The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11.06 Town and Country 3 - Attachments 7-10 ��.�.�.�,.� Planning Commission Gti�� •.tt' *� ��* Agenda Item o. :� �: � oL;co��,�,Pti� UtdTY May 21, 2018 TO: Chair Glasgow and Members of the Planning Commission THRU: Anna Pehoushek Assistant Community Development Director� FROM: Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner''�'1' ►V SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1855-17, Tentative Tract Map No. 0045-17, Major Site Plan Review No.0906-17,Design Review No.4914-17,and Administrative Adjustment No.0253- 17,for a new 727 unit development(653 apartments and 74 townhomes)at 702-1078 West Town and Country Road. SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to redevelop an existing office complex with a 727-unit apartment and townhome development (653 apartments and 74 townhomes). The property will be subdivided into three parcels with reciprocal easements linking them for purposes of shared access and open space: Parcel 1 (Building A) and Parcel 2 (Building B) would each include apartment units configured around multi-level parking structures with the following amenities: fitness centers, club rooms, pool and lounge courtyards, and amenity decks located on the top floor of each parking structure. Parcel 3 (Townhomes) will include 74 townhomes with attached two-car garages and surface level parking. Townhome amenities will include a pool and lounge courtyard and passive open courtyards. The applicant is also requesting an Administrative Adjustment for a 132-space reduction in the required parking. RECOMMENDED ACTION The following Planning Commission actions are recommended: 1) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1855- 17 AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MOIVITORING AND ATTACHMENT NO.7 PC STAFF REPORT 5-21-18 WITH MAP& PHOTOS,DRC MINUTES 702-1078 W.TOWN&COUNTRY ROAD JUNE 12,2018 CC MTG Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 2 REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 0045-17, MAJOR SIT'E PLAN REVIEW NO. 0906-17, AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4914-17, FOR A NEW 727 iTNIT (653 APARTMENTS AND 74 TOWNHOMES) MLILTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 702-1078 WEST TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD AND 2) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0253-17 TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION OF 132 PARKING SPACES IN CONJUNCTION WITH MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1855-17, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0045-17, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0906-17,AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4914-17 FOR A NEW 727 i1NIT (653 APARTMENTS AND 74 TOWNHOMES) MLILTI-FANIILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 702-1078 WEST TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD OR 3) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0253-17 TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION OF 132 PARKING SPACES IN CONJUNCTION WITH MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1855-17, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0045-17, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0906-17,AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4914-17 FOR A NEW 727 UNIT (653 APARTMENTS AND 74 TOWNHOMES) MCILTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 702-1078 WEST TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD AUTHORIZATION/GUIDELINES Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.08.020 authorizes the Planning Commission to review and take action on applications for Tentative Tract Maps, Major Site Plan Reviews, and environmental documentation as described in the City's environmental review guidelines. OMC Section 17.10.070 requires the approval of Design Review when a project requires Major Site Plan Review. OMC Section 17.10.O50.D authorizes the Zoning Administrator to take action on adjustments of up to 10% of a development standard; however, footnote (b) of Table 17.08.020 - Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 3 Reviewing Bodies of the OMC states that when more than one type of application is filed for a single project, the application requiring the highest level of approval shall dictate the review process for the entire group of applications. Therefore, the Planning Commission is acting as a recommending body to the City Council on all of the applications for the subject project. PUBLIC NOTICE On May 11, 2018, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 549 property owners/tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and persons specifically requesting notice. The project site was posted with the notification in four locations, and at City Hall on that same date. The notice was also published in the Orange City News newspaper on May 10, 2018. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1855-17 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1855-17 finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures (Exhibit B). The 20-day public review period began on March 21, 2018 and ended on April 10, 2018. On March 21, 2018, the City sent a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to a total�of 556 property owners and tenants within a 300 foot radius of the project site, adjacent cities, and other potentially affected public agencies and utility service providers initiating the public review period for the environmental document as described above. This notification was also published in the Orange City News on March 21, 2018, was on file with the Orange County Clerk Recorder, and was posted in four locations at the site. Copies of the document were available for public review at the Orange Public Library & Local History Center, the Taft Branch Library, at City Hall, and on the City's website. Staff received four written comment letters from responsible agencies during the public review period, and responses to those comments were prepared and forwarded to the respective authors in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and in advance of the City's consideration of any determination. Copies of the comment letters and responses can be found in Exhibit C. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 . Page 4 PROJECT BACKGROUND A licant: FF Realty III, LLC /Trevor Boucher Property Qwner: The Colton Company Pro ert Location: 702-1078 W. Town and Country Road Existing General Plan Urban Mixed Use (UMIX) Land Use Element designation: 1.5-3.0 FAR; 30-60 du/acre Existing Zoning Urban Mixed Use (UMU) Classification: Old Towne: Not Ap licable Specific Plan/PC: Not A licable Site Size: 12.13 acres Circulation: The site is located on the south side of W. Town and Country Road, between Lawson Way and Parker Street. Access to Building A is via two-way driveway approaches on Lawson Way, and on W. Town and Country Road. Access to Building B is via a two-way driveway approaches at the southwest corner of the property on Lawson Way and on W. Town and Country Road. Access to the Townhome parcel is via a two-way driveway approach of Parker Street. Town and Country Road is a 4-lane (divided) Primary Arterial that is improved to the ultimate right-of-way in the project vicinity. Lawson Way is a 4-lane Secondary Arterial that is improved to the ultimate right-of-way in the project vicinity. Parker Street is a 4-lane (divided) Primary Arterial that will be improved to the ultimate right-of-way as part of this project. OCTA Bus Route 453 (Orange Transportation Center-St. Joseph's Hospital) is located at the corner of Lawson Way and Town and Country Road. In addition, Routes 53 (Brea- Irvine) and 757 (Diamond Bar-Santa Ana Express) are located at the corner of Main Street and Town and Country Road. The Santiago Creek Bike Trail is located .02 miles east of the ro'ect site. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 5 Existing conditions: The 12.13-acre site is presently developed with seven two- story office buildings totaling approximately 197,874 square feet, associated surface parking, and on-site improvements. Surrounding land uses Surrounding properties have a General Plan designation of and Zoning: UMIX, and are zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU). To the north of the project site is Town and Country Road and a four-story office building with associated surface parking lot, and on an adjacent parcel is a five-story office building with associated surface parking lot. Also to the north is a proposed five-story multi-family residential development located at 999 W. Town and Country Road currently under construction. To the south is the Celebration Church and Town and Country Manor senior living community/health center in the City of Santa Ana. To the east is Parker Street, multiple office buildings, and Santiago Park Nature Preserve. Santiago Creek is located beyond the Nature Preserve a short distance to the east and southeast. To the west is Lawson Way and a 16-story office building (Orange Executive Tower) with associated parking structure, and a 260 unit multi-family residential apartment complex over two-story subterranean parking currently under construction (Eleven 10 West). Previous Numerous land use entitlements exist on this property; Applications/Entitlements: however, because the entire property will be recleveloped into a multifamily residential development, staff has included a condition of approval that requires the property owner to submit a letter relinquishing all prior land use entitlements for the site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a 12.13 acre property located on the south side of Town and Country Road, between Lawson Way and Parker Street. The existing Town and Country Office Plaza complex will be demolished and the site will be redeveloped with 727 multi-family units (653 apartments and 74 townhomes), resulting in a total density of 60 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan Urban Mixed Use land use designation allows for a density of 30-60 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes to subdivide the existing 12.13 acre site into three parcels: Parcel 1 (3.63 acres), Parcel 2 (4.83 acres) and Parcel 3 (3.67 acres). If each parcel is considered individually, Parcels 1 and 2 exceed the maximum density permitted within the zone. Parcel 1 at 295 units proposes a density of approximately 81 dwelling units/acre, Parcel 2 at 358 units proposes a density of approximately 74 dwelling units/acre, and Parcel 3 at 74 units proposes a density of 20 dwelling units/acre. When considering the project as a whole (12.13 acres), with reciprocal easements linking the three parcels together for purposes of shared access and open space, along Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 6 with a covenant limiting the number of residential units constructed on Parcel 3 to 74 units (20 dwelling units/acre), the project has an average density of 60 dwelling units/acre and is in compliance with the maximum density permitted within the zone. Parcel 1 (Building A) will include 295 five-story apartment units arranged around a seven (7) level parking structure containing 535 parking spaces, leasing office, landscaped swimming pool/outdoor lounge area, clubhouse, fitness center, and two interior landscaped courtyards. Access to the individual apartment units will be from an interior corridor system that ties in with each level of the parking structure. An 8,051 square foot amenity deck equipped with fire pits, outdoor kitchen, lounge area, dining area, herb garden, and landscaping is proposed as an eighth level of the parking structure with no parking. Parcel 2 (Building B) will include 358 five-story apartment units arranged around a seven (7) level parking structure containing 646 parking spaces, leasing office, landscaped swimming pool/outdoor lounge area, clubhouse, fitness center, and four (4) interior landscaped courtyards. Similar to Building A, access to the individual apartment units will be from an interior corridor system that ties in with each level of the parking structure. A 9,038 square foot amenity deck equipped with an outdoor entertaining space, fireplace, bar area, lounge area and dining area is proposed on the seventh level of the parking structure. The majority of units in Buildings A and B have a private balcony area with views towards the interior courtyards, or are oriented towards Lawson Way and Town and Country Road. Parcel 3 (Townhomes) will include 74 three-story townhomes with attached two-car garages containing 148 enclosed parking spaces, arranged within ten (10) detached buildings. Each unit will be provided with a private balcony with views towards interior courtyards, landscaped areas, Town and Country Road, and Parker Street. Common amenities include a landscaped swimming pool/outdoor lounge area and landscaped passive interior courtyards. Surface parking (35 spaces) is also provided for residents and guests. Proposed Units Sizes: Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Apartments: 598 sq. ft. 600 - 904 sq. ft. 1,072 - 1,465 sq. ft. 1,400 - 1,542 sq. ft. Buildings A and B Townhomes 1,524 - 1,747 sq. ft. 1,900 - 1,902 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing streetscape enhancements on the site frontages along Lawson Way, Town and Country Road, and Parker Street consisting of trees and landscaped planters. Existing street trees (Crape Myrtles and London Plane Trees) will remain or be replaced with similar trees, as needed. The frontage landscaping, including two corner plaza areas on the townhome parcel, is intended to provide a friendly pedestrian-oriented interface with the sidewalk for existing and anticipated patterns of pedestrian activity in the area. The applicant is also requesting an Administrative Adjustment to allow a 132-space reduction in the Code required parking for Buildings A and B, as the townhomes contain the code required parking. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 7 Site Design and Building Architecture Site Desi�n: The proposed project features a modern architectural style that reflects an urban housing aesthetic. Taking into consideration the City's Urban Mixed Use land use designation and the future development objectives of the South Main Street Corridor/Town and Country General Plan Focus Area to transition this area of the City to a mixed-use node that provides housing and commercial development opportunities that complement the major hospitals and office uses, the applicant has designed a project that provides high density innovative housing options that integrates with surrounding retail, professional office, and residential development. The project has a pedestrian oriented design, whereby the buildings are located close to the street, main entrances to buildings are oriented to the street sidewalk, and the streetscape and landscaped plazas provide clear and comfortable pedestrian interface with the project, the sidewalk, and convenient access to surrounding uses and transit stops. Access/Circulation: The property will be subdivided into three parcels, with reciprocal easements linking them for purposes of shared access and open space. The reciprocal easements are for vehicular and pedestrian access between Parcel 1, Parcel 2 and Lawson Way, a drive aisle and pedestrian walkway over Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, paseo pedestrian access between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, ingress/egress, storm water mainline, utilities, waste, water quality features, emergency access to Parcels l, 2 and 3, landscape and irrigation, and shared maintenance responsibilities. Vehicular access to Parcel 1 (Building A) is provided via one right-turn in/right-turn out only driveway located along Town and Country Road and via one full access driveway located along Lawson Way. Access to Parcel 2 (Building B) is provided via one full access driveway located along Town and Country Road and via one full access driveway located along Lawson Way. Access to Parcel 3 (Townhomes) is provided via one full access driveway located along Parker Street. Interiar access to the individual townhomes is provided via 25 foot wide drive aisles. Landscape/Streetscape: Interior hardscape materials for Buildings A, B, and the townhomes include a combination of concrete and porcelain tile pavers in shades of tan and gray, synthetic turf for private courtyards, paseos, and rooftops, and combination light and dark gray concrete-CMU walls. Private courtyard fencing for Buildings A and B will consist of stucco walls, while the Townhome fencing will be constructed of inedium brown horizontal composite wood. Interior amenity courtyards and common areas, paseos, and rooftop decks will be landscaped with linear and random groupings of trees and foundation planting including: Date, King, and Mexican Palms; Purple Acacia, Jacaranda, Fruitless Olive, London Plane, assorted citrus, Brisbane Box, and Chinese Elm trees; Desert Spoon Felt, New Zealand Flax, Blue Fescue, Sea Lavender, synthetic turf, and decorative potted plants. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 8 Streetscape treatment includes retention of existing street trees (Crape Myrtles and London Plane Trees) or replacement with similar trees, foundation planting, landscape planters, and two corner plazas on the townhome parcel to enhance the streetscape and create a relationship between the buildings and the pedestrian. Tree and shrub varieties implemented will include Eastern Redbud, Camphor, California Live Oak, Icee Blue Yellow-Wood, and Compact Carolina Cherry trees, Desert Spoon, New Zealand Flax, Coral Aloe, Blue Fescue, Natal Plum, Philodendron, Large Cape Rush, and Myer Asparagus. Building Architecture: Apartments: Buildings A and B incorporate a variety of architectural features that strive to achieve a distinctive urban character. These features include varied roof lines, extensive use of windows and balconies, alternating and repetitive rectangular wall planes, and dimensional accent details. While both buildings display similar design details and style, the alternating and repetitive wall planes appear heavier and more articulated on Building A. The use of a variety of exterior building materials also contribute to the architectural character of the project. These materials include wood plank tile, fiber cement panels, patterned metal siding, sand finish stucco, metal and glass balcony railing, metal awnings, aluminum storefront systems on the ground floor, white vinyl windows and balcony doors, and concrete/CMU parking structure construction. The exterior color scheme of Building A includes various shades of gray, brown, white, and black, and Building B includes shades of gray, white, black, and red. Townhomes: The three-story building height and more conservative architectural features of the townhome buildings distinguish this product type from the adjacent apartment buildings. The townhome buildings display varied wall planes, alternating window sizes, vertical stone covered columns, and covered balconies. Exterior building materials include stucco, cementitious horizontal siding, stone veneer, metal balcony railing, vinyl windows and paneled sectional garage doors. The exterior color scheme includes shades of gray, brown, white, and red. Si��e: Signage for the project is for illustrative purposes only and is not included in this proposal. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 9 Development Standards Required Under Proposed Code UMU Zonin Pro'ect Section Lot Area 40,000 sq. ft. Total Project: 12.13 acres Table (3,933,468 sq. ft.) 17.19.120 Parcel 1 (Bldg. A): 336 acres (158,123 sq. ft.) Parcel 2 (Bldg. B): 4.83 acres (3,615,480 sq. ft.) Parcel 3 (Townhomes): 3.67 acres (159,865 s . ft.) Lot Width 100 ft. Parcel 1 (Bldg. A): 300 ft. Table Parcel2 (Bldg. B): 400 ft. 17.]9.120 Parcel3 (Townhomes): 330 ft. Residential Density 30 - 60 dwelling units/acre 60 dwelling units/acre(when Table considering project as a whole, 17.19.120 and not b individual arcels) Building Height 45 feet; however, building Buildings A and B: Table height may exceed the allowed 66—88 ft.tall 17.19.120(i) maximum provided no part of the building exceeds '/4 of the Townhomes: horizontal distance between 36-46 ft.tall the ground point of the building and nearest single- family residential district boundary. (Note: building height in excess of 45' is allowed without a Variance or CUP provided that site is not in proximity to single family residential uses.) Distance between 20 ft. Window wall to window 20 ft. min. Table structures with wall: 17.19.090 building height of 20-60 ft. 20 ft. Window wall to non- window wall l 5 ft.Non-window wall to Between Townhome Buildings: non-window wall 16 ft. min. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 10 Distance between 25 ft. Window wall to window Between Buildings A and B: Table structures with wall: 38 ft. min. 17.19.090 building height of 61-80 ft. Between Buildings B and Townhomes: 29 ft. min. 25 ft. Window wall to non- window wall. 15 ft.Non-window wall to non-window wall. Fence height 42 in. Front yard or corner side Private courtyard fencing along 17.19.140 yard street frontages: 42 in.tall max. 6 ft. All other areas Masonry Wall Between Parcels 2 and 3: 6 ft. max. Landscaping Setbacks and open areas of the The UMU zoning provides for a 0 17.19.160 site not occupied by buildings ft. setback from all property lines; shall be landscaped. however, the site perimeter, pool and open courtyards, and roof top amenity decks for Buildings A and B, plaza space along West Town and Country Road, and all street fronta es are landsca ed. Open space, useable 15% of total floor area of 17.19.090.D (Total includes dwelling units: common open space plus private open space) Parcel 1 (Bldg. A): 40,093 sq. ft. 40,915 sq. ft. Parcel2 (Bldg. B): 49,723 sq. ft. 61,368 sq. ft. Parcel 3 20,339 sq. ft. 20,769 sq. ft. (Townhomes): Pro'ect Total: 110,149 s . ft. 123,052 s . ft. � Open space, Up to 1/3 of the required 17.14.110.D common usable open space Parcel 1 (Bldg. A): 30,846 sq. ft. Parcel 2 (Bldg. B): 48,931 sq. ft. Parcel 3 15,685 sq. ft. (Townhomes): Project Total: 36,349 sq. ft. 95,462 s . ft. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 11 Open space,private Up to 25% ofthe total Balconies range in size from: 17.19.090.D open space requirement may be met by counting any private Building A: 50- 70 sq. ft. exterior open space areas Building B: 50 - 70 sq. ft. (patios and balconies) Townhomes: 70 - 110 sq. ft. provided within the project. Parcel 1 (Bldg. A): ]4,650 sq. ft. Parcel2 (Bldg. B): 18,502 sq. ft. Parcel 3 5,084 sq. ft. (Townhomes): Pro'ect Total: 27,590 s . ft. Parking Studio: 1.2 spaces/unit These totals represent the 9% Table 1 Bedroom: 1.7 spaces/unit reduction being requested in the 1734.060.A 2 Bedroom: 2.0 spaces/unit Administrative Adjustmentfor the Guest: 0.2 spaces/unit project as a whole and a 10% reduction for Buildings A and B. Parcel 1 (Bldg. A): Resident: 535 482 Guest: 59 53 Total: 594 535 Parcel 2 (Bldg. B): Resident: 647 582 Guest: 72 65 Total: 719 646 Parcel 3 Resident: 168 168 (148 enclosed+20 open) (Townhomes): Guest: ]5 15 Total: 183 183 Pro�ect Total: 1,496 1,364 Setback, Front l0' Max. Table Up to 20' where sidewalk l 7.19.120 oriented pedestrian amenities � are provided. BldgA: 8 - ]0 ft. (varies)to building face Bldg. B: 8 - 10 ft. (varies)to building face Townhomes: 4- 10 ft. (varies)to buildin face Setback, Rear 0 ft. Table 17.19.120 Bldg A: 40 ft. min. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 12 Bldg. B: 40 ft. min. Townhomes: 10 ft. Setback, Side 0 ft. Table 17.19.120 BldgA: 5 ft. min. on west (Lawson Way) side; 20 ft. min. on east side Bldg. B: 15 ft. on west side; 16 ft. on east side Townhomes: 8.2 ft. on west side; 10 ft. on east (Parker Street) side Setback, Street Side 10' Max. Table Up to 20' where sidewalk 17.19.120 oriented pedestrian amenities are provided. BuildingA: 5 ft. min. on west (Lawson Way) side Townhomes 10 ft. APPLICATION(S) REQUESTED/ REQUIRED FINDINGS Tentative Tract Map: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map for Condominium Purposes to subdivide the property into three parcels with reciprocal easements linking them for purposes of shared access and open space, and to create a single lot subdivision for Parcel 3 (Townhomes). The Tentative Tract Map for Condominium Purposes establishes common areas and private exclusive use areas for Parcels 3 (Townhomes). Common areas include private drive aisles, surface parking, recreational use areas, landscaping, and streetscape. Exclusive use areas include private porches/courtyard areas at the entry of units, and private roof decks. The reciprocal easements are for vehicular and pedestrian access between Parcel 1, Parcel 2 and Lawson Way, a drive aisle and pedestrian walkway over Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, paseo pedestrian access between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, ingress/egress, storm water mainline, utilities, waste, water quality features, emergency access to Parcels 1, 2 and 3, landscape and irrigation, and shared maintenance responsibilities. Required Findings: 1. The requirements for the filing of subdivision maps shall be governed by the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 16 of the Orange Municipal Code (OMC). All maps shall comply with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Zoning Ordinance, Title 16 of the OMC, and any other ordinance, statute or law pertaining to the use, sale, leasing or subdivision of land. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 13 Maior Site Plan: The applicant is proposing a Major Site Plan to construct a new 727-unit apartment and townhome development (653 apartments and 74 townhomes), and associated parking structures and amenities. Required Findings: l. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods. 2. The project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements. 3. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on- and off-site. 4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project. 5. The project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental effects. Desi�n Review: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the architectural design, landscaping, and streetscape improvements associated with the proposed project. Required Findings: 1. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by the DRC or other reviewing body for the project (OMC 17.10.070.F.1). 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines (OMC 17.10.070.F.2). 3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.070.F.3). 4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange Infill Residential Design Guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character (OMC 17.10.070.F.4). Administrative Adiustment: The applicant is requesting an Administrative Adjustment from Section 17.34.060.A of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a 132 space (9%) reduction in the total required parking for the overall project. Required Findings: 1. The reduction in standards will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working on the subject property or in the vicinity. 2. Issuance of the permit does not compromise the intent of this code. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 14 ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Issue 1: Administrative Adjustment for Parking The applicant is requesting a 132-space reduction in parking for the project, specifically for the apartments (Buildings A and B), because the townhomes comply with the code required 183 parking spaces. This represents a 9% reduction in the Code required parking for the overall project (Buildings A, B and the townhomes) and a 10% reduction in parking for Buildings A and B. While the Code requires 1,313 spaces (2.1 spaces/unit) for Buildings A and B, only 1,181 spaces are provided. This represents a parking ratio of 1.8 spaces/unit. The applicant has indicated that there will be assigned parking for Buildings A and B, and there will be no shared structured parking. For multifamily residential development of three or more units, the Orange Municipal Code (OMC) requires calculation of required parking spaces based upon a ratio assigned for each unit type and number of bedrooms. Additionally, regardless of the number of bedrooms, all units are required to be provided with a fractional guest space. Although the City has recently adopted new parking requirements for multi-family residential development (Ordinance No. 06-17, adopted on January 9, 2018), the parking requirements for this project are based on the previous code that was in effect at the time of project application submittal in April 2017. The following parking ratios were used to determine the required parking far the project: OMC Table 17.34.060.A: Multifamily Residential (3 units or more) Studio 1.2 s aces/unit 1 Bedroom 1.7 spaces/unit 2 Bedrooms 2.0 s aces/unit Three or More Bedrooms 2.4 spaces/unit Guest: 0.2 spaces/unit Based on the above referenced parking requirements, Buildings A and B require a total of 1,313 spaces. Averaging the total number of apartments represents a ratio of 2.01 spaces per unit. Given the City Council's concerns about the adequacy of the City's multi-family parking standards, staff does not support the Administrative Adjustment. However, the applicant contends that the number of parking spaces proposed is more than adequate to meet the needs of the project. The applicant has prepared a supplemental parking analysis, including a utilization survey of comparable apartment complexes in Orange to support their position(Attachment 9). While the City Code applies a tenant and guest parking ratio of 2.01 for the apartments, the parking analysis indicates that, based on industry standards, actual parking requirements for multifamily Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 15 residential uses have been found to be significantly less than the City's code requirement. The ITE Parking Generation 4t" Edition applies a parking ratio of 1.61 spaces/dwelling unit, and the ULI Shared Parking 2°d Edition (residential rental units) applies a parking ratio of 1.65 spaces/dwelling unit. In addition, parking utilization surveys of similar types of residential apartment developments in Orange (Allure Apartments and AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments) demonstrate "average" ratios of 1.47-1.62 spaces/unit on a weekday and 1.45-1.52 spaces/unit on a weekend day. With a 10% reduction in the required parking, the proposed Apartments (Buildings A and B) represent a parking supply ratio of 1.81 spaces/unit. Based on the information provided in the parking study, the applicant concludes that a parking supply ratio of 1.81 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of Apartment Buildings A and B. In light of City Council's concerns regarding the adequacy of parking in multi-family residential development and the conclusions of the parking study, Staff is deferring to the Planning Commission as to the appropriate recommendation to the City Council regarding the Administrative Adjustment request. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the parking adjustment to the City Council, a condition requiring shared access and parking for Apartment Buildings A and B, which includes tenant and guest parking, is included as Condition No. 2 in Resolution of approval No. PC 12-18 to ensure adequate available parking for both buildings. Issue 2: Workforce Housin� The applicant has prepared a Workforce Housing Study to demonstrate how the Town and Country Apartments would help satisfy the need for workforce housing in Orange. The study generally defines Workforce Housing as "housing for individuals that do not qualify for housing subsidized by low income housing tax credits, redevelopment set-aside funding, Section 8 housing, and other forms of subsidized housing". The report provides a review of 2017 Orange County median monthly income levels in relation to qualifying incomes for the rental rates anticipated for the proposed apartments. The study also considers average monthly salaries associated with representative jobs that are typical examples of types of employees that qualify for workforce housing. Rental rates for the proposed project are anticipated to range from $1,750/month for a studio unit to $2,345/month for a 2-bedroom unit (3-bedroom units were not included in the report). According to the report, the minimum qualifying household income for future residents of the Town and Country apartments are anticipated to range from 2.5 to 3 times rent levels. Below are the average monthly incomes that qualify for rental at the project: Studio: $4,375 - $5,251 One Bedroom: $4,573 - $5,488 Two Bedroom: $5,863 - $7,036 The qualifying income levels would be in alignment with individuals earning the median County income. Additionally, the 60 unit/acre density of the project, in conjunction with the "typical" monthly income of jobs in the area, demonstrates that the project increases the supply of warkforce housing in the City of Orange. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 16 Issue 3: Environmental Im�act/Miti a�t�ion The analysis contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that implementation of the project may result in potentially significant environmental effects without mitigation to the following environmental factors: Transportation/Traffic, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Geology/Soils, and Noise. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the conditions of approval as part of the draft Planning Commission Resolution provided as Attachment l. Section 3 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration provided in Exhibit B summarizes the project's significant impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance after mitigation. Incorporation of the mitigation measures into the project results in a reduction of significant impacts to less than significant levels to the environmental factors listed above. With the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission, the issue is considered resolved. Issue 4: Public Comments The City received four comment letters during the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration from the following responsible agencies: Department of Transportation (Caltrans), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQIVID), Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA), and Orange County Public Works (OCPW). • Caltrans requested project coordination regarding Mitigation Measure 16-2, the restriping of Santa Clara Avenue at the Interstate 5 ramp, requested a copy of the project construction management plan, and provided comments regarding the bicycle and pedestrian network. • SCQAMD requested that the project comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 regarding asbestos emissions from demolition/renovation activities, and a Health Risk Assessment to evaluate project exposure to air pollution emitted from vehicles and trucks travelling on State Route 22. • OCTA encourages the City of Orange to consider inclusion of a short/long term bicycle parking and bicycle facilities for residents and guests, and that the City keep OCTA informed of project impacts to nearby bus stops. • OCPW inquired if the project is a Priority Development Project under the City's municipal storm water permit. Staff prepared response comments to all correspondence received and forwarded those responses in compliance with CEQA. With the concurrence of the Planning Commission of the information provided when acting to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, the issues are considered resolved. The comments received and the responses are provided as Exhibit C. Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 17 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Staff Review Committee: The Interdepartmental Streamlined Multidisciplinary Accelerated Review Team (SMART) determined that the plans, technical studies, and content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration were satisfactory, and recommended Planning Commission approval of the project on March 19, 2018, subject to the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and staff recommended conditions. Design Review Committee: The DRC conducted preliminary reviews of the project design on August 2 and September 20, 2017. The Committee formally reviewed the subject proposal at the April 4, 2018 meeting, and unanimously (5-0) recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and project subject to staff recommended conditions and mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the addition of a condition requiring that the metal panel materials for Building A return to the DRC for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. The DRC Minutes are provided as Attachments 6 through 8. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachments to Re�ort: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-18 for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1855-17 (including Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program), Tentative Tract Map No. 0045-17, Majar Site Plan Review No.0906-17,and Design Review No.4914-17 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-18 for approval of Administrative Adjustment No. 0253-17 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-18 for denial of Administrative Adjustment No. 0253-17 4. Vicinity Map 5. Site Photos 6. Design Review Committee Minutes, August 2, 2017 7. Design Review Committee Minutes, September 20, 2017 8. Design Review Committee Minutes, Apri14, 2018 9. Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Parking Analysis dated March 20, 2018 10. Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Workforce Housing Report dated January 3, 2018. 11. Letter to City Council from Fairfield Residential (dated March 21, 2018)regarding parking Planning Commission Staff Report May 21, 2018 Page 18 Exhibits�rovided to the Plannin� Commission: A. Submitted Plans date stamped May 9, 2018 B. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1855-17, and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C. Letters Received from Responsible Agencies and Response to Comments for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1855-17 cc: FF Realty III LLC Attn: Trevor Boucher 5510 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 trevorb(a�ffres.com Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. Attn: Pamela Sapetto One Park Plaza, #600 PMB 313 Irvine, CA 92614 psapetto e sapettorealestate.com amaloney�a�sa�ettorealestate.com N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Tentative Tract Maps\TTM 0045-17\PC\PC Staff Report 5.21.18 Vicinity Map 702-1078 W. Town and Country Road Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1855-17 Tentative Tract Map No. 0045-17 Major Site Plan Review No. 0906-17 Design Review No. 4914-17 Administrative Adjustment No. 0253-17 a�� V ,— ' ( �_ ^ N..I— I s �. v ie is:, fil I��pg'-'o��.��'�H�^L� I /'�r Rtp��i,l�� R'� Rtd a� �IR�I� I �I ¢ l �� II ' � I P-�SP) � ! l I ii�� q�2 I.. � ��] �� eze �� "�� 1 � I � F! �;I� L.��- p�- i RJ I I I �r � , � p, ,I J 5 -" i ��3 �Aa_ p �.. .� �J��1i J� JI t��l I�l�l;l li � �, . ° J �ai� �"lo��_ � _ �t �.s"_ � I�i _ r e�' ie s� � �-i�� _11�� u, : �� ' � L ' I '- W I 4 ' i i � I. < t � � �� R� � � NMV.21 �� I I � 1°.� ��L CJ� �L �� 1s � � �� N1� � � i�t ore�� I�-�� SfJo�Seph � oc �� ea �� 1.. � avl1I . I�� a� J L lil..� �. Mos itat I d�� ": j 1? 3 ��I��J� � b � �„�'� ��, �� ` � _ �.z �z �, �- { � ' � fl2A� ��I � ^ . �� I �1 } ) �� P+AB R3E' VIQ�S�� , C.1 � ��I p ��fj�'. �-3 R8 _. . . 6I� �e��I. ` �I `--ft, ��q_3/ �LJ �� C1 �—�V '�v,a%> -��. 11 l � � � I � ��.... " � ��paAJ� :PaA R-ab e P � ` � R9 � UMU ��M� \' 4 ....� ! '•••..• � Mdlli �� uTOW/)lMll � UMV UMII R.l PIdIL a� ,�!!` r, � / � i �., 1 � �6cunt�' U.� �: u'� ..1-,�` ..` � �. c . , ___.._..______ _ , .`'• ' i ; , . � .._..Fa„' ' _'._ � _ �� .. . e,� . ,n.ro. � i . � ..,.. . 3. I . ..._ ` ,,, , , / � '�r . , ..__. : "' . , ' .r � ; ' i t i 3 : a ; � s � t ... t , . • - � _ � _. � t }— 1 i �, __ -. � " ' , .M: ., SANT�I� _: �4` , ;= , , _ .� �--"" ' _.. � � _ , ; �. _ N w � . E ATTACHMENT NO.4 7"PM 0045-17 TOWN AND COONTRI' � ' VICINITY MAP � MAY 21,2018 PC MTG. CITY OF ORANGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �� , �� 4� � ��b 4� kay � � �� Y �33X�5 U�NXVd � — � � $o � � . �= Ez.00� ��' e I aq�9 . _. - -—� �. - �--- � �a N M ,s.� s �� `�` �y� � epE I � r <� r v.[aJ�[ � r � ��trp � q d � 9& r � I � y�y/ � I II � I ^� I � _ a a m �i � I U � C y' � � �.I � � � � o � � o ZI o � � a o' , z � V�' c w � o v a �j oi U a Z I - v !n a` Q `m � rn �I= � °' c � 3 0 a�l o a` a 3 F m t �I o � � N �� N I r �I I � I � � � I � o� `a ` � -- ��&�I o �a��l I '� �j� �a I o0 � � ' a� i1' \\ _ esss. .,zv._ �a� - . - _ �� '— _ .-y CD ss�K � ,a �. sg° —L�_ -_ _—_ _ � __ �_ c� N �.� ,°"°°e,� �,� a.�..��: Y � .22S2S n. G� � ... Po—O� _��n ,r,..- �` � � — — — .(VM NOSM E'7 -- — — — — I �s �" �; � � ATTACFIMENT NO. 5 � � r rM ooas-» roN�ry n:v�coury rev ��'' �I SI"PM:VHO'fOS �� MAY 21,2018 PC MTG. �k I ��r,. � .f. � J a . �.4 ' ��•;�4�F ±�fy��'�';. � .. � �,'. ,��p�, : a°��1 "'�'iM;�� d r �_ � �._ ,��:�s�' r � � �. t. J� • � _ ,Nl:�. ��6D' �1. V �� ,y4'� .t { ' �_ �'�'� /""�� y � ��r'rt k� � '� .��A�J�It r �;,`Ly� � '�� R�� :•;� t y�{��✓�� g •': t � �� I� r,: � � . 1(M�� ;r� ; �, . �. � � i I f �� t, � �'(��; "c . �� ' X „'�i: , l�� 'j� �� r��r ' r �' 1 + [�1t �� '� ' �rt �N � � v � 1 r �� L 3 *` � � �x � '. �� / ��_ r: � / �� r� . �. �4``� '� i{f#� - A , , , f1k �;ry�'�,y'� ��.�� , � i;�� . q i, . �,� ` � , � � I �� ! , � �. � r �� R i� � " �� ' � � r �, � � � . ,._ �' , .,�' � �: � � ,. �,. . . ..� ` , . - .�;__ � _ ��._ ., .. J S'._..A . j � . . �•� � _ l_..e �� . y � ' ;H 4:�t�F .. ' .. ' . .. ' �! : '.l.i.yw.�__.� � . . r�r * S � �� vT �.�`.�..� 1 ry• � .: .- •. tir. . , � � `'� I� �; - =•= ' �� r% �' � r , ��', � �':�� ; �v , ' � { {akq . y� 1 P � a�'. �� O � - �I. -:�±� � � �( F '.� � s`' :� �}� � ��.. �". ��ii � .;�:-rs� �k1 � �- � � y _ �. == � N ,.�. �..,' � ..�.. .i.s: ■ � -; —. �.r ^4_:' . :� � f ' .�'. _ ��f:�..t. ., w � ;> Y., ,'`.��1� y`' . . ., . ,- r � � _ �� ,� � ti; S J � �i'"'�,., � ��`.. M y5, q Y 1 � d�.� � F � �, , . � I _ ; , i , g � !� � t �� r t � � a�� .f � 1� � -� :. ,it � a�p�y. ,r r ,�.� .f �� , g ' _`�'�P„i . [ ;"^_ `'r ; , v , s y., § :� � � � ��:t Y ',' . • i .�n. .� �. ^'k'.. . : , .. . ...-r ., .. � 4 � r k��ti • ��g��Y� F� . ! � �� r�! �'i I' � ' � .. . `.s '; i �„ f 4+ `^ ``y, .".t ! — ` � k ii I� R � • � y � ;. S�''� 1�'. 3.` � �S JI I i r � v � �� .� �' j � { � ,y�' r •;�� *� i ''`I � Y ( 1 s o�„ �;FI •�J:.,,,�, , . �__r � � �� i _� — � r£' '�� , � - . � ;..: _ �,� , � � . . .� �� g4 <� d� Ff- �.� _� e�- . Ap ��wi,• ¢ ..��A� �`. � f`� .� ��,, 's�S �. �. . �`�� .�.I S �� ' f$: `� � � : � � � -.� �.l' �,�' ,r t .�. "�1 ' ` 'n .p. - - %�`�- _ �-� -�� { � � �'� �� -,/ / ,",�'. sa ; 1 1 ��. � '-- {�_ �< = 1w i ;� ,�`�� . G .., �,'T.� "' 2.. . 7� T- �7� _/_ /� '� �r' ' t . _ -_—. �x�:O�. ?i'---_:-1 Y'; > . :.. .... _ . .i � i � ' . �_.— ''s.` ` `L � � l �J �. _ _" 1 l '�''i� _... �'.-i.�a� 'b�.g% �'{ ,11. ' '. ', � 6 � 1 � ' �'�°� ��'� 9� , '�' `� �� i ,-L a� �� — �,�—`_ - � --�, +-- ' . . t� �� 3 _ 4 ..\,4 �. ,+.' ,� j� ' tR �I . 1 � s� 4 1` (' ,1 1,. ' j �3'- � .'e F� a�s • �,; �ti I � c c-4�LL`y� , ---, --— �� ' i � �---� k. �' +� 'e•� �.a `1 -- '— -_,. —z-..C: 1_.r` �� + , �1,� R . y �; T " C-` " .� � ' t � 1 . th �� ' . 17 �i � ,�L � I � - ' — T . if Y_�� ''��y� '!'� �� _ ._.1.. �I � Y '� .� -_. _ �"�h h^� 1 � t _.. }y4 4�: �}� 1 M1. J 'L � _ v ' � , � - �_ �._ x -�� =� � �,:, • �.�.�. '� - � �„ �` ..i ` � ` � _ � _ �� , I��' `� " �� A - � .;! � �, . �� -C�` , y � ' p� -- _ a� � � r,- — �y . . �' • � ` _ ; �; � � � ��_ �"�. � _�'' a`� �I 4 '� ��. - '' �� r �� _�._. R . � � ' 1� � �}��, ��— � � , � .� , �:. � a�. _ f � �� i.��- n � }i , .. � ..� 9i^ � Iti � . � ' -- gd � J� � �.r � n a� y� � -C.__ A . � a, �,'._� , - _. , � -:. :� . �� " �i�� '. ��,. � ` " ,� � 1 ;s � � .�..: . ��- .: _ ��'.` ' ": � � - � _ � i � ..s-. .{q �� 7e^�� \ r � ��.. �.�. {��'- \, .j .i . �1T � �a � �4„ Y O � � - � W �� I �� 4� � r � I - j� I I, � X w yt}i.. __ \ 1.� . - � r-� . ..�T_ _ . . :..Z "�� '� - � . �- I � , � �/`' '� ,.. r i �._.�� / " �{ � � �� -� f'r '�' .y��•�l �„ � '%'_ � j ^� � - _ . .t t1 .i r �4`"�-� " - �.�m.-�'`.'"'"`'�.:. ��_ � �� `� ..� � ,:� /� ` J ' YT �-� � � � �� r. .��, '� .. � .. � ,' i �P� � � � i � �� '�. ; , , - - - �'� . ,,`�.'�� _�'�j , � ��a�� , �� '__ �,- ��7 .. �,'.yi ' �� '�'`�. ✓� �� , . / '. �� I I � � � _ , � � �_ ��il�llllll��`'��`� �� , '��}i� , �u►�-,' � �, .,.,t� ,i,, �` � i ,��l�iij�� ' ��I��f��lll '� � i �� , , �, #, . �, ,�:.. . - �II,IIIII'' ��, !I�� } ,, � �j �x�'_ } ua � !�� ll� �t * � � �"�,� .:. �i� $ � _ � �f; 9 �' � � Y .' > rt`�Z`ti Y� � � �� I �� F� � � - 1 ' � � � � 7 � � �M� [ ' Y ! T r r � _ -, 1+{� m Ir . r Y �' r� '�. '�� ! � �h '� Y � } „T�6-3 Y. '�W � f �R"'�.„�� i dv.-, . . - � . 1 �� F j,r e �.5 y. F ,� !$4� � J f �� ` ,Y;m � k � � iA 3 � � � ) ,- �� ; � _ . rSf. ; ��i Y � - � l�l��v"'J: � � 5�� . . }� . .. ,i.. � � ',i' ,' ' 9 - R `k�, a � ^ % .C :;� 1 ,t I a r �c ,�^.�i` a ^*.��' -� ;�r5 � i.�.:t-. c, .. / �• �4 � �'.r � ,:I - / ' ' i: _ � . ` ` r ;�1..:.. � - �k � ,-�� , .�,.� �; " , r '= b `, , � ¢ �f.*�Y , _ ��` - �� , " ',� . *' - - 7 ,r;'.r .� � } �' t � ..��t � ' � r*» `S I t � Y __ 8 �P �l �VA 1 .. — . � i �� .a,:; _��..r7, J' . _ ,�j- �� ;`�' ,:° '. — -�- �� r:, ; �, � � » � � a+Z r .'' il + ; . '� �l !H �` � d "�r`..% � /1 . I.iry� +� .�5.j .. � - �t x L.1 J '*�' +� ':.� � ��' �, 7�':11. /� �- - . t n sr i ' .'a � ^I � � � { � ■ � � � � '' Y. � '��v�',�,'`�� .; . .. �ll/�.i- . ��.�i ..� '�_ ��. t . ��"t: �- .�-�---- --- - � -�- - - � . �� 1, '` �o . *�'�.:=.� �,- ��_ 7,� - ' �a _ -- „ '�.e. � " - � �. ��-.r " _* � � , _.�-_- ^ � 4 _..../T, � ._ ' L�� 17 � ' .� r �a_ .�.. � �� J .�., '. ' - ��: ; r . �� . .; . : , ,x_ , �v �;. y � � .,, . ,� I R' ,� � � � � �'� � I � i%� j�� :� C ' � � � �� i � y •'� ;' I '�I, �' � � _ _�l�� : �; `�:� � ��;_ i � ,�: '.t ,- � -�� J. , x�� ,�� ` ,- .� � ��' , _ i�;��` ,�� ;� ; � � ►- �:a � � � � �, � � �� ; , �, > , , / : � � � i � � � ` « � ` � �� l .;� � � ��` ` �� li � � y �� , � �, `°° , ` � ' ;� �`� �" . �� 'k t° � � ,� `� f. \,, . ` `, � �. z, � ;\� ` ; � j�, (�"� � � �r y,�, ` � Y„ �� ;r � _ - � x �� ` "� � �, � .-. � � r, � �: �' µ��°�. � .. ,, .e- .� ; . , _ 3� , iF/ � .. . �fi.,� . `1:,- 3. �;�.. - � �ti .`��4_ :' � t` �� "` �✓ i r i�> • � g Ds�� i _ � , � � -�, �� —� w �.`�t``i��yi`�'- .�{t� � � 4,.� ' ' � -°'��J !r L..,^;1 i r: b-� � '' �'' � :�. ` � � �� \ � � p, � � l. 4.' , .-- � �> � _ �v ,L�_ � � , . � -s-4.� a _ 1 .-I ` " .�'(� � =r � � � '.- . � . � —� #" �." � , �'+`� — '� � �. ' .#ti C i_ ?." � — ; " C � � � � � � G,. ^� �— *� -- i i � I �. � � � . s ; �. �:� x `�� i -y,;. ; . � _: . -.-:.� �� _ �r i I� �~_� �� _l� y, ;, _� 1 � ,y�:;"_�,i'` �� o-"E� . r - .�� + I� ,.x- � � i � � � � Y� �� ' � , � �;:�-� � � � . � , � " � -��- � , � -�� :� � " � � � � � �� ,��.�. �•.�� - . �� [�: � , � . ,�y'�� =� ��,, __ , t � --�- �� .' `� _ �:-��P-' � . y `,r�s��';.. ._�� .s� r, `i � � - ' � . . . . l_._l �. i ,.� �' J� ` -� , � � � �, � �'�� .(- _` � 1 - ` _%` _J`".r�f j: � 1_ ', '� � ;., i i _ ; � �:I � > ' �r �� ',� � /_�' ! �/•.J r__�f',. .� I '.��. �`��. ,� �. T •� �. r�'1 i �. : % � ��. A � . 4 � \�� r . r � ��,-� �lT� � �, � � �� -�-- ' g �+ �' .. �., ' ' � T _ 5I le� `�,, ��, ! . � ,. . z Y , / I ' ' d .� � �4 � �J � �_� `� ` I __�.�. _ �.} � �.. A� �� - ° �_'� �.1 � , G �� i ; -- -�-�--�_ "�� , � ��` � u y:� ��f t� 1 �� ; _ +_ f" e i ,I : � i _ �;;--l��r° i ' : . ;i ,. .�. .{ � ._... . �I; =i _-; , . ..�-a- �;� ; � ; ��-� i =.� �� __ � , r�."�� - - ` . �,� � F �-'r' �� ,r�", �-� -.� �a.� . � i�"4fr.� i � s , 1...� :.� . ! �s � �� _ � R,�^ � � � �� . / , .� "� �� /T / �: -. .�r'pG �/ __ ��i+i+rk'' S . � t � , ,�,�`� �} �< �y� '� 'a � a �.�+!nd �. � W ' �� .��'�� i r�''�: , �� # ,. ... ;, _i� _ � �' r. "' � s� '� � f��,a� i � s ". ' � ( � .+ '�`, �'r '..�i � � ,�� r t�6�:. �� . �`� • •'�� y � , t�� y{t _ � _��" . � ��. R� �7�.. � c'�y` �s-.x li, .•§ ~ � •. �� r.. + � .',M . - ��. ' �v � i ` y� ��.. 3 y I - � �- .t��,:yC .'� '�r�.�R ...�j`:�. i � � ;; IG� �r �'� . ,,_� ,�,,e,.. �:.- f .� �.. S {�� '� _ .- _` '� I�i �� ,+r`� �. r ♦ � lR� w +'� � xA" t '�+:`' *� ' V.' ..�I.j� �`�. .�.'° �. ��, �� .. � � �7�\ ^� � ��''x,t .i �•��.,,, : �� ' r �'' 'w.l 'M�i;� �( . � ,a, ��y, i•" 1 p �-e �r. ♦y T7 C � y� �: O i}y � Y ��SY� . �..h \ yiq� M ��. S• = � 4 . . rv�'�� ,. . N Wt-'f�'� "* . '� y,,�� . .�` � � ''� �i. ,�5� -r �r � �Ro-fi,+ � -�e�i , � '� E ' �. � . �� .` q y• '4`�t} `«� x—�' �` � G � � �„ , :�y► � �y . � y � �",�''� r % �� z �,k � ' ; ,,�J �•J < � , � r. e i Y / - ' 3) •�1 Er (•� I p. A �. . , .e : 'rJ1 , . �,�Y=3. .' _. . • ', t.. � . �. � ` � : � ��p...�, *f . . . ' .. � ' . .. ':� � 1 �in � '---i �',:.. , . � j � .. �, - . � � :;.•� . � ' ' � *i .r . •� * �` �:, � ' . �;; � � • f v:I . �� 4i _ ��' '� � �� d"�'.. �: � �: � r � _ ; r' �yi� I••.. � a Y ` .. �µ � � � � � x �♦ y I` �i ;t� �W: ��\4 �y�:L �].f�r ��.�3r � �� ^6 .,) �f_ •l�. � �i � `, a �� Yy w . I " \. � � � � �� Y fl��` � .ei . a �Y �F 6��. O f ��_C .� � � � / k4��lll � +r+l ♦ � `. I_ .'�'• : 1 . , J ,- -� ' ' II I�{ ►__ yy � + � � �� '. �+ .,� ,:j' ./�, . �v .:" �` ,s . � . . ' _ ".3� �t f}�r �` ��t X'�' � �. ° . �k�M �� r q� +- �- • v �.' � . ?h� .� .� tl , � . v { , ��1+a�;t,,,�, �a�:�.+'t�' :a�� '/`�� ' r `4 ' .' i e� 2 �"!'. A I•;w. .� ' +1�F.�G�.•�I�'�5.� . � �!' .s. . . � �e ��t n I��. .ti �7��,��'��.. � �4s; .. .,�� s,� . 2 ' C y � '�r4 �''f, V � ✓ .. �s � ` ��. �I � Y xt {'r.: s .�.. ��i�•+ .,� • � �� '�' r � � . ��r,• G yrrt�.- ,.-. ��, � � � �� " al�► " ��;,'� �: �, � ; � ' ° !` ; .w: � yr . � - F, :. � . �a � • �„ 1 l�� { �. '�dri a� � t�` J',• � '��: . ��'' � � : t � . , ' � r j .•�.�� `'�4.:� S'`.. :# +� �_ .'��.�7`�,'. i ' T � � � .�z' - � �. ,�r ! r}�� i �♦��. .�. + . _�� V ti �\ \.afia.. 3', �°r1i�1#',y' ~ � ! e�{ ��: � i� 1 �v I r +, ` s .�r > it^. � � �F� µ. � � � �' .+ ♦ �; �'. � , r � � � e. , f,� ." �� * ,.¢m :a. .c- '.b.1� �, y' •.�p.y.. '� R.'' � : •p,�, f' 'N� , I� .•.� r.� ,. -F' ' .�t.:�� r �' K� I �' �.: a `f _ r i'I�''�E +,.. , ^ • � - 4 T ! S I�. ' � 3.• . T �' .�5+�� I '�� 'ti.♦ _ y.,' +.��v S s i }:: ,� .w�az„� , �.�' x�'» ' 0 �,� ai- �" �": �.. � ,, ■ _ �t �'1�� ' � R• �:, � �»,- y.e 1��:� y , ' i�' ` , � .. it: .s t� %^ 4 . ' . � 'x .�{. � a �` J �. ��Y �. a..r � d�.:, � ...{ - � .i � . :� �:,�. " , � �"`:.L�. ''� �.,`}` . �j ,, . ��.•. . �•`�� 4.,t �Ya � :, ..�. 1 �" : � k� �� ;� � � ,�S .. � ,. e � Z,. � n �' { .__. S A ` e � '; i: � I �i�{ il. i �-� � a 4 j `� , �', � s � ,� �• �. � �, � } , � E � �+M'T��+ �-•f•` f � `,.�` j , ��}+.+ ' � . L � '`�:. � R ��.,R � ` S J / ;�s .Y�� yi r.'. ,� � k � ;5_�; }�� .��y�':��'.+�.�, . .�1 �, /.n�\�r�.~.�.1 ��f 'I i 4 :,- ,�:4� � Y + . ' � l K . p „� . A ,3 �y �.- y :- . t � _. ,� . 1.;�:' , ,. , .: ��..:'.:r ! � ,.��: .! a.� � '� � [�:.' i _ .- . ' r ;- � :�' . �� __ `� � � ; ,. \ . y �,,<� � �`, t � � ,: y ; ;�: :; � ,, � .�� ' �:� g \ � - �, , � � � � :a � , -1 � : ; � j :i � � , , \\� QI�� e V � � � � �= ;�� ., �� 1 \ \, — v �� z ;� � - \ `\ \ � t�,•tA x �� x 6 �*� $ � 1 am . � I�� Sf \\ \ , � � �� \ 1 1�� \ 1 � �. �.;Y. Y.p'L 5\ ' ` ' r' � � � � � � � i p � �� a � � � � 1 a ' ; � � � �� , '�: ; 'S.'�" ' 1� -3 , r � t � � �;�� . � s;a �f , i �� ,� .� ' � �, �, � �� i: --��•�� r `,' . . � � �a� �-�------ _ . .��t . , , ...�.,.--- _ - � __ I � � � .— � . -,� � . �_ --_ �K 6' ( �r' �: _ � � .M � � �- _ �� i i�� '�. � I .� ' ; , • � � � s } � � " T � j �' i , ; � ° �� , , F � ' '. �± � �`;. � r>> i` . � , d :� � t-. , � � „ 'i . 4� ��a a�`.�. � �,. � . . r � q � �. f,f� �y � > 1�q�. `� , t � � 4r _ _� . . `. S }•i � ' +�� . ( ri � � ��' �I ei . � �;` ' U � . ; p v� i�aa� � o, - . F�. G+ '� �� t�y`� µ�i ^.. LL'� • �� k .� � C9.' ' � , ' i ,�. �:, � . z , � 0 5 �� .• �� z< g ,.. � µ� x. � �r , � � .;� � ;�. � � ��. � � � `' ' �+ „ �� ^ � r ' _ � tL Y�•' �+ � V • 4 1 � { 1`� z �^'Sr� :Q, v :. � r ' '— � � nas .� ��. 8R � �.:.� � t'� ' -- ' _ .� �� ' � � . •}' I� � i, � I •� "� dY.J �— l �;�."_ - . . �« , l ��`• � k.��' j '��- �. ' . .. a,T," s � � _ �.�. ..�� . . . + � • s . C . �� Y. I � i � I� � �� ' � , ? �'1 � Y �* ,�� I + �� . i �, �� .� .?t, �� +¢'1 ) s�,� a . � _ . � ,;$: e L I =�1 � � . _�... � � h1 1 u �. = ; �� i ::� .� '�R' ;III �I ,! � � �� , , ( C� �� , �.��_ :� ' r,� � � �A i ' "�'. >. � � r. � , ".. � �� ,' r. •' ' � , ; • ' � �f� .. .'s,.� " ' '`��''{,. � �� E; o" e t r. — � , .� ., � �: . ' . i .'y,�t � . S ib'� ;y N�� r. � � ��t t •` � �: ' ir�. J: . ' � ..a� ' `�., .r`. '�(` ye.> r � " � � �..- - � t :4 � �� ' � I + � ;� -`` � �� ", � �, , -t:_ -�-��--__ � t �- , ------_ _ I , II 1 � �� F 4 . . Y I•;.� �� 7 ` ��r 1jG� �{ '� �+ . . r �Y! f tT6' :<. . ,._ � .•� s. fi� .��9�' h �•. I a":i � . ..,17../� .r111�, � '�`- �. , 11'_ �.'�, � i`, I ,� �. V y �� 1 ;,�:� i. "' �� ' ,4 � '4' I� I � i � , � � � I _ �" ``� . �� __ , � � A ��'�' . � ,�f, e��•� I • �t . � ' � � ��. . , ,f'., ., .�'� �� r 4' C� ��' I ..�3� ♦�. �� ' , � - � f �� t � I ,. � ; F� � ��"��i.>� � f\!■ ' '�� t. �� J �� e �� • .1,. .+ ._y • i � � � s I b ��.4y�.. �'�. m �. I� � I � � • �'_ , �� I F �' y — .��.1 . } .�,e. . ,. � ' �j.ra�.�._._ , Y: "�� I � � I �� ; I „� 'J�jt/"[y�-' �'�. -'� • I � �� j� � �F�� K,. �P 'y,��]�u4`. �' t}� �M.�.M1" � �` � 3 1 � r �� •A t ' g� . . � . - . . � __— £` i f . ' . . . ., " { , �-'.. , • . . .• , � + � � xr�: �(�� i ' 3.. _ . . , a � . �= � � � : � '��< � � ,: .�r a � , t f � r t i"', � �I,C�� `�� fr�; �, �t � �, . - �• t �"'1� ., +�.ft�f. i� � r r��,y , � • �� i:, �r "�' ' ,� �.`^'` C � �. , `'��,y_}r 1�','�� . �� Af� ' �„S'� �1 y ,�'S:�. .}4 F ~ ' � A:' � � �• � r" � .r s tj' R ' f, .� �� t k - . �„��°' • � ,, �� , y �� `�' k= J.`�i��Il v . , �� .�;R�-.�n,.+rk�r. j."r ;4'7::' :�� . '� �J.V.. '��, f�.^ �� I � . ,,Ili• I � � � �; i �t; -.�:{,� i ..t�.' � ),. R,.� ;�3 1 y .I f � , ) )�.i. 3 •+`5 f.R . . ' � /y:'ti •. ��- ,.; _ �, f � ,. . ws , � ��, v {,sµ�� r� '' � ri;.'� �, �; ;j' ��x ,:'�, �r ."� ;� . , ,� . �� r i��z r,�,'��"...G��s � �.�� k �.� F �44 X Z +r i 4 'n 07 . - d , } +xi`3� 0 ' 4*l= '2 ' �., s� r e x �„y-x. �.0 � . �r yd�y., � -. - � - ,'�< �it. �. ; � � � � �;�,„�� M . �1.''� .::�. ,�. � � 1'�� .:,; - ,�:. � � ,':r ' w�~� � �.��. _ ::� � +��. , � �� --< tT r ^� p� � � a.y 1 y 3� 5 �� . � . . Z y4� i�{i � J' � � i �I I r� '• ~i � I t�"i� . �I I I �¢ I is. 4 • . '{. ty . � � w ��' N� � `� .. r_ _ . t�� t -�. , ` � � / t x j' � a.. � y�, s�yy;`.� .-tiAr. � �N!� .w c..��. K�, :,✓n_'S d' .. yi r . �' � „ ..>'e:: -'�S}R S �°.;, . �.,1 # C -'��i�. � . � J. -��. , ..�,�t ,. . . `t,r ,�, ��'� - , � . �� K� � t ;'-$. �. � � �.;�, :.,� � F �d�� t+p^..'>h ' �a, ..;A ti W:�; . t��. � .\_' � .3 ;�: ' j, . � � t � ��. .. �' . . ��f�4 > ;a ; i ;� �'�:.. � . '-� . � . . . "__�r_. xi ' . `.: _ .. . x'. .. ; � �..' " . ., � ' ' � . s r�Q�� .. . �y,i�Q d �' � .; � . � ' , !s '. C. ' r „ 4�L?X� : , � � �? �� _ �J . . �� 1 -� � . �� . . I T Pr'...r• . . .. �' �� ' . 1��. . � . � �r �.iRf�.Z.;' .�. �. . . � _ : :' � . . . � � y } iM _ � `�it ' � ' •" � �/ r i� �a '* � -� blt /. �'1... 7 r�.. I y E0 � + � i'j� , •�•, 4� t� l�-' .' � p � �� F* ! � + ' jJ . . �� `�. ��i 1w* � � t� � �T.��V:; � � �� m �i��\ � i k }. �� ` � �/ � � � ` �: ( � i. � / r�:t . • � 1' � �.' ' �! � { � ��. +a� � '�► ��'� , ,'i � � a, . - tT--, _�.�.� � _ ��,j�fF� '� ` � � ' '�F f'� 1 �+ {��n 17/it �� ' � \` �_ ♦ . r' i ! ` k `�� f i+ t r < � r ` �-.. ..-�' =3'��, � ,a� v�. � �.,.�-. � .___ � ' t � �� a ' y . . / � �'� � Y��4� ti 7�� :�... ;�� y,�� ti„ . �� +" l�r .�t' . -�tljn\1 di' ��I � �� i��, � ��i�� - r . s .. ' % �i � ' ;F ,, :�� S� 4 �lh�� :�i� , ''� `� � � �;t�,�'w� . < �,� . � ,s � �� . � � ��. �, ,�� , _ '� : �-�:� " � , `� � ` "'`a"u'�.� �, t�.>,t..�,��y,CF, .��. � r .. / �/ �1�. I�� ,-�".,ir�� % �,�4�I�i' �� --� , � "��s / -+ �'�-'�.'y r �'; - ��• '� i �. '�; ,� ��';�'"'� r , �`y +� ' i ` �'y L x -�s� .� x �� ' "�� '� ., �, � � p�� v . '�. �,'. 1 � / A $ ,�.� Y�'F�: .l, j "+}�-h •� I. �� 7� 11 k� � �d . t A : � �r»� '��s/ r°`4� . F �j.. �� e . P � �. �" ,,,, � �• �`,+�a ��' �.. �i'.:,/... ' ' a� ts�. ._� ,�f � � ': �� .. . � � �. y Y' IS � ' �� , �i� "�, .. � -� �S s i 4' t . �i s � 1 . . �� ,,. �� . t; G,: � .;r t � �� . I . � �h'•,� + � � ; � � • �''Yil�l ,�� . �+�` 74� . \ r � �' { ' ��._. ):_Y'�ri::,v •;. ' . � . : i �. -.Y:: _ _ ,� . . ' � j':,Y- \ ' — . 1 : � "i � ( �� :t Y 7►.., _ '�� f�u i, ! ,� ' • ? . ' �� , �v ' � , ��Y fir � " t•�� Da �� r t� �S�'� ..�� ...:P � `':� � }tt;�. � `.. �'4'� ':� `t. ir. � �� 1 ,� �. j . �!� i..t q:. � r . t ' , f/ a}) . �E ti �g-�li L f ' 1`C 1 �_ � 1 i'�' 3 ..�W� �'s' t '�i.• .� ' •.� ��, "• � ; x` �F� 1�`. � .►l .�.. 'Yl. - � { w r�`;# �r . �ir�� , tiy ;� �y,¢ � 1t.;. ,� ' , , e, ,t; x� ,� R ; � , � � J �;�� _ � _ � ' .��'• t M} �.� s �"r�t. ' 'd �� .: �'�^�.�;. .. .. . r`� n ��. �� 4 f� : I', ' ��{�,l � IR�"l � T r. ej� AI . T r F �'��: ' �� : � �I °+�` � . ��'.�+� ' #i a ' ��. t� � � �� ' 't � � r r � �. �. t '� i � '� e � {�� ..,�5},� �_§ k �.* i Yr._L'i � � � � .(• , a�r y 4 A . , i• ,L° J I � '/rc�� L a.. . .Y � � i i ' n ,� ` ' ;�i � �� r�s�`�� ' � f y3�.. �xya� . . 1�' , �. ..:. _:� ��/f.. }'a�. . ' '. yt� . �'y ,�..+y , fd� ' . .>ssy-: - � °. . . . i . �� ..� �L�� ' � � �,. - �� +`'''{f �; r f �{.�2�k�Y .�e, . � l ✓ � j � 1 `�' � �� . . � . i.�� .' S{ 7 �t�i _, , •` . . p v � H��I� � '�. 1 . . ' �y '��"y�`i� - r d � ��4 ,t\ � �. . , � �'i .. . , � , i j 1 , .. ! � .. 't . a � � �+-•. . { ��t� 4 '. t'��CY e ��k,p3t. ' ~ f . . .. �� \\\\� �'� . .. t �' t� T 1 .i:\ Y 1„\ ��r � � � �� ry, � .`. • � , ,, i . � i t�'�'�t' ' �. > . � � ��..�� `''SM1iti'';. �-- .r .+ ' .. ' 1�J64` �' � �...� �.� ,'� I . .'� > ., r �.. � �._ �� Sl `.4 �� I u � � ,;��_'.'4SY"�. � {�� .. t "; � � � �� , � ' : �� :., = I , � � ��, �� ,�- �� - , ;� � . � ? :i ) d . � � j : i! �� I 3 , _ - � � , `.. , � , , . a�.. •• , � '` . ' �- � � � � '� ' �d. � . .: ". . �. � . 1 , . . s � =', ��- �-'�i$ - ;�. ��j.r.� :��hw,..J�i�6 K�' . ..I r—.. i� ksfi�i'+'i '�• � � ` y -T`3�� •�`�� . �} �� , ` '.�1\. S `�' ��h a� � ' �� I I � � - � '�'�' '� '!1 y �� ~ . �� '- ,,. � � :�. �?�� , ;, �:: t ,[ �� ,4 . tS �� i6{� ��.: � s' i F � � � ' 4 ..�j � r,�.. ;�j ' . �` ` ' ,4 u � q-:. _ =�i. � :. Y y � ! `?'F� � ' II 1 _"",� � � � � �� r' �: _� 1� ' � � �. 1.i.' ` ; r� ZM F � 7 '�1 °� � �f �f r �j � �"< � r �� j .� �� - ' � �, � 'K i �� .� - � � ' + �'r p � �. � , �j�� i �" 1 �� y 4 �! t `�{�p 1 � � ' �� .,i i � - 1 y u°1 � : >�� f'� ,�t ,� :� 4 " '.s ��-=� . . - l ' ,y t_�r}' �,-�\ r . � a t .� / _� ) �, " � -� . , - ; � � , � _ �� .$ �; , � � �, � City of Orange-Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 2,2017 Page 5 of 8 1 (3) DRC No.4914-17 Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes 2 • A proposal to redevelop an office complex with 727 multi-family residential units (653 3 apartments and 74 townhomes). 4 • 702-1078 W. Town and Country Road 5 . • Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, 714-744-7224, mschwartz@cityoforange.org 6 • DRC Action: Preliminary comments 7 8 Monique Schwartz,Assistant Planner,presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. 9 10 The applicant, Trevor Boucher was present with his design team, including Ed Cadanova, Tobin 11 Symmak, and R.C.Alley. 12 13 Public Comments: 14 15 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. 16 17 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. 18 19 The DRC had the following comments: 20 • Staff was asked to describe a"pedestrian-friendly environmenY'. 21 22 Building A: 23 • The Committee discussed the locations of the fire lanes and if there will be vehicular access at 24 the paseos. 25 • The leasing office appears significantly pushed back from the main street. 26 • The Site Plan, massing of buildings, and courtyard layout create a dynamic space; however, 27 the west elevation is long,with little dimensional break-up. 28 • The site circulation creates a nice break-up of the building massing. 29 � Building massing and step-down building heights create a nice transirion to the nature center 30 adjacent to Santiago Creek. 31 • The landscape edges could be simplified with large blocks of the same plants to allow for the 32 architecture to stand out. 33 • The landscape edges could be more consistent while gathering places can be more articulated. 34 • The longer elevations appear jumpy and disorganized. These elevations should be broken-up, 35 showing more organization. 36 • The paseos offer a tremendous opportunity to create significant open spaces for the residents 37 to enjoy. 38 • The metal fin detailing on the exterior of the building helps create verticality, which makes the 39 project design feel different than the other adjacent developments. These metal pieces 40 articulate a sense of order and organization, as long as there is singular integrity. The 41 Committee did not care for the projecting metal detailing extended over and down, framing 42 the garage entrance. 43 • The west elevarion along Lawson Way could use more color so that it appeazs different than 44 the north elevation along Town and Country Road. The use of the color white creates too 45 much contrast. Decreasing the white paint color may decrease*��••^-^�^�� ATTACHMENT NO. 6 TTM 0045-17 TOWN AND COUNTRI' DRC MEETING MINUTES DATED: 08/02/17 a�� 1 Ciry of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 2,2017 Page 6 of 8 1 • The building design could be improved with editing. Using only form to break-up the fagade 2 would be preferred,rather than simultaneously using form,material, and color. 3 • The exterior elevations of Building A have more successful massing and appear less jumpy 4 than Building B. 5 • The burgundy"table legs"overshadow the other architectural features. 6 • T'he Committee suggested using green screens on the burgundy "table leg" projections to 7 reinforce and accentuate the landscaping. $ • Referencing Page A-4.3, Image 2, the Committee suggested creative signage on the metal 9 corner paneUfin. A1so,the use of white and rust grid projections or window panes,and pushed- 10 back wood paneling appears excessive. 11 • The long facade along Lawson Way needs a neutral area(s). 12 • The painted white detailing around the leasing center opening is effective for a mid-block 13 entry. 14 • The Committee inquired about the horizontal wood plank tile and whether it looks like wood 15 from a distance. 16 17 Building B: 18 • The staccato fa�ade detailing feels more jumpy than Building A. 19 • Referencing Page A-4.6, Images 1 and 2, the Committee indicated that the framing elements 20 around the masses look like thin piping and do not create volume or density like the other 21 projects in the area appear to have. 22 • Referencing Page A-4.6, Image 3, the Committee indicated that the corner detailing is 23 successful. 24 • The Committee questioned the visual stability of the white pylons that frame the entry way. 25 • The Committee was in favor of the variegated red color and questioned the scale of the planks. 26 • The building could be articulated by including four large focal elements and simplified 27 throughout by reducing the overall design, materials and color palette. 28 29 Townhomes: 30 • Although there is a sharp design contrast between the Townhomes and Buildings A and B,the 31 Committee believes it is acceptable because the buildings have complimentary styles. 32 • Buffering in front of the entry doors to the ground floor units is prefened along the Town and 33 Country and Parker Street frontages for privacy and parcel deliveries. This can be 34 accomplished using landscape planters and fencing. 35 • The Committee complimented the massing of the buildings and the color and material palette. 36 • The building elevations show much variation, but more syxnmetry is needed. Page B3.2 was 37 referenced as an example of how the front elevation shows two elements that appear identical, 38 but aze not. 39 • The Committee complimented the flat roof design with shadow lines which is different from 40 Buildings A and B. 41 • The Committee referenced Page B-9.1, Views 2 and 3 and commented that the masonry piers 42 should be constructed of stacked bond with vertical scoring, instead of running bond. 43 • The garage doors have too many panels and a conventional design. 44 • The pedestrian gate adjacent to the paseo could be pushed back to create a welcoming entrance. 45 • More details are needed to show how the four terminus points of the two paseos are treated. # City of Urange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 2,2017 Page 7 of 8 1 • The Committee did not express any concerns with the pedestrian connectivity on the townhome 2 parcel. 3 4 This item was for preliminary review only-no action required. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 �. � City of Urange—Design Review Committee Final Meering Minutes for August 2,2017 Page 8 of 8 1 ADJOURNMENT: 2 3 Committee Member Fox made a morion to adjoum to the Special Design Review Committee meeting 4 on August 9, 2017. 5 6 SECOND: Tim McCormack 7 AYES: Cazol Fox, Robert Imboden,Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott 8 NOES: None 9 ABSENT: None 10 11 MOTION CARRIED. 12 13 Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. � . � ��_� City of uiange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 20,2017 Page 7 of 13 New Asenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4914-17 -TOWN AND COiTNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES • A proposal to redevelop an office complex with 727 multi-family residential units (653 apartments and 74 townhomes). • 702-1078 �N. Town and Country Road • Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, 714-744-7224,mschwartz@cityoforan ge.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Monique Schwartz, Assistant Planner,presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant,Trevor Boucher and his design team were present on behalf of this project. Public Comments: Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC had the following comments: Building A: • Inquired about the size of the wood plank tiles. • Requested clarification regarding the sample materials, where they would be located, and dimensions. • Inquired about the material used for the signage lettering. The signage can have a strong visual quality depending on how the lettering is attached. • Page A-4.4 shows the grain on the azchitectural metals light, while the building renderings show darker grain. • A warmer color scheme will help distinguish this project from the proposed project located at 999 W. Town and Country Road. • The metal fin detailing creates a bold statement. • The grain on the architectural panel sample appeazs less than one inch apart; however, the graining on the renderings appear further apart. The Committee inquired if the material is customizable. • The metal panel material is acceptable;however,a lighter and more reflective metal will show more contrast. • The elegance of the long building elevation should be maintained without introducing too many textures. The Committee feels that the proposed building textures works well. • The Committee saw material samples for the parking structure but did not see any renderings. • The materials and colors are acceptable;however,the repetitive large white frames still appeaz heavy and busy. • There was disagreement amongst the Committee on the effectiveness of the thick, white architectural window pane detailing. Some thought the simplification of the white frame appeared forced and made the heavy white framing stand out even more. Some felt that the heavy white architectural window pane detailing created more horizontality. � Requested other alternatives or refinement to the heavy whitP �nrinw �aT„P arrhitPr.tiiral detailing. ATTACHMENT NO. 7 "I'TM 0045-17 TOWN AND COIiNTRY DRC MEETING MINUTES naTF.n� n9iznii� ' . �` - City of'vrange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 20,2017 Page 8 of 13 • The elevations are greatly improved and the jumpiness has reduced with the removal of the burgundy table leg features. • The exterior composition on the center of the building along Lawson Way is successful. • The proposed landscaping enhances and complements the building architecture. Building B: • Inquired if the majority of the building exterior was stucco or plaster, and that plaster is preferred. • Inquired if the red fiber cement panels have the same depth of color in full sunlight? • Commented that the use of white is successful and almost sculptural. • The exterior spandrel elements need to be calmed. There are too many checkerboards and the elevations on Page A-4.5 appear dizzying. • A tone on tone checkerboard pattern may be more successful. • The materials are limited but the Committee was in support of them. • There was disagreement about the architecture and its deliberateness. Some thought the use of the color white was very successful and the architecture looked very deliberate. Others believed the elevations looked much different than the renderings, that the architectural spandrels are busy and that there is too much differentiation. • The architecture is successful over the leasing office; however, could be improved in other azeas. • Suggested using more red in place of white around the leasing office area. • The boxes at the corners of the building could be smaller. • There should be a hierarchy and proportion in values, with the color red being the most dominant. • The Committee felt that they had an obligation to make the building less busy. Townhomes: • Inquired if stucco was the predominant material. • Tnquired about the texture of the cladding and if it would look like stone or block. • Inquired about the material of the courtyard fencing. • Referencing Sheet B-1.1,the front elevation,the Committee noted that all of the stone columns are the same height, except for one, which appears unbalanced and asymmetrical. • Some committee members liked the horizontal grain of the cementitious horizontal siding,but were concerned about the corner seam detailing. They requested corner installation details from the applicant. • Could create a ship lap design installation of the cementitious horizontal siding to create more interest. • Landscaping:Commented on the proposed landscaping along the 6 foot tall wall,located along the property line between Building B and the Townhome parcel. It was suggested that an inset wall design (alternating 6 inch and 8 inch block) could be implemented to break up the massing. The use of hedge planting along sections of the wall is successful. • Requested renderings of the proposed transformers that will be located along the Lawson Way and Town and Country Road street frontages. • Requested detailed drawings illustrating the installation of the securing posts for the lazge fire gates,when the gates are in an open position. • Inquired about the type of fencing that will be used in the pool courtyard. This item was for preliminary review onIy—no action required. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2018 Page 8 of 1 1 1 (4) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4914-17 - TOWN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND 2 TOWNHOMES 3 4 • A proposal to redevelop an existing 12.13 acre office complex with 727 ►nulti-family 5 residential units (653 apartments and 74 townhomes), multi-level parking structures, 6 residential amenities, and related site improvements. 7 • 702-1078 W. Town and Country Road 8 • Staff Contact: Monique Schwartz, 714-744-7224, mschwartzC cityoforan�e.oi•g 9 • DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission 10 11 Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner provided an explanation of the project consistent with the 12 staff report. She stated that the project came before the Committee for a preliminary review on 13 August 2, 2017 and September 20, 2017, whereby further comments and project refinements were 14 provided. 15 16 Ms. Schwartz provided an oveiview of the DRC comments and suggestions made those dates that 17 were now incorporated into the architectural design and landscaping, as outlined in the minutes. 18 19 Tobin Symmank, project architect, provided a packet of drawings to each of the Committee 20 Members which consisted of architectural renderings showing side-by-side comparisons of what 21 was presented at the prior meetings and the changes incorparated into the project, as a result of the 22 Committee's comments and recommendations. 23 24 Mr. Symmank described the following changes: 25 • The color of the rectangular architectural window panes on Building A were changed from 26 white to a gray-brown color tone. 27 • The architectural "table legs" were removed on all elevations of Building A to simplify the 28 composition of the fa�ade. 29 • The exterior changes recommended by the DRC for Building A and implemented into the 30 project provide for a better distinction from the project located at 999 W. Town and 31 Country Road. 32 • An explanation was provided regarding the difficulty of achieving the desired finish of the 33 proposed architectural metal fins, specifically the engraving and gradient finish. Mr. 34 Symmank provided a sample of a more reflective architectural metal,that could be used in 35 the event that the manufacturer is not able to provide the gradient finish that was originally 36 proposed. 37 • The amount of red panels was increased on Building B and the architectural box details on 38 the corners of the building were reduced in order to provide more red panels. 39 • The red panels on Building B are now the dominant color feature in the hierarchy and 40 proportion of colors values for the building. 41 • The checkerboard color contrast of the spandrel details was replaced with a tone on tone 42 color scheme. 43 44 Chair McCormack opened the public comment portion of the meeting; there were no speakers. 45 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 TTM 0045-17 TOWN AND COUNTRY DRC MEETING MINUTES DATED: 04/04/18 MAY 21,2018 PC MTG. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2018 Page 9 of 1 1 1 A Committee Member commented that it is troublesome to receive a packet during the meeting 2 because a lot of time was spent reviewing what was in the staff report. He asked the applicant if 3 there were any changes in the packet that are different from what was previously provided. 4 5 Mr. Symmank stated there were no changes. The new metal sample was provided because of 6 previous suggestions from the Committee that perhaps a lighter, more reflective metal could be 7 considered. There are no changes to the material aspect of what was reviewed, with the exception 8 of the gradient finish of the proposed architectural metal that could be difficult to manufacture, as 9 previously explained. 10 11 The Committee Members and applicant discussed the metal finish at length. 12 13 The Committee commended the applicant far incorporating the previous DRC comments and 14 suggestions into the project. 15 16 The Committee had the following comments and suggestions regarding the architecture of 17 Buildings A and B, the Townhomes, and the Landscape/Streetscape: 18 19 Building A: 20 21 • The Committee was pleased to see the color change of the rectangular, architectural 22 window panes from white to a gray-brown tone. This color change helps differentiate 23 Building A from the project located at 999 W. Town and Country Road. 24 � The color change of the rectangular, architectural window panes from white to a darker 25 tone on the south elevation make the panes appear floating, as if they are defying gravity. 26 Under-planting and canopy trees will help in regards to this appearance. 27 • The simplified signage successfully integrates into the metal panels. 28 • The Committee requested to see the final sample of the architectural metal material that 29 will be used, whether it is reflective or non-reflective. R.C. Alley, architect for the project, 30 indicated that the applicant will return to the Committee with the final sample for their 31 review and approval. 32 33 Building B: 34 35 • The Committee was pleased with the incorporation of additional red fiber cement panels 36 on the building facades. 37 • The Committee would like some assurance that the red fiber cement panels will not fade 38 and require painting. They also recommended using a higher percentage of the darker red 39 color(as shown on the color and materials board), as opposed to the lighter colors that have 40 more orange in them. Mr. Symmank responded that they will verify the probability of 41 fading with the manufacturer and will incorporate a higher percentage of the dark red color, 42 perhaps a ratio of 60% (dark red), 30% and 10%. 43 44 Townhomes: 45 46 • The Committee inquired if the roll-up garage doors will be metal. Mr. Symmank responded 47 that the garage doors will be aluminum. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2018 Page 10 of 1 1 1 • The Committee inquired if the applicant had a sample of the fencing that will be used on 2 the townhomes. Landscape representative,Dane Delle,stated that the fencing material will 3 be similar to a fiber cement-type product, but did not have an actual sample. 4 • The Committee wanted to make sure there was coordination between the project's 5 landscape/streetscape lighting and the City's street lighting. Mr. Delle stated that 6 streetscape lighting will be rypical architectural patio lighting. Ms. Schwartz stated that 7 the landscape, lighting, and sign plans will return to the Design Review Committee for 8 further review and final approval prior to building permit issuance. 9 10 Council Member Fox made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1855-17 and Design Review No. 4914— 17,Town& Country 12 Apartments and Townhomes subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report and 13 with the additional condition that the metal panel materials for Building A return to the DRC for 14 review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 15 16 SECOND: Skorpanich 17 AYES: McCormack, Imboden, McDermott, Fox, Skorpanich 18 NOES: None 19 ABSENT: None 20 21 MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2018 Page 1 1 of 1 1 1 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Coinmittee 2 meeting on Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. 3 4 SECOND: Skorpanich 5 AYES: McCormack, Imboden, McDermott, Fox, Skorpanich 6 NOES: None 7 ABSENT: None 8 9 MOTION CARRIED. ]0 1 l Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. l2 ]�arCh 2�, 2Q j$ Engineers&Planners Traffic Mr. Trevor Boucher Transportation Fairfield Development Parking 5510 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 Linscott,Law& Greenspan,Enyineers LLG Reference: 2.17.3789.1 2EXe�„��ec��ie Suite 250 Subject: Updated Parking Analysis for the Proposed Irvine,CA92614 Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Project 949.825.6115 r Orange, California 949.825.6173 F vwvw.11gengineers.com Dear Mr. Boucher: Pasadena As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this �""'� San Diego Updated Parking Analysis for the proposed Town and Country Apartments and woodia�d H�us Townhomes Project, located in the City of Orange, California. As we understand it, the preparation of this parking analysis is required to determine whether the proposed parking supply could adequately meet the proposed project's parking needs. The Parking Analysis has been updated per the request of City of Orange staff, to include parking survey data from two additional similar sites located in the City of Orange. Our method of analysis, findings, and conclusions are described in detail in the following sections of this memorandum. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Town and Country Road and Lawson Way in the City of Orange, California. The proposed Project will consist of 653 apartment units (295 units within Building A and 358 units within Building B) and 74 townhome units, for a total of 727 units. Within Building A, there are 15 studio units, 158 one-bedroom units, 112 two-bedroom units and 10 three-bedroom units with a parking supply of 535 spaces (parking ratio of 1.81 spaces per unit). Within Building B, there are 23 studio units, 197 one-bedroom units, 118 two-bedroom units and 20 three-bedroom units with a parking supply of 646 spaces (parking ratio of 1.80 spaces per unit). A parking supply of 183 spaces (2.47 spaces Ph�lip M.Linscott,PE e92a 2a;ai per unit) is provided for the proposed townhome units. ��k M.��e��SP��,PE�P�r� VUilliam A.Lav:,PE�.R�c I PARKING SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS Paul W_Nlilkinson,PE Jahn P Keating,PE For the Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Project, the following four David S Shender,PE methods have been utilized to estimate the site's parking requirements. These �ohn A.Boarman,PE lllet�lOCIS 1riC1UC1E t�le fO110Wlrig: Clare M.Look-Jaeger,PE ATTACHMENT NO. 9 Richard E Barretto,PE TTM 0045-17 TOWN AND COUNTRY Kei�o.Maberry,PE I'OWN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES PARKINC °a��"Ee°"'°r°` F°"°°e°„65 ANALYIS DATED: 03/20/18 nrtev�� n�u nr nn�rr� Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 Page 2 1. Application of applicable City Parking Code requirements. 2. Application of parking ratios contained within ITE Parking Generation, 4`h Edition. 3. Application of parking ratios contained within the Urban Land Institute's (ULI's)Shared Parking 2°d Edition publication. 4. Application of parking ratios developed from field studies of similar sites. CITY PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS To deternune the number of parking spaces required to support the proposed Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Project, the parking demand was first calculated using parking code requirements per the City of Orange Municipal Code — Chapter 17.34: Off Street Parking and Loading; Table 17.34.060.A — Required Number of Parking Spaces for Residential Uses. Please note that the parking ratios identified are those that were in effect at the time of the project application submittal. The City has since adjusted their parking requirements; however this project is subject to the previous code. The following parking ratios were used to determine the required parking: ■ Apartments, condominiums and PUDs in multiple family zone districts: Studio = 1.2 spaces/unit; one-bedroom = 1.7 spaces/unit; two-bedroom = 2.0 spaces/unit, three or more bedrooms = 2.4 spaces per unit. A minimum of 0.2 spaces per unit shall be provided as easily accessible and distinguishable guest parking in addition to the required parking for each unit. Tables 1, 2 and 3 summarize the parking requirements for the proposed Project (i.e. Apartment Building A, Apartment Building B and the Townhomes, respectively) based on the City of Orange Municipal Code. As shown in Table 1, application of the above-referenced parking code ratios to the development description for Apartment Building A, results in a code-parking requirement of 594 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 535 spaces, a theoretical parking deficiency of 59 spaces is forecast for Apartment Building A. Further,by dividing the 594-space City Code requirement by the 295 units proposed for Building A, a"blended" ratio of 2.01 spaces per unit is derived. This resultant parking ratio (based strictly on a City Code calculation) is conservative and very likely overestimates the potential parking needs of Apartment Building A. � As shown in Table 2, application of the above-referenced parking code ratios to the development description for Apartment Building B, results in a code-parking requirement of 719 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 646 spaces, a theoretical parking deficiency of 73 spaces is forecast for Apartment Building B. . . �� ,wyF�� Y�'?:i� . Mr. Trevor Boucher � ,:e� ��„ March 20, 2018 ' �� Page 3 Further, by dividing the 719-space City Code requirement by the 358 units proposed for Building B, a "blended" ratio of 2.01 spaces per unit is derived. This resultant parking ratio (based strictly on a City Code calculation) is conservative and very likely overestimates the potential parking needs of Apartment Building B. As shown in Table 3, application of the above-referenced parking code ratios to the development description for the Townhomes, results in a code-parking requirement of 183 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 183 spaces, the Townhomes will comply with City Code. PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER OTHER RESOURCES Notwithstanding the requirements of City Code, the actual parking requirements for multifamily residential uses have been found to be significantly less than the City's own Code requirement. This aspect is illustrated by application of other parking demand ratios contained within other sources such as ITE Purking Generation, 4`h Edirion, the Urban Land Institute's (ULPs) Shared Parking 2"a Edition publication and application of parking ratios developed from field studies conducted at similar sites (i.e. the parking study prepared for the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartment Project). Given that the Townhomes component of the proposed Project will satisfy City Code parking requirements, parking requirements per the aforementioned resources will only be calculated for Apartment Building A and Apartment Building B. Tables 4 and 5 present a summary of the project's parking requirements (i.e. Apartment Building A and Apartment Building B, respectively) based on application of the aforementioned other sources. Column one (1) presents the parking reference and column two (2) presents the recommended parking demand ratio. Column three (3) presents the project's development tabulation and column four (4) presents the project's parking requirement. Column five(5) indicates the proposed parking supply and column six (6) indicates the project's parking surplus or deficiency. Apartment Buildine A Review of the first row of Tuble 4 indicates that application of the 85`h percentile peak parking ratio (1.61 spaces/DU) for apartments contained within ITE Parking Generution, 4`" Edition results in a parking requirement of 475 spaces. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Apartment Building A would have a surplus of 60 spaces. As shown in the second row of Table 4, application of the parking ratio (1.65 spaces/DU) for apartments contained within IJLI's Shared Parking 2°d Edition publication results in a parking requirement of 487 spaces. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Apartment Building A would have a surplus of 48 spaces. Mr. Trevor Boucher + March 20, 2018 Page 4 Review of rows three and four of Table 4 indicates that application of the field study parking ratios developed for Sites #1 / #2 / #3 and Sites #3 / #4 results in a weekday/weekend parking requirement of 398 spaces/369 spaces and 300 spaces/298 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Apartment Building A would have a weekday/weekend surplus of 137 spaces/166 spaces and 235 spaces/237 spaces, respectively. It should be noted that the aforementioned field study parking ratios were utilized to justify an 11.5% reduction in the total required parking for the approved AMLI Uptown Orange Apartment project. With the reduction, the net parking supply ratio for the project was 1.70 spaces per unit. In an effort to assess the veracity of the approved parking reduction, LLG conducted a parking study on the now fully operational AMLI Uptown Orange project. The results of that survey are presented in the latter sections of this report. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 535 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.81 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building A. Apartment Building B ` Review of the first row of Table S indicates that application of the 85`h percentile peak parking ratio (1.61 spaces/DU) far apartments contained within ITE Parking Generation, 4`h Edition results in a parking requirement of 576 spaces. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a surplus of 70 spaces. As shown in the second row of Table 5, application of the parking ratio (1.65 spaces/DU) for apartments contained within LTLPs Shared Parking 2°d Edition publication results in a parking requirement of 591 spaces. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a surplus of 55 spaces. Review of rows three and four of Table 5 indicates that application of the field study parking ratios developed for Sites #1 / #2 / #3 and Sites #3 / #4 results in a weekday/weekend parking requirement of 483 spaces/448 spaces and 365 spaces/362 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a weekday/weekend surplus of 163 spaces/198 spaces and 281 spaces/284 spaces, respectively. It should be noted that the aforementioned field study parking ratios were utilized to justify a parking supply ratio of 1.70 spaces per unit as provided for the proposed AMLI Uptown Orange Apartment Project. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 646 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.80 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building B. Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 Page 5 Appendix A contains copies of the parking studies for the AMLI Orange Apartment Proj ect. PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER ADDITIONAL SURVEYS As requested by City of Orange staff, weekday (Thursday) and weekend day (Saturday) parking demand surveys were conducted at two existing apartment complexes located in the City of Orange, that are generally similar in size to that of the proposed Project. A weekday (Thursday) and weekend day (Saturday) peak parking demand rate was then developed for each survey site and applied to the proposed Project description to determine its parking requirements and further validate the adequacy of the Project's parking supply. The following sections describe the existing survey sites and summarize the results of the parking study. Description of Survey Sites As recommended by City of Orange staff, the two similar apartment complexes studied were Allure Apartments and AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments located in the City of Orange. As previously mentioned, the AMLI Uptown Orange project is relevant because the City granted an Administrative Adjustment and is now fully operational. The following summarizes the location of the sites, the size (i.e. the number of units), the total parking supply and the number of units occupied during the parking surveys. Alh{re Apartnzents—OranQe ➢ Location=3099 West Chapman Avenue, Orange ➢ Size=278 units ➢ Parking Supply= 507 spaces ➢ Percent Occupied=98% (274 units) AMLI Uptown Or-an�e Apartment.s—OranQe ➢ Location= 385 South Manchester Avenue, Orange ➢ Size=334 units ➢ Parking Supply= 607 spaces ➢ Percent Occupied= 85% (285 units) Hourly parking surveys were conducted at Allure Apartments on Thursday January 25, 2018 and Saturday January 27, 2018 between the hours of 8:00 PM and 3:00 AM (last parking count began at 2:00 AM). Hourly parking surveys were conducted at AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments on Thursday February 1, 2018 and Saturday � Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 Page 6 February 3, 2018 between the hours of 8:00 PM and 3:00 AM (last parking count began at 2:00 AM). Parking Survey Results Table 6 summarizes the results of the parking surveys conducted at the Allure Apartments and the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments. Column one (1) presents the parking survey data for Allure Apartments and column two (2) presents the parking survey data for AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments. Review of column 1 of Table 6 shows that the Allure Apartments experienced a weekday (Thursday) peak parking demand of 443 occupied spaces at 2:00 AM and a weekend day (Saturday) peak parking demand of 416 occupied spaces at 2:00 AM. Review of column 2 of Table 6 shows that the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments experienced a weekday(Thursday) peak parking demand of 420 occupied spaces at 2:00 AM and a weekend day (Saturday)peak parking demand of 414 occupied spaces at 2:00 AM. Development of Parking Rates Utilizing the parking survey data from Table 6 and the occupancy data provided by each respective survey sites property management, Table 7 presents the weekday (Thursday) and weekend day (Saturday) design peak parking demand rates for eaoh survey site. Column one (1) shows the survey day, column two (2) shows the number of occupied spaces and column three (3) shows the number of occupied units. Column four(4)presents the design peak parking rate. Review of row one of Table 7 shows that the parking survey data for the Allure Apartments resulted in a weekday(Thursday) design peak parking rate of 1.62 spaces per unit and a weekend day (Saturday) design peak parking rate of 1.52 spaces per unit. Review of row two of Table 7 shows that the parking survey data for the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments resulted in a weekday (Thursday) design peak parking rate of 1.47 spaces per unit and a weekend day(Saturday) design peak parking rate of 1.45 spaces per unit. Parking Requirements Tables 8 and 9 present a summary of the project's parking requirements (i.e. Apartment Building A and Apartment Building B, respectively) based on application of the design peak parking rates developed from the two survey sites. Column one (1) shows the type of day(i.e. weekday and weekend day), column two (2) shows the design peak parking rate based on the parking surveys, column three (3) shows the number of units proposed for the Project and column four (4) presents the parking . ",�Y,.,1 kS�� ^` i Mr. Trevor Boucher � y fi�� .;�° March 20, 2018 Page 7 demand. Column five (5) compares the parking demand with the proposed parking supply and indicates whether or not the proposed Project will provide adequate parking. Apartment Building A Review of row one of Tnble 8 indicates that application of the Allure Apartment peak parking rates to the proposed Project (Apartment Building A) results in a weekday and weekend day parking rec�uirement of 478 spaces and 448 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Apartment Building A would have a weekday and weekend day surplus of 57 spaces and 87 spaces, respectively. Review of row two of Table 8 indicates that application of the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments peak parking rates to the proposed Project (Apartment Building A) results in a weekday and weekend day parking requirement of 434 spaces and 428 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Apartment Building A would have a weekday and weekend day surplus of 101 spaces and 107 spaces,respectively. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 535 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.81 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building A. Apartment Building B Review of row one of Table 9 indicates that application of the Allure Apartments peak parking rates to the proposed Project (Apartment Building B) results in a weekday and weekend day parking requirement of 580 spaces and 544 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a weekday and weekend day surplus of 66 spaces and 102 spaces, respectively. Review of row two of Table 9 indicates that application of the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments peak parking rates to the proposed Project(Apartment Building B) results in a weekday and weekend day parking requirement of 526 spaces and 519 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a weekday and weekend day surplus of 120 spaces and 127 spaces,respectively. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 646 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.80 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building B. Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20,2018 ' Page 8 ' CONCLUSION Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 535 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.81 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building A. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 646 space parlcing supply or parking supply ratio of 1.80 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building B. Lastly, it can be concluded that the proposed 183 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 2.47 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of the proposed Townhomes. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this parlcing analysis. Should you have any questions,please call us at 949.825.6175. Sincerely, Linscott,Law & Greenspan, Engineers �.�.,--c,, a�- �-�+�--- eil D. Mab .E. Daniel A. Kloos,P.E. Principal Senior Transportation Engineer California Registration: TR 1802 California Registration: TR 2200 �QROFESSlpy ��`p.M� ��'y�`' �� ESSIONqC .� No.180Y �' �,OQ��P'�K�O��'2 * F�m. .30.� Q �,o,�;�.s� �`A * a, p �-�2p0 �TqTf�CA�LIF��\P � E QO�r� � f � s TRAFF��p`'�.,� rqTE OF GA�,�° �.,.w.�.._ ��.z� �•:�. L I,I 3��,` l.>e Y.."�',!.t,�,�.1 b � I:, TABLE 1 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT—APARTMENT BUILDING A� TOWN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES PROJECT,ORANGE City of Orange Spaces Project Description Size Code Parking Ratio Required �urt�nent- BiriltfinKA ■ Apartments—Studio Units IS units 1.2 spaces per unit 1R ■ Apartments-One Bedroom Units 158 units 1.7 spaces per unit 269 ■ Apartments—Two Bedroom Units 112 units 2.0 spaces per unit 224 ■ Apartments—Three Bedroom Units 10 units 2.4 spaces per unit 24 ■ Guests 295 units 0.2 spaces per unit 59 Subtotal 594 City Code Parking Requirement 594 Parking Supply 535 Parkin�5urplus/Deficiency(+/-) -59 � Source:Ci o'Orart e Mu�tici 1 Code Clm ter 17.34:O Street Parldn m�d Loadi�i 7able I7.34.060.A—Re uired h4imber o Parkin 9' / S Pa P �- S S� 4 / S Spaces Jor Residential Uses. � TABLE 2 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT—APARTMENT BUILDING BZ TOWN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES PROJECT,ORANGE City of Orange Spaces Project Description Si•r,e Code Parking Ratio Required Apartnzent—BuildinQ B � ■ Apartments—Studio Units 23 units 1.2 spaces per unit 28 ■ Apartments—One Bedroom Units 197 units I.7 spaces per unit 335 ■ Apartments—Two Bedroom Units ll 8 units 2.0 spaces per unit 236 ■ Apartments—Three Bedroom Units 20 units 2.4 spaces per unit 48 ■ Guests 358 units 0.2 spaces per unit 72 Subtotal 719 City Code Parking Requirement 719 Parking Supply 646 Parking Surplus/Deficiency(+/-) -73 z Source:Ci o'Oran eMmiici lCode—Cha terl7.34:0 =StreetParkin andLoadi�� Tab1e17.34.060.A—Re t�iredNumbero Parkin ryl g � p fl s g, 9 l g Spaces far Residef�tial Uses. . . ,'�,'-�. 9 TABLE 3 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT—TOWNHOMES3 TOWN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES PROJECT,ORANGE City of Orange Spaces I'roject Description Siie Code Parking Ratio Required 7ox�nito�nes ■ Townhomes—Two Bedroom Units 25 units 2.0 spaces per unit 50 ■ Townhomes—Three Bedroom UniYs 49 wtits 2.4 spaces per unit 1 I 8 ■ Guests 74 units 0.2 spaces per unit 15 Subtotal I 83 City Code Parking Requirement 183 Parking Supply 183 Parking Surplus/De�ciency(+/-) 0 � Source:Ci o'Oran e hltmici !Code -Cha ter 17.34:O Sb�eet Parbiri and Loadin Cable 17.34.060.A-Re i�ired Number o Parkii� $' 1 S Pa P 1j- % S�� 9 / 8 Spaces for Resideiitial Uses. , v � � � � � � �D G V �D V M 'V M N1 " �, d + -F + -� + -F � 'u `" w v Ca � a, a � � � � � � � � � a M M M M M M � � ., V1 � � V'1 Vl V1 a � N ro n. 0 r bD q O ;� y o W i � � � �n c� oo a, o 00 `� Z v A" i t� oa rn � o rn . >, Q � a�i � `t v c� ri M n� n, � � Z � a (� m �' U � _ w p, � O i° m � � � � o N � Z ... ., .� ., .� .J . � W v a�i o. � � � � 7 � �o � O a v v� v� vi v� v� v-, a = a ^� N N N N N N v Q j A ' o ' O o a �' } ~ .� � Q Z ^ �a c �o � F �p � Q o � �o a� v a� , � � Q g N � x x x �e � y ro � � � � � o ~ � w � a � � v, 3 3 3 3 � �n �° ; i � .. .. .. .. -, w � c E � � o ° ❑ ° ❑ � � a � tC d U U C N N N N N � Q q � a a b a a o. o. o � � C � � � U U U U z � 71 � �O �O �" ctl cd ttl c0 CL WZ [� � r.. p -f]N. fNl. f�-N. �. p � Q � M N O O � 2 (.� '_" q T � Z � Q Q v a Z a � � O �- I'- N � b v �' o � � '� 4 o � a� :d o �] � p W '; U 8 e� z o� > '' v W c �u � , R a� y � � � 4 b � Q '� �. a N ro � � en � .. ° � � � � � O .� � i � c7 .= „ Y � � � � . P, on c -d 'c Q °�,"' °�,i C N Q .`� U � � � V] V1 0 p, a cn � C N a�'i -� � a � ti � � h WE- � j rx O � � N Q M d' � ti U 'J O � v , v 7 >a O ,� M oo ,-.• V �O 0. C l� v� � � N N � 7 � + + + + + + � u 4 v A en = C �' � � � � � � � � � C � V V � 7 7 � � � � � � � � � a 6� � ci n � O r CO C y _ � � G W Y c O � G y Z � �' L � Q� 00 V 'J 'J T U '= Vl � d' 7 M M m � g Q z � a � � � � U � J W A O � m � o Z a o ti � h h � y h L w W � .n, 'c �c 'c 'c 'c '� � � � � 3 > > � O v y � v�'i v�i v�i � � v�i ��. Q = Q M M M M M M .D QZ � O � � O O F— a l�'> � � � J a Z +�' c0 C cTC C � m � a O 'O � 'D N � Q � fn � .. ... 7 `1 .=1 .Y .Y c�+ ~ �jZ a"i CG � � °�° a°�i a°�i a°�i a°�i � y W � _ 3 3 3 3 F,. � U c a� ai � .� .. .. .. °' Z h- .fl e❑� Li. s�. {L � C F N + 7 7 3 3 L W a � a A n a �v a. a a a " � Q �Q Cfl � ' N O W � C C � ` N N N N ,Z R� � ;� `-�' �O ^ fl. fl. R R. j � Z cC � � �+ o � 6. v� v� N � C7 zp M N O O U — — — `n � z � aa a � z � � @ c O ' " � � a 'D U N � N O O � � G, V "� O � G L' � U �,.., � � i� � 4 U u � '� y �v � 'z � '� ° N @ � � " c � � � � � c � � � � i - O e`a C7 °� a .. Q st � � c' � � .o 'c Q v Y z � i � � °J v� �n ^ � r '� 6 c�. �' � c° = a�'i a�'i u] ;n c�i p � � t' .� � � � F- oo � a�' � v� v� � Y — N Q M 7 � ti � � f � a y � N r' C� M � � a � O� [� c�l � O� N 7 � � � c� M M M M � V' CC �0.I w � L `�' U 7) cn a �" a v� � � � O °' z 'a O o � o o, a� N � w � "o "" oo .-. �n � �o 0 Q "� a i" M M M d' d' V� � CC a � � � � U �p � rS N 0 J = � �N W � H � W �rjJ Z O J � a � N �"' � � r �D O� oo O� O O� �O � 2 '> >a �M M M cr1 � � 7 Z '-2 � � h � Y � C ayi C a a � q h Q C i. V] 2' � CL d z � 'c. � y � op U " c o Q � �' N z .p v; Q v, N oo O I� C� O� O� M Z � L M M t'�1 �i' � � � � t � ^ � F G � � � h � � C 0 � r r � �. G �G P' °� eCd a .n�. P." C" Q Q Q � C � O O O O p � � � [..i O O O O� T p °� O� p N N 'pD � U a � C C U C. � O U CD G X N 6� � V 7 O � � ^� �� '� '� � � � � � � d a. a � � � � � � � � � � � �- �, .__ �. �. �. �. •y � � � � � Q7. N N l� v1 � �O V'� <Y' V 9 � y � � M 7 � � � � � Z `�-' u � N N N N � � � N F W V ~ W N 0 w d .°a' a�i � M .,^. o d� `" �' ln N 7 C3 rY •-• N c V� � � �,c�j p, �' 7 d' � � 2 = O � 0 � H z � � ^ O � v W F � °o 00 °o 00 � J Z '-' •--� '-' ,--� c� m a � � � � Q � N N N N G H 0 F � N ,_, �,.� U Z � N Q W cC i T .n W � T >, G � � c~C cp � � � R' v T � � 4. c 0 Q = � � � p y Z �^ L� T �, A T � cd � Q H � �vL: 'D b 'O 'O Z � � Y O � � � � � w U � a o F z = Q � 3 o � � � E v � � �. 2 ¢ � � co c - s � c O � � � F � r' o u � 7 Q. Q. N ¢ � F �" N � V] j '-� o T — � � Q � L � C � ^ C`� Y 7 1 7 J �. C =p ; C ,. �a y +/ Q. 7 V l� l� I� � � � d + + �} + . 3 � �u C � t"" y � A V� . � v Cd P� � � � O � bA C a�i �n �n v� �n U 0 � � M M M M C. R Q v� �n v'1 v'1 R� � w � � � !-� Z v 3 � l� � M N Q � �+' V d' 7 V C9 O G, A Z F- O V J W m � a � „ o : Y � Y w tn vi cui +'' �� G �C �� v d •p •� � � � .� Q = � � � N N N N Q � � A � � � � � � m � a � �' � � � � a � u� �e �e F— _ � a� � v� in w v, 2 -, 6'L' a� a� a� a� N W " OA C �. P. A. �S�-. � � � � � � � Q A py � vNi. � d��, � Q � � � C'J r w Z >, T Z (,� A � Q � Q . Y � ,� o k � ,.�k C 2' Z �"' c� N .4 N .x Q Q a R 3 � 3 � � F 3 3 0 � � c E r ro d � � � � � O � � � o p. a d Q � � � � � d Q 0 V] �-+ N � y + C+ � V .0 N O (� s O. Q � � O N N � V] � .0 + + + + 3 � � �, � .__ � y L � � . � `-' L � � a .fl c � U a � c"a v � � v L ti' n, .o .o .o .o � � � W � 9 � C C Z V 1 � o�C � N •-" m � L � � �1 �1 � c� O a p z F � U J W � O ma � �, o � s � y w �n Q a�i p, .