way per the DDA. 

4) 2.4 

The trash enclosure areas have been integrated closer to the buildings for 

practical purposes for the restaurant and retail buildings as previously 

requested; however, it is unclear the path of travel for the trash bins from the 

building to a place where the trash company will have adequate access to 

empty the bins. It appears that a loading area about the size of a parking 

space is located nearby with a wheel stop and full- height curb preventing the 

use of anything on wheels. The plan will need to be revised to clearly 

demonstrate the adequate path of travel. Prior to permit issuance, the 

applicant shall revise the plan to clearly demonstrate an adequate path of 

travel for the trash bins to be located within the service area for Parcel B 

restaurant and retail buildings to a locations that are accessible to the trash 

company, which will require the trash bins to be rolled out to the nearest 

driveway through an area unobstructed by parking spaces. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

6) 3.1 Prior to permit issuance, the proposed landscape plans shall be revised to 

ensure the installation of dense landscaping in front of all proposed retaining 

walls that are prominently visible from the public right -of -way for screening 

purposes. 

1) 3.2 The applicant shall implement noise upgrades per the Tustin Noise 

Ordinance and submitted Noise Study (Attachment 1). 

1) 3.3 Landscaping shall comply with the City's Water Efficiency standards. 

1) 3.4 All utilities shall be located underground. 

1) 3.5 

The applicant shall obtain approval for a proposed Lot Line Adjustment in 

compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the Tustin City Code, and the City 

of Tustin's Subdivision Manual. 

1) 3.6 The parking lot landscaping screening shall comply with PCESP Section 

4.8F.

Exhibit A 


Page 4 

1) 3.7 A reciprocal access agreement encompassing the entire site (for joint -use 

parking, site and building access, etc.) shall be submitted for review and 

approval by the Director of Community Development. Upon approval of the 

Director, said agreement shall be recorded against the property. 

1) 3.8 Proposed signs shall comply with visual clearance requirements. 

4) 3.9 All building downspouts shall be located inside the building. 

4) 3.10 Prior to issuance of building permits for all buildings, exterior color, design 

and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Community 

Development Department to ensure consistency with submitted plans and 

quality assurance. 

4) 3.11 Prior to issuance of a building permit for perimeter fences and /or walls, the 

specific design, placement, screening, height, and other design components 

of the proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of 

Community Development. The fence and /or wall design proposed to occur 

along the perimeter of the property shall be compatible with the overall 

project design, as determined by the Director of Community Development. 

4) 3.12 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the design, location, and 

placement of required screening for rooftop or ground level - equipment (e.g., 

parapets, fencing, panels, etc.) shall be reviewed and approved by the 

Director of Community Development. As directed, minor revisions to the 

parapet design or other building elevation design elements shall be made to 

ensure that all roof top - equipment is adequately screened to the satisfaction 

of the Director of Community Development. 

4) 3.13 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall submit to 

the Director of Community Development for approval the proposed 

construction phasing for the project to ensure that phasing is consistent with 

the assumptions used in the Joint -Use Parking Analysis, and to ensure that 

aesthetically appropriate phased development of the site is accomplished. 

Approval of the phasing plan may result in required revisions to the parking 

analysis or the installation of interim landscaping, circulation or other design 

solutions by the Director of Community Development. 

4) 3.14 Review of the submitted plans appears to indicate that one of the two 

commercial buildings may be placed too close to a required street setback 

from Newport Avenue (35 feet required). Prior to the issuance of a building 

permit, all structures shall be located to comply with Pacific Center East 

Specific Plan requirements.

Exhibit A 


Page 5 

BUILDING DIVISION 

1) 4.1 

At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the latest 

edition of the codes, City Ordinances, State, Federal laws, and regulations as 

adopted by the City Council of the City of Tustin. 

1) 4.2 Prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit to 

testing the building for compliance with Tustin City Code Section 8950 et. al. 

regarding 800 MHz radio frequency for police and emergency 

communications). 

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 

GRADING AND DRAINAGE CONDITIONS 

1) 5.1 

This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of 

Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State, and Regional Water 

Quality Control Board rules and regulations. 

1) 5.2 Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all work related to 

this development shall be required. 

1) 5.3 

Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a final grading plan, prepared by a 

California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted and approved. The 

plan shall be consistent with the approved site plan and landscaping plans. 

1) 5.4 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a grading bond (on a form acceptable 

to the City) will be required. The engineer's estimate, which covers the cost 

of all work shown on the grading plan, including grading, drainage, water, 

sewer and erosion control, shall be submitted to the City for approval. 

1) 5.5 A complete hydrology study and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to 

the City for review and approval. 

1) 5.6 

Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by 

the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water 

Quality Management Plan (WQMP). If the WQMP has been determined to 

be a 

Priority WQMP, it shall identify Low Impact Development ( LID) 

principles and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on -site 

to retain storm water and treat predictable pollutant run -off. The Priority 

WQMP shall identify: the implementation of BMPs, the assignment of longterm 

maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, 

maintenance association, lessees, etc.), and reference to the location(s) of 

structural BMPs.

Exhibit A 


Page 6 

1) 5.7 Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan ( WQMP), the 

applicant shall submit a deposit of $2,700. to the Public Works Department 

for the estimated cost of reviewing the WQMP. 

1) 5.8 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall record a " Covenant and 

Agreement Regarding O & M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality 

BMPs, Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification ", with the County Clerk - 

Recorder. These documents shall bind current and future owner(s) of the 

property regarding implementation and maintenance of the structural and 

non - structural BMPs as specified in the approved WQMP. 

1) 5.9 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the 

Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General 

Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity 

from the State Water Resources Quality Control Board. 

1) 5.10 The applicant shall be required to execute a drainage agreement with the 

City of Tustin, at no cost to the City, to accept drainage from City of Tustin's 

property within Santa Ana which will flow onto the private drives /parking 

areas and into the private storm drain system. This drainage agreement 

shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit. 

STREET IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS 

1) 5.11 Prior to any work in the public right -of -way, an Encroachment Permit shall be 

obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. 

1) 5.12 Prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the applicant shall submit to 

the Public Works Department 24" x 36" reproducible street improvement 

plans, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, for approval. 

The plans shall clearly show existing and proposed surface and underground 

improvements, including construction and /or replacement of any missing or 

damaged public improvements adjacent to this development. Said plans 

shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

a) Curb and gutter h) Domestic water facilities 

b) Sidewalk, including curb ramps i) Reclaimed water facilities 

for the physically disabled j) Sanitary sewer facilities 

c) Drive aprons k) Landscape irrigation / 

d) Signing /striping 1) Dry utility lines 

e) Street paving m) Traffic signal 

f) Street lighting 

g) Catch basin /storm drain laterals/ 

connection to existing storm drain system

Exhibit A 


Page 7 

1) 

5.13 Prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit for construction within the 

public right -of -way, a 24" x 36" construction area traffic control plan, as 

prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer, or Civil Engineer 

experienced in this type of plan preparation, shall be prepared and submitted 

to the Public Works Department for approval. 

1) 5.14 Current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements shall be 

met at all driveways and sidewalks adjacent to the site. City of Tustin 

standards shall apply, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 

1) 5.15 The applicant shall coordinate the relocation of an existing Southern 

California Edison (SCE) street light with SCE. The applicant shall be 

responsible for all costs associated with the relocation of the SCE street light. 

1) 5.16 Any damage done to existing public street improvements and /or utilities shall 

be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer before issuance of a 

Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 

1) 5.17 As the development progresses in the Pacific Center East area, the property 

owners may feel that the installation of a traffic signal at the project entrance 

may increase accessibility and convenience for drivers patronizing the 

businesses in the area. At that time, and at the request and expense of the 

property owners, the City would investigate the traffic conditions and 

determine if a traffic signal would be warranted. If warranted and determined 

to be beneficial, the adjacent property owners would be responsible for the 

cost of design and construction of a traffic signal to serve their uses. 

1) 5.18 The applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the 

City of Tustin for maintenance of parkway improvements within public rightsof-way 

adjacent to the project along Newport Avenue and Edinger Avenue 

along the project frontage and the City of Tustin's property within Santa Ana 

between the SR55- Freeway and the Tustin City boundary on Edinger 

Avenue). 

1) 5.19 The applicant shall design and construct sidewalk, landscape and irrigation 

system improvements along the project frontage on Newport Avenue and 

behind the curb ramp at Newport Avenue /SR55- Freeway onramp. The 

applicant shall design and construct landscape and irrigation system 

improvements in the public right -of -way adjacent to the SR55- Freeway 

northbound onramp, and along the project frontage and the City of Tustin's 

property within Santa Ana between the SR55- Freeway and the Tustin City 

boundary on Edinger Avenue. The sidewalk and landscape improvements 

shall be consistent with the City's Gateway and Landscape design currently 

being prepared. The applicant shall coordinate the design, the construction 

and be responsible for all costs associated with the work adjacent to the City 

of Tustin's property within the City of Santa Ana.

Exhibit A 


Page 8 

1) 5.20 The applicant shall design and construct the onsite improvements within the 

City of Tustin's property in the City of Santa Ana, at no cost to the City of 

Tustin, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements include, 

but are not limited to: paving, concrete curb & gutter, trash enclosure, 

landscape & irrigation system, parking lot lighting, and signing & striping. 

COORDINATION WITH AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND AGENCIES 

1) 5.21 The applicant shall obtain permission from and coordinate with affected 

property owners, jurisdictions, and resources agencies for all public and 

private improvements, including, but not limited to, the following: 

a. Prior to any work in the public right -of -way, an Encroachment Permit shall 

be obtained and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. 

b. The applicant shall obtain written approval and /or permits from the 

applicable utility companies. 

c. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permits from the City of Santa 

Ana for Edinger Avenue frontage parkway improvements within the City 

of Santa Ana. 

d. The applicant shall obtain all approvals and permit(s) from the California 

Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) for work within Caltrans' 

property. The applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance 

agreement with Caltrans for maintenance of the landscape and irrigation 

improvements within the public right -of -way adjacent to the SR55- 

Freeway northbound onramp. 

WATER IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS 

1) 5.22 Prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the applicant shall submit 24" x 

36" reproducible water improvement plans to the Public Works Department 

for review and approval. The plans shall be prepared by a California 

Registered Civil Engineer and shall clearly show existing and proposed water 

improvements, as well as other topographic features and underground 

utilities. Plans must follow the latest City of Tustin Water Standards and the 

American Water Works Association ( AWWA) guidelines. In case of a 

conflict, the City of Tustin Water Standards shall prevail. 

1) 5.23 In accordance with the plans, a backflow prevention device may be required 

to protect the public water system from cross connections. 

A. If a double check detector assembly (DCDA) is required, an easement 

for public utility access purposes must be dedicated to the City of Tustin. 

The easement shall start from the public right of - way - up to the DCDA

Exhibit A 


Page 9 

with a minimum distance of five (5) feet all around the DCDA to allow for 

unobstructed access, inspection, testing, and maintenance. 

B. If a building sprinkler system is required by the Orange County Fire 

Authority (OCFA), the applicant shall be required to provide a backflow 

prevention device at his or her expense to prevent cross contamination 

with the public water system. 

C. If the applicant proposes to use an irrigation system, then a separate 

water meter may be required. If this is the case, a reduced pressure 

principle assembly (RPPA) shall be required to prevent cross- connection 

with the public water system. 

1) 5.24 The applicant is responsible for all costs related to the installation, upgrade, 

alteration, relocation or abandonment of all existing City of Tustin public 

water facilities affected by the proposed project. 

1) 5.25 A release /approval from the EOCWD shall be obtained prior to receiving 

water service from the City of Tustin. The applicant shall submit a water 

permit application to EOCWD, and is responsible for all application, 

connection and other EOCWD fees. 

1) 5.26 The adequacy of a proposed water system plan for a proposed development 

project, including the number, size and distribution of fire hydrants, must be 

reviewed by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Plans meeting 

OCFA fire protection requirements must be stamped and approved by that 

agency. 

1) 5.27 The proposed domestic water system plans must conform to all applicable 

regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department. 

1) 5.28 In the event the construction of the City's water well project is delayed and to 

eliminate the impact to the newly constructed improvements on the 

applicant's property, the applicant may be required to construct the City 

designed water discharge pipeline, storm drain, and sewer lateral from the 

future City of Tustin water well to the existing improvements in Edinger 

Avenue through a reimbursement agreement with the City. 

GRANT IN FEE AND DEDICATIONS 

1) 5.29 All legal descriptions and sketches of easement areas or dedications shall be 

prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer or California Licensed 

Land Surveyor and submitted to the City of Tustin Public Works Department 

for review and approval.

Exhibit A 


Page 10 

1) 5.30 The main entry to the site shall to conform to City Standard Drawing 210 with 

the appropriate corner cutoffs, which will require dedication in fee title of 

additional right -of -way, at no cost to the City. 

1) 5.31 Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide access 

and maintenance easements for the construction and maintenance of public 

utility facilities within the private property, at no cost to the City. The final 

location and width of easements shall be reviewed and approved by the City 

Engineer. 

1) 5.32 Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall offer for 

dedication to the City of Tustin, at no cost to the City, an easement for public 

utility purposes from the City's future well site to the public right -of -way. The 

final location and width of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by 

the City Engineer. 

1) 5.33 Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall dedicate full 

access and parking easements to the City of Tustin across all properties, at 

no cost to the City. 

1) 5.34 Prior to issuance of any building permit, reciprocal ingress and egress, 

parking, and pedestrian access shall be provided across all parcels including 

the City of Tustin's property within Santa Ana. 

SOLID WASTE RECYCLING CONDITIONS 

1) 5.35 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Reduction Plan (WRRP). 

A. The applicant /contractor is required to submit a WRRP to the Public 

Works Department. The WRRP must indicate how the applicant will 

comply with the City's requirement (City Code Section 4351, et al) to 

recycle at least 50% of the project waste material. 

B. The applicant will be required to submit a $50.00 application fee and a 

cash security deposit. Based on the review of the submitted Waste 

Management Plan, the cash security deposit will be determined by the 

Public Works Department in an amount not to exceed 5% of the project's 

valuation. 

C. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit the required 

security deposit in the form of cash, cashier's check, personal check, or 

money order made payable to the "City of Tustin ". 

OTHER CONDITIONS 

1) 5.36 The applicant shall satisfy dedication and /or reservation requirements as 

applicable, including, but not limited to, dedication in Fee Title of all required

Exhibit A 


Page 11 

street rights -of -way; dedication of all required flood control right -of -way 

easements; and dedication of vehicular access rights, sewer easements, and 

water easements defined and approved as to specific locations by the City 

Engineer (at no cost to the City) and /or other agencies. 

1) 5.37 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit(s), payment of the most current Major 

Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees ( for the Foothill /Eastern Transportation 

Corridor Agency (TCA)) to the City of Tustin (through the Public Works 

Department) shall be required. Based upon the proposed non - residential 

project of 198,450 square feet ( Marriott Residence Inn - 105,240 sf, 

restaurants- 8,900 sf & 3,100 sf, retail- 4,200 sf, and Fairfield Inn & Suites - 

77,010 sf), at the current rate of $ 4.01 per square foot, the estimated TCA 

fee is $ 795,784. 50. The fee rate schedule automatically increases on July 

1St of each year. 

1) 5.38 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit(s), the applicant shall provide written 

approval of sanitary sewer service connections from the Orange County 

Sanitation District (OCSD). 

1) 5.39 CADD Requirements - In addition to the normal full -size map and plan 

submittal, all final maps and plans including, but not limited to, tract maps, 

parcel maps, right -of - way maps, records of survey, public works 

improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and 

site plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department in computer 

aided design and drafting (CADD) format to the satisfaction of the City 

Engineer. The standard file format is AutoCAD Release 2007, or latest 

version, having the extension "DWG ". All layering and linotype conventions 

are AutoCAD -based (latest version available upon request from the Public 

Works Department). The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the 

time plans are approved, and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" 

conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. No 

project bonds will be released until acceptable "as built" CADD files have 

been submitted to the City. 

ENGINEERING DIVISION 

1) 5.40 The "Public Circulation" easement proposed at the corner of Edinger Avenue 

Newport Avenue is a part of the onsite landscape and sign area, not an 

easement. Please remove the "Public Circulation" easement submittal 

package. 

1) 5.41 The Utility Access Easement, Water Well Utility Alignment Easement, and 

Reciprocal Parking & Access Easement need to be reviewed concurrently 

with the final layout and improvement plans during the final design. Please 

see attached redlined plats for comments and the Conditions of Approval for 

requirements.

Exhibit A 


Page 12 

1) 5.42 Preliminary Grading Plan ( Third request) - Prior to approval of the grading 

plan, the applicant shall provide more detail for the retaining wall 

improvements and address the potential for cross flow through the wall from 

the adjacent Caltrans site. The runoff should not be directed to the wall 

unless provision is made for openings to allow pass through drainage. 

Typically, runoff should be directed away from walls, or to a dedicated 

drainage swale for conveyance. 

1) 5.43 Preliminary Grading Plan ( Third request) - Offsite watershed and topography 

is shown between the freeway and the site, but it does not effectively identify 

how the offsite drainage is conveyed away from the site. Although an 

assertion is made in the hydrology study and in the response letter that no 

storm water enters the site from the freeway area, the existing topography 

and drainage elements still do not adequately show how the adjacent 

property addresses its drainage, and how the proposed site improvements 

match up. 

1) 5.44 Preliminary Grading Plan (Third request) Prior to approval of the grading 

plan, an escape route, or additional storage area, needs to be provided for 

flow that will exceed the 25 year capacity of the detention basin so that the 

freeway access ramp is not flooded in a major storm event. The escape 

route or additional storage area needs to be delineated with a horizontal 

layout and elevation for comparison. 

