Agenda packet — Aliso Viejo City Council, September 18, 2024 (part 1 of 7)

AGENDA

ALISO VIEJO CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2024
5:00 PM CLOSED SESSION
5:30 PM STUDY SESSION
7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

CITY HALL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
12 JOURNEY

ALISO VIEJO, CA
Mayor Mike Munzing
Mayor Pro Tem Tiffany Ackley
Councilmember Ross Chun
Councilmember Max Duncan
Councilmember Richard Hurt
WELCOME to the City of Aliso Viejo City Council meeting. Those persons wishing to address the City Council are requested to complete and submit to the City Clerk a “Request to Address City Council” form available at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. Speakers will be called at the appropriate time as their interested matter is heard. COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Council proceedings are recorded.

It is the City's intention to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) . If you need special assistance to participate in the meeting, the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and/or accommodations. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II] Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (949) 425-2505 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the first and third Wednesday of the month at the City Hall Council Chambers, 12 Journey, Aliso Viejo. Copies of the agenda are available in the lobby at City Hall on the Thursday preceding a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. All communications received by the City regarding an agenda item have been included in the agenda materials. Supplemental documents relating to specific agenda items, including communications received after agenda delivery, are presented at the dais and in the Public Copy agenda binder at the time of the meeting. Supplemental documents are also available for review in the City Clerk's office, 12 Journey, Aliso Viejo. For more information, please contact City Hall at (949) 425- 2505.

This meeting will be broadcast live on Cox Communications Channel 851, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 and the City's website. By attending the City Council Meeting, you are giving your permission to be televised. The Council Meetings are rebroadcast on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. on Cox Communications Channel 851, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99, and can be viewed on the internet at www.avcity.org.

MITZI ORTIZ SCOTT C. SMITH LAUREN TORRES

ACTING CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY DEPUTY CITY CLERK
1 1

PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES AND OTHER

ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT WHILE CITY COUNCIL IS IN SESSION
CALL TO ORDER: Convene Special Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS:

CLOSED SESSION:

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Manager

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6
Agency Designated Representative(s): Mayor and Valerie Phillips, Bob Murray & Associates
Unrepresented Employee: City Manager
STUDY SESSION:

STUDY SESSION FOR THE AVALON ALISO VIEJO MIXED-USE PROJECT Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing to review the concept plans for a mixed-used project, consider public testimony, and provide general feedback to the Applicant.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Project Plans
Attachment 2 - Traffic Study
Attachment 3 - Parking Study
Attachment 4 - View Simulations
Attachment 5 - Public Comments
Attachment 6 - Draft IS/MND
Attachment 7 - OCFA Letter
Attachment 8 - Presentation
CALL TO ORDER: Convene Regular Meeting

ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION:
2 2

1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

1.1 PROCLAMATION - SERVICE CLUBS MONTH

1.2 BUSINESS OF THE MONTH - GRACIE BARRA ALISO VIEJO

2. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, REORDERING TO THE AGENDA:

3. COMMUNITY INPUT:

Members of the public wishing to address the City Council are requested to complete and submit to the City Clerk a "Request to Address City Council" form available at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. In compliance with the Brown Act, no discussion or action may be taken on comments received at this time, except the City Council may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR:

All matters listed on the Consent Calendar will be acted upon by one vote unless members of the City Council, or staff request a matter to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be discussed and voted upon immediately following City Council action on the remainder of the Consent Calendar.

4.1 WAIVE THE READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Recommended Action: Approve the reading by title only of all ordinances and resolutions wherein the titles appear on the public agenda; said titles shall be determined to have been read by title, and further reading is waived.

4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes as submitted for the September 4, 2024 Special Meeting, the September 4, 2024 Regular Meeting, and the September 11, 2024 Special Meeting
Draft Minutes - September 4, 2024 Special Meeting
Draft Minutes - September 4, 2024 Regular Meeting
Draft Minutes - September 11, 2024 Special Meeting

4.3 SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION

15.14.080 PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Recommended Action: Conduct a second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO AMENDING SECTION 15.14.080 OF THE ALISO VIEJO MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Ordinance
3 3

4.4 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Recommended Action:

Ratify accounts payable checks and electronic funds transfers issued between August 16, 2024, and August 29, 2024, in the amount of $369,195.66.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Accounts Payable Report

4.5 TREASURER’S STATEMENT – JULY 2024
Recommended Action:

Receive and file the July 2024 Treasurer’s Statement.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - July 2024 Treasurer’s Statement

4.6 ADOPTION OF THE 2023-2024 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND

EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) FOR EXPENDITURES OF COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS
Recommended Action:

1. Find that the 2023-2024 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 (b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines;

2. Approve and adopt the 2023-2024 CAPER; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to submit the CAPER to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and authorize the City Manager to submit all related documents.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - 2023-24 CAPER

4.7 PURCHASE AND REPLACE PROJECTORS AT THE ALISO VIEJO CENTER Recommended Action:

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Western Audio Visual for the replacement of three projectors at the Aliso Viejo Center for an amount not to exceed $28,000; and

2. Appropriate $28,000 to the fiscal year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Plan.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Agreement
Attachment 2 - Proposal

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

5.1 TRAFFIC VIOLATOR APPREHENSION PROGRAM FEE (TVAP)
Recommended Action:

1. Open and conduct a public hearing;

2. Declare that the project is exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) 21080(b)(8) of the Public Resources Code and Section 157273 of the CEQA Guidelines as the establishment of modification of rates, fees, and charges, which are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or materials as set forth herein; and
4 4

3. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Orange County Sheriff's Department to collect its updated fee for the traffic violator apprehension program in the City.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Orange County Board of Supervisors Minute Order

6. DISCUSSION:

6.1 AQUATIC CENTER POOL DECK SURFACE REHABILITAITON OPTIONS Recommended Action:

1. Receive staff presentation and provide direction on the pool deck surface rehabilitation method; and

2. Authorize staff to solicit bids for the recommended surface rehabilitation method.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Reference Letter
Attachment 2 - Presentation

6.2 STREET MAINTENANCE – PAVEMENT STRIPING
Recommended Action: Receive staff report.

Staff Report

6.3 EMPLOYEE MONTHLY HEALTH BENEFIT ALLOWANCE
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving an increase to the employee health benefit allowance for Plan Year 2025.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution

6.4 CITY SPONSORSHIP OF ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SENIOR SUMMIT EVENT

AT ALISO VIEJO RANCH
Recommended Action:

Consider City sponsorship of the Orange County Annual Senior Summit event at Aliso Viejo Ranch held by Fifth District Supervisor Katrina Foley and Cal Optima.

Staff Report

6.5 LETTER OF OPPOSITION – CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

LAGUNA HILLS OFFICE CLOSURE
Recommended Action: Consider directing staff to send a letter in opposition to the closure of the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Laguna Hills office.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - DMV Press Release
Attachment 2 - Letter from State Legislators

7. CITY MANAGER' S REPORT:

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS / COUNCIL COMMENTS / COMMITTEE UPDATES:

9. ADJOURNMENT:

The next regularly scheduled City Council meeting is October 2, 2024. 5 5
City of Aliso Viejo

AGENDA ITEM
DATE: September 18, 2024
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Rose Rivera, Senior Planner
So Kim, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION FOR THE AVALON ALISO VIEJO MIXED-USE

PROJECT
Recommended Action:

Conduct a public hearing to review the concept plans for a mixed-used project, consider public testimony, and provide general feedback to the Applicant.

Summary:

This study session provides the City Council and the public with an overview of the proposed Avalon Aliso Viejo mixed-use project (“Project”) at 26501 Aliso Creek Road in the Commons shopping center. The Project consists of the construction of a new mixeduse development that includes a six-story building with 343 residential dwelling units above commercial space on the ground floor. The building will wrap around an eight-level parking structure, which includes a subterranean parking garage and a rooftop amenity space.

The purpose of this study session is solely for discussion and to provide the Applicant with feedback. A separate public hearing will be scheduled for a decision on the Project.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Background:

In 1993, the County of Orange approved the commercial development of 26501 Aliso Creek Road (“Site”). In 2005, the City Council approved Specific Plan No. 2 for the Site (i.e. Commons at Aliso Town Center), to allow mixed-use development with retail, restaurant, and residential uses. Beginning 2019, the tenants of the Site vacated, leaving the Site underutilized.
6

Page 2 of 7 ends

In 2022, the City Council granted approval to allow exterior building modifications and site improvements; and to allow certain automotive uses. Since then, the property owner and its prospective tenants obtained applicable permits and improvements are currently underway. New prospective tenants include Tesla Inc., 99 Ranch Market, Daiso, Philz Coffee, Marugame Udon, Lucky Strike, Sender One, and Omomo Tea Shoppe.

In April 2023, Mark Janda, representing Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. (“Applicant”) submitted an application for the construction of a new mixed-use development over the southwest area of the existing parking lot (see highlighted area in the image below).

Figure 1. Location Map
Discussion:

The Project site is on an approximately 4.4-acre parcel at 26501 Aliso Creek Road, at the northwest corner of Enterprise and Town Center. The Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking and landscaping to accommodate a mixed-use development that consists of the following:
 Five levels of residential units above the ground floor commercial space o 343 residential units (309 market rate and 34 affordable) o 17,273 square feet commercial space, 1,000 square foot leasing office, and 995 square foot mail room
 Parking structure at the center
o 7 levels above grade and one basement level
7

Page 3 of 7 ends

o Rooftop amenity space for residents (clubhouse, patio seating, fitness area, pool/spa).

The Project will provide approximately 50,188 square feet of common open space for its residents, provided as outdoor courtyards on the ground floor, 6th floor, and the 8th floor rooftop.

Project Design
The proposed building will measure 89 feet high to the top of the parapet wall. The exterior will feature a stucco finish combined with composite siding. Decorative elements will include awnings, balconies with a variety of railing styles, and perforated metal panels.

The ground floor non-residential spaces will have a glass storefront. The project will maintain a minimum setback of 15 feet and an average setback of 20 feet from Enterprise.

For specific massing and scale purposes, provided below are conceptual renderings of the proposed project. Additional renderings are included as Attachment 1.

Figure 2. Conceptual Rendering as viewed from Enterprise and Town Center Figure 3. South Elevation (Enterprise side)
8

Page 4 of 7 ends

General Plan and Zoning Compliance
The General Plan Land Use Element identifies the Commons shopping center as 1 of 5 sites in the City with the Community Benefit Overlay (“CBO”) area. CBO areas were established to allow alternative future development plans. The Land Use Element further states that development consistent with the Land Plan or a less intensive alternative can be allowed with an amended development agreement (“DA”). Accordingly in 2005, the City Council adopted The Commons Specific Plan (“SP”) for the Commons shopping center and executed a DA that established an alternative future development, including development standards. It should be noted that the 2005 DA has since expired.

Table 1 below compares the development standards and the project specifics of the General Plan Land Plan, SP, 2005 DA, and the Project.

Table 1: Project Specifics
General Plan Land Plan Specific Plan/2005 DA Project
300 dwelling units 140 dwelling units 343 dwelling units 400,000 SF non-residential 396,570 SF non-residential 253,904 SF non-residential Building Height Max (Residential) Building Height Max (Residential) 68’-89’ (Enterprise Side)
135’ (East Side)
80’ (Enterprise Side)
140’ (East Side)
Number of Stories Number of Stories
11 8 (including rooftop amenity area)
Parking (Residential) Parking (Residential)1
1 space/studio

1.2 space/1 bedroom
2 space/2 or more bedroom

0.25 space/unit for guests
2 spaces/unit

0.25 spaces/unit for guests
Parking (Non-Residential)
840 1,013
Setbacks Setbacks
15’ min./20’ avg.(Enterprise) 15’ min./20’ avg. (Enterprise) 20’ (North) 15’ (North)
10’ (East/West) 10’ (East/West)
As shown in the table above, the Project with 343 dwelling units and 253,904 square feet of non-residential is no more intensive than the General Plan Land Plan of 300 dwelling units and 400,000 non-residential for the Project Site. Additionally, the development specifics of the 2005 DA is similar to the Project.

1 Parking ratio complies with Aliso Viejo Municipal Code, Table 15.38.030: Residential Parking Requirements.
9

Page 5 of 7 ends

Traffic Analysis
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two existing driveways: Town Center via Enterprise to the southeast and Aliso Creek Road to the east. As part of the Traffic Analysis prepared by LLG (Attachment 2), a driveway queuing analysis was prepared for the Project. The analysis indicates that the spillover queue on Town Center at Enterprise can be accommodated within the transition area of the turn pocket or onsite without affecting public roadways).

The Traffic Analysis was reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that adequate storage space for vehicle queuing is provided at Enterprise and Town Center and based on their review, the Applicant would be required to implement mitigation measures. The first mitigation measure requires the Applicant to restripe the eastbound left turn pocket at Town Center and Enterprise to provide additional storage space to accommodate the queue. The length of the turn pocket would be determined in consultation with and require the approval of the City’s Public Works Department. The second mitigation measure would require the Applicant to either provide the required upgrades to the traffic signal to provide a westbound right turn overlap at Town Center and Enterprise or provide payment to the City to install the improvements. With implementation of these two mitigation measures, traffic impacts resulting from the Project would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Parking Analysis
The Project would provide 590 parking spaces for residents and guests distributed across the seven-story parking garage (basement level B1 through seven). The proposed parking count of 590 spaces complies with the following Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Table

15.38.030: Residential Parking Requirements. In addition to vehicle parking spaces, a bicycle room within the subterranean garage will provide storage for 50 bicycles.

Table 2: Parking
Residential Parking Requirements Project
1 space / studio 1 space x 48 units = 48

1.2 space / 1 bedroom 1.2 space x 168 units = 202
2 spaces / 2 or more bedrooms 2 spaces x 127 units = 254

0.25 / unit for guests 0.25 x 343 = 86
Total = 590
Parking for the ground-level commercial spaces will be accommodated by the existing parking lot, shared with current tenants of the shopping center. A parking study submitted by the Applicant concluded that sufficient parking will be available on-site based on shared parking peak hour assessments (Attachment 3). The parking study evaluated the Project’s retail parking needs in combination with all existing and future uses in The Commons from a shared parking perspective. The shared parking analysis, which used data from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Methodology, was conducted to 10

Page 6 of 7 ends

determine whether the 784 unreserved spaces (excludes 225 parking spaces for Tesla) in The Commons parking lot would be sufficient to accommodate existing and proposed parking demands. The parking analysis shows that the Project’s parking supply provision of 590 spaces will be adequate in serving the residential component, and that parking needs of customers and employees of the retail components of the Project will be sufficiently accommodated by sharing parking within The Commons’ unreserved supply of 784 spaces (excluding 225 spaces reserved for Tesla and 4 Tesla test drive spaces).

View Analysis
Residents at the Vantis community raised concerns with potential view impacts on their property. In response, Staff reached out to Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG), who prepared visual simulations of the Project (Attachment 4). The visual simulations were prepared from various vantage points adjacent to the Vantis residences at the highest elevations and adjacent open space/trail areas. The visual simulations show that there would be no view impacts caused by the Project based on the existing elevations. Long-range views of existing developed hillsides, SR-73, the Santa Ana mountains, and skyline would continue to be preserved.

Development Agreement
The Project includes a Development Agreement (“DA”) that would provide assurance to the property owner that it can implement the Project and continue its operation and that the conditions imposed by the City will not change after the approval of the Project. In exchange, the Applicant has agreed to support the City and community by directly funding City services with a cash payment of $2,806,559.60 over two installments; and establish a 30-Year Community Facilities District (the “CFD”), providing an initial amount of $236,878.45 that grows 3.0% annually.

Public Comments
Since the Project application was submitted, Staff received numerous emails from interested parties (Attachment 5). Some correspondents supported the Project while others raised concerns, primarily about potential view, parking, and traffic impacts. Some of these topics are discussed above. All public comments will be addressed and included as part of a future Staff Report.

Environmental Analysis
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) was prepared pursuant to Section 15063 and 15070 of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines to address the potential environmental effects of the project (Attachment 6). The purpose of an IS/MND is to identify effects on the environment of a Project and to indicate the manner in which those effects can be mitigated. The City as the lead agency consulted with the City’s CEQA consultant, DeNovo Planning Group to prepare the IS/MND in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Aliso Viejo Local CEQA 11

Page 7 of 7 ends

Guidelines. Based on information contained in the IS/MND, the City has concluded the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The MND is based on the finding that, through compliance with Mitigations Measures and Conditions of Approval, the Project’s potential for significant adverse impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with respect to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems as areas that may have potential impacts. Additionally, the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) reviewed the proposed project and concluded that based on initial assessment, there does not appear to be any significant concerns related to fire department requirements (Attachment 7). The Draft IS/MND is currently under a 30-day public comment review period which began on August 26, 2024 and will run through September 25, 2024. Project plans and other Project information are made available for public review at City Hall and on the City’s website during this review period.

Next Steps:

Following receipt and evaluation of comments from agencies, organizations, and/or interested individuals, the City will determine whether any substantial new environmental issues have been raised, and if further documentation may be required. If no new environmental issues have been raised or if the issues raised do not provide substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment, the IS/MND will be considered for adoption and the Project for approval at a future City Council hearing. A separate notice will be published prior to the future hearing.

Public Notice:

Through the normal agenda posting process.

Attachments:

1. Project Plans

2. Traffic Study

3. Parking Study

4. View Simulations

5. Public Comments

6. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

7. Orange County Fire Authority Letter

8. Power Point Presentation
12 AVB COMMONS

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
13 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
PROJECT SUMMARY G-1.1

PROJECT TEAM
DEVELOPER:

ARCHITECT:

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

CIVIL ENGINEER:

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is situated on a 4.4 acre parcel at The Aliso Viejo Commons retail center in the city of Aliso Viejo with views to the surrounding mountains and Wood Canyon Wilderness Park. The parcel is uniquely situated against Enterprise Drive, fronts the retail center parking, and is adjacent to existing retail that is currently proposing an updated appearance. Our mixed use building is a 6-story, 343 unit residential apartment building composed of Studios, 1, 2 & 3 bedroom units with approximately 17,273 s.f. of ground floor retail/dining. Multiple courtyards front onto Enterprise Drive providing the residents with outdoor amenities and common open space at the ground level. The main vehicular entry to our project is located off the main entry to the retail center. The Leasing building is adjacent to the retail portion of our project and provides a walk able urban street for tenants and guests alike.

The project has a parking structure in the center with a recreation space on top that includes a Clubhouse, Fitness/Wellness center, meeting rooms and workspaces all surrounding a pool/ spa deck. The rooftop amenity provides additional open space for residents and will afford unobstructed views to the hillsides in the distance.

The overall elevation character is designed to be complimentary to the proposed renovations of the retail center creating an overall comprehensive architectural expression. Both the existing retail and the new residential will be defined by horizontal lines, colors and architectural materials that establish a visual connection linking both buildings together, while still maintaining individual building character. The residential apartments will, through its architectural expression, provide uninterrupted views to the surrounding terrain and mountains beyond, forming a harmonious relationship between home and nature.

VICINITY MAP
INDEX
GENERAL:

ARCHITECTURE:

CIVIL:

LANDSCAPE:

ELECTRICAL:

PROJECT DATA

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* Units Unit Mix Net Rent.

Studio:

S1 612 48 14.0% 29,376
1 Bedroom:

A1 685 96 28.0% 65,760
A2 758 72 21.0% 54,576
168 49.0%
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,160 93 27.1% 107,880
B2 1,347 26 7.6% 35,022
119 34.7%
3 Bedrooms:

C1 1,446 8 2.3% 11,568
TOTAL 887 343 304,182
* Square footage is taken from centerline of parti walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

PARKING SUMMARY

PROVIDED BICYCLE PARKING
Level Stalls
Basement 1 50 Total Units with a balcony 295
Total Units without a balcony 48
(only studio units do not have a balcony)
Balcony size range +/-40 SF to +/-140

RESIDENTIAL UNIT BALCONIES
(unit deck size varies based on the location of the unit and elevation design)

PROVIDED PARKING - RESIDENT
LEVEL HC HC VAN Standard Compact EV Capable HC EV Ready HC VAN EV Ready EV Ready HC EVCS HC VAN EVCS EVCS Installed Total per floor Basement 1 46 13 36 95
Level 1 6 7 13
Level 2 8 8 20 36
Level 3 31 16 2 20 1 6 76
Level 4 2 31 16 20 1 6 76
Level 5 2 31 16 20 1 6 76
Level 6 2 1 29 16 1 21 5 75
Level 7 1 26 8 22 57
TOTAL 7 1 194 99 51 2 1 123 0 3 23 504

10.0%

PROVIDED PARKING - GUEST
LEVEL HC HC VAN Standard Compact EV Capable HC EV Ready HC VAN EV Ready EV Ready HC EVCS HC VAN EVCS EVCS Installed Total per floor Level 1 2 20 7 9 1 9 0 1 3 52
Level 2 1 13 7 1 11 1 34
TOTAL 2 1 33 14 9 1 1 20 0 1 4 86
% 10.0%
TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 590

25.0% 5.0%

25.0% 5.0%
2 0'-
1 "

BREEZEWAY
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
6%

MECHANICAL
LOBBY

PASSAGEWAY
10'-0"
10'-0"
24'-0"
6%

LEASING
1,000 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
TRASH
RETAIL

8.5%

UTILITY

UTILITY
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT
MPOE
RETAIL
2,847 SF
PARCEL
(DBL VOLUME)
SHAFT
(DBL VOLUME)

EXIT PASSAGEWAY
16'-

0.0 DN
UP
UP
+3.0
+3.0
LOBBY
T
Y
P.
7'-0"
6'-0" TYP.
7'-0"

PASSAGEWAY
T
Y
P.
7'-0"

LOADING
(DBL VOLUME)
+3.0

0.0 UP 0.
+3.0

0.0 0.0
DN
GATE
SHAFT
13 RESIDENT
STALLS
52 GUEST /

LEASING
STALLS
B2 B1 A1
A1
A2
A1
A1
C1
A2 A1
A1
B2
S1
A1
A1
A2
A1
A1
A2 A2
A1
A1
S1 S1
A1
A1
A2
6'-6"
18'-0"
TYP.
24'-0"
TYP.
18'-0"
TYP.

TYP.
9'-0"
MAIL
995 SF

AMENITY
1,385 SF
RETAIL
2,035 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
RETAIL
1,500 SF
RETAIL
2,155 SF
RETAIL
1,515 SF
RETAIL
2,169 SF
RETAIL
1,013 SF
(DBL VOLUME) (DBL VOLUME) (DBL VOLUME) (DBL VOLUME)

0.0 AWNING AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNIN
G
AWNING
AWNING
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)
5 3'-4"
52'-8"
6 8'-8"
6 8'-8"
6'-6"
TYP.
9'-0"
T
Y
P.
18'-0"
T
Y
P.
16'-0"
TYP.
9'-0"
4 HYBRID LEASING /
GUEST
STALLS
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 5'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0"
16'-0"
18'-0"
*CITY OF ALISO VIEJO MUNICIPAL CODE 15.38.070 F.1

COMPACT STANDARD / EV HC / HC EV HC VAN / HC VAN EV
18'-0"18'-0"

PARKING STALL LEGEND
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
2050 Main Street, #1200
Irvine, CA 92614
Contact: Mark Janda
TCA Architects
18821 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
Contact: Paul Anderson
C2 Collaborative
100 Avenida Miramar
San Clemente, CA 92672
Contact: Jack Haden
TAIT & Associates, Inc.
701 N. Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Contact: David Sloan
Salas o`Brien
8825 Research Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
Contact: Victor Becerra
P: 949.955.6223
[email protected]
P: 949.862.0270
P: 949.862.0289
www.tca-arch.com
[email protected]
P: 949.366.6624
www.c2collaborative.com
[email protected]
P: 714.560.8643
[email protected]
P: 949.753.1553
P: 949.356.6170
[email protected]
G-1.1
G-1.2
G-1.3
G-1.4
G-1.5
G-1.6
G-1.7
A-1.1
A-1.2
A-1.3
A-1.4
A-1.5
A-1.6
A-1.7
A-1.8
A-1.9
A-2.1
A-2.2
A-2.3
A-2.4
A-2.5
A-3.1
A-3.2
A-3.3
A-4.1
A-4.2
A-4.3
A-4.4
A-4.5
A-4.6
A-5.1
A-5.2
A-5.3
A-5.4
A-5.5
A-5.6
L-1
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
L-6
L-7
L-8
L-9
L-10
L-11
L-12
L-13
L-14
E1.1
E1.4
E1.6
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10

PROJECT SUMMARY

SITE CONTEXT DIAGRAM

SITE PHOTOS

DESIGN APPROACH

EXISTING OVERALL SITE PLAN

PROPOSED OVERALL SITE PLAN

GROUND FLOOR BUILDING PLAN
2ND FLOOR BUILDING PLAN

TYPICAL FLOOR BUILDING PLAN
6TH FLOOR BUILDING PLAN
7TH FLOOR BUILDING PLAN
8TH FLOOR BUILDING PLAN

BASEMENT BUILDING PLAN

BUILDING SECTION A

BUILDING SECTION B
BUILDING ELEVATIONS: NORTH
BUILDING ELEVATIONS: EAST
BUILDING ELEVATIONS: SOUTH
BUILDING ELEVATIONS: WEST

BUILDING MATERIALS & COLORS

BUILDING UNIT PLANS

BUILDING PERSPECTIVE

BUILDING PERSPECTIVE / PHOTO MONTAGE

BUILDING PERSPECTIVE FROM ENTERPRISE

BUILDING PERSPECTIVES FROM ENTERPRISE

COVER SHEET

LANDSCAPE DESIGN PRINCIPLES

LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE COMPOSITE PLAN
LEVEL 1 RETAIL
LEVEL 1 COURTYARD A & B
LEVEL 1 COURTYARD C
LEVEL 6 ROOF DECKS
LEVEL 8 ROOFTOP POOL CLUB

IRRIGATION MASTER PLAN

SITE LIGHTING PLAN

SITE LIGHTING SPECS
LEVEL 8 ROOFTOP POOL CLUB RENDERS

OVERALL CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN

PLANTING PALETTE

SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
LEVEL 6 - ROOF DECK PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
LEVEL 8TH - PHOTOMETRIC PLAN

TITLE SHEET

PROFORMA ALTA

CONCEPTUAL IMPACT PLAN

CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN

CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN

CONCEPTUAL WQMP PLAN

RETAINING WALL & OPEN SPACE EXHIBITS

CONCEPTUAL EARTHWORK EXHIBIT
SITE
PROJECT ADDRESS:
26501 Aliso Creek Road, City of Aliso VIejo
PROPOSED DENSITY:
~78 DWELLINGS PER ACRE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:

TYPE I/III A SPRINKLERED, NFPA-13 (RESIDENTIAL)
TYPE IA SPRINKLERED, NFPA-13 (PARKING GARAGE)
BUILDING CODE:

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO

MUNICIPAL CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA

BUILDING CODE
LOT AREA:
~193,000 SF. (~4.4 AC)
ZONING:

EXISTING:

THE COMMONS SPECIFIC
PLAN (SP-2)
PROPOSED: RESIDENTIAL
HIGH DENSITY (SP2 - RH)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:

PARCEL: 629-101-16
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION:

R-2 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
S-2 GARAGE

B LEASING OFFICE, ROOF DECK
A-3 FITNESS & ENTERTAINMENT CENTER,

CLUB ROOM
SETBACKS:

PERMITED
ENTERPRISE:
20’ AVERAGE, 15’ MINIMUM
NORTH: 20’
EAST / WEST: 10’
PROPOSED:

ENTERPRISE:
20’ AVERAGE, 15’ MINIMUM
NORTH: 15’
EAST / WEST: 10’
14 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
SITE CONTEXT DIAGRAM G-1.2

HILL / PARK VIEWS

MOUNTAIN VIEWS

MOUNTAIN VIEWS
TESLA
99 RANCH
MARKET

ENTERPRISE

TOWN CENTER
REGAL

EDWARDS
FUSION

ACADEMY
VANTIS

APARTMENTS

CITY LIGHTS
TOWN CENTER AP.