� '_ ._ '_ � � v a •o 'L = � � � o s. u � o0 00 oc � o L C, �' �n �n �n �n Q � a � r, cn r� r; � O F— � � O W ..., .-� .-� �. m � a � � 7 '� 7 � Q � ln u � ;n �n �n ✓: F— � 1�- Z G c� a� a� a� N w V C c c"a c"a c�c c"a � � ,Go Y a. ,�n. � �n. � a p a � vNi, v � � a _ � � � W Z � � � � ro z v A � � � � Y 0 ^ o � b � -o � z " ai a�i .� a�i � a � �= 3 3 3 3 0 � � � � � n. ¢ � c � � �, O � 3 � o a v Q � v J �, � � � Q Q L � V] �-+ N APPENDIX A PARKING STUDY REFERENCES LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG ftef.2-17-3789-1 Town and Country Apariments and 7'ownhomes,Orange �.��no�i�3�s��-�o��-��co��„�n��m„��n��_o��a��ria„�a�e�,rn�;e�,_d�� IBI Group IBI 18401 Von Karman Avenue—Suite 110 Irvine CA 92612 USA GROUP tel 949 833 5588 fax 949 833 5511 Memorandum TolAttention Nate Carlson Date November 19, 2012 From Bill Delo,AICP Project No 33148 cc Steno ch Subject Parking Study for AMLI Orange Apartment Project Introduction AMLI is proposing to develop a 334-unit residential apartment project in the City of Orange and provide 1.7 parking spaces per unit for the project. The current city code requires a minimum of 2.02 parking spaces per unit. The purpose of this memorandum is to examine the typical peak parking rates identified in published parking manuals and from similar site surveys to determine whether a proposed rate of 1.7 parking spaces per unit is sufficient to meet estimated parking demand for this type of residential development. Project Location and Background The proposed project will be located near the Anaheim Metrolink Station and major employment centers in the City of Orange. Adjacent employers and the number of employees are summarized in Table 1-1. Table 1-1 Adjacent Employers Employer Number of Employees UCI Medical Center 4,500 Government Offices 1,400 Hilton Hotei 400 Office Towers 3,000-5,000 Outlets at Oran e 2,500 Source:Pierce-Eislen,Inc. Due to its close proximity to employment centers and transit, there is a chance for increased pedestrian and transit activity by residents of the proposed project as an alternative transportation option to the automobile. A recent study by Caltrans(Travel Characterisfics of Transit-Oriented Development in California)assessed the travel patterns of people who live, work, shop, and recreate near suburban and infill rail transit stations throughout California. The study found that those who live in transit-oriented developments or within close proximity to mass transit have higher levels of transit use than persons in surrounding areas. IBI Group is a group of firms providing professional services IBI Group Memorendum z Nate Carlson—October 7,2012 Similar Site Parking Counts To identify a recommended minimum parking ratio, similar site parking surveys were conducted at three residential apartment developments in Orange County. The survey sites were selected based on their similarities to the project site, including development size and close proximity to employment centers. The three survey sites consist of: • Survey Site#1, Irvine, CA—279-unit apartment complex that is currently 93.9% occupied(262 units). This apartment complex provides 600 parking spaces in a gated parking structure. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 2.15 spaces per unit. The unit mix for this complex is 2 studio units, 162 1-bedroom units; and 115 2-bedroom units.This apartment is not located near mass transit. • Survey Site#2, Irvine, CA—403-unit apartment complex that is currently 96.8% occupied(390 units). This apartment complex provides 643 parking spaces in a gated parking structure. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.6 spaces per unit. The unit mix for this complex is 326 1-bedroom units; and 77 2-bedroom units.This apartment is not located near mass transit. • Survey Site#3, Orange, CA—460-unit apartment complex that is currently 95.2% occupied(440 units). This apartment provides 784 parking spaces in a gated parking structure and gated surface parking lot. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.78 spaces per unit. The unit mix for this complex is 256 1-bedroom units; and 204 2- bedroom units. This apartment is located within 1 mile of the Anaheim Metrolink Station. Surveys were conducted on a Tuesday and Saturday between 6:00 PM—1:00 AM to capture, the peak parking demand generated by residential uses at the two similar sites. The peak hour parking rates from the three sites are summarized in Table 1-2. Table 1-2 Similar Site Parking Rates—Residential Only Weekday Weekend Units Peak Hour Peak Hour Survey Site Occupied Parking Rate Parking .. Rate Demand (spaceslunit) Demand (spaces/unit) (spaces) (spaces) Surve Site#1 262 354 1.35 356 1.36 Surve Site#2 390 504 1.29 443 1.14 Surve Site#3 440 616 1.40 547 1.24 Avera e 364 491 1.35 449 1.25 IBI Group also conducted parking surveys at two mixed-use residential apartment and retail developments in Orange County, California. These two survey sites consist of: • Survey Site#3, Fullerton, CA—183-unit apartment complex that is currently 95% occupied(174 units). The apartment complex provides 223 residential parking spaces in a gated parking structure.The unit mix for this complex is 129 1-bedroom units and 54 2-bedroom units.This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.21 spaces per unit. This apartment is located within 1 mile of the Fullerton Transportation Center. • Survey Site#4, Santa Ana, CA—250-unit apartment complex that is currently 90% occupied(225 units). The apartment complex provides 453 residential parking spaces in a gated parking structure.This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.8 spaces IBI Group Memorandum 3 Nate Carlson—October 7,2012 per unit. The unit mix for this complex is 108 1-bedroom units and 145 2 to 3 bedroom units. This apartment is not located near mass transit. These additional survey sites are smaller than the proposed project and include a retaii component as part of the apartment development. However, both survey sites are mid-rise apartment complexes in similar settings to the proposed project. The peak hour parking demand per dwelling unit from these two surveys are provided in Table 1-3. Table 1-3 Parking Rates for Additional Sites—Residential and Retail Developments Weekday Weekend l;nits Peak Hour Peak Hour Survey Site Occupied Parking Rate Parking Rate Demand (spaces/unit) Demand (spaces/unit) (spaces) (spaces) Surve Site#3 174 191 1.10 191 1.10 Surve Site#4 225 212 0.94 208 0.92 Avera e 183 202 1.02 200 1.01 Comparison to Other Parking Rates For comparison, rates from the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4`h Edition are provided below. The ITE Parking Generation Manual provides averages, ranges, and statistical quality values of parking demand generated by various land uses. The typical parking demand generated by a low/mid-rise apartment development is summarized in Table 1-4. Table 1-41TE Parking Generation Weekday Weekend Avg.Size of Avg.Size of Use Studied Studied Classification Developments Avg.Parking Developments Avg.Parking dwellin Demand Rate Demand Rate ( g (dwelling units units Low/Mid-Rise Apartment suburban 311 1.23 n/a n/a Low/Mid-Rise Apartment urban 70 1.20 147 1.03 Source:ITE Parking Generation Manual,4`h Edition.Note that the Parking Generation Manual does not provide a weekend estimate for suburban locations. Given the proposed location for this development within a more urban section of the City of Orange,the urban data points provided by ITE provide a good basis for comparison. The 85`h percentile demand value for the urban designation was 1.61 spaces per unit for weekdays and 1.14 for weekends. IBI Group Memorendum 4 Nate Carison—October 7,2012 Summary of Parking Rates Based on the data collected from the two similar survey sites, the average peak hour parking demand per dweiling unit would be anticipated to be 1.35 spaces on a weekday and 1.25 spaces on a Saturday. Per the ITE Parking Generation Manual,4'h Edition, the typical observed parking demand is 1.23 spaces on a weekday and 1.03 spaces per unit on a Saturday. The average parking rate from the additional survey sites is 1.02 parking spaces per unit on a weekday and 1.01 parking spaces per unit on a Saturday. A summary of these rates is provided in Table 1-5. Table 1-5 Summary of Average Peak Hour Parking Demand Average Rate Avg. (spaceslunit) Survey Site Units Occupied Weekday Weekend Surve Site#1, #2 and#3 364 1.35 1.25 Surve Site#3 and#4 183 1.02 1.01 ITE Parkin Manual 229 1.23 1.03 Conclusion Based on the average rates from the similar site surveys,the proposed 1.7 parking spaces per unit should be more than sufficient to meet estimated parking demand generated by a 334-unit apartment complex in the City of Orange. In all observed cases, actual parking demand for similar residential projects in Orange County did not exceed 1.35 spaces per unit. Additionally, the ITE Parking Generation Manual,4�h Edition provides an estimated average demand of 1.03 to 1.23 for low or mid-rise apartment complexes. In terms of parking supply, the surveyed apartment complexes provide between 1.20 and 2.15 parking spaces per unit. The combined average parking supply ratio for the five developments is 1.71 parking spaces per unit. In all four cases,the apartment complexes provide parking supply levels that are well in excess of current demand, even when all four complexes are experiencing occupancy leveis of 90%or above. f�0 Q m U v � � N rv � o o�o � m � � p � ,--i ,-i m ry v .-I .--� Vf Q � N � J Q U H O C �v � m � � � m � 1� N �C � '� N .-I l0 V I� a-'1 �--I � � Q G1 i O � � � Q u � n y � � � � "� v�i m � � O N � U — � d � N GJ � d � U � L � oNo m o � v� � l� N .-� .-� c m vi .-i �-i v � s ` F- a v oa � a L U O � � � m ^� m m � � N 3 c '� ,� ,� '"� v m � c-I .--� � O O a-+ Q � Q � U L r � 3 oq O �A N O O � o� m � C a-i �-1 V N h'1 � O a � o` v � a a i u O u1 � 0�0 M O^i � � � v�l �V 00 N � C N .-I .-i N V1 K) t0 C'I � U m � O � 3 0 � v m a Q T CJ �--I � O c '� '�i .'�-i � v N vMi 00 N U (o r'� �"� � O c 3 0 � E � R o k o - o o a � OL ,,�, `° � " io a -O •� vl K C � N +.+ O 'O 'O � m � C C� C� � � O] CO f� f6 l0 Y Y U ` U � � � � T VI r-1 N M H I- d d a � � N d N Town and Country Apartments Helping Satisfy Orange County's Demand for High Quality Warkforce Housing January 3, 2018 Prepared by: S�ringbrook,, 111 Realty Advisors, Inc. ATTACHMENT NO. 10 TTM 0045-17 TOWN AND COUNTRY 'I�WN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES WORKFORCE HOUSING REPORT DATED O1/03/18 Mev 21 201R P(' MTC:_ Town and Country Apartments Helping Satisfy Orange County's Demand for High Quality Workforce Housing The purpose of this report is to determine the extent to which the Town and Country Apartments project will help to satisfy the need for Workforce Housing. The Town and Counriy Apartments project consists of approximately 653 apartment units,ranging in size from 598 square foot studio units to two bedroom units with up to 1,246 square feet; in addition, 30 three bedroom units will be constructed. The project will be constructed on a 12.127 acre site which will also include 74 townhome units; the Workforce Housing units will be provided within the apartment portion of the development. The site is located adjacent to the Town and Country Center,which contains specialty retail stores as well as offices. It is located near the interchanges of Interstate 5 with State Route 22 (Garden Grove Freeway) and State Route 57 (Orange Freeway). The apartment buildings will consist of five stories surrounding parking structures. The Town and Country Apartments project is ideally located to serve as Workforce Housing for the Orange County community. Its location is within walking distance to retail opportunities, St. Joseph Hospital, Children's Hospital of Orange County, and offices. Other major employers in the area include the UCI Medical Center, County of Orange, City of Orange, Chapman University and Orange Unified School District. Mass transportation is immediately accessible with three major bus routes serving the area(with others in close proximity), with connections to transit centers at Santa Ana and Anaheim (Amtrak and Metrolink)and in downtown Orange(Metrolink). The central Orange County location is also advantageous to automobile commuters,with easy freeway access to all of Orange County and South and West Los Angeles County. Urban Land Institute, in its publication "Developing Housing for the Workforce," listed the following parameters for good Workforce Housing sites:high density mixed-use areas,close to employment centers, land located near transit nodes or within transit corridors, and urban or suburban activity centers.l The Town and Country Apartments project meets all those parameters. Workforce Housing is essential to Orange County's economic success. The Orange County Business Council ("OCBC"), in its "Orange County 2013 Community Indicators" report, stated that "High relative housing prices....adverscly impacts our workforce by discouraging young workers from moving to or remaining in Orange County. A lack of affordable housing results in longer commutes, leading to increased traffic congestion and pollution, decreased productivity and diminished quality of life."Z In its 2015 Housing Scorecard, the OCBC noted that "Without sufficient workforce housing options, Orange County employers will struggle to recruit and retain a capable workforce to keep the economy moving forward."3 Apartment communities such as Town and Country Apartments play an important role in providing Workforce Housing to workers with jobs in Orange County. 'Developing Housing for the Workforce,a Toolkit,published by Urban Land Institute,2007,p. 167. z Orange County 2013 Community Indicators,published by Orange County Business Council,2013,p.22. 3 2015 Orange County Workforce Housing Scorecard,p. 8. 2 i ' .F i iA��ii 3 „I s.., .. { Ut':illt t .—>�3.SL t�,c:�sc'� �z �� 1, >��ii)�`t t: ��(�ti>1 1`.", ��si'�lii�'C High for sale and rental housing prices in California make for difficult conditions for employees to find adequate housing. The California Association of Realtors recently reported that only 28% of prospective home buyers could afford to purchase a median- priced existing single family home.4 In Orange County that percentage is only 21%.4 As a result, rental housing must be provided to help fill the gap. The Southern California Association of Governments("SCAG") estimates that the demand for new homes(for sale and rental) in California is approximately 180,000 annually. This compares with new housing building permits averaging 80,000 per year since 2000.5 Since 2000, average rental rates in California have increased approximately 27% while renter income has remained relatively unchanged.s Projects such as Town and Country Apartments are necessary to offset the housing shortage, thus reducing the potential for future rent increases, and helping to support a healthy economy. Workforce Housing is generally defined as housing for those individuals who do not qualify for housing subsidized by low income housing tax credits,redevelopment set-aside funding (which remains available only on a very limited basis), Section 8 housing, and other forms of subsidized housing. Most of this funding is available only to housing serving households earning less than 80% (or a lower limit for certain programs) of Area Median Income("AMI"). Wikipedia states that"Workforce housing is commonly targeted at "essential workers" in a community i.e. police officers, firemen, teachers, nurses, medical personnel."6 Although Workforce Housing has been traditionally defined as housing affordable to households earning 80%to 120%of AMI,it has become increasingly common in high cost areas to increase the income limit range for households targeted by Workforce Housing or to focus on the types of jobs included in Workforce Housing. The Southern California Association of Governments, in a 2009 presentation re.Westside Los Angeles County, set forth Workforce Housing in three tiers,ranging up to 180%of AMI.� The County of Kauai (Hawaii) sets the upper limit of Workforce Housing to households earning up to 140% of AMI.B For purposes of this report, Workforce Housing income ranges generally used are from 100% of AMI to 150% of AMI as shown in Table 1 on the next page; this report focuses on police officer, fire fighter, teachers, and healthcare personnel pay. AMI for Orange County, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"), has been set at $88,000 for 2017, based on a household size of four persons. Using HCD mcthodology, the income amounts shown in Table 1 on the next page have been derived: 4 Press release dated November 2,2017 from the California Association of Realtors. 5 SCAG 2017 Economic Summit Presentation,November 9,2017 6 Wikipedia,as of December 11,2017 'SCAG Westside Workforce Housing Study,February 2009 p. g Income limit table published by County of Kauai for 2017. 3 i c53t'13 <}i1,� C U?E�.� �� .'';j� ls�( ,_..._ �€t�.�, �, _,. .� ��,()ti�:i{�1'�'i ��it)'tl�,ill`' l:`�C;f;i)i�1� Table 1 Area Median Income and Incomes at 120%and 150%of AMI B Household Size 2017Annual Median Household Size Income 120%of AM/ 150�of AMI One Person $61 600 $73 920 $92 400 Two Persons 70,400 84 480 105 600 Three Persons 79 200 95 040 118 800 Four Persons 88,000 105 600 132 000 Higher income limits apply to larger households; those households however are not considered to be a target market for Town and Country Aparhnents where almost all the homes consist of studios, one bedroom, and two bedroom homes; 30 (4.6%) of the units are three bedroom units which will generally be rented to households with two wage earners. In Orange County and other localities, it is common that more than one person is a wage earner contributing to the total household income. Based on information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of wage earners per household in Orange County is 1.50.9 For properties owned by Fairfield Residential in Southern California the average number of wage earners is 1.61.10 For purposes of this report, only one wage earner per household has been assumed even though the data sources cited indicate that many Town and Country apartments will probably be rented to households containing two or more wage earners. The Town and Country Aparhnents project is assuming monthly average rental rates and typical qualifying incomes based on those rental rates as follows: Table 2 Projected Rental Rates and Qualifying Incomes Qualifying Qualifying Monthly Ave. Income 2.5 /ncome 3 Rental Times Rent Times Rent Studio $1,750 $4,375 $5,250 One Bedroom 1,829 4,573 5,487 Two Bedroom 2,345 5,863 7,035 As shown above,minimum qualifying household incomes for future residents of Town and Country Apartments are anticipated to range from 2.5 times to 3 times rent levels depending on the credit of the applicant. This is per Fairfield's rental practices and is consistent with the rental policies for apartments in this price range and quality in Orange County. As part of our work effort, we reviewed salary information far local employers. Major employers in the general area of the Town and Country Apartments project include the St. 9 Computed from American Community Survey data 2012-2016 for Orange County as provided in Appendix A. '°Data furnished by Fairfield Residential in December 2017. 4 i� ,ii ,��a � E_t';iil�;�,. .�E) si�,�.��y'�[� `_�, ;�'.ta ;, �„�'(_�;}�� } t� .,':�(? ,.�. ��i7'�i.lii:.'. �ti.i�it?iC Joseph's Medical Center, Children's Hospital of Orange County, UCI Medical Center,the City of Orange, Chapman University, and the Orange Unified School District. Based on our review, we identified certain jobs as being typical examples of employees qualifying for Workforce Housing. Since many employers do not publish salary information, and many of the positions had similar job descriptions (e.g. sheriff deputy vs. police officer) we limited our review in this report to salary information available from the Transparent California website for the City of Orange and Orange Unified School District, and job postings by UCI Medical Center. We then compared the salaries shown in the table shown below to AMI. Table 3 Salaries and Pct.of AMI Average Monthly Percent of Poy AMI r"� Police Officer1z $8,395 114.47% Fire Fighter'Z 8,843 120.58% Orange Unified Teacherl' S,302 72.30% Speech Pathologist'° 8,232 112.26% Clinical Nurse II" 8,094 110.37% Dietitian I I" 6,951 94.78% Chart 1 on the next page shows the relationship of projected Town and Country Apartments rents to the salaries as shown above in Table 3 and the qualifying incomes shown in Table 2 for studio units. This assumes only one wage earner in each household although, as previously discussed,many households will have more than one wage earner. ��AMI used for comparison purposes assumes a four-person household and one wage earner per household. 1z Data extracted from Transpazent Califomia website in December 2017. Includes average overtime pay. 13 Data shown is from Orange Unified School District Salary Matrix for full time teacher in Step 5 with Masters Degrec or 45 advanced units,including average teacher exha credit pay per Transpazent Califomia website. "Data shown is from UCI Medical Center job postings in December 2017. 5 I t ;',, ;_ �. � c;i.!tii3t :�t�?�t�i[3?c:`=„[� .�<.� . n_ :'.E9i;o �)iA,.l�,�lm�. ZL\`��°11�£i�.�,. �.t��.)l��l _ Chart 1 __� _ � Studio Units-Comparison of Average Monthly Pay to Incomes Required to Qualify to Rent i $9,� ._____.__._.____._-- 5$A4z ____—_—.___________— I $8,395 � $8,232 $8.094 ( $S,ppp ....-- ---�--------- -........... _..--------_.� ( ( $7.Upp -- _.___ 56.951 I u p $6.ppp ._ ____.__"__.___ — W. c 2, $5,302 t �--�� ------- "---�--��. . . ._....�..... $5,251 � $5,000 Studlo monthly income required to quality is$4,375 to $5,251 depending on credk. � ,3�5 , � $Q.Qpp ____.__ .-- __ ___— ._ i I iIMwlAverage Monthly Pay � I $3,000 _..... ..__ _.__. ........._ _—_. __ _..__...._..._ _....... _ . i —Qual.Inmme With f Good Credit jIncome Required to i 52.000 _....__ ._._ � ._.. ...._..--- ----...,--._ ....-;..____._.. . ; ........_ ..�..; Qualiry � Po1lteOtFlcer FIreF(ghter OrangeUnlfied SpexhPathologizt CllninlNursell Dletitlanll `�� "�"�"�� "-� � Teacher � � i il�Incomes by profession shown are averages for each position indudingovertime pay and teacher exGa credit pay.Teacber pay is ! i based on a teacher with 45 advanted units or Masters Degree. Only one wage eamer per household assumed although two wage ! eamers are anticipated in many cases. Qualifying incomes shown are computed at 3 times to 2.5 times rent depending on the credit 'i � of the applicanC � � I I __. .__._. ._---._._ _._. _...... .. .......-----�--.---- ._..._ .._. ._...___.. .____. . ._.__ .__.... ..! An individual with acceptable credit, holding any of the jobs shown in Chart 1,will qualify to rent a studio unit. Chart 2 on the next page shows the same relationship of projected Town and Country Apartments rents to salaries for Workforce employees as shown in Table 3 and the qualifying incomes shown in Table 2 for one bedroom units. 6 i{ ti si�3t� ( txl�,3l;� .�1� t?i,isvi'at;� � tr,,.;.a; . _'ii?.4 , 6 ,.zi�iii�:ti� �it'+Ll�l!``. �l'.i''`}`..i� . Chart 2 One Bedroom Units-Comparison of Average Monthly Pay to Incomes Required to Qualify to � Rent $9.� __.__—. _._..___.____._._.�.843 ' __........._ .....___....._ ____.__. $8,395 $5.232 $8,094 $8,� _. .._....._._.._._._.._ ............._._.. _..._.._... .._.._._-_.�__._.__. S��p .__ —__._..._._ ..__...._..__ _____._.___ ...._....._.._. .._._...___.. $6,951 0 E 0 5 $6.000 — _.____—_ _______. ___......__...... ._._ r 55302 qgg � 5 One 8edroom monthly income required to qualify is � `'� $4,573 to$5,488 depending on tredit. ,573 i � $q.ppp .____ ___._...__._ .....—._._._ lINIMRAverage Monthly Pay � —Qual.lnmme With $3.ppp _.�_ .____..— .____.__... ___.__.__ ._____._ ..._.......__..�. _. GoodCredit jIncome Required to � � � $2000 .._...— ---.-, ___ .__.r--- --�,---. ..---•----- —_.._...-__-- - _. Qualify ..___ __ I i Polfce OtBcer Fire Fighter Onnge Unifled Speech Cllnial Nurse 11 Dletitian II '� � Teacher Pathologist � ( � (1)Incomes by profession shown are averages for each position indudingovertime pay and teacher extra tredit pay.Teacher pay is � � based on a teacher with 45 advanced units or Masters Degree. Only one wage eamer per household assumed although two wage � , eamers are anticipated in many cases. Quali(ying incomes shown are coinputed at 3 times to 25 times rent depending on the credit . � of the applicant �i i Results above are consistent with Chart 1; an individual with acceptable credit holding any of the Workforce jobs listed, will qualify to rent a one bedroom unit (although a teacher, sole person in a household,may have to have good credit to qualify to rent). Chart 3 on the next page shows the same relationship of projected Town and Country Apartments rents to the salaries as shown above in Table 3 and the qualifying incomes shown in Table 2 for two bedroom units. 7 , 1: �.�i F t . ..I':ti t '§:i3;.,t +.itii`ti.; j i.1;it"� , .�'t.}i;� �,, .'• vi t l if�(zi�.�;: ��{7ii`.si�l£i Eai.��s5.�. Chart 3 _ __._ Two Bedroom Unks-tomparison of Average Monthly Pay to Incomes Required to Qualify to Rent 59.000 •_.._ . __..._ __$3f.fl43.... ._... . ..._.. __ .._ ..__ .__. ..__.. $R,395 58,232 5R.(WA 5�� --- _._________�.�. � 5�,a51 _��______.. __._____ 5�,� fi___ ___.____._ --_..:. .__.___.._.��----.___-.�� ._______�._ s�,a�b m Two BWroom monthly incom�r�qWrad m qualify h o $S,t63 to$7.036 dapandfns on credk. _5�� : _..__ ___._._.._ __ ___ ...._. .__ ._.. $S,BbS S $5,302 f$5.� r....__ __.___._ __._... . . ... ._. ...._ _.._ _.... $4� ,... _ -._.._. __ ._. .._. __.._____ .._.. ___... �IIIRvrragrManth�y.Vay..i ( -Qual.Incnnr With i ,._..... , f,�xx1 Crrdit ' 5jppp ......._._ ._.._._ _,_.,..._.. _,....._..._. .__ ....._..__._. ; InwmcRcyuiredto � I .; Qua�ity ...... ��'�. � ,52,ppp : . .. ..__, --- -_ .._._ ...,..... __..,_._.. .... ., . . Pdiw Otlicer Flre Fi�hter OranQe Unificd Speech Ginial Nwse II DieGtian 11 Tuchal Patholo�fst (I)Incoines by protessian shown are aeeragrs for cach position iodudingovertimc pay and tcacher extra credit pay.Teacher pay 1z based on a lcadur with 45 advanectl units or Masten Degrct. Oniyone wage camcr per household assumcd althouRh iwo wagc iearnr�rc are anticipatvA in many rasev. qualitying incomr�show�i arr mmputPA at 3 times tn].5 fimes rrnt dP��Pndi080�the[fe�dil � n(thP applirant- �.. . ....... . ... .. ......._.. ...... .. . ...._. . ...._ ..... . . ... . .... . .. ...... ... . . ..... .. . . .. .... In cases where the employee position is shown as not qualifying to rent a particular unit (e.g. teachers seeking to rent a two bedroom unit), adding a roommate or including a working spouse or other working household member would probably qualify the employee to rent the unit. Alternatively, having good credit could qualify the employee position to rent larger units. Similarly, for individuals earning less than the average incomes shown in Table 3, adding a roommate or other working household member will allow them to qualify to rent a unit for which they would otherwise not qualify. Chart 4 on the next page shows the Workforce Housing income range for Orange County (ranging from 100%of AMI to 150%of AMI,including incomes also at 80%of AMI)and compares that range to projected apartment rents and qualifying incomes for renters at Town and Country Apartments. Household sizes have been assumed based on the number of bedrooms in each unit utilizing California Dept. of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") methodology (household size assumed to be the number of bedrooms in a unit,plus one) as shown on Table 4 on the next page: 8 .' , y #.t t , ,; ", �.�r�,,, � ��j� �,.� ; i �<<1':at� i. l3lt��._A' ,-�i�: 14191c9.fit- t�.lf'1 _.i-(�� `�`�,u:i�i��i� i�iill,��T�ac��i»"t Table 4 Assumed Household Sizes Assumed Unit Household Size Studio One Person One Bedroom Two Persons Two Bedroom Three Persons As shown by Chart 4 below,assuming household sizes as shown in Table 4 and Workforce Housing income ranges as shown in Table 2 and assuming only one wage earner per household, Workforce Housing incomes are generally greater than the qualifying incomes necessary to rent units at Town and Country Apartments. This shows that subject to credit requirements,Workforce Housing employees are generally able to rent apartments at Town and Country Apartments since the monthly income required to rent a unit generally falls below or within the Workforce Housing range of 100% to 150% of AMI. In addition, households earning as little as 80%of AMI(the upper end of the Lower Income limit)with good credit would be able to rent apartments at Town and Country Apartments. Chart 4 Comparison of Workforce Housing Income Ranges(150%,100% and 80%of Area Median Income) to Income Required to uali�to Rent �---- ----------___ --_------------__ ! i � ` 5io,000 .._ --....__ _--_ _----------�,y— -- I I I $q�ppp �______—.._�----_...-..----._.�. ----- ( $8,8 ISg� -__ .__..____'__'_' "--_______'____'__'_.' � $7�pp ��Estimated Average Monthly Rental Rate ; S�ppp _._._...__.___.. ._....._..,. .._..._�. ._.___..__.__.. _.._.—.-__._._.__ ..__.. , �,<Es[imatedlncometoQualify-40%HousingCost $� E $6,� �____„�C____ - -. �EstimatedlnrometoQualify-33%HousingCost / � ....�5135._. ._..___.__._...._�s,s�__ •�-�^•^`Workforce Fbusing UpPer income limit(150%of $5,�, . _________ _.__. AMI) $I.b50 �Woricforce Fiousing Median Income limit(S00% 54,000.._ _._..._� ........_. ....._._� __.._....____ __.. ofAMll ( �Workforce Fbusing Lower Income limit(80%of AMI) 53,000 _— __ _____._.___—_ $2,000 _'.-. ___ - $1.D00 - t � � Studio � , One Bedroam Two Bedraom � 9 ,�C l' :i 'c311C3 � �t>L'.'l.il `�:j?�c .l?i'i�''i 1 ,€'�.7ttty , •��; , `� t�llt.�{};'l't� 1'itStl_>lll``, �ii'�t:.ti` Conclusion: Town and Country Apartments will help to meet the area's demand for Workforce Housing. The 653 units to be provided in the project will assist in increasing the housing supply thus serving to ameliorate future rent increases in the market area. Workforce employees with acceptable to good credit will typically qualify to rent the apartments. A large proportion of the tenants are expected to be typical of those categorized as Workforce employees. The project's superior location, with nearby employment centers, transportation links, and nearby activities combined with attractive rent levels and amenities will attract employees with incomes within Workforce parameters to Town and Country Apartments. 10 APPENDIX A American Community Survey Selected Economic Characteristics 2012-2016 i • �!1 i' ;t 'i`; _ .., �i�L��Finder �� DP03 SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Note:This is a modified view of the original table. Supporting documentation on code lists,subject definitions,data accuracy,and statistical testinq can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section. Sample size and data quality measures(including coverage rates,allocation rates,and response rates)can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. Tell us what you think.Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you. Although the American Community Survey(ACS)produces population,demographic and housing unit estimates,it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation,states,counties,cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. _ _ -- - -- - � - - — - - � i Subject Orange County Calrfornia - -- - - Estimate � Margin of Error � Percent Percent Margin of i Error ; �EMPLOYMENT STATUS . - �- - I � � }- - � Population 16 years and over i 2,497,161 � +/938 I 2,497,161 � (X) In labor force � � � � � _ �_ _ � +/0.2 � _ -- 1,645,577 +/4,771 65 9/ , Civilian labor force ' 1,643,655 +14,833 65 8/� +/-0.2 Employed _ _ 1,532,549 I +/5,159_,_ _. 61 4/ � +/0.2 Unemployed . - 111,106 ( . +/-2,415 � 4.4% t __ +/0.1 � ArmedForces . I 1922� +/-435 � 0.1% � +/0.1 I I . Not in laborforce . 851 584 � +/-4,754 � . 34.1°/ +/-0.2.� -- . � � _ � o _� _ I Civilianlaborforce 1,643655 +/-4,833 � 1,643,655 (X) Unemployment Rate � (X) - -- (X)� 6.8/ � _ +/0.1 i - - - - � - - - -- -{- Own children of the householder under 6 years � 220 202 ' +/-1,580 I 220,202� (X)-�, -- - - _ _ ---- _ � All parents in family in labor force � _ 59.3% +/1 A � - - -� � �-- I � _ i __7 30 685 � +/2,323 �;, ` -� Mean travel time to work(minutes) �COMMUTING TO 1NORK I _ � � _ � -- - i _ r z�.z +i ai i (X) i _ �X�� — - -- _ _ ' _ - - i � � ! ! � - OCCUPATION - - - � -� I _ - � Ciwlian employed population 16 years and over r�- 1,532 549� +/-5,159 � 1,532,549 I (X) Management,business,science,and arts � I� �� 618,882 +/5,458 � 40.4% 1 +/0.3 � �ccupations - __ .---- � _ � - 'I _ . _ � 176% � +/0.3 1 Service occupations � 269,753 +/4 303 � Sales and office occupations � 385,313 +/4,469� 25 1%� +/0.3 � _. -- - � Naturai resources,construction,and maintenance � 102 242 +/-2,491 6 7% +/0.2 �ccuoations_ _ _ -� - - - - - - - , Production,transportation,and material moving I 156 359 I +/3 110 i 10.2% I +/0.2 ` ccupations _ , - _ _ - -1 - -� - - - - — � - _; - - �NDUSTRY ' , � , � --- — - �� - -I _ _� Civihan em lo ed o ulation 16 ears and over 1,532,549 1_ +/5 159 7,532,549 I (X) -_ P Y P P-- -- � � -- 0.5% i +l 0.1 I II Agriculture,forestry,fishing and hunting,and mining � 7,897 +�787 , I i 1 of 3 12/13/2017 Subject Orange County,California , -� - -- � Estimate , Margin of Error Percent iPercent Margin of ; ,'' ' , Error _.; , ___ _ i.. - Construction . . .. , 85,931 i +/-2,120 5.6% i +/-0.1 i Manufacturing .. . . � 196,945 i +/3,098 ' 12.9% +/0.2 ', - - -- _ _ r � Wholesale trade � 55,700 � +/-1,790 � 3.6% +/0.1� � � - -- - - - _ - - Retail trade � 167,061 , +/3,064 , 10.9°/ +/0.2 ; � Transportation and warehousmg and utilities ( +/-1,837 3.3/0 �� +/-0.1 � 50,600 , ° ' � I - - - - - - - � _ � - �t Information , 32,760 1 +/1,360 ! 2.1% i +/0.1 � � _ - - --- � _ � � - � Finance and insurance,and real estate and rental ' +/-3,177 ; 8.6% i +/-0.2 and leasin9 . -_ � .. 'I Professional,scientific,and mana ement,and �31,547 !I 74.3% i +/-02 I administrative and waste mana ement ervices ___ _ ;__ _ � - - i g � 218,777 +/3,752 j _g s iEducational services,and health care and social � 292,475 +/3,817 i 19.1% +/-02 assistance --- --- - ___ - �- _ _ �, • � � ` +/0.2 � �ccommodationla__nd food ery ces tion,and � 1 g3,707 I +/-2,062 1 15 5/o � ' � Other services,except public administration � r +/-�•� j � Public administration � � 42,156 +/1,552 �� 2.8% � +/0.1 � � _ - - - �- - � � _ � _ 1 �LASS OF WORKER - r - - �- - - � Civilian employed population 16 years and over � 1,532,549 i +/-5,159 1,532,549 i (X) I , _ - -__ __ _ __ __ __ , --- 81.9% +1 0.2 j i Gol e mmloned nkown not incorr orated business � ' 158 309 � +/-2 511 � 102% 1 . +/02 � i � 9 rY _ _ _ I �wor�ersaid�farnil workers _ � _ _ _�_ _ 2,580 f_ _ +/348 � 0 2%_� �_ +/-0 1 � � P y ___ _ � _ __ _�_ _ �_ j i � _ � �- -� - !yNCOME AND BENEFITS(IN 2016 INFLATION- 1 � _ �1 017,012 j X) I DTotal hoD DOoldsRs� � 1,017,012 � � � -_! _._ +/2,328 ( Less than$10,000 � 45,635 I +/-1,821 ( 4.5% � +/-0.2 � - - - - - -} - I $10,000 to$14,999 32,680 � +/1,248 { . 