1) 5.45 WQMP /Hydrology - The hydrology study analyzes the runoff for the individual 

areas of the project, but will need to be revised per comments provided 

above and below to properly incorporate into the analysis and the 

calculations deficiencies and controls from downstream systems. It still 

appears that much is left to assumption at this point, and much of the 

analysis is being deferred to the final design. The report states that some 

information was not available at the time this version of the study was 

prepared, and certain assumptions are made related to combined runoff and 

the capacity of downstream controls. Also, no provisions are made to 

describe anticipated sizes for piping, especially in relation to conditions 

where pipelines are used for storage. Given that there is potential for 

flooding of the freeway access lanes south of the project, and also given that 

the WQMP still does not completely follow the procedural analysis for 

implementation and mitigation through the BMP hierarchy ( such as in the 

northeast corner of the site), 

is suggested that the drainage routing, storage 

and downstream controls be reconsidered in relation with the available 

studies and per the current requirements of the storm water program. 

1) 5.46 WQMP /Hydrology - Redlined comments in the WQMP and the hydrology 

study for concerns and corrections must be addressed and resubmitted for 

review and approval (available at CDD).

Exhibit A 


Page 13 

1) 5.47 WQMP / Hydrology - ( Third request) An overflow route and limit for storm 

water from the basin shall be defined to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

If additional storage is necessary around the site to minimize back up of the 

Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) in the pipe system, it should be implemented 

and analyzed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (OCFA) 

5) 6.1 The applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Chief for all fire protection 

access roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the structure. 

The applicant may contact the OCFA at (714) 573 -6100 or visit the OCFA 

website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access." 

5) 6.2 The applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The "Orange 

County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection" form shall be 

signed by the applicable water district and submitted to the Fire Chief for 

approval. 

5) 6.3 

The applicant shall submit plans for the required automatic fire sprinkler 

system in all proposed structures to the Fire Chief for review and approval. 

Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573 -6100 to request a copy of the "Orange 

County Fire Authority Notes for New NFPA 13 Commercial Sprinkler 

Systems." 

5) 6.4 

Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, this system shall be 

operational in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. 

FEES 

1) 7.1 Prior to issuance of any permits, payment shall be made of all applicable 

fees, including but not limited to, the following: 

Building Plan Check and Permit Fees 

Grading Plan Check and Permit Fees 

New Development Fees 

School Fees 

Orange County Fire Authority Fees 

Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees 

2) 7.2 

Within forty -eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant 

shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S 

CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) 

to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the 

project. If within such forty -eight (48) hour period the applicant has not

Exhibit A 


Page 14 

delivered to the Community Development Department the above -noted 

check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the 

environmental determination under the provisions of the California 

Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 

300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 

714) 573 -3100 

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST 

For Projects With Previously Certified /Approved Environmental Documents: 

Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90 -1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan 

The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an 

earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to 

Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. 

Project Title(s): Commercial Mixed Use Development (Hotel and Retail), CP 2012 -001, CUP 

2012 -00 and DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) totaling approximately 

196,000 square feet. A separate Lot Line Adjustment application (exempt under 

CEQA) has been submitted to the Public Works Department. 

Lead Agency: 

City of Tustin 

Lead Agency Contact Person: Dana L. Ogdon, AICP Phone: (714) 573 -3109 

300 Centennial Way 

Project Location: 

Portion of Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map No. 2010 -127 within the City of Tustin 

and on a portion of property located immediately adjacent to a Cal Trans Remnant 

parcel identified as the "Water Well and Easement Area" within the City of Santa 

Ana. 

Project Sponsor's 

Name and Address: Anthony 

Wrzosek, Vice President, R.D. Olson 

Development. 2955 Main Street, Third Floor, Irvine, 

California 92614 

General Plan Designation: 

PC Commercial /Business 

Zoning Designation: SP 11 Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -01 

Planning Area 5 (Regional Center) 

Project Description: The proposal involves: 1) a 149 -room, four story Residence Inn; 2) a 144 -room, 

four story Fairfield Inn & Suites; 3) an 8,885 sq. ft. restaurant; and, 4) one 7,295 square foot retail 

building. The project will implement the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.

Surrounding Uses: 

Northerly along Edinger Avenue - Vacant and industrial uses zoned Planned Development (PC) 

within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and further north residential uses. 

Easterly - Vacant, industrial and office uses zoned Planned Development (PC) uses within the 

Pacific Center East Specific Plan and further east of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan 

industrial, offices and public and quasi - public uses zoned Industrial (M) and MCAS Tustin 

Specific Plan. 

Southerly - Industrial and office uses zoned Industrial (M), Planned Community (PC) Industrial, 

and SP3 - International Rectifier Specific Plan uses. 

Westerly - Costa Mesa 55 Freeway and further west of the Freeway industrial and commercial 

uses within the City of Santa Ana. 

Previous Environmental Documentation: Final FIR 90 -1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan 

adopted December 17, 1990. Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90 -1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan 

adopted May 5, 2003. 

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one 

impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. 

Land Use and Planning 

Population and Housing 

Geology and Soils 

Hydrology and Water Quality 

Air Quality 

Transportation & Circulation 

Biological Resources 

Mineral Resources 

Agricultural Resources 

and Hazardous Materials 

ONoise 

Public Services 

Utilities and Service Systems 

Aesthetics 

Resources 

Recreation 

Mandatory Findings of 

Significance 

C. DETERMINATION: 

On the basis of this initial evaluation: 

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a 

NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will 

not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet 

have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one 

effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 

2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached 

sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." 

An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that 

remain to be addressed. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL 

NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed 

adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated 

pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the 

proposed project. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL 

NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed 

adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have 

been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or 

mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 

Preparer: -°-. 

Dan 

don, AICP Ass 

Director 

Elizabeth A. Binsack, Assistant City Manager 

Date:- 

S -! 

Date ` 

D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

See Attached

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: 

No Substantial 

New More Change From 

Significant Severe Previous 

Impact Impacts Analysis 

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 

limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings 

within a state scenic highway? 

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 

quality of the site and its surroundings? 

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 

would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining 

whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant 

environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the 

California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment 

Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of 

Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts 

on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland 

of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps 

prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 

Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural 

use? 

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 

Williamson Act contract? 

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, 

due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 

Farmland, to non - agricultural use? 

III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance 

criteria established by the applicable air quality management 

or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the 

following determinations. Would the project: 

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 

air quality plan? 

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 

to an existing or projected air quality violation? 

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 

criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment 

under an applicable federal or state ambient air 

quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed 

quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 

concentrations? 

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 

of people?

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: 





a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 

through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a 

candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or 

regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California 

Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service? 

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat 

or other sensitive natural community identified in local or 

regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California 

Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service? 

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 

wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) 

through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or 

other means? 

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 

resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with 

established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or 

impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 

biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 

ordinance? 

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or 

other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation 

plan? 

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: 

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 

a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? 

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 

an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? 

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 

resource or site or unique geologic feature? 

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 

outside of formal cemeteries? 

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: 

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 

adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death 

involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 

most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 

issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other 

substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of 

Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 





ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 

iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? 

iv) Landslides? 

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or 

that would become unstable as a result of the project, and 

potentially result in on- or off site - landslide, lateral spreading, 

subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B 

of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial 

risks to life or property? 

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 

septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where 

sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 

VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Would the project: 

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 

environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of 

hazardous materials? 

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 

environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and 

accident conditions involving the release of hazardous 

materials into the environment? 

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 

hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter 

mile of an existing or proposed school? 

d) Be located on a site which is included on a fist of 

hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government 

Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a 

significant hazard to the public or the environment? 

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 

where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a 

public airport or public use airport, would the project result in 

a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project 

area? 

fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 

would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing 

or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an 

adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 

plan? 





h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 

injury or death involving wildland fires, including where 

wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences 

are intermixed with wildlands? 

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would 

the project: 

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 

requirements? 

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 

substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would 

be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 

groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting 

nearby wells would drop to a level which would not 

support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits 

have been granted)? 

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 

or area, including through the alteration of the course of a 

stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial 

erosion or siltation on- or off site? - 

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 

or area, including through the alteration of the course of a 

stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of 

surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor 

off site? - 

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 

capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems 

or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 

I) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 

g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as 

mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood 

Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 

h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures 

which would impede or redirect flood flows? 

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 

injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a 

levee or dam? 

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: 

a) Physically divide an established community?

) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 

regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project 

including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, 

local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the 

purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 





c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 

natural community conservation plan? 

X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: 

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 

resource that would be of value to the region and the residents 

of the state? 

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important 

mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general 

plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 

XI. NOISE — 

Would the project result in: 

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 

excess of standards established in the local general plan or 

noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels 

in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 

project? 

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient 

noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 

without the project? 

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 

where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a 

public airport or public use airport, would the project expose 

people residing or working in the project area to excessive 

noise levels? 

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 

would the project expose people residing or working in the 

project area to excess noise levels? 

XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: 

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either 

directly (for example, by proposing new homes and 

businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of 

roads or other infrastructure)? 

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 

necessitating the construction of replacement housing 

elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 

construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 





XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical 

impacts associated with the provision of new or physically 

altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically 

altered governmental facilities, the construction of which 

could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to 

maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other 

performance objectives for any of the public services; 

Fire protection? 

Police protection? 

Schools? 

Parks? 

Other public facilities? 

XIV. RECREATION — 

a) Would the project increase the use of existing 

neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational 

facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the 

facility would occur or be accelerated? 

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require 

the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which 

might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 

XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC — Would the project; 

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation 

to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system 

i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of 

vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or 

congestion at intersections)? 

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 

service standard established by the county congestion 

management agency for designated roads or highways? 

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either 

an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results 

in substantial safety risks? 

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g 

sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 

e.g., farm equipment)? 

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 

supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, 

bicycle racks)? 





XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — 

Would the project; 

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 

wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing 

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant 

environmental effects? 

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water 

drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the 

construction of which could cause significant environmental 

effects? 

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 

project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or 

expanded entitlements needed? 

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 

provider which serves or may serve the project that it has 

adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in 

addition to the provider's existing commitments? 

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 

to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 

regulations related to solid waste? 

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 

of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 

wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop 

below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 

animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of 

a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important 

examples of the major periods of California history or 

prehistory? 

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 

limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively 

" 

considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project 

are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects 

of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the 

effects of probable future projects)? 

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will 

cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either 

directly or indirectly?

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (HOTEL AND RETAIL), CUP 2012-01, 

CP 2012-001 AND DR 2012-001 (R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT) 

BACKGROUND 

On February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council adopted the Pacific Center East Specific 

Plan and on April 19, 2011 adopted Specific Plan Amendment 11-001. Pacific Center 

East is comprised of approximately 126 acres and is bounded on the west by the State 

Route 55 Freeway, on the north by the Santa Ana-Santa Fe Channel, on the east by 

Red Hill Avenue and on the south by Valencia Avenue. The Tustin City Council certified 

Final EIR (FEIR) 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan on December 17, 1990 

and Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan was 

adopted May 5, 2003. The FEIR is a Program EIR under the California Environmental 

Quality Act (" CEQA."). The FEIR considered the potential environmental impacts 

associated with the development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. 

The proposed "Project" is for Commercial Mixed Use Development (Hotel and Retail), 

requiring City approval of Concept Plan (CP) 2012-001, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 

2012-01 for shared parking and a Master Sign Program; and Design Review (DR) 2012- 

001 for design review of the approximately 196,000 square foot complex. A separate 

Lot Line Adjustment application (exempt under CEQA) has been submitted to the Public 

Works Department. The project developer and applicant is R.D. Olson Development. 

The Project involves: 1) a 149-room, four story Residence Inn; 2) a 144-room, four story 

Fairfield Inn & 

Suites; 3) an 8,885 sq. ft. restaurant; and, 4) one 7,295 square foot retail 

building that implements the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Improvements will 

include, but not be limited to buildings, architectural amenities, parking, security lighting, 

pedestrian amenities, and trash enclosures. Design of all improvements within the City 

of Tustin on Parcels 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map 2010-127 will be consistent with 

requirements of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, development standards 

contained in Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) 2011 -01 between the City 

of Tustin and Olson Real Estate Group, Inc., and additional requirements contained in 

any conditions of approval required for the entitlements for the Project. Any 

improvements to the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area will be consistent with 

requirements to support the site's use as a public utility as approved by the City Water 

Department. 

The Project is located on properties legally described as Parcels 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel 

Map 2010-127 ("Development Parcels") and an excess Cal Trans Property ("Water Well 

Parcel and Easement Area") adjacent to the SR-55 (Costa Mesa) Freeway. The Project 

was 

previously envisioned per the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 

CUP 2012 -001 AND DR 2012 -001 (R.D. Olson Development) 

Page 2 

An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined 

that this Project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIR and that 

pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no 

new effects could occur, and no new 

mitigation measures would be required. 

Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. 

The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in 

the Environmental Analysis Checklist. 

1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: 

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, 

trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic 

highway? 

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site 

and its surroundings? 

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely 

affect day or nighttime views in the area? 

The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East 

Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development 

potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, the 

development associated with the Project is not located on a scenic highway, nor 

will the Project affect a scenic vista. Development of the site was considered 

within the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, and will have no negative aesthetic 

effect on the site or its surroundings when mitigation measures identified in the 

FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Development of the Project requires Design 

Review approval; however, as required per the DDA, the Project will have a 

consistent architecture style evident in all elements of design, from all elevations 

of the structures and treatment of roofs and parapets, down to smaller elements 

such as street furniture and trash enclosures. 

Particular attention is expected to be paid to massing, scale, color, and 

expression of such quality for the Project to be true to the distinctive and unique 

elements of Tustin, the Tustin Gateway area and the Pacific Center East Pacific 

Plan, and that will be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. Provisions 

of the Specific Plan ensure that all exterior lighting will be required to be designed 

to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding 

properties. The Water Department will review all improvements to the Water Well 

Parcel and Easement Area for compliance with utility related standards. The 

proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts 

previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1.



Page 3 

Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin 

City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be 

included, when specifically applicable, as conditions of the requested entitlement 

approvals or by the Water Department for development of the Water Well Parcel 

and Easement Area. 

Sources: 

Field Observations 

FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 

Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11 -001 

Tustin General Plan 

DDA 2011 -01 

Submitted Project Plans 

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to 

agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies 

may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site 

Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation 

as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and 

farmland. Would the project: 

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide 

Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the 

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources 

Agency, to non - agricultural use? 

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act 

contract? 

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their 

location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural 

use? 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, the Project 

would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide 

importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and 

Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non - agricultural use. 

Also, the property is not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, 

nor does the allowed use involve other changes to the existing environment that 

could result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use. The proposed 

Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts 

previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement # 1. There is no



Page 4 

possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the 

environment. 

Mitigation /Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required. 

Sources: 





Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 


111. 

AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the 

applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be 

relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality 

plan? 

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing 

or projected air quality violation? 

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 

pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an 

applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard ( including 

releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone 

precursors)? 

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, Final EIR 90- 

1 determined that regional ambient air quality conditions, combined with regional 

cumulative traffic, contribute to the exceedance of daily State and Federal 

standards for several air pollutants. Consequently, mitigation measures were 

identified in Final EIR 90 -1 to minimize these impacts. However, in approving the 

Specific Plan, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the Tustin 

City Council on December 17, 1990 for cumulative air quality impacts that could not 

be mitigated. Since the proposed Project would implement development 

consistent with the Specific Plan, all environmental impacts related to the project 

and the development of the site were considered in the adopted FEIR, as revised 

by Supplement #1. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to 

the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by



Page 5 

Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a 

significant effect on the environment. 

Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the 

Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Any 

applicable mitigation measures will be included in the recommended entitlement 

approvals for the Project or activities within the Water Well Parcel and Easement 

Area. However, the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, also concluded that 

Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible 

to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised 

by Supplement #1, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. 

Sources: 






IV. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: 

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat 

modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or 

special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, 

or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service? 

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other 

sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 

policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game 

or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as 

defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited 

to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, 

hydrological interruption, or other means? 

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or 

migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or 

migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery 

sites?



Page 6 

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological 

resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, 

Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional 

or state habitat conservation plan? 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The FEIR, as revised 

by Supplement #1, found that implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific 

Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant 

or animal species. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to 

the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by 



Mitigation /Monitoring Required No mitigation is required. 

Sources: 






V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: 

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical 

resource as defined in §15064.5? 

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 

archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? 

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site 

or unique geologic feature? 

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal 

cemeteries? 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, it is possible 

that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources 

within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction 

activities associated with development of the site. With the inclusion of mitigation 

measures that require future construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural 

resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. The proposed Project will



Page 7 

result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated 

by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity 

in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 


City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable 

measures will be included as recommended conditions of entitlement approvals 

for development of the site or by the Water Department in development of the 

Water Well Parcel and Easement Area. 

Sources: 






VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: — Would the project: 

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, 

including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most 

recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the 

State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence 

of a known fault? 

Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special 

Publication 42. 

Strong seismic ground shaking? 

Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? 

Landslides? 

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would 

become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onor 

off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or 

collapse?


CUP 2012-001 AND DR 2012-001 (R.D. Olson Development) 

Page 8 

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform 

Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or 

alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available 

for the disposal of wastewater? 