GRAND
PARK

ALISO VIEJO

TOWN CENTER

OAK ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL

DON JUAN MIDDLE

SCHOOL THE POINTE

APARTMENTS

SUMMIT OFFICE
CAMPUS

BARCELONA RESORT

APARTMENTS

ALISO VIEJO

COMMUNITY PARK

ALISO VIEJO
RANCH

SPRINGDALE
PARK

WOODFIELD
PARK
ST. MORTIZ RESORT

APARTMENTS

ALISO VIEJO

DOG PARK

MARSH & MCLENNAN
AGENCY

ACORN PARK

TRADER JOES
CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 73

ALISO VIEJO PKWY

ALISO CREEK RD
CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTE 73
15 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
SITE PHOTOS G-1.3
1 2
3 4
5 ENTERPRISE
SITE

ALISO CREEK RD
1 - ALONG SOUTHBOUND ENTERPRISE
4 - EXISTING PARKING LOT LOOKING WEST
2 - ALONG SOUTHBOUND ENTERPRISE
5 - EXISTING PARKING LOT LOOKING SOUTH
3 - ENTERPRISE & TOWN CENTER INTERSECTION

KEY MAP
16 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
DIAGRAMS G-1.4

DESIGN APPROACH

PROJECT IS SITUATED WITH COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST, SOUTH, EAST AND WITH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH. ALISO & WOOD CANYONS WILDERNESS PARK ARE LOCATED FURTHER DOWN TO THE WEST.

BUILDING SHAPE RESPONDS TO SLOPED SITE CONDITION.

OPEN COURTYARDS ARE POSITIONED TO BREAK THE MASS ALONG THE ENTERPRISE AND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SOLAR ORIENTATION TO THE WEST. COURTYARDS AT THE NORTH ARE CONNECTED VIA BREEZEWAY AND AMENITY SPACE PROVIDING TENANTS WITH QUIET COMMON SPACE.

ROOF DECKS FACING THE ENTERPRISE HELP TO REDUCE BUILDING MASSING AND PROVIDE VIEWS TO THE HILLSIDE. LARGE POOL AMENITY DECK CREATES OPPORTUNITY FOR TENANTS TO ENJOY VIEWS TO THE SURROUNDING PARKS AND MOUNTAIN RANGES IN THE HORIZON.

ADJACENCIES

INTERNAL OPEN SPACE ELEVATED OPEN SPACE

SITE CONDITION

TOWN CENTERTOWN CENTER

TOWN CENTER

ENTERPRISEENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE
17 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
DIAGRAMS G-1.5

DESIGN APPROACH

BUILDING MASS DESIGN DETAILS

MATERIALITY & EXPERIENCE SOLUTION

THE BUILDING PROVIDES A CONNECTION TO THE SURROUNDING SMALLER SCALE RETAIL BUILDINGS AND ALLOWS THE FORMATION OF A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEDESTRIAN LEVEL THROUGH ITS BROKEN DOWN FORM.

ANGLED DIFFERENT SIZED BALCONIES & EXPOSED FLOOR SLAB EDGES ENCOMPASSING THE BUILDING UNIQUELY CONNECT THE STRUCTURE TO SPECIFIC SITE CONDITIONS AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.

ANGLED BALCONIES AND SLABS CREATE DIFFERENT PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCES FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW ON SITE. MATERIALS AND A WARM/EARTHY COLOR PALETTE CONNECT THE PROJECT TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS AND SURROUNDING VEGETATION.

THE BUILDING RESPONDS TO ITS SURROUNDINGS AND EMINATES UNIQUE CHARACTER.

TOWN CENTER

ENTERPRISE

TOWN CENTER

ENTERPRISE ENTERPRISE

TOWN CENTER

ENTERPRISE
18 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 40’ 80’ 200’ OVERALL SITE PLAN G-1.6

EXISTING
186,678 SF 186,581 SF
182,704 SF
3,877 SF
186,581 SF
3,112 SF
47,366 SF 47,366 SF
2,471 SF
STALLS
225
4 213

REQUIRED PROVIDED
1046 1013
21 27
6 8
1 4
230,070 SF
Approved interior building area including
utility and circ. Areas
Exterior Loading Area
Existing Perimeter Buildings
New Exterior Tenant Dining Areas
Total Leasable Building Area w/o Ext.

Dining, Ext. Loading & Int.

Utility/Corridor Areas
234,044 SF

ENTIRE SITE PARKING SUMMARY
Total Existing Retail Parking 1313
2 OVERALL RETAIL SITE PARKING BREAKDOWN
83 ADA Parking Spaces

EXISTING RETAIL SITE PARKING
Total Existing Parking 1313
Total Overall Parking Provided 1013
82 OVERALL RETAIL SITE PARKING SUMMARY

REQUIRED OVERALL RETAIL SITE PARKING
Perimeter Bldgs.

Total Required Parking 230,070 SF @ 1/220 = 1,046 Stalls 5% of new additional stalls provided (21) per
2019 CGBSC - Section 5.106.4.1.1
NOTES
Per table 11B-208.2 20+ 1/100 of 1013 Stalls
Designated Clean Air / Vanpool / EV Stalls
Van Accessible Spaces
6% of total provided stalls per 2019 CGBSC -
Section 5.106.5.3
1013
Long Term bike parking
Total Lost Parking Stalls (Residential
Parcel) 300
5% of (assumed 20% of 21) = 5% of 4.2 = 1
Overall Parking Spaces
79 Tesla Lot
One Van Accessible Stall / 6 ADA Stalls
8% of total provided stalls per 2019 CGBSC -
Section 5.106.5.2
Total Required Retail / Casual Dininig
Parking 1046
Current and Future EV charging spaces
(not including Tesla EV) 61
Short term bike parking within 200' of the
visitors entrance
16 Overall Total Provided Retail Parking

BUILDING AREAS EXISTING (SF) NEW (SF)
Approved interior leasable area w/o
utility & circulation area
Approved interior utility / storage &
corridor areas

OVERALL RETAIL SITE AREA SUMMARY
Total Residential Parking Provided
(Parking Structure) 590
Former Lowe`s
Parking provided (excluding perimeter
Bldgs., Tesla Lot, and Tesla Test Drive)
Tesla Test Drive
571
19 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 40’ 80’ 200’ OVERALL SITE PLAN G-1.7

PROPOSED

NO PARKING
124
.31'
136
.66'

83.31'

95.67'
17 4. 8'
68 .03'

61.33'

39.52' 86.62'
134.63'
107.67'
134.62'

86.63'

36.98'

90.17'

91.17'

28.58' 19.83' 46.42'

80.99'
30 7. 9'

21.21'

28.58' 20.92' 35.90'

43.22'

98.50'

81.25'

28.50'
80 .50'

90.81' A SPH T
T
3'- 77/8" 5'- 0" 4'- 0" 3'- 0"
23'-11" 15'-634/ " 18'-0 /14"
13'-4" 17'-5" 6'-4" 12'-6" 24'-0" 11'-4" 24'-0" 30'-1" 29'-4" 94'-0" 244'-0"
240'-0"
303'-0"
332'-0"
40'-10" 18'-0" 69'-0"
5'-2" 44'-0" 60'-0" 45'-6" 12'-3" 12'-0" 8'-10" 9'-10" 30'-0" 13'-8" 26'-0" 11'-8" 3'-612/ " 22'-6
1/4
" 4'-0"13'-4"4'-0" 5'-4" 14'-0"
565'-4"
127'-10"
99'-6"
164'-5" 120'-0" 280'-11"
14'-9"
19'-212/ " 11'-7"
2'-0"
14'-4"
70'-4"
79'-4"
ROOMF.R.

ROOMPANEL

STORE(E) MICHAELS
490 SFFIRE RISER ROOM
53,621 SF(TESLA)TENANT 1
1,231 SFPATIO
437 SFPATIO
628 SFPATIO
612 SFPATIO
186,244 SFOVERALL BUILDING AREA
739 SFELEC ROOM
290 SFBIKE STR.

PER STRUCTURALABOVE, ADJUST SIZECOLUMN FOR PANEL
DOOR- 99 RANCH14' WIDE DURAGLIDE
(12'-3" WIDE)PERFORATED PANELFULL HEIGHT+15' ABOVEPERFORATED PANEL(12'-3" WIDE)PERFORATED PANELFULL HEIGHT +11'-11" B.O .B (E) T.S . 6X10 ABOVE
+11'-11" B.O .B (E) T.S . 4X10 ABOVE
+11'-11" B.O .B (E) T.S . 4X10 ABOVE
+11'-11" B.O .B (E) T.S . 4X10 ABOVE
DO O RHOU SING FOR 12' TALL+ 14'-7.5" TOP OF
11'-8"B.O . NEW SOFFIT AT

SO FFITHO U SIN G ABO VE

A-FRAME
YAB
HSA
W
E
LB
U
O
D

ADD WASHBAY DRAIN
46,821 SF(99 RANCH)MARKETTENANT 3
38,493 SFRETAIL(BOWLERO)TENANT 2
8,498 SFRETAIL(DAISO)TENANT 9
3,157 SFF&BTENANT 8
3,272 SFF&BTENANT 7
2,118 SFF&BTENANT 6
1,698 SFRETAILTENANT 5
23,904 SF

ASSEMBLY
TENANT 4
2,010 SFRETAILTENANT 10
T
CART
CORRAL
5'X29'
CART
CORRAL

7.5'X14'
CART
CORRAL
5'X29'
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S U
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S S
S
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
S

S CONC CONC CONC P NE ET RPR SI E

ENTERPR SI E

SI L A O
ER
C
KE
DR
.

AH
EAD
AH
EAD
SIGNAL
SIGNAL

S GI NAL

S GI NAL
AHEAD
AHEAD
SIGNAL
SIGNAL
AHEAD
AHEAD
18'-0" 26'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 28'-0" 18'-0"
18'-0" 28'-5" 16'-0" 16'-0" 26'-0" 18'-0" 19'-0" 26'-0" 19'-0" 19'-0" 26'-0" 19'-0" 19'-0" 31'-0" 18 '-0
"
26 '-0
"
2 6
'
-
0 "
3 cubic ya dr s
F&B 3
2,394 SF
20'-0"
20'-0"
31,650 SF
F&B 1
7,530 SF
RETAIL1
2,000 SF
F&B 2
3,400 SF
RETAIL 2
12,300 SF
RETAIL 3
6,420 SF
RETAIL 4
13,322 SF

CLEAN A RI /

VANPOOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN A RI /

VANPOOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE CLEAN A RI / VANPOOL / EV CAPABLE /
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
R
I
A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E

CLEAN A RI /

VANPOOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN A RI /

VANPOOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN A RI /

VANPOOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN A RI /

VANPOOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN A RI /

VANPOOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE
R
E
G
R
A
H
C
V
E
Y
L
N
O
/RI A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
CV
E
/
RI AN
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/
RI AN
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
CV
E

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

EV CHARGER
ON LY

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(
/
RI AN
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/RI A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
CV
E
/RI A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
CV
E
/
RI AN
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/RI A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
CV
E
/RI A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
CV
E
) R
E
G
R
A
H
C
2 L
(
R
E
G
R
A
H
CV
E
Y
L
N
O
) R
E
G
R
A
H
C
2 L
(
R
E
G
R
A
H
CV
E
Y
L
N
O
) R
E
G
R
A
H
C
2 L
(
R
E
G
R
A
H
CV
E
Y
L
N
O
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(
) R
E
G
R
A
H
C
2 L
(
(L2 CHARGER) (L2 CHARGER)

EV CHARGER
ON LY
(L3 CHARGER) (FUTURE L2) (FUTURE L2) (FUTURE L2) (FUTURE L2) (FUTURE L2) (FUTURE L2) (FUTURE L3) (FUTURE L3)

EV CHARGER
ON LY
/RI A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
CV
E
/RI A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE

CLEAN AIR /

VAN POOL /

EV CAPABLE
(FUTURE L2) (FUTURE L2) / RI A NAELC / LOOPNAV ELBAPAC VE ) 2L ERUTUF( / RI A NAELC / LOOPNAV ELBAPAC VE /RI A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
C
V
E
/RI A
N
A
E
L
C
/
L
O
O
P
N
AV
E
L
B
A
P
A
CV
E
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(
)
2 L
E
R
U
T
U
F
(

EV CHARGER
ON LY
(L3 CHARGER)

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL / EV
NO

PARK I NG
NO

PARK I NG
N O

P A R K I N G
N O

P A R K I N G
V A N

A C C E S S I B L E
N O

P A R K I N G
N O

P A R K I N G

T E S T

D R I V E

T E S T

D R I V E

T E S T

D R I V E

T E S T

D R I V E

NOPARK I NG
18'-0" 12'-0" 18'-0" 26'-0" 18'-0" 19'-0" 26'-0" 19'-0" 19'-0" 19'-0" 19'-0" 31'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 26'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0"
26'-0"
18'-0"
28'-0"
26'-0"
16'-0"
18'-0"18'-0"
18'-0"
18'-0"18'-0"
18'-0"
18'-0"
18'-0"
18'-0"
28'-0"
29'-2"
28'-0"
18'-0" 18'-0" 26'-0"
18'-01/2"
18'-0" 18'-0" 26'-0" 18'-0"
1 8'
-0"
28'-0"
28'-0"
26 35
35 14
24 25
23 5
29 22
22 19
18 7
23 8
7 11
9 5
11 VAN

ACCESSIBLE
VAN

ACCESSIBLE

EVC EVC EVC EVC
37 31
39 37
39 38
225STALLSFORPRIVATETENANTUSE
22TANDEMPARKINGSTALLS
6 2
106
8 2
29 19
17 107
54 5
6 7
13 5
14 12
8 36
37 34
26 14
35 37
81 238
132
187
225
146+4
STOP
STOP

E N T E R P RI S E

LC ENTERPRISE
CREEK
ROAD
CL
ALISO
2"-4" D
S
20'-1"

BREEZEWAY
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
6%

MECHANICAL
LOBBY
T
T
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
Average
20'
Minimum
15'
15'-0"
20'-0"
16'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
T
T
24'-0"
6%

LEASING
1,000 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
TRASH
RETAIL

8.5%

UTILITY

UTILITY
ELEC.

EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
EVELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT
MPOE
RETAIL
2,847 SF
PARCEL
(DBLVOLUME)
SHAFT
(DBLVOLUME)

EXIT PASSAGEWAY
16'-0"

0.0 DN
UP
UP
+3.0
+3.0
LOBBY
TYP.
7'-0"
6'-0"
TYP.
7'-0"
TYP.
7'-0"
TYP.
7'-0"
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
TYP.
7'-0"

LOADING
(DBLVOLUME)
+3.0

0.0 UP

0.0 +3.0

0.0 0.0
DN
GATE
SHAFT
13RESIDENT
STALLS
52GUEST
STALLS
B2
B1
A1
A1
A2A
1 A1
C1
A2
A1
A1
B2
B2
S1
A1
A1
A2
A1
A1
A2
A2A2
A2
A1
A1
A2
S1A2A2A2S1
A1
A1
A2
S1S1
A1
A1
A2
A2
B1
A2
6'-6"
TYP.
18'-0"
TYP.
24'-0"
TYP.
18'-0"
TYP.
9'-0"
MAIL
995 SF

AMENITY
1,385 SF
RETAIL
2,035 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
RETAIL
1,500 SF
RETAIL
2,155 SF
RETAIL
1,515 SF
RETAIL
2,169 SF
RETAIL
1,013 SF
(DBLVOLUME)(DBLVOLUME)(DBLVOLUME)(DBLVOLUME)

0.0 AWNINGAWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
(DBLVOLUME)
(DBLVOLUME)
(DBLVOLUME)
53'-4"
52'-8"
36'-0"
68'-8"68'-8"
53'-4"
48'-4"
6'-6"
TYP.
9'-0"
T
Y
P
.
9 '
-
0 "
TYP.
9'-0"

ARCHITECTS

THISSETOFCONSTRUCTION

DOCUMENTSHASBEEN

PREPAREDFORTHE

CONSTRUCTIONOFAN
APARTMENTPROJECT.

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
ThisdocumentisthepropertyofTCAArchitects,Inc.
©2019AnyuseofthisdocumentwithoutTCA
authorizationisstrictlyforbidden.

DRAWING CONTENTS

ISSUEDATE

ISSUEDAS
SCALE

JOBNUMBER
LOSANGELES|IRVINE|OAKLAND
1"=50'-0"
A-1.11
Proposed OVerall SIte
0000-000

BASEDONREVIT
2020
11-05-2021

TCA REVIT TEMPLATE
[OWNER INFORMATION]
[PROJECT ADDRESS]

REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE

FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING SUMMARY PLEASE REFER TO
SHEET A-1.1

FOR DETAILED RESIDENTIAL PARKING SUMMARY PLEASE
REFER TO SHEET G-1.1, TABLE “PROVIDED PARKING -
RESIDENT”
186,678 SF 186,581 SF
182,704 SF
3,877 SF
186,581 SF
3,112 SF
47,366 SF 47,366 SF
2,471 SF
STALLS
2254
213

REQUIRED PROVIDED
1046 1013
21 27 6 8 1 4
230,070 SF
Approved interior building area including
utility and circ. Areas
Exterior Loading Area
Existing Perimeter Buildings
New Exterior Tenant Dining Areas
Total Leasable Building Area w/o Ext.

Dining, Ext. Loading & Int.

Utility/Corridor Areas
234,044 SF

ENTIRE SITE PARKING SUMMARY
Total Existing Retail Parking 1313 2

OVERALL RETAIL SITE PARKING BREAKDOWN
83 ADA Parking Spaces

EXISTING RETAIL SITE PARKING
Total Existing Parking 1313
Total Overall Parking Provided 1013
82 OVERALL RETAIL SITE PARKING SUMMARY

REQUIRED OVERALL RETAIL SITE PARKING
Perimeter Bldgs.

BUILDING AREAS EXISTING (SF) NEW (SF)
Approved interior leasable area w/o
utility & circulation area
Approved interior utility / storage &
corridor areas

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ BUILDING PLAN A-1.1

GROUND FLOOR

SUMMARY
6 STORY WRAP
TYPE I / III - 6 LEVEL RESIDENTIAL
TYPE I - 8 LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE
(7 AT GRADE / 1 SUB-T)
SITE: ~ 4.4 AC
TOTAL UNITS: 343 DU
DENSITY: 78 DU/AC
RESIDENTIAL: +/- 590 STALLS @1.7 RATIO

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* Units Unit Mix Net Rent.

Studio:

S1 612 48 14.0% 29,376
1 Bedroom:

A1 685 96 28.0% 65,760
A2 758 72 21.0% 54,576
168 49.0%
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,160 93 27.1% 107,880
B2 1,347 26 7.6% 35,022
119 34.7%
3 Bedrooms:

C1 1,4468 2.3% 11,568
TOTAL 887 343 304,182
* Square footage is taken from centerline of parti walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

PARKING SUMMARY

REQUIRED PARKING
Unit Type # Units Ratio Total
Studio 48 1.0 48
1-Bedroom 168 1.2 201.6
2-Bedrooms 119 2.0 238
3-Bedrooms8 2.0 16
343 504
Guest 343 0.25 86
Leasing 1,000 SF 1:250 SF4
TOTAL REQUIRED 673
Retail / Casual
Dining
17,273 1:220 SF 79
REQUIRED PARKING:
590 STALLS @ 1.7 STALL/DU + 79 RETAIL / DINING STALLS
PROVIDED PARKING: 590 STALLS @ 1.7 STALL/DU
(113 COMPACT STALLS @19% / 23 TANDEM STALLS / 4 LEASING STALLS)

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT.

ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE
21 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ BUILDING PLAN A-1.2
2ND FLOOR

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* Units Unit Mix Net Rent.

Studio:

S1 612 48 14.0% 29,376
1 Bedroom:

A1 685 96 28.0% 65,760
A2 758 72 21.0% 54,576
168 49.0%
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,160 93 27.1% 107,880
B2 1,347 26 7.6% 35,022
119 34.7%
3 Bedrooms:

C1 1,4468 2.3% 11,568
TOTAL 887 343 304,182
* Square footage is taken from centerline of parti walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

PARKING SUMMARY

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT.

ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE
22 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ BUILDING PLAN A-1.3

TYPICAL FLOOR

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* Units Unit Mix Net Rent.

Studio:

S1 612 48 14.0% 29,376
1 Bedroom:

A1 685 96 28.0% 65,760
A2 758 72 21.0% 54,576
168 49.0%
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,160 93 27.1% 107,880
B2 1,347 26 7.6% 35,022
119 34.7%
3 Bedrooms:

C1 1,4468 2.3% 11,568
TOTAL 887 343 304,182
* Square footage is taken from centerline of parti walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

PARKING SUMMARY

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT.

ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE
23 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ BUILDING PLAN A-1.4
6TH FLOOR

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* Units Unit Mix Net Rent.

Studio:

S1 612 48 14.0% 29,376
1 Bedroom:

A1 685 96 28.0% 65,760
A2 758 72 21.0% 54,576
168 49.0%
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,160 93 27.1% 107,880
B2 1,347 26 7.6% 35,022
119 34.7%
3 Bedrooms:

C1 1,4468 2.3% 11,568
TOTAL 887 343 304,182
* Square footage is taken from centerline of parti walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

PARKING SUMMARY

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT.

ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE
24 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ BUILDING PLAN A-1.5
7TH FLOOR PARKING / RESIDENTIAL ROOF

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* Units Unit Mix Net Rent.

Studio:

S1 612 48 14.0% 29,376
1 Bedroom:

A1 685 96 28.0% 65,760
A2 758 72 21.0% 54,576
168 49.0%
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,160 93 27.1% 107,880
B2 1,347 26 7.6% 35,022
119 34.7%
3 Bedrooms:

C1 1,446 8 2.3% 11,568
TOTAL 887 343 304,182
* Square footage is taken from centerline of parti walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

PARKING SUMMARY

REQUIRED PARKING
Unit Type # Units Ratio Total
Studio 48 1.0 48
1-Bedroom 168 1.2 201.6
2-Bedrooms 119 2.0 238
3-Bedrooms 8 2.0 16
343 504
Guest 343 0.25 86
Leasing 1,000 SF 1:250 SF 4
TOTAL REQUIRED 673
Retail / Casual
Dining
17,273 1:220 SF 79
REQUIRED PARKING:
590 STALLS @ 1.7 STALL/DU + 79 RETAIL / DINING STALLS
PROVIDED PARKING: 590 STALLS @ 1.7 STALL/DU
(113 COMPACT STALLS @19% / 23 TANDEM STALLS / 4 LEASING STALLS)

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT.

BUILDING GROSS AREA SUMMARY
Residential 304,182 SF
Basement 38,865 SF
Garage (1-7 levels) 233,749 SF
Amenity / Mail 7,651 SF
Circulation / Utility 76,717 SF
Retail 17,273 SF
Private Open Space 19,697 SF
Roof / Amenity Deck 28,437 SF
Leasing 1,000 SF
TOTAL: 727,571 SF
INDICATED SOLAR ROOF AREA IS CONCEPTUAL AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROJECT. FINAL SOLAR DESIGN WILL BE DETERMINED BY SOLAR CONSULTANT AT A LATER PROJECT STAGE.

ENTERPRISE

POTENTIAL SOLAR

ZONE LOCATIONS

POTENTIAL SOLAR

ZONE LOCATIONS
25 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ BUILDING PLAN A-1.6
8TH FLOOR

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* Units Unit Mix Net Rent.

Studio:

S1 612 48 14.0% 29,376
1 Bedroom:

A1 685 96 28.0% 65,760
A2 758 72 21.0% 54,576
168 49.0%
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,160 93 27.1% 107,880
B2 1,347 26 7.6% 35,022
119 34.7%
3 Bedrooms:

C1 1,4468 2.3% 11,568
TOTAL 887 343 304,182
* Square footage is taken from centerline of parti walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

PARKING SUMMARY

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT.

SUMMARY

ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE
26 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’ BUILDING PLAN A-1.7

BASEMENT FLOOR

UNIT SUMMARY
Average Total # Total
UNIT TYPE SF* Units Unit Mix Net Rent.

Studio:

S1 612 48 14.0% 29,376
1 Bedroom:

A1 685 96 28.0% 65,760
A2 758 72 21.0% 54,576
168 49.0%
2 Bedrooms:

B1 1,160 93 27.1% 107,880
B2 1,347 26 7.6% 35,022
119 34.7%
3 Bedrooms:

C1 1,446 8 2.3% 11,568
TOTAL 887 343 304,182
* Square footage is taken from centerline of parti walls and outside of exterior walls, excluding all decks and balconies.

PARKING SUMMARY

REQUIRED PARKING
Unit Type # Units Ratio Total
Studio 48 1.0 48
1-Bedroom 168 1.2 201.6
2-Bedrooms 119 2.0 238
3-Bedrooms 8 2.0 16
343 504
Guest 343 0.25 86
Leasing 1,000 SF 1:250 SF 4
TOTAL REQUIRED 673
Retail / Casual
Dining
17,273 1:220 SF 79
REQUIRED PARKING:
590 STALLS @ 1.7 STALL/DU + 79 RETAIL / DINING STALLS
PROVIDED PARKING: 590 STALLS @ 1.7 STALL/DU
(113 COMPACT STALLS @19% / 23 TANDEM STALLS / 4 LEASING STALLS)

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT.