3 2% I +/0_1 i _- -- - - $15,000 to$24,999 70,293 � +/1,910 ' 6.9% � +/-0.2 ! ; $25,000 to$34,999 I - 72,720 � +/1,688 ',t 7 2�/ '�' +/0.2 � � � +/0.2 j I!i $75,000 to$99 999 . - I .132�384 ( +/-2,25? � 12.9% l +/-0.2, _ _. _ _, - - �_ - � _ - � � ` _ _ . � +/0.3 � $ , _ _ $150,000 to$199,999 95,223 � . +/2,003 ; 17J% . _ , $100,000 to$149,999 � 180,205 +/2 664 9.4% � +/-02 ' �� _ � � � � $200,000 or more 120,249 � +/1,717 � 11.8°/ +/0.2� � _ _ �_� � )_ � - ---�- i �X) � �Xj !i Median household income dollars 78 145 +/490 Mean household income dollars 106,952 � +/739 ,y - -I � X � X '; � Per capita income(dollars) � 35,939 ! +/-250 � ( ) ( ) I I! _ __ __ _ Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability.The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error.The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error.The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error(the lower and upper confidence bounds)contains the true value.In addition to sampling variability,the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error(for a discussion of nonsampling variability,see Accuracy of the Data).The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. Empioyment and unemployment estimates may vary from the official labor force data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics because of differences in survey design and data collection.For guidance on differences in employment and unemployment estimates from different sources go to Labor Force Guidance. Workers include members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week. Occupation codes are 4-digit codes and are based on Standard Occupational Classification 201 D. Industry codes are 4-digit codes and are based on the North American Industry Classification System(NAICS).The Census industry codes for 2013 and later years are based on the 2012 revision of the NAICS.To allow for the creation of 2012-2016 tables,industry data in the multiyear files(2012- 2016)were recoded to 2013 Census industry codes.We recommend using caution when comparing data coded using 2013 Census industry codes with data coded using Census industry codes prior to 2013.For more information on the Census industry code changes,please visit our website ai https://www.ce nsus.gov/people/io/methodology/. 2 of 3 12/13/2017 Logical coverage edits applying a rules-based assignment of Medicaid,Medicare and military health coverage were added as of 2009--please see https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2010/demo/coverage_edits_final.html for more details.The 2008 data table in American FactFinder does not incorporate these edits.Therefore,the estimates that appear in these tables are not comparable to the estimates in the 2009 and later tables.Select geographies of 2008 data comparable to the 2009 and later tables are available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time- series/acs/1-year-re-run-health-insurance.html.The health insurance coverage category names were modified in 2010.See https://www.census.gov/topics/health/health-insurance/abouUglossary.html#par_textimage_18 for a list of the insurance type definitions. While the 2012-2016 American Community Survey(ACS)data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget(OMB) definitions of inetropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas;in certain instances the names,codes,and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities. Estimates of urban and rural population,housing units,and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data.As a result,data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization. Source:U.S.Census Bureau,2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Explanation of Symbols: 1. An""entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error.A statistical test is not appropriate. 2. An'-'entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate,or a ratio of inedians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An'-'following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An'+'following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An"**'entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An"'"`"'entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled.A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An'N'entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An'(X)'means that the estimate is not applicable or not available. APPENDIX B Excerpts from Transparent California Salaries Report for Police and Fire Personnel for City of Orange for 2016 City of Orenge Pay for Police Officers Extracted From Tranparent California Website December 12,2017 Note:List below consists of police officers determined to serve on a full time basis for the entire year. Re�ular Pav Overtime Total Police Officer 96,746 36,726 133,472 96,746 13,836 110,582 96,746 11,074 107,820 96,746 31,134 127,880 96,746 10,660 107,406 96,746 11,478 108,224 96,746 11,830 108,576 96,745 68,294 165,039 96,745 3,865 100,610 96,745 40,703 137,448 96,745 20,710 117,455 96,745 8,173 104,918 96,745 21,423 118,168 96,745 25,993 122,738 96,745 21,812 118,557 96,745 20,307 117,052 96,745 15,508 112,253 96,745 11,698 108,443 96,745 11,153 107,898 96,745 9,485 106,230 96,745 15,777 112,522 96,745 3,045 99,790 96,745 11,528 108,273 96,745 12,203 108,948 96,745 9,285 106,030 96,745 14,430 111,175 96,745 18,632 115,377 96,745 - 96,745 96,745 12,695 109,440 96,745 14,813 111,558 96,745 6,463 103,208 96,745 5,406 102,151 96,745 5,432 10�,177 96,745 6,726 103,471 96,745 4,515 101,260 96,745 477 97,222 96,744 34,135 130,879 96,744 - 96,744 96,744 9,393 106,137 96,744 25,026 121,770 96,744 6,776 103,520 96,744 4,813 101,557 96,744 7,389 104,133 96,744 9,747 106,491 96,744 694 97,438 96,744 4,764 101,508 96,744 5,588 102,332 96,192 27,017 123,209 95,798 2,602 98,400 95,662 9,778 105,440 95,658 1,930 97,588 95,234 2,901 98,135 1 City of Orenge Pay for Police Officers Extrected From Trenparent California Website December 12,2017 Note:List below consists of police officers determined to serve on a full time basis for the entire year. Re�ular Pav Overtime Total 95,190 2,464 97,654 95,151 25,554 120,705 95,137 20,887 116,024 95,107 10,504 105,611 95,024 1,229 96,253 94,731 9,569 104,300 94,655 1,590 96,245 94,256 9,090 103,346 93,572 6,830 100,402 92,955 - 92,955 90,698 3,580 94,278 90,254 13,099 103,353 89,195 8,871 98,066 88,803 5,168 93,971 86,988 - 86,988 86,609 17,127 103,736 84,496 1,552 86,048 83,026 - 83,026 83,025 4,432 87,457 83,025 2,325 85,350 82,411 1,474 83,885 82,411 - 82,411 82,410 4,706 87,116 82,410 1,522 83,932 81,488 4,764 86,252 80,398 - 80,398 80,397 1,006 81,403 80,397 202 80,599 79,279 406 79,685 78,535 16,081 94,616 78,425 690 79,115 78,408 - 78,408 76,494 - 76,494 71,139 7,355 78,494 70,249 5,405 75,654 70,249 367 70,616 70,248 2,566 72,814 70,248 2,430 72,678 70,248 917 71,165 70,248 450 70,698 Total/Average 92 91,017 9,718 100,735 Monthly 7,585 810 8,395 2 City of Orenge Pay for Fire Fighters Extracted From Transparent California Website December 12,2017 Note:List below consists of fire fighters determined to serve on a full time basis for the entire year. Regular Pay Overtime Total Fire Fighter 83,722 33,794 117,516 83,722 43,807 127,529 83,722 24,293 108,015 83,722 56,359 140,081 83,722 30,456 114,178 83,722 45,286 129,008 83,722 43,927 127,649 83,722 10,493 94,215 83,721 2,093 85,814 83,721 32,855 116,576 83,721 63,974 147,695 83,721 68,983 152,704 83,721 40,286 124,007 83,721 6,242 89,963 83,721 41,226 124,947 83,130 27,183 110,313 82,953 25,971 108,924 79,595 46,453 126,048 79,595 8,503 88,098 79,595 31,763 111,358 79,595 40,438 120,033 79,594 13,749 93,343 79,594 12,203 91,797 79,450 24,341 103,791 79,450 22,239 101,689 79,403 52,826 132,229 79,079 21,668 100,747 76,981 23,463 100,444 76,981 43,538 120,519 76,981 35,876 112,857 76,980 13,730 90,710 76,980 15,212 92,192 75,250 9,281 84,531 75,249 7,246 82,495 75,249 6,683 81,932 75,249 12,103 87,352 74,215 58,625 132,840 72,252 2,446 74,698 72,063 18,268 90,331 72,063 16,612 88,675 72,063 5,797 77,860 72,062 10,472 82,534 72,062 8,530 80,592 72,062 28,083 100,145 Total/Average 44 79,127 26,986 106,113 Per Month 6,594 2,249 8,843 3 APPENDIX C Orange Unified School District Pay Scale for 2017/18 and Excerpts From Transparent California Salaries Report for Orange Unified School District Teachers for 2016 �� MATRIX UZ TEACHER/NURSE SALARY MATRIX 2% INCREASE EFF 7/1/16 Z017-2078 BA 7/27/17 S'TEP COL 1 DAILY COL Z DAILY COL 3 DAILY COL� DlULY BA+30 BA+45 OR MA BA+75 or MA w/60 BA+75 w/MA or MA+4S ENTRY 4��9�'� 248.176 1 52,142 2s�.s5o 55,444 2es.sss 60,Q47 s2a.5�s 60,&14 32e.ees 2 53,9B7 ze�,�ts 57,386 s�o.�s� 62,149 335.941 62,975 3ao.4oa 3 55,858 ao�.szs 59,384 s2�.oaa 64,323 347.694 65,179 352.317 4 57,8�1 312.496 61,473 � 332.285 6g,575 359.866 67,46� 364.649 5 59�834 �s_a2e 63,625 3as.s�a 68,906 s�2.ass 69,827 sn.aos B 61,929 �a.�so 65,852 a�5.a�9 7'l,317 ae5.soo 72,264 �o.s�s 7 64�097 sas.ass 68,156 ssa.a�� 73,81� 398.986 74,794 a4a.2sa 8 ��,$39 358.b91 7Q,541 381.301 76,396 412.954 77,412 418.443 9 68,682 371.146 73,011 384.654 7$,07� 427.407 80,120 433.079 �0 75,J�Bi$ 408.462 B��S$9 442.371 s2,923 448244 ____ 11 84,703 ( 457.851 85,827 ass.93o 12 87,667 473.878 88,831 aao.�ss 13 91,940 496.875 14 15 16 90,735 490.459 95,158 514.369 17 18 22 93,911 soi.szs 98,489 �2.3�� 26 101,836 551.004 28 106,�2� 575.250 185 DAYS Doctoral Inwement$3,500 per year Natlonal Board CeAMkadon Incramerrt:$1,000 per yeaz Califomie Teacher of the Year Increment$1,U00 per year,maximum 5 years Orange Unified School District Teachers Pay Per Trensparent California Website December 13,2017 Total Pay& Count Job Title Base Pay Other Pay Benefits Total Pay Benefits 1 TEACHER REGULAR $136,729 $ 5,418 $34,014 $142,147 $ 176,161 Z 131,821 3,755 22,426 135,576 158,002 3 131,360 - 29,947 131,360 161,307 4 Total Teachers Listed 1,271 130,251 2,700 14,689 132,951 147,640 5 127,916 8,183 33,641 136,099 169,740 6 Teachers Listed With Full Year 1,104 100% 127,669 - 20,272 127,669 147,941 7 Salaries 124,009 - 19,549 124,009 143,558 g 123,425 2,423 31,914 125,848 157,762 9 Teachers With Base Pay>63,625 942 85% 122,878 7,864 30,177 130,742 160,919 10 121,239 800 25,714 122,039 147,753 11 Full Time Teachers With Base Pay 162 15% 121,086 2,700 13,651 123,786 137,437 12 Below 63,625 119,357 1,605 31,413 120,962 152,375 13 117,701 - 27,535 117,701 145,236 14 Salary Plus Average Other Pay for $64,985 117,317 3,619 32,026 120,936 152,962 15 Teachers in Step 5 With Masters 117,133 1,500 28,968 118,633 147,601 16 Degree or 45 Advanced Units 116,522 4,119 30,342 120,641 150,983 17 116,337 4,805 13,361 121,142 134,503 lg 115,175 - 24,946 115,175 140,121 19 115,147 175 28,190 115,322 143,512 Zp 114,881 - 30,677 114,881 145,558 z1 114,881 - 24,349 114,881 139,230 zZ 114,256 2,962 18,036 117,218 135,254 z3 114,170 3,193 28,474 117,363 145,837 Z4 114,142 250 28,450 114,392 142,842 Z5 113,787 4,805 13,083 118,592 131,675 z( 113,729 12,586 27,994 126,315 154,309 Z7 113,666 2,562 12,802 116,228 129,030 Zg 113,535 2,105 24,412 115,640 140,052 Z9 113,515 - 18,937 113,515 132,452 30 113,501 - 24,176 113,501 137,677 31 113,498 - 12,316 113,498 125,814 32 113,468 - 19,191 113,468 132,659 33 113,439 2,700 12,792 116,139 128,931 34 113,398 6,179 13,198 119,577 132,775 35 113,364 4,012 18,645 117,376 136,021 36 113,126 - 19,076 113,126 132,202 37 112,808 5,359 13,032 118,167 131,199 3g 112,732 4,505 28,431 117,237 145,668 3g 112,520 2,105 18,575 114,625 133,200 40 112,447 - 28,346 112,447 140,793 q1 112,275 - 18,305 112,275 130,580 42 111,964 - 18,678 111,964 130,642 43 111,750 - 28,501 111,750 140,251 44 111,615 - 28,408 111,615 140,023 q5 111,462 - 30,202 111,462 141,664 46 111,408 - 28,106 111,408 139,514 q7 111,168 2,038 28,029 113,206 141,235 48 111,069 102 17,535 111,171 128,706 q9 111,012 750 30,869 111,762 142,631 50 110,538 743 26,161 111,281 137,442 Note:Only data for 50 highest paid teachers is shown. Full details available on request. APPENDIX D Selected Position Descriptions for Job Openings at UCI Medical Center as of December 2017 Note:the job descriptions on the following pages were extracted from the UCI Medical Center website in December 2017. They were selected as a sample of the jobs available at that date which would qualify as workforce jobs and aze not necessarily a comprehensive listing of jobs available. Speech Pathologist NEX-Speech Pathology-F/T-Days �Careers�UC ... http://careers.ucirvinehealth.org/jobs/5556127-speech-pathologist-nex-s... Schuol ot 1ladldnc Puticnt Lu�in tf lih ,u�Prol+ssionals CLnlcal lrials � G i ig _ Cxru�r Up�mnuultln � ��p Vi 1 ntccm�g C�oma t t s �,�� UC trvine Health ��.� Career Opportunities • Careers Home • Our Awards • Benefits • Diversity • Living in Orange Countv • Why UC� • Important Applicant Info Speech Pathologist NEX - Speech Pathology - F/T - Days at Careers � UC Irvine Health - 8679 Updated:October 24,2017 Location: Oran�e,CA United.States Job Family:Clinical Professional Job DescripHon&Salary Range UC Title: Speech Pathologist NEX Position Number: 10006853 Reports to: Manager Working Title: Speech Pathologist NEX Cost Center: Speech Pathology(7220) Bargaining Unit: HX FLSA: Nonexempt Job Code: 7961 Datc Created: 07/20/2016 Shift: Day Shift Hours: 40.00 Position Summary: The Speech The UC Irvine Voice and Swallowing Center has an opening for a full time speech pathologist who will work closely with a fellowship trained laryngologist in a multidisciplinary academic voice and swallowing center.Applicants should have experience in the assessment and management of voice and swallowing disorders.Required skills include the use and interpretation of videostroboscopy and flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing(FEES).The ideal candidate will have 2 to 3 years'experience in a clinic setting with a variety of patient populations including singers and professional voice users.Consideration will be given to applicants with recent completion of a clinical 1 of 3 12/6/2017,6:40 PM Speech Pathologist NEX-Speech Pathology-F/T-Days�Careers�UC... http:Ucareers.ucirvinehealth.org/jobs/5556127-speech-pathologist-nex-s... fellowship with focused training in the provision of voice and swallowing services. The Speech Pathologist provides therapeutic management of speech,language,swallowing and hearing disorders inciuding evaluation,treatment planning,therapeutic interventions,and dischazge planning. Salary Range: Rate Minimum $3939 Midpoint $44.18 Maximum $48.97 Required Qualifications: Basic Life Support Current BLS certification Demonstrated experience providing speech therapy to a diverse group of patients If assigned to work with infants and children aged 0 to 21,CCS paneling/approval will be required within one year of hire if qualified for CCS paneling requirement Speech Pathology License or proof of eligibility from California Board of Speech Pathology Physical,Mental&Environmental Demands: To comply with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 the essential physical,mental and environmental requirements for this job are listed below.These are requirements normally expected to perform regular job duties.Incumbent must be able to successfully perform all of the functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. Apply for this Job Job Search Keywords: Careers: All State/Province: All Search Locations Orange,CA,United States 101 The City Drive Orange,CA,United States 92868 Go to Goo�lc_M� BEST �ra�s �, � • UC Irvine Health • Orange,CA 92868 • 0 2014 UC Regents • Contact HR • Comments&SuQgestions • �ual Oppor[unity Employer 2 of 3 12/6/2017,6:40 PM Clinicai Nurse II-Neonatal Intensive Care Unit-F/T Night Shift�Careers... http://careers.ucirvinchealth.org/jobs/8262252-clinical-nurse-ii-neonatal-... Sahonl o(D1cSicwc I'uticnl Lu�,_fn H��tlthcarcYrolcasiun�els ('liulcallrial. ...._ ..... ._..___.... G� i b Ca.rcci Upputluniue� r� ' r Vulun ccnm� C'ant�, t t;s ��' ��'� UC Irvine Health � � `�_:_:� Career Opportunities • Careers Home • Our Awards • Benefits • Diversitv • Living in Orange County • Wh�UC? • Important Applicant Info Clinical Nurse II- Neonatal Intensive Care Unit- F/T Night Shift at Careers � UC Irvine Health - 10365 Updated:Today Location: Oran e .CA,United States Job Family:Nursin� Job Description&Salary Range UC Title: Clinical Nurse II Position Number: 10000749 Reports to: Clin Nurse 3 Supv NEX Working Title: Clinical Nurse II Cost Center: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit(6090) Bargaining Unit: NX FLSA: Nonexempt Job Code: 9139 Date Created: 08/18/2016 Shift: Night Shift Hours: 36.00 Position Summary: The dinical nurse collaborates with interdisciplinary teams to develop and implement a plan of care for a specific group of assigned patients, ensuring the coordination of care between other disciplines and support staff. Performs professional nursing duties that incorporate the psychomotor and age appropriate cognitive skills of the patienUfamily/significant other to assess,plan,intervene and advocate for the patient on an ongoing basis throughout the continuum of care. Will evaluate patient outwmes,effectiveness of plan of care,and readiness for discharge and revisc plan or make referrals as necessary. Acts as a role model and mentor to a variety of students and nurses new to the unit. Functions as a 1 of 3 12/6/2017,428 PM Clinical Nurse II-Neonatal Intensive Care Unit-F/T Night Shift�Careers... http://careers.ucirvinehealth.org/jobs/8262252-clinical-nurse-ii-neonatal-... (PCC)Patient Care Coordinator as requested by the supervisor/manager. Salary Range: Rate Minimum $43.46 Midpoint $51.56 Masimum $59.66 Required Qualifications: Ability to maintain a work pace appropriate to the workload Ability to maintain flexibility and work well in a fast paced,constantly changing environment Ability to read,write and communicate effecrively in English Ability to work variable shifts including evenings,nights,weekends,and holidays All extemal candidates must have a Bachelor of Science in Nursing Basic Life Support Minimum of 2 years demonstrated recent RN experience in a Level III NICU or 6 months RN experience and completion of a formal approved NICU course comparable to the UCIMC course Neonatal Resuscitation Program Registered Nurse Preferred Qualifications: Bilingual skills to communicate effectively with patients and families Understanding of applicable regulatory requirements Physical,Mentai&Environmental Demands: To comply with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 the essential physical,mental and environmental requirements for this job are listed below.These are requirements normally expected to perform regular job duties.Incumbent must be able to successfully perform all of the funetions of the job with or without reasonablc acwmmodation. Apply for this Job Job Search Keywords: Careers: All Statc/Province: All Search Locations Orange,CA,United States 101 The City Drive Orange,CA,United States 2 of 3 12/6/2017,4:28 PM LTD-Dietitian II-Dietary-F/T-Days� Careers�UC Irvine Health�0... http://careers.ucirvinehealth.org/jobs/8243601-1td-dietitian-ii-dietary-f-t-days School uf l]cdiciuc Naiicnt LoQin H<;+hh�nrcYrolc�sionuL. C'linicull�rinia _ ____ ...._ _ _.. , , G i C.rrccrUppurtunitica � ..�,�� w�� V Iun1 �ng Conta.il,. k�., /o � ,�"/ Career Opportunities • Careers Home • Our Awards • Benefits • Diversity • Livinq in Orange Countv • Wh�UC? • Imvortant Applicant Info LTD - Dietitian II - Dietary - F/T - Days at Careers � UC Irvine Health - 10350 Updated:December 1,2017 Location:Or�e,.CA,United,_States Job Family:Clinical_Professional Job Description&Salary Range The below job posting is a limited assignment position with an anticipated duration of 3-5 months in time. UC Title: Dietitian II Position Number: 10007230 Reports to: Nutrition Manager Working Title: LTD-Dietirian II Cost Centcr: Dietary(8340) Bargaining Unit: HX FLSA: Exempt Job Code: 5426 Date Created: 11/16/2017 Shift: Day Shift Hours: 40.00 Position Summary: Reporiing to the Clinical Nutrition Manager,the Dietitian II is responsible for formulating,documenting and implementing nutrition care plans. Duties include conducting and documenting assessments,reassessments,consults,calorie counts,and Nitrogen balances.Assists in the development and revision of hospital Nutrition policies and procedures.participates in patient conferences and unit rounds.monitors for potential 1 of 3 12/6/2017,434 PM LTD-Dietitian II-Dietary-F/T-Days� Careers�UC Irvine Health� 0... http://careers.ucirvinehealth.org/jobs/8243601-1td-dietitian-ii-dietary-f-t-days drug nutrient interactions and provides nutrition education and counseling for patients and families.Participates in process improvement and special projects,such as Nursing&Medical Student/Resident Inservices,support group meetings,and patient education classes for the community.Will attend interdisciplinary hospital committee meetings as assigned.Oversees the daily activities diet office and patient services staff as needed.If assigned to work with infants and children aged 0-21,CCS paneling/approval will be required within 1 year of hire qualified for CCS paneling.Attends discharge planning meetings for children with discharge needs applicable to the discipline.Non CCS paneled dietitians will be supervised by the CCS paneled dietitian for the care provided to children aged 0-21. Salary Range: Rate Minimum $70,741.44 Ma�mum $84,438.72 Required Qualifications: Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships across the HealthSystem Ability to maintain a work pace appropriate to the workload Demonstrated understanding of MS Office programs,including Word,Excel and Access Demonstrated understanding of therapeutic and normal nutrition,with the ability to develop care plans for patients Effective communication skills,both verbal and written Minimum two years experience as an R.D.in a healthcare/clinical environment Must demonstrate customer service skills appropriate to the job Must possess either a graduate degree or advanced certification in a Nutrition related field Must possess the skill,knowledge,and ability essential to the successful performance of assigned duties Understanding of inedical terminology Willingness and availability to work overtime,holidays and weekends as needed or requested Physical,Mental&Environmental Demands: To comply with lhe Rehabilitation Act of 1973 the essential physical,mental and environmental requirements for this job are listed below.These are requirements normally expected to perform regular job dutics.Incumbent must be able to successfully perform all of the functions of thc job with or without reasonable accommodation. Apply for this Job Job Scarch Kcywords: Careers: All StatelProvince: All Search 2 of 3 12/6/2017,434 PM Fairfield Residential Telephone(858)457-2123 Facsimile(858)457-1121 March 21, 2018 Mayor Teresa"Tita"'Smith Mayor Pro-Tem Mark A. Murphy Councilmember Fred M.Whitaker Councilmember Mike Alvarez Councilmember Kim Nichols City of Orange,CA 300 E.Chapman Ave. Orange,CA 92866 RE: Pairfield Town&Country Parking Administrative Adjustment Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: I would like to take this opportunity to reach out to each of you in anticipation of the public hearing that is expected in the next few months regarding our development pmposal located at 702— 1078 West 1'own and Country Road. Fai�eld is currently processing a Vesting Tentative Map,Major Site Plan,Design Review and Administrative Adjustment for the entire site under the Urban Mixed Use regulations. The request includes three phases, of which Phase i is 358 apartments,Phase 2 is 295 apartments,and Phase 3 is 74 for sale townhomes. Prior to submitting the entitlernent application,we had multiple meetings with Planning StafFto discuss development requirements of the Urban Mixed Use designation. We submitted our application in April 2017. The application includes an Administrative Adjustment for a 10%parking reduction for the apartment phases only,in accordance with Orange Municipal Code Section 17.10.050. This request was based on multiple prior discussions with Staff and precedence in sirnilar recently approved projects in the Urban Mixed Use areas of Orange,including AMLI Uptown and Westcore 999 Town and Country. In November 201?,after we arranged our project financing for the project,we became aware that the city was considering modifying the parking regulations to increase parking for multifamily projects. We were advised by Staff that these new parking regulations were being considered due to parking concems specifically in the Old Towne section of Orange caused by older,under parked multifamily developments and their impacts to existing single family neighborhoods. We attended the council hearing in December 2017 and requested that parking adjustments continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis and to seek clarification of the new regulations as they relate to our project. The City Council made it clear at that hearing that our project wouid not be subject to the new parking regulations,which we greatly appreciate. As stated above,our current application includes a request for an Administrative Adjustment for parking. We believe that our proposed parking is more than adequate for our proposed apartment phases due to the proposed unit mix and data accumulated from the recently appmved and constructed projects that received parking modifications within the Urban Mixed Use designation. Our proposed apartment unit 5510 Morehouse Drive,Suite 200,San Diego,California 9212: ATTACHMENT NO. 11 1'TM 004.5-17 7'OWN AND COUN7'RY 1 LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL FROM FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL DATED: 03/21/18 REGARDING PARKING MAY 21,2018 PC MTG. Fairfield Residential Telephone(858)457-2123 Facsimile(858)457-1121 mix is primarily studio, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom apartment homes. When Fairfield plans a new apartment development,we evaluate parking on a per bedro6m basis,with an established company minimum of 1 space per bedroom. With the requested parking modification taken into account,the proposed parking is 1.25 spaces per bedroom for the apartment phases. To provide additional data to support the adequacy of our parking ratios,we have included with this letter a map and list of sinnilar apartment communities that are fully operational at this time. Each project has a parking ratio similaz to or less than our request and we would be happy to tour them with you. By way of example,the Uptown Orange community was completed last year,is near employment,and is not contiguous with any single family neighborhoods(all similar cltaracteristics to our site). T'hat project was approved by the City of Orange with an 11.5%parking reduction(80 spaces). We recently had a third party consultant physically survey this property to discern the actual parking dernand. At over 85% occupancy,the survey concluded the property had a realized parking demand of 1.47 spaces per occupied unit. Should the City not support our requested parking ratio,the project would be saddled with adding an additional 130 parking spaces within concrete garage structures that would likely not be used at all,at a cost exceeding$2.5 million dollars. Please note,our financial arrangement with our investor did not include this cost increase,nor did many of our competitors have to provide the additional spaces and incur the additional expense. We fully understand the Council's concern for parking in the suburban neighborhoods of Orange. Urban projects adjacent to jobs and retail simply do not require the same parking as suburban residentiat neighborhoods. New urban communities embrace smart planning concepts khat gmmote ride sharing, public transit,walking,and bicycling while de-emphasizing the need for cars and parking. We respectfully request you consider our location,and the similarities to the fully operational Uptown Orange community and the pro�ren lower parking demand. We would like an opportunity to meet with each of you to discuss this matter at your convenience. Sincerely, �-'" �, �`oY, Senior Vice P • dent CC: William Crouch,City of Orange Anna Pehoushek,City of Orange Monique Schwartz,City of Orange 5510 Morehouse Drive,Suite 200,San Diego,California 92121 2 . $� $ 'b 4t9t + Y� ., �:� , f.: .. F�� . . Y�� a:�' S . .�f�� . , �'�,a�:M�� T�1 � � ' fy�x. *� • �. ;._�-Nt ..�,� � M R� . r �"��r �� *N .c � � �i,� � � "�� '�r � •� +,' � .�;4 ��'�"- �,r' �� j , / , ��' �' � � 4�,Ar�,yt��;� ,J �p�a_,�; . d . �'� ��';. 7'.- . ' � � f . . '� Sl ' :�Y,i a� , , - �� .r '+Y° `�.� ' �„q < y - . . ..w cQ ,.:8 ,� _ �f��. . . y�. —� �6 i '-� . �.,:a4' � C �c , � o�. ' 's t v� .,��. . � :� ... �Q7 . ♦�� U �1 � � C �� . .. .;� � � �� '� ' �°'�"� � ., `} ; , � � � .. - . � " ��' �,. 1 "�. � , r , _ � ,�� t� ,�� . .r.� • �,ti�� ,�, , � �, �.�:� �i - V `� ,��'r��,,s��i� , i J , � h �-R" . . ,a 1 ;�t�,��'�d ti,t�` #� .x�- Mk`' r, � .��t ,'�q, :' w x� ' t+'�.. _ � k ?1�� '�7.,YN �� .. �%^*�-.� `.� k ° 1a�. . �v€�"'�,�� 't � I r�,o7�.q��. ,;x,�, }j,. " �}� �' ;fr., �a 5,�� r : - t � y� � � ♦. s � , .�'-��_ �`�'Q � . x�� ' _ w�. ��4 � � ` �14 R �'e ��' � ,� } �� S .� � t .. . �'�,r � ',��+�� y��`� �� i4�4 �i.j a �'' - F�� `��. �O � `�`.�' ° � '�"r'.' �',�� s. �'. .. y ,, r ,��s � r � .s., � � ` p, '�, �� TM��'r 'ri�C' ;"`'- - .�� .. � � y F'« ;f �ya�'-3. L 1 �� ;� .y�,..��.,��,��. x i �� A a i»�,taa`�,'�} "' �.c r c�t s�r � ` . .�4 �* p�: f ,,�, �;;� �* '.3. f q . 4 ',.'�,+ �. '�'ii � ^.yi i�. e��`r � 1 ,{ 1 �� '�.t � r�� " x+'9 .i;�� S T� * h .' � ` w F �y ,�}� ` �, r x: � "' ; � + * �'�:�"'� �� . `_� . X�� 1H .:� "� /z� k`y s � "`3,,. '.�,� �1 > �� +{' . ,'.x" V �. � ,�` # � . � A� � .'��`ip¢ • • • � .Ya -'�;' �' �� • • � ri � µ �:t�� '�� '� f��>�y. , .F � �' 1�� Y-�l� ��r '. . ' � rF��:,��f�J d '` �* t �' r 'i` y�y � z �� r � ` `� ��' . .� °�y�' y . ,.�1n k� � z.�� .� � � ..# ,,,,,,i� • ' � �k-a ' 't+�'i• �°3 � .+�1�y"�R,,.,�� '��.� °#- i� ?L ��`. ' � .. g�Y' «f �.� • � • � .� �' . � �� a `�j.��-`� , ��"+�� 'y�y,F x �. � • • t1;� :.:,��t� z..�. ,�.t r a. .,' .. � � �' � ,.E q��c� � ��'�°rr:z��,,,,:"'�� ,,C`� :, • .�,.�.X��; '• � � `w�*�- * +�.�''� 3 F' ��11A p � � t �a��,..'�,�q 1 �� k y � . �y'! �'.,* ;i,� .A s �,y,' � � „ �� ' ? � ' F Y S $ .. ...h }�. � �� ° �� . � S � � t � � � � �,' �r; ~��'� �►w 1, �,� �° � � t. h, IR1CI �� . � 1�k�� •�.S n t, � � �, �' : f 4� �n, s ' • . � '. . ±�k ^ :��., ; � '+c. ,m� ' �:'.� � : �'��' i4�.,; '�r.rx.T _ ., .'��+1h,r ,�_ � � 7 . . . t. Ap} 5' 0r•, r � ` �. �� ,� ' - . �". : p��; �� . , ,� _,.',�,�.- � Q m � 7 � N N o m � m � � p °� � e�l ei N V M Q �-I rl d o m J V N 0 � �"� j 7 � N .^i a �O a N ''1 �-i O � Q CI O .a E _f0, a � '-' ,� oo n � c � .i°-i .. m u�°i m e Vl O � .� ti � W u — N � �N N C O�D U N E � m m o m m � � N � �W n .-� � .-1 .-I N t a` f- m c � s O m � o `° ^' m �.`�, � m m C 'y 00 N 3 '' a �., �o .-i .-i 0 0` a � °J g n v 7 °1 0 � n o o n o�o m rn .. v ry m c-i O Q O w ¢ � u � m � O ul C m � o � � a pp N p .y .i �n •--I '-i U � Q 3 0 � � s �, N � o � �, � �, O m "� .y .-i "'i � ry M 00 N U '� � N1 O 3 0 � E E a a o 0 0 0 0 c�c o = - .. v` C w � z\ ¢ m +.. o � m � N m\ w v m _ _ _ _ _ u _ � m m 1° '° � m � � a � n � ' , March 20, 2018 Engineers&Planners Traffic Mr. Trevor Boucher Transportation Parking Fairfield Development 5510 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200 San Die o CA 92121 unscotc iaw& g , Greenspao,Engineers LLG Reference: 2.17.3789.1 2 F�cec�ove Circle Suite 250 Subject: Updated Parking Analysis for the Proposed i�,;�e,cnszs�a Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Project 949.825.61751 Orange, California sas.szssns F www.Hgengineers.com Dear Mr. Boucher: Pasadena As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this �ryine San Diego Updated Parking Analysis for the proposed Town and Country Apartments and Woodland Hills Townhomes Project, located in the City of Orange, California. As we understand it, the preparation of this parking analysis is required to determine whether the proposed parking supply could adequately meet the proposed project's parking needs. The Parking Analysis has been updated per the request of City of Orange staff, to include parking survey data from two additional similar sites located in the City of Orange. Our method of analysis, findings, and conclusions are described in detail in the following sections of this memorandum. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Town and Country Road and Lawson Way in the City of Orange, California. The proposed Project will consist of 653 apartment units (295 units within Building A and 358 units within Building B) and 74 townhome units, for a total of 727 units. Within Building A, there are 15 studio units, 158 one-bedroom units, 112 two-bedroom units and 10 three-bedroom units with a parking supply of 535 spaces (parking ratio of 1.81 spaces per unit). Within Building B, there are 23 studio units, 197 one-bedroom units, 118 two-bedroom units and 20 three-bedroom units with a parking supply of 646 spaces (parking ratio of 1.80 spaces per unit). A parking supply of 183 spaces (2.47 spaces Philip M.Linscott,PE�isza zaooi per unit) is provided for thc proposed townhome units. Jack M.6reenspan,PE iRe�.l William A.Law,PE Inec.1 PARKING SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS Paul W.Wilkinson,PE John P.Keatinq,PE For the Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Project, the following four Oavid S.Shender,PE methods have been utilized to estimate the site's parking requirements. These �ohnA.Boarman,PE TTlet110(IS 111CIUde tlle f011OWlllg: Clare M.Look-Jaeger,PE Richard E.Barretto,PE Keil D.Ma6erry,PE M lGAYB Company founded 1966 Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 ' Page 2 ' ' ' 1. Application of applicable City Parking Code requirements. 2. Application of parking ratios contained within ITE Parking Generation, 4tn Edition. 3. Application of parking ratios contained within the Urban Land Institute's (ULI's)Shared Parking 2nd Edition publication. 