1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to the necessary grading 

activity that would occur to accommodate the various types of development and the 

resultant change to existing landform and topography. Consequently, mitigation 

measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1. The proposed Project will result in no 

substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the 

FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in 

question may have a significant effect on the environment. 



mitigation measures will be included as recommended conditions of entitlement 

approvals for development of the site or by the Water Department in 

development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area 

Sources: 



Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001 



VII. 

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: — Would the project: 

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the 

routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? 

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 

reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the 

release of hazardous materials into the environment? 

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous 

materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 

proposed school? 

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials 

sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a



Page 9 

result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the 

environment? 

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a 

plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public 

use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people 

residing or working in the project area? 

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project 

result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project 

area? 

g) Impair implementation of or 

physically interfere with an adopted 

emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death 

involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 

urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The FEIR, as revised 

by Supplement #1, found that implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific 

Plan would not result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The 


previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no 


environment. 

Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. 

Sources: 






Vill. 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: 

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially 

with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in 

aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., 

the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level



Page 10 

which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which 

permits have been granted)? 

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, 

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a 

manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? 

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, 

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 

substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, 

which would result in flooding on- or off -site? 

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of 

existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide 

substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 

Q 

Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 

g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a 

federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other 

flood hazard delineation map? 

h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would 

impede or redirect flood flows? 

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death 

involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee 

or dam? 

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 

k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 

1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? 

m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas 

of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment 

maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials 

handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor 

work areas? 

n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial 

uses of the receiving waters? 

o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or 

volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? 

p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding 

areas? 


Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development



Page 11 

potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Development of the 

Project will include project design and construction of facilities to fully contain 

drainage of the site that will be required as conditions of approval for the 

development project. Development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area 

supports a public purpose that will also be reviewed by the Water Department to 

ensure that all drainage is contained on the site as a condition of any development 

on this parcel. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated 

for the development of the Project site. At this time, it is not anticipated that the 

proposed Project will impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow 

aquifer. The proposed Project would not include groundwater removal or alteration 

of historic drainage patterns at the site. The Project site is not located within a 100 - 

year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 

injury, and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is 

the project site susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Any 

future drilling of a water well on the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area will be 

subject to separate environmental review as it relates to any future extractions 

activities by the Water Department. 

Construction operations associated with development of the site would be required 

to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDQ for the Newport Bay 

watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) 

and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) and the 

implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with 

State, City and Water Department regulations and standards, along with 

established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk 

or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. 

Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to water 

and drainage. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1 

that would reduce the potential impacts of the Project to a level of insignificance. 

The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental 

impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is 

no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the 

environment. 



mitigation measures will be included as conditions for recommended future 

entitlement approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department 

in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area . 

Sources: 


FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1



Page 12 




IX 

LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: 

a) Physically divide an established community? 

b) Conflict with any applicable land 

agency with jurisdiction over the 

the general plan, specific plan 

use plan, policy, or regulation of an 

project (including, but not limited, to 

local coastal program, or zoning 

ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 

environmental effect? 

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan 

community conservation plan? 

or natural 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. On February 19, 1991, 

the Tustin City Council approved the Pacific Center East Specific Plan which 

established land use and development standards for development of the 

Development Parcels and site, and on April 19, 2011 adopted Specific Plan 

Amendment 11 -001 implementing minor text amendments. The Project will meet 

the requirements of the Specific Plan. 

Compliance with state, City (including the Specific Plan) and Water Department 

requirements would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. 

Also, the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or 

natural community conservation plan. Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the 

entire Specific Plan area related to land use. 

Consequently, mitigation measures 

were identified in Final EIR 90-1. The proposed Project will result in no substantial 

changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as 

revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may 

have a significant effect on the environment. 



mitigation measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future 

entitlement approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department 

in development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area . 

Sources: 




Tustin General Plan



Page 13 

DDA 2011 -01 


X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: 

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would 

be a value to the region and the residents of the state? 

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource 

recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other 

land use plan? 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, the 

proposed Project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the 

site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Final 

EIR 90 -1 did not identify any potential impacts related to natural resources. The 




environment. 


Sources: 



Pacific Center East Specific Plan 



XI. 

NOISE: Would the project: 

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 

standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or 

applicable standards of other agencies? 

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne 

vibration or ground borne noise levels? 

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project 

vicinity above levels existing without the project? 

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in 

the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?



Page 14 

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a 

plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public 

use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the 

project area to excessive noise levels? 

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project 

expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive 

noise levels? 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, the full build - 

out of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan would result in short-term roadway and 

freeway ramp construction noise impacts, and a less than significant permanent 

increase in the ambient noise levels in and around the project site due to vehicular 

traffic. Mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90 -1 to minimize the short 

term noise impacts. The proposed Project could result in implementation activities 

that generate noise; however, it will not result in substantial changes to the 

environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by 


significant effect on the environment. Any future drilling of a water well on the 

Water Well Parcel and Easement Area will be subject to separate environmental 

review as it relates to any future extractions activities by the Water Department. 



measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement 

approvals for development of the Project or by the Water Department in 

development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area . 

Sources: 






XII. 

POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: 

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for 

example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 

example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?



Page 15 

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the 

construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction 

of replacement housing elsewhere? 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Therefore, there is no 

direct increase to the City's population resulting from the project. The Pacific 

Center East Specific Plan has previously been determined to be consistent with the 

Tustin General Plan. The proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to 

the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by 




Sources: 






XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts 

associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental 

facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the 

construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in 

order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other 

performance objectives for any of the public services: 



potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Final EIR 90 -1 identified 

impacts to the area including the Specific Plan area related to public services, 

including Fire and Police protection, schools and public facilities. Consequently, 

mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90 -1. Final EIR 90 -1 did not 

identify any potential impacts related to general public services or other 

governmental services. Any future drilling of a water well on the Water Well Parcel 

and Easement Area will be subject to separate environmental review as it relates to 

any future extraction activities by the Water Department.



Page 16 

The Project will require Tustin public services such as fire and police protection 

services, and recreation facilities. Police protection services and recreation 

facilities for the site would be provided by the City of Tustin rather than the City of 

Santa Ana. All of the other services listed below would be provided by the same 

agencies. 

Fire Protection. The development of the site allowed by the proposed Project will 

be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations 

regarding demolition, construction materials and methods, emergency access, 

water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and 

other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk 

of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection 

services to the site. The number of fire stations in the area surrounding the site 

will meet the demands created by the proposed Project. 

Police Protection. The need for police protection services was assessed by the 

FEIR on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of nonresidential 

uses, etc. The Project would increase the need for police protection 

services. 

Entitlement conditions of approval for the Project, will require the 

developer to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate 

security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access, and address 

signage are implemented in the project at plan check. 




environment. 

MitigationlMonitorinq Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin 


measures will be included as conditions of the entitlement approvals for 

development of the Project or by the Water Department in development of the 

Water Well Parcel and Easement Area. 

Sources: 





DDA 2011 -01 

Submitted Project Plans



Page 17 

XIV. RECREATION 

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 

regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial 

physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 

construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an 

adverse physical effect on the environment? 




1 did identify potential impacts related to the quality of recreation resulting from 

development of the Specific Plan area. Proposed development of the site would 

not generate a significant increase in the use of existing parks. The proposed 

Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts 



environment. 





development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area . 

Sources: 





Submitted Project Plans



Page 18 

XV. 

TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC: Would the project: 

a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing 

traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial 

increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio 

on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard 

established by the county congestion management agency for 

designated roads or highways? 

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in 

traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety 

risks? 

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp 

curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm 

equipment)? 

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 

alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 




1 determined that the ultimate development of the entire Specific Plan area would 

generate increased traffic in the vicinity. Consequently, mitigation measures were 

identified in Final EIR 90 -1 to minimize these impacts. A Statement of Overriding 

Consideration was adopted to address impacts that could not be mitigated to a 

level of insignificance. One mitigation measure required changes in the Circulation 

Element of the City's General Plan. A General Plan Amendment re- designating the 

classification of portions of Newport Avenue and Del Amo Avenue was approved in 

1991. 

Traffic conditions in the Specific Plan area were studied extensively during the 

preparation of EIR 90 -1. However, due to the age of the traffic study a new study 

was commissioned in 2000 in conjunction with Supplement #1 to ensure that the 

traffic analysis and findings were based on the most current data available and 

consider the refinement of the roadway improvements from those described in Final 

EIR 90 -1. 

Traffic conditions and mitigation measures originally in Final EIR 90 -1 

were reevaluated in Supplement #1. 

As part of a recent review of the Project, current land uses were reviewed by the 

City's Transportation and Development Services Manager to determine the status 

of development by Pacific Center East phase and by generated traffic volumes.



Page 19 

Based on this review, it was apparent that the proposed land development is within 

the parameters of authorized Phase I land uses and acceptable Average Daily Trip 

ADT) levels of Phase I of the Pacific Center East phasing plan. Further, all of the 

infrastructure improvements have been completed to facilitate the Pacific Center 

East Phase I development. 

Transportation improvements for the 1990 Pacific Center East EIR 90 -1 were 

modified in Supplement #1 to EIR 90 -1. Some of the improvements were deleted 

and one new one was added with the revised traffic analysis. Some of the 

improvements on the list have been completed with other projects, modified 

through Settlement Agreements with adjacent jurisdictions, or relieved through 

other environmental documents. The proposed Project will result in no substantial 

changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as 

revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may 

have a significant effect on the environment. 

Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the 

Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. However, 

the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, also concluded that Specific Plan related 

traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of 

Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, was adopted 

by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. However a review by the City's Traffic 

and Development Manager have indicated that based on a review of 

transportation /circulation roadway improvements, there is sufficient capacity to 

accommodate the proposed Project without the implementation of additional 

mitigation measures required in future Pacific Center East Specific Plan phases. 

Sources: 





DDA 2011 -01 


XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: 

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional 

Water Quality Control Board? 

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 

treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction 

of which could cause significant environmental effects?



Page 20 

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage 

facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which 

could cause significant environmental effects? 

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 

existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded 

entitlements needed? 

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which 

serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve 

the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing 

commitments? 

Q Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 

accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to 

solid waste? 

h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment 

control Best Management Practice (BMP), e.g. ( water quality treatment 

basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could 

result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and 

odors)? 




1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to utilities. 

Consequently, mitigation measures identified in Final EIR 90 -1 were recommended 

for implementation that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of 

insignificance. Any future drilling of a water well on the Water Well Parcel and 

Easement Area will be subject to separate environmental review as it relates to any 

future extractions activities by the Water Department. 




environment. 

Mitigation /Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin 




development of the Water Well Parcel and Easement Area .



Page 21 

Sources: 






XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 

environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 

species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining - 

levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the 

number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or 

eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history 

or prehistory? 

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but 

cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively " considerable" means that 

the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in 

connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current 

projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause 

substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or 

indirectly? 

Based upon the foregoing, the proposed Project does not have the potential to 

degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife 

populations to decrease, threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With 

the enforcement of FEIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the 

Tustin City Council, the proposed Project does not cause unmitigated 

environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either 

directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed Project does have air quality impacts 

that are 

individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in 

connection with the effects of development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, 

as amended by SPA 11 -01. The FEIR previously considered all environmental 

impacts associated with the implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific 

Plan. The Project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues 

previously considered with adoption of the FEIR. Mitigation measures were 

identified in the FEIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A 

Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, 

was adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. 

Mitigation /Monitoring Required: The FEIR previously considered all environmental 

impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. Mitigation



Page 22 

measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR and any 

specifically applicable mitigation measures, where applicable, would be included 

as conditions of any recommended future entitlement approvals for development 

of the Project or by the Water Department in development of the Water Well 

Parcel and Easement Area. 

Sources: 






CONCLUSION 

The summary concludes that all of the proposed Project's effects were previously 

examined in the FEIR, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial 

increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that 

no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation 

measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that 

there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that 

would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and 

adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of 

Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIR on May 5, 2003, and shall 

apply, as specifically applicable, to the proposed Project, as applicable.

Attachment 1

Noise Analysis for the Marriott Residence Inn 

City of Tustin, California 

Report #528801MRIvOl 

January 11, 2012 

C E INVED 

COMM UM f Y DEVELOPMENT 

BY: — 

Prepared For: 

R.D. Olson Development 

2955 Main Street, Third Floor 


Prepared By: 

Fred Greve, P. E. 

Matthew B. Jones, P.E. 

Mike Holfitz, INCE 

Mestre Greve Associates 

Division of Landrum & Brown 

27812 El Lazo Road 

Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 

949-349- 0671



Marriott Residence Inn 

Paae i 

Exterior Noise Mitigation 

Summary of Noise Mitigation Requirements 

The pool area and sport court area are considered outdoor recreational areas subject to the City of 

Tustin's 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard. Noise levels are projected to exceed the standard. A 

6 foot tall noise barrier along the edge of the pool and fire pit areas located as shown in Figure 5 

will be required and will reduce noise levels in these areas to below the 65 CNEL standard. 

Interior Noise Mitigation 

Guestrooms are subject to the City of Tustin's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. The analysis 

shows that all guestrooms on the south side of the building and on the first floor of the north and 

west sides of the building will meet the City's standard with no mitigation required. The 

guestrooms indicated in Figures 9 10 and 11 will require one of four levels of window upgrades 

shown in the figure and described below to meet the interior noise standard. With these 

upgrades the noise levels in the rooms will not exceed the City's 45 CNEL interior noise 

standard. The following describe the window upgrade levels: 

Upgrade 3: Minimum Window EWNR of 28 (STC =31) 

Typically 1/2" Single Glazed. 

Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All Studio rooms on the 2 "d and 3` floors on 

the north side of the building and all Studio Double Queen rooms on the 2 "d - 

4` floors on the west side of the building. 



Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All Studio Rooms on the 4` floor on the north 

side of the building, all Bedrooms of I- Bedroom rooms and Large and 

Small Bedrooms of 2- Bedroom rooms on the 2n -4` floors on the north side 

of the building. 


Typically 1/2" Laminated. 

Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All King Bedrooms of 2- Bedroom Double 

rooms on the 2 "d and 3r floors on the north side of the building. 


Typically 3/8" laminated. 

Rooms Requiring Upgrade: All King Bedrooms of 2- Bedroom Double 

rooms on the 4` floor on the north side of the building. 

These represent window configurations that can typically meet the specified EWNR/STC ratings, 

and are given for informational purposes only. Glass thickness and airspace configuration are 

only a part of the overall noise reduction characteristics of a window. Other factors can include 

the frame construction and seal type. Therefore, noise reduction ratings for windows of a given 

configuration can vary from one manufacturer to another. Various window configurations may 

be available that meet the required noise reduction ratings. The EWNR and STC ratings 

specified above are the critical parameters, and should be used as the basis for selecting the 

windows for the project. Consult with the manufacturer to ensure compliance of the planned 

windows with the noise reduction rating requirements. 

To comply with the Marriott standards for meeting rooms the windows on the north elevation of 

the meeting room on the first floor will need to achieve a minimum EWNR of 36 (STC of 35).

2,0 City of Tustin NoiseStandards,,,,,~ 

1 

Meatre Greve Associates 

Division mf Landrum &Brown 


Page i 

Table of Contents 

Summary of Noise MitigationRe*nu^ rements..... 

ExteriorNoise Mitigation ............................................................................................ 

InteriorNoise Mitigation ............................................................................................. 

i 

i 

List of Tables 

ListofFigKUres.~. 

1,0 Introduction ....~~..~.....~........^.^^~^~^^~^^^^^~~~^^^^^^^^~~~~~^^^^^~~^^^^^ 

1 

3,0Methodo 1 

4.0 Noise Exposure .........................,,~~,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,~,~~,,,,, 

JK 

4.1 Traffic Noise ....................................................................................................... 4 

4.2 Railroad Noise Exposure ...................... ............................................................ 5 

4.3 Aircraft Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 6 

4.4 Total Noise Exposure ......................................................................................... 8 

5,0 Exterior NoiseM10 

6,0 Interior Noise Mitigation ................................................................... 10 

7,0 Marriott Noise Standards ,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,~,,,,,,,~,,,,~~~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,~,~~,,,~,,~,~ 

22 

7.1 Outdoor Noise Sources .................................................................................... 22 

71] Guootroomo ....................................................................... ........... .................................. 22 

712 Meeting Space ............................. ................................................................................... 23 

7.2 Partition SoundTraOSD1ks8iOD-------- 

24 

7.3 Mechanical System (H\/ AC) Noise .................................................................. 24 

Appendix 25... 

Traffic Noise Calculations ....................................................................................... 25 

Railroad Noise Calculations ................................................................................... 

2G

0 




Paqe !I 

List of Tables 

Table 1 Traffic Data Used to Calculate Noise Levels .................................................... 4 

Table 2 Traffic Distribution by Time of Day ................................................................... 4 

Table 3 Distance to Noise Contours for Future Traffic Conditions ................................ 5 

Table 4 Railroad Operations Used To Calculate Noise Levels ..................................... 

6 

Table5 Railroad Noise Levels ...................................................................................... 6 

Table 6 Total Traffic & Rail Noise Levels ...................................................................... 8 

Table 7 Required Noise Reduction .............................................................................. 