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ BUILDING SECTION A-1.8

SECTION A

ENTERPRISE
UNITS
BEYOND

UNITS UNITS UNITS
ENTRY

ROOF TOP AMENITY

ROOF EQUIPMENT ROOF EQUIPMENT

PARKING
PL
+/- 351’ +/- 351’ +/- 351’
+/- 354’ +/- 354’
+/- 375’

RETAINING WALL
(FOR ACTUAL HEIGHT OF THE WALL REFER

TO CIVIL / GEOTECHNICAL DRAWINGS)
1ST LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 3’-0” (+/- 354’-0”)
3RD LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 23’-2” (+/- 374’-2”)
4TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 33’-3” (+/- 384’-3”)
5TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 43’-4” (+/- 394’-4”)
6TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 53’-5” (+/- 404’-5”)

TOP OF PARAPET (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 68’-0” (+/- 419’-0”)

TOP OF ROOF (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 73’-6” (+/- 424’-6”)

TOP OF PARAPET (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 77’-0” (+/- 428’-0”)

TOP OF PARAPET (AMENITY)
ELEV. +/- 89’-0” (+/- 440’-0”)
2ND LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 13’-1” (+/- 364’-1”)
A
A

ENTERPRISE

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT.
28 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 20’ 40’ 80’ BUILDING SECTION A-1.9

SECTION B
UNITS

BEYOND UNITS UNITS
RETAIL

ROOF TOP AMENITY

PARKING
PLPL
+/- 351’ +/- 351’
+/- 354’ +/- 354’
UP
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
1ST LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 3’-0” (+/- 354’-0”)
3RD LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 23’-2” (+/- 374’-2”)
4TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 33’-3” (+/- 384’-3”)
5TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 43’-4” (+/- 394’-4”)
6TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 53’-5” (+/- 404’-5”)

TOP OF PARAPET (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 68’-0” (+/- 419’-0”)

TOP OF ROOF (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 73’-6” (+/- 424’-6”)

TOP OF PARAPET (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 77’-0” (+/- 428’-0”)

TOP OF PARAPET (AMENITY)
ELEV. +/- 89’-0” (+/- 440’-0”)
2ND LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 13’-1” (+/- 364’-1”)

ROOF EQUIPMENT ROOF EQUIPMENT
B B

ENTERPRISE

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT.
29 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 16’ 32’ 64’ BUILDING ELEVATIONS A-2.1
NORTH
1ST LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 3'-0" (+/- 354'-0")
2ND LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 13'-1" (+/- 364'-1")
3RD LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 23'-2" (+/- 374'-2")
4TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 33'-3" (+/- 384'-3")
5TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 43'-4" (+/- 394'-4")
6TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 53'-5" (+/- 404'-5")

TOP OF PARAPET (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 68'-0" (+/- 419'-0")

TOP OF ROOF (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 73'-6" (+/- 424'-6")

TOP OF PARAPET (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 77'-0" (+/- 428'-0")

TOP OF PARAPET(AMENITY)
ELEV. +/- 89'-0" (+/- 440'-0")
10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 14'-7"
89'-0"
5'-6" 3'-6" 12'-0" 3'-0"
RETAIL TRASH LOADING UNIT A2
NORTH
RETAIL PASS UNIT B1 STAIR ELECTRICAL
UNIT B2 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT S1 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT S1 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT A2 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT B2 (ABOVE) AW RR ST CS-1 W S-1 GR CS-2 S-2 S-1 RR W S-2 CS-1 S-1 GR S-2 W GR CS-1 PR S-2 W S-1 RR N
NORTH

ENTERPRISE
LEGEND
S
CS
PR
RR
GR
STUCCO

COMPOSITE SIDING

PICKET RAILING

PERFORATED METAL PANEL RAILING

GLASS RAILING
ST
W
AW

STOREFRONT

VINYL WINDOW
AWNING
INDICATED SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL. FORMAT / SIZE / LOCATION SUBJECTED TO CHANGE AS THE PROJECT DEVELOPS.

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT. 30 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 16’ 32’ 64’ BUILDING ELEVATIONS A-2.2
SOUTH
1ST LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 3'-0" (+/- 354'-0")
2ND LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 13'-1" (+/- 364'-1")
3RD LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 23'-2" (+/- 374'-2")
4TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 33'-3" (+/- 384'-3")
5TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 43'-4" (+/- 394'-4")
6TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 53'-5" (+/- 404'-5")

TOP OF PARAPET (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 68'-0" (+/- 419'-0")

TOP OF ROOF (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 73'-6" (+/- 424'-6")

TOP OF PARAPET (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 77'-0" (+/- 428'-0")

TOP OF PARAPET(AMENITY)
10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 14'-7"
86'-0"
5'-6" 3'-6" 12'-0" 3'-0"
ELEV. +/- 89'-0" (+/- 440'-0")
UNIT A2 UNIT A2 UNIT A2 COR.

SOUTH
STAIR UNIT B2 UNIT C1 COURTYARD UNIT B2
ROOF DECK (ABOVE) UNIT C1 (ABOVE)
ELECTRICAL UNIT A1 UNIT A1 RETAIL
UNIT B2 (ABOVE) ROOF DECK (ABOVE)
S-2 GR CS-1 S-1 RR CS-1 S-2 AW PR CS-1 W AW GR S-2 GR AW W RR S-1 CS-1 PR AW RR GR S-2 GR S-1 CS-2 AW CS-1 W ST RR GRADE
N
LEGEND
S
CS
PR
RR
GR
STUCCO

COMPOSITE SIDING

PICKET RAILING

PERFORATED METAL PANEL RAILING

GLASS RAILING
ST
W
AW

STOREFRONT

VINYL WINDOW
AWNING
SOUTH

ENTERPRISE
INDICATED SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL. FORMAT / SIZE / LOCATION SUBJECTED TO CHANGE AS THE PROJECT DEVELOPS.

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT. 31 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 16’ 32’ 64’ BUILDING ELEVATIONS A-2.3
WEST
1ST LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 3'-0" (+/- 354'-0")
2ND LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 13'-1" (+/- 364'-1")
3RD LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 23'-2" (+/- 374'-2")
4TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 33'-3" (+/- 384'-3")
5TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 43'-4" (+/- 394'-4")
6TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 53'-5" (+/- 404'-5")

TOP OF PARAPET (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 68'-0" (+/- 419'-0")

TOP OF ROOF (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 73'-6" (+/- 424'-6")

TOP OF PARAPET (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 77'-0" (+/- 428'-0")

TOP OF PARAPET(AMENITY)
10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 14'-7"
89'-0"
5'-6" 3'-6" 12'-0" 3'-0"
ELEV. +/- 89'-0" (+/- 440'-0")
WEST
UNIT B2 UNIT S1

ROOF DECK (ABOVE)
UNIT A2 UNIT A2 UNIT A2 COURTYARD UNIT B2 STAIR UNIT B2 UNIT A1
PASS UNIT A1 UNIT A2 UNIT A2 UNIT S1 STAIR UNIT A2 UNIT C1 UNIT B2 RR CS-1 S-1 S-2 CS-1 RR W S-1 CS-1 GR PR CS-1 S-2 RR S-3 RR W CS-1 S-2 CS-1 AW GR S-1 S-2 AW RR GR S-2 AW W CS-1 S-2 AW GR N

ENTERPRISE
LEGEND
S
CS
PR
RR
GR
STUCCO

COMPOSITE SIDING

PICKET RAILING

PERFORATED METAL PANEL RAILING

GLASS RAILING
ST
W
AW

STOREFRONT

VINYL WINDOW
AWNING
WEST
INDICATED SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL. FORMAT / SIZE / LOCATION SUBJECTED TO CHANGE AS THE PROJECT DEVELOPS.

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT. 32 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 16’ 32’ 64’ BUILDING ELEVATIONS A-2.4
EAST
1ST LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 3'-0" (+/- 354'-0")
2ND LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 13'-1" (+/- 364'-1")
3RD LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 23'-2" (+/- 374'-2")
4TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 33'-3" (+/- 384'-3")
5TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 43'-4" (+/- 394'-4")
6TH LEVEL (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 53'-5" (+/- 404'-5")

TOP OF PARAPET (RESIDENTIAL)
ELEV. +/- 68'-0" (+/- 419'-0")

TOP OF ROOF (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 73'-6" (+/- 424'-6")

TOP OF PARAPET (PARKING)
ELEV. +/- 77'-0" (+/- 428'-0")

TOP OF PARAPET(AMENITY)
10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 14'-7"
89'-0"
5'-6" 3'-6" 12'-0" 3'-0"
ELEV. +/- 89'-0" (+/- 440'-0")

MAIL DRIVEWAY
EAST
RETAIL
UNIT C1 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE)

AMENITY LEASING
UNIT A2 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT S1 (ABOVE) UNIT S1 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) RETAIL
UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT A2 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT B1 (ABOVE) UNIT B2 (ABOVE) RR CS-2 GR CS-1 AW ST S-2 W GR ST RR S-2 W RR CS-1 S-1 GR CS-1 W ST S-1 CS-2 RR GR S-2 W CS-2 S-1 ST RR N
EAST

ENTERPRISE
LEGEND
S
CS
PR
RR
GR
STUCCO

COMPOSITE SIDING

PICKET RAILING

PERFORATED METAL PANEL RAILING

GLASS RAILING
ST
W
AW

STOREFRONT

VINYL WINDOW
AWNING
INDICATED SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL. FORMAT / SIZE / LOCATION SUBJECTED TO CHANGE AS THE PROJECT DEVELOPS.

ALL ROOF-MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED FROM HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT. 33 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING MATERIALS & COLORS A-2.5

MATERIALS & COLORS
S-1
CS-1 CS-2
S-3 PR GR
S-2 RR

ST W AW
STUCCO

COMPOSITIVE SIDING COMPOSITIVE SIDING

STUCCO PICKET RAILING GLASS RAILING

STUCCO PERFORATED METAL PANEL RAILING

STOREFRONT VINYL WINDOW AWNING
MANUFACTURER: OMEGA (OR SIMILAR)
COLOR: SW 7004 SNOWBOUND
MANUFACTURER: NICHIHA (OR SIMILAR)
COLOR: VINTAGEWOOD-SPRUCE (OR SIMILAR)
MANUFACTURER: NORTWOOD (OR SIMILAR)
COLOR: NORWAY TEAK / COLOR MATCH
(OR SIMILAR)
MANUFACTURER: OMEGA (OR SIMILAR)
COLOR: SW 6144 DAPPER TAN
MANUFACTURER: TBD
COLOR: SW 7069 IRON ORE
MANUFACTURER: TBD
COLOR: SW 7069 IRON ORE (HANDRAIL)
MANUFACTURER: BOK MODERN (OR SIMILAR)
COLOR: SW 6144 DAPPER TAN
MANUFACTURER: OMEGA (OR SIMILAR)
COLOR: SW 7674 PEPPERCORN
MANUFACTURER: VPI QUALITY WINDOWS (OR SIMILAR)
COLOR: SW 7674 PEPPERCORN
MANUFACTURER: TBD
COLOR: SW 7069 IRON ORE
MANUFACTURER: ARCADIA (OR SIMILAR)
COLOR: SW 7674 PEPPERCORN OR
STANDARD DARK BRONZE AB-7 COLORS ARE BASED OF SW - SHERWIN WILLIAMS

MATERIALS & COLORS CAN CHANGE AS DESIGN EVOLVES
34 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ BUILDING UNIT PLANS A-3.1
STUDIO & 1 BEDROOM
KING
30" x 48" 36" x 48"
54" x 44"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48" 30" x 48" 30" x 48"
54" x 44"
34'-0"
S1
18'-0"
1" AIR GAP 17'-10" (TO FRAMING, TYP.) 1" AIR GAP 14'-6" 17'-3"

LIVING / BEDROOM
17'-3" x 14'-6"
W/D

KITCHEN
WIC
TOTAL 48 DU
ENTRY

SLIDER FIXED

BATHROOM
KING
54" x 44"
54" x 42"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
54" x 60"
54" x 42"
30" x 48"
36" x 48"
30" x 48"30" x 48"
KING
54" x 44"
36" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48" 30" x 48"
54" x 42"
54" x 60"
54" x 44"
30" x 48"
A1
33'-2"
A2
9'-6"

KITCHEN
12'-6"
11'-10"

BEDROOM
12'-6" x 11'-10"

LIVING ROOM
12'-0" x 11'-4"

BATHROOM
ENTRY
12'-0"
11'-4"
WIC

AIR GAP
1"
(TO FRAMING, TYP.)
33'-0"

AIR GAP
1"
25'-0"
SLIDER
SLIDER

PRIVATE DECK
W/D
L
TOTAL 96 DU
33'-2"
(TO FRAMING, TYP.)
23'-10"

AIR GAP
1"
W/D
34'-0"
11'-1 1/2"
11'-10"
16'-6"

BEDROOM
11'-1" x 11'-4"

LIVING ROOM
11'-10" x 16'-6"

KITCHEN / DINING

BATHROOM
ENTRY
A2
SLIDER
SLIDER

PRIVATE DECK
TOTAL 72 DU
WIC
24'-0"
KING
54" x 44"
54" x 42"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
54" x 60"
54" x 42"
30" x 48"
36" x 48"
30" x 48"30" x 48"
KING
54" x 44"
36" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48" 30" x 48"
54" x 42"
54" x 60"
54" x 44"
30" x 48"
A1
33'-2"
A2
9'-6"

KITCHEN
12'-6"
11'-10"

BEDROOM
12'-6" x 11'-10"

LIVING ROOM
12'-0" x 11'-4"

BATHROOM
ENTRY
12'-0"
11'-4"
WIC

AIR GAP
1"
(TO FRAMING, TYP.)
33'-0"

AIR GAP
1"
25'-0"
SLIDER
SLIDER

PRIVATE DECK
W/D
L
TOTAL 96 DU
33'-2"

AIR GAP
1"
(TO FRAMING, TYP.)
23'-10"

AIR GAP
1"
W/D
34'-0"
11'-1 1/2"
11'-10"
16'-6"

BEDROOM
11'-1" x 11'-4"

LIVING ROOM
11'-10" x 16'-6"

KITCHEN / DINING

BATHROOM
ENTRY
A2
SLIDER
SLIDER

PRIVATE DECK
TOTAL 72 DU
11'-4"
WIC
24'-0"
LOBBY
LOBBY
EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT

UTILITY

MECHANICAL
76 RESIDENT
STALLS
TYP.
7'-0"
6'-0" TYP.
7'-0"
TYP.
7'-0"
TYP.
7'-0"
TYP.
7'-0"
6'-6"
6'-6"
6'-6"
B2 B1 A1
A1
B1
A1
A1 C1
A2
A1
B2
B2
S1
A1
A1 B1 A1
A1
B1
A2 A2
B1
A1
A1
A2
S1 A2 A2 A2 S1 A1
A1
A2
S1 S1 A1
A1
B1
A2
B1
B1
A2 B1 S1 S1
B1
B2
A2
S1
S1
B1
B1
B2 C1 B1 B1 B1 A2 18'-0" TYP. 24'-0" TYP. 18'-0" TYP.

TYP.
9'-0"
6% 6% DN
UP
B1
B1 B1 B1 B1
A1
N
TCA REVIT TEMPLATE 0' 10' 40' 20'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-05-2021
[OWNER INFORMATION]
TCA# 0000-000
S1
A1
A2
LEGEND
35 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ BUILDING UNIT PLANS A-3.2
2 BEDROOM

CAL KING
KING
36" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
54" x 44"
36" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48" 30" x 48"
54" x 42"
54" x 44"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
54" x 42"
54" x 60"
KING
QUEEN
54" x 44"
54" x 60"
54" x 44"
54" x 44"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
36" x 48"
54" x 44"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
36" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
54" x 44"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"

AIR GAP
1"

LIVING ROOM
11'-10" x 16'-6"

BEDROOM
11'-8" x 16'-6"

BATHROOM

AIR GAP
1"
(TO FRAMING, TYP.)
35'-10"
W/D
11'-1 1/2"
11'-10"
16'-6"

BEDROOM
11'-1" x 11'-6"

KITCHEN

BATHROOM
ENTRY
34'-0"
11'-8 1/2"
16'-6"
L
B1

PRIVATE DECK
SLIDER
TOTAL 93 DU
SLIDER
11'-6"
SLIDER
SLIDER
36'-0"

BEDROOM
13'-0" x 11'-6"

BEDROOM
14'-0" x 12'-2"
ENTRY
SLIDER
SLIDER
B2
W/D
36'-0"

AIR GAP
1"

TO FRAMING
38'-11"
SLIDER

BATHROOM
14'-0 1/2"
WIC
L

LIVING / DINING
ROOM
14'-7" x 17'-7"

KITCHEN

BATHROOM
13'-0"
11'-6"
TOTAL 26 DU

PRIVATE DECK
SLIDER
CL
1'-9"
12'-2"
SLIDER
17'-7 1/2"
14'-7 1/2"
39'-0"
LOBBY
LOBBY
EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT

UTILITY

TYP.
9'-0"
6% 6% DN
UP
B1
B1 B1 B1 B1
A1
N
TCA REVIT TEMPLATE 0' 10' 40' 20'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-05-2021
[OWNER INFORMATION]
TCA# 0000-000
B1
B2
LEGEND
36 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
0’ 4’ 8’ 16’ BUILDING UNIT PLANS A-3.3
3 BEDROOM
LOBBY
LOBBY
EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT

UTILITY

TYP.
9'-0"
6% 6% DN
UP
B1
B1 B1 B1 B1
A1
N
TCA REVIT TEMPLATE 0' 10' 40' 20'
[PROJECT ADDRESS] 11-05-2021
[OWNER INFORMATION]
TCA# 0000-000
QUEEN
QUEEN

CAL KING
54" x 44"
30" x 48"
54" x 44"
36" x 48" 30" x 48"
54" x 44" 36" x 48"
54" x 44" 54" x 44"
54" x 44"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
30" x 48"
54" x 44"
TOTAL 8 DU
ENTRY

BEDROOM
11'-2" x 11'-6"

BATHROOM
W/D
C1

AIR GAP
1"
(TO FRAMING, TYP.)
43'-11"
34'-0"
WIC
L
11'-2"
11'-6"

BATHROOM
L
10'-6"
14'-0"

BEDROOM
10'-6" x 14'-0"

BEDROOM
14'-2" x 11'-6"
14'-2"

PRIVATE DECK

KITCHEN

SLIDER SLIDER
11'-6" 16'-3 1/2"
10'-0"

SLIDER SLIDER SLIDER
44'-0"
C1
LEGEND
37 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-4.1

ENTERPRISE & TOWN CENTER INTERSECTION

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 38 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-4.2

ENTERPRISE & TOWN CENTER INTERSECTION

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 39 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-4.3

RETAIL VIEW FROM PARKING LOT

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 40 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-4.4

RETAIL VIEW FROM PARKING LOT

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 41 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-4.5

RETAIL VIEW FROM PARKING LOT

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 42 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE / PHOTO MONTAGE A-4.6
VIEW FROM GAZEBO AT NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF BEACON WAY & BROWNSTONE WAY

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 43 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-5.1

VIEW DRIVING DOWN SOUTHBOUND ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
1 ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 44 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-5.2

VIEW DRIVING DOWN SOUTHBOUND ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
2 ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 45 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-5.3

VIEW DRIVING DOWN SOUTHBOUND ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
3 ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 46 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-5.4

VIEW DRIVING DOWN SOUTHBOUND ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
4 ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 47 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-5.5

VIEW DRIVING DOWN SOUTHBOUND ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
5 ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 48 AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MARCH 19, 2024
BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A-5.6

VIEWS DRIVING DOWN SOUTHBOUND ENTERPRISE

ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK RD
1 2
3 4
5 VIEW 1
VIEW 4 VIEW 5
VIEW 2 VIEW 3
ALL INDICATED BUILDING SIGNS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. 49 STOP MECHANICAL LOBBY LEASING 1,000 SF RETAIL 2,020 SF TRASH UTILITY UTILITY ELEC. EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT MPOE RETAIL 2,847 SF
SHAFT
LOBBY LOADING SHAFT B2 B1 A1 A1 A2A1 A1 C1 A2 A1 A1 B2 B2 S1 A1 A1 A2 A1 A1 A2A2 A2A2 A1 A1 A2 S1 A2 A2 A2 S1 A1 A1 A2 S1 S1 A1 A1 A2A2 B1A2 MAIL 995 SF AMENITY 1,385 SF RETAIL 2,035 SF RETAIL 2,020 SF RETAIL 1,500 SF RETAIL 2,155 SF RETAIL 1,515 SF RETAIL 2,169 SF RETAIL 1,013 SF

ENTERPRISE
℄
N
DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE Know what's below Call before you dig.

R
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TITLE SHEET VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE
N SITE GENERAL NOTES NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR TRENCHING NOTE PROJECT DIRECTORY ABBREVIATIONS BENCHMARK BASIS OF BEARINGS INDEX MAP SCALE: 1"=60' EARTHWORK 73 C-1 50 ENTERPRISE

ALISO CREEK ROAD

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS PARCEL 1 PER TITLE REPORT
CL
LC
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆
∆ 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 0' CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1-FOOT N AREA SUMMARY: 191,706 S.F. ± / 4.40 AC. ± 80' 160'80 40' 320' VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE N SITE SURVEYOR'S NOTES: 1. THIS FINAL SURVEY BEARS AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND STAMP. ANY INTENT TO USE COPIES OF THIS SURVEY ALONG WITH REVISIONS DESCRIBED THEREIN FOR ANY PURPOSE MUST FIRST BE VERIFIED BY TAIT & ASSOCIATES INC. ANY AND ALL COPIES AND/OR VERSIONS OF THE SURVEY NOT BEARING AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND STAMP ARE NOT OFFICIALLY RELEASED VERSIONS OF THIS SURVEY AND ARE NOT VALID FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF TAIT & ASSOCIATES INC. 2. AS OF THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF THIS SURVEY, ALL RECORD UNDERGROUND UTILITY PLANS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENCIES. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE PER THE AGENCIES WHICH HAVE PROVIDED THEIR RECORD PLANS. 3. THE PROPERTY HAS DIRECT ACCESS TO ENTERPRISE AND ALISO CREEK ROAD, BOTH BEING A PUBLICLY DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, WITH NO GAPS OR GORES. 4. THE PROPERTY SURVEYED AND SHOWN HEREON IS THE SAME LAND WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN TITLE COMMITMENT ISSUED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY UNDER FILE NO. NCS-1127160-SF PROFORMA. 5. AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF EARTH MOVING WORK, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND/OR ADDITIONS AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 6. AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY THERE WAS NO PROPOSED CHANGES IN STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINES. 73 PROPERTY LINE (PL) LEGEND:

CL CENTERLINE BOL BOLLARD CENTER LINE (CL) EASEMENT BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARINGS SHOWN HERON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING BETWEEN O.C.S. HORIZONTAL CONTROL STATION GPS NO. 7690 AND STATION GPS NO. 7691R1 BEING NORTH 23°04'55" EAST PER RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR. LICENSE EXPIRES 12/31/2023 MICHAEL FURLONG, PLS 8899 DATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: TO: METRO COURT, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2021 MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYS, JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS, AND INCLUDES ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 6(a), 7(b1), 8, 9, 10, 11(a), 11(b), 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 & 20 OF TABLE A THEREOF. THE FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED ON MAY 14, 2022. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1, 5 AND 6 AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 16838 FILED IN BOOK 894, PAGES 20 THROUGH 24, INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 5, SAID CORNER BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 510.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID CORNER BEARS SOUTH 41°21'20" WEST; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 AND 6 AND SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 64°38'29" A DISTANCE OF 557.38 FEET TO THE END OF A TANGENT CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 NORTH 15°59'49" EAST 89.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 590.00 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°22'03" A DISTANCE OF 209.73 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID CURVE, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 85°37'46" EAST; THENCE LEAVING THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 SOUTH 82°36'12" EAST 166.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 9°11'48" WEST 160.09 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53°36'12" EAST 366.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36°15'27" WEST 282.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 53°36'12" EAST TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID LOT 5; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 SOUTH 36°23'48" WEST 131.87 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.63 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE AND SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°00'39" A DISTANCE OF 94.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, A RADIAL BEARING THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 44°35'31" EAST. NOTE: ABOVE PARCEL 1 IS A PROFORMA LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT TO BE USED FOR INSURANCE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. PARCEL 2: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES AND UTILITIES, AS SAID EASEMENT IS SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT, EASEMENT AND OPERATION AGREEMENT RECORDED JUNE 30, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970306531 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 3: RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS OVER AND ACROSS PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA 04-01, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000835582 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND LOT 2 OF TRACT 14852, RECORDED IN BOOK 704, PAGE 37 TO 39 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF INGRESS, EGRESS AND PARKING AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN "RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT" RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000835583 OF SAID COUNTY AND AS AMENDED. PARCEL 4: EASEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN "EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS" RECORDED ON MAY 31, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005000415474 OF SAID COUNTY AND AS AMENDED. PARCEL 5: NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS AS DISCLOSED BY THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 1993, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 93-0894675 AND AMENDED BY AMENDED AND RESTATED NOTICE OF ANNEXATION TO ALISO VIEJO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (DELEGATE DISTRICT NO. 82) AND NOTICE OF ANNEXATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR PACIFIC PARK TOWN CENTER (PARCEL 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LL 97-024) AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970414311 AND FURTHER AMENDED BY AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS FOR PACIFIC PARK TOWN CENTER RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 2003, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003001511434, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. FOR CONVEYANCING PURPOSES ONLY: A PORTION OF APN 629-101-18, 629-101-19, 629-101-16 AND 629-101-17 TITLE REPORT: TITLE COMPANY: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT NO. : NCS-1127160-SF PROFORMA COMMITMENT DATE: AS OF THE DATE AND TIME OF RECORDING TITLE OFFICER: EMAIL: 28 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 31, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005000415474 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THIS ITEM IS THE SAME AS PARCEL 4 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) DOCUMENT(S) DECLARING MODIFICATIONS THEREOF RECORDED MAY 05, 2008 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2008000212225 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THESE ITEMS ARE BLANKET IN NATURE AND DO AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 29 THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT REGARDING ALLOCATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTIGUOUS LANDOWNERS" RECORDED MAY 31, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005000415475 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THIS ITEM IS BLANKET IN NATURE AND DOES AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 30-32 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 33 RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC IN AND TO THAT PORTION OF THE LAND LYING WITHIN ALISO CREEK ROAD. (THIS ITEM IS BLANKET IN NATURE AND DOES AFFECT A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 34-35 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 36 ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO OR FROM ENTERPRISE, EXCEPT AT STREET INTERSECTIONS AND APPROVED ACCESS LOCATIONS, HAVE BEEN DEDICATED OR RELINQUISHED ON THE FILED MAP OF TRACT NO. 14852 RECORDED IN BOOK 704, PAGES 37 TO 39 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. (THIS ITEM IS BLANKET IN NATURE AND DOES AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 37-38 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 39 AN EASEMENT FOR WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF PACIFIC BELL RECORDED APRIL 4, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95-0141072 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THIS ITEM IS PLOTTED HEREON AND DOES AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 40 AN EASEMENT FOR STREET, HIGHWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF COUNTY OF ORANGE RECORDED OCTOBER 18, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19950461910 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THIS ITEM IS PLOTTED HEREON AND DOES AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 41 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF PACIFIC PARK TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 27, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19960606764 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WAS RE-RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1997 IN/AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970024295 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THESE ITEMS ARE PLOTTED HEREON AND DO AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 42 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 43 AN EASEMENT FOR SEWER, WATER PIPELINES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT RECORDED MARCH 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000235056 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THIS ITEM IS PLOTTED HEREON AND DOES AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 44-46 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. TITLE EXCEPTIONS CONTINUED: DATUM STATEMENT: COORDINATES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83),ZONE VI, NAD 83., (2017.50 EPOCH O.C.S GPS ADJUSTMENT). ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GROUND DISTANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES MULTIPLY GRID DISTANCES BY THE MEAN COMBINATION FACTOR, 0.99995278 FOR THIS PLAN. 2728 INDICATES SHOWN HEREON. NUMBERED ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT. 1-6 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 7a-7c GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES. 8-10 LIEN OF SPECIAL TAX. 11 LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES. 12 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 13 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED APRIL 06, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-118353 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. A DECLARATION OF ANNEXATION RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 93-0894674 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "CERTIFICATE OF CLARIFICATION OF DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR ALISO VIEJO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION" RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 2003 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003001511432 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THESE ITEMS ARE PLOTTED HEREON AND DO NOT AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 14-15 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. TITLE EXCEPTIONS: PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PARCEL LINE 16 APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 16 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 93-0894675 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. DOCUMENT(S) DECLARING MODIFICATIONS THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 26, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97-414311OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THESE ITEMS ARE PLOTTED HEREON AND DO NOT AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) DOCUMENT(S) DECLARING MODIFICATIONS THEREOF RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 2003 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003001511434 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THESE ITEMS ARE THE SAME AS PARCEL 5 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ) (THIS ITEM IS BLANKET IN NATURE AND DOES NOT AFFECT A PORTION PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 17-21 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 22 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF PACIFIC PARK TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 27, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19960606766 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THE LOCATION OF THE EASEMENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM RECORD INFORMATION) 23 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 30, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 96-655963 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.(THIS ITEM IS PLOTTED HEREON AND DOES NOT AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 24 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 25 AN EASEMENT FOR SEWER, WATER PIPELINES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT RECORDED MARCH 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000235057 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THIS ITEM IS PLOTTED HEREON AND DOES AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) 26 INTENTIONALLY DELETED. 27 THE TERMS, PROVISIONS AND EASEMENT(S) CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT" RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000835583 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THIS ITEM IS THE SAME AS PARCEL 3 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) DOCUMENT(S) DECLARING MODIFICATIONS THEREOF RECORDED MAY 31, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005000415473 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. THE EFFECT OF A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "QUITCLAIM DEED", RECORDED SEPTEMBER 03, 2019 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2019000329395 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (THESE ITEMS ARE BLANKET IN NATURE AND DO AFFECT PARCEL 1 OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION) FLOOD ZONE: PER FEMA WEBSITE: ZONE "X": AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. DESCRIPTION: ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS MAP NUMBER: 06059C0428J EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/03/2009 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: COUNTY OF ORANGE: APN: 629-101-18, 629-101-19, 629-101-16 AND 629-101-17 DI DRAINAGE INLET FH FIRE HYDRANT ICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE LP LIGHT POLES SEWER MANHOLE TS TRAFFIC SIGNAL TSPB TRAFFIC SIGNAL PULLBOX TRANS TRANSFORMER VLT VAULT WV WATER VALVE RECYCLED WATER LINE WATER LINE SEWER LINE STORM DRAIN LINE ECAB ELECTRICAL CABINET EVLT ELECTRICAL VAULT SIGN SL STREET LIGHT D STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PARKING SUMMARY: REGULAR: 280 STALLS ZONING: SP-2: THE COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969

NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C-2

PROFORMA ALTA
51 ENTERPRISE
℄
N
DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE Know what's below Call before you dig.

R
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONCEPTUAL IMPACT PLAN C-3
52 TRASH ELEC. LOADING A2 A1 A1 B2 B2 S1 A1 A1 A2 A1 A1 A2A2 A2A2 A1 A1 A2 S1 A2 A2 A2 S1 A1 A1 A2 S1 S1 A1 A1 A2A2 B1A2

ENTERPRISE
℄
A
A FF=354.00 FF=354.00C

C PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION A-A PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION C-C N
DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE Know what's below Call before you dig.

R
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C-5 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C-4
53 MECHANICAL LOBBY LEASING 1,000 SF RETAIL 2,020 SF UTILITY UTILITY EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT MPOE RETAIL 2,847 SF
SHAFT
LOBBY SHAFT B2 B1 A1 A1 A2A1 A1 C1 MAIL 995 SF AMENITY 1,385 SF RETAIL 2,035 SF RETAIL 2,020 SF RETAIL 1,500 SF RETAIL 2,155 SF RETAIL 1,515 SF RETAIL 2,169 SF RETAIL 1,013 SF BB

ENTERPRISE
℄ FF=351.00 FF=354.00 FF=351.00 FF=352.10 FF=351.60 FF=351.20 FF=350.90 PROPOSED BUILDING

N SECTION B-B
DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE Know what's below Call before you dig.

R
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C-4 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C-5
54 TESLA CUSTOMER

PARKING

TESLA CUSTOMER

PARKING

TESLA CUSTOMER

PARKING

TESLA CUSTOMER

PARKING

TESLA CUSTOMER

PARKING

TESLA CUSTOMER

PARKING

TESLA CUSTOMER

PARKING
TESLA CUSTOMER TRASH PARKING ELEC. LOADING A2 A1 A1 B2 B2 S1 A1 A1 A2 A1 A1 A2A2 A2A2 A1 A1 A2 S1 A2 A2 A2 S1 A1 A1 A2 S1 S1 A1 A1 A2A2 B1A2

ENTERPRISE
℄
N
DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE Know what's below Call before you dig.

R
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C-7 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN C-6
55 MECHANICAL LOBBY LEASING 1,000 SF RETAIL 2,020 SF UTILITY UTILITY EV ELEC.

ENTERPRISE
℄
N
DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE Know what's below Call before you dig.

R
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C-6 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN C-7
56 STOP MECHANICAL LOBBY LEASING 1,000 SF RETAIL 2,020 SF TRASH UTILITY UTILITY ELEC. EV ELEC.

ENTERPRISE
℄
N
DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE Know what's below Call before you dig.

R
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONCEPTUAL WQMP PLAN LEGEND C-8
57 DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969

NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
RETAINING WALL & OPEN SPACE EXHIBITS C-9 TYPICAL TIE BACK WALL DETAIL NOTE: SEE GRADING PLAN FOR TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS. 58 STOP MECHANICAL LOBBY LEASING 1,000 SF RETAIL 2,020 SF TRASH UTILITY UTILITY ELEC. EV ELEC.

ENTERPRISE
℄
N
DRAWN: JM
DATE: 3/19/24
CHECKED: RH
DATE: 3/19/24
REVISION #:

DATE:

JOB NO:

AVALON BAY COMMONS

AND ALISO CREEK ROAD
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 SP8969
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ENTERPRISE Know what's below Call before you dig.

R
Santa Ana
San Diego
Sacramento
Riverside
Denver
Boise
Dallas
Atlanta
701 North Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
p: 714.560.8200
www.tait.com
Since 1964

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL BUILDING LAND ASSOCIATES &

FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

FOR REVIEW ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONCEPTUAL EARTHWORK EXHIBIT CUT AND FILL LEGEND C-10 EARTHWORK 59 Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CA

03.19.2024

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE DESIGN
60 03.19.24

ALISO VIEJO
L-2

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
Play
Entertain
The UnCommon

DISCOVER
Connect
Live

LANDSCAPE DESIGN PRINCIPLES
61 LEGEND
Ground Level Courtyards (A,B,C)
Ground Level Retail/Pedestrian Access
6th Floor Roof Decks
8th Floor Rooftop Pool Club
1 1
1 1
3 3
2 2
3 4
4 ENTERPRISE

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-3

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE COMPOSITE PLAN
62 ENTERPRISE
LEGEND
Palm Trees in Tree Grates
Public Enhanced Sidewalk
w/ Cafe Seating
Entry Monument
(Existing to be Referred)
Bike Rack (x5)
Loading Area
1 1
2 2
35 4
4 5
3 2

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-4

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
0 10’ 20’ 40’
LEVEL 1 RETAIL Scale: 1”= 20’-0”
STOP
STOP

BREEZEWAY EXIT PASSAGEWAY
6%

MECHANICAL
LOBBY
T T

EXIT PASSAGEWAY
Average 20'
Minimum 15'
T T
6%
LEASING 1,000 SF
RETAIL 2,020 SF

TRASH RETAIL

8.5%

UTILITY

UTILITY
ELEC.

EXIT PASSAGEWAY
EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT
MPOE
RETAIL 2,847 SF
PARCEL
(DBL VOLUME)
SHAFT
(DBL VOLUME)

EXIT PASSAGEWAY

0.0 DN
UP
UP
+3.0 +3.0
LOBBY

EXIT PASSAGEWAY

LOADING (DBL VOLUME)
+3.0

0.0 UP

0.0 +3.0

0.0 0.0
DN
GATE
SHAFT
13 RESIDENT STALLS
52 GUEST STALLS
B2
B1
A1 A1
A2
A1
A1
C1
A2
A1 A1
B2
B2
S1
A1
A1
A2
A1 A1
A2
A2
A2
A2
A1
A1
A2
A2
S1
A2
A2
S1
A1 A1
A2
S1
S1
A1 A1
A2
A2 B1
A2 MAIL 995 SF AMENITY 1,385 SF
RETAIL 2,035 SF
RETAIL 2,020 SF
RETAIL 1,500 SF
RETAIL 2,155 SF
RETAIL 1,515 SF
RETAIL 2,169 SF
RETAIL 1,013 SF (DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)

0.0 AWNING
AWNING

WNI A NG
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)

KEY MAP ENTERPRISE
63 LEGEND
Pedestrian / Emergency
Access to Enterprise
Shade Structure with
Outdoor Kitchen,Communal bar, and
Media Center
Seat Wall Planter with Focal Tree
Metal Panel Canopy Above Walkway50% Opening
Play Lawn
• Picnic Area
• Active Play
Accent Trees
Lounge Seating
Palm Tree Grove
Dining Terrace
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
5 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
6 03.19.24

ALISO VIEJO
L-5

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
0 5’ 10’ 20’
LEVEL 1 COURTYARD A & B Scale: 1”= 10’-0”
STOP
STOP

BREEZEWAY
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
6%

MECHANICAL
LOBBY
T T
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
Average 20'
Minimum 15'
T T
6%

LEASING
1,000 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
TRASH
RETAIL

8.5%

UTILITY

UTILITY
ELEC.

EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT
MPOE
RETAIL
2,847 SF
PARCEL
(DBL VOLUME)
SHAFT
(DBL VOLUME)

EXIT PASSAGEWAY

0.0 DN
UP
UP
+3.0
+3.0
LOBBY
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY

LOADING
(DBL VOLUME)
+3.0

0.0 UP 0.0
+3.0

0.0 0.0
DN
GATE
SHAFT
13 RESIDENT
STALLS
52 GUEST
STALLS
B2 B1 A1
A1
A2
A1
A1 C1
A2 A1
A1
B2
B2
S1
A1
A1 A2 A1
A1
A2
A2
A2
A2
A1
A1
A2
A2 S1 A2
A2 S1 A1
A1
A2
S1 S1 A1
A1
A2
A2
B1
A2
MAIL
995 SF

AMENITY
1,385 SF
RETAIL
2,035 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
RETAIL
1,500 SF
RETAIL
2,155 SF
RETAIL
1,515 SF
RETAIL
2,169 SF
RETAIL
1,013 SF
(DBL VOLUME) (DBL VOLUME) (DBL VOLUME) (DBL VOLUME)

0.0 AWNING AWNING

WNI A NG
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)

KEY MAP

ENTERPRISE
64 ENTERPRISE
STOP
STOP

BREEZEWAY EXIT PASSAGEWAY
6%

MECHANICAL
LOBBY
T T

EXIT PASSAGEWAY
Average 20'
Minimum 15'
T T
6%
LEASING 1,000 SF
RETAIL 2,020 SF

TRASH RETAIL

8.5%

UTILITY

UTILITY
ELEC.

EXIT PASSAGEWAY
EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT
MPOE
RETAIL 2,847 SF
PARCEL
(DBL VOLUME)
SHAFT
(DBL VOLUME)

EXIT PASSAGEWAY

0.0 DN
UP
UP
+3.0 +3.0
LOBBY

EXIT PASSAGEWAY

LOADING (DBL VOLUME)
+3.0

0.0 UP

0.0 +3.0

0.0 AWNING
AWNING

WNI A NG
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)

KEY MAP ENTERPRISE
LEGEND
Courtyard C Park • Multi-purpose Event Lawn • Seating with Fire Tables • Tree Lined Pathways • Tree Bosque in Gravel • Bench Seating at Perimeter • Shade Structure • Lounge Seating and Media Center
• Cafe Seating Areas
Dog Relief Area (980 SF)
1 1
2 2

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-6

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
0 5’ 10’ 20’
LEVEL 1 COURTYARD C Scale: 1”= 10’-0”
65 LEGEND
STOP
STOP

BREEZEWAY
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
6%

MECHANICAL
LOBBY
T T
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
Average 20'
Minimum 15'
T T
6%

LEASING
1,000 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
TRASH
RETAIL

8.5%

UTILITY

UTILITY
ELEC.

EXIT

PASSAGEWAY
EV ELEC.

SHAFT
SHAFT
MPOE
RETAIL
2,847 SF
PARCEL
(DBL VOLUME)
SHAFT
(DBL VOLUME)

EXIT PASSAGEWAY

0.0 DN
UP
UP
+3.0
+3.0
LOBBY
EXIT

PASSAGEWAY

LOADING
(DBL VOLUME)
+3.0

0.0 UP 0.0
+3.0

0.0 0.0
DN
GATE
SHAFT
13 RESIDENT
STALLS
52 GUEST
STALLS
B2 B1 A1
A1
A2
A1
A1 C1
A2 A1
A1
B2
B2
S1
A1
A1 A2 A1
A1
A2
A2
A2
A2
A1
A1
A2
A2 S1 A2
A2 S1 A1
A1
A2
S1 S1 A1
A1
A2
A2
B1
A2
MAIL
995 SF

AMENITY
1,385 SF
RETAIL
2,035 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
RETAIL
1,500 SF
RETAIL
2,155 SF
RETAIL
1,515 SF
RETAIL
2,169 SF
RETAIL
1,013 SF
(DBL VOLUME) (DBL VOLUME) (DBL VOLUME) (DBL VOLUME)

0.0 AWNING AWNING

WNI A NG
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
AWNING
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)
(DBL VOLUME)

KEY MAP

ENTERPRISE
730 Square Feet
• Communal Seating Area with
Fire Table
799 Square Feet Picnic Area
• Communal Seating Area w/ Fire Table
• Bar Seating w/ Views
1496 Square Feet Soft Seating w/ BBQ’s,
Outdoor Dinning and Social Seating
ADA Ramp
1 1
2 2
3 4
4 4
4 3

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-7

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
0 5’ 10’ 20’
LEVEL 6 ROOF DECKS Scale: 1”= 10’-0”
66 LEGEND
SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT
LOBBY
LOBBY

AMENITY
5,271 SF
4' DEEP 5' DEEP 3' DEEP 6' DEEP 7' DEEP
LANDSCAPE BUFFER (HIGH VEGETATION) + AC EQUIPMENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER (HIGH VEGETATION)

POOL ROOM
PLACE HOLDER.

MOVE AS NEEDED
STOP
STOP
SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT
SHAFT
LOBBY
LOBBY

AMENITY
5,271 SF
4' DEEP 5' DEEP 3' DEEP 6' DEEP 7' DEEP
LANDSCAPE BUFFER (HIGH VEGETATION) + AC EQUIPMENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER (HIGH VEGETATION)

POOL ROOM
PLACE HOLDER.

MOVE AS NEEDED

KEY MAP
Outdoor Fitness Patio
Covered Outdoor Bar w/
Cafe/Picnic Seating & Turf Area
Club Room Patio w/
Seating and Fire Tables
Club Room Patio with Lounge Seating
Palm Tree Rows Define Lounge
Seating Areas
Palm Tree Rows to Frame Pool with
Cabanas
Beach Entry Pool (100’ x 24’)
Spa (8’ x 10’)
Shade Tree with Bench Seating
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 9
9 8

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-8

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
0 5’ 10’ 20’
LEVEL 8 ROOFTOP POOL CLUB Scale: 1”= 10’-0”

ENTERPRISE
67 LEGEND

ENTERPRISE
: LOW WATER USE
: MEDIUM WATER USE
: HIGH WATER USE
: POOL/SPA WATER FEATURE
: ARTIFICIAL TURF

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-9

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

IRRIGATION MASTER PLAN
Hydrozone: Eto: KL LA Sq. Ft. Conversion SLA Sq. Ft. MAWA Landscaped Area- Ground Level 47.8 0.55 31,106 0.62 NA 507,022 MAWA= Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallons per year) Eto= Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C (inches per year)

0.50= Evapotraspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF)

1.0= ETAF for Sprcial Landscaped Area
LA= Landscaped Area includes Special Landscape Area (square feet)

0.62= Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot)

0.3= the additional ET adjustment Factor for Special Landscape Area (1.0- 0.7= 0.3) SLA= Speical Landscape Area (square feet)
Applicant to fill in boxes below:

Eto (Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C inches per year) Landscaped Area includes Special Landscape Area (square feet) Speical Landscape Area (square feet)
Hydrozone: Eto: KL Sq. Ft. Conversion IE EAWU
Low Water Use Shrubs (Drip) 47.8 0.2 19,205 0.62 0.90 126,480 Medium Water Use Shrubs (Drip) 47.8 0.5 6,475 0.62 0.80 119,933 High Water Use (Rotor) 47.8 0.7 - 0.62 0.80 -
Pool/Spa Water Feature 47.8 1.1 2,371 0.62 1.00 77,294
Artifical Turf (Special Water Use) 47.8 0.0 3,055 0.62 1.00 - Total EAWU: 31,106 323,707
EAWU= Estimated Applied Water Use (gallons per year)
Eto= Reference Evapotranspiration from Appendix C (inches per year) KI= Landscape Coefficient
LA= Landscaped Area (square feet)

0.62= Conversion Factor (to gallons per square foot)
IE= Irrigation Efficiency= IME X DU (See definication in Appendix E for exmaplne IE percentages) IME= Irrigation Management Efficiency (90%)
DU= Distribution Uniformity of Irrigation Head
KI= Ks x Kc x Kmc
Ks= species factor (range 10- 09) (see WUCOLS list for values) Project Name: AVB Commons, Aliso Viejo, CA

WATER EFFICIENT WORK SHEET
Total EAWU = (Eto x KL x LA in Sq.ft. / IE)= Gallons per Year

47.8 31,106
3,055
Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)
Estimated Annual Water Use:

Total MAWA = (Eto x 0.50 x LA in Sq.ft. x 0.62)+(Eto x 1.0 x SLA in Sq.ft. x 0.62)= Gallons per year for LA + SLA Date: March 19, 2024
68 SITE LIGHTING PLAN
* Proposed Site Lighting shall meet the requirements for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) per Aliso Viejo Zoning Codes ENTERPRISE

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-10

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
69 SITE LIGHTING SPECS
941L 942L 943L 01/21 page 1 of 3
Ordering guide example: 941L-21L-CW-D-LV-120-F-BZ
Prefix
–
Wattage
–
Color Temp
Generation
–
Wall Type
–
Faceplates
–
Voltage
–
Options
–
Finish
Complete
Luminaires
941L Horizontal1
942LHorizontal
943L Vertical
943L-B25
943L mounted in
25" bollard
943L-B40
943L mounted in
40" bollard
Retrofit Kits1
RK-941L
Horizontal1,2
RK-942L
Horizontal 2
RK-943L Vertical
21L 21W,
intergral
lens array
(350mA)
31L 31W, integral
lens array
(530mA)
CW Cool
White
5700K,
70CRI
NW Neutral
White
4000K,
70CRI
WW Warm
white
3000K,
70CRI
D Drywall
Not suitable for
concrete pour
applications. Also, if
insulating material is
present, it must be
kept at least 3" away
from luminaire. Type
D units are thermally
protected. Non-IC
luminaire.

C Concrete Pour
Suitable for concrete
pour applications
only.

Note: wall type does
not apply to 943L-B25
and 943L-B40. Omit
WALL TYPE for 943LB25 and 943L-B40.

LV Louver
DG1 Diffuse Glass
RGD Ribbed
Guard with
Diffuse
Glass1
120 120V4
277 277V4
UNV 120-277V5
50hz/60hz
F Fusing
(provide
specific input
voltage)
TP Tamper
Resistant
Screws
BZ Textured
bronze
WH Textured white
BK Textured black
DGY Dark grey
OC Optional color
(specify the
RAL designation)
ex: OC-RAL7024
SC Special color
paint
(must supply color
chip to specify)
941L 943L
Note: Omit wall type for 943L-B25 and 943L-B40. Gardco reserves the right to refuse a configuration.

Not all combinations and configurations are valid. Refer to notes below for exclusions and limitations.

For questions or concerns, please consult the factory.

1. 941L and RK-941L are not available with the RGD faceplate.

2. Retrofit kits are available in Wall Type “C” only (Concrete Pour.) Retrofit kits are not available for existing Wall Type “D” (Drywall) luminaires. The step light portion of existing 943BL25 and 943BL40 units may be replaced utilizing RK943L retrofit kits.

3. 941L is not available in 40LA (700mA) LED wattage. Lumen values shown are based on Bronze painted faceplates. Values will vary based on the faceplate color.

4. Wall Type D luminaires only.

5. UNIV means120V through 277V input.

Not available on Wall Type D luminaires.
942L
Project:

Location:

Cat.No:

Type:

Lamps: Qty:

Notes:
94 Line series
941L, 942L & 943L
Landscape
The Gardco LED step and aisle lights 941L, 942L & 943L are architecturally styled luminaires precisely constructed of die cast aluminum, providing light with high performance, long life LED systems. Retrofit kits are also available, making it possible to update installations of classic 941, 942 and 943 Gardco fluorescent and HID step lights to LED without the need to replace the back housing. A field adjustable junction box enhances design flexibility.

Self-compensating silicone gasketing completely excludes moisture, insects and contaminants. A choice of three (3) architecturally designed faceplates allows for a variety of applications. The ribbed guard faceplate offers vandal protection for glass lenses.

Accessories (order seperately, field installed)
941L D HSG/HWK ASSY Back box for 941L drywall application 941L C HSG/HWK ASSY Back box for 941L concrete application 942L D HSG/HWK ASSY Back box for 942L drywall application 942L C HSG/HWK ASSY Back box for 9412 concrete application 943L D HSG/HWK ASSY Back box for 943L drywall application 943L C HSG/HWK ASSY Back box for 943L concrete application Pathway Light (or equal)
Parking Lot Light (or equal)
Street Light (or equal)
Medium-sized wall wash light in 1 or 3 LED.

Available in brass construction. RGBW
capable with Luxor® ZDC systems.

Quick Facts
■ Brass construction
■ Natural or antique brass
finishes
■ Cree® integrated LEDs
■ ProAim™ adjustability
■ Tamper-resistant features
■ Color temperature filters
■ Compatible with Luxor
technology
■ Phase and PWM dimmable
■ Input voltage: 10-15V

2.2" (56 mm)

6.7" (170 mm)
30º
PB Up Light DESIGNER PLUS

PROJECT
CATALOG #
TYPE
NOTES

LANDSCAPE LIGHTING
LED Up Lights
Flood Light (or equal)
Tree Uplight (or equal)
LANDSCAPE LIGHTING A Hunter Industries Companypany
LED Down Lights
The JB is FX Luminaire's original LED down light.

Long-life LEDs make the JB a great choice for tight
areas with difficult access. Four lens colors provide
design flexibility for special lighting effects.