4. Application of parking ratios developed from field studies of similar sites. CITY PARHING CODE REQUIREMENTS To determine the number of parking spaces required to support the proposed Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Project, the parking demand was first calculated using parking code requirements per the City of Orange Municipal Code — Chapter 17.34: Off-Street Parking and Loading; Table 17.34.060.A — Required Number of Parking Spaces for Residential Uses. Please note that the parking ratios identified are those that were in effect at the time of the project application submittal. The City has since adjusted their parking requirements; however this project is subject to the previous code. The following parking ratios were used to determine the required parking: ■ Apartments, condominiums and PUDs in multiple family zone districts: Studio = 1.2 spaces/unit; one-bedroom = 1.7 spaces/unit; two-bedroom = 2.0 spaces/unit, three or more bedrooms = 2.4 spaces per unit. A minimum of 0.2 spaces per unit shall be provided as easily accessible and distinguishable guest parking in addition to the required parking for each unit. Tables 1, 2 and 3 summarize the parking requirements for the proposed Project (i.e. Apartment Building A, Apartment Building B and the Townhomes, respectively) based on the City of Orange Municipal Code. As shown in Table 1, application of the above-referenced parking code ratios to the development description for Apartment Building A, results in a code-parking requirement of 594 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 535 spaces, a theorctical parking deficiency of 59 spaces is forecast for Apartment Building A. Further, by dividing the 594-space City Code requirement by the 295 units proposed for Building A, a "blended" ratio of 2.01 spaces per unit is derived. This resultant parking ratio (based strictly on a City Code calculation) is conservative and very likely overestimates the potential parking needs of Apartment Building A. As shown in Table 2, application of the above-referenced parking code ratios to the development description for Apartment Building B, results in a code-parking requirement of 719 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 646 spaces, a theoretical parking deficiency of 73 spaces is forecast for Apartment Building B. Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 � Page 3 Further, by dividing the 719-space City Code requirement by the 358 units proposed for Building B, a "blended" ratio of 2.01 spaces per unit is derived. This resultant parking ratio (based strictly on a City Code calculation) is conservative and very likely overestimates the potential parking needs of Apartment Building B. As shown in Table 3, application of the above-referenced parking code ratios to the development description for the Townhomes, results in a code-parking requirement of 183 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 183 spaces, the Townhomes will comply with City Code. PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER OTHER RESOURCES Notwithstanding the requirements of City Code, the actual parking requirements for multifamily residential uses have been found to be significantly less than the City's own Code requirement. This aspect is illustrated by application of other parking demand ratios contained within other sources such as ITE Parking Generation, 4tn Edition, the Urban Land Institute's (ULI's) Shared Parking 2°a Edition publication and application of parking ratios developed from field studies conducted at similar sites (i.e. the parking study prepared for the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartment Project). Given that the Townhomes component of the proposed Project will satisfy City Code parking requirements, parking requirements per the aforementioned resources will only be calculated for Aparhnent Building A and Apartment Building B. Tables 4 and S present a summary of the project's parking requirements (i.e. Apartment Building A and Apartment Building B, respectively) based on application of the aforementioned other sources. Column one (1) presents the parking reference and column two (2) presents the recommended parking demand ratio. Column three (3) presents the projecYs development tabulation and column four (4) presents the project's parking requirement. Column five(5)indicates the proposed parking supply and column six (6) indicates the project's parking surplus or dcficiency. Apartment Building A Review of the first row of Table 4 indicates that application of the 85`h percentile peak parking ratio (1.61 spaces/DU) for apartments contained within ITE Parking Generation, 4'h Edition results in a parking requirement of 475 spaces. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Apartment Building A would have a surplus of 60 spaces. As shown in the second row of Table 4, application of the parking ratio (1.65 spaces/DU) for apartments contained within ULI's Shared Parking 2°d Edition publication results in a parking requirement of 487 spaces. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Apartment Building A would have a surplus of 48 spaces. Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 ' Page 4 ' ' ' Review of rows three and four of Table 4 indicates that application of the field study parking ratios developed for Sites #1 / #2 / #3 and Sites #3 / #4 results in a weekday/weekend parking requirement of 398 spaces/369 spaces and 300 spaces/298 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Aparhnent Building A would have a weekday/weekend surplus of 137 spaces/166 spaces and 235 spaces/237 spaces, respectively. It should be noted that the aforementioned field study parking ratios were utilized to justify an 11.5% reduction in the total required parking for the approved AMLI Uptown Orange Aparhnent project. With the reduction, the net parking supply ratio for the project was 1.70 spaces per unit. In an effort to assess the veracity of the approved parking reduction, LLG conducted a parking study on the now fully operational AMLI Uptown Orange project. The results of that survey are presented in the latter sections of this report. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 535 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.81 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building A. Apartment Buildin� Review of the first row of Table S indicates that application of the 85th percentile peak parking ratio (1.61 spaces/DU) for apartments contained within ITE Parking Generation, 4th Edition results in a parking requirement of 576 spaces. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a surplus of 70 spaces. As shown in the second row of Table S, application of the parking ratio (1.65 spaces/DU) for apartments contained within LTLI's Shared Parking 2"d Edition publication results in a parking requirement of 591 spaces. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a surplus of 55 spaces. Review of rows threc and four of Table 5 indicates that application of the field study parking ratios developed for Sites #1 / #2 / #3 and Sites #3 / #4 results in a weckday/weekend parking requirement of 483 spaces/448 spaces and 365 spaces/362 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a weekday/weekend surplus of 163 spaces/198 spaces and 28l spaces/284 spaces, respectively. It should be noted that the aforementioned field study parking ratios were utilized to justify a parking supply ratio of 1.70 spaces per unit as provided for the proposed AMLI Uptown Orange Aparhnent Project. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 646 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.80 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Aparhnent Building B. Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 � ' Page 5 � �' Appendix A contains copies of the parking studies for the AMLI Orange Apartment Project. PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER ADDITIONAL SURVEYS As requested by City of Orange staff, weekday (Thursday) and weekend day (Saturday) parking demand surveys were conducted at two existing apartment complexes located in the City of Orange, that are generally similar in size to that of the proposed Project. A weekday (Thursday) and weekend day (Saturday) peak parking demand rate was then developed for each survey site and applied to the proposed Project description to determine its parking requirements and further validate the adequacy of the Project's parking supply. The following sections describe the existing survey sites and summarize the results of the parking study. Description of Survey Sites As recommended by City of Orange staff, the two similar aparhnent complexes studied were Allure Apartments and AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments located in the City of Orange. As previously mentioned, the AMLI Uptown Orange project is relevant because the City granted an Administrative Adjushnent and is now fully operational. The following summarizes the location of the sites, the size (i.e. the number of units), the total parking supply and the number of units occupied during the parking surveys. Allure Apartments—OranQe ➢ Location=3099 West Chapman Avenue, Orange ➢ Size=278 units ➢ Parking Supply=507 spaces ➢ Percent Occupied=98% (274 units) AMLI Uptown Oran�e Apartments—Orange ➢ Location=385 South Manchestcr Avenue, Orange ➢ Size=334 units ➢ Parking Supply=607 spaces ➢ Percent Occupied= 85% (285 units) Hourly parking surveys werc conducted at Allure Apartments on Thursday January 25, 2018 and Saturday January 27, 2018 between the hours of 8:00 PM and 3:00 AM (last parking count began at 2:00 AM). Hourly parking surveys were conducted at AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments on Thursday February 1, 2018 and Saturday Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 ' Page 6 '' February 3, 2018 between the hours of 8:00 PM and 3:00 AM (last parking count began at 2:00 AM). Parking Survey Results Table 6 summarizes the results of the parking surveys conducted at the Allure Apartments and the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments. Column one (1) presents the parking survey data for Allure Apartments and column two (2) presents the parking survey data for AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments. Review of column 1 of Table 6 shows that the Allure Apartments experienced a weekday (Thursday) peak parking demand of 443 occupied spaces at 2:00 AM and a weekend day (Saturday) peak parking demand of 416 occupied spaces at 2:00 AM. Review of column 2 of Table 6 shows that the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments experienced a weekday(Thursday) peak parking demand of 420 occupied spaces at 2:00 AM and a weekend day (Saturday)peak parking demand of 414 occupied spaces at 2:00 AM. Development of Parking Rates Utilizing the parking survey data from Table 6 and the occupancy data provided by each respective survey sites property management, Table 7 presents the weekday (Thursday) and weekend day (Saturday) design peak parking demand rates for each survey site. Column one (1) shows the survey day, column two (2) shows the number of occupied spaces and column three (3) shows the number of occupied units. Column four(4)presents the design peak parking rate. Review of row one of Table 7 shows that the parking survey data for the Allure Apartments resulted in a weekday (Thursday) design peak parking rate of 1.62 spaces per unit and a weekend day (Saturday) design peak parking rate of 1.52 spaces per unit. Review of row two of Table 7 shows that the parking survey data for the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments resulted in a weekday (Thursday) design peak parking rate of 1.47 spaces per unit and a weekend day (Saturday) design peak parking rate of 1.45 spaces per unit. Parking Requirements Tables 8 and 9 present a summary of the project's parking requirements (i.e. Apartment Building A and Apartment Building B, respectively) based on application of the design peak parking rates developed from the two survey sites. Column one (1) shows the type of day (i.e. weekday and weekend day), column two (2) shows the design peak parking rate based on the parking surveys, column three (3) shows the number of units proposed for the Project and column four (4) presents the parking Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 Page 7 ' ' demand. Column five (5) compares the parking demand with the proposed parking supply and indicates whether or not the proposed Project will provide adequate parking. Apartment Buildin� Review of row one of Table 8 indicates that application of the Allure Apartment peak parking rates to the proposed Project (Apartment Building A) results in a weekday and weekend day parking requirement of 478 spaces and 448 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Apartment Building A would have a weekday and weekend day surplus of 57 spaces and 87 spaces, respectively. Review of row two of Table 8 indicates that application of the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments peak parking rates to the proposed Project (Aparhnent Building A) results in a weekday and weekend day parking requirement of 434 spaces and 428 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 535 spaces, Apartment Building A would have a weekday and weekend day surplus of 101 spaces and 107 spaces,respectively. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 535 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.81 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building A. Apartment Buildin�B Review of row one of Table 9 indicates that application of the Allure Apartments peak parking rates to the proposed Project (Apartment Building B) results in a weekday and weekend day parking requirement of 580 spaces and 544 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a weekday and weekend day surplus of 66 spaces and 102 spaccs, respectively. Review of row two of Table 9 indicates that application of the AMLI Uptown Orange Apartments peak parking rates to the proposed Project(Apartment Building B)results in a weekday and weekend day parking requirement of 526 spaces and 519 spaces, respectively. With a parking supply of 646 spaces, Apartment Building B would have a weekday and weekend day surplus of 120 spaces and 127 spaces,respectively. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 646 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.80 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building B. Mr. Trevor Boucher � March 20, 2018 ' Page 8 � ' CONCLUSION Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 535 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.81 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building A. Based on the above, it can be concluded that the proposed 646 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 1.80 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of proposed Apartment Building B. Lastly, it can be concluded that the proposed 183 space parking supply or parking supply ratio of 2.47 spaces per unit is adequate to support the parking demand of the proposed Townhomes. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this parking analysis. Should you have any questions,please call us at 949.825.6175. Sincerely, Linscott,Law & Greenspan,Engineers v�., a- �..,.�_ eil D.Mab , .E. Daniel A.Kloos,P.E. Principal Senior Transportation Engineer California Registration: TR 1802 Califomia Registration: TR 2200 ��eROFESS/pN �'�.�` 0 MA6 ��' ",�'� otiEss�Orrq�F^ CNa 1802 j0 pQ��,P�.KL O ��2 �u�, .�.� 4Q� ?�Q� �� * * �'od�, 22�� 9 �TqTF�CALFOR��P � E pow��'k i� �AFF C� slq rE OF GP�-�F�•' �,.�.�..r-�,'. i : . . , . . TABLE'I CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT—APARTMENT BUILDING A� TOWN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES PROJECT,ORANGE City of Orange Spaces Project Description Size Code Parking Ratio Required �artment—BuildinQ A Apartments—Studio Units 15 units 1.2 spaces per unit 18 Apartments—One Bedroom Units 158 units 1.7 spaces per unit 269 Apartments—Two Bedroom Units 112 units 2.0 spaces per unit 224 Apartments—Three Bedroom Units 10 units 2.4 spaces per unit 24 ■ Guests 295 units 0.2 spaces per unit 59 Subtotal 594 City Code Parking Requirement 594 Parking Supply 535 Parking Surplus/Deficiency(+/-) -59 � Source:Ci o Oran e Munici 41 Code-Cha ter 1 Z 34: Street Parbh and Loadin ;Table 17.34.060.A-Re ired Number o Par/a'n �Y r S P P �IJ- 8 8 9u r 8 Spaces jor Residenrial Uses. � : . TABLE 2 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT—APARTMENT BUILDING BZ TOWN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES PROJECT,ORANGE City of Orange Spaces Project Description Size Code Parking Ratio Required �arhnent—BuildingB • Aparhnents—Studio Units 23 units 1.2 spaces per unit 28 ■ Apartments—One Bedroom Units 197 units 1.7 spaces per unit 335 • Apartments—Two Bedroom Units 118 units 2.0 spaces per unit 236 ■ Apartments—Three Bedroom Units 20 units 2.4 spaces per unit 48 ■ Guests 358 units 0.2 spaces per unit 72 Subtotal 719 City Code Parking Requirement 719 Parking Supply 646 Parking Surplus/Deficiency(+/-) -73 Z Source:Ci o Oran e Munici al Code—Cha ter 17.34: Street Parla'n and Loadin ;Table 17.34.060.A—Re uired Number o Par/n'n h' / g P P oIT- 8 S 9 I 8 Spaces for Residenrial Uses. ! � . TABLE 3 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT—TOWNHOMES3 TOWN AND COUNTRY APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES PROJECT,ORANGE City of Orange Spaces Project Description Size Code Parking Ratio Required Townhomes ■ Townhomes—Two Bedroom Units 25 units 2.0 spaces per unit 50 ■ Townhomes- Three Bedroom Units 49 units 2.4 spaces per unit 118 ■ Guests 74 units 0.2 spaces per unit 15 Subtotal 183 City Code Parking Requirement 183 Parking Supply 183 Parking Surplus/Deficiency(+/-) 0 3 Source:City of Orange Municipal Cade—Chapter 17.34:Off-Street Parking and L,oading;Table 17.34.060.A—Required Number ojParldng SpacesjorResidential Uses. - .. y `i � � � � � � � v � O0 m �o m M `� p .aC+ + � t t t t `�' w d A C �' 7 v � p, �n �n �n �n �n �n p, �n m m m m m a� � p �n �n vi v� v� �n a py � v U fd FL O r � C w .,iy � o W � � V Q"� � � o�o O�i � O � � Q � V ".� V �}' M M M N 7` � d 7 Z O •L �i F a �bgD � U .N J W �y > > FL m � n ~ d o w rn m m m ,j W W y Q �� '� �� i� � � � ' • � � Q = p" � N N N N N N .ap Q � A oi 0 � F- a � � � w °' J a Z �^, �V Q �y Q � � Q � � � L+ � °' � � N N N N (n Z � p,! N � � � 3 3 3 3 F � C7 o a i o .� �. °` z � ,o � a a + �F �� a " W a �• � e � � a�i a�i a'"i a�'i v � � Q � � a a b a a a a o � � � �' � � � U U U U x" W Z F '� ,-, .-. o a a a a, o � � R� � vi v� N � C7 O �n ry o 0 z U � � � z p Q Q � d Z � O � °' � � r 'G U .. a� y C °� 'p i a � � 4 °' :o o y d q �1 u F d t :d v M C W � W i � a d C'" v (� 'b � � � � O N � � �0 G a� � � � C o � � � � � y � - � O a� �ou "" a .., x 'k � G a�i 'ti G � Y' :.' � '�- � � � � � ` a a � :° � � � � ° ' � � z' � FW- °�° � a'' O �i v�i "�� i� v `��' in v � Q 0. ti U �' O � V - .. � y `"' �o G. u � ,'� � � o0 o`to � L 6�1 �' + + + 'F '� 7 �G `�' w d A ao �, � a �, S c' � � � � � � a W � � � V A CL 0 r � y w 0 � y o W � 8 N Z V � L � O� 00 7 �D �D T W � V •'y � Vl � V M c'rl CL � a � � O ��/ ti Z ir W o � a � J W � O 0. m � � � G. o " Z � � � � y � «�. � � � W v °J a •� .� .� .� '� '� U � O p�",i y c'^+� � � � � vOOi a Q � Q � a � � � Q, W � � � J Q Z y � � � � � m � a o b a� �o a� a � � � � � � � � = ~ N w o a � � � 3 3 3 3 � N 'b 3-i F.i � � � � � R� P. + .� .+ Y Z C� �O � � � a y � a " � � � � A � � � � � W Q q A �. a b a a a a o � � � p `� �� ai ai a�'i ai z � K abi ;Q � ��o, � � c�a c�a ro ci, � Z F � ,-. .. ny. n. a a o � Fw v'• vi v� cv Cj Q M N O O z U ~ p Y C T � z A Q Q � a Z � 3 � � � � a. H � �p U .. hi w � 0 o �' ,�,� � d 'C O � o�i � W � E L t b � M C w � W .Y � C y C o a -p � �C .�.i a" o N � � �0 � a�.. � W N b a G � W � .'_" �3 � �k 3k O F1 dp � Y � C a�i b � � :� :: .�C �,�, � � m � � i � a � � � � � � o. t > � Y i. � � N E"� W � L� � V] V] " N Q, M V Q 4 ti U � � � - .. � 0 � � N M O� l� cn �n O� N � V �O o0 O� O � � ^y� � M M l+1 M M � 7 � C4 rn � L � u d ao oa �' C V] .-. eC f7 � O � Z �CL � � a � � a � �, N � b �, � p a p �'�' cN+i m m V � � � a' eC a � H � � � � � w �' o J = 7 �N W � � H � �-r W W Z O J � a � N H ? y •� r � Z � � � M M M � 7 7 Z �L � � h � � � d u � a Q � a �' � = a, '� .. a, C�j � a o o d � � `'' � � 00 O l� O� O� � M Z tn Q m N Z � �' M �'�1 M V � � � . � � � � � F �.�' � � � ti � � ❑ 0 � C °' � a a a a d � � � � � o 0 0 0 0 � � F" �. o 0 0 0 >. � °O � � N N �o d U a b i-�' O U L'� � O V � C .1C N P-� ti V .-1 O � .. x �; .� �a .� '� � � d p� C4 ; ; ; ; � c � � � a � ou � a a a. a •y ti � � � a� i+ N N l� vi q a � �, � � b � y � � � � � � � � Z J � N N N N � 0 � N � W V ~ W � O d' b � W � •J � 7 �O O V `" N � � CL � � � v � � a w a O ° x = ='. f- z � .� � O � .o W � Z °° � °° � � m Q � � � Q U Q � N N N N N w ~ Q W � N N> �+ M � � � A � s"' � cd � � C � a `-' � � � a�i � L Z ti :� w w �. � � � � b � b � b b b a Z h `' h `' ; b Y p � � Ey � N w V � a c a z a � � L�i U � � a' � � � p, �• Q U � O L: � y � � � � � � � F �', � II S]. S�. � y Q � Y � � � � > � ¢ a �. o � C/� �-+ N � � a '� � a� � � Ca _ _� .. y + oa„ � � � � o 0 � � +��+ � � � + + + + 3 � � 'u C y � y � A V) . � v e�a P� a .ti d y � � C y CL ;J V h h � N y � � M M M M � a (� V� V"1 V'I Vl � W � .d (� Z `��' � � �i' V � � Q � Z 0 Fr A � ~ J V _ W � � m � C Za � �. o ,.�'.� � � � � W M ° " °' � � a � " o s�. u �n �n �n �n � O y, p„i v, Q � C1y A N N N N I � W � a � e�e � ? 7 � Q � v� � d v� v� v, m � Z G4 � N � N N NW v C ,r,�,� cVd c�C cU3 cUC � � en � a a aa a � Q A � N N l� V'1 �O �n � 7 � a _ � � � W � _ � � � z � A � A � Q Y Q ^C �O �O �o r-� w d' 2 .,�,i � N N N N d N .�E N ..Y � � H 3 3 3 3 0 � � � � � d on � � � O � � � o a. a d d � � „ .. � � a � � � > �, 0 V] �--� N - .. _ � � � H V C 7 �+ N O [� �. Q, a V�„ � O N � y �% � � + + + + 3 „� � " � d � y � A � � � �a a ab d N U a � � � � � � QI a/ � W � "d Z i� �y e3 � � N � m � � �i" � Vl Vl v'1 � � � a A Z � o v J W 7 � m � � � � � Y y �n y V � '� L��i •� •� � � M °o„ c •s��,' � � � � `'' o ti. u o0 00 00 00 � O y. p„i v, �n �n �n vi Q � p.i A cn rn m m I � � QJ � a � e�a � 7 � � � v� a+ �v, v� m v� � Z ^ ry � N a7 a) N � W V Ri p cUd cUd cVC cUd N � ou ;1 a a o. o. Z ~ •d ��" N N [� Vl � a A a �O h � � � a _ � c� � W � � '�' cTO cd Z V A � Q � Q Y � � O N N � N a Z � a 3 �° 3 ° a a � � � H 3 3 0 � � � � � d � � � � c o � � � a. a. d � � +� �, �, � �» .-� � � d d � 0 V] �--� N APPENDIX A PARKING STUDY REFERENCES LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-17-3789-1 Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes,Orange �:A37061.173759-Tow�&Cuuntry APuaments,Orange:ParkingA37R9 Dioidcr.doe IBI Group IBI 18401 Von Karman Avenue—Suite 110 Irvine CA 92612 USA (`iR�jIP tel 949 833 5585 fax 949 833 5511 Memorandum To/Attention Nate Carlson Date November 19, 2012 From Bill Delo,AICP Project No 33148 cc Steno ch Subject Parking Study for AMLI Orange Apartment Project Introduction AMLI is proposing to develop a 334-unit residential apartment project in the City of Orange and provide 1.7 parking spaces per unit for the project. The current city code requires a minimum of 2.02 parking spaces per unit. The purpose of this memorandum is to examine the typical peak parking rates identified in published parking manuals and from similar site surveys to determine whether a proposed rate of 1.7 parking spaces per unit is sufficient to meet estimated parking demand for this type of residential development. Project Location and Background The proposed project will be located near the Anaheim Metrolink Station and major employment centers in the City of Orange. Adjacent employers and the number of employees are summarized in Table 1-1. Table 1-1 Adjacent Employers Employer Number of Employees UCI Medical Center 4,500 Government Offices 1,400 Hilton Hotel 400 Office Towers 3,000-5,000 Outlets at Oran e 2,500 Saurce:Pierce-Eislen,Inc. Due to its close proximity to employment centers and transit,there is a chance for increased pedestrian and transit activity by residents of the proposed project as an alternative transportation option to the automobile. A recent study by Caltrans(Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California)assessed the travel patterns of people who live, work, shop, and recreate near suburban and infill rail transit stations throughout California. The study found that those who live in transit-oriented developments or within close proximity to mass transit have higher levels of transit use than persons in surrounding areas. IBI Group is a group of firms providing professional services IBI Group Memorandum Z Nate Carlson—October 7,2012 Similar Site Parking Counts To identify a recommended minimum parking ratio, similar site parking surveys were conducted at three residential apartment developments in Orange County. The survey sites were selected based on their similarities to the project site, including development size and close proximity to employment centers. The three survey sites consist of: • Survey Site#1, Irvine, CA—279-unit apartment complex that is currently 93.9% occupied (262 units). This apartment complex provides 600 parking spaces in a gated parking structure. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 2.15 spaces per unit. The unit mix for this complex is 2 studio units, 162 1-bedroom units; and 115 2-bedroom units. This apartment is not located near mass transit. • Survey Site#2, Irvine, CA—403-unit apartment complex that is currently 96.8% occupied (390 units). This apartment complex provides 643 parking spaces in a gated parking structure. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.6 spaces per unit. The unit mix for this complex is 326 1-bedroom units; and 77 2-bedroom units.This apartment is not located near mass transit. • Survey Site#3, Orange, CA—460-unit apartment complex that is currently 95.2% occupied (440 units). This apartment provides 784 parking spaces in a gated parking structure and gated surface parking lot. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.78 spaces per unit. The unit mix for this complex is 256 1-bedroom units; and 204 2- bedroom units. This apartment is located within 1 mile of the Anaheim Metrolink Station. Surveys were conducted on a Tuesday and Saturday between 6:00 PM— 1:00 AM to capture the peak parking demand generated by residential uses at the two similar sites. The peak hour parking rates from the three sites are summarized in Table 1-2. Table 1-2 Similar Site Parking Rates—Residential Only Weekday Weekend Units Peak Hour Peak Hour Survey Site Occupied Parking Rate Parking Rate Demand (spaces/unit) Demand (spaceslunit) (spaces) (spaces) Surve Site#1 262 354 1.35 356 1.36 Surve Site#2 390 504 1.29 443 1.14 Surve Site#3 440 616 1.40 547 124 Avera e 364 491 1.35 449 1.25 IBI Group also conducted parking surveys at two mixed-use residential apartment and retail developments in Orange County, California. These two survey sites consist of: • Survey Site#3, Fullerton, CA— 183-unit apartment complex that is currently 95% occupied (174 units). The apartment complex provides 223 residential parking spaces in a gated parking structure.The unit mix for this complex is 129 1-bedroom units and 54 2-bedroom units.This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.21 spaces per unit. This apartment is located within 1 mile of the Fullerton Transportation Center. . Survey Site#4, Santa Ana, CA—250-unit apartment complex that is currently 90% occupied (225 units). The apartment complex provides 453 residential parking spaces in a gated parking structure.This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.8 spaces IBI Group Memorendum 3 Nate Carlson—October 7,2012 per unit. The unit mix for this complex is 108 1-bedroom units and 145 2 to 3 bedroom units. This apartment is not located near mass transit. These additional survey sites are smaller than the proposed project and include a retail component as part of the apartment development. However, both survey sites are mid-rise apartment complexes in similar settings to the proposed project. The peak hour parking demand per dwelling unit from these two surveys are provided in Table 1-3. Table 1-3 Parking Rates for Additional Sites—Residential and Retail Developments Weekday Weekend Units Peak Hour Peak Hour Survey Site Occupied Parking Rate Parking Rate Demand (spaces/unit) Demand (spaces/unit) (spaces) (spaces) Surve Site#3 174 191 1.10 191 1.10 Surve Site#4 225 212 0.94 208 0.92 Avera e 183 202 1.02 200 1.01 Comparison to Other Parking Rates For comparison, rates from the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4'h Edition are provided below. The ITE Parking Generation Manual provides averages, ranges, and statistical quality values of parking demand generated by various land uses. The typical parking demand generated by a low/mid-rise apartment development is summarized in Table 1-4. Table 1-41TE Parking Generation Weekday Weekend Avg.Size of Avg.Size of Use Studied Studied Classification Developments Avg.Parking Developments Avg.Parking (dwelling Demand Rate (dwelling Demand Rate units units Low/Mid-Rise Apartment suburban 311 1.23 n/a n/a Low/Mid-Rise Apartment urban 70 1.20 147 1.03 Source:ITE Parking Generation Manual,4'h Edition.Note that the Parking Generation Manual does not provide a weekend estimate for suburban locations. Given the proposed location for this development within a more urban section of the City of Orange, the urban data points provided by ITE provide a good basis for comparison. The 85�n percentile demand value for the urban designation was 1.61 spaces per unit for weekdays and 1.14 for weekends. IBI Group Memorandum q Nate Carlson—October 7,2012 Summary of Parking Rates Based on the data collected from the two similar survey sites,the average peak hour parking demand per dwelling unit would be anticipated to be 1.35 spaces on a weekday and 1.25 spaces on a Saturday. Per the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4`h Edition,the typical observed parking demand is 1.23 spaces on a weekday and 1.03 spaces per unit on a Saturday. The average parking rate from the additional survey sites is 1.02 parking spaces per unit on a weekday and 1.01 parking spaces per unit on a Saturday. A summary of these rates is provided in Table 1-5. Table 7-5 Summary of Average Peak Hour Parking Demand Average Rate Avg. (spaces/unit) Survey Site Units Occupied yyeekday Weekend Surve Site#1,#2 and#3 364 1.35 1.25 Surve Site#3 and#4 183 1.02 1.01 ITE Parkin Manual 229 1.23 1.03 Conclusion Based on the average rates from the similar site surveys,the proposed 1.7 parking spaces per unit should be more than sufficient to meet estimated parking demand generated by a 334-unit apartment complex in the City of Orange. In all observed cases, actual parking demand for similar residential projects in Orange County did not exceed 1.35 spaces per unit. Additionally, the ITE Parking Generation Manual,4`h Edition provides an estimated average demand of 1.03 to 1.23 for low or mid-rise apartment complexes. In terms of parking supply,the surveyed apartment complexes provide between 1.20 and 2.15 parking spaces per unit. The combined average parking supply ratio for the five developments is 1.71 parking spaces per unit. In all four cases, the apartment complexes provide parking supply levels that are well in excess of current demand, even when all four complexes are experiencing occupancy levels of 90%or above. ��',i�J��jl��J�..� �' �) �l_i1� �i„_i uI'i 1.:� A, (��'ERVIE�' -I�h� ��ur��o�e of each responsc to a comm�nt un tlie �]iti�rateci \egati�� ll�elaratiou (\1ND) is to address tlie enviroiutiental issue(s) raised by eacll coniment. 7�llis typically requires clarification of poi��ts contained in the MND. Section 15088(b) of the CEQA Guideliiies describes the e��aluation that CF,QA requires in the response to comments.� It states that: The ivritten respo�ise shall clescribe the dispositio�i of sig�iifrca�Tt eravif•o�zr�iefltal issi�es rnisc�c� (e.g., rei�isiotls to the proposed I�roject to rnitigate cmticif�aterl inipacts or• ohjectio�is). Iri prn�tici�lm•, tlie major eyrviro�i�ne�ital issires rr�isecf tit�lien tlae leacl ccge�ic}�'s posi(io�i is at i�ar-ia�ice lvith recomnie�idatiorzs mid oE jectio�is rciised iri the conirrierits mi�st be adcfr-esserl iri rletail givir�ig �•easons tii�hy specific cornrnents anrl suggestions tit�er•e not nccepied. Ther-e must be good faith, f�ea,soried arialysis iri r e,sporase. Corich�snry stciterrients utisttpportecl by facttial i�lforniation wil!not si�fftce. Section 15204 (Focus of Review) of the CEQA Guidelines helps the public and public agencies to focus their revie«�of environme�ital documents and their coiluuents to lead agencies. Case la�v has heid that the lead agency is not obligated to undertake evety suggestion given theui, providcd that the agency responds to significant eiivironmental issues and makes a good faitl� effori at disclosure. Section 15204(b) of the CLQA Guidelines clarifles the focus oFrevie�� for Mitigated Negative Declarations and states: Iri revietiving rtegative declnratioris, per•soris a�id public ageyicies shoulcl foci�s ori the pr�oposed fi�idirig tlaat the pr�oject tivtll riot hai�e n sigraificant e/fect on the eravironnient. If per•soris nrad public agencies belie��e thcrt the project rnny have a sigriiftcant e�fect, tltey sliot�lcl: , (1) Explai�z the specific effect, (2) Frplaiia tivhy they believe the effect tit�oa�lrl occ«r-, and (3) F,_xplai�i ivhy they beliei�e the effect x�ot�ld he sig�iificnnt. Givcn that an cffect is not considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence, subsection (c) advises revie�vers that comments should be accompanied by factual support. Section 15204(c) states: Revietivers should explain the basis for• their corrirrterits, an�l should submit clata or referetices offeririg facts, r�easonahle assi�niptions based orz facts, or exper�t opiriiort ' CEQA Gi�idelines Section 15088 pertains to Ern�ironniental Inipact Reports (F.IRs). However, ther-e is no corresponding gt�idance for MNDs. Ther•efore, the priisciples that have bee�t pr�ovided for EIRs are follorved to resportd to comments received on Ihe Town& Cotintry�Iparlrnents mad Townhomes MND. 7ativn & Co¢�nlry Apartments and 7ownhornes D��--- -- ' ^ ATTACHMENT NO.8 MN��O 1855-17&RESPONSE TO ill COMMENTS 702-]078 W.TOVVN&COUNTRY ROAD JUNE 12,2018 CC MTG ( i�r a((h r�i{:� �Ij�r�il=Il/�', strp��orte�f b,��facts� iit siy�pnt�t of�tkc co�nnrc�nts. 1'ursrrr�trt to Sectiofi 15064, nn ef%ect sliall not he consiclered,si;nifica�lt i�i the nbsc�xcc�at�suh.i�tcnrtictl c�riderzce. I3. L1ST OF THOSE SVFiO C{)11�I�9�:A1'EI) C)i1�TH�; MNI) The City of Orange Co�nmlinity Devclopme�it Deparhnent recei��ed a total of foi�r comment letters on the MND. Each comment Letter has been assigned a con�esponding number, and cornments �vithin each conlment ]ctter are also numbered. For cxample, comment letter"1" is lrom the South Coast Air Q�iality Managen�eut llistrict. The comiuents in this letter are nuuibered"]-1", "1-2", "1-3", etc. �'✓ritten coumients made during the public re��ien� of the M1VrD intermixed points and opinions relevaut to Project approval/disapproval �vith points and opinions relevant to the enviroumental revie�v. "I'hc responses ackno�vledge coinments addressing points and opinions relevarlt to coitsideration for Project approval, and discuss as necessar�� the points relevailt to the environmental review. The response "comment noted" is often used in cases �vhere the comment does not raise a substantive issue relevant to the re�•ie�v of the environmental analysis. Sucli points ate tisually statemcuts of opinion or preference regarding a Project's design or its presence as opposed to points �vithin the purview of an MND: euvironmental impact aud mitigatioil. These poiuts are relcvant for consideration in the subsequcnt Project approval process. In addition, the response "comment ackno�i�ledged" is generally used in cases �vherc the commenter is correct. During the public review period, the foLlo�ving organizations provided written comntents on the MND to thc City of Orauge Community Development Department: Commenters 1. South Coast Air Quality Managcment District 2. California Department of Transportation 3. OC Public`Varks 4. Orange County Transportation Atlthority To1vn& Coa�ntry Apar�tments ancl Totiv�shomes Respon.res to Con:me�ats Page 2 i S�Ut�I �Oc�.St Comment Letter No. 1 � Air Quality Man� ement District � 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 ' � � (909) 396-2000 • www.aqi�d.gov SFNT VIA L-VI.