12 

Table 8 

Table 9 

Unmitigated Outdoor-to- Indoor Noise Reduction ........................................... 16 

Mitigated Outdoor -to- Indoor Noise Reduction ................................................ 18 

Table 10 Partition STC Requirements ......................................................................... 24 

List of Figures 

Figure Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 2 

Figure Proposed Site Plan .......................................................................................... 3 

Figure 3 John Wayne Airport-Aircraft Noise Contours .................................................. 7 

Figure 4 Noise Analysis Receptor Locations ................................................................. 9 

Figure 5 Exterior Noise Mitigation ............................................................................... 11 

Figure 6 Acoustically Equivalent Rooms —1S Floor .................................................... 13 

Figure 7 Acoustically Equivalent Rooms — 2nd Floor ................................................... 14 

Figure 8 Acoustically Equivalent 

Rooms — 3 `d & 4t" Floors .......................................... 15 

Figure 9 Interior Noise Mitigation —1 Floor ............................................................... 19 

Figure 10 Interior Noise Mitigation — 2nd Floor ............................................................. 20 

Figure 11 Interior Noise Mitigation — 3` Floor ............................................................. 21



Division of Landrum & Brown Pacie 1 

1.0 Introduction 

The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of the Marriott Residence Inn project 

with the City of Tustin noise standards applicable to the project. In addition, compliance with 

the Marriott design standards for the project are addressed in Section 7.0. 

The project proposes the development of four -story 142 room hotel on the southwest side of 

Edinger Avenue between Newport Avenue and the Costa Mesa (SR -55) Freeway. Figure 1 

presents a vicinity map showing the location of the project. Figure 2 presents the proposed site 

plan. The project site is impacted by traffic noise from SR -55, Edinger Avenue, and Newport 

Avenue. In addition the project is approximately three miles north of John Wayne Airport and 

nearly directly under the flight path. Further, there is an AT &SF rail line located northeast of 

Edinger Avenue that will generate noise experienced at the site. 

2.0 City of Tustin Noise Standards 

The City of Tustin specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits applicable to hotel uses. The 

standards applicable to the guestrooms living areas are based upon the CNEL index. CNEL 

Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24 -hour time - weighted annual average noise level 

based on the A- weighted decibel. A weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall 

sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Time weighting refers to 

the fact that noise that occurs during certain noise - sensitive time periods is given more 

significance because it occurs at these times. In the calculation of CNEL, noise occurring in the 

evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by 5 dB, while noise occurring in the 

nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) is weighted by 10 d13. These time periods and weighting 

factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while sleeping, eating, and relaxing. 

The City of Tustin has adopted an exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL for observers at exterior 

common recreation areas. For this project, we are applying exterior the standard to the outdoor 

pool 

area. 

In addition, the City has adopted an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL for hotel 

guestrooms. 

3.0 Methodology 

The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model 

published by the Federal Highway Administration ( "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction 

Model ", FHWA -RD -77 -108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle 

mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the " equivalent noise level ". A computer 

code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used 

in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic 

projections used. 

Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination 

wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise 

barrier is critically dependent upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the 

observer. A noise barrier effect occurs when the barrier interrupts the "line of sight" between the 

noise source and the observer. As the distance that the noise must travel around the noise barrier 

increases, the amount of noise reduction increases. The FHWA model was also used here in 

computerized format to determine the required barrier heights.

u , 

sn 

N 

m c M. 

n3 1 

a 

4a=.-" '.:° 

Northf?tSEr° 

t ` tom et?f 

z Irvine Blvd TUstin 

Santa Ana E tst & E 1st St 1s St 

St 1st.5t E 1st St a ®' 

K 

w 

s.# 

o 

c 

4 

N Edin er Ave E Edin er Av 

Pro 

Site' , 

B_ - Ed l 9 e v 

s 

0r 

R2 - ag a 

i 

f 

Warne Ave 

E 

Warner Ave 

ij 

Al 

5 µ t 

O 

W 

Dyer Rd E Direr 

Rd E D1rer" 

F 

4r 

l 

1 ' a & 

two 

IX 

Sunflower Ave 

1 Bind 

5s 

4 -- 

8 3 

eQ't arneAve 

R , 

O 

i£ 

Si 

Al #Ort Plo p„ J 

w 

John Wayne. 

it 

Airport- Otat7ge County, 

tS' O 

r 

a 

Ate 

tO 

a 

4 ® r 

a 

jSO 

N - 

Mestr Greve Associates 

Figure 1 

VIctn11y Map



Division of Landrum & Brown Page 4 

4.0 Noise Exposure 

4.1 Traffic Noise 

Buildout traffic volumes for SR -55, Edinger Avenue, and Newport Avenue were obtained from 

Mr. Dana Kasdan of the City of Tustin Public Works department in January 2012. These traffic 

volumes are from the Orange County Transportation Authority's OCTAM 3.4 model using 

adopted 2010 projections and represent traffic volumes anticipated in 2035. The traffic volumes 

and speeds used to calculate CNEL levels are presented in Table 1. There are no considerable 

grades on any of the roads that would affect noise levels. 

Table 1 

Traffic Data Used to Calculate Noise Levels 

Traffic 

Road Volume Speed 

SR - 300, 000 65 

Edinger Ave. 43,000 50 

Newport Ave. 30,000 45 

The traffic distributions that were used in the CNEL calculations are presented in Table 2. The 

arterial traffic distribution estimate used for Edinger Avenue and Newport Avenue was compiled 

by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and is based on traffic counts at 31 

intersections throughout the Orange County area. Arterial traffic distribution estimates can be 

considered typical for arterials in Southern California. The traffic distribution estimate for SR- 

55 was derived from Caltrans data. The vehicle type split was obtained from truck traffic data 

published by Caltrans Traffic Data Branch (http: www. / / dot. ca. gov /hq traffops / /saferesr trafdata/) / 

and the time distribution was derived from hourly traffic counts on SR -55 published on Caltrans' 

Performance Measurement System (PeMS) website (http: pems.dot. ca.gov). 

/ / 

Table 2 

Traffic Distribution by Time of Da 

Vehicle Type 

Day 

Percent of ADT 

Evening 

Night 

SR -55 

Automobile 73.6 9.74% 10.05 

Medium Truck 3. 07% 0. 41% 0 

Heavy Truck -- — 2.13% 0.28% _ 0.29% _ 

Edinger Ave_. and Newport Ave. 

Automobileobile 

75. 51 % 12.57% 9.34 

Medium Truck 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 

Heavy Truck 

0.64% 0.02% 0.08%




Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are 

listed in Table 3 in terms of distances to the 60, 65, 70, and 75 CNEL contours. These represent 

the distances from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the 

values given in Table 3 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may 

affect the roadway noise exposure. 

Table 3 

Distance to Noise Contours for Future Traffic Conditions 

Feet Feet from from Centerline Centerline of of Roadway Roadway 

RW-Contour does does not not extend extend beyond beyond roadway roadway right right - of - of - way - way 

The The results results presented presented in in Table Table 33 indicate indicate that that the the project project will will be be exposed exposed to to aa traffic traffic noise noise levels levels 

up up to to 78 78 CNEL CNEL along along SR SR - 55, - 55, 55 55 CNEL CNEL along along Edinger Edinger Avenue, Avenue, and and 67 67 CNEL CNEL along along Newport Newport 

Avenue. Avenue. 

4.2 Railroad Railroad Noise Noise Exposure Exposure 

The The AT AT & SF & SF railroad railroad line line passes passes near near the the western western boundary boundary of of the the site. site. Freight Freight trains trains as as well well as as 

Amtrak Amtrak and and Metrolink Metrolink passenger passenger trains trains utilize utilize this this rail rail line. line. To To determine determine train train noise noise levels, levels, the the 

Wyle Wyle Train Train Model Model was was used used ( " ( " Assessment Assessment of of Noise Noise Environments Environments Around Around Railroad Railroad Operations Operations ", ", 

Wyle Wyle Laboratories Laboratories Report Report WCR WCR - 73 - 73 - 5, - 5, July, July, 1973). 1973). The The noise noise generated generated by by train train operations operations can can 

be be divided divided into into two two components; components; noise noise generated generated by by the the engine engine or or locomotive, locomotive, and and noise noise 

generated generated the the railroad railroad cars. cars. 

The The characteristic characteristic frequency frequency of of the the engine engine is is different different than than the the 

characteristic characteristic frequency frequency of of the the cars. cars. 

The The noise noise generated generated by by the the engine engine is is the the result result of of the the 

mechanical mechanical movements movements of of the the engine engine parts, parts, and and to to aa lesser lesser extent, extent, the the exhaust exhaust system. system. The The noise noise 

generated generated by by the the cars cars is is aa result result of of the the interaction interaction between between the the wheels wheels and and the the railroad railroad track. track. AA 

zero zero source source height height is is used used for for the the car car noise, noise, and and aa source source height height of of 10 10 feet feet is is utilized utilized for for the the 

locomotive. locomotive. 

Distance to Contour* 

Roadway 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 

SR -55 284' 613' 1,320' 2,843' 

Eding Avenue RW 109' 235' 506' 

Newport Avenue RW — 9' 150' 322' -- 

Projected Projected future future railroad railroad freight freight operations operations were were obtained obtained from from information information provided provided on on the the 

ONTRAC ONTRAC ( ( Orange Orange North- North- American American Trade Trade Rail Rail Access Access Corridor Corridor Authority) Authority) website. website. Projected Projected 

passenger passenger train train operations operations were were obtained obtained from from train train schedules schedules on on the the Amtrak Amtrak and and Metrolink Metrolink web web 

sites. sites. It It should should be be noted noted that that railroads railroads are are free free to to change change operations operations at at their their discretion. discretion. The The total total 

number number of of operations operations and and the the times times at at which which they they occur occur are are therefore therefore subject subject to to change. change. 

The The projected projected future future operational operational data data presented presented in in Table Table 44 was was utilized utilized in in conjunction conjunction with with the the 

Wyle Wyle Model Model to to 

project project train train noise noise levels levels on on the the project project site. site. The The results results of of the the train train noise noise 

projections projections are are displayed displayed in in Table Table 55 terms terms of of distances distances to to the the 60, 60, 65, 65, and and 70 70 CNEL CNEL contours. contours. 

These These represent represent the the distances distances from from the the railroad railroad line line to to the the contour contour value value shown. shown. These These 

projections do not include topography or barriers that may reduce the noise levels.



Marriott Marriott Residence Residence Inn Inn 

Paae Paae 66 

Table 4 

Railroad Operations Used To Calculate Noise Levels 

Number ofTrains 

Amtrak Freight Metro Link 

Day 

20 5 10 

Evening 

4 1 2 

Night 

5 3 4 

Number of Engines 

1 2 1 

Number of Cars 5 

Ito 

4 

Speed 

50 50 50 

Table 5 

Railroad Noise Levels 

Distance to Contour* 

70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 

AT &SF Rail Line 230' 430' 800' 

Feet Feet from from Centerline Centerline of of Tracks Tracks 

The The project project site site is is located located approximately approximately 1,200 feet feet from from the the project project site. site. Railroad Railroad noise noise levels levels 

within within the the project project site site will will be be less less than than 58 58 CNEL. CNEL. 

4.3 Aircraft Aircraft Noise Noise Levels Levels 

The The project project site site is is located located approximately approximately three three miles miles northeast northeast of of John John Wayne Wayne Airport Airport and and is is 

located located approximately 500 feet off the extended runway centerline and 

approximately 500 feet off the extended runway centerline and flight flight path. path. Figure Figure 33 

presents presents the the aircraft aircraft noise noise levels, levels, in in the the CNEL CNEL metric, metric, published published by by the the County County of of Orange Orange 

Airport Airport Land Land Use Use Commission. Commission. Note Note that that the the project project site site is is located located just just outside outside the the map map area area to to 

the the north. north. The The Figure Figure shows shows that that 60 60 CNEL CNEL contour contour does does not not extend extend into into the the City City of of Tustin, Tustin, let let 

alone alone to to the the project project site. site. Therefore, Therefore, aircraft aircraft noise noise levels levels will will be be considerably considerably less less than than 60 60 CNEL CNEL 

on on the the project project site. site. 

Typical Typical flight flight patterns patterns result result in in arriving arriving aircraft aircraft flying flying nearly nearly overhead overhead of of the the project project site site 

approximately approximately 500 500 feet feet to to the the northwest northwest along along the the extended extended runway runway centerline. centerline. Under Under typical typical 

conditions, conditions, aircraft aircraft depart depart the the airport airport in in the the direction direction away away from from the the project project site. site. During During Santa Santa 

Ana Ana wind wind conditions conditions the the flow flow of of aircraft aircraft is is reversed, reversed, and and departing departing aircraft aircraft will will fly fly nearly nearly 

overhead overhead of of the the project project approximately approximately 500 500 feet feet to to the the northwest northwest along along the the extended extended runway runway 

centerline. centerline. 

Single Single even even noise noise contours contours generated generated by by the the FAA's Integrated Integrated Noise Noise Model Model were were reviewed reviewed to to 

estimate estimate maximum maximum aircraft aircraft noise noise levels levels within within the the project. project. The The loudest loudest commercial commercial aircraft aircraft 

flying 

at John Wayne Airport 

are 

flying 

at John Wayne Airport 

are Boeing Boeing 737- 737- 800's. Based Based on on this this information information the the loudest loudest 

aircraft aircraft would would be be expected expected to to generate generate aa maximum maximum noise noise level level of of 76 76 to to 78 78 dBA dBA as as they they pass pass 

closest closest to to the the project. project. The The same same maximum maximum noise noise levels levels are are experienced experienced for for both both arriving arriving and and 

departing aircraft. 

departing aircraft.

Note: County Unincorporated areas are shown in white, 

John Wayne Airport Impact Zones 

LEGEND 

60. CNEL CONTOUR 

RUNWAY PROTECTION 

CITY BOUNDARIES 

AIRPORT BOUNDARIES 

ZONE 

CERTIFICATION 

Composite contour from 

John We" Airport Project 

Case-1990 and 2005 

see section 2.2, 1) 

Adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission for orange County 

AFbgoni, 

Karl 

EutiveOfficer 

Date 

Mostre Grove Associates 

Figure 3 John - Wayne 

Contours] 

Airport 

Aircraft Noise




4.4 Total Noise Exposure 

Using the data presented above, total traffic and rail noise levels were calculated for fifteen 

building face receptors and four first floor outdoor receptors shown in Figure 4. These 

calculations account for the distance of each receptor from the roadway and railway centerlines 

as well as shielding provided by the building structures that will reduce noise levels for observers 

where the building blocks the line of sight from the observer to the noise source. In addition, the 

project plans include a 12' high wall along the northern property line between the project and the 

SR -55 Freeway. The noise reducing effects of this wall is included in the calculation as well. 

The details of these calculations are presented in the appendix. Table 6 presents the results of the 

calculations. 

Table 6 

Total Traffic & Rail Noise Levels 

Receptor 

Noise Level (CNEL) at Receptor 

1st Fir. 2nd Fir. 3rd Fir. 4th Fir. 

SE 66. 9 68.3 72. 72.2 

N 68.4 76 .1 76. 76.1 

N -1 67.9 75.9 75 7 

N -2 67.7 75 75 .7 75.7 

N -3 67. 

75. 75. 

75.6_ 

N - 67 75.6 75.6 75.6 

W -1 64.7 66.5 71.0 71.0 

SW 66. 67 70 .6 70 

S -1 64.5 64. 

64.6 64.9 

S -2 63.9 64.0 64.0 64 .4 

S -3 64.4 64.5 64. 64.9 

S -4 63.6 63.6 63. 64.3 

S 64.1 64.2 64.6 

P 1- 

65.0 

P -2 65 

SC -1 64. 9 

SC-2 65.3 

Table 6 shows that along the north side of the building, facing the SR -55 Freeway, noise levels at 

the face of the building will be as high as 76.1 CNEL at the upper floors, and 68.4 CNEL at the 

first floor. Noise levels on the south side of the building, facing Newport Avenue are not 

projected to exceed 66.9 CNEL except at the southeast corner of the building. Along the west 

side of the building, facing the SR -55 ramps, noise levels are not projected to exceed 71.0 CNEL 

at the upper floors, except at the northwest corner. Noise levels at the first floor along the west 

side of the building are not projected 

to exceed 67.8 CNEL.




Paae 10 

Buildings are assumed to achieve a minimum of 20 dB of outdoor to indoor noise reduction with 

windows closed. Commercial buildings constructed under current energy efficiency 

requirements typically achieve reductions in the range of 24 to 26 dB but calculations are 

required to demonstrate reductions greater than 20 dB. The building will need to provide up to 

31.1 dB of reduction on the side of the building facing SR -55 and up to 24.5 dB of reduction on 

the opposite side. Therefore, specific noise reduction calculations are required. These 

calculations are presented in Section 6.0 along with any building upgrades required to meet the 

applicable noise standards. 

Table 6 shows that noise levels in the pool area (Receptors P -1 and P -2), sport court (Receptors 

SC -1 and SC -2), are projected to exceed the City's 65 CNEL outdoor standard. Exterior noise 

mitigation is discussed in Section 5.0. 

5.0 Exterior Noise Mitigation 

Table 6 shows that noise levels in the pool area and sport court area are projected to be exposed 

to noise levels exceeding the City's 65 CNEL standard. Construction of a 6 -foot tall noise 

barrier around the perimeters of these areas, as shown in Figure 5 will reduce noise levels in 

these areas to less than 65 CNEL. 

The noise barriers may consist of a wall, a berm, or a combination of the two. The noise barriers 

must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or 

gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 318 -inch plate glass, 5/8 inch - Plexiglas, 

any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. 

Outdoor noise levels in all areas subject to the City of Tustin exterior noise standards will be 

reduced to less than the 65 CNEL standard with construction of the required 6 -foot tall noise 

wall located as shown in Figure 5. 