JB: Down Light
NUMBER OF LEDS: 1 3 ZDC
HALOGEN LUMEN OUTPUT EQUIVALENT: 10 Watt 20 Watt 10 Watt USEFUL LED LIFE (L70): 50,000 hrs avg 50,000 hrs avg 50,000 hrs avg INPUT VOLTAGE: 10 to 15V 10 to 15V 11 to 15V
VA TOTAL*: 2.4 4.5 7.2
WATTS USED: 2.0 4.2 6.0
LUMENS PER WATT (EFFICACY): 23.9 30 39
TOTAL LUMENS: 50 127 130
CRI (Ra): 69 67 82
CCT:

AMBER FILTER 2700K 2700K N/A
FROSTED FILTER 3900K 3900K N/A
GREEN FILTER 4500K 4500K N/A
BLUE FILTER 5200K 5200K N/A

8.9"/ 22.6 cm

2.4" /5.9 cm
*(Use this number to size the transformer)
Shade Structure Down Light (or equal)
Recessed Step Light (or equal)
* Proposed Site Lighting shall meet the requirements for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) per Aliso Viejo Zoning Codes

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-11

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
70 03.19.24

ALISO VIEJO
L-12

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
LEVEL 8 ROOFTOP POOL CLUB RENDERS
71 ENTERPRISE

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS
TREE SCHEDULE:

SHRUB SCHEDULE:

GROUNDCOVER SCHEDULE:

Arbutus ‘Marina’
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Feijoa sellowiana
Koelreuteria paniculata
Ulmus parvifolia
Parkinsonia x Desert Museum
Phoenix dactylifera
Pinus canariensis
Prunus caroliniana
Quercus virginiana
Syagrus romanzoffiana
Strawberry Tree
Toyon
Pineapple Guava
Golden Rain Tree
Chinese Evergreen Elm
Desert Museum Palo Verde
Date Palm
Canary Island Pine
Carolina Cherry Laurel
Southern Live Oak
Queen Palm
36” Box
15 Gal
24” Box
24” Box
24” Box
24” Box
15’-20’ BTH
24” Box
24” Box
48” Box
12’-15’ BTH
L
VL
L
L
M
VL
L
L
M
M
M
Agave attenuata
Anigozanthos “Red”
Dietes bicolor
Festuca mairei
Festuca ovina “Glauca”
Hesperaloe parviflora
Myrtus communis “Compacta”
Photinia fraseri
Rhaphiolepis indica
Rhaphiolepis ‘Majestic Beauty’
Rosa floribunda “Iceberg”
Rosa “Flower Carpet”
Xylosma congestum
Agave
Kangaroo Paw
Fortnight Lily
Atlas Fescue
Blue Rescue
Red Yucca
Myrtle
Photinia
Indian Hawthorn ‘Clara’
‘Majestic Beauty’ Indian Hawthorn
Iceberg Rose
Flower Carpet Rose
Shiny xylosum
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
15 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
L
M
L
L
L
VL
L
M
L
M
M
M
L
Baccharis pilularis
Bougainvillea “Oo La La”
Lantana camara
Myoporum parvifolium
Rosmarinus officinalis ‘Prostrate’
Senecio mandralisae
Dwarf Coyote Brush
Oo La La Bougainvillea
Lantana
Creeping Myoporum
Prostrate Rosemary
Blue Chalk Sticks
1 gal
1 gal
1 gal
1 gal
1 gal
1 gal
L
L
L
L
L
L

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-13

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040

OVERALL CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN
72 PLANTING PALETTE

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS
TREE SCHEDULE:

SHRUB SCHEDULE:

Agave attenuata
Anigozanthos “Red”
Dietes bicolor
Festuca mairei
Festuca ovina “Glauca”
Hesperaloe parviflora
Myrtus communis “Compacta”
Photinia fraseri
Rhaphiolepis indica
Rhaphiolepis ‘Majestic Beauty’
Rosa floribunda “Iceberg”
Rosa “Flower Carpet”
Xylosma congestum
Agave
Kangaroo Paw
Fortnight Lily
Atlas Fescue
Blue Rescue
Red Yucca
Myrtle
Photinia
Indian Hawthorn ‘Clara’
‘Majestic Beauty’ Indian Hawthorn
Iceberg Rose
Flower Carpet Rose
Shiny xylosum
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
15 gal
5 gal
5 gal
5 gal
LMLLL

VLLMLMMML
GROUNDCOVER SCHEDULE:

Baccharis pilularis
Bougainvillea “Oo La La”
Lantana camara
Myoporum parvifolium
Rosmarinus officinalis ‘Prostrate’
Senecio mandralisae
Dwarf Coyote Brush
Oo La La Bougainvillea
Lantana
Creeping Myoporum
Prostrate Rosemary
Blue Chalk Sticks
1 gal
1 gal
1 gal
1 gal
1 gal
1 gal
LLLLLL
Arbutus ‘Marina’
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Feijoa sellowiana
Koelreuteria paniculata
Parkinsonia x Desert Museum
Phoenix dactylifera
Pinus canariensis
Prunus caroliniana
Quercus virginiana
Syagrus romanzoffiana
Ulmus parvifolia
Strawberry Tree
Toyon
Pineapple Guava
Golden Rain Tree
Desert Museum Palo Verde
Date Palm
Canary Island Pine
Carolina Cherry Laurel
Southern Live Oak
Queen Palm
Chinese Evergreen Elm
36” Box
15 Gal
24” Box
24” Box
24” Box
15’-20’ BTH
24” Box
24” Box
48” Box
12’-15’ BTH
24” Box
L
VLLL

VLLLMMMM

03.19.24 ALISO VIEJO
L-14

AVALON BAY -
Collaborative

AVB COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
TCA # 2022-040
73 MECHANICAL
LOBBY

LEASING
1,000 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
TRASH

UTILITY

UTILITY
ELEC.

EV ELEC.

SHAFT

SHAFT MPOE
RETAIL
2,847 SF
SHAFT
LOBBY

LOADING
SHAFT
B2 B1 A1
A1
A2
A1
A1
C1
A2 A1
A1
B2
B2
S1
A1
A1
A2
A1
A1
A2A2 A2
A2
A1
A1
A2
S1 A2 A2 A2 S1 A1
A1
A2
S1 S1
A1
A1
A2A2
B1
A2
MAIL
995 SF

AMENITY
1,385 SF
RETAIL
2,035 SF
RETAIL
2,020 SF
RETAIL
1,500 SF
RETAIL
2,155 SF
RETAIL
1,515 SF
RETAIL
2,169 SF
RETAIL
1,013 SF

0.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.10.0

0.42.01.31.01.30.70.10.30.20.70.20.30.30.40.2 0.31.52.51.11.05.811.53.81.24.111.65.71.10.20.10.0

0.52.22.81.30.30.20.10.10.01.0 0.47.47.51.50.30.30.40.10.20.10.1

0.212.410.91.40.40.92.50.44.20.50.50.60.2

0.55.86.21.60.81.317.29.15.23.56.710.11.40.2

0.41.72.34.53.74.54.610.412.40.50.20.10.0

0.30.80.94.510.06.46.73.09.70.30.10.20.10.1

0.41.72.32.515.42.70.77.61.82.412.39.61.50.20.00.0

0.55.86.22.96.62.40.813.60.90.30.10.10.6

0.212.410.90.01.22.01.32.64.60.23.40.20.14.20.10.0

0.57.47.60.30.10.17.71.512.00.20.30.20.3

0.52.32.80.00.24.41.42.96.77.01.30.2 0.20.80.90.04.20.30.1

0.31.01.210.70.10.10.1

0.53.44.07.20.81.11.30.3 0.49.310.12.31.30.30.1

0.410.811.40.80.10.00.0

0.64.45.24.60.10.00.00.0 0.41.52.53.25.26.24.32.018.00.00.00.00.0

0.31.01.83.46.47.04.72.40.14.70.10.00.00.0 0.41.42.22.02.21.81.61.22.72.72.71.21.30.30.60.70.10.00.00.00.0

0.64.05.54.70.40.30.30.45.92.53.12.02.20.80.50.30.10.00.00.00.0 0.410.211.40.60.42.30.51.33.71.114.68.03.11.20.00.0

0.410.111.00.92.45.42.12.18.10.90.82.30.10.0

0.63.84.32.50.23.74.510.12.40.411.10.20.1

0.31.01.30.01.51.10.2 0.10.40.41.01.40.1

0.20.60.73.60.40.1 0.42.22.84.20.80.1

0.47.47.51.71.20.1 0.212.410.80.71.00.2

0.55.86.22.21.50.1 0.41.62.20.71.00.1

0.20.50.53.10.90.1 0.10.30.31.01.10.2

0.20.81.01.51.60.20.10.2 0.52.93.64.42.81.81.71.20.2

0.48.69.14.02.00.33.12.20.2 0.311.011.14.90.2

0.64.75.26.70.80.2 0.31.31.70.81.80.5

0.10.40.40.17.90.2 0.10.40.46.60.2

0.31.31.72.50.1 0.64.85.20.50.2

0.311.011.21.10.71.93.53.62.61.10.60.92.33.93.92.30.90.40.41.16.04.63.62.01.01.12.55.66.02.30.90.30.30.20.31.00.20.20.10.10.20.1

0.48.69.21.20.93.29.913.45.01.60.61.24.012.412.44.01.20.30.41.65.613.810.03.21.11.54.613.711.85.511.611.52.12.210.711.42.32.911.48.21.20.2

0.52.93.61.10.61.62.82.72.10.80.40.71.93.03.01.90.60.20.30.82.12.72.81.60.60.82.13.13.12.10.70.40.70.60.30.30.70.50.30.10.50.2 0.1

0.00.20.20.21.12.72.10.3 0.81.31.43.43.92.52.6

2.06.212.110.810.19.52.7

1.44.89.79.44.00.70.3 0.00.30.50.21.01.40.30.1

0.1 2.7 4.1 9.9 12.4 14.2 10.1 13.9 23.2

6.63.41.12.52.32.2 8.8

3.2 3.8

7.2 1.4

13.2 1.93.17.41.714.11.47.9

7.7 3.4

2.8 10.1

1.5 13.1

1.8 10.3

3.3 14.6

1.6 6.8
S5
S1
S2
S4
S3
S6
S1A
TYP
MTD ON 10'-0"POLE (TYP)
MTD ON 14'-0"

POLE (TYP)

MOUNTED
AT 80"AFF
(TYP)

MOUNTED
AT 18"AFF
(TYP)
TYP
TYP
E1.1 --
File Path
Δ DESCRIPTION DATE

SHEET NUMBER REVISION

SHEET NAME

CHK DRWCHECKED BY DRAWN BY

PROFESSIONAL SEAL

ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION
Project Issue Date Project Status
2023-12345-12
Client Name
Project Address Stree, City, ST #####Building Name/Location 3" 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" 1/4"
3/16"
1/32"
3/64"
1/8"
3/32"
1/16"
01 January, 2000
F
E
D
C
B
A

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
1 Not for permits, pricing or other official purposes. This document has not been completed or checked and is for general information or comment only.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
salasobrien.com 949.753.1553

CONFIDENTIAL

THIS DRAWING AND ASSOCIATED DESIGN ELEMENTS

ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND THE PROPERTY OF SALAS
O'BRIEN, WHICH RETAINS ALL COMMON LAW,COPYRIGHT, STATUTORY AND OTHER RIGHTS THERETO.

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE, REUSE OR REPRODUCTION IS
PROHIBITED. UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY SALAS

O'BRIEN, THIS DRAWING (AS WELL AS ANY COPIES)SHALL BE RETURNED TO SALAS O'BRIEN UPON REQUEST.

Project No.: 0000-00000-00Corona
4160 Temescal Canyon Rd.,
Suite 308
Corona, CA 92883

REVISIONS
AVB

COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
SITE

PHOTOMETRIC
PLAN
1 E1.1
SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLANSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
S1
S1A
S2S3S4S5S6S7
S2A
74 A1

0.91.92.91.32.75.0 0.51.53.64.4

0.51.32.63.8 0.51.41.81.9

1.12.52.01.1 3.53.01.3

2.13.72.81.4 1.02.72.31.5

1.13.03.22.8 2.44.65.34.8

2.44.76.14.63.02.6 1.43.13.63.92.76.1

0.71.92.43.12.43.1 1.42.84.63.01.6

2.41.9 5.1 1.6 4.8
S2A TYP
S6 S3 MTD. @ 18"AFF
(TYP)
MTD. @ 6'-8 "

AFF (TYP)
A1

0.41.21.11.00.6 1.33.12.52.72.3

2.94.84.35.46.3 2.24.33.11.8

1.83.83.82.4 1.93.73.52.5

9.31.2 1.0 7.1

3.05.04.24.34.60.8 2.13.42.92.93.07.6

2.23.42.52.32.42.92.11.6 3.34.53.22.12.94.23.3
S2A TYP
S6 S3 MTD. @ 18"AFF
(TYP)
MTD. @ 6'-8 "

AFF (TYP)
S5 TYP
B1 A2
A2
B1
A2
B1 A2
A2
B1
A1
A2 B1 A2A2
A2
B1
A1
B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B2
A2
B1
S1
A2
A2
A1
S1 S1
A2
A2
A1
B1 A1 A2
A2
B2
S1
C1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
A1
5%
UP
DN 5%
A1
A1
A1 A1 B1 B1 B1
B1
A1
A1 A1 A1
73 STALLS
4' DEEP 5' DEEP 3' DEEP 6' DEEP 7' DEEP
LANDSCAPE BUFFER (HIGH VEGETATION) + AC EQUIPMENT

LANDSCAPE BUFFER
(HIGH VEGETATION)
PLACE HOLDER. MOVE AS NEEDED B1 A2
A2
B1
A2
B1 A2
A2
B1
A1
A2 B1 A2A2
A2
B1
A1
B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B2
A2
B1
S1
A2
A2
A1
S1 S1
A2
A2
A1
B1 A1 A2
A2
B2
S1
C1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
A1
5%
UP
DN 5%
A1
A1
A1 A1 B1 B1 B1
B1
A1
A1 A1 A1
73 STALLS
4' DEEP 5' DEEP 3' DEEP 6' DEEP 7' DEEP
LANDSCAPE BUFFER (HIGH VEGETATION) + AC EQUIPMENT

LANDSCAPE BUFFER
(HIGH VEGETATION)
PLACE HOLDER. MOVE AS NEEDED
E1.4 --
File Path
Δ DESCRIPTION DATE

SHEET NUMBER REVISION

SHEET NAME

CHK DRWCHECKED BY DRAWN BY

PROFESSIONAL SEAL

NOT FOR

CONFIDENTIAL

THIS DRAWING AND ASSOCIATED DESIGN ELEMENTS

ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND THE PROPERTY OF SALAS
O'BRIEN, WHICH RETAINS ALL COMMON LAW,COPYRIGHT, STATUTORY AND OTHER RIGHTS THERETO.

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE, REUSE OR REPRODUCTION IS
PROHIBITED. UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY SALAS

O'BRIEN, THIS DRAWING (AS WELL AS ANY COPIES)SHALL BE RETURNED TO SALAS O'BRIEN UPON REQUEST.

Project No.: 0000-00000-00Corona
4160 Temescal Canyon Rd.,
Suite 308
Corona, CA 92883

REVISIONS
AVB

COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
LEVEL 6 ROOF
DECKS

PHOTOMETRIC
PLAN
1 E1.4
LEVEL 6 ROOF DECKS PHOTOMETRIC PLANSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" S1
S1A
S2S3S4S5S6S7
S2A
2 E1.4
LEVEL 6 ROOF DECKS PHOTOMETRIC PLANSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 E1.4
2 E1.4
75 SHAFT
SHAFT
LOBBY
SHAFT
SHAFT
LOBBY

AMENITY
5,271 SF
3' DEEP 4' DEEP 5' DEEP 6' DEEP 7' DEEP
LANDSCAPE BUFFER (HIGH VEGETATION) + AC EQUIPMENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER (HIGH VEGETATION)

POOL ROOM
PLACE HOLDER.

3.2 MOVE AS NEEDED1.40.60.60.40.30.40.40.40.40.1

5.62.81.31.33.61.81.55.50.91.83.0 1.61.51.82.72.90.81.22.22.03.5

0.91.42.84.12.91.31.01.63.53.7 1.21.62.53.83.80.90.91.52.94.0

4.02.32.32.91.50.70.81.42.32.8 5.92.72.53.73.40.90.91.52.73.9

1.81.93.14.52.81.61.21.93.95.4 0.61.01.83.02.71.01.21.72.33.42.16.80.41.85.90.20.54.80.2

0.30.61.01.30.91.11.92.61.81.40.90.60.30.70.40.20.40.80.1 0.40.60.60.80.91.53.03.82.41.11.46.00.31.75.20.20.54.40.2

1.51.00.60.81.21.93.34.02.30.90.71.00.30.70.60.20.31.20.1 5.61.90.91.92.22.23.03.71.5

3.71.71.45.23.82.93.54.42.2 0.80.91.44.24.23.14.04.32.2

0.20.30.62.22.42.22.83.41.4 0.20.30.51.21.72.53.21.4

0.10.20.40.91.63.33.92.1 0.20.20.50.71.22.43.62.0

0.20.61.82.92.31.61.61.51.70.8 0.10.41.24.212.119.012.96.77.37.11.15.7

0.20.51.44.38.811.69.77.310.116.42.420.9

0.20.71.73.86.27.46.75.34.82.40.75.7 0.31.11.93.03.84.03.83.22.20.90.50.7

0.32.73.33.73.32.92.93.86.66.80.99.3 0.68.37.35.93.72.62.54.09.216.12.120.0

1.117.511.87.84.12.42.02.53.72.10.53.12.9

1.015.911.07.43.82.21.61.41.00.40.30.40.71.34.05.1

0.46.56.04.93.01.91.82.64.83.70.55.44.02.02.82.7 0.21.92.22.42.01.61.93.69.116.82.120.48.12.61.50.9

0.10.71.01.21.31.31.52.54.73.70.55.44.01.91.91.5 0.10.81.11.31.31.31.31.41.10.40.30.51.11.54.15.2

0.22.42.72.82.11.61.62.54.73.70.69.05.22.32.82.8 0.58.17.05.43.22.02.03.69.116.81.919.57.92.61.50.9

1.117.511.67.63.82.21.82.64.83.70.42.92.91.71.91.5

1.016.011.17.43.82.11.51.41.10.40.30.51.01.44.15.2

0.56.76.25.13.12.01.62.24.54.90.79.05.22.32.92.82.60.62.81.12.50.20.1 0.42.22.62.82.31.81.83.28.719.52.619.57.92.61.41.04.00.84.71.53.70.30.1

0.51.21.72.12.22.01.92.44.65.00.52.92.91.40.90.92.01.11.61.21.6 0.61.42.43.23.43.02.31.51.00.40.30.30.50.60.91.47.02.47.42.04.7

0.61.73.96.26.95.73.72.73.01.00.30.30.40.61.22.24.15.15.61.20.6 0.61.75.09.511.18.24.74.48.811.91.22.20.70.71.42.96.19.414.0

0.51.55.314.018.510.54.54.06.15.09.610.03.11.11.53.16.710.918.4

0.10.30.82.22.82.01.52.42.31.34.75.43.01.61.62.85.47.910.84.04.03.4

0.61.63.01.91.12.02.51.91.41.52.13.23.74.02.23.22.2 0.92.34.03.11.41.21.31.21.11.31.51.71.61.6

0.52.03.82.41.20.90.91.01.41.41.51.51.21.1 1.11.82.92.01.61.72.52.62.01.92.32.92.01.82.94.33.3

1.43.04.33.11.82.33.63.72.52.23.54.32.71.8 5.12.43.0

3.82.10.8 S2A TYP
S4 TYP
S3 MTD. @
6'-8" AFF
(TYP)
S1A MTD. ON 10'-0"

POLE (TYP)
S7 (2) UP, (2) DOWN MTD. ON TREE RING (TYP)
S5 TYP
E1.6 --
File Path
Δ DESCRIPTION DATE

SHEET NUMBER REVISION

SHEET NAME

CHK DRWCHECKED BY DRAWN BY

PROFESSIONAL SEAL

NOT FOR

CONFIDENTIAL

THIS DRAWING AND ASSOCIATED DESIGN ELEMENTS

ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND THE PROPERTY OF SALAS
O'BRIEN, WHICH RETAINS ALL COMMON LAW,COPYRIGHT, STATUTORY AND OTHER RIGHTS THERETO.

ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE, REUSE OR REPRODUCTION IS
PROHIBITED. UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY SALAS

O'BRIEN, THIS DRAWING (AS WELL AS ANY COPIES)SHALL BE RETURNED TO SALAS O'BRIEN UPON REQUEST.

Project No.: 0000-00000-00Corona
4160 Temescal Canyon Rd.,
Suite 308
Corona, CA 92883

REVISIONS
AVB

COMMONS

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
8TH FLOOR

PHOTOMETRIC
PLAN
1 E1.6
8TH FLOOR PHOTOMETRIC PLANSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
S1
S1A
S2S3S4S5S6S7
S2A
76 STC Traffic, Inc.
5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 218, Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.stctraffic.com
Memorandum
Date: December 12, 2023
To: So Kim, Director of Community Development, City of Aliso Viejo From: Philip Wragg, AICP, Planning Group Manager, STC Traffic, Inc.

David DiPierro T.E., Senior Principal Manager, STC Traffic, Inc.

Project: The Commons Project, 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, - TIA Review 1 STC Traffic Inc. (STC) has reviewed the updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for The Commons Project, 26501 Aliso Creek Road Aliso Viejo, California dated November 28, 2023, and have no further comments for the developer’s consultant.

Sincerely,
STC Traffic
Philip Wragg, AICP
Planning Group Manager
[email protected]
77 REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR
26501 ALISO CREEK ROAD
Aliso Viejo, California
November 28, 2023
Prepared for:

AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES, INC.
2050 Main Street, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1
78 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Project Scope .............................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Project Description .......................................................................................................1

2.2 Study Scope ..................................................................................................................1

3.0 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Existing Street System ..................................................................................................2

3.2 Existing Volumes .........................................................................................................2

3.3 Existing Public Transit .................................................................................................3

3.4 Existing Intersection Peak Hour LOS ..........................................................................3

4.0 Traffic Forecasts ......................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Project Traffic Generation ..........................................................................................10

4.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment .............................................................12

4.2.1 Project-Generated Traffic Volumes ..............................................................12

4.3 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Volumes ...........................................................12

4.4 Year 2028 Cumulative Base .......................................................................................13

4.4.1 Ambient Growth ...........................................................................................13

4.4.2 Year 2028 Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes ..............................................13

4.5 Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................................13

5.0 Traffic Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 16

5.1 Significant Impact Criteria .........................................................................................16

5.2 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Conditions ........................................................16

5.3 Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions .............................................18

5.4 Caltrans Queuing Analysis .........................................................................................20

6.0 Internal Circulation and Site Access ....................................................................................... 23

6.1.1 Internal Circulation .......................................................................................23

6.1.2 Site Access Queuing Analysis ......................................................................23

6.1.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ...................................................................23

7.0 Summary Of Findings And Conclusions ................................................................................. 29 79 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo ii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
A. Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets (ICU Methodology) B. Intersection Level of Service Calculation Worksheets (HCM Methodology) C. Existing Traffic Count Data
D. ITE Internal Capture Worksheets
E. Project Driveway Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets 80 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo iii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections ............................................................... 5 2 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections (HCM 7 Methodology) .................. 6 3 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections (HCM 7 Methodology) ....................... 7 4 Existing (2022) Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ........................................................... 9 5 Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................................ 11 6 Location and Description of Cumulative Projects ...................................................................... 14 7 Cumulative Project Trip Generation Estimates ........................................................................... 15 8 Existing (2022) Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service .................................... 17 9 Year 2028 Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ................................................................. 19 10 Existing (2022) Plus Project Caltrans Queuing Analysis ........................................................... 21 11 Year 2028 Caltrans Queuing Analysis......................................................................................... 22 12 Existing (2022) Project Driveway Queueing Analysis ............................................................... 25 13 Year 2028 Project Driveway Queueing Analysis ....................................................................... 26 14 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary .................................. 27 15 Year 2028 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Summary ............................................................... 28 81 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE FOLLOWING PAGE
1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Site Plan .............................................................................................................................. 1 3 Existing Roadway and Intersection Physical Characteristics .................................................... 2 4 Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 3 5 Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 3 6 Project Traffic Distribution Pattern ............................................................................................. 12 7 Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ................................................................................... 12 8 Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour .................................................................................... 12 9 Existing (2022) Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................. 12 10 Existing (2022) Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................... 12 11 Location of Cumulative Projects .................................................................................................. 13 12 Year 2028 AM Peak Hour Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes ............................................... 13 13 Year 2028 PM Peak Hour Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes ................................................ 13 14 Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................... 13 15 Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................... 13 82 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 1

REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR
26501 ALISO CREEK ROAD

ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 28, 2023

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to evaluate potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed multifamily residential project at 26501 Aliso Creek Road in the City of Aliso Viejo (herein referred to as the “Project”).

The Project consists of developing 343 apartment units, 3,371 square feet (SF) of leasing office space, 17,273 SF of ground-floor retail uses (to include fast casual-type dining tenants), and a 590-space parking structure on the southwestern portion of the existing parking lot for The Commons at Aliso Viejo (“The Commons”) commercial center. This report updates the prior Traffic Impact Analysis dated July 20, 2023 based on a revised Project description.

Based on study scope consultation with City staff, and consistent with the City of Aliso Viejo Transportation Impact Guidelines for CEQA and General Plan Consistency (May 2020), this report presents a Level of Service (LOS) analysis for the Project, including an inventory of existing characteristics and traffic volumes at key locations within the study area, forecasts of vehicular traffic anticipated to be generated by the Project, evaluation of potential LOS impacts of these Project-generated trips on the surrounding street system, site access, and internal circulation analysis.

2.0 PROJECT SCOPE

2.1 Project Description
Figure 1 presents a Project vicinity map and study area. The Project site is bound by Aliso Creek Road on the east, Enterprise on the south, and the Property Limits on the west and north.

The Project site is located within the existing Aliso Viejo Commons shopping center, which plans to renovate some of its existing commercial space (these commercial renovations are not part of the residential Project). The Project consists of the development of a six-story building with 343 apartment units, 3,371 SF of leasing office space, and 17,273 SF of ground-floor retail and fast casual restaurant uses. Figure 2 presents the project site plan, prepared by TCA Architecture.

Parking for the proposed Project will be provided in an 8-level parking structure with 590 parking stalls.

2.2 Study Scope
The work scope for this traffic impact study, including the base assumptions, technical methodologies, and geographic coverage, were developed in conjunction with City staff, and are in accordance with the City’s and Caltrans traffic study guidelines. 83 84
85 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 2
All intersections identified by the City of Aliso Viejo and the City of Laguna Hills considered to be within the Project’s influence area were included in this study, in addition to the SR-73 Freeway northbound and southbound ramp intersections along Aliso Creek Road, and the I-5 Freeway northbound and southbound ramp intersections along Alicia Parkway. As illustrated on Figure 1, a total of 16 key intersections were selected for detailed peak hour traffic impact/level of service analysis during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours under each of the four traffic scenarios described below.

The following four traffic scenarios were evaluated in this study:
 Existing (2022) - The analysis of existing traffic conditions is intended to provide a base of analysis for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis includes an assessment of the streets in the area, current traffic volumes, and operating conditions.  Existing (2022) plus Project - This is an analysis of existing traffic conditions with the addition of Project-generated traffic.
 Year 2028 Cumulative Base - This phase of analysis projects future traffic growth and operating conditions in the Year 2028 (completion year for the Project) which could be expected to result from regional growth and related projects without the addition of Project traffic.
 Year 2028 Cumulative plus Project - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in the Year 2028 (completion year for the Project) with the addition of Project-generated traffic.

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Existing Street System
A comprehensive inventory of the street system within the study area was undertaken to develop a detailed description of existing traffic characteristics. Figure 3 illustrates the existing physical characteristics of the key intersections and streets, including intersection geometry and traffic control, number of travel lanes, median type, parking designations, and posted speed limits.