�IL AI�D USPS: ��pril 10. ?O]S —— ___ _-- ___ ms chwartz(c�cityoforange.org Monique Scti�vartz, Associate Plannei City of Orange Planning Diaision 300 Last Cliapinan Avcnue Orau�e, CA 92866 1liliaated Ne�ative Declaration(1�'IND)for the To�r•n cSz Country Apartments and To��nhomes The South Coast Air Quality Managemcnt District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to coinment on tlle above-inentioned document. The following comments are mcant as guida�ice foi- the Lcad Agency and sllould be ineorporated into the Fitlal MND. SCAQMD Staff°s Sunuliary of Proiect DesCl.iption 1-1 Tlie Lead Agency proposes to demolisl� seven commercial buildings totaling 197,874 sc�uare feet aud build hvo huildiugs with 727 residential units totalirtg 1,264,693 square feet on 12.13 acres (Proposed Project). Based on a revie�v of aerial photograpl�s, SCAQMD staPf found that the Proposed Yroject is located in proximity to State Ro�ite 22 (SR-22). Construction is expected to take approximately 32 montl�s to coinplete'. SCAQMD Staft s Summaiy of Air Quality Anal� In the Air Quality Analysis Section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project's consh�uction and operation emissions and compared them to SCAQMD's regional and localized air quality CEQA significancc thresholds. The Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project's air quality impacts from constr�iction activities would be less than significant after incorporating Mitigation Measures 3-1 through �_2 3-3'. F-Iv�vever, the Lead Agency did not conduct a Health Risk Assessment (HKA) or propose strategies to iuinimize e�:posures to diesel particulate matters emitted from vehicles and trucks travelling on SR-22. Detailed coinnlents are included i�l the attachment. The attachment also inclucies a discussion on SCAQMD Rule 1403—Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities. Pursuant to CI:QA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall considcr the MND for adoption togethcr �vith any comments rcccived during thc public review process. Please providc the SCAQMD �vith written responses to all comments contained hercin prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and subgestions are i�ot accepted. There should bc good faith, rcasoned analysis in responsa Conclusory statements unsupported by factual 1-3 information do iiot facilitatc thc purposc and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and arc not mcaningfiil or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. SCAQiVID starC is available to wark with thc Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this conunent Ieticr. Please contact me at lslm n,aqmd.gov if you have any qucstions. ' MND.Page 3-23. Z MND.Tablc 3.3-4.Pabe 3-24 and 25. Comment Letter No. 1 (Cont) .\loniqu��_ Sch��aru � � ,1E�ril IU. ?(ll;; A"ITAC11�1LN"T Health Risk Assessment li�oin Mobile aud Other Sotu�ces of Air Pollution _ ---- --- --------- -- — _ _ 1. Not��it�hstandinQ the cou�1 �ulings, SC/�QMD staff recoetlizes that tlie Lead [lgencics that appro�°c CEQA docuiucnts r�tain th. auth��rity to include auy additional infonn•3tion they deem rle��ant tu assessing and mitigating the cnvironmental itnpacts of a project. I3ecause of SCAQMD's concei-u about the potential pLiblic hcalth impacts of siting sensiti��e populations �vithin close proximity ot� freeways or other sources of air pollution; SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review and consider the following comments when making loeai plaimiug and land ttse decisions. Sensitive receptors are people that h�ve an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, parks and playgrolmds, daycare centers, nuising honles, elderly care facilities, hospitals, and residential d�velling units. Based on a review of the Project Description, SCAQMll staff found that the Proposed Project is located approximately 600 feet south of SR-22, ��hich llas an a��crage daily volulnc of 154,000 vehicles (Post Mile R10.992 at Santa Ana, Main Street)3 including approximately 6,602 diesel-fueled trucks (Post Mile K10.478 at Santa Ana, Joint Routes 5 and 57)4. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a toxic air contaminant and a carcinogen. While the Proposed Project is not within 500 feet of the existing freeway, DPM emissions froin vehicles and triicks traveli�ig on SR-22 still pose a health coucern to residents living at the Proposed Project. To facilitate the pu�ose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure, SCAQMD staff recommends that thc Lead Agency consider the impacts of DPM on people (e.g., residents including seniors and ehildren) who 1-4 �vill live at the Proposed Project by perfornling a HRAs analysis to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND�. Guidance on Siting Sensitivc Receptors Near a High-Volume Freeway and Other Sources of Air Pollution 2. SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration beri��een Lead Agencies and SCAQMD to reduce comnlunity exposlire to source-specific and c�u»ulativc air pollutio�l impacts, SCAQMD adopted the Gciidance Docamaent for Adclressirig Air Qi�ality Issues in Genercrl Plans aficl Local Plaxriing in 2005�. This Guidance document provides recommended policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air polhrtion impacts and protect public health. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing honies ncar rail lines) cail be found in the California Air Resources Board's �Ii�• Qunlity ar2cf I and U.se Flandbook: A Coi7amunity Health Perspective, which can be found at: http://tiv�wv.arb.ca,aov/ch/handbook.pdf. C/1RI3's Land Use i landbook is a genera( refercnce guidc for cvaluating and red�icing air pollution i�npacts associatcd with new projccts that go through thc land use dccision-inaking proccss. In the IIandbook, it is recommended a��oiding siting ne�v scnsiti��c 3 Califomia Department of"I'ransportation. 2016 Traftic Volumes on California State }liohways. Pxge 43. Accessed at http://www.dot.ca.Qov/trafficops/census/docs/2016 aadt volumes.vdf. ° California Dcpartmcnt of Transportation. 2016 Daily "Cruck Traffic. Pagc 47. Acccssed at: http:/hvww.dot.ca.gov/trafficops,�ccnsus/docs/2016 aadt truck.pdf 5 "Health Risk Asscssmcnt Guidancc for Analyzina Canccr Risk from Mobilc Sourcc Dicscl Idling Lmissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis," accesscd at: httn:/hvww.aqmd.eov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-qualiry-analysis-handbook/mobile-source- toxics-analysis. � SCAQMD has devcloped the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in onc million for cancer risk. When SCAQ�TD acts as thc Lcad Agency, SCAQMD staff conducts a IIRA, compares the maximum canccr risk to the threshold of 10 in one million to delermine the level of significance for health risk impacts,and identifies mitigation measures if the risk is found to be significant. � South Coast Air Quality Management District.May 2005."Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality lssues in Gcncral Plans and Local Planning" Accessed at http://vnvw.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality�guidance/complete- guidance-document.pdf. 3 Comment Letter No. 1 (Cont) ��loniqu� Scii�,�;�,ri�. t\pril 11.), ?(�l� land tises ��ithin �00 fect of a fi�ee�vay, iu-ban roads with 100,000 vehieles/day�, or rural roads ��ith 1-4 50,000 ��chicics!day��. (COIIt.) Limits to Enh��nced F'iltration Units ___—--_ -- __-- --._. �. ��1an}� sllategie> are a��ailablc to r�di�ce expostire, including, bLit are not limited to, building filtr�ition systems, sounds walls, ��egetalion bai-riers, etc. Because of the potential adverse healtll risks iil��olved �vitl� siting sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution, it is essential that any proposed strategy must be carefiill�� evaluated before implementation. In the event that enhanced filtration units are installed at tl�e proposed residential units either as a mitigation measure or project design fcature, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider t}�e liinitations of the enhanced filtratioii. I;or example, in a study that SCAQMll conducted to investigate filters`', a cost burdeu is expected to be �vithin tl�e range of �120 to 5240 per year to replace each fiLter. In addition; because the filters �vould not have atry effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running there may be increased e.nergy costs to thc residents. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 perceut of the time �vhile residents are indoors, and tl�e environmental analysis does not generally account for thc times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are outdoor(e.g., on balcony10 ar in commoil space areas of the project). In addition, these filters have no ability to filter out any toaic gascs froin veliicle exhaust. Therefore, the prestnned effcctiveness and feasibility of any filtration Linits sllould be carefully evaluated in �z�ore detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently allevi�lte exposures to DPM enussions. lnforceabili�of Enhauccd Filtration Units 4. If enhanced filtratiou units are installed for the Proposed Project, and to ensure that the enhanced filtration tinits are enforceable ttu-oughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project and that they are 1-5 effective in reducing exposures to DPM emissions, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency provide additional details on future operational and maintenance implen�entation and monitorinb iu the Final MND to facilitate a good faith effort at full disclosure. At a minimum, the Final MND should include the following information: � Identification of the responsiblc implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency for cnsuriug that enhanced filters are installed at on-site residential units beforc a pennit of occupancy is issued; � Disclosure on potential health iinpacts to prospective residents froin living in proxiinity to ti-ee�vays and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and when residents are outdoor(e.g., on balcony or in common space areas of the project); � Disclosurc on incrcascd cncrgy costs for ru�ming thc I-NAC systcm to prospcctive residcnts; � Disclosurc on rccomniended schedules (e.g., once a ycar or cvery six months) for replacing the enhaiiced filtration units to prospective residcnts; � Ongoing cost sharing stratcgics, if any, for rcplacing the enhanced filtration units; � Identification of tlic responsible cntity such as Homcowners Association or property inanagement for ensuring filters arc replaced on time,if appropriate and feasiblc; � Criteiia{or assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and � Process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units at the Proposed Project. " Califomia Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Qunlity cuid I.nnd Use f(andbook: A Community fiealth Perspective. Tablc 1-l. Pagc 4. y This study evaluated filters rated Mk:RV 13 or better. Accessed aL' http://�vtvw.aqmd.�ov/docs/default- sowce/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstud�nalrenort.pdf. Also sce also 2012 Peer Review 7oumal article by SCAQMD: http://d7.iqair.com/sites/defaulUfi les/pdf/Pol idori-et-a1-2012.pdf. 10 According to thc building dcsigns (Figurc 2-9 and Figurc 2-10), balconics will bc installcd at Building A and Building B North iilevation facing SR-22. 4 Comment Letter NQ. 1 (Cont) ��lunique Scln�,��irtz [�pril 10, 201 S SC'.�Q,�1D Ru_le 140i - Asbestos�missions fi�om lleinolition/Ile�lq�ati�n__flctiv_ities �. Sincc the Proposed Project ��ould include demolition of seven butldings, asbestos may be enc<nultered cjurin��dcmolition. �s such. SCt�QI�ID staffreconunend; [hat the Lcad _1�re��cv includ� 1-6 a di;cus;ion to dcino�lstratc coinpliancc �vith SCAQ�l1D Rulc 1403'` in tlle I'i��al �,9NU. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.Qov/docs/default-source/rule- book/ree-xiv/rule-1403.odf. n 5 � � Cor�men�, Letter 1�10. i (Cc,r;�) R'lonique Sch��artr f�pril 1C), 201� Sincerely, .��tcc .S'cto: Lijin S�m,J.D. Program Supervisor, CI:QA IGK Planning, Kule Development& Area Sources Attachment IS ORC 180321-0] Control Number 2 i�lii�Ul Oi��i?,C' .-1j77'!j_'I)�cS' ��.� � �'.�-Z L��. 1 �,I�II1 SL1I1 South C`oa,t �1ir Qualit�� ManaUcmcnt District ?156� (�o;�l��. I�ri��; lliainoilci I3ar. CA 917E5 Cominent No. 1-1 The Sotitli Goast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the abo��e-�nentioned document. The follo�vin� comments are meant as gt�idance for the [,ead Ageilcy ai�d shoiild be iucorporated into tl�e t'inal MND. SCAQMD Staff's Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to demolish seven cominei;cial buildings totaling 197,874 square feet and build t��o buildings with 727 residential units totaling 1,264,693 square fect on 12.13 acres (Proposed Project). Based on a re��iew of aerial photographs, SCAQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located in proaimity to State Route 22 (SR-22). Consh�uction is expected to take approximatcly 32 moilths to complete. Response to Comment No. 1-1 � The comment provides general introductory infonnation and a brief description of the Project, which are acknowledged for the record. Comment No. 1-2 SCAQMI) Staff s Summary of Air Quality Analysis ln the Air Quality Analysis Section, the Lead Ageucy quautiFied ttte Proposed Project's construction and operation cinissions atid compared them to SCAQMD's regional and localized air quality CEQA signiGcance Lhresholds. "The Lead Agency found thal the Proposed ProjecL's air quality impacts from conslruction activities would be less than significant after incorporating Mitigation Measures 3-1 through 3-3.I Iowever, the Lead Agency did not conducL a FIealth Risk Assessment(IIRA)or propose strategies to minimire cxposures to diesel pariiculate inattcrs emitted from vehicles and trucks travelling on SR-22. Dctailed comments are included in the attachment. The attachment also includes a discussion on SCAQMD Rule 1403 Asbcstos F,missions from Dcmolition/Rcnovation Acti��itics. Response to Comment No. 1-2 The commcnt providcs a summary of thc air quality analysis contained in the MND, which is noted for thc rccord. Rcgarding thc requcst for a I�calth Risk Asscssment, thc commcntcr is refcrred to Response to Comcnent I�o. 1-4. Regarding SCAQMD Rulc 1403, the commenter is rcferred to Response to Comment No. 1-6. Totivn & Coi�ntry Apartrne�its and Totivnho�nes Re.cponses to ConcrnenLc Ynge 3 Cin�u1�Or�rn��-' �IEn�rl?II(�� t`om�nent No. 1-3 Pursuant to C�QA Guidelines Sectioil 15074. prior to appro��ing the Proposed Piroject, the Le�id Agcnc}• sllall co�l�id;:r the MND for adoptiun to�ether ��ilV� ail�� cointi��nts rec�i�ed during the public re�i�«� ��r��,�. Ple��:�e pro��id� the SCAQ��1D ��ith ��riu�n m�po��,�; tu ��ll comm�nts contained herein prior to the adopiion oC the Fi�lal MND. ��'heil responding to issue; raised in ihe coinnlents, response shotild proeide sufticient details giving reasons ��l�y specific comments and su�gestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in respoilse. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CI;QA on public disclosure and are not meanin�ful or iiseful to decision makers and to tl�e public �vl�o are interested in the Proposed Project. SCAQMD sfaff is available to �vork with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions tl�at may arise fi-om this c�onlment letter. Please contact me at Isun(a?aqmd.goti�if you have any qucstions. Response to Comment No._1-3 IZesponses have been prepared to all comments received during Che public review period, and copies of'all responses will be fonvarded to thc SCAQMI� prior to adoption of the Final MND. Thc remainder of the comment provides general infoinlation, but docs not state a specific concern regardiub the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts contained in the MND.Nevertheless,the comment is ackno�vledged for the record and will be for��arded to the decision-making bodies for thcir review and consideration. Comment Na 1-4 f�ealth Risk Assessment fi-om Mobile and Other Sources of Air Pollution 1. Not�vithstanding the court rulings, SCAQMD staff recognizes that the Lead Agencies that approve • CEQA documents retain the authority to include any addilional inCormation they deem relevant to assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts of a project. Because of SCAQMD's concern about the potential public health impacts of siting sensilive populations ��ithin close proximity of freeways or othcr sourccs of air pollution, SC/\QMD staff rccommcnds that thc Lcacl Agcncy rcview and considcr thc follo�ving commcnts�vhen making local plarming and land use decisions. Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air poll�ition or environniental contaminants. Sensitive reccptors includc schools, parks and playgrounds, daycarc centers, nursing homes, elderly care facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. Based on a review of the Project Description, SCAQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located approximately 600 feet south of SR-22, which has an average daily vohime of ]54,000 vehicles (Post Mile R10.992 at Santa Ana, Mai❑ Street) including approximately 6,602 dicscl-fiicled trucks (Post Mile R10.478 at Santa nna, Joint Routcs 5 and 57). 7oivn& Coimtry Apartme�zts and Totivnhonaes Responses to Cornments Page 4 (�it��r�jUr�rur�;�' 1ju�i[�n[,� t�ie�el paniculate matter (DPl9) is a to�ic air coirtaminant and a carcinogen. «/hile the Yropused Project is not i��ithin �00 feet of the exi�tin�, ii-ec��a}', UPM emissions from vehicles and trucks traveling on SR- 22 still posr a healtll coneern to resident> li��ing at tlle Proposed Proje�et T�� i�acilitate tlie puipose and go.�l of CEQA on put�lic disclo;ure, S('AQ�91) siaff reconunend; that tlie Lead Agency c��nsider the iml�nct; of 1)Pi\�I on pcopl� (e.g., re;ideut. inclucl.in�= ��iior, and cl�ildre�n) ��ho ��.�ill 1i�e at th: Prc�pu,eci Yruject b� perfornling a I�I1ZA analysis to disclose the potential health risks in the Final MND. Guidance on Sitin�Sensitire Receptors I�`ear a��iglrVolume Free�vay and Other Sources of Air Pollution 2. SCAQMD staff recognires that there arc many factors Lead Abencies �lnist consider wl�en makin� local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and SCAQMD to reduce community e�posure to source-specific and cumtilative air pollution impacts, SCAQMD adopted the Gzricla�icc: I�ocu�nent for Adclrnssin� Air- Qirality l.esues iri Ge�2eral Pla�is cuid Local Plnr�fiin�in 2005. Tl�is Guidanee document provides rec�ommended policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through ]ocal planniug to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (sucl� as placing hoines uear rail lines) c��n be fouud in the California Air Resources Board's Air Qunliry and 1 and U.cc: Hanclbook: A Conirn�rraitl' Henitli Pers��ective, which can bc found at: hii��://tiv�i°��,�.ar'o.ca.boti�lcli!handh��o�.pdf: CARB's Land Use ]�andbook is a general refcrcnce guidc for cvaluating and reducing air pollution ilnpacts associated �vith new projects that go throu�h the land use decision-making process. In the Handbook, it is recommended avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 fect of a freeway, tirbarl roads ��ith 100,000 vehicles/day, or r��ral roads �vith 50,000 vehicles/day. Response to Comment No. 1-4 As stated by California Courts, lhe California Em�ironmental Quality Act (CEQA) is designed to detemline the effect of a project on the enviroument, and not the effect of the environment on a project. The following relevant court cases are presented as follows: Baird v Cotmty of Contra Costa 32 Cal. App. 4`h 1464 (1995) In Baird the Co�irt ruled, "In this case we hold that the C�lifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) does not require an environmental impact report (L,IR) fa a project th�t might be af{ccted by prcexisting environmcnlal conditions but will cl�angc those conditions or otherwise ha��e a significant effect on the environment." City oCLong t3each v LAUSD 176 Cal App. 4`� 889 (2009) In City of Long Beach, the Court stated, "We digress First to make the point that, `(t�he purposc of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the er:viron�nent of a project...' (§21002.1, subd. �a]; cmphasis added; sce also §§21061, �j2, 21080 & 21100, subd. (b); Remy et al., Guide to CEQA, California Em-ironmental Quality Act, (I1`h ed. 2006) p. 2 [Guide to CEQA]), xot the i�rtpact of tlie e�tvironment on the project, such as school's students Toticn&Count�y�Ipartmeiats and 7ownhomes Responses to Conunen[s Page 5 Cih�oJ�O;�u;r?�' ��p;�i(?I11��' aud stafC. ��'hilc scction 211�L� requires the City acquirins_> or constructin�� a scl�ool to cousidcr ��°hcther the site itselF contains rnvironinental hazards, �riaterials, the overall �iuipose of the ctunulati�°c iu�pacts section of an F.IR is to consider the "chcrn��e in the c�rn�iron��ter�f' that r��sults from the incr�meniai im2�act ��f the j�roject ��hen added to other cto�el�� r�l.�t�d projects. (Gliid�lin�, �1�;�� subd. (�); ita!ic� <<dcied; Lo� Ang�les U�iifi�d Scliool I)ist. ��. City of Lc�, Angeles �1997j 5 s Cal. App. 4"` 1019, 1024-1025; see also, Guide to CEQA, si��rn, p. 466.) Accordingly, Long 13each's criticisin of LAUSD's analysis for failure to coiisider the cumulative effects of air c�uality `on staff and student health" is not the aim of the cumulative impact ai�alysis." (tiinphasis addcd.) B�llona �Vetland Land Trust v. City of Los Angcles 201 Cal. App. 4`t'455 (2011) The Court stated, "�'e believe that identifying tlle environmental effects of at�racting development and people to au area is consistent with CEQA's legislative puipose at�d statutory requirements, but identifyina the effec�ls on the project and its users of locating the project in a particular environmeutal setting is neither consistent with CFQA's legislati��e puipose nor required by the CEQ�1 statues. We agrce with SOCtiVA, sa�prn, 196 CaL App. 4`�' at page 1616, that the Uuideliries la�lguage italicized above is not an example of an environmental effect caused by devclopment, but instead is an exaiuple of an effect on the project caused by the environment. Contrary to Guideliucs section 15126.2, subdivision (a), �vc hold that an EIR need not identify or analyze sttch effects. (Cily of Long Bcach, stipra, 176 Cal. A��z 4`�' at p. 905; c/: SOCi�G'A, supra, at pp 161-1618.) (10) Although the Guidelines ordinarily are entitled to great wcight, a Guidelines provision tl�at is unauthorized under CEQA is invalid. (Laiarel Ileights 1, sig�ra, 47 Ca1.3d at p. 391, fn. 2; Corriir�ufiities for a Better Erivir•onnaerit v. Califor-nia Resoin•ces Ageracy (2002) 103 Cal. App.4`''98, 109-110 [123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 4411].)" California l3uilding Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2 Cal. App. 5`� ]067 (2016) �� In this decision,the Court contirnZed that"agencies subject to CEQA generally are not rec�liired to �nalyre the impact of exislin� environinental conditions on a project's fut�u-e residents or users." "1'he opinion also holds that �vhen a project has "potentially sionificant exc�cer-hnti�i,; cffects on existiiig environmental hazards" lhose impacts are properly w•ithin the scope of CEQ� becausc they can be vie�ecd as inlpacts of thc project on "existing conditions" rather than impacts of the euviroument on the project. 1'he Court concluded by expressly ackno�vledging that its analysis was consisten� with prior case law, including Baircl v. Coainty of Contr�cr Costa, City of Lorag Beac{i v. Los Arigeles Uiaifiec� School District, nnd Ballo�aa Wetla�ids I,anrl Tr-t�st ��. City oT Los �I rtgeles. As stated above, because the Project �vould not exacerbate any existing environmental harards, an analysis of the free�vay's impacts on the Project is not required under CI;QA, as this ti�ould constitute an analysis of existing environmental conditions on a project's future residents or users. Totiv�i& Coa�ritry�Apar•tme�its mid Totiv�ihomes Responses to Comnterzts Page fi ('ir��ul��'��1?'z-' :i0i�(i �(11<�' Further, ❑nd a� stated in tne comment, the Proposed Project ��oulci not h� located ��ithin �00 feet of the SR-2Z fl�cc��ay. Comment \o. 1-5 Limits to Lnhanced r�iltration Units 3. Maily strategies are a��ailable to reduce exposure, including, biit are not limited to, building filtration systems, sounds walls, vGgetation ban-iers, etc. Because of the potential adverse health risks involv.ed��ith siting se��sitive receptors near sources of air pollution, it is essential that any proposed strategy must be carefully e��aluated befare implementation. Tn the event thlt enhanced filtration units are installed at the proposed residential tmits either as a mitigation meastire �i project design feature, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider the limitations of the enhanced filtration. For exan�ple, in a study tlial SCAQMD conducte�d to im�estigate filters, a cost burden is expected to be �vitliin the range of $120 to .`n240 per year to replace each filter. ln addition, because the filters would not havc any ef�fectiveness ui�less the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the residents. It is typically assiuned that the tilters operate 100 perccnY of the time �ti�hile residents are indoors, and the enviromnental analysis does not generally account for the times �vhen the residents t�ave their windows or door; open or are outdoor (e.g., on balcoiry or in common space arels of the project). ln addition, these filters havc no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vchicle exhaust. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filh-ation units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will stiifficiently allcviate exposures to DPM emissions. EnforceabiLity of Enhanced Filtration Units 4. If enhanced filtration units are installed for thc Proposed Project, and to cnsure that thc enhanced fiLtration units are enforceable throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project and tllat they are effective in redticing exposw�es to DI'M emissions, SCAQMD staff recom�nends that the Lead Agency provide additional details on future operational and maintenance implementation and monitorulg in the Final MND to facilitate a good faiYh effort at fiill disclosure. At a minimuul, the E'inal MI�'D should include the follo��ing infornlation: • [dentification of thc responsible implementing and enforcctnent agency such as the Lcad Agency for ensuring that enhauced filters are installed at on-site residential units before a permit of occupancy is issucd; � Disclosurc on potcntial hcalth impacts to prospectivc residcnts from living in proximity to frccways and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windo�vs are open and when residents are outdoor (ag., on balcony or in common space areas of the projcct); Disclosurc on increased energy costs for running the EIVAC system to prospcctive residents; • llisclosure on recommcnded schcdules (e.g., once a year or every sia: months) fbr replacing the enhanced filtration units to prospective residents; Toiv�i& Coanihy Apaf�tmenls anc�Totiv�zhorraes Kesponses to Conanients f'age 7 (�iir r/Ur�nr��' :l��ri/ �(1/�1' � Ongoin�� cost �harin�str�itcgies,if an��, for repl��cing tltc cnhanccd filtration uuits; Identification of tl�c rc,ponsible entity such as Homeo��nci�s Association or property management for ensuring tilters are replaced on time, ifi appropriate and feasible; � Critcria for assessiug progress in installing and replacin�the enl�anced tiltration units; and � Yrocess Tor eealuating the effectiveness of the eilhanced filtratioii units at the Proposed Project. 12espouse to Comment l�`o. 1-5 As discussed in the Response to Comment No. 1-4, a Ilealth Risk Assessment is not required for the P�roject In addition, based on the air quality analysis cont�ined in Section 3, Lnvironmental Impact Analysis of the MND, the Project's impacts �vith respect to air quality are less tl�an signiFicant, and no additional mitigation meastires are required. Comn�ent no. 1-6 SCAQMD Rule 1403 Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Acti��ities 5. Since the Proposed Project would inchide demolition of se��en buildings, asbestos may be encountered during demolition. As such, SCAQMD staff rccommends that the Lead Agency include a discussion to demoastr-ate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 ii�the Final MI��D. Rcsponsc to Comment No. 1-6 The potential to encounter asbestos during demolition activities ��as not raised as a potential environmental coneern in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the Project Site (included in Appendix C of the MND). Neverthcless, if any asbestos containing materials are encotintered during denlolition activities, conlpliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 would be required, as a legal prerequisite. Totivn & Counhy Apartments and Townhomes Responses to Comments Ynge 8 Comrnent Letter �lo. 2 �rn:t�� . -��_� � •,i!��' <�..:r..:r,��F ..+.n.�= ,. ,.�i��,:�,; ,_._�� to ,�t::�� .;_��r>> �, ,��.-_� -,E1'. ;"I':�'�` , :;1' �'�tA[��,'i:>':�A i.`:`; i �>: DIS'i�i�'�' l2 ;a=_'�';';- 1-3','6ASTFOURTF[STP.ELT.SUI'I'E 100 ��_�� SAN"i'AnNP1.CA9270� 3fani��g('or�sen�at:o,r P'.;-"�:'.: (657)328-636S 1'A\ �5�7)32g-5j 10 a<'a!if�rr.ia tPas�ojt.%k. ,� 7il �c��:�c.dot.ca.�ov <1i��;: l0, 2018 \Io;rc,�ie Scl.�;.�r'v. File: It��'C'};�,?A Citv of C)ra_�;�e Sitc Plan: # 0906-17 300 E. :'i:�,,�man Avenue 12-OR�1-201��-00834 �)�all�,;. CA 92666 SR 22; i'�;i i 1.293 Dear Ms. Schwartz '1'hank you for inc�i�diilg ?,� Cai:fornia :;�. �:::; �... :t of T:_..�_sportation (Cal:rzrs) in the review of T�12 1;1'l� �,� 1Ve� �i'�''_ Ti':.._-,. :?:iil �i�1N��Ol't�le '� (�: ,.�eC1 TOWri�.... �'.C•:F.li_� .`�.1�^�it'1C__��S <<<,.� "]�C�P>':1 .( ��:�. +'.^�ECt. !�?C II11SS'.'1:-. Of i < i ._,_ 'c�t0 fl';i)•;ic�e a �..�t. S_lii<.i:.ab�f.'� lii:i',�1'�li�Ct �..._. �_?icient �.r�:��,��;��'.<:'.��.>>�: sy��._m to enhanee Caiifo:r.ia's economy and livabi:ity. 'The Project proposes the developillent of a resident;al project on an approximately 12.127-acrc Site, on the �o�.�,'� si��,�oi�Toti�,�1� anc� C�: _.: __ R��. �, east of Lawson �,-`�,'ay. i:��Proj:ct Si?e is cu�.ently developed with seven two-sfe:y commerci:�.'.� buildings eurrently t�.��cr as ott;ccs, t_�ta.�?;��g approYimately- i 97,874 sc;�ir�:� feet. The eYi�t�� b_:;'s��:�`�s wouic be r�:�}o��ed as ��a��t of �' :' ��'`.�i:'Ct. Tlle 's�l'l!':',Ct�i0�70�L'S t11C'CO �_. ��i�`77 Of 7c�.7 Cf:�_._c:li�dl 1.:1'� flS fl i;Dii:i;'s;l��l1C?-1 Of � . ,_. 2-1 _,r7,�rt�r�>>ts and to�rnhome units. "I i,r Proj�et:�:'.�o �:.. _.�ics con�tr,c�io�; of��_t�::r�to serve the resid+:z;tia� uses. The S�i�is loc�te.. <..: 702-109;= �V. Te��,�n �_�-1 Country h��:d. in Cka-;��t, California(Assessor's Parcel Numbers 041-213-01 ,�;;d (i41-213-OS). �i he Project Site is located in the western poriion t:fi the City, and is bord�red ny'1�;��tiz? e.,sU t-o:i,�t�--�� Road uc��'�i�, i.�awso�� 'ay to thc w�est, Parker Street to the eas�, and�he Town and Couutry Manor(senior residences) and the Celet��a�_in i C'h�_��ch on the sc��t�,, ��:ith��1 t�e C'it: oi San,�:Ana. Preeway access to the Project Site ;s p��o�,�ic;er viathe Main S�t�etlI-5 I>>��.�tcilan��.e. La Ve��Avemae/SR-22��estbound R«a��p, a,�d To•.��n «;,c' E'o�.��,�-, �:o:c�.'��-22 ;...<.:,«�,.�,.d ;��.tt�_��. Loe�1 aeeess is p�o��iueci by To��:�, and Cuuu�r�� Roaci. I,awson�1�ay, Aia�n S.rec;:_ �,_z��i :�:,;ce.r Street. State P.o;i2c (SR) 22, is m��l�e�'t and operated by Caltrans. Caltrans is a responsible/commenting agency and has the fol iowing co;n�ncnt�: Trans�ortati�n `ia-ster�� I'l�n�in� l. Ur�de_�2020 C�ululative plus Projcct C�i��(;�in,is,the i�?iersection o�Santa Clara 2 2 Avenue/I-5 ramps wilI opct•a��: at LOS E during the AM ai�d PM peak t.oi�rs. "Provide a saje.sustair:able,inteo ated and e�cient transporlation system to enhance Cal fornra's economy and livability" Con�r�ieni Leii�� No. 2 (Cont) ��?i} nf OI��311�G 1�rT',l �1), �i)i$ ��`1�T�' 7 � n TsS�e.>-':�,. e'e�i 2723 Pt:vk Itc�*i�. ._. :.:::....r._..._�_-:�;Asai'iSi, . .. __.__ .__.-____.. ----------------------------.. ___._..-----— -�-------.._--- - � ------- ---- _.__._, . ' t�` l33 Z41 f51 ' , 7'et:ZL_: }�a�:�?.` . , `_e*-=..-. . �. cizii,� Cun.w}atrve �, Cua..:ativ: �� r^r�;at �� Cunt•v2s�5: 1 �� 37'��m .. ,;-�.•. �:s?rcjecY � 4�.:t � FlusPrnFr14Yd9 � �,. .. .. .-�. ,. �CMGitims ! ..Cmd�t',a9 � r.. ' Imp:asistenri �.�::.L.Itc�Ni� ��; Frriad L05 '�. ICFi ! L�5 �� I�.'L ' :i t- I.fl6 ! iaete�st ��'3'rl'ko ' f.:'s' i.4S „a i st i � •.,.. c. ,o! .. � O�1 v� 0�1I , 058 A 0577 ! A � OOQO tia '- - .____ ji �— --- __.�_— �; ____ �.---- — — —---- - i LaVeL..i•:en:^ F}f G�7 �, II .,.',, Fs t�?J'' � GAO? 1p � I L _- _ __._______ ..____-.__._' _—_. . ._ ._._ ' ��-__ ___- _.__' .__' __._-_. ,Td.i�SL�eetat A.M O.kJ3 i � C.4�R � k 0"t A L�.013 *.a �' - - � 2. �. __� D - - .._._. �. '�— �— Ma�pLar .:e -a.�d F:A �527 A j 66ro �' S 0540 ' B . OCI4 �. \o _ - - . _ __ _.__ . . ._'�-----__ ..�. � .— -- � --� '-._— __— -�----� f Tta-�Svteiat A..f D4h2 ': A - OSn3 � A 958i : f� ! 0.029 �,e -- - � x. '— _.. ..___ _ _—_ E T-..- �_..._ _-. _____,_ .�- __ .. .- __- __._ -__. ' ' �- G:iv'hic7oryLar F7d 0457 �� A �� 0.57] ' { 0575 ' A 0_DO' ?�o - - . .j i ' � -_. _._.__ ..._____-_. .._ _.__ -__ _'. -.