6.O Interior Noise Mitigation 

The guestrooms of the project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 

CNEL. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to 

indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise 

reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each 

of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a 

characteristic transmission loss. For guestrooms, the critical building elements are the roof, 

walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is 

dependent upon the transmission loss of each element, and the surface area of that element in 

relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in 

determining 

the total noise reduction.




Paqe 12 

Table 7 lists the maximum CNEL levels at the building face for each side of the building where 

guestrooms are located and the minimum noise reduction required to achieve the City's 45 

CNEL standard. In order to account for variations in construction that can result in differences 

in actual noise Level reductions compared to theoretical calculations a design reduction of 2 dB 

more than the minimum required will be used to determine any building upgrades required to 

meet the City's standard. 

Table 7 

Required Noise Reduction 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Building Face CNEL Level Reduction Design 

Floor at Building Face Required Reduction 

North 

So 

I st 68.4 23. 25.4 

2nd- 4th 76.1 31.1 33.1 

All 

West 

67.5.._._._..__ 

22.5 24.5 

1st--- 6_7 ______ 

22.8 

24. 

2nd -4th 71.0 26.0 28.0 

Room and feature dimensions used to calculate the noise reduction provided by the building 

were measured from the preliminary architectural drawings prepared for the project by Gene 

Fong Associates. The following lists the building element construction that was assumed in the 

noise reduction calculations. 

Roofs are non- vented single joist built up construction with 1/2" gypsum drywall 

on the interior surface of the living area. Joist spaces are insulated with 

fiberglass insulation, and roofs are flat. This roof ceiling / assembly was estimated 

to achieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR =42. 

Exterior walls are wood stud construction with stucco exteriors and minimum 

1/2" gypsum drywall 

on the interior. All exterior walls include fiberglass 

insulation in the stud cavities. The walls were estimated to achieve a noise 

reduction rating of at least EWNR =40. 

All windows in the guestrooms were assumed to be operable and estimated to 

achieve a noise reduction rating of at least EWNR =22. ( This is roughly 

equivalent to a noise reduction rating of STC =25). 

Based upon the construction details and the EWNR values, the exterior to interior noise 

reduction was calculated for fifteen rooms of seven acoustically equivalent guestroom types. 

Figures 6, 7 and 8 show the locations of acoustically equivalent guestroom types. The results of 

the EWNR calculations for the rooms without mitigation are presented in Table 8. The specific 

data used to calculate the EWNR for each acoustically equivalent room type are presented in the 

appendix.

o 

o 

W 

CC ' 

i 

00 

o y 

r 

O 

W 

d.1 

cc 

O 

w 

a 

a 

eo 

a 

w 

as 

F=

ft 

i' 

am 

WIN 

CA 

LU 

cc 

4. r 

O 

CC 

tl 

rA 

a 

w-

II 

40 40 am am 

co co 

0 

AA 

CD CD 

CD CD 

iI 

cc cc 

ca ca 

C4 

I 

CD CD 

Ga Ga 

QQ 

T-A 

L91 L91 

Tn] Tn] 

as as 

eo eo 

as as

E 




Paqe 16 

Table 8 

Unmitigated Outdoor -to- Indoor Noise Reduction 

Room Type 

Noise Reduction Provided 

1 St 3` 

- Floor 4` Floor 

I a. 1Bedroo Living Area 34.9 34.1 

Ib 1- Bedroom, Bedroom 31.3 30.9 

2. Studio 31.6 31.1 

3a. 2- Bedroom, Large Bedroo 31.2 30.8 

3b. 2- Bedroom, SmallB 30.9 30.5 

3c. 2- B Living Room 33.9 33.2 

4. Studio Double Queen 27.7 27.4 

5a. 1 Bedroom Accessible, 

Bedroom _ 

30.9 30.5 

5b. I Bedroom Accessible, Living 

34.2 33.5 

Room 

6a. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Dbl. 33.8 33.2 

Queen Bedroom 

6c. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen, 34.4 33.5 

Living Room 

6b. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 

29.7 29.3 

Bedroom 

7a. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen 

Accessible, Dbl. Queen 28.9 28.5 

Bedroom 

7b. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen 

31.3 30.9 

Accessible KingBedroom 

7c. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen 33.0 32.4 

Accessible, Living Room 

Table 8 shows that all room types provide the reduction required for the south side of the 

building (24.5 dB) and all first floor rooms provide the reduction required for the first floor of 

the north side of the building (25.4 dB) and west side of the building (24.8 dB). Therefore, no 

building upgrades will be required to meet the City's interior noise standard on the south side of 

the building or on the first floor of the north or west sides of the building. 

All room types, except type 4, provide the noise reduction required on the upper floors of the 

west side of the building (28 dB). Therefore, type 4 rooms on the west side of the building will 

require upgrades to meet the City's standards. 

Room types la, 3c, 5b, 6a, and 6c provide the noise reduction required on the upper floors of the 

north side of the building (33.1 dB). All other room types on the upper floors of the north side 

of the building will require upgrades to meet the City's interior noise standard.



Division of Landrum & Brown Pape 17 

Calculations were performed to determine the upgrades required to meet the required noise 

reduction. 

These calculations determined that one of four levels of window upgrades would 

result in all deficient rooms providing the reduction required to meet the City's standard. The 

following describes the window upgrade levels: 

Upgradel:Minimum Window EWNR of 28 (STC =31) 





Typically 1/2" Laminated. 


Typically 3/8" laminated. 

The window upgrades listed above represent window configurations that can typically meet the 

specified EWNR/STC ratings, and are given for informational purposes only. Glass thickness 

and airspace configuration are only a part of the overall noise reduction characteristics of a 

window. Other factors can include the frame construction and seal type. Therefore, noise 

reduction ratings for windows of a given configuration can vary from one manufacturer to 

another. Various window configurations may be available that meet the required noise reduction 

ratings. The EWNR and STC ratings specified above are the critical parameters, and should be 

used as the basis for selecting the windows for the project. Consult with the manufacturer to 

ensure compliance of the planned windows with the noise reduction rating requirements. 

Table 9 presents the upgrades required for each deficient room type that will result in the room 

providing adequate outdoor -toindoor noise reduction to comply with the City's interior noise 

standard. The noise reduction provided with the upgraded window is also listed along with the 

locations on the building where the upgrades are required. The required upgrades are shown 

graphically in Figures 9, 10 and 11. 

To meet the City of Tustin interior noise standard the guestrooms listed in Table 9 and shown 

graphically in Figures 9, 10 and 11 will required upgraded windows meeting either the EWNR or 

STC rating specified. With these upgrades noise levels in all guestrooms will less than the 

City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard.

S 




Paqe 18 

Table 9 

Mitioated Outdoor-to- Indoor Noise Reduction 

Room Type 

Floor(s) 

Upgrade 1: Minimum Window EWNR of 28 (STC of 31) 

Side of 

Building 

Noise Reduction 

w/ Upgrade 

2. Studio 2nd & 3rd North 33.4 

4. Studio Double Queen 2nd & 3rd West 29.5 

4. Studio Double Queen 4th West 29.0 


lb. 1- Bedroom, Bedroom 2nd & 3rd North 34.8 

lb. I-Bedroom, Bedroom 4th North 34.0 

2. Studio 4th North 34.1 

3a. 2-Bedroom, Large Bedroom 2nd & 3rd North 34.8 

3a. 2-Bedroom, Large Bedroom 4th North 33.9 

3b. 2-Bedroom, Small Bedroom 2nd & 3rd North 34.6 

3b. 2-Bedroom, Small Bedroom 4th North 33.7 


6b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 

2nd & 3rd North 33.8 

Bedroom 



4th North 33.6 

Bedroom

CD 

a 

420 

Cw 

am 

1 

cot 

O 

Im 

C 

M 

r 

M 

to 

CO 

II 

II 

11 

11 

FE 

o 0 w 0 

co 

II 

0 

11 II II 

E z z z z 

E w w w w cc 

I-A 

ca 

a 

L

O 

C 

W 

1 

O 

Z 

i 

dmd 

as 

c 

M to co 

M M M 

O 

C 

U 

H cn 

ao 

O N et 

E W 

W W W 

w 

0 

w 

0 

w 

0 

m 

i 

d 

i




7.0 Marriott Noise Standards 

Marriott has specified a variety of noise standards for the project. These standards can be 

separated into those relating to outdoor noise sources, those relating to limiting transmission of 

sound through partitions separating rooms, and those related to mechanical (HVAC system) 

noise. These standards are discussed below. Compliance with the outdoor noise standards is 

also addressed. Compliance with the partition sound transmission requirements will be 

demonstrated by the project architect and the mechanical engineer will demonstrate compliance 

with the mechanical noise standards. 

7.1 Outdoor Noise Sources 

Marriott has specified interior noise standards for outdoor noise sources for guestrooms and 

meeting rooms. These standards and compliance with the standards are discussed below. 

7.1. 

Guestrooms 

Guestrooms are required to limit highway noise levels to an hourly equivalent noise level 

Leq(h)) of 45 dBA during the daytime and 40 dBA during the nighttime. Aircraft noise levels 

are not to exceed 45 DNL. Short term - noise from sources such as sirens or low level helicopter 

flights is required to be less than 50 dBA. Aircraft noise levels are not to exceed 45 DNL. 

The analysis presented above demonstrates compliance with the City's 45 CNEL interior noise 

standard. Daytime peak hour noise levels (i.e., the highest hourly equivalent noise level during 

the daytime) generated by traffic on the arterial roadways, Edinger Avenue and Newport 

Avenue, are expected to be less than the CNEL level based on typical arterial traffic patterns. In 

addition, nighttime peak hour noise levels (i.e., the highest hourly equivalent noise level during 

the nighttime) generated by traffic on the arterial roadways are expected to be more than 5 dB 

lower than the CNEL level based on typical arterial traffic patterns. Therefore, noise from traffic 

on the arterial roadways would not be expected to exceed the Marriott Leq(h) standard for 

highway noise. 

Hourly variations in traffic noise levels on SR -55 were calculated based on measured traffic 

volumes published 

on Caltrans' Performance Measurement System ( PeMS) website 

http: pems.dot. ca.gov). 

/ / 

The PeMS website publishes traffic counts recorded by sensors on state 

and federal highways in California. This data shows that the daytime peak hour noise level 

generated by traffic on SR -55 will be lower than the CNEL level. While the daytime peak hour 

traffic volume would indicate a slightly higher noise level (0.2 dB), congestion during this period 

results in slowing and reduces the noise level compared to the CNEL level. Therefore, traffic on 

SR -55 will not result in the Marriot daytime Leq(h) standard for highway noise being exceeded 

in the guestrooms. 

On average, Nighttime hourly equivalent noise levels from traffic on SR -55 are approximately 

8.8 dB lower than the CNEL level. The nighttime peak hour noise level, during the 6 a.m. hour, 

is approximately 3.8 dB lower than the CNEL level which would result in an interior noise level 

of 41.2 dBA Leq(H) if the outdoor -toindoor noise reduction were designed to meet the 45 

CNEL interior standard with no safety factor. However, as discussed above, a 2 dB safety factor 

was used in determining compliance with the City's noise standard and most of the rooms 

achieve the more outdoor -toindoor noise reduction than is required with the safety factor. 

Therefore, the nighttime peak hourly equivalent level will be less than 40 Leq(h) with, at least a 

0.8 dB safety factor. Therefore, traffic on SR -55 will not result in the Marriot nighttime Leq(h) 

standard for highway noise being exceeded in the guestrooms.




As discussed in Section 4.3, the project site is located well outside the John Wayne Airport 

aircraft noise 60 CNEL contour. Therefore, aircraft noise levels on the site will be clearly less 

than 60 CNEL and likely less than 55 CNEL. Note that the CNEL and LDN noise metrics are 

nearly identical but that the CNEL level is slightly higher than the LDN level in all conditions. 

The guestrooms will provide at least 30 dB of outdoor -toindoor noise reduction for aircraft and 

therefore, interior aircraft noise levels will be less than 30 LDN and likely less than 25 LDN. 

Therefore, the Marriott standard for aircraft noise will not be exceeded in the guestrooms. 

Based on the distances from the building to the nearest travel lane on the roadways on the 

perimeter of the project, a siren generating 100 dBA at 5 feet would not be expected to exceed 73 

dBA at the building face. The building will provide at least 30 dB of outdoor -toindoor noise 

reduction for siren noise and therefore, interior noise levels from sirens will be less than the 

Marriott 50 dBA standard. 

Helicopter overflights would not be expected to generate noise levels exceeding 80 dBA on the 

project site. As discussed above, the guestrooms will provide at least 30 dBA of outdoor -toindoor 

noise reduction for aircraft noise. Therefore, interior noise levels from helicopter 

overflights will be less than the Marriott 50 dBA standard. 

There are no other sources of noise that would be expected to generate short-term noise levels 

greater than sirens and helicopter overflights. Therefore, the Marriot 50 dBA short term - noise 

standard will not be exceeded in guestrooms. The project will comply with all Marriott 

standards for guestrooms exposed to outdoor noise levels with the mitigation measures required 

to meet the Citv of Tustin noise standards. 

7.1. 2 Meeting Space 

Meeting space noise levels are to be less than 40 dBA Leq(h) to comply with the Marriott 

standards. A further, the maximum noise level from outside sources within meeting rooms is not 

to exceed 58 dBA. 

The project includes a single meeting room located on the first floor on the west side of the 

lobby. The outdoor to- - indoor noise reduction of the meeting room was calculated to be 30.4 dB 

with the standard building construction described in Section 6.0. Table 6 shows that the total 

noise exposure at the meeting room is 64.7 CNEL (Receptor S -2). Therefore, the interior of the 

meeting room is projected to have an interior noise level of 34.3 CNEL. As discussed above, 

peak hour Leq(h) on the Newport Avenue, which is the primary noise sources impacting the 

meeting room, levels would be expected to be somewhat lower than the CNEL levels, therefore 

hourly equivalent noise levels in the meeting room will not exceed the 40 dBA Leq(h) standard. 

With this level of reduction, outdoor noise levels would need to be greater than 88 dBA at the 

building face to exceed the maximum noise level from outdoor sources standard of 58 dBA. 

There are no sources of noise anticipated to generate this level of noise. Therefore the mee ting 

room will comply with the Marriott standards as designed with no 

upgrades required.




7.2 Partition Sound Transmission 

To limit noise transmitted between adjacent rooms partitions are required to achieve the 

following Sound Transmission Classification ( STC) ratings shown in Table 10. The project 

architect will be required to ensure that the partitions of the structure will meet the following 

STC ratings. In addition, construction details for the required rated assemblies shall be provided 

with the architectural plans. These details shall show that acoustical sealants are required close 

to perimeter joints and opening where mechanical (duct work), plumbing (pipes), electrical 

receptacles and conduits) and other devices penetrate through sound rated walls. In addition, in 

stud framing, the sill and top plates shall be set in continuous sealant. 

Table 10 

Partition STC Reauirements 

Wall Type 

Required STC 

Floor CeilinAssembly 55 

Guestroom Party Wall ( Including shaft/chase 55 

walls between izuest baths 

Guestroom Walls Common With Equipment 

55+ 

Roo Publi c Spac orFitn Rooms _ 

Shaft _& ChaseW BetweenBathro oms 50 

Eleva tor Sha Wal 51+ 

Corridor Walls 50 

Walls Adjoining Public, Meeting, Service Areas, 

55+ 

Elevator, Equ Lau and Similar Spaces 

Meeting Space Perimeter Walls 55 

Meeting Space Operable Partitions 

Office Partitions 

50 

To limit the transmission of impact noise Floor /Ceiling assemblies are required to achieve an 

Impact Insulation Class ( IIC) rating of at least 50. This will be implemented by the project 

architect. 

7.3 Mechanical System (HVAC) Noise 

The mechanical engineer for the project shall design systems and select mechanical equipment to 

minimize the transmission of sound and vibration. Ductwork, piping, and equipment suspended 

from structures shall be isolated. Equipment, air distribution systems, and air devices shall be 

selected so they do not exceed NC -35 in guestrooms and public areas and NC -40 in back of 

house spaces.

I 




Page 25 

UT*ol= 

Traffic Noise Calculations

I 

II 

LLJ 

0 Z to 00 

w co 

t.0 W 

P 

t0 

v-4 

k6 

t0 

Ln 

141to 

M 

rti 

D 

1 . 

M 

14 

. 