3.2 Existing Volumes
Traffic counts were conducted at the 16 key intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak period while school was in session (7:00 to 9:00 AM, 4:00 to 6:00 PM) in October 2022 and February 2023.

In order to determine whether pandemic-related travel patterns had caused any traffic volume reductions inherent in the traffic counts recently conducted (i.e., Year 2022/2023 traffic counts), available pre-pandemic traffic counts were compared to the Year 2022/2023 traffic counts collected as part of this study. Based on the comparative analysis undertaken, it was determined that the Year 2022/2023 AM peak hour traffic counts were generally consistent with pre-pandemic traffic counts for the AM peak hour; therefore, pandemic-related volume adjustments were not applied to the AM 86 87
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 3
peak hour. On the other hand, the comparisons indicate that Year 2022/2023 PM peak hour traffic counts along the major arterials (i.e. Alicia Parkway, Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo Parkway, and Moulton Parkway) were approximately 10% less than pre-pandemic conditions during the PM peak hour. Even though it is uncertain as to whether existing tripmaking patterns (and traffic volumes resulting from them) will ever go back to how they used to be prior to the start of the pandemic, in order to evaluate a much more conservative, higher baseline of traffic volumes and traffic operations/levels of service, a pandemic-related adjustment factor of 10% was applied to increase the PM peak hour traffic counts collected in this study along the major arterials.

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the 16 key intersections, respectively.

3.3 Existing Public Transit
Public transit bus service is provided in the Project area by OCTA. Three OCTA bus routes serve the Project site via Alicia Parkway, Paseo de Valencia, and Moulton Parkway. The bus routes are described below:

1. OCTA Route 87: provides service from Rancho Santa Margarita to Laguna Niguel; via Alicia Parkway.

2. OCTA Route 90: provides service from Tustin to Dana Point; via Irvine Center Dr to Moulton Parkway to Golden Lantern Street

3. OCTA Route 91: provides service from Laguna Hills to San Clemente; via Paseo de Valencia to Camino Capistrano to Del Obispo Street.

The bus stop nearest the Project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection at Pacific Park Drive and Alicia Parkway, 1 mile southeast of the Project Site. The second nearest bus stop is located on the southwest corner of Moulton Parkway and Laguna Hills Drive intersection, which is

1.3 miles northeast of the Project site.

OCTA also operates the OC Go Senior Mobility Program (SMP) for residents over the age of 60 that provides local taxi transportation services for shopping, errands, or non-emergency medical transportation. In addition, OCTA offers a Youth Ride Free Program which allows youth ages 6 to 18 to ride OC Bus for free relating to school, sports, work, and other activities.

3.4 Existing Intersection Peak Hour LOS
Level of Service (LOS) qualitatively measures the operating conditions within a traffic system and how drivers and passengers perceive these conditions. Level of service ranges from LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. The City of Aliso Viejo establishes LOS C as the minimum satisfactory service level, whereas the City of Laguna Hills and Laguna Woods establishes LOS D as the minimum satisfactory service level. According to Caltrans traffic impact analysis guidelines, LOS E is the minimum acceptable service level at Caltrans intersections. 88 89
90 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 4
Based upon the Cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, and Laguna Woods standards for LOS analysis, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to determine the volume-tocapacity relationship for signalized intersections (based upon the individual volume-to-capacity ratios for key conflicting traffic movements), and corresponding level of service. By assuming 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) as the practical capacity for through lanes, left-turn, and right-turn lanes, the ICU method directly relates traffic demand to the available capacity. The resulting ICU numerical value represents the greatest green time requirements plus a 5% allowance (additional ICU value of 0.05) for clearance intervals for the entire intersection. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. Level of service definitions for signalized intersections are summarized in Table 1.

Based upon the Cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, and Laguna Woods standards, the methodology in Chapters 20 and 21 of the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition [Transportation Research Board, 2016] was applied in the analysis of the unsignalized key intersections. The HCM stop-control methodology determines the delay and level of service of each approach separately. Whereas the ICU methodology for signalized intersections uses capacity to describe total intersection operation, the HCM method for unsignalized intersections yields a delay value for each intersection approach.

The vehicle total delay on any approach is primarily a function of the volume on the subject approach, and secondarily a function of the volume on the opposing and conflicting approaches.

Level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections are described in Table 2.

In addition, the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6) Operations methodology was applied in the analysis of all freeway ramp intersections (to address Caltrans traffic impact study requirements). In Chapter 18 of the HCM 6, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle, as indicated in Table 3.

The HCM 6 methodology was also applied in Project site access evaluation of this report, for the purposes of evaluating vehicular access and queuing conditions at Project driveway intersections.

Based upon the level of service methodologies described, the existing peak hour traffic volumes presented were used in conjunction with existing lane configurations to determine the current traffic operating conditions at the 16 key intersections.
91 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 5
TABLE 1

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
(LOS)
Intersection Capacity
Utilization Value (ICU) Level of Service Description
A  0.600
EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer
than one red light, and no approach phase is
fully used.

B 0.601 – 0.700
VERY GOOD. An occasional approach
phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin
to feel somewhat restricted within groups
of vehicles.

C 0.701 – 0.800
GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to
wait through more than one red light;
backups may develop behind turning
vehicles.

D 0.801 – 0.900
FAIR. Delays may be substantial during
portions of the rush hours, but enough
lower volume periods occur to permit
clearing of developing lines, preventing
excessive backups.

E 0.901 – 1.000
POOR. Represents the most vehicles
intersection approaches can accommodate;
may be long lines of waiting vehicles
through several signal cycles.

F > 1.000
FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations
or on cross streets may restrict or prevent
movement of vehicles out of the
intersection approaches. Potentially very
long delays with continuously increasing
queue lengths.
92 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 6
TABLE 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 7 METHODOLOGY) 1,2 Level of Service
(LOS)
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
Delay Per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description A  10.0 Little or no delay
B > 10.0 and  15.0 Short traffic delays
C > 15.0 and  25.0 Average traffic delays
D > 25.0 and  35.0 Long traffic delays
E > 35.0 and  50.0 Very long traffic delays
F > 50.0 Severe congestion
1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 7, Chapter 20: Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections. The LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole. 2 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 7, Chapter 21: All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections. For approaches and intersection-wide assessment, LOS is defined solely by control delay.
93 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 7
TABLE 3
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (HCM 7 METHODOLOGY)3 Level of Service
(LOS)
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description
A < 10.0
This level of service occurs when progression is
extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

B > 10.0 and < 20.0
This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

C > 20.0 and < 35.0
Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result
from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both.

Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level.

The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this
level, though many still pass through the intersection
without stopping.

D > 35.0 and < 55.0
Long traffic delays At level D, the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.

Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E > 55.0 and < 80.0
Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long
cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

F  80.0
Severe congestion This level, considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over
saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major
contributing factors to such delay levels.
3 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 7, Chapter 19: Signalized Intersections. 94 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 8
Appendix A and B contain the detailed level of service worksheets. Appendix C contains the raw traffic count data collected.

Table 4 summarizes the existing levels of service for the 16 key intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. As Table 4 indicates, 15 out of the 16 key intersections currently operate at acceptable service levels during the AM and PM peak hours of a typical weekday. Based on the City of Aliso Viejo’s LOS C minimum standard, the intersection of Aliso Creek Road and The Commons Driveway (Intersection 6) operates at a deficient LOS D during the PM peak hour.
95 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 9
TABLE 4
EXISTING (2022) INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE 1) Wood Canyon Drive at AM 0.549 - A No
Pacific Park Drive (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.432 - A No
2) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.556 - A No
Pacfic Park Drive (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.594 - A No
3) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.521 - A No
Pacific Park Drive (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.556 - A No
4) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.462 - A No
Enterprise/Summerfield (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.529 - A No
5) Town Center at AM 0.141 - A No
Enterprise (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.232 - A No
6) Aliso Creek Road at AM - 14.9 B No
The Commons Driveway (Aliso Viejo) PM - 26.3 D Yes
7) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.378 - A No
SR-73 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo) PM 0.487 - A No
HCM: AM - 10.4 B No
PM - 14.1 B No
8) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.363 - A No
SR-73 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo) PM 0.339 - A No
HCM: AM - 11.1 B No
PM - 6.3 A No
9) Aliso Viejo Parkway at AM 0.294 - A No
Enterprise (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.295 - A No
10) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.499 - A No
Aliso Viejo Parkway (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.558 - A No
11) Moulton Parkway at AM 0.451 - A No
Aliso Viejo Parkway/Laguna Hills Drive (Laguna Hills/Aliso Viejo) PM 0.567 - A No 12) Paseo De Valencia at AM 0.434 - A No
Laguna Hills Drive (Laguna Hills) PM 0.517 - A No
13) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.548 - A No
Paseo De Valencia (Lagua Hills) PM 0.665 - B No
14) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.880 - D No
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.801 - D No
HCM: AM - 27.7 C No
PM - 24.8 C No
15) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.932 - E No
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.934 - E No
HCM: AM - 29.3 C No
PM - 44.2 D No
16) El Toro Road at AM 0.517 - A No
Aliso Creek Road (Laguna Woods) PM 0.705 - C No
Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) ICU
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Poor
LOS LOS?
Delay
(s/v)
96 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 10

4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS
In order to determine potential traffic impacts of the Project, a multi-step process has been utilized.

The first step is traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is estimated by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the Project development tabulation with applicable trip adjustments/credits to account for the existing land uses on site, internal capture, and/or alternative modes of transportation.

The second step of the forecasting process is traffic distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound Project traffic. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/expected future travel patterns in the study area.

The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of Project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area.

With the forecasting process complete and Project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed Project is isolated by comparing levels of service at selected key intersections using expected future traffic volumes with and without Project-generated traffic. The significance of the Project’s impacts, and the need for site-specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements, can then be determined.

4.1 Project Traffic Generation
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 11th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2021]. As presented in Table 5, the trip rates for ITE Land Use 221: Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) were applied in estimating the residential Project’s trip making potential. To estimate trips generated by the leasing office and retail (which includes fast casual dining) uses, ITE Land Use 720: General Office, and ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail Plaza (Less than 40K) were applied, respectively.

Since the Project consists of a mixed-use setting, it was appropriate to account for “internal” trip making/interactions that will occur between the various land uses, and that will not occur by vehicular travel on the external street system. The complementary nature of these land uses results in an internal trip capture where a trip can be made by walking or biking using internal roadways and pedestrian pathways within the multi-use development setting and would therefore reduce vehicle trip generation on the surrounding street system.
97 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 11
TABLE 5

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE Daily In Out Total In Out Total
ITE TRIP RATES [a]
ITE LU 221: Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 4.54 23% 77% 0.37 61% 39% 0.39 ITE LU 720: General Office Building 10.84 88% 12% 1.52 17% 83% 1.44 ITE LU 822: Strip Retail Plaza (Less than 40k) 54.45 60% 40% 2.36 50% 50% 6.59

PROPOSED PROJECT
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 343 DU 1,557 29 98 127 82 52 134 Internal Capture Trip Reduction [b] (180) 0 (1) (1) (15) (6) (21) Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Total 1,377 29 97 126 67 46 113 Residential Leasing Office 3,371 SF 37 4 1 5 1 4 5
Internal Capture Trip Reduction [b] (19) 0 0 0 0 (1) (1) High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant Total 18 4 1 5 1 3 4
Retail 17,273 SF 941 25 16 41 57 57 114
Internal Capture Trip Reduction [b] (179) 0 (1) (1) (6) (14) (20) Subtotal 762 25 15 40 51 43 94
Pass-By Trip Reduction [c] (76) (3) (2) (5) (20) (17) (37) Retail Total 686 22 13 35 31 26 57
TOTAL PROJECT TRIP GENERATION: 2,081 55 111 166 99 75 174 Notes:
[a] Source: Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2021)] [b]
[c]
Internal capture trip reduction is consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook , 3rd Edition, published by ITE (September 2017). The internal capture trip reduction is equivalent to the following percentages of the gross total trips: 15% weekday daily, 1% weekday AM, 17% weekday PM. (trips/KSF)
ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition does not identify a pass-by rate for ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail Plaza (Less than 40K). Therefore, pass-by reductions consist of the following: 10% weekday daily (estimated), 10% weekday AM (estimated), 40% weekday PM (consistent with ITE Land Use 822:

Shopping Plaza (40-150k))
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Unit / Size
(trips/KSF)
(trips/DU)
98 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 12
ITE trip generation rates and equations are derived from single-use, stand-alone sites, and do not reflect the potential for interaction among uses in a mixed-use setting. The methodology used in estimating internal trips for the project is well documented in the Third Edition of ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook [Washington, D.C., September 2017]. Appendix D contains the internal capture worksheets per ITE. The internal capture percentages identified in Table 5 correspond to the total internal capture percentage identified in Table 5-A of the Internal Capture Estimation Tool worksheets in Appendix D.

Pass-by trip reductions were applied to the retail-generated trips. This is typically done to account for conditions when the total number of trips generated by a retail or restaurant development is not entirely new to the external street system. Shopping centers, which are located along major/busy roadways, attract a portion of their trips from traffic already on the street system for a different purpose (i.e., the retail or restaurant site is not the primary or ultimate destination). These trips do not add new traffic to the surrounding street system. The methodology used in estimating pass-by trips is also contained in ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook.

As shown in Table 5, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 2,081 weekday daily trips, 166 AM peak hour trips, and 174 PM peak hour trips.

4.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment
The geographic distribution of traffic generated by developments such as the Project is dependent upon the following factors:
 the Project’s market/service area
 location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system  location of parking areas, and ingress/egress availability at the parking areas  the site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes  physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns  presence of traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity Based on these considerations, a Project trip distribution pattern was developed and presented on Figure 6. The incremental traffic expected to be generated by the Project was assigned to the local street network using Project distribution pattern illustrated in Figure 6.

4.2.1 Project-Generated Traffic Volumes
Figures 7 and 8 present the Project-generated traffic volumes at the 16 key intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

4.3 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Figures 9 and 10 present the Existing (2022) Plus Project traffic volumes at the 16 key intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
99 100
101
102
103
104
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 13

4.4 Year 2028 Cumulative Base
The Cumulative Base or “background” traffic projections account for existing traffic volumes, and include two growth elements over existing traffic volumes: (1) increase in the existing traffic volumes due to overall regional growth; and, (2) traffic generated by specific developments expected to be constructed by Year 2028 in the vicinity of the Project study area. The following sections describe these two growth elements in existing traffic volumes.

It is anticipated that construction along Alicia Parkway, related to the Caltrans I-5 Freeway Widening Project, will be completed by Year 2024. As such, it has been assumed that the intersection lane geometry at the northbound and southbound ramps along Alicia Parkway will be consistent with the existing lanes prior to the start of construction. With the exception of the I-5 Freeway northbound and southbound ramps at Alicia Parkway, no other physical, capacityenhancing improvements to intersection geometry or roadway segments have been assumed under Year 2028 Cumulative Base conditions because no transportation system projects within the study area are expected to be fully developed/completed by Year 2028.

4.4.1 Ambient Growth
The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown and future related projects in the study area, as well as account for regular growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. The Year 2028 background traffic volumes were estimated based on a 1% annual growth rate (based on other traffic studies completed in the City), corresponding to a total adjustment of 6% from 2022 conditions.

4.4.2 Cumulative Projects
The traffic expected to be generated by future projects that are either under construction or proposed within the study area accounts for the second element of the Year 2028 Cumulative Base scenario.

Tables 6 and 7 present the list of eleven cumulative projects, and their trip generation potential, respectively. Figure 11 shows the locations of these related projects. The list of cumulative projects was developed in conjunction with City staff, and verified with City staff that there are no other development projects identified in the foreseeable future that would affect traffic forecasts in this study.

4.4.3 Year 2028 Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes
Figures 12 and 13 present the Year 2028 Cumulative Base traffic volumes at the 16 key intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

4.5 Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes at the 16 key intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 105
106
107
108
109
110
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 14
TABLE 6
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS4
No. Cumulative Project Location/Address Description
City of Aliso Viejo

1. APN: 623-481-49 1 & 6 Polaris 42,000 SF Office

2. Kaiser Permanente 800 Freedom Lane 42,657 SF Medical Office Building

3. The Commons 26501 Aliso Creek Road
53,646 SF EV dealership (Tesla), 37,807 SF bowling alley (36 lanes with 10,000 SF of food and beverage), 27,945 SF health club, 46,180 SF market, 4,705 SF retail, 10,805 SF restaurant with 2,908 SF patio seating
City of Laguna Niguel

4. Starbucks Pad 10 Remodel 27360 Alicia Parkway 2,277 SF Coffee Shop with Drive-Through

5. California Pizza Kitchen 27430 La Paz Road 6,393 SF High-Turnover Restaurant

6. Joann’s and Grocery Outlet 27871 La Paz Road 31,518 SF Arts and Crafts Store 20,359 SF Supermarket

7. Aliso Village Pad Remodel and
Subdivision 23870 Aliso Creek 2,175 SF Restaurant
2,842 SF Restaurant
City of Laguna Hills

8. Circle K 25491 Alicia Parkway
Demolish existing 2,100 SF Auto Repair Shop with 8 VFP
Gas Station. Construct 5,200 SF Convenience Store with 10 VFP Gas Station

9. MemorialCare Saddleback Women’s
Health Pavilion 24401 Calle de Louisa 41,805 SF Medical Office Building

10. Laguna Hills Plaza 24901 Alicia Parkway
Demolish existing 45,013 SF Dick’s Sporting Goods
building and construct a new/replacement 42,709 SF
grocery store. Expand the existing 25,532 SF Big Lots
tenant space by 7,908 SF. Demolish existing 6,642 SF
shops building (presently contains commercial retail and medical office uses) and move the replace the shops
building with 3,126 SF retail uses and 1,875 SF fast-food restaurant without a drive-thru5

11. Ralphs Gas Station 25594 Alicia Parkway 10 VFP Gas Station Notes:
 SF = Square-feet
 DU = Dwelling units
 VFP= Vehicle Fueling Positions
4 Source: Cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, and Laguna Hills Planning Departments. 5 Option 2B of the proposed Project has been evaluated in this study. 111
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 15
TABLE 7
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST6
Cumulative Project Description
Daily
2-Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total

1. APN: 623-481-49 455 56 8 64 10 50 60

2. Kaiser Permanente 1,536 104 28 132 50 118 168

3. The Commons 8,378 283 154 437 348 329 677

4. Starbucks Pad 10 Remodel 911 50 48 98 34 33 67

5. California Pizza Kitchen 616 31 24 55 20 13 33

6. Joann’s and Grocery Outlet 3,501 31 21 52 159 175 334

7. Aliso Village Pad Remodel and Subdivision 484 24 19 43 16 10 26

8. Circle K 896 39 39 78 26 26 52

9. MemorialCare Saddleback Women’s Health
Pavilion 1,505 103 27 130 49 115 164

10. Laguna Hills Plaza7 3,022 139 93 232 124 138 262

11. Ralphs Gas Station 1,290 19 19 38 30 30 60
Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Forecast 22,594 879 480 1,359 866 1,037 1,903 6 Unless otherwise noted, Source: Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2021). 7 Source: Laguna Hills Plaza Revised TIA, prepared by LLG Engineers, dated December 2022. Option 2B of the proposed Project has been evaluated in this study.
112
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 16

5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The potential impact of the Project’s incremental trips during the weekday AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the 16 key intersections, without, then with, the Project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to investigate the delay/volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection. The significance of the potential impacts of the Project at each key intersection was then evaluated using the significant traffic impact criteria described below.

5.1 Significant Impact Criteria
Based on the City of Aliso Viejo traffic study guidelines, a project is considered to have a significant impact at an intersection if the Project causes an intersection at LOS C or better to degrade to LOS D, E or F; or if the Project increases the traffic demand at the study intersection by 0.01 or greater (or any delay increase per HCM 6) if the intersection already operates at an unacceptable service level.

Based on the City of Laguna Hills and CMP traffic study guidelines, a project is considered to have a significant impact at an intersection if the Project causes an intersection at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or F, and the ICU increase attributable to the Project is 0.01 or greater (or any delay increase per HCM 6).

For Caltrans freeway ramp intersections, a project is considered to have a significant impact if the Project causes an intersection at LOS D or better to degrade to LOS E or F, or, if an intersection is operating at LOS E or F without the project, and the project causes any delay increase.

5.2 Existing (2022) Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Table 8 summarize the Existing (2022) Plus Project levels of service at the 16 key intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. As Table 8 indicates, 15 out of the 16 key intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable service levels during the AM and PM peak hours of a typical weekday.

Based on the City of Aliso Viejo’s LOS C minimum standards, the intersection of Aliso Creek Road and The Commons Driveway (Intersection 6) is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS D during the PM peak hour without or with development of the Project. Although the Project would worsen the existing adverse conditions during the PM peak hour at Intersection 6, it would increase the delay on the eastbound approach (which is a right-turn movement from The Commons Driveway onto southbound Aliso Creek Road) by only 1.5 seconds per vehicle. This is a nominal delay increase and insignificant because it is not uncommon for private unsignalized driveways, such as that of The Commons Driveway, to experience a longer delay due to the heavy volumes on major streets, such as Aliso Creek Road. Furthermore, due to the driveway being in close proximity to the two signalized intersections of Aliso Creek Road at the SR-73 SB Ramps (Intersection 7) and Aliso Creek Road at Enterprise (Intersection 4), it is expected that, in reality, gaps in traffic would occur to facilitate right-turn movements from the driveway onto southbound Aliso Creek Road, and the actual 113
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 17
TABLE 8
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Wood Canyon Drive at AM 0.549 - A No 0.551 - A No 0.002 No Pacific Park Drive (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.432 - A No 0.435 - A No 0.003 No 2) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.556 - A No 0.562 - A No 0.006 No Pacfic Park Drive (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.594 - A No 0.603 - B No 0.009 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.521 - A No 0.522 - A No 0.001 No Pacific Park Drive (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.556 - A No 0.558 - A No 0.002 No 4) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.462 - A No 0.484 - A No 0.022 No Enterprise/Summerfield (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.529 - A No 0.554 - A No 0.025 No 5) Town Center at AM 0.141 - A No 0.169 - A No 0.028 No Enterprise (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.232 - A No 0.279 - A No 0.047 No 6) Aliso Creek Road at AM - 14.9 B No - 15.4 C No 0.5 No The Commons Driveway (Aliso Viejo) PM- 26.3 D Yes - 27.8 D Yes 1.5 No [a] 7) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.378 - A No 0.390 - A No 0.012 No SR-73 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo) PM 0.487 - A No 0.505 - A No 0.018 No HCM: AM - 10.4 B No - 10.6 B No 0.2 No
PM - 14.1 B No - 14.3 B No 0.2 No
8) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.363 - A No 0.371 - A No 0.008 No SR-73 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo) PM 0.339 - A No 0.347 - A No 0.008 No HCM: AM - 11.1 B No - 11.0 B No -0.1 No
PM - 6.3 A No - 6.3 A No 0.0 No
9) Aliso Viejo Parkway at AM 0.294 - A No 0.298 - A No 0.004 No Enterprise (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.295 - A No 0.297 - A No 0.002 No 10) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.499 - A No 0.501 - A No 0.002 No Aliso Viejo Parkway (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.558 - A No 0.564 - A No 0.006 No 11) Moulton Parkway at AM 0.451 - A No 0.459 - A No 0.008 No Aliso Viejo Parkway/Laguna Hills Drive (Laguna Hills/Aliso Viejo) PM 0.567 - A No 0.581 - A No 0.014 No 12) Paseo De Valencia at AM 0.434 - A No 0.440 - A No 0.006 No Laguna Hills Drive (Laguna Hills) PM 0.517 - A No 0.527 - A No 0.010 No 13) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.548 - A No 0.554 - A No 0.006 No Paseo De Valencia (Lagua Hills) PM 0.665 - B No 0.693 - B No 0.028 No 14) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.880 - D No 0.884 - D No 0.004 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.801 - D No 0.804 - D No 0.003 No HCM: AM - 27.7 C No - 28.0 C No 0.3 No
PM - 24.8 C No - 25.1 C No 0.3 No
15) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.932 - E No 0.939 - E No 0.007 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills) PM 0.934 - E No 0.939 - E No 0.005 No HCM: AM - 29.3 C No - 29.6 C No 0.3 No
PM - 44.2 D No - 44.7 D No 0.5 No
16) El Toro Road at AM 0.517 - A No 0.519 - A No 0.002 No Aliso Creek Road (Laguna Woods) PM 0.705 - C No 0.708 - C No 0.003 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
[a] Although the intersection is anticipated to operate adversely, it is not uncommon for private unsignalized driveways to experience a longer delay due to the heavy volumes on major streets. Furthermore, due to the driveway being in close proximity to the two signalized intersections of Aliso Creek Road at the SR-73 SB Ramps and Enterprise, it is expected that gaps in traffic would occur and actual vehicular delay experienced would be lower than what is being reported within the HCM methodology.

Project
Impact?
Plus Project
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
(s/v)
Poor
LOS
? ICU
Poor
LOS
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) ?
Peak
Hour LOS LOS
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022)
ICU
114
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 18
vehicular delay experienced would be lower than what is being estimated and reported within the scope of the HCM methodology.

5.3 Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions Table 9 presents the Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project levels of service at the 16 study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. As Table 9 indicates, 15 out of the 16 key intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable service levels during the AM and PM peak hours of a typical weekday.