__- �. __ . ..._- _ d T,faa�lte?i AL7 05?i I'i 06i2 B D657 � '',, uhJC io _ _ � .... _____ ..__.. . ___- ` � i-Sirxw�+�'Ed ocdRaad P31 Oa;7 ', . � Qbli B 06i9 '' 9 �� ap�4. '-._- _ __ _____.___ -i � _'_ _"'_ _... "__'_ .. ____'J'"" " ' -. .. ,. i _- _ �O — .__ '_' ..__ _.__ � �Lss.�Stree[at A�1 D8:8 � U �;!.'i E B_439 E , Yp C958 E j 5. ._ . -__ _.___.. G __ ' �__. : :. , � San�Cl�ra Ai�c�c I 5 �.t. PM �796 �'� C 0.736 F • _.'- E i C Q}� \o C.411 F. � _.. __. .. ._-_ ._._. _._-.._ . . . .. .. ... ..... ._ . ��_. _ '__- '____ _. � _'- Rcsd^nuaYiir.s D ocv+ayi A.M 032b '�. A . �.;E3 A 0377 �. A ., n01; � ho - - � 5. '_ .. _ .'___ ._.____.- O ; : .. . _ .:._ ...__ �'__ __'. _._ _. _ ; roan�.�cc�:rLrxca: e:w o.3ys x o.a�! t o.3zs A a.a� �o - - � i . _- ___ _ _ —__ __ --- _- -_ _ _ ' . ; __ _ _ � � 7 57»b�Ra.r.;ax: .... ._.. A4i � 0555 ' A q.�5 E L633 i B ; 00?E �. ho ..__ _ f `� '_ _. _ .�. .. F>' . . Q6I5 � B � 9.f,85 8 6 t53 6 . C C±F. ..No ... � �'` Aver _ _ �..._...__" _..__ _..... ._.__. . . . . ._. : ._._. . _ . SR2 F�l ._- �y�i� A3i .'- .4 9.(Si B OSS: ''. B - C+Y^._-__ hl .-�- ' '.'- . i B. . _ _-- ,� - -- - — - _ + (COnt.) _ _ _, � 7 �dC«a:rip'= P?a 0.7i6 C G.R3-1 D �533 j D '' D.fl!v'� No ' - - � . __ . . _.._ .__.._ __ _'._ --__' _---'__ .__ ._.-—_ _._.- �____—. ..__.._'_. a a � _h+i+� A.M 'c G'33 � A � 937i A 04:3 ' 2 '�. C9i? � Tx+ � .. ___�.. ____...__. _. .._ . . __ .._. . . _ _.__.._.. ___._ . ..___ _. ... .. _ .�..___ _..__�___' ._!.___ ___._ � o -:��t��;r-�;�,�Y ;�,";�r:.ure {6-Z �1ain `�treet ai S::,+.a Clara�venue;i-5 Freeway: Restripe Santa Clara Elvemie to convert the eastbound shared left/through lane to :�� exclusive ��-;>�_, �� f_�� ;,; lane. ":'Lis improveme��t �ti:11 require the approval of:'.� City of`�:::,ta A �. _ � or iai.,. .. . 'I'he Proj .'s :. � ..,. c.>,�.:�:�,,, t,,, t��:.<.=c?s i.., ..,.,.rsection :,:��iain Street�.'. Santa Clara Av�n,�e ;-5 Pre��.�<�.� :. _=.';s -.4%. '�J r��;��\t � f,'- -�.�1 fi� - �L � � `•�; }ti� 1 + f,` . : �.�il�ii 5% -- � ` I ,, ..��__ , ��,� - - � ��° ,� -�.�..1' � ..� 3�A��t g7 q ur�t�`5�a rr.iN7A CY?€rA 7!'�£j1-5 it}.'aPS _ ,-: "k"�`+,�LE.lt-�RA:�PS 2. �(�;?PlaiI2�it ��lttl � E3l�T2.tiS i��<^_YL�':il_�.; 1.'i1i�g�'.`LjC".1 :l�;eaSt.2'e 16-2, W�l1Ci1�JIOjJOSP.S �O 2'eSil'i'�P� Santa Clara A��e,;uc at i��e it7tcrs:a�� (I_) 5 ra��.p_ :�l�e des�gn �:t�d x�«,l��:n��con.t��zbG�tions of 2_3 tfie p:t�po��c:restriping�vill r�c�t:�rt Caltrans' revi�w and ap}�rt�-al. 3. Please send the project's construction management f�?�i::to Caltrans for revie�v and cc>?Ict?r�e�ice. As:t« project site is located directly adjacent to SR 22,project const�uction 2-4 :�a?iic may ii�Ip��ct State faciiities. "Provide a saje,su.rtainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance Calrfornia's econonry and livabiliry" C;or-nment Leiter No. 2 (Cont) C'.it}� ol�CJ��.n�c �lpri' 10, , l`' Page 3 u. ._ . _ . .e , :.�ject is ��cate. ad�< _� . to th�, S_ .. , ��.. �'- - . �-_ City sho�: � : 'ha+ ,; rzeasures are t-'._e�l to . s :� ;,� for use:s of 2-5 t}�e __:�.1. ,�y e� .E __��_�r�:,� use ofihis Class I < <,_�, t� s ._.._...�__ _��:otial co ._��-c; vity��: the «��aeent bicycle��Lt�:�ork. 5. As noted in the du;-1:��c.-t and the City's General Plan C;rculation Ele_;F::�;i (2015), t?�_cr;: are two propose�Class �' bike lanes nearby—one on Memory Lane as�ci one on La Veta ��.ti�e,�1.. Z'he City ��i?__want to consider including project in;E�gation measures that v�,-ould cu:�:r�1}�-ie i<::r s��«�� fees toward the �;�*-,.-.�-_.:io:� oft�:ese r��c�,�osed b�:c_cic faci�:�:es. C):.c ni �_�P_oiec'��. )�,i�ctives t�_z�� t� in � �.:M�� tec' Nc��`i�e E�cclaration states the t'roject ti'1:�'S� ��GL'i:�lti �T , . ;`" 1'_1 CIOSe�COXltlltii't0 t:l':1�_:�.._�:=� C:;'_`tCi'. CO_?l."::'�C131 a11C� (':IiC�' uses, dining, shopping, and hosp;i<�,s." Additional points of inte.��t located nearby the 2-6 project site may include: two Metrolink��.a�;;��s {C):";Zt,L ��„�; Santa Ana), MainPlace M��':;. and Children's �t��pital of Orange County. �i:erefore, in order to enhance tne potential of ineet':�;g �'-::s projc_:objective. �.,�: Cit}� �'�,��;id ensure thaT bicycle and _... _ I `�.. . �s _. .. ., :� ,._�_ .�. . :��`the proj�ct t�.i=� '. � �.ote safety � ac.��. ., and m � _ G.�^.ls i.0 . . �.0 ��_`the ''iiy's : .:c__��. . .}: _ . ._._. s ,, >>'. ..�,� ��:c�:�.o-�. 6. tZ'e also encourage the City to develo� �I-�-_�1�;�� Demand I�7anagemert i"i';`-M)policies to e��::oara��e s��.e�-�mobiliTy and tL�� use ofnearby Orange C;��.�i:y Transit:��i'�:��-i:�� (OCTA) i;:�s R�� .>�, 53. �3, 757, ��__;,'.453. To z�duce reg�,�;;�� VMT �.�: � ..':`.,. s.t> �.. the Sts , z;igh��a}� Sys..,--. p;-_. . c:}��sider re ,_ .; � ;.�_,._� developmen :�_;�� :�-� TD�i :-pti��n� ;:s':�:i be'.,��.�,: � '�CC1ieCt CiL'S'_gTl i�' eI1C�';.?<1`"L' .,__iii':1_�` i`i:;;:Cil?l�� E_':�. .Oiit"Ci7iCi1� :.�..'_�:`l .._��CSS� e T�e��c:.te carpool � __.. .,.g spaces; 2-7 � Allo:at,, space for b: _ �1e i>._,_, -�� Adopt an a��"cssive _.��reduction t_��_et�,;;i;� Lead Agency z,zo�;��;�.�i;l_ ,�,:c+ ...-`o�ccmc,;�_ � e I�t:��_.�e 118"<�.�1�;2y`ti._?1t:S f0:'�i:i�:a:2I1'I ti£.:ISlt i"0i:�-:S� -:`'`: e 7'i".'`�'iC::' �?i1C''OI S:'.i`S':'.iZE tr2�riSlt;�:i55eS fOI'i'ttiiLi':,i;:5 Ori a COil�li=:�iri�17aS1S. �acti,c Tr�ansn��tatic�n: �. ti.c;�?:i�; ti1;; I'��oject is locatect E�C:2�C�i?: '.Cl ti1t; s�i?I=it��i� Cl'eEl{ ,��i:ii�lt"��',tl'le Cl� �f�0i71C� ensure:,��it appropriate measures are taken to increase safety at�d accessibility for users of the t-ai1. t3y er?co;iraging tise of�t�i� Class I trail,#his inerease�regional connectivity in the bicycle network. 2-8 � .��c:d�t�onally, as noted in the docu,-ne�l� �.�d tne City's General Plan Cire;ttlatio�.� Element(2015), there are two proposed Class II bike lanes near'ny—one on Mer.�nr�� "Provide a safe,sustainable,mtegrutec!and efftcient transportatiora syslem to enhance California's econonry•and livability" Co«imeiii Letter No. 2 (Cont) t'it�. cai t.)range � � l�;,;��il 10. 2018 �a�e �} L,aI78 �lllC� QI72 OIl I,2 Veta f�VtitilC. ��lE C(ty' ?';cl)/1�;3I'ii t0 COI?S1C��i&CC011iltltl� j�0; ihese future bic}�cle facititi�� by proti�iding possible connectiz�n�to tl�ese f?�cilities. � 'I�l:e Projeci is approsimately h�o �n�les awa5- from Chapman University, and t't�:: � 2-8 � n:,. �al�iiagc� C��re�h n;r,eway provides �1 di�::ci co,�_,ec�i��l to �l;e uz;iti��sit}�il��oii�l� (Cont.) Ca��b:�dge Sir��i anc� �rl��ln��t Ave��_�e�. Py ensuring that��cce,s to the �3ikeway is s��fe and convenient,this ma}�encourage the use of Active Transp;�r��.tion by students who r11�� live in the project area. 8. Onc of the Praject Objectives ouilineci in the Mitigated Ne`fative Declaration states the Project o'�fe,rs. "qualit}�housing in close prc��imity to e,�iploz�n�e��t center, a��nm;,rcial and of�tice uses, dinin�,. shoppin�;. ancj hospitals." Some points of izltcrest nearb5�inay be two Metrolink s��ations (Orange and Sazlta Ana), ��IainPlace Mall, and Chil�ren's Hvspital of Orange Couni}. Therefore, because of ti;is objeciive,the Ci<<�should ensure that bicycle 2-9 and pedestrian facilities constructed for this project promote safety, accessibility, and ;nobility arouna the project. C'�c�als 1.0 and 4.0 of the City's Circulation Element support ihis��otion. 'I'i•affic �per�tior�s: L "I�here are several Caitratls projects��,<t will be takiizg place on:��Iain S2reet in the firture. 2-10 Please coniinue to coordinate ��ith Cal#rans �nd��rovide us��i8i a"I�r�fiic Study. � 2. Please use the 2010 I�i��h«-ay C'a.pacity ��ianu.aI (HCM) ius?ea:� oi 2000 HCM ior all ftiture stuuies. � 2-11 Please contuiue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future develo�ments tl�at could potezltially impact State transportation facilities. If you ha�re any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lu�raro at 657-328-6368 or,iulie.lu�aro�i�dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, C��l� f �'� � :�.,,�. �, MARLON RF.GISFORD Bra�lch Ghief. Regioi�al-IGR-�I'razasit Plamling District 12 "Provide a safe,sustainable,intee ated and efficien[transportation system !o enhanee California's economy and livability" C�;;,.�n/ t��r�� lp;�il=01;� LET��i��R ti�O. 2 �1arlon Re�isfbrd ll�partment o'i`Ir�+u>purtation, I)i�hict 1? 17?0 l�ast Fourtlt Street, Stiite 100 Santa f1ua, CA 9Z705 Comment No. 2-1 'I'hank you for iiachiding the California Dcparhl�ent of Transportation (Caltrans) in the reti-ic�v of thc Mitigated Nebative Declaration (MND) for the proposed To�i�n and Couutry Apartments and Towuhomes Project. T}lc mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustairiable, integrated and efticient transportation systcm to enh�ince Caliibrnia's economy and livability. The Project proposes thc development of a residential projcct on an appro�imatcly 12.127-acre Sitc, on the south side of Town and Country Road, east of�Lawson ��'ay. The Project Site is currently developed �vitli sevcii t��o-story commercial buildings currently used as offices, totaling approximatcly 197,874 sql�are feet The existing buildings ��ould be removed as part of the Project. "I'l�e Project proposes the construc�tion of 727 residential units as a combination of apartments and to�vnhome units. The Yroject also includes construction of p�rking to serve the residential uses. "I'he Site is located at 702-1098 W. Town aud Country Koad, iu Orange, California (Assessor's Parcel Ntirnbers 041-213-01 and 041-213-OS). The Yroject Sile is located in the western portion of the City, and is bordered by To�vn and Country Road uorih, Lawson �Vay to the �vest, Parker Street to the east, and thc Towu and Country Manor (senior residences) and the Celebration Church on the south, within the City of Santa Ana. Free�vay access to the Project Site is provided via the Main Strect/I-5 Interchange, La Veta Avenuc/SR-22 Westbound Ramp, and Town and Country Road/SR-22 Eastbound Ramps. Local access is provided by To�vn and Country Road, Lawsou Way, Main Street, and Parker Street. State Route (SR) 22, is o�vned and operated by Caltrans. Caltrans is a responsible/commenting agency and has the followinb comments: 12esponse to Comment No.2-1 '1'l�c comulent reiterates inCormation about the Project and its location, �vhich is ackno�vledged for thc record. Comment 1\'0. 2-2 1'ransportation System Planning ]. Under 2020 Cumulative plus Project Conditions, the intersection of Santa Ciara Avenue/I-5 ramps will operatc at LOS E during thc AM and PM pcak hours. Town& Cozortry Apnrt�ne�ats ancl Totiwihomes Responses to Comments Page 9 (Yn�r,i(J��rnt��r �1rr�il='lll,�' Tr.h'zi-.`".. i ear Z}s!?eak Rc�s;...!_:..•.::i.,:t i::r>:c�,�Azntvii; ( ... ---��; . {y,----- {�� (� -- ; { . ��, � Ye�:1221 , T'eati3] '.'ess_.-.,'., i � � ��. . _ : f,,.:.r§u:�, �. ��:.Cvr _ �r•;,S�t ' C�M,��iS: � _.i:�nv � . - � ,' '. . ._:?:;jtct ��=:"•�:t � F'.¢:Prnfecl`zth . _ ._..... � �a��s - ':.:Ctar'.ricas . - �. I�Yr�t�e��a.`z �"=Lt4s.t:i?5:s _ ^ei� - LGS ! 3�l ; vS � I� .r.• ' �.Cl� Ii1S i LXtl3�.��::1�".� � 'Ci' 1 i0�5 � .. � .m �� A.4t � O51 I �� 3 c� A 0 577 � A C DC-0 i A;o ' - - I i. . _ .._-_..-- � ,_ - �'. _ — _—_.-� � LaVeflAcew. _ � F1] � 0�7 ; m �".i s i C?' ' @ GLO i Na - ' - ( �MaaS�reetat . A."d �� . U',D3 I �. Oe:B A ; p I ''._A �. O�ll � �a =. _- . 2. '�Lwplatt.-. . �:e:d ! F7A . � � 0527 I A �.. 0.626 � 8 ': DG!A 1 B OC74 � \o --i ( ......},tar,s Strat at � :. _ A?d '� 0 L� i A ��. O.Sf 3 � � 058 i A 0 029 -\.. --- -----� j3. E ; �:eG.'� J1is�i.yLv,e F!.7 � � Oia7 � A .. 0.571 A �.. t574 A GC03 ?7a : - .__ . .�. ___. _. . .____. .._.._._-_`- —.--� ____.. --_ �-._ �_-_-____-. �..� � bfa. cir�.II AA �6� a I, O.bP I 0657 �,,. D _ 0 00 ?;c _.___ ."'_' ___� I d. --. ..____ _- - .. G i _. '' _ .7SFrx.a;IFi��racc�Rcs. PN .. __..... 0a-,7 � O6"-� 3 I D659 B G01 � Vo l .__-. . ___ .___ _'_ _ . .. . . . . I ��.Ua�aSuaia[ '�. ASi 0.828 i v ._ .' ,_ .._- _._. ._____. . _ .. � - ��;1 F. ; 8.979 ��. E : f,� __�`__Yn � a.�58 _.__�� ,_____. ___ -. ... _ ._.______.: p r..— ' ' , " "Saau Ciara A�m 'FS[-,,.. F�1 . 6.7A5 ��. C '. �.73G . ' P." —'-' E_'-0.6_'0 i No 0.4J1 E r '___"_, -__'.__.-- _ �_ �'_"' _.w.. .�.____ _'_'_`-- �__'—''_—_ . �...____- i P.rs.dMtaYRe�i D�ivewayat A�t ; O.i2o I A , Qi53 A 037i ' A 0�74 ' No - - I � fi. -. _ __'_.___.__ D �. __... � __.. ..._. .. __'_ _. _..._' _".._'_ __.___. _. _._ _ .. _To.vn ard C.wuy aci3 '. FS7 � 0�95 � A � 0.-3! - A � 0.938 � A C.070 ! �o - - - '_'__'-_-___--__ .._��___—_>__ __ __— .-_ ____._... 2.W9RaQysxi . � . ___- .__. _.._. . ..... :S:l-� � A�f � 0�55 j A I 9.!i�5 '. 3 ' 0.513 � 6 . 00_8 �i tGo .._ '._.�._'�.._ "' _ 7. .._ . _:. ___...... p .._....-_.�. .._ '_: .___..: .._.__ s_.__'� __ _-'- . ._____".y ...Axwe P}: - OEIS - 2 .E.35 El ; OfhT 8 CGCO No - - ___"_ '..._ .. .... _.; . . ... . '__ __. _ .._. _. . _. . ._... SR Z EA'�, . � R'a�n AM �'. ' � 0.f6" E � O S> �'�, e G G'0 . `ln � - - S. __ _ __ _ _._ . � . ., .... _.__ � _. . ._ . __ . ___._ T �c Lwr`y Roed P?7 ��. �756 � C f`.:.� r e$ '_. � �_ O M� F'+.; - J I � ._.._ .. '_ -_ � ' _.__'�- - _' . "'- L.9'_ __ W�_ .__.-_- __ A.11 :_ E 31 ' � �3 7 A_ M i3 � A � C a� �_T;e _. - . _._"' • Mitigc�tion Mensi�r•e 16-2 Main Street at Santa Clara Avenue/I-5 Frecway: Restripe Sailta Clara Avenue to convert the eastbound shared left/through lane to an exchisive eastbound througl� lane. This improvement �vill require the approval of tlle City of Santa Ana and/or Caltrans. The Project's fair share contribution towards the intersection of Main Street at Santa Clara Avenue/1-5 Freetvay totals 4.4%. (�r,x—-._� ,_, ._- �� 1'/ "\ / � \ ;'- .\ i '.f!_ � ��"j.:�R 5�� r � ...._,�;i � � ��-,; 4 — — i ` a �;a.t � � �. -�,I�j f j ��'1i,i("'� �. � 5 °'_ - ,�� & F;Ih� ,��p�� - . _ '�-..._._.r'�,. �t��r�s-t� u�ura�s�a �;��.c�ra h�e�-5�:a�s �.:-�;a � �u/t-��.,wPs Response to Comment No.2-2 The comment reiterates information contained in the Project's traft7c stiudy, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts contained in thc MND. Nevertheless, the comment is acknowledged for the record and �vill be forwarded to the decision- making bodies for their review and considcration. Towr:&Coamtry Apartrnents and Townhomes Responses to Comrnents Page 10 (�1!r u(()r�in�r ip��il�U[; ('omn�ent\o. 2-3 2. Coordinatc �vitl� Caltrans regarding Mitigation 1�lcastne 16-2, which proposes to restripe Sant�� Clara A��enue at the Interstate (]-) 5 ratnp. llie desi�*n a��d fiindin�� contributions of the propo,�d restriping �vill r«{uire Caltrans' re�•ie�x. and ap}�ro�al. Response to Comment 1\`0. 2-3 The text of Mitigation Measure 16-2 (see page 3-172 of thc MND) notes that improveme�lt �vill requirc approval of the City of Santa Ana andlor Caltrans. Nevertheless, the comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-tnaking bodies for thcir revie�v and consideratiou. Comment No.2-4 3. Please send the project's construction nianagement plan to Caltrans for review and concun�ence. As the project site is located directly adjacent to SR 22, project constniction traffic may impact State facilities. Response to_Comment No. 2-4 The comment requests a copy of the Project's coustruction management plan, but does not state a specific concer�� or question regarding the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts contained in the MND. Nevertheless, the comment is acknowledged for the record and �vill be forwarded to the decision- making bodies for their revie�v and consideration. Comment 1�`0. 2-5 4. Because the Project is located adj�cent to the Santiago Creek Bike�vay, the City should ensure that appropriate measures are taken to increase safety and accessibility for users of the trail. By eiicouraging use of this Class I trail, this increases regional connectiviYy in the adjacent bicycle network. Response to Comment No. 2-5 __ Thc commcnt docs not statc a specific concern or qucstion rcgarding thc adcquacy of thc analysis of environmental impacts conYained in the MND. Nevertheless, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will bc for��-arded to thc decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. Comment No.2-6 5. As noted in the doc�iment and the City's General Plan Circulation Element (2015), there are two proposcd Class II bikc lanes nearby - one on Memory Lanc and one on La Veta A venuc. The City may �vant to consider including project mitigation measures lhat would contribute fair share fees to�vard the construction of these proposed bicycle facilities. One of thc Project Objcctives outlined in the Mitigated Negativc Declaration states the Project ofFers, "quality housing in close proximity to employment center, commcrcial and officc uses, dining, shopping, and hospitals.° Additional points of intcrest locatcd ncarby the project site may include: two Metrolink stations (Orange and Santa Ana), MainPlace Mall and Totiv�i& Counlry�lpnrtmeiats and Tow�:hornes Responses ln Cornmersts Page 11 (�iti�ui`C)r�tn.;�' 1 pri!?l�l�� Cliildren's Ilospital of C)ran��a Co�uity. 1 h��refore, in order to enhance the potenti��l of ineciin�� tl�i� projcct objecti�e, the City should en;ur� that bicycle and pedestriau facilities are coil�tructed suiruui�cling the project site to pro�note safet��, aceessibility, and mobility. Goals I.0 a��d 4.0 ��f the City'� Circulxtion Llement su��purt this uoiiun_ Kesponse to Comment tio. 3-6 There were no iinpacts identified in the MND that would require additional mitigation mcasw-es, beyond those already included in the MND. Nevertheless, the request to contribute to the construction of the proposed bicycle facilities is acknowledged for the record and �vill be forwarded to the decision-makin� bodics for their revic�v and consideration. Comment No. 2-7 6. We also encotu�age the City to develop "Travel llemand Management (TDM) policies to e�icourage smarY mobility and thc usc of ncarby Oranbe County Transit Authority (OCTA) Bus Routcs 53, 83, 757, and 453. To reduce regional VMT and traffic impacts to the State Highway System j�lease consider requiring futurc developmeilt to adopt the TDM options listed below: • Project design to encour�ige��alking, bicycling, and eonvenient transit access; • lledicate caipool parking spaces; • Allocate space for bicycle parking• • Adopt an aggressive trip reduction target«°ith Lead Agency uionitoring and enforcement; • RedL�ce head�vay tiules for adjacent transit routes; and • Yrovide and/or subsidize transit passes for residents on a continuing basis. Response to Coinment No. 2-7 The comment is directed at the City regarding the development of TDM policics, and does not state a specific concern or yuestion regarding the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts contained in the MND. Nevertheless, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodics for their rcvicw and considcration. Comment No. 2-8 Active Transportation: 7. Because the Project is located adjacent to the Santiago Gcek Bikeway, the City should ensure that appropriate measures are taken to increase safety and accessibility for users of the trail. By encouraging use of this Class I trail,this increases regional connectivity in the bicycle network. Tow�i &Cozmtry Aparhnents and Tow�ihomes Responses lo Coniments Pnge 12 � 1 l�O� �) i ��;; �l�)i'll��)�r�� • rlddition�+lly, as notrd in the docum�nt and the City's Ue��cral Pl�tn C'irculation }?leme>>t (?O1�), there are hso ��ioposed ('lass II bik� lanes ncarby- one on Merllo�y Lane and one oii La Veta f1��etlue. "I�h� Cit}� may ��attt io cottsider acco�n�tting for these� futtu�e� bic}'cle facilitics by providin�� possibl� connections to thesc facilitics. • �I he Projcct is appr��xin�ately t��°o miles ativay from Chapnian University, and the Santiago Creek I3ike��a�- pro��ides �i dircct conncction to the uni��eisity tl�roligh Cambridge Street and�1'alnut Avcnuc. By ensurin� that access to the 13ike�vay is safe and convenient, this may encour�ige the use of Active 'I'ransporiation by students who may live in the project area. Response to Comment No. 2-8 "I'he cominent provides infonnation about the bicycle nehvork, but docs not state a specific concern or question regarding the adeqtiacy of the analysis of em�iromnental impacts contaitled in the MND. Ne��erthcless, the comment is ackiio«�ledged for tlie record arid �vill be fonvarded to the decision-making bodies for thcir revicw and consideration. Comment 1Vo. 2-9 S. One of the Project Objecti��es outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration states the Yroject offers "quality l�ousin� in close proximity to employnient center, commercial arid ofFice tises, dining, shopping, and hospitals." Son1e points of interest uearby may be h��o Metroliuk stations (Orange and Santa Ana), MainPlace Mall, and Children's IIospital of Orange County. Therefore, because of this objective, the City should ensure tliat bicycle aud pedestrian facilities constructed for this project promote safety, accessibility, and mobilit}� around the project Goals 1.0 and 4.0 of tlte City's Circulation Element support this notion. Response to Comment No. 2-9 The conunent provides infornlation about the bicycle and pedestrian network, but does not statc a specific conccrn or qucstion rcgarding thc adcquacy of thc analysis of environmcntal impacts contained in thc MND. Nevertheless, the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be fonvarded to the decision- n�aking bodics for thcir rcvicw and considcration. Comment No. 2-10 7'raf'tic Operations: 1. 'I'here are several Caltrans projects that �vill be taking place on Main Street in the fi�ture. Pleasc coiitinuc to coordinatc with Caltrans and providc us w�ith a Traffic Study. Response to Comment No 2-10 _ _ The comment is ackno�vledged For the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their revie�v and consideration. Totiv�l & Coz�niry�lpartmeiits and Totiwzlaomes Kesponses lo Comments Yage 13 ('�;��/�);�u��_�� 1�r,�il �11l�`+' �'oiliment PV`a. 2-ll 2. Please ti�e tht 2010 Higl�way Capacity 1�9anual (HCM) insCcad of 2000 }1Ci�9 for all fuhire studies. Responsc to Con�ment No. 2-11 'I'he c�ommcnt is acknowledged for the record arld �vill be fort�rarded to the decision-makin� bodies foi dlcir reti�ie�v and consideration. Tou�n& Country Apartments and Totivnhomes Responses!o Comments Page 14 Cor��rnent L2tter No. 3 -�. _- � . . _-.�� .�� s - lntegrify, Accounta6ility, Service, Trust Shane L. Siisby, Director . � flpril 10, 201� NCIJ 18-01 S Monique Sch��artz,Associate Planner City of'Orange 300 F:ast Chapman A��enue (�rail��e, (,A 92b66 Subject: i��itigated Negati��e Declaration Cor To�vri fi Countp� Apartmerits and To��nhon�es Project I)car��ls. Scl��ar�z: "l�hank you for the opportunity to conmlent on the Mitigateil Ne��ati��e lleclaration (MNll) for the �fo��n � C`owltry.Apartments and"I�o��nhomes Project Tl�e County o{�Orange offers the follotivint� commcn�for��our consideration. OC Public��'orks—�n��ironmental Resources 1. 7'lie discussion on liydroloby�nd��ater quality(Section 9, Post-Coiistruction 13est �4a�la�ement Practic�s, page 3-56) should clarify whether or not the project qualifies as a Pr-io1•in� Dtrclup�ueu� Pi�r�ject under lhe Cit��'s tnunicipal ston3��ater pennit (I3oard Order K�i-2009- 3-� 0030), tl�et-eb�� requiring preparation of a Proj�ct it'�rter- O«olrtv t�laucitienrenl Plorr, or instead is a 14'nr�-Priorit�' Prqject ��°hic}i ��ould require preparation of a .�;'un-Pi•ioi•itl' !!'utc��- Qircrlit�� P��uject Plrni. If you ha��e an}�questions regardine these comments,�lease contact N1att"I`uckei�at(714) 9�5-0669 in OC E�i��ironmental IZesources; or Ashley Brodkin at (714) fi67-8854 in OC De��clopment Serviccs. Sincercly, �' ' !` �,� ,/ i` i - � � � `''=�-�----� '�ichard V�ig, Mauager,Platft3iit"g=�Dt��:�sion�. OC Public Works Service Area/OC Development Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Richard.Vuong rUocpw.ocgov.com 300 N.Flower Street,Santa Ana,CA 92703 vrr✓w.ocpublicworks.com P.O.Box 4048,Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 714.667.8800 � Info@OCPW.ocgov.com ('itr nJ Urrur,<' I��ril �(ilb� 1.��1'"i'ER NO. 3 Richard Vuon� OC Public �,Vorks 300 Nortl� ilower Street Santa Ana, CA)2702 Com�nent 1\`0.3-1 Thank��o�i for the opport�ulity to comment or� the Miti4ated �eoati��e Declaration (MN1�) for the 'I`o�� & Country Ap��ctments and To��nhomes Project. The Cotmt�� of Orange offers the Iollo�ving comment Cor ypLIT CO1151C�Ci'1t1011. OC Public Works- I;nvironmental Rcsourccs 1. "I'he discussioii ou hydroloby and �vater qiiality (Section 9, Post-Construction Best Mat�agemenl Practices, page 3-�6) sho�ild clarify �vhether or not the project qualifies as a Pi•iority Dei�elopmerit Pr•oject under the Cily's nuinicipal storm�vater pern�it (13oard Order R8-2009- 0030), thercby requiring prcp��ration of a Projecl Yt�ater� Ouality �tl�rtiu,�=eniefat Plrrn, or i��stcad is a Noa-Prior•it}° Projecl ��hich �vould requir�preparation of a 1�'o�z-Priority 6{'uler Qucrlil>�I'r�c�jecG Ylan. If you ha�e any questions regardiug these comments, please contact Matt Tucker at(714) 955-0669 in OC 1?nvironmental 12esow�ces; or Ashley Brodkin at (714) 667-8854 ii1 OC llevclopinent Services. Response to Comment No.3-1 The Project qualifies as a Priority Develop�nent Project tinder t}le City's mtmicipal storm��ater permit. 7own & Cnuntry Apar�trnents and Townhames Responses to Coniments Ynge I S � � � C;�_;:rir�i��t i etk2r Iyo. 4 _ � ��'�'� so;a,s�oF�i�_=croFs April 10, 2018 Li52 A.Eaqla(t Chai; Ms. Monique Schwartz Tim Shai. �-r�ecna�rma� Planning Division - Associate Planner ��;1z��;;,s City of Orange �ifz��, 300 East Chapman Avenue s�;Ua;�ozr�,�r�� Orange, CA 92866 or;ector Andra�,�Do °i��°` Subject: Town & Country Apartments and Townhomes Mitigated �°°o°��'�aK Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1855-17 Diraclor r.,�ra��H�r,n�<,�,- Dear Ms. Schwartz: Director St2t2 Jonac c,��+�; Thank you for providing the Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)with ,,;�,�F r,�,a,;}, the MND for tne Town & Country Apartments and Townhomes Project (Project). o�;�� The following comment is provided for your consideration: F.��nz;�r.��,�,7�, o�-�"°' New residential land use construction provides an opportunity to 0 �;'�.r��,�� encourage a variety of travel choices. We encourage fhe City of Orange 4-1 o``"°� (City) consider inclusion of short/long-term bicycle parking and bicycle Sh2�.:nPda;sor, facilities for residents and guests. The City of Orange Bicycle Master Plan Di;2cWr (2001}, provides bicycle parking guidelines indicating provision of 0.5 bike f.figuel Pulido o;;a�,,,. spaces/racks per residential dwelling unit. Additionally, the inclusion ofi a r��,,s��::,�f secure ground floor indoor bicycle storage area may serve long-term �� bicycle parking. hlich2lie Stee! D1�"°� o OCTA currently provides transit service near the Project location. Should Tomr��r the Project have any impacts to nearby bus stops, please coordinate with o':�`�°� OCTA to employ measures to reduce potential transit service disruptions. c��;,�T.6YnS�rbo!lom We also request that the City keep OCTA informed with any potential bus Oirector stop interruptions or street closures that may require detours. 4-2 Ry2n Chambadain Ex-Oiiicio l�fember Throughout the development of this Project, we encourage communication with OCTA on any matters discussed herein. 1f you have any questions or comments, CHIEFEXECUTIVEOFFICE please contact me at (714) 560-5907 or at dphuCcr�.octa.net. DzrcellJohnson Chie!Ener.ufive Oriicar Sincerely, %'� � .--- Dan Phu Manager, Environmental Programs Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Il4ain Street/P.O.Box 1418?/Orange/Caliiomia 92303-1584/(714)560-OCTA(6282) (�irr nf(?r�_;��,� l�,ril?1l1<5 LE"I'7'i��l; ;��). -) Uan P)�u Oron«� C'n�_u1.��]�r�:r�,poriation Authorit}' 550 South Main Street Orangc, CA 92b63 Comment No. 4-1 Thank ��ou for providing the Orange County Transportation Authorit}� (OCTA) «�ith thc MND far the To�en & Counti}� Apartme�its and Town homes Project(Project). 1��1�e fo]1o1�•ing comment is provided for yotu considcration: • Ne�v residcntial land use constniction provides an opportunity to encourage a variety of travel choices. We encouragc the City of Orange (City) consider inclusion of shori/long-tenn bicycle parking and bicycle facilities for residents and guests. The City of Orailge 13icycle Master Ylail (200]), provides bicycle parkiiig guidelines indicating provisiou of 0.5 bike spaces/racks per residential dwelling imit. Additionally, the inclusion of a secure ground floar indoor bic}�cle storage area m�iy scrve ]ong-term bicycic parki�lg. 12esponse to Comment No.4-1 The coinment pro��ides the recommendation to include bicycle parking in the Project, which is aclaio��ledged tbr the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. In addition, the Project is providing bicycle parking in accordance with the Orange Municipal Code requirements. Commcnt 1V`0.4-2 OCTA cun-ently provides transit service near the Project location. Should the Project have any impacts to nearby btis stops, plcase coordinate with OCTA to employ measures to reduce potential transit service disruptions. We also req�icst that the City keep OCTA infornled with any potential bus stop interruptions or streel closures that may re�uire detours. � � Throughout the development of this Project, we encourage comn�unication �vith OCTA on any matters discussed hercin. If you have any questions or comments, plcase contact me at (714) 560-5907 or at dphu@octa.net. Response to Comment No.4-2 Thc Project Sitc is currcntly scrvcd by OCTA Bus Routc #453, �;�hich has a stop on castbound To��n & Country Road, imtnediately east of Lawson Way. OCTA �vill be notified by the contractor if any construction activity«�ill occur around this bus stop necessitating a temporary bus detour. Tou�n &Coa�ntry�Apartments and Townhomes Responses to Conrments Pa�e 16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CAL¢ORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGFNCY EDMIJND G_BROWN]r..Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100 SANTAANA,CA92705 PHONE (657)328-6368 MakingConservation FAX (657)328-6510 a Calrfornia Way ofLife. "I"I'1' 711 www.dot.ca.eov May 30,2018 Monique Schwartz File: IGR/CEQA City of Orange Site Plan: #0906-17 300 E. Chapman Avenue 12-ORA-2018-00834 Orange, CA 92666 SR 22; PM 11.293 Dear Ms. Schwartz, Thank you for providing the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)a Response to Comments(RTC) letter for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Town and Country Apartments and Townhomes Project. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance Califomia's economy and livability. T'he Project proposes the development of a residential project on an approximately 12.127-acre Site, on the south side of Town and Country Road, east of Lawson Way. The Project Site is currently developed with seven two-story commercial buildings currently used as offices, totaling approximately 197,874 square feet. The existing buildings would be removed as part of the Project. The Project proposes the construction of 727 residential units as a combination of apartments and townhome units. T'he Project also includes construction of parking to serve the residential uses. The Site is located at 702-1098 W. Town and Country Road,in Orange, California(Assessor's Parcel Numbers 041-213-01 and 041-213-OS). The Project Site is located in the western portion of the City, and is bordered by Town and Country Road north, Lawson Way to the west, Parker Street to the east, and the Town and Counhy Manor(senior residences) and the Celebration Church on the south,within the City of Santa Ana. Freeway access to the Project Site is provided via the Main Street/I-5 Interchange, La Veta Avenue/SR-22 Westbound Ramp, and Town and Country Road/SR-22 Eastbound Ramps. Local access is provided by Town and Country Road, Lawson Way, Main Street, and Parker Street. State Route(SR)22, is owned � e and operated by Caltrans. - o M �" After reviewing your response to comment letter, Caltrans has the following additional o W z� � comments: z d � � z ��o� l. In the response to comment 2-4, it is stated that Caltrans does not cite"a specific s�� concern."However,the construction traffic will result in indirect impacts to State ��a� w facilities,thus t h e Ci ty i s r e q u i r e d t o s e n d t h e C o n s tr u c t i o n M an a g e m e n t P l an(C M P}an d Q w 3 ti the Transportation Management Plan(TMP)to Cattrans for review and concurrence. °° � o o � U N 0 r "Provide a saje,sustainabJe,integraled muf e,�cient bansportntion system City of Orange May 30, 2018 Page 2 2. In response to Comments 2-8 and 2-9, it is stated that Caltrans does not cite "a specific concern or question regazding the adequac}�of the analysis of the environmental impacts contained in the MND." However, several of the Project Objectives and the City's Circulation and Mobility Element(2015)of the General Plan support the idea of integrating Active Transportation in the development. Therefore,it is strongly recommended that the City provide more connections to bikeways in the area,especially considering that 727 units are planned for the project. Several of the Goals(Goals 1.0, 2.0,4.0,and 6.0)and their respective Policies of the City's Circulation and Mobility Element support efficient, safe,accessible, comprehensive, and regional transportation networks,which include bikeways. Policy 4.1 of the Element states that the City aims to "create a comprehensive bicycle network that is integrated with other transportation systems by establishing on-street and off-street facilities ... including Santiago Creek," thus indicating the City's dedication to develop a more regional bicycle network. Based on the City's own Policy, Caltrans strongly recommends that the connections to the Santiago Creek Trail be established. This would promote bicycling and reduce overall vehicle congestion in the surrounding area of the project. Not only would connections be beneficial to residents in the development,but these connections could promote increased trips to local businesses nearby,thus supporting economic development i�n the City. The City should ensure that appropriate measures are taken to increase accessibiiity for users of the Santiago Creek Bikeway because this Class I trail provides essential connections to other points of interest in the city and regionally,including employment, dining, and shopping centers. By providing safe connections to bikeways,the City is adhering to the Project Objectives and to its Circulation and Mobility Element. Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at 657-328-6368 or Julie.lu a�ro'��dc�t.ca. ov. Sincerely, �--1 -'". �n SCOTT S _LL 'Y Branch C ' , egional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 "Provide a safe,sustainable,integraled artd ejJ"icrent transportation system to enhance Calrfornia's economy and/ivability" m . am n — c . � r n e Stam ed Ma 9 2018 D at , p Y . . i vi r . . . r view � n e � e , � � e rs c