VT ' 0 0 

t.0 w w 

ol 

LAI Lil 141 L/i 

w to to 1 ko 

LnLA 

00 r--to Ln Lr! r--: Ln Ln t0 Ln Ln 

LLJ fir ,. 

z 

r rt.0 r r 

Lti 

t.0 m rNLD LA 7 Ln 

# U6 Ln Ln Ln Ln Lfi Ln 

O 

z 

uj 

M 

0. fli Ln 

r 

t0 00 Ln 00Ln MD MtD Mto M C r 

to to to Zo Zo . D Io 

f0 

L 

E € 

3: Ln i N( 

m O C) 

r-r` co 100 06l 06 o6 

r r- • 

m 

1 

o 0 0 0 , 61 0 

I 

0 0 0 

cil 

010 

C 0 C 

LnLn 0 0 a c oa o o 119 clo NEN 

C'i o a o 610 i m C* C* co i 00 1 w r-I r- j 00 1 

C 

ao000oOo C* C) 

co fri m rn m I rn m rvi 

o 0 

m 

a 13 c 

fn rn cfi 

o 

i 

C) C) 0 

i ryi 

t 

0 

rL 0 o Q1 D1 101 0 0 f 0 0 C) oio 

CO 3 C: , 

00 00 

1 

0 9 9 

r i i 6 0066 ci o a c) 

LnLn cn U-1 w r, 00 c t.0 r oq 

4 

1-4 0 Or-i I 0 010 

1-4 

4 1-4 1.4 C4 I rn 1.4 M1-4 M1-1 I M1.4 rJ 1-1 r4 1.4 rn4 y) 14 EE ( 4 r-I g(Nr-q 

Ln 

E 

M to m a LnL . r-f 11-1 0 r-p Ln rN 0 V cn D f : Zl: 

C 00 00 0) 6 o'i o" o* o m ai ail 0) 0) 

U5 

r-4 r-I N N N N N r C N - 4 4 4 1 r•4 

II 

c 

ro t 0 

CL 0 00 CD CT 00 1 Lq lo r-I rn 1 I N Ln 00 m r-4 r- N r, 

ci 6 0 ai o6 c oo cn ai o6 r o6 r-: 

L. L. 

00 

00 

Ln to Ln cn D § a) d• N Ln r,i m r- N m M l r, w 

chid 

0M N N LnN r-j Ln toN 4 oT S w to r q 

I-rM mto - mi ' mI 

M M rn rn 

vi 

E tu cn 00 r-0 0 N co IcT ko 

O w Ln oo 

rn 

r-I w d' rz 

UJ 

00 

C -, •, 

r-I q 4 Ir-4 

C C 

0 L r- 

U*) 

a) r, I r-i 

a) 

t 

0 

1 1.0 r w 

M4 

Ln rj Wr- 4 00 r-4 10 I cn E Mrn N CN r-1- 4 0rN 00 1-1 N aC r,1- 

W =4 q - 4 

O 

m 

iE 

Z 

2 zjzlz 

N 

A LO VI 0 0 !, L 

Ln rq 

A iu u 

Ln V)

i 

1 

0 

rl% to C.0 Ln 4 W 0 Ln tm " 

jQ LAJ 4 4VRt O Ct 

z L L'i L'i r-4 4 vi LA Ln ' n 

U 00 wr, 

L 

tz 

t.0 w ko to 

LnN Ni rl N 6 W 

to 

W ! 4 W i Mo 1 W 

n! 

Ln 

cr 

Zto z 

t.0 Ln Ln Ln Ln 

p ul 00( 00 qq COR a) lz' Lr! ri ri 

4 tzr LA I Lfi 

F to 

ii- l r- LA to 4 

Ln Ln I Ln Ln 0 'o to '.0 

Ln Ln Ln Lr) 

O 

Lu 

t 

0 

en 

M 0. C-4 

m o6 I 

cn 4 r Ln m 

ro M rn M fi r 

t.o i Ln 0 to to w w '.0 Z Lo '. D to 

C-4 Ln - q Ln 

4 4, 4 li 

LA . 

C 0 0 0 C? 0 O 

i 

9 9 

m Ln 0 6 o o c Ln Ln c; c c 0 0* C:) C 1 C 

I 

Ln to 0 0 0 0 9 t3: Lq Lf1 Lq 111 m ati t ,t 

ma C) 0 C51 0 to 919 rn co co co co co w LD h r- 

4A 

wba C) C?9 0 q 0 Ln10 0 0 q 0 9 9 

a m m m m cri rei t I L» 

ui 

jj 

t 

o 

CZ 0.0 0 Ln - Ln Ln 0 

00 co 00 

cyi 4 

ryi C -6 0 

1 

0 

91 16 , 

0 9 0 q 1 

0 

C5 610 ci i 

6 

9 

Ln 

14 h 

U 0) Ln D j r- 09 a w 

CK 9 9 

I 

C5 r M M rn , M r-4 N cq M ( N f-4 

41 'q '-q r-q I 4 v-4 '-f 

4 1-4 1616 r-4 r-f 1-4 4 r-4 r-4 

U 

E 

a 

U 

N 0) 3 

lfl Ln r-4 r l 0 r Ln rN j 0 1 "t a) LD T 10 

U 

U5 

t 

Mz o0.0 cl 

r-41 ' 

0`0 

r-4 4 1 (-4 (N C C r4 ry r4 r4 mr-4 r-1 m mim rl 4 

1 00 Lf Y 4 rn Ln co 4 r l r" 

0 v-q 4 r-41 0 

1-4 1-4 r-f q r-4 r-1 a) co a) oo a) l (:,i 00 r, 00 r, 

Ol' 

LnLn W r- h N 

0 Ln ICT 0) t QD Ln CY) Ln UD N4 Ln0 1 .0 r-1 r-4 a) f.0 kD cn 1T 110 C1' 

M N C r-4 rIj r'4 m T T rn Cn ry) rn y) m rn ry) 

A 

1) 

cr. 

4.0 4.1 

0 

0 

4) 

Z 

L 

E 

0 U Ln 00 

a) 

W 

u UJ 

m 

V, t 

0) 00. 0 

TT ' i ' T zzr f 

1-11 r4 

r4l 

00 a)CO 00 r- I! 

CL r a 

to 

L 

Nq 

r- r4 M 

w 6 i rn 

rn 

cn 

1 

001 6% 

r Ln c, rH wI . i'-r'j Ln 

1"t t, r-j Cj 1: Cn C, ai r, -4 

0 r- rn W 

W0 - 

r-j C'j 

1C1 001, . -, 

4 ( 

v-41 r4 C4 

01 a) 

0 r*4 C 1-4 

r- t.0 r- W 

4 '4 4 

44- 

it W w 4 rj 4 (N 

L 

, U 

uU n Z i ;i Z z 3: A!( 

LA L L, a . Ln! 1 (n

m 

0 

1 71 D l lO O tO LD O td 001 N rn tR I r4l w 

LLJ 

O Z N i L'i L'i 1 gi 41 ci 4 M1. 

1 4 . LA 

w w ZD 

Ln 1 LA g 

w wo ZD 

Ln 

clO r- r, rl Ln i Ln 

Lr) 0 0) r- 1p Un 0l Lri l-R i U' 1.0 

W 

Ln Ln Ln Ln ai r Ln Ln t0 t6 h 

z tA r-r-rl r r- r r Lo Ln Ln Ln Ln to Ln Ln I Ln Ln 

cu 

u M 

LLJ 

o cV t i t ci cn .. 4 Lq 0) C'j i Ln 1 r-q Ln 

M CL 

m C-4 r 

it 3: 0 t.0 wo 1.0 to I (. o 0 t.0 (tD t0 

cu 

M 

D 

L6 

M 

CO 

0 0 0 0 CIO 

a 0 0 0 0 0 

CidOt 0 6 

0 

ci 

C) 

6 0 C) 

co 

LA 

Ln 

0 0 C) 0 0 

6 as 

0 0 r- I 

r, r, : 

m 

r _ r , _ ^ a) Ln , W tD 

C 

tw 0 0 0 019 

9 9 9 1010 0 0 C) 0 

C mi rvi I nri m C, I rn 4 1P 

uj 

rn rri j rn rn 1 cyi yi cyi i yi 

CO 

0 

CL 

3: O 

rfil 

oq co 00 C) 0 1 . 1 . 9 9 

r- I r- I rll*' rn rn 0 

0 Oloo 

cilololo 

Ln m Lr) to rl 100 0) 0 

00 - C r r 

cl: i co 010 0 r14 rn m m M, t-4 r-4 rn m r4l(-4 

A 

616 

toG rn rn Lq -I Ll I -I 1 9 0 

00 a) O 0' 

004 4 1H 

4 N I N r4 C4 N r4 N 

C'41 

Lu 

M 

I'Zt 

171 

M 

lO I t 

M 

ai 

0 

CL 9 00 9 ' 00 Lf1 IT, 

c r 

eq cn 

O1 C:) 4 4 r-4 0 wim h 00 h 

0 

0 

LM w0 

Ln a) .o 1 011 r 

m r- 

l*n0 r- 0 I .-c f, a) D "- r, 1 - N4 mtD to d -* 

r*4 1 Cj r-4 r-4 r-4 rn, vi rn m rn m M M i rn • 

vi 

T Ln Ln L-0 

r-41 

1'.0 

u 

A 

4) 

i 

4) 

IA 

E Ot 00 r, o 0 to N 00 r to 4 Cj Ln 

0 ta Lncn m00 

r ED - ZT 

r- 

cI " rj r4 MN rIlLn W Ln r0 m r, q 

4 4 11 

V UJ I 

m 

V) 

O . zt rj 0 r- I- 

Mir - 4 

m 

Ln! rN WCN co r1l 0M rn t01 N 0 N r- 1-4 0CN . 00i c-41 CIJ or-4 r toir-lw 141 

- 

1 t.0 0 NIC-411- 

Z 

0 

L. 

m 

m 

u 

uiV) 

Z 

il:' z 

n LA ' AlLW A 

V), Ln

m 

NN 

W N ci N kD w 0 w n 

M rm tm 00 00 q 

Z N tD Ln I Ldi Lti 

1 u 

W 

Z 

Ln Lr) 0 cn N to Lf) CO r r 1 LD r, r14 rn r-4 N 

6 Ln U1 vi U1 6 a) r-: 00 1 00 

h t- r- r- I r I h r-1, to r, Lr) Lr) r, 610 0§ 0 

Ln Ln Lf) tz I Lo L0 

V) 

txo 

r 

N 

0 LLJ 

Z 

M 

CL 

c 1 r- 

cn N Lr 

M rn ro cyi N rj C. cf 

Lb w1w 

m 

C 0 0;0 0! C? C? C? 0 91cic 0 COD 0 0 

0 

m 6 6ic:)'6 ci 0 0 0 OlOiC 0 030 C 0 

LM 

0 0 0 0 a o Ln l-q 1p r" r*r li r Lq i Un 

as rfi 6 1 o ; 6 ci 0 M rf) U-) Lf) Ln j Ln Ln ro rn m # m 

2 4) 

C 0 0 Ol 0 0 0 00 0 0 c) CIO 010 

ryi rei rri ryi rvi rri m oi rn* m rn ry) M ri 1 rri ri ryi 

tka uj g 

0 

co CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ? C ?C ?I O (: o ? 

4) 

rri Lr; Lf) Lrl ryi ryi 0 0 0 010 0 010 6116 

id 

i q LM Ln 0) Ln L.0 r- 00 { Q1 

4A 

I 

I 

r-4 64 -ai 1 i 616 c; 

r-4 t H j -4 N ryi 

r oo rj r-4 r-i 19 ' 1 q 

ryi yi yi N r 

r-4 1.4 r.4 - q 

rH - 4 4 r-4 

ro rn r N 

r 1 1-4 r-1 1-4 

tw Qi cl ul 11 U 1 I 

M 10- 

1-- f 0 

2, 00 00 ! a) CIO H CIO m a) (n 0) 0) 

010 

0 r-q rH t H r4 C CIJ r CIJ C-4 C I C rlJ r-1 1 -4 - q r.1 

U5 

a t 

m 0CL 0 

ai 

17 00 f 

c 1 r-1 rn 

1-4 

i i N 

0 cr; m 

r•i 00 

L/i 00 

w m 

rn 

m 

1-4 r" r14 r, 

00 r- i 00 3 r 

L. L. 

00 

00 

to Ln 

W 

O 

Ln I a) W 0) T 

T -: 3- Ln Ln w rN 11-Ir i 0Ln 

cr 

A M C'4 , r4 C-4 CN C mir 

r, i 

0 h 01 w- , 1-1 

y' m m m rn 

f 

rn M M rn 

i 

1g g3 

j s E 

h 01 a) 00r 

0 U 00 r-! 

L- 

V S Lncn w -:t Cr 

oo mco I 

r- 

a), 

i c 

r-1 

LU 

Lo 

t ro 

r- Ln 

4 

00 Ln r-4 

a 0 

0 

Ln 

H 

V, 

CL r- Lo r, r rn rq i c r, 1 r-I m r, i ID o N ( N '.4 

M 

rl 

tlo rl w 

M M wr-4 0r-4 p- r1 N0 

w C 0 

Ln 

iLoioololm 

41N N 

4-0 

0 

L- 

m 

i 

ZZ 

mm 

m 

WLn 

W 

Z 

r m 

Ln N 

z z 3:1 1 V 0 CL ' L 

rq 

i vi

0 




Paoe 26 

Railroad Noise Calculations

Marott Residence Inn 

Railroad Noise levels -1st Floor 

Distance Level Bldg. Shldg. Noise Lvl 

Location to RR CNEL) dB) CNEL 

SE 1,282 56.3 0.0 56.3 

NE 1,286 56.3 0.0 56.3 

N -1 ? 1,365 55.8 3.0 52.8 

N -2 4 

1,456 55.3 3.0 52.3 

N -3 1 1,536 54.9 3.0 51.9 

NW 1,634 54.4 3.0 51.4 

W -1 1,631 54.4 19.1 357 

SW 1 1,616 54.5 3.0 51.5 

S -1 1,561 54.7 3.0 51.7 

S -2 1,537 54.9 3.0 51.9 

S -3 1,474 55.2 3.0 52.2 

S -4 1,431 55.4 3.0 52.4 

S -5 1 1,376 55.7 3.0 52.7 

P -1 1,439 55.4 3.0 52.4 

P -2 1,357 55.9 3.0 52.9 

SC -1 1,356 55.9 3.0 52.9 

SC -2 1,299 56.2 3.0 53.2


Railroad Noise Levels - 2nd Floor 



SE 1,282 56.3 0.0 56.3 

NE 1 56.3 0.0 56.3 

N-1 1 55.8 3.0 52.8 

N-2 j 1,456 55.3 3.0 52.3 

N-3 1,536 54.9 3.0 51.9 

NW 1,634 54.4 3.0 51.4 

W-1 1,631 54.4 18.6 35.8 

SW 1,616 54.5 3.0 51.5 

S -1 1,561 54.7 3.0 51.7 

S-2 1,537 54.9 3.0 51.9 

S-3 1,474 55.2 3.0 52.2 

S-4 1,431 55.4 3.0 52.4 

S-5 1,376 55.7 3.0 52. 

P-1 1,439 55.4 3.0 52.4 

P-2 1,357 55.9 3.0 52 

SC-1 1,356 55.9 3.0 52.9 

SC-2 1,299 56.2 3.0 53.2


Railroad Noise Levels - 3rd Floor 



SE 1,282 56.3 0.0 56.3 

NE 1,286 56.3 0.0 56.3 

N -1 1,365 55.8 3.0 52.8 

N -2 1,456 55.3 3.0 52.3 

N -3 1,536 54.9 3.0 51.9 

NW 1,634 54.4 3.0 51.4 

W -1 1,631 54.4 16.9 37.5 

SW 1,616 54.5 3.0 51.5 

S -1 1,561 54.7 3.0 51.7 

S -2 1,537 54.9 3.0 51.9 

S -3 1,474 55.2 3.0 52.2 

5 -4 1,431 55.4 3.0 52.4 

S -5 I 1,376 55.7 3.0 52.7 

P -1 1,439 55.4 3.0 52.4 

P -2 1,357 55.9 3.0 52.9 

SC -1 1,356 55.9 3.0 52.9 

SC -2 1 1.299 56.2 3.0 53.2

Fairfield Inn and Suites 

Railroad Noise Levels - 4th Floor 



SE 549 63.0 0.0 63.0 

E -1 545 63.1 0.0 63.1 

NE 551 63.0 0.0 63.0 

N -1 618 62.1 3.0 59.1 

N-2 676 61.4 3.0 58.4 

N -3 749 60.5 3.0 57.5 

N -4 809 59.9 3.0 56.9 

NW 842 59.6 3.0 56.6 

W -1 845 59.6 16.2 43.4 

SW 840 59.6 3.0 56.6 

S -1 809 59.9 3.0 56.9 

S -2 760 60.4 3.0 57.4 

S -3 707 61.0 3.0 58.0 

S -4 652 61.6 3.0 58.6 

S -5 603 62.3 3.0 59.3 

P -1 791 60.1 3.0 57.1 

P -2 738 60.7 3.0 57.7 

FP 723 60.8 3.0 57.8 

PF 621 62.0 3.0 59.0




Page 27 

EWNR Calculations

Marriott Residence Inn and Suites 

EWNR Calculations 

1 a. 1 -Bedroom, Living Area 

1 Wall Exposure Wall Wall Exposure Exposure 

Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

263 

0.0 

OD 

2608 

762 

26 

0 

O 

GO 

40 

0.066 

0.00 

lOOO 

8.000 

0.008 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.074 

Window Window 31.5 26 26 0.079 

U]] U]] OO 0.000 

lU lU UU 0.000 

Ceiling Ceiling 

180.3 

GU GU 0.00 

Wall Wall ( ( net) net) 

70.9 

40 40 0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.086 

TOTAL REDUCTION: 34.9 

TOTAL TOTAL REDUCTION: REDUCTION: 31.3 

Window 

26.3 

0.0 

28 

0 

0.042 

0.000 

O 0.0 

O 0.000 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

259.8 60 0,000 

76.2 40 0,008 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.049 

Window Window 

31.5 

28 28 0.050 

0.0 

00 

0.000 

0.0 

UU 

0.000 



130.3 

60 60 0.000 

70.9 

40 40 0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.057 



BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/ 10) 

Window 

O 

28.3 

0.0 

0.0 

Ceiling 

259.8 

SU 0.000 

Wall (net) 