Based on the application of the performance criteria described previously, the Project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the 16 key intersections under Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
115
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 19
TABLE 9
YEAR 2028 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
ICU
or
Delay
Diff
1) Wood Canyon Drive at AM 0.590 - A No 0.593 - A No 0.003 No Pacific Park Drive (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.465 - A No 0.468 - A No 0.003 No 2) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.619 - B No 0.625 - B No 0.006 No Pacfic Park Drive (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.676 - B No 0.685 - B No 0.009 No 3) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.584 - A No 0.585 - A No 0.001 No Pacific Park Drive (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.616 - A No 0.618 - B No 0.002 No 4) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.531 - A No 0.559 - A No 0.028 No Enterprise/Summerfield (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.656 - A No 0.690 - B No 0.034 No 5) Town Center at AM 0.208 - A No 0.241 - A No 0.033 No Enterprise (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.414 - A No 0.462 - A No 0.048 No 6) Aliso Creek Road at AM - 16.4 C No - 17.1 C No 0.7 No The Commons Driveway (Aliso Viejo) PM - 41.1 E Yes - 45.0 E Yes 3.9 No [b] 7) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.437 - A No 0.451 - A No 0.014 No SR-73 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo) PM 0.593 - A No 0.610 - B No 0.017 No HCM: AM - 11.6 B No - 11.8 B No 0.2 No
PM - 16.0 B No - 16.4 B No 0.4 No
8) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.400 - A No 0.409 - A No 0.009 No SR-73 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo) PM 0.391 - A No 0.399 - A No 0.008 No HCM: AM - 11.4 B No - 11.8 B No 0.4 No
PM - 6.7 A No - 6.8 A No 0.1 No
9) Aliso Viejo Parkway at AM 0.323 - A No 0.326 - A No 0.003 No Enterprise (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.329 - A No 0.331 - A No 0.002 No 10) Aliso Creek Road at AM 0.551 - A No 0.554 - A No 0.003 No Aliso Viejo Parkway (Aliso Viejo) PM 0.633 - B No 0.645 - B No 0.012 No 11) Moulton Parkway at AM 0.517 - A No 0.526 - A No 0.009 No Aliso Viejo Parkway/Laguna Hills Drive (Laguna Hills/Aliso Viejo) PM 0.651 - A No 0.664 - B No 0.013 No 12) Paseo De Valencia at AM 0.499 - A No 0.505 - A No 0.006 No Laguna Hills Drive (Laguna Hills) PM 0.637 - A No 0.663 - B No 0.026 No 13) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.660 - B No 0.682 - B No 0.022 No Paseo De Valencia (Lagua Hills) PM 0.829 - C No 0.857 - D No 0.028 No 14) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.649 - B No 0.654 - B No 0.005 No I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)[a] PM 0.626 - A No 0.631 - B No 0.005 No HCM: AM - 20.6 C No - 20.6 C No 0.0 No
PM - 20.3 C No - 20.4 C No 0.1 No
15) Alicia Parkway at AM 0.485 - A No 0.487 - A No 0.002 No I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)[a] PM 0.520 - A No 0.524 - A No 0.004 No HCM: AM - 10.2 B No - 10.3 B No 0.1 No
PM - 12.8 B No - 13.0 B No 0.2 No
16) El Toro Road at AM 0.555 - A No 0.557 - A No 0.002 No Aliso Creek Road (Laguna Woods) PM 0.757 - C No 0.760 - C No 0.003 No Notes:

Italicized text corresponds to an unsignalized/stop-controlled intersection. s/v = seconds per vehicle
the intersection lane geometry in Year 2028 will be consistent with the existing lanes prior to construction. [b] Although the intersection is anticipated to operate adversely, it is not uncommon for private unsignalized driveways to experience a longer delay due to the heavy volumes on major streets. Furthermore, due to the driveway being in close proximity to the two signalized intersections of Aliso Creek Road at the SR-73 SB Ramps and Enterprise, it is expected that gaps in traffic would occur and actual vehicular delay experienced would be lower than what is being reported within the HCM methodology.

Study Intersections (Jurisdiction)
Peak
Hour
Year 2028 Year 2028
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project
ICU
Poor
LOS
?
Delay
(s/v)
Delay
ICU (s/v)
Poor
LOS
LOS LOS ?
Project
Impact?
[a] It is anticipated that construction along Alicia Parkway, related to the I-5 Widening Project, will be completed by Year 2024. As such, it has been assumed that 116
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 20

5.4 Caltrans Queuing Analysis
The Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance, dated July 2020, provides direction on a simplified safety analysis approach that reduces the risk to all road users and that focuses on multi-modal conflict analysis as well as access management issues. District traffic safety staff are encouraged to consider the proposed Project’s potential influence on safety on state roadways, including the following factors:
 Increased presence of pedestrians and bicyclists
 Degradation of the walking and bicycling environment and experience  New pedestrian and bicyclist connection desires
 Multimodal conflict points, especially at intersections and project access locations  Change in traffic mix such as an increase in bicyclists or pedestrians where features such as shoulders or sidewalks may not exist or are inconsistent with facility design (sidewalks, bike and multi-user paths, multimodal roadways, etc.)
 Increased vehicular speeds
 Transition between free flow and metered flow
 Increased traffic volumes
 Queuing at off-ramps resulting in slow or stopped traffic on the mainline or speed differentials between adjacent lanes
 Queuing exceeding turn pocket length that impedes through-traffic The proposed Project does not take direct access from a State facility; however, an evaluation of the Project’s potential impacts on queuing at Caltrans intersections was prepared in order to determine if the Project would cause, or contribute towards, slowing or stopped traffic on freeway mainline travel lanes, off-ramps, and State highway lanes that could result in unsafe speed differentials between adjacent lanes.

Caltrans queueing analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational method for signalized intersections. The corresponding HCM worksheets for purposes of determining the 95th percentile vehicle queues are contained in Appendix B.

Tables 10 and 11 present the results of the Caltrans queuing analysis prepared for Existing Plus Project and Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Each queuing table reports the 95th percentile queues, which represent the maximum back of vehicle queues with 95th percentile traffic volumes. The corresponding maximum vehicle queue lengths were then compared to the queue storage lengths. As Tables 10 and 11 indicate, adequate queue storage lengths are provided to accommodate the 95th percentile queues for movements affected by the Project. Based on this, it is concluded that development of the Project under any scenario would not result in adverse queuing conditions at Caltrans intersections. 117
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 21
TABLE 10
EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS 7) Aliso Creek Road at
SR-73 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo)
Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 2,100 147 Yes 232 Yes 150 Yes 236 Yes Eastbound Right-Turn 440 145 Yes 225 Yes 148 Yes 229 Yes 8) Aliso Creek Road at
SR-73 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo)
Westbound Left-Turn 1,610 78 Yes 42 Yes 81 Yes 47 Yes
Westbound Right-Turn 140 145 Yes [c] 94 Yes 144 Yes [c] 94 Yes 14)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)[b]
Eastbound Left-Turn 1,490 634 Yes 554 Yes 625 Yes 538 Yes Eastbound Right-Turn 1,490 443 Yes 542 Yes 447 Yes 549 Yes 15)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)[b]
Westbound Left-Turn 350 106 Yes 185 Yes 111 Yes 209 Yes Westbound Right-Turn 1,390 520 Yes 732 Yes 520 Yes 772 Yes Notes:[a] Queue is based on HCM 95th Percentile Methodology and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane. [b] Please note that the lane geometry at the intersection is a product of on-going construction for the I-5 Widening Project.[c] The freeway off-ramp has enough capacity to accommodate the spillover queue.

Plus Project
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (Yes/No)
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
118
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 22
TABLE 11
YEAR 2028 CALTRANS QUEUEING ANALYSIS
7) Aliso Creek Road at
SR-73 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo)
Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 2,100 176 Yes 257 Yes 179 Yes 261 Yes Eastbound Right-Turn 440 174 Yes 250 Yes 177 Yes 254 Yes 8) Aliso Creek Road at
SR-73 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Aliso Viejo)
Westbound Left-Turn 1,610 103 Yes 65 Yes 113 Yes 70 Yes Westbound Right-Turn 140 158 Yes [c] 100 Yes 168 Yes [c] 99 Yes 14)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 SB Ramps (Caltrans/Laguna Hills)[b]
Eastbound Left-Turn 1,520 413 Yes 406 Yes 413 Yes 407 Yes Eastbound Left/Right-Turn 1,520 426 Yes 421 Yes 427 Yes 423 Yes Eastbound Right-Turn 385 448 Yes [c] 439 Yes [c] 449 Yes [c] 440 Yes [c] 15)Alicia Parkway at
I-5 NB Ramps (Caltrans/Mission Viejo)[b]
Westbound Left-Turn 770 193 Yes 256 Yes 201 Yes 258 Yes Westbound Left/Right-Turn 1,385 198 Yes 250 Yes 198 Yes 254 Yes Westbound Right-Turn 210 198 Yes 250 Yes [c] 198 Yes 254 Yes [c] Notes:[a] Queue is based on HCM 95th Percentile Methodology and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane. [b] It is anticipated that construction along Alicia Parkway, related to the I-5 Widening Project, will be completed by Year 2024. As such, it has been assumed that the intersection lane geometry in Year 2028 will be consistent with the existing lanes prior to construction. [c] The freeway off-ramp has enough capacity to accommodate the spillover queue.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) (feet) [a]
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2028 Year 2028
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
119
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 23

6.0 INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND SITE ACCESS

6.1.1 Internal Circulation
On-site circulation aspects of the Project (i.e., driveway and internal roadway orientation, residential building layout, parking configuration, parking accessibility, pedestrian and bicycle connections on site and with surrounding uses, bus stop locations and accessibility to public transit, passenger loading/unloading locations, delivery/service operations and expected drop-off/pick-up travel routes) were reviewed and concluded to be adequate.

6.1.2 Site Access Queuing Analysis
Detailed traffic operational queuing analysis at the intersection of Aliso Creek Road at Enterprise/Summerfield (Intersection 4) and the two Project driveway intersections (Intersections 5 and 6) were conducted. Tables 12 and 13 present the site access queuing results for Existing Plus Project and Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Excessive left-turn or right-turn vehicle queuing which extends into and/or blocks adjacent through travel lanes may have detrimental effects on intersection operations and the public roadway network as a whole in ways not otherwise accounted for by the ICU methodology; therefore, vehicle queuing assessment was performed for all Project driveway intersections.

The queuing analysis was prepared utilizing the HCM methodology, which considers traffic volume data, lane configurations, and traffic control/stop signs in order to calculate the 95th percentile queues for the respective traffic movements. The 95th percentile queue represents the maximum back of vehicle queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes (i.e., actual traffic volumes will exceed the 95th percentile volumes 5 percent of the time), which is a very conservative standard. A minimum vehicle length of 25 feet is assumed for purposes of this analysis. The corresponding HCM worksheets for purposes of determining the 95th percentile vehicle queues are contained in Appendix B.

Table 12 and 13 indicate that there would be adequate storage for inbound/outbound movements at each of these site access points for Existing Plus Project and Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project conditions. In other words, the existing storage lengths and/or driveway “throat” lengths would be adequate in fully accommodating the 95th percentile queues forecasted during the AM and PM peak hours.

6.1.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at Aliso Creek Road at The Commons Driveway (Intersection 6). This assessment is made on the basis of signal warrant criteria adopted by Caltrans.

For this study, the need for signalization is assessed on the basis of a peak hour traffic signal warrant. Warrant #3 is described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and has two parts: 1) Part A evaluates peak hour vehicle delay for traffic on the minor street approach with the highest delay and 2) Part B evaluates peak hour traffic volumes on the 120
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo 24
major and minor streets. This method provides an indication of whether peak hour traffic conditions or peak hour traffic volume levels are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal.

Other traffic signal warrants are available; however, they cannot be checked under future conditions (without and with Project) because they rely on data for which forecasts are not available (such as accidents and four- or eight-hour vehicle volumes).

The decision to install a traffic signal should not be based purely on the warrants alone. Instead, the installation of a signal should be considered, but with further analysis and study performed (i.e., progression analysis, minimum distances between intersections, safety/stopping sight distance/line of sight assessment, corridor operations, etc.) when one or more of the warrants are satisfied.

Additionally, engineering judgment is exercised on a case-by-case basis to evaluate what effect a traffic signal will have on certain types of accidents and traffic conditions at the subject intersection, as well as at adjacent intersections. Appendix E contains the traffic signal warrant worksheets.

The results of the peak hour traffic signal warrant analysis are summarized in Tables 14 and 15 for Existing Plus Project and Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project conditions, respectively. The results indicate that the intersection of Aliso Creek Road at The Commons Driveway (Intersection 6) will exceed the thresholds of Warrant #3, Part B (peak hour volumes) under Existing (2022) and Year 2028 conditions without development of the Project during the PM peak hour. The installation of a traffic signal at this location is not recommended due to the intersection being in close proximity to the two signalized intersections of Aliso Creek Road at SR-73 SB Ramps (Intersection 7), which is a distance of only 450 feet, and Aliso Creek Road at Enterprise (Intersection 4), which is a distance of only 640 feet. Additionally, it is not uncommon for minor streets at unsignalized intersections to experience longer delay due to the heavy volumes on the major street, especially during commute peak periods on weekdays and weekends.
121
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 25 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
TABLE 12
EXISTING (2022) PROJECT DRIVEWAY QUEUEING ANALYSIS
4) Aliso Creek Road at
Enterprise/Summerfield (Aliso Viejo)
Eastbound Left-Turn 200 64 Yes 128 Yes 104 Yes 166 Yes
5) Town Center at
Enterprise (Aliso Viejo)
Southbound Left-Turn 145 25 Yes 85 Yes 56 Yes 112 Yes
Southbound Left/Through 145 25 Yes 87 Yes 56 Yes 114 Yes Southbound Right-Turn 145 25 Yes 68 Yes 35 Yes 75 Yes
Eastbound Left-Turn 145 25 Yes 95 Yes 36 Yes 113 Yes
Westbound Right-Turn 160 55 Yes 157 Yes 73 Yes 182 Yes [b] 6) Aliso Creek Road at
The Commons Driveway (Aliso Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 220 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes
Southbound Right-Turn 215 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes
Eastbound Right-Turn 95 25 Yes 55 Yes 25 Yes 64 Yes
Notes:[a] Queue is based on HCM 95th Percentile Methodology and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane.[b] The spillover queue can be accommodated within the trasition area of the turn pocket.

Study Intersections (Jurisdiction)
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Existing (2022)
Existing (2022)
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Plus Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
122
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 26 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
TABLE 13
YEAR 2028 PROJECT DRIVEWAY QUEUEING ANALYSIS
4) Aliso Creek Road at
Enterprise/Summerfield (Aliso Viejo)
Eastbound Left-Turn 200 123 Yes 251 Yes [b] 170 Yes 290 Yes [b] 5) Town Center at
Enterprise (Aliso Viejo)
Southbound Left-Turn 145 90 Yes 252 Yes [c] 119 Yes 295 Yes [c] Southbound Left/Through 145 91 Yes 254 Yes [c] 120 Yes 296 Yes [c] Southbound Right-Turn 145 47 Yes 114 Yes 52 Yes 130 Yes Eastbound Left-Turn 145 98 Yes 190 Yes [b] 97 Yes 211 Yes [b] Westbound Right-Turn 160 143 Yes 232 Yes [b] 141 Yes 261 Yes [b] 6) Aliso Creek Road at
The Commons Driveway (Aliso Viejo)
Northbound Left-Turn 220 39 Yes 124 Yes 43 Yes 148 Yes
Southbound Right-Turn 215 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes 25 Yes
Eastbound Right-Turn 95 25 Yes 112 Yes [c] 25 Yes 127 Yes [c] Notes:[a] Queue is based on HCM 95th Percentile Methodology and is reported in total queue length (feet) per lane [b] The spillover queue can be accommodated within the trasition area of the turn pocket.[c] The spillover queue can be accommodated on site and does not affect public roadways.

Study Intersections (Jurisdiction)
Estimated
Storage
Provided
(feet)
Year 2028 Year 2028
Cumulative Base
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Cumulative Plus Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
Adequate
Storage
(Yes/No)
Queue
(feet) [a]
123
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 27 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
TABLE 14
EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY 6) Aliso Creek Road at AM No No No No
The Commons Driveway (Aliso Viejo) PM No Yes No Yes
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
Study Intersections (Jurisdiction) 3 Satisfied?
Peak
Hour
Existing (2022)
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Plus Project
Existing (2022)
124
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 28 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
TABLE 15
YEAR 2028 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
6) Aliso Creek Road at AM No No No No
The Commons Driveway (Aliso Viejo) PM No Yes No Yes
Notes:[a] Signal warrant checks based on Warrant 3, Part A - Peak-Hour Delay Warrant and Part B - Peak-Hour Volume Warrant contained in the California MUTCD.

Study Intersections (Jurisdiction)
Peak
Hour
Year 2028 Year 2028
Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Project
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part A of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
Part B of Warrant
3 Satisfied?
125
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2.22.4604.1 29 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo

7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Project Description – The Project consists of developing 343 apartment units, 3,371 SF of leasing office space, 17,273 SF of ground-floor retail uses (to include fast casual-type dining tenants), and a 590-space parking structure on the southwestern portion of the existing parking lot for The Commons commercial center.

B. Project Trip Generation – The proposed Project is estimated to generate 2,081 weekday daily trips, 166 AM peak hour trips, and 174 PM peak hour trips.

C. Project LOS Traffic Impacts - Based on the application of the performance criteria established for this study, the Project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the 16 key intersections under Existing (2022) Plus Project and Year 2028 Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

D. Caltrans Queuing Analysis - The results of the queuing analysis conducted at each Caltrans intersection indicates that there are adequate queue storage lengths provided to accommodate the 95th percentile queues. Based on this, it is concluded that development of the Project would not result in adverse queuing conditions at Caltrans intersections.

E. Site Access Queuing Analysis – The results of the site access queuing analysis indicate that there would be adequate storage for inbound/outbound movements at each of the site access points.

F. Traffic Signal Warrants - The results indicate that the intersection of Aliso Creek Road at The Commons Driveway (Intersection 6) will exceed the thresholds of Warrant #3, Part B (peak hour volumes) under Existing (2022) and Year 2028 conditions without development of the Project during the PM peak hour. The installation of a traffic signal at this location is not recommended due to the intersection being in close proximity to the two signalized intersections of Aliso Creek Road at SR-73 SB Ramps (Intersection 7), which is a distance of only 450 feet, and Aliso Creek Road at Enterprise (Intersection 4), which is a distance of only 640 feet. Additionally, it is not uncommon for minor streets at unsignalized intersections to experience longer delay due to the heavy volumes on the major street, especially during commute peak periods on weekdays and weekends.
126
STC Traffic, Inc.

STC Traffic, Inc.
5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 218, Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.stctraffic.com
Memorandum
Date: March 13, 2024
To: So Kim, Director of Community Development, City of Aliso Viejo From: Philip Wragg, AICP, Planning Group Manager, STC Traffic, Inc.

David DiPierro T.E., Senior Principal Manager, STC Traffic, Inc.

Project: Avalon Bay/ The Commons Project – Revised Parking Analysis Review 3 STC Traffic Inc. (STC) has reviewed the revised Parking Analysis for The Commons Project, 26501 Aliso Creek Road Aliso Viejo, California dated January 18, 2024, and no further comments.

Please feel free to contact either myself or David DiPierro ([email protected]) with any questions or comments regarding the review.
127

MEMORANDUM
N:\4600\2224604 - 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo\Parking\4604 Response to Parking Study Comments 1-18-24.doc To: Ms. So Kim
Director of Community Development
City of Aliso Viejo
Date: January 18, 2024
From: Trissa de Jesus Allen, PE, RSP
Senior Transportation Engineer
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
LLG Ref: 2.23.4604.1
Subject:

Parking Study for 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
Response to Comments Memorandum
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to provide the following responses to address comments prepared by STC Traffic Inc. summarized in a memorandum dated January 10, 2024, as it pertains to the Parking Study for 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo prepared by LLG on December 22, 2023. The memorandum from STC is attached and is referenced in our responses provided below.

Responses to City Comments:
 Response to Comment 1: Please find attached a two-page excerpt from the latest edition of ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) that summarizes the ULI weekday and weekend profiles. Also attached is the December 22, 2023 Parking Study with Appendix A added, which contains the back-up calculations based on the ULI Shared Parking methodology to clarify how the hourly parking demand estimates were developed.

Please let us know if you have any comments or questions regarding this response memorandum. Thank you.

Attachment
128
N:\4600\2224604 - 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo\Parking\4604 Response to Parking Study Comments 1-18-24.doc

STC COMMENTS ON PARKING
DATED JANUARY 10, 2024
129
STC Traffic, Inc.

STC Traffic, Inc.
5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 218, Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.stctraffic.com
Memorandum
Date: January 10, 2024
To: So Kim, Director of Community Development, City of Aliso Viejo From: Philip Wragg, AICP, Project Planner, STC Traffic, Inc.

David DiPierro T.E., Senior Principal Manager, STC Traffic, Inc.

Project: Avalon Bay/ The Commons Project – Revised Parking Analysis Review 2 STC Traffic Inc. (STC) has reviewed the revised Parking Analysis for The Commons Project, 26501 Aliso Creek Road Aliso Viejo, California dated December 22, 2023, and have the following comments:

Parking Demand

1. Per our previous comment #3, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the proportion of unreserved parking supplies utilized during each hour and for each land used category. Please provide a clear description clarifying the utilization of parking spaces and include a “walk-through” example to illustrate the process.

Please feel free to contact either myself or David DiPierro ([email protected]) with any questions or comments regarding the review.
130
131
132
December 22, 2023

Mr. Mark Janda
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
2050 Main Street, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92614
LLG Reference No. 2.22.4604.1
Subject: Parking Study for the 26501 Aliso Creek Road Project Aliso Viejo, California

Dear Mr. Janda:

As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (“LLG”) is pleased to submit this Parking Study for the 26501 Aliso Creek Road Project ( “Project”) proposed by AvalonBay Communities. The Project consists of developing 343 apartment units, 3,371 SF of leasing office space, 17,273 SF of ground-floor retail uses (to include fast casual-type dining tenants), and a 590-space parking structure on the southwestern portion of the existing parking lot for The Commons at Aliso Viejo (“The Commons”) commercial center. This report updates the prior Parking Study dated November 30, 2023 to address City staff comments.

This evaluation was prepared in order to determine whether there would be adequate parking supply to meet the Project’s parking needs based on the application of Cityprescribed methodology in the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Chapter 15.38 Parking, parking-related information from The Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) and Tesla Conditional Use Permit, and analytical procedures for shared parking analyses from the Shared Parking, 3rd Edition, 2020 publication by the Urban Land Institute (“ULI”).

Ultimately, the Parking Study shows that the Project’s parking supply provisions on site of 590 spaces will be adequate in serving the residential Project’s parking demand, and that parking needs of customers and employees of the retail components of the Project will be sufficiently accommodated by sharing parking within The Commons’ unreserved supply of 784 spaces (excluding 225 spaces reserved for Tesla and 4 Tesla test drive spaces).

The Study’s method of analysis, findings, and recommendations are detailed in the following sections: (I) Project Description and Setting; (II) Parking Analysis Scope and Methodology; and (III) Parking Analysis.
133
Mr. Mark Janda
December 22, 2023

Page 2 ends

N:\4600\2224604 - 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo\Parking\4604 Parking Study revised 12-22-23.doc I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
Figure 1 presents a vicinity map for the Project, which shows the general location of the Project site within the City of Aliso Viejo and the surrounding street system.

Figure 2 presents the Project site plan, which shows the apartment units, leasing office, retail space, and parking structure.

The proposed Project consists of a six-story building with 343 apartment units, 3,371 SF of leasing office space (comprised of 1,000 SF of office space, and 2,271 SF of ancillary uses/mail/storage space that do not generate additive parking demand), and 17,273 SF of ground-floor retail uses (to include fast casual-type dining tenants).

The residential units would wrap around a seven-level (plus one subterranean basement level) parking structure providing a total of 590 spaces. Residents will have a dedicated supply of 504 spaces, and on the other side of a parking gate inside the structure, 86 spaces will be designated for use by residential guests (of which 4 guest spaces will be shared with the leasing office). The leasing office will have 4 spaces reserved, which are located closest to the entry/exit of the parking structure, from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM daily (residential guests will be allowed to park in those 4 spaces during all other hours), and will be implemented/enforced through signage placed at each of the 4 spaces. Customers and employees of the retail components of the Project will be sharing in the use of unreserved spaces in the adjoining commercial parking lot for The Commons.

As illustrated on the existing overall site plan in Figure 3, the Project will be developed on the southwestern portion of the existing parking lot for The Commons commercial center. The Commons site is bound by Aliso Creek Road on the east, Enterprise on the south, and the Property Limits on the west and north.

The Commons plans to renovate some of its existing commercial space (these commercial renovations are not part of the proposed residential Project), as shown on the proposed overall site plan in Figure 4. The total future size of The Commons is 228,658 SF.

Existing uses at The Commons include the following:
 Market 18,720 SF
 Retail 2,000 SF
 Drug Store 13,322 SF
 Restaurant 13,324 SF
47,366 SF
134
Mr. Mark Janda
December 22, 2023

Page 3 ends

N:\4600\2224604 - 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo\Parking\4604 Parking Study revised 12-22-23.doc Proposed uses at The Commons (excluding the EV Dealership, which would have its own reserved parking supply) include the following:
 Market 43,215 SF
 Retail 70,974 SF
 Restaurant 12,158 SF
 Patio Seating 1,860 SF
128,207 SF
Parking supply proposed for The Commons would total 1,013 spaces, of which 225 spaces would be located in the gated area behind the buildings for the exclusive use by the EV Dealership (Tesla) and 4 spaces for Tesla test drives, resulting in a total unreserved supply of 784 spaces for The Commons in the future.

Along with the mixed-use nature of the Project, its location within The Commons (identified in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element as “Town Center Commercial”) and the heart of the City’s commercial core, which includes the area immediately south of the Project site that is commonly known as “Aliso Viejo Town Center”, fosters an environment conducive to walking, bicycling, and creating synergy/internal trips between the Project and the extensive retail, office, entertainment, educational, and residential uses that exist nearby.

II. PARKING ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The parking analysis takes the following steps:
a) Parking for AvalonBay Residents and Residential Guests: To estimate the Project’s parking needs, City Code parking ratios for multi-family residential uses from the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Section 15.38.030 Spaces Required for Residential Uses and The Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center Specific Plan were applied. The City Code requirements for residents and residential guests (including the leasing office) were compared against the Project’s proposed supply of 590 spaces to determine any Code-based surplus or deficiency. This comparison was conducted to determine whether parking structure supply (reserved for residents, residential guests, and leasing office) would be adequate. b) Parking for AvalonBay Retail: To evaluate the parking needs for the retail components of the Project within a common or shared parking footprint with The Commons, the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Section 15.38.140 that identifies “Parking Study” scope and format requirements for “alternative parking plans” was applied. This shared parking analysis was conducted to determine whether 135
Mr. Mark Janda
December 22, 2023

Page 4 ends

N:\4600\2224604 - 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo\Parking\4604 Parking Study revised 12-22-23.doc the 784 unreserved spaces in The Commons parking lot would be sufficient in accommodating the parking demand associated with the proposed retail/restaurant space in the AvalonBay building (which will be owned and managed by the owners of The Commons), in addition to The Commons’ future parking needs.

It is common to apply the shared parking study approach in estimating peak parking needs for a mixed-use development by analyzing individual land use categories and corresponding hourly demand forecasts on a weekday and weekend. The 2005 Specific Plan for The Commons also applied this shared parking method.