76.2 40 0.008 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.034 

30 

O 

O 

0.026 

0.008 

0.000 

BLDG BLDG ELEMENT ELEMENT AREA AREA ( (ft-2) EWNR EWNR A A 

Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

130.3 

70.9 

30 

O 

O 

80 

40 

0.032 

0.000 

0.000 

0,000 

0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.039 



Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

U 

26.3 

0.0 

0.0 

259.8 

76.2 

32 

U 

O 

80 

40 

0.017 

0.000 

0.800 

0.000 

0,008 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.024 

Window Window 



31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

1303 1303 

70.9 

32 32 

OO 

OO 

00 00 

40 40 

0.020 

0.000 

UM0 UM0 

0.000 

0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.027 



Window 

26.3 

0.0 

34 

O 

0.810 

0.000 

0 0.0 

0 0.000 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

259.8 

76.2 

60 

40 

0.000 

0.008 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.018 

Window Window 

31.5 

34 34 0.013 

0.0 

OO 

0.000 

0.0 

OO 

0.000 



130.3 

60 60 0.000 

70.9 

40 40 0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.020 



Page 1 of 8

I 

I 



1st-3rd Floors 

2. Studio 

1 Wall Exposure 

BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E/10) 

Window 57.8 26 0.145 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 268.2 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 126.7 40 0.013 

TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.158 

10 Log S/A 3 


3a. 2-Bedroom, Large Bedroom 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR E/10) A'10A(- 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 139.9 60 0,000 

Wall (net) 53.3 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.085 

10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E110) 

Window Window 

57.8 28 0.092 

0.0 

0 0.000 

0.0 

0 0.000 



268.2 

126.7 

60 

40 

TOTAL TOTAL AREA AREA 452.63 

10 Log S/A 3 


0.000 

0.013 

0.104 

BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1 OA(-E/ 0) 

Window 

Ceiling 

Wall ( ((net) 

TOTAL TOTAL AREA AREA 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

139.9 

53.3 

28 

0 

0 

60 

40 

0.050 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.005 

TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.055 

10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A*1 OA(-E/ 

E/10) 

Window Window 

57.8 30 

0.058 



0.0 

0.0 

268.2 

126.7 

0 

0 

60 

40 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.013 

TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.071 

10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(- E/10) 

Window 

57.8 32 0.036 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

0.0 

0.0 

268.2 

126.7 

0 

0 

60 

40 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.013 

TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.049 

10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 

31.5 30 0.032 

0.0 

0.0 

0.000 

0.000 

Ceiling 

139.9 60 0,000 

Wall ( ((net) 

53.3 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.037 

10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR 

Window 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

Ceiling 

139.9 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 

53.3 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.025 

0 

0 

32 

10 Log S/A 3 


0 

0 

A E110) 10A(- - 

0.020 

0.000 

0.000 

BLDG BLDG ELEMENT ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR EWNR A"10A(- E/10) 

Window 57.8 34 0.023 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 00 0.000 

Ceiling 268.2 60 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 126.7 40 40 0.013 

TOTAL TOTAL AREA AREA 452.63 0.036 

10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR E/10) A"10A(- 

Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

139.9 

53.3 

34 

0 

0 

60 

40 

0.013 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.005 

TOTAL AREA 224.72 0.018 

10 Log S/A 3 


Page Page 2 of 8




3b. 2-Bedroom, Small Bedroom 


ELEMENT 

AREA(it- 2)EWNR 

BLDG 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 

44.2 40 0.004 

TOTAL AREA 206.34 0.084 

10 Log S/A 3 




A 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0.000 

0,0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 246.1 60 60 0.000 

Wall Wall ( ( net) net) 54.1 40 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.085 

10 Log S/A 4 


A'10-(- E/10) 

BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A"10ACE/ Window 31.5 28 0.050 Window Window 31.5 28 0.050 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 00 0.000 

60 60 

Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 Ceiling 

246.1 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 

44.2 40 0.004 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 206.34 0.054 TOTAL AREA 331.7 0.056 

10 Log S/A 3 10 Log S/A 4 

TOTAL REDUCTION: 32.8 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.8 

BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E110) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR 

Window 31.5 30 0.032 Window 31.5 30 0.032 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 

130.7 60 0.000 Ceiling 246.1 60 0.000 

Wall (net)_ 44.2 40 0.004 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 


10 Log S/A 3 10 Log S/A 4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 31.5 32 0.020 Window 31.5 32 0.020 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 130.7 60 0.000 Ceiling 246.1 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 44.2 40 0.004 Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 


10 Log S/A 3 10 Log S/A 4 



Window 31.5 34 0.013 Window 31.5 34 0.013 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 


Wall (net) 40 0.004 Wall (net) 54,1 40 0.005 


10 Log S/A 3 10 Log S/A 4 



N 




0 

4. Studio Double Queen 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 73.5 26 0.185 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 224.8 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 173.7 40 0.017 

TOTAL AREA 471.98 0.202 

10 Log S/A 0 


5a. 1 Bedroom Accessable, Bedroom 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR 

A-10A(- E110) 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 122.0 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 207.58 0.085 

10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E/10) 

Window 73.5 28 0.116 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 224.8 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 173.7 40 0.017 

TOTAL AREA 471.98 0.134 


Window 31.5 28 0.050 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 122.0 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 207.58 

10 Log S/A 0 

10 Log S/A 3 

TOTAL REDUCTION: 29.5 TOTAL REDUCTION: 32-7 

0.055 


A-1 OA(-E/ 10) 

Window 73.5 30 0.074 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 224.8 60 OMO 

Wall (net) 173.7 40 0.017 

TOTAL AREA 471.98 0.091 

10 Log S/A 0 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E/10) 

Window 31.5 30 0.032 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 122.0 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 54.1 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 207.58 0.037 

10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A*10A(- E/10) 

Window 73.5 32 0.046 Window 31.5 32 0.020 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

60 0.000 




10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 3 



Window 73.5 34 0,029 Window 31.5 34 0.013 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 




10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 3 


M-*



1 st-3rd Floors 

5b. 1 Bedroom Accessable, Living 6a. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Dbl. Queen 

Room 

Bedroom 



Window (fixed) 

26.3 26 0.066 

0.0 

0 0.000 

0.0 

Ceiling 

215.3 60 

Wall (net) 

57.8 40 0.006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.072 

10 Log S/A 4 


0 

0.000 

0.000 



Window 

31.5 26 0,079 

0.0 

0.0 

Ceiling 

234.0 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 

64.5 40 0.006 

TOTAL AREA 330 0.086 

10 Log S/A 4 


0 

0 

0.000 

0,000 


Window (fixed) 

26.3 28 0.042 

0.0 

0 0.000 

0.0 

Ceiling 

215.3 

Wall (net) 

57.8 40 0,006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.048 

0 

60 

10 Log S/A 4 


0.000 

0,000 


Window (fixed) 26.3 30 0.026 

0.0 

0 0.000 

0.0 

Ceiling 

215.3 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 

57.8 40 0.006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.032 

10 Log S/A 4 


0 

0.000 


Window (fixed) 26.3 32 0.017 

0.0 

0.0 

Ceiling 

215.3 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 

57.8 40 0.006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.023 

10 Log S/A 4 


0 

0 

0.000 

0.000 


Window (fixed) 26.3 34 0.010 

0.0 

0.0 

Ceiling 

215.3 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 

57.8 40 0.006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.016 

10 Log S/A 4 

TOTAL REDUCTION: " 40.6 

0 

0 

0.000 

0.000 


Window 

31.5 28 0.050 

0.0 

0.0 

Ceiling 

234.0 60 

Wall (net) 

64.5 40 0.006 


10 Log S/A 4 


0 

0 

0,000 

0.000 

0.000 


31.5 30 0.032 

Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

0.0 

0.0 

234.0 

64.5 

0 

0 

60 

40 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0,006 


10 Log S/A 4 



Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

234.0 

64.5 

32 

0 

0 

60 

40 

0.020 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.006 


10 Log S/A 4 



Window 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

Ceiling 

234.0 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 

64.5 40 0.006 


34 

10 Log S/A 4 


0 

0 

0.013 

0.000 

0.000 



Bedroom 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E/1 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 



1 st-3rd Floors 

0.0 0 MOO 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 154.4 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 

TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.097 

10 Log S/A 0 


6c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Living 

Room 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling Ceiling 293.1 60 0.000 

Wall Wall ( ( net) net) 34.9 40 0,003 


10 10 Log Log S/A 4 



A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 31.5 28 0.050 Window 31.5 28 0.050 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 




10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A" 10^( E/10) - BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 31.5 30 0.032 Window 31.5 30 0.032 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 154.4 60 OMO Ceiling 293.1 60 0.000 



10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E110) 

Window 31.5 32 0.020 Window 31.5 32 0,020 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 




10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 4 



A"I0A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(- 

E/12) 

Window 31.5 34 0.013 Window 31.5 34 0.013 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 154.4 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 

TOTAL AREA 358.35 0.030 

10 Log S/A 0 


Page 6 of 8 

Ceiling 293.1 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 

TOTAL AREA 359.46 0.016 

10 Log S/A 4 

TOTAL REDUCTION: 41.4

7a. 2- Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, 

Dbl. Queen Bedroom 






A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 52.5 26 0.132 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 244.0 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 1615 40 0.016 

TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.148 

10 Log S/A 0 


7b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, 

King Bedroom 


BLDG ELEMENT 

AREA(ft- 2) EWNR 

A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 

146.3 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 

50.9 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.084 

10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10-(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 52.5 28 0.083 Window 31.5 28 0.050 

0.0 00 0.000 0.0 00 0.000 

0.0 00 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 

Ceiling 244.0 60 0.000 Ceiling 

146.3 60 0.000 



10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 3 




244.0 60 60 0.000 


163.5 40 40 0.016 


10 10 Log Log S/A 00 


A-10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 52.5 30 0.053 Window 31.5 30 0.032 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 


Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0,005 


10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 3 



A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 52.5 32 0.033 Window 31.5 32 0.020 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 


Wall (net)_ 163.5 40 0,016 Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 


10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 3 



Window 52.5 34 0.021 Window 31.5 34 0.013 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

Page 7 of 8 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

146.3 60 0.000 

50.9 40 . 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.018 

10 Log S/A 3 





7c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, 

Livingroom 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E110) 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.083 

10 Log S/A 4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(. E110) 

Window 31.5 28 0.050 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.054 

10 Log S/A 4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A 

Window 31.5 30 0.032 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.035 

10 Log S/A 4 



Window 31.5 32 0.020 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.024 

10 Log S/A 4 



Window 31.5 34 0.013 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 193.2 60 0.000 

Wall (net) 35.7 40 0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.016 

10 Log S/A 4 





4th Floor 

1 a. 1-Bedroom, Liv Area 


1b. 1b. 1-Bedroom, Bedroom Bedroom 

Wall Wall Exposure Exposure 

Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

26.3 

OD 

OD 

259.8 

76.2 

26 

O 

O 

42 

40 

0.066 

0.000 

0.000 

0D16 

0.008 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.090 


Window Window 31.5 26 26 0.073 

0.0 00 0.000 



O]] O]] 

00 

0.000 

130.3 

42 42 0.008 

70.9 

40 40 0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.094 


Window 

26.3 

0.0 

28 

U 

0.042 

0.000 

O 0.0 

U 0.000 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

259.8 42 0.016 

76.2 40 0.008 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.066 

Window Window 

31.E 

28 28 0,050 

0.0 

OO 

0.000 

0.0 

OO 

0.000 

Ce Ce 


1303 1303 

42 42 0.008 

70.9 

40 40 0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.065 



Window 

26.3 

0.0 

30 

U 

0.026 

0.008 

U iU 

O 0.000 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

259.8 

76.2 

42 

40 

0.016 

0.008 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.050 

Window Window 



31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

130.3 

70.9 

30 30 

OO 

OO 

42 42 

40 40 

0.032 

0.000 

0.000 

0D08 0D08 

0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.047 



A indow 

26.3 

0.0 

32 

O 

0,017 

0.000 

U 0.0 

U 0.000 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

259.8 

76.2 

42 

40 

0.016 

0.008 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.041 

Window Window 



31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

130.3 

70.9 

32 32 

OO 

OO 

42 42 

40 40 

0.020 

8.000 

0.000 

0.008 

0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.035 



Window 

26.3 

0.0 

34 

U 

0.010 

0.000 

O 0.0 

O 0.000 

Ceiling 

259.8 42 0.016 

TOTAL AREA 362.24 0.034 

Window Window 

31.5 

84 84 0.013 

0.0 

OO 

0.000 

0.0 

UU 

8.000 



1303 1303 

42 42 0.008 

70.9 

40 40 0.007 

TOTAL AREA 232.74 0.028 






4th Floor 

2. Studio 


BLDG ELEMENT2)EWNR 

AREA(ft- A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 57.8 26 0.145 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 268.2 42 0.017 

Wall (net) 126.7 40 0.013 

TOTAL AREA 452.63 0.175 

10 Log S/A 3 




Window 31.5 26 0.079 

Ceiling Ceiling 139.9 42 0.009 

Wall Wall ( ( net) net) 533 40 0.005 


10 10 Log Log S/A 3 


I Iq 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 


Window Window 57.8 28 0.092 Window Window 31.5 28 0.050 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 00 0.000 

0.0 00 0.000 

Ceiling 268.2 42 42 0.017 Ceiling 139.9 42 0.009 



10 Log S/A 3 10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (W2) EWNR_A 

Window 57.8 30 0.058 Window 31.5 30 0.032 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 




10 Log S/A 3 10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(_ Ej1 0) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_ E110) 

Window 57.8 32 0.036 Window 31.5 32 0.020 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 


Wall (net) 1261 40 0.013 Wall (net) 53.3 40 0.005 


10 Log S/A 3 10 Log S/A 3 


E/10) BLDG ELEMENT 

AREA_( ftA2) EWNR 

Window 57.8 34 0.023 Window 31.5 34 0.013 

0,0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- 

A'10A(- E/ 

Ceiling 

0.0 0 0,000 0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 268.2 42 0.017 

139.9 42 0.009 


Wall (net) 126.7 40 0.013 Wall (net) 

53.3 40 0.005 


10 Log S/A 3 

10 Log S/A 3 


5b. 1 Bedroom Accessable, Living 

Room 



Window (fixed) 26.3 26 0.066 

0.0 

0 0.000 

0.0 

Ceiling 

215.3 42 0.014 

Wall (net) 

57.8 40 0.006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.085 

Y 

10 Log S/A 4 


0 



4th Floor 

0.000 

6a. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Dbl. Queen 

Bedroom 

I Wall Exposure 

BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E110) 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 234.0 42 0.015 

Wall (net) 64.5 40 0.006 


10 Log S/A 4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A 

Window (fixed) 26.3 28 0.042 

0.0 

0 0.000 

0.0 

Ceiling 

215.3 42 0.014 

Wall (net) 

57.8 40 0.006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.061 

10 Log S/A 4 


0 

0.000 


Window (fixed) 26.3 30 0.026 

0.0 

0 0.000 

0.0 

Ceiling 

2153 42 

Wall (net) 

57.8 40 0.006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.046 

10 Log S/A 4 


0 

0.000 

0.014 


Window (fixed) 26.3 32 0.017 

0.0 

0 0.000 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

0.0 

215.3 

573 

0 

42 

40 

0.000 

0.014 

0.006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.036 

10 Log S/A 4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A*10A(- E110) 

Window (fixed) 26.3 34 0.010 

0.0 

0 0.000 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

0.0 

215.3 

57.8 

0 

42 

40 

0.000 

0.014 

0,006 

TOTAL AREA 299.25 0.030 

10 Log S/A 4 



Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

234.0 

64.5 

28 

0 

0 

42 

40 

A'10A(- E/10) 

0.050 

0.000 

0.000 

0.015 

0.006 


10 Log S/A 4 



Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

234.0 

64.5 

30 

0 

0 

42 

40 

0.032 

0.000 

0.000 

0.015 

0.006 


10 Log S/A 

4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(. E/10) 

Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

234.0 

64.5 

32 

0 

0 

42 

40 

0.020 

0.000 

0.000 

0.015 

0.006 


10 Log S/A 4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft-2) EWNR 

Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

234.0 

64.5 

34 

0 

0 

42 

40 

A-10A(- E110) 

0.013 

0.000 

0.000 

0.015 

0.006 


10 Log S/A 4 





4th Floor 

6b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, King 6c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen, Living 

Bedroom 

Room 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ft A2) EWNR A-1 10) OA(-E/ 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0,000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 

Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 


10 Log S/A 0 


0.106 


J 


Window 31.5 26 0.079 

0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 293.1 42 0.018 

Wall (net) 34.9 40 0.003 


10 Log S/A 4 


0.101 

BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(- E/10) 

Window 31.5 28 0.050 Window 31.5 28 0.050 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 154.4 42 0.010 Ceiling 293.1 42 0,018 



10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 4 



BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-1OA(-E/ 10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E/10) 

Window 31.5 30 0.032 Window 31.5 30 0.032 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 154.4 42 0,010 Ceiling 293.1 42 0.018 



10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 4 

TOTAL REDUCTION: - 31.9 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(_ E110) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 31.5 32 0.020 Window 31.5 32 0.020 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 




10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 4 



Window 31.5 34 0.013 Window 31.5 34 0.013 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 


Wall (net) 172.5 40 0.017 Wall (net) 34,9 40 0.003 


10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 4 



7a' 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, 

Dbl. Queen Bedroom 


BLDG ELEMENT 

AREA(ft- 2) EWNR 



4th Floor 

A-10A(. E110) 

Window 52.5 26 0.132 

0.0 0 

0.0 0 

7b. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, 

King Bedroom 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft 2) - EWNR A 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

OMO 0.0 0 OMO 

0.000 

Ceiling 244.0 42 0.015 

Wall (net) 163.5 40 0.016 

TOTAL AREA 459.95 0.164 

10 Log S/A 0 


0.0 0 0.000 

Ceiling 146.3 42 0.009 

Wall (net) 50.9 40 0.005 

TOTAL AREA 228.66 0.093 

10 Log S/A - 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 52.5 28 0.083 Window 31,5 28 0.050 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 OMO 0.0 0 0.000 




10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10A(. E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) 

Window 52.5 30 0.053 Window 31.5 30 0.032 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 




10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 3 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A"10-(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- 

E/10) 

Window 52.5 32 0.033 Window 31.5 32 0.020 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0,000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 




10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 3 

TOTAL REDUCTION: 

32.5 TOTAL REDUCTION: 35.3 

BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A'10A(- E/10) BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ftA2) EWNR E/10)_ A'10A(- 

Window 52.5 34 0.021 Window 31.5 34 0.013 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 

0.0 0 0.000 0.0 0 0.000 




10 Log S/A 0 10 Log S/A 3 



Y 



4th Floor 

7c. 2-Bedroom Dbl. Queen Accessible, 

Livingroom 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA (ftA2) EWNR A-10A(- E/10) 

Window 31.5 26 0.079 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

0.0 

0.0 

193.2 

35.7 

0 

0 

42 

40 

OMO 

0.000 

0.012 

0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.095 

10 Log S/A 4 


BLDG ELEMENT AREA(ft- 2)EWNR 

Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

193.2 

35.7 

28 

0 

0 

42 

40 

A*10A(- E/10) 

0.050 

0.000 

0.000 

0.012 

0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.066 

10 Log S/A 4 



Window 

31.5 30 0.032 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

0,0 

0.0 

193.2 

35.7 

0 

0 

42 

40 

OMO 

0.000 

0.012 

0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.047 

10 Log S/A 4 



Window 

31.5 32 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

0.0 

0.0 

193.2 

35.7 

0 

0 

42 

40 

0.020 

0.000 

0.000 

0.012 

0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.036 

10 Log S/A 4 



Window 

Ceiling 

Wall (net) 

31.5 

0.0 

0.0 

193.2 

35.7 

34 

0 

0 

42 

40 

0.013 

0.000 

0.000 

0.012 

0.004 

TOTAL AREA 260.4 0.028 

10 Log S/A 4 


Exhibit C

P # 

r 

R.o. oLsaN 

DEVELOPMENT 

March 29, 203.2 

Pacific Center 

Tustin Hotels Et Retait 

Master Sign Program 

Anthony Wrzosek, Vice President 

RD Olson Development— 2955 Main Street Irvine, CA 9261 4 

T: 949 73-1209 -2 

Prepared for by: Terry Productions 

33 37 Townhurst Houston, TX 77043

RaDmOLSON 

DEVELOPMENT" 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail 1 2 

Introduction 

The Master Sign Program Establishes requirements for the design and fabrication of all signage at the Tustin Hotels — 

Pacific Center East Parcels 2, 3 & 

4 of Parcel Map No. 2010 -127 of Tustin, CA 92780. This program includes all Primary 

Identification Signs, Secondary Identification signs, On- premise Directional signs and all tenant Signs. The objective is to 

create unique and high quality signage, which is an integral part of the architecture and image of Pacific Center East. The 

intent of this criteria is to insure that all tenant signage is designed and executed in a manner which will achieve these 

objectives while providing superior identification of tenants and tenants' businesses, including incorporation of brand 

identification. 

TABLE OF Contents 

Written Criteria - 

37 4,.. 5 

Master Site plan 6 

Primary Pole/ Freestanding Freeway Sign Et Center Identification sample sign 7 

Primary Monument Signs/ Center Identification signs 

8, g 

Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign 10 

Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A Et C sample signs 11, 12, 13 

Single Tenant Primary Et Secondary Wall signs for parcel B sample signs 14 15 

On premise directional sign sample 16

RaMOLSON 

DEVELOPMENT 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retails 3 

Tenant Sign Criteria 

The following are works to be provided by the tenant or landlord. Tenant signage shall be designed, fabricated and 

installed by the tenant at their own expense. Tenant Signage must be constructed from durable materials and shall be 

maintained by the tenant. All signage must comply with applicable codes and maintained in good repair and all are subject 

to landlord's approval. Any individual tenant sign on each hotel, retail and restaurant space will require separate permits. 

Please refer to the site plan on page 6 for sign locations. 

Temporary Project Identification Signs- Temporary signs identifying the future occupant, project developer, architect, 

engineer, contractor or other participating in the construction on the property are allowed. Project Identification Signs for 

all Parcels to be allowed at 32 sq feet and one per street frontage. These signs can be attached to a fence, wall or may be 

ground mounted as long as proposed signs meet the visual clearance requirements. Signs are allowed during the 

construction and for a period ofi8o days from issuance of first occupancy permit. 

a. 

Primary Center ldentification Signs (sign typeA& B) Designed — to reflect the theme of the center in which it 

identifies and incorporates similar design elements, materials, colors and special qualities of the architecture of 

the buildings in the center and is compatible with existing or proposed signage in the center. Proposed signs shall 

comply with the visual clearance requirements. The Pacific Center East Primary Center Identification Sign shall be 

identified with (i) Primary Pole Style Sign positioned along S. R. 55 Freeway and (z) Primary Monument signs 

along Newport Avenue. These signs serve as the principal project identifiers. 

A. Primary Pole Style Sign- Center Identification Sign /Freeway Sign (sign type A) —A total of (1) sign 

along S. R. 55 Freeway with the height of 46'to accommodate visibility above the 1z' high sound 

wall. This Pole sign will house up to (6) tenants, which make up the tenants for Pacific Center East 

in its entirety. 

B. 

Primary Monument Signs (sign type 13) — A total of (z) signs i ocated at the comer of Edinger Ave 

and Newport Ave & 

Newport Ave and the On /off Ramp to S. R. 55 with the height of 8'to house up 

to a total of (6) tenants. 

Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign for Parcel A & C (Sign Type C) — Designed to direct traffic flow through the 

Porte- cochere entrance. Sign to incorporate similar design elements, materials & colors & be compatible with 

existing or proposed signage in the center. 

A. 

Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign — A total of ( 1) Sign inside Parcel A & C. Sign shall not exceed 

15% of the elevation on which it is located up to a maximum of 7S sq ft. 

3. 

Single Tenant Wall Signsfor ParcelA& C (sign type D) Designed - to Identify the Main Anchor Tenants in the 

Center. Signs to incorporate similar design elements, materials & colors & 

be compatible with existing or 

proposed signage in the center. 

C. 

A total of (4) Internally Illuminated Primary Wall signs. If approved as requested, one wall sign per 

building elevation, not to exceed one sign installed per elevation. Primary Wall Signs not to exceed 

75 sq ft. each or a total of 15% of building elevation.

RoBoOLsaN 

DEVELOPMENT 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotels & Retain 4 

Tenant Sign Criteria Continued 

4. 

Single Tenant Wall signsfor Parcel a (Sign type E & F) Designed - to Identify the Tenants which makeup parcel Bin 

the Center. Parcel B tenants are allowed one primary identification sign at storefront entry and one secondary 

identification sign. No electrical or structural members shall penetrate the "Shell Building" and signs shall contain 

only that information which is necessary to identify the business and its brand or uses of the property on which 

the sign is located. 

D. Single Tenant Primary Wall Sign (Sign type E) - A total of (z) internally illuminated primary wall sign 

permitted per business on front storefront elevation. Primary signs shall be limited to :L sq ft of 

signage per each linear foot of Front Elevation up to 75 sq ft. 

E. 

Single Tenant Secondary Wall Sign (Sign type F) - A total'of (2 -2) internally illuminated secondary 

wall signs permitted per business on rear elevation & East & 

West Elevation depending on location 

of tenant. Secondary signs shall be limited to 25 sq ft. 

5. 

On- premise directional signs (sign type G) — Designed to relay information relating to parking, exit /entrance, 

directional and similar information inside the center. Signs shall be designed to be viewed from within the site by 

pedestrian and /or motorists. May provide more than (i) per entrance in order to faciliate smooth internal 

circulation. 

F. 

A total of (2 -4) on- premise directional signs permitted and must be less than 4 sq ft in maximum 

sign area and 4' in height. 

6. 

Window signs andgraphics— Designed to apply directly to the storefront glass. Window signs and graphics can 

relay hours, address, phone number, emergency information or special announcements. Window signs and 

graphics are not permitted to to have illumination, credit card logos, posters, advertising or menus, unless 

otherwise approved in writing by the landlord. Window signs and graphics are alloted a maximum of oflo% 

the 

total window area.

1.1.. 

.111.. _.._ _ ._....._.....:.. 

11.. _ -, ___ . 

1.111_. 1- __ ____ . __. _ - . 

111 _ 

RaMOLSON 

DEVELOPMERT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels &t Retail 1 5 

1. 

Fabrication Ft Installation 

Is in intended that all finished work be of the highest qualityto pass eye -level examination and scrutiny by the 

Landlord and Designer. 

General Fabrication Specifications 

Construct all work to eliminate burrs, dents, cutting edges and sharp corners. 

All Finished welds on exposed surfaces to be imperceptabl e. 

Conceal all fasteners, except where approved otherwise by the Landlord. 

Make access panels tight- fitting, light proof and fl ush with surfaces. 

Conceal all transformers and conduit. 

Sign Lighting 

Electric Signs shall be either illuminated from the i nteriorofa sign, behind the letters (back lighting) or channel 

lighting. 

All primary and secondary sign elements must be internally and /or externally illuminated except for window 

graphics. Hot spots and leaks are not permitted. 

All illuminated signs shall be fabricated, installed a nd comply with national local / building and electrical codes and 

shall bare the U.L. label. 

To protect the visual environment, all tenant's lightfixtures in regards to brightness and glare shall be subject to 

approval. Tenant's primary and secondary sign (if applicable) shall remain illuminated after hours as designated 

by the landlord. Lighting is required to be circuited and switcfhed separately from other store fixtures on the 

tenant's panel and controlled by a time - clock. 

Required Signs 

Address Numbers as provided for in sections 41118 4112 of the U niform Building Security Code, street address 

numbers or suite numbers shall be displayed in a p rorninent position so as to be easily visible to approaching 

vehicles. The Numerals shall be no less than 6 inches in hei ght and shall be of a color contrasting with the 

background and located so they can be clearly seerand read, 

Landlord to provide all address / suite numbers.

RwDwOLSON 

DEVELOPMENT 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail | A

m, 

Y 

a 

00 R0OLOUN 

1019hu 

DEVELOPMENT 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail 1 6 

w 

IAARA 

fA1RF1 

45' -, ! ELD 8 slrms 

c 

144 

t' 

4C •+• 

i ....... .. w e 7 i w 

rr t. - 

i Asa ._. Y+ 

m '\ .. } 

j j•. 

cur. 

ri 

jib 

i 

Primary Pole / Freestanding Freeway Sign & Center Identification Sign 

B 

Primary Monument Signs /Center Identification 

l 

Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign 

Single Tenant Wall Signs 

for Parcel A & C 


Single Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel B 

On Premise Directional Signs

RaBoOLSONmot 

DEVELOPMEN Pacific Center Tustin Hotels & Retail 1 7 

0 Primary Pole / Freestanding Freeway Sign & Center Identification Sign 

Materials: Per the City's Sign regulations, and general criteria listed in section 9403i, this sign shall incorporate 

design elements, materials and colors which are compatible and reflectthe special qualities of the architecture of 

the buildings. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. 

Location & 

Qty: This pole sign /Freestanding Freeway Sign shall be located in a landscaped area and is limited to 

i). Sign shall maintain a minimum of so' from another pole or freestanding sign located on an adjacent site. 

Size: If approved as requested, this sign shall not exceed a height of 46'tall and 200 sq ft of sign area.

R 

DEVCT 

7 T 

1,. 

O tit E ! T Pacific Center Tustin Hotels & Retail 

B } Primary Monument Signs /Center Identification 

i 

Materials: Per the City's Sign Regulations, and general criteria listed in section 9403i, these signs shall incorporate 

design elements, materials and colors which are compatible and reflect the special qualities of the architecture of 

the buildings. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. 

Location and Qty: These Primary Monument Signs /Center Identification Signs shall be located in the landscaped 

Corner of Edinger Avenue and Newport Avenue and at the landscaped corner of Newport Avenue and the On /Off 

ramp to S. R. 55. These signs are subject to clearance requirements and are limited to (z). These signs shall 

maintain a minimum of z5' separation from the property line or 5o' from another existing pole or monument sign 

on an adjacent site, whichever is less restrictive. 

Size: If approved as requested, these signs shall not exceed a height of 8' tall and 125 square ft of sign area each.

RoM 

DEVELOPMENT 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail f 10 

Single Tenant Directional Wall Sign for Parcel A & C 

Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters with a maximum of 3 sign coDors. Per the City's Sign regulations, 

Can signs are not permitted as wall signs. These letters shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors 

similarto other proposed signs on site and be only forthe purpose of business Identification. The tenants name 

and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. 

Location and Qty: This Single Tenant Directional signs for Parcel A & C, if approved as requested, can be located 

on the entry drive elevation per drawing shown to help traffic flow through the Porte- cochere. 

Size: If approved as requested, sign shall not exceed 1-5% of the elevation on which it is located up to a maximum 

Of 40 sq ft. 

J

RoDoOLSON 

DEVELOPMENT 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotels ft Retait 11 

Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A& C 

Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters with a maximum of 3 sign colors. Per the City's Sign regulations, 

Can signs are not permitted as wall signs. These letters shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors 

similar to other proposed signs on site and be only for the purpose of business Identification. The tenants name 

and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. 

Location and Qty: These Single Tenant Wall signs for Parcel A & C, if approved as requested, can be located on 

each individual elevation, up to a maximum of 3 signs total per Building Address. 

Size: If approved as requested, these signs shall not exceed 15% of the elevation on which it is located up to a 

maximum of 75 sq ft per Ordinance No. 1323- page 56 of 71. 

IV is 11 

It4 ; A l I F .', TjfjN 

imam 

J

RwDw8LS 

DEVELOPMENT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels Et Retail 2 

Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A& C 

ANN44 ELXVAn,oN 

NORTH ELEVATION 

REM IELEVAT"

R 

DEVELOPMENT Pacific Center Tustin Hotels 8 Retail 13 

0 Single Tenant Wall Signs for Parcel A& C 

0 2a° 

sr 

Al 

r 

PrcriMwc Frey 

rIr'! 

Aarnott 

ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS ( 

43.4 SO FT) 

M 

w 

Ai•1' 

Mners gAF l37 (i$ 

m M Wd3WX SNd 

COL SPECIFICATION 

Wfi 

Pw Jnpt 3M#VT 1 -•.,., 

Pam Meiprews tmp 9$937 W Sam rmixn 

W1Me Aayk 

Pmmi (Retums) Pmt a$776 Gpiq ...., .. 

3A Jeweh(e GOLD - Tnm Caps 

FAin1XV HEU0 1"N X4 u bUITIES 

Aarnotl P-](-

OLSON R.B. 

DEVELOPMEI'iT 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotels 8t Retail 14 


Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters or Backlit Halo Illuminated letters with a maximum Of sign 

colors (excluding logo colors). Perthe City's Sign regulations, Can signs are not permitted as wall signs. These 

letters shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors similar to other proposed signs on site and be only 

for the purpose of business Identification. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. 

Location and Qty: Each tenant is allowed (1) primary sign per business storefront. Signs shall be located either on 

building wall elevation or canopy elevation as long as approved by landlord and consistent with other signage on 

the same elevation. 

Size: Primary signs shall be limited to 1 sq ft of signage per each linear foot of elevation up to 75 sq ft. 

iSingle Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel B 

Materials: Internally Illuminated Channel Letters or Backlit Halo Illuminated letters with a maximum of 3 sign 

colors (excluding logo colors). Per the City's Sign regulations, Can signs are not permitted as wall signs. These 

letters shall incorporate design elements, materials and colors similar to other proposed signs on site and be only 

for the purpose of business Identification. The tenants name and use of logo, if existing, is only permitted. 

Location and Qty: Each tenant is allowed (1 -2) secondary signs, depending on location per business storefront. 

Signs shall be located either on building wall elevation or canopy elevation as long as approved by landlord and 

consistent with other signage on the same elevation. 

Size: Secondary wall signs shall be limited to 25 sq ft.

RaDmOLSON 

DEVELOPMENT 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotels F1 Retail) 15 

Single Tenant Primary Wall signs for parcel 8 (see site plan on page 6 for location) 

Single Tenant Secondary Wall signs for parcel B (see site plan on page 6 for location) 

EAST ELEVATION SCALE alb I '-O 

WEST ELEVATION SCALE IM - 1'.0 

SOUTHIELEVATION SCALE IM'.I'- O 

EAST ELEVATION SCALE its .n -n. 

WEST ELEVATION SCALE W 

NOR TH ELEVATION SCALE are-- Y-0- 

RESTAURANT BUILDING

RoMOLS 

DEVELOPMENT 

Pacific Center Tustin Hotets Et Retait 16 

On Premise Directional Signs 

Materials: Metal or acrylic permanent material. These signs shall incorporate design elements, materials and 

colors similar to tenants' Primary and Secondary wall signs and be only forthe purposes related to parking, 

exit /entrances, directional and similar information, but in no case business or product identification. Signs shall 

be designed to be viewed from within the site by pedestrians and /or motorists. 

Location and Qty: If approved as requested, (1) per Business Address at primary intersections shown on page 6 

location map. 

Size: On Premise Directional signs shall be limited to 4 sq ft and a maximum of On height per Ordinance No. 

1321 page 58 of 71. 

r 

a . 

0 d 

rim 

R

AGENDA REPORT - City of Tustin

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?