III. PARKING ANALYSIS
a. CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
City Code parking requirements for the Project were calculated based on the parking ratios from the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Sec. 15.38.030 Spaces Required for Residential Uses for residents, residential guest ratio of 0.25 spaces per unit from the Specific Plan, the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Sec. 15.38.040 Spaces Required for Nonresidential Uses of 1 space per 250 SF for the 1,000 SF of office space for leasing, and a ratio of 1 space per 220 SF for commercial uses based on the Tesla Conditional Use Permit.

As indicated in Table 1, the City Code requirement for the Project corresponds to 504 spaces for residents, 86 spaces for guests, and 4 spaces for the leasing office. These Code requirements equal the 504-space resident supply, 86-space residential guest supply, and 4 spaces shared between guests and the leasing office proposed to be reserved in the parking structure; therefore, the Project’s supply provisions will be adequate in fully meeting Code requirements.
b. SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
This section evaluates the Project’s retail parking needs in combination with all existing and future uses in The Commons from a shared parking perspective. As indicated previously, the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Section 15.38.140 that identifies “Parking Study” scope and format requirements for “alternative parking plans” was applied. This shared parking analysis was conducted to determine whether the 784 unreserved spaces in The Commons parking lot would be sufficient 136
Mr. Mark Janda
December 22, 2023

Page 5 ends

N:\4600\2224604 - 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo\Parking\4604 Parking Study revised 12-22-23.doc in accommodating AvalonBay retail demand, in addition to The Commons’ future parking needs.

Shared Parking Methodology
The ULI Shared Parking Methodology indicates that combining different land uses, which have parking demands that peak at different times (of the day, week, and year), generally results in a parking demand that is significantly lower than “stand-alone” or “free-standing” facilities. In other words, a mixed-use development results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak parking requirements for each land use (parking ratios/factors specific to each land use, or city parking code rates are typically applied to these “stand-alone” developments).

Because the Project’s retail components and The Commons consist of a mix of uses that have varying peak parking time periods, opportunities to share parking can be expected.

In this study, the parking demand basis for every land use category (or column in the shared parking tables) is the City requirement.

A percentage of that City requirement is reported by hour (based on hourly parking demand indices and conservative “internal capture” factors from the ULI Shared Parking publication). No other parking profiles and reductions have been presumed and applied in the shared parking calculations.

Application of Shared Parking Methodology
Tables 2 and 3 present the weekday and weekend shared parking calculations, respectively.

The left-hand portions of Tables 2 and 3 (columns in beige) present the parking demand for The Commons totaling 175,573 SF (47,366 SF existing, 128,207 SF proposed). The ratio of 1 space per 220 SF for commercial uses referenced in the Tesla Conditional Use Permit was applied to the retail, market, drugstore, and fast casual/fast-food restaurants.
137
Mr. Mark Janda
December 22, 2023

Page 6 ends

N:\4600\2224604 - 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo\Parking\4604 Parking Study revised 12-22-23.doc The demand values for The Commons were then compared against the 784 unreserved spaces in The Commons parking lot (excluding the 225 spaces to be reserved in a gated lot and 4 test drive spaces for Tesla).

The middle portions of Tables 2 and 3 (columns in green) present the non-resident parking demand for the Project corresponding to 17,273 SF of retail uses. City Code parking requirements for these Project retail components were calculated based on the ratio of 1 space per 220 SF.

Table 2 indicates that, under weekday conditions, the peak demand for The Commons and the retail components of the Project is 697 spaces at 1:00 PM (highlighted in yellow). Comparing that 697-space demand against The Commons’ unreserved parking supply of 784 spaces results in a weekday surplus of 87 spaces.

Table 3 indicates that parking demand during weekend conditions is greater than weekday conditions, and therefore represents the peak demand scenario in this shared parking analysis. The peak weekend demand for The Commons and the retail components of the Project is 722 spaces at 12:00 PM. Comparing the 722-space weekend demand against The Commons’ unreserved parking supply of 784 spaces results in a weekend surplus of 62 spaces, which represents an 8% parking contingency. Surpluses are greater during all other hours on a weekday or weekend.

Based on the above findings from a sitewide shared parking evaluation, it is concluded that the combined parking needs for the retail components of the Project and The Commons (including its existing and future uses) would adequately be served by a shared unreserved supply of 784 spaces.

We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this analysis. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at (949) 825- 6175.

Very truly yours,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E., R.S.P.

Senior Transportation Engineer
Attachments
138
139
140
141
142
City Code City Code
Parking Parking
Description Ratios Requirements
Residents
Studio 48 DU 1 sp/unit 48
1 bedroom 168 DU 1.2 sp/unit 202
2 bedroom 119 DU 2 sp/unit 238
3 bedroom 8 DU 2 sp/unit 16
Resident Parking 343 DU 504
Resident Parking Supply (in AVB structure) 504
Resident Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 0
Residential Guests
Studio 48 DU 0.25 sp/unit 12
1 bedroom 168 DU 0.25 sp/unit 42
2 bedroom 119 DU 0.25 sp/unit 30
3 bedroom 8 DU 0.25 sp/unit 2
Guest Parking 343 DU 86
Guest Parking Supply (in AVB structure) 86
Guest Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 0
Leasing Office (3,371 SF) [a] 1,000 SF 1 sp/250 SF 4
Leasing Office Parking Supply (in AVB structure) 4
Leasing Office Parking Surplus or (Deficiency) 0
Non-residential/Retail 17,273 SF 1 sp/220 SF 79
Non-Residential/Retail 79
(shared parking with The Commons)
Note:
[a] The 3,371-SF residential leasing office is comprised of 1,000 SF of office space, and 2,271 SF of ancillary uses (i.e., mail, storage space) that do not generate additive parking demand. The 4-space requirement for the 1,000-SF office space will be served by 4 spaces in the AVB parking structure closest to the entrance/exit reserved for the leasing office from 9am to 5pm daily (guests are allowed to park in the 4 spaces during all other hours).
26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo

CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
TABLE 1
DU or SF
143
Land Use
Retail, Market,
Drugstore, Fast
Casual/Fast-Food
Restaurant
Retail
Size 175.573 KSF 17.273 KSF
Pkg Rate [3] 4.55 /KSF 4.55 /KSF
Gross 799 Spc. 79 Spc.

Adjusted [4] 719 Spc. 71 Spc.

Number of Number of
Time of Day Spaces Spaces
6:00 AM 104 680 2 106 6787:00 AM 125 659 5 130 6548:00 AM 175 609 12 187 5979:00 AM 294 490 24 318 466 10:00 AM 421 363 39 460 32411:00 AM 533 251 51 584 200
12:00 PM 605 179 64 669 115
1:00 PM 633 151 64 697 87
2:00 PM 628 156 61 689 953:00 PM 566 218 56 622 1624:00 PM 564 220 56 620 1645:00 PM 569 215 56 625 1596:00 PM 613 171 59 672 1127:00 PM 531 253 52 583 2018:00 PM 341 443 44 385 3999:00 PM 231 553 30 261 523 10:00 PM 137 647 14 151 63311:00 PM 57 727 5 62 722
12:00 AM 35 749 0 35 749
633 151 Weekday Peak Shared Demand: 697 87
Notes: Surplus (The Commons + Project Retail) Surplus[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," 3rd Ed, 2020.[2] The 784-space supply for The Commons excludes 225 spaces to be reserved in a gated lot for the EV Dealership and 4 spaces for Tesla test drives.[3] City Code/Tesla CUP ratios were applied to all land use categories.[4] A Non-Captive/Internal Capture reduction factor of 0.90 was applied to all commercial uses.

TABLE 2
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership +
Project Retail
Shared Demand
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership +
Project Retail
Surplus or
(Deficiency)
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership Shared
Demand
Project Retail
Shared Demand
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership
Surplus or
(Deficiency)
0 Project Retail
525
122439516464615656565952443014
The Commons
Unreserved
Supply = 784 sp
[2]
The Commons (175,573 SF of commercial
uses excluding EV Dealership)
35 104125175294421533605633628566564569613531341231137
57 The Commons
Unreserved
Supply = 784 sp
[2]
(1 sp/220 SF) (1 sp/220 SF)
144
Land Use
Retail, Market,
Drugstore, Fast
Casual/Fast-Food
Restaurant
Retail
Size 175.573 KSF 17.273 KSF
Pkg Rate [3] 4.55 /KSF 4.55 /KSF
Gross 799 Spc. 79 Spc.

Adjusted [4] 719 Spc. 71 Spc.

Number of Number of
Time of Day Spaces Spaces
6:00 AM 108 676 2 110 6747:00 AM 133 651 5 138 6468:00 AM 225 559 22 247 5379:00 AM 330 454 39 369 415 10:00 AM 465 319 52 517 26711:00 AM 604 180 66 670 114
12:00 PM 654 130 68 722 62
1:00 PM 646 138 71 717 672:00 PM 622 162 71 693 913:00 PM 558 226 68 626 1584:00 PM 553 231 66 619 1655:00 PM 578 206 59 637 1476:00 PM 539 245 56 595 1897:00 PM 453 331 51 504 2808:00 PM 337 447 47 384 4009:00 PM 216 568 37 253 531 10:00 PM 86 698 24 110 67411:00 PM 43 741 7 50 734
12:00 AM 23 761 0 23 761
654 130 Weekend Peak Shared Demand: 722 62
Notes: Surplus (The Commons + Project Retail) Surplus[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," 3rd Ed, 2020.[2] The 784-space supply for The Commons excludes 225 spaces to be reserved in a gated lot for the EV Dealership and 4 spaces for Tesla test drives.[3] City Code/Tesla CUP ratios were applied to all land use categories.[4] A Non-Captive/Internal Capture reduction factor of 0.90 was applied to all commercial uses.

TABLE 3
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership +
Project Retail
Shared Demand
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership +
Project Retail
Surplus or
(Deficiency)
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership Shared
Demand
Project Retail
Shared Demand
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership
Surplus or
(Deficiency)
Project Retail
25 6866595651473724223952666871
The Commons
Unreserved
Supply = 784 sp
[2]
The Commons (175,573 SF of commercial
uses excluding EV Dealership)
553578539453337216
86 108133225330465654646
4323
(1 sp/220 SF) (1 sp/220 SF)
604622558
71 07
The Commons
Unreserved
Supply = 784 sp
[2]
145
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-22-4604-1 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
N:\4600\2224604 - 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo\Misc\4604 Dividers.doc

APPENDIX A

ULI SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS
146
Land Use Retail exc EV Dealership [2] Super-market/ Grocery Drugstore/ Pharmacy Fast Casual/Fast- Food Restaurant [3] Retail/Family Entertainment Absolute Peak = 794 Spc.

Retail, Market,
Drugstore, Fast
Casual/Fast-Food
Restaurant
Additional Retail
Retail, Market,
Drugstore, Fast
Casual/Fast-Food
Restaurant
Retail
Size 10.500 KSF 61.935 KSF 13.322 KSF 27.342 KSF 38.535 KSF 151.634 KSF 23.939 KSF 175.573 KSF 17.273 KSF Pkg Rate [3] 4.00 /KSF 4.55 /KSF 4.00 /KSF 10.00 /KSF 4.10 /KSF 4.55 /KSF 4.55 /KSF 4.55 /KSF 4.55 /KSF Gross 42 Spc. 282 Spc. 53 Spc. 273 Spc. 158 Spc. 690 Spc. 109 Spc. 799 Spc. 79 Spc.

Adjusted [4] 42 Spc. 282 Spc. 53 Spc. 273 Spc. 158 Spc. 621 Spc. 98 Spc. 719 Spc. 71 Spc.

Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 45 6% 104 680 2 106 678
7:00 AM 107 13% 125 659 5 130 654
8:00 AM 171 22% 175 609 12 187 5979:00 AM 288 36% 294 490 24 318 466 10:00 AM 450 57% 421 363 39 460 32411:00 AM 582 73% 533 251 51 584 200 12:00 PM 697 88% 605 179 64 669 115
1:00 PM 721 91% 633 151 64 697 87
2:00 PM 715 90% 628 156 61 689 953:00 PM 635 80% 566 218 56 622 1624:00 PM 621 78% 564 220 56 620 1645:00 PM 614 77% 569 215 56 625 1596:00 PM 658 83% 613 171 59 672 1127:00 PM 567 71% 531 253 52 583 2018:00 PM 338 43% 341 443 44 385 3999:00 PM 211 27% 231 553 30 261 523 10:00 PM 133 17% 137 647 14 151 63311:00 PM 60 8% 57 727 5 62 722 12:00 AM 45 6% 35 749 0 35 749
721 633 151 Weekday Peak Shared Demand: 697 87
Notes: Surplus (The Commons + Project Retail) Surplus[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," 3rd Ed, 2020.[2] The 784-space supply for The Commons excludes 225 spaces to be reserved in a gated lot for the EV Dealership and 4 spaces for Tesla test drives. [3] City Code/Tesla CUP ratios were applied to all land use categories.[4] A Non-Captive/Internal Capture reduction factor of 0.90 was applied to all commercial uses. 443264165104
4735
% of
Absolute
Peak
(Hourly
Demand /
794)
The Commons (175,573 SF of commercial uses excluding EV Dealership) (1 sp/220 SF)
3584
134225352455545564559497486480515

APPENDIX A
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership +
Project Retail
Shared Demand
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership +
Project Retail
Surplus or
(Deficiency)
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership Shared
Demand
Project Retail
Shared Demand
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership
Surplus or
(Deficiency)
0 Project Retail
525
122439516464615656565952443014
The Commons
Unreserved
Supply = 784 sp
[2]
(1 sp/220 SF)
10 0 35
6941416969786069696978899888776633
104125175294421533605633628566564569613531341231137
1 57
81 1
583220
1 5653
228 70137232
100
0 267267242
20325883
155
83 216
110116
149165
11 110
5353524328374648
333
11163333
3335312618
8 521710
23303838363333
30 56
21216189
155183204246258270
137
14 275282282273224146
9221
51 165
104
013
79 The Commons
Unreserved
Supply = 784 sp
[2]
Total (1 sp/220 SF) (1 sp/220 SF)
Commercial
Visitor &
Employee
Shared
Demand
147
Land Use Retail exc EV Dealership [2] Super-market/ Grocery Drugstore/ Pharmacy Fast Casual/Fast- Food Restaurant [3] Retail/Family Entertainment Absolute Peak = 794 Spc.

Adjusted [4] 42 Spc. 282 Spc. 53 Spc. 273 Spc. 158 Spc. 621 Spc. 98 Spc. 719 Spc. 71 Spc.

Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Time of Day Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 56 7% 108 676 2 110 674
7:00 AM 124 16% 133 651 5 138 646
8:00 AM 251 32% 225 559 22 247 5379:00 AM 369 46% 330 454 39 369 415 10:00 AM 557 70% 465 319 52 517 26711:00 AM 720 91% 604 180 66 670 114 12:00 PM 784 99% 654 130 68 722 62
1:00 PM 794 100% 646 138 71 717 672:00 PM 767 97% 622 162 71 693 913:00 PM 682 86% 558 226 68 626 1584:00 PM 650 82% 553 231 66 619 1655:00 PM 637 80% 578 206 59 637 1476:00 PM 591 74% 539 245 56 595 1897:00 PM 517 65% 453 331 51 504 2808:00 PM 399 50% 337 447 47 384 4009:00 PM 266 34% 216 568 37 253 531 10:00 PM 107 13% 86 698 24 110 67411:00 PM 53 7% 43 741 7 50 734 12:00 AM 30 4% 23 761 0 23 761
794 654 130 Weekend Peak Shared Demand: 722 62
Surplus (The Commons + Project Retail) Surplus
Notes:[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," 3rd Ed, 2020.[2] The 784-space supply for The Commons excludes 225 spaces to be reserved in a gated lot for the EV Dealership and 4 spaces for Tesla test drives. [3] City Code/Tesla CUP ratios were applied to all land use categories.[4] A Non-Captive/Internal Capture reduction factor of 0.90 was applied to all commercial uses. 613621600533508498462404312208
844123
643629412941412522254580774925
8220
The Commons (175,573 SF of commercial uses excluding EV Dealership) % of
Absolute
Peak
(Hourly
Demand /
794)
(1 sp/220 SF) (1 sp/220 SF)
4497
196289436563

APPENDIX A
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership +
Project Retail
Shared Demand
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership +
Project Retail
Surplus or
(Deficiency)
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership Shared
Demand
Project Retail
Shared Demand
The Commons
Excluding EV
Dealership
Surplus or
(Deficiency)
Project Retail
25 6866595651473724223952666871
The Commons
Unreserved
Supply = 784 sp
[2]
553578539453337216
86 108133225330465654646
4323
270282
28 (1 sp/220 SF) (1 sp/220 SF)
1 14 1
1 18 31 5
3 31 75
151216
39 238 10831 158 47 51
53 23 8613
40 58 1
4 604
42 273 282 53 144
40 273 282 53 13642 247 275 52 151 622
558
71 51 144
40 168 271 52 15139 152 26435 168 238 45 1513330 222 96 18 151 139 234
28 140 73 14 144
0 19 91 1 0
1 27
17 3 15 58
86 14
22 45 8 105
158
4 31 14 3 7
The Commons
Unreserved
Supply = 784 sp
[2]
Total
Commercial
Visitor &
Employee
Shared
Demand
148
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17:00 AM 5% 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 14% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 38:00 AM 14% 5 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 4 23% 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 4 4 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 69:00 AM 32% 11 6 7 8 7 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 11 9 41% 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 14 8 9 10 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 11 14 12 10:00 AM 54% 18 11 11 13 12 13 13 13 13 12 12 14 18 15 68% 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 23 14 15 17 16 17 17 17 17 16 16 18 23 2011:00 AM 68% 23 14 14 16 15 17 17 16 17 15 16 17 23 20 86% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 30 19 19 22 20 23 23 22 23 20 21 23 30 27 12:00 PM 90% 31 18 19 22 21 22 22 22 23 20 21 24 31 26 90% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 38 23 24 28 26 28 28 28 29 25 26 30 38 33 1:00 PM 90% 31 18 19 22 21 22 22 22 23 20 21 24 31 26 90% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 38 23 24 28 26 28 28 28 29 25 26 30 38 332:00 PM 86% 29 17 18 20 19 21 21 20 21 19 20 22 29 25 90% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 36 22 23 26 24 27 27 26 27 24 25 28 36 323:00 PM 77% 26 15 16 18 17 19 19 18 19 17 18 20 26 22 90% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 33 20 21 24 22 25 25 24 25 22 23 26 33 294:00 PM 77% 26 15 16 18 17 19 19 18 19 17 18 20 26 22 90% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 33 20 21 24 22 25 25 24 25 22 23 26 33 295:00 PM 77% 26 15 16 18 17 19 19 18 19 17 18 20 26 22 90% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 33 20 21 24 22 25 25 24 25 22 23 26 33 296:00 PM 81% 28 17 17 20 19 20 20 20 20 18 19 21 28 24 90% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 35 22 22 26 24 26 26 26 26 23 24 27 35 317:00 PM 72% 24 14 15 17 16 17 17 17 18 16 17 18 24 20 90% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 31 19 20 23 21 23 23 23 24 21 22 24 31 278:00 PM 59% 20 12 12 14 13 14 14 14 15 13 14 15 20 17 81% 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 26 16 16 19 18 19 19 19 20 18 19 20 26 239:00 PM 41% 14 8 9 10 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 11 14 12 54% 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 18 11 12 13 12 13 13 13 13 12 13 14 18 16 10:00 PM 14% 5 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 4 36% 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 8 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 7 8 711:00 PM 5% 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 18% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 12:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes:

Appendix A

SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS)
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
34 Guest Spc. 8 Emp. Spc. 42

10.500
4 Shared Parking Demand
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual.[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code.[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.

Total Spaces
Shopping Center (Typical Days)
Employee Parking Demand

1.001.00

1.001.00
Guest Parking Demand
149
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17:00 AM 5% 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 15% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 38:00 AM 30% 10 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 10 9 40% 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 13 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 13 129:00 AM 50% 17 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 13 17 14 75% 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 23 14 14 17 16 17 17 17 17 16 17 18 23 20 10:00 AM 70% 24 14 15 17 16 17 17 17 18 16 17 18 24 20 85% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 31 19 20 23 21 23 23 23 24 21 22 24 31 2711:00 AM 90% 31 18 19 22 21 22 22 22 23 20 21 24 31 26 95% 8 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 8 8 39 24 25 28 27 29 29 28 30 26 27 31 39 34 12:00 PM 95% 32 19 20 22 21 23 23 22 23 21 22 24 32 27 100% 8 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 8 8 40 25 26 28 27 30 30 28 30 27 28 31 40 35 1:00 PM 100% 34 20 21 24 23 24 24 24 25 22 23 26 34 29 100% 8 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 8 8 42 26 27 30 29 31 31 30 32 28 29 33 42 372:00 PM 100% 34 20 21 24 23 24 24 24 25 22 23 26 34 29 100% 8 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 8 8 42 26 27 30 29 31 31 30 32 28 29 33 42 373:00 PM 95% 32 19 20 22 21 23 23 22 23 21 22 24 32 27 100% 8 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 8 8 40 25 26 28 27 30 30 28 30 27 28 31 40 354:00 PM 90% 31 18 19 22 21 22 22 22 23 20 21 24 31 26 100% 8 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 8 8 39 24 25 28 27 29 29 28 30 26 27 31 39 345:00 PM 80% 27 16 16 19 18 19 19 19 20 18 19 21 27 23 95% 8 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 8 8 35 22 22 25 24 26 26 25 27 24 25 28 35 316:00 PM 75% 26 15 16 18 17 19 19 18 19 17 18 20 26 22 85% 7 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 7 7 33 20 21 24 22 25 25 24 25 22 23 26 33 297:00 PM 70% 24 14 15 17 16 17 17 17 18 16 17 18 24 20 80% 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 30 18 19 22 21 22 22 22 23 21 22 23 30 268:00 PM 65% 22 13 13 15 15 16 16 15 16 15 15 17 22 19 75% 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 28 17 17 20 20 21 21 20 21 20 20 22 28 259:00 PM 50% 17 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 13 17 14 65% 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 22 13 14 16 15 16 16 16 16 15 16 17 22 19 10:00 PM 30% 10 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 10 9 45% 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 14 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 14 1311:00 PM 10% 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 15% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 12:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes:

Shopping Center (Typical Days)

SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS)
Appendix A
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
34 Guest Spc. 8 Emp. Spc. Total Spaces
Employee Parking Demand Shared Parking Demand
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code.[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual.

10.500
4 42

1.00 Guest Parking Demand

1.00 1.00

1.00 150
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 5% 12 11 10 11 11 12 11 12 11 11 11 11 12 11 20% 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 21 20 19 20 20 21 20 21 20 20 20 20 21 207:00 AM 20% 47 44 40 44 43 46 44 45 45 43 45 45 47 45 30% 14 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 61 58 53 58 57 60 58 59 59 57 59 59 61 598:00 AM 30% 71 66 61 67 65 69 67 68 67 65 67 67 71 67 40% 18 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 89 84 78 85 83 87 85 86 85 83 85 85 89 859:00 AM 50% 119 111 102 112 109 115 112 114 113 109 113 113 119 113 80% 36 36 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 155 147 137 148 145 151 148 150 149 145 149 149 155 149 10:00 AM 60% 142 132 122 133 131 138 133 136 135 131 135 135 142 135 90% 41 41 39 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 183 173 161 174 172 179 174 177 176 172 176 176 183 17611:00 AM 67% 159 148 137 149 146 154 149 153 151 146 151 151 159 151 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 204 193 180 194 191 199 194 198 196 191 196 196 204 196 12:00 PM 85% 201 187 173 189 185 195 189 193 191 185 191 191 201 191 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 246 232 216 234 230 240 234 238 236 230 236 236 246 236 1:00 PM 90% 213 198 183 200 196 207 200 204 202 196 202 202 213 202 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 258 243 226 245 241 252 245 249 247 241 247 247 258 2472:00 PM 95% 225 209 194 212 207 218 212 216 214 207 214 214 225 214 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 270 254 237 257 252 263 257 261 259 252 259 259 270 2593:00 PM 97% 230 214 198 216 212 223 216 221 219 212 219 219 230 219 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 275 259 241 261 257 268 261 266 264 257 264 264 275 2644:00 PM 100% 237 220 204 223 218 230 223 228 225 218 225 225 237 225 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 282 265 247 268 263 275 268 273 270 263 270 270 282 2705:00 PM 100% 237 220 204 223 218 230 223 228 225 218 225 225 237 225 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 282 265 247 268 263 275 268 273 270 263 270 270 282 2706:00 PM 100% 237 220 204 223 218 230 223 228 225 218 225 225 237 225 80% 36 36 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 273 256 239 259 254 266 259 264 261 254 261 261 273 2617:00 PM 85% 201 187 173 189 185 195 189 193 191 185 191 191 201 191 50% 23 23 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 224 210 195 212 208 218 212 216 214 208 214 214 224 2148:00 PM 55% 130 121 112 122 120 126 122 125 124 120 124 124 130 124 35% 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 146 137 127 138 136 142 138 141 140 136 140 140 146 1409:00 PM 35% 83 77 71 78 76 81 78 80 79 76 79 79 83 79 20% 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 92 86 80 87 85 90 87 89 88 85 88 88 92 88 10:00 PM 20% 47 44 40 44 43 46 44 45 45 43 45 45 47 45 20% 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 56 53 49 53 52 55 53 54 54 52 54 54 56 5411:00 PM 5% 12 11 10 11 11 12 11 12 11 11 11 11 12 11 20% 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 21 20 19 20 20 21 20 21 20 20 20 20 21 20 12:00 AM 5% 12 11 10 11 11 12 11 12 11 11 11 11 12 11 20% 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 21 20 19 20 20 21 20 21 20 20 20 20 21 20 Notes:

Appendix A
Supermarket/Grocery

SUPERMARKET/GROCERY
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]

1.00 1.001.00
Guest Parking Demand
Total Spaces

61.935
5 Employee Parking Demand Shared Parking Demand

1.00 237 Guest Spc. 45 Emp. Spc. 282
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code.[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 151
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 10% 24 22 21 23 22 23 23 23 23 22 23 23 24 23 15% 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 31 29 28 30 29 30 30 30 30 29 30 30 31 307:00 AM 25% 59 55 51 55 54 57 55 57 56 54 56 56 59 56 35% 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 75 71 66 71 70 73 71 73 72 70 72 72 75 728:00 AM 50% 119 111 102 112 109 115 112 114 113 109 113 113 119 113 70% 32 32 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 151 143 133 144 141 147 144 146 145 141 145 145 151 1459:00 AM 75% 178 166 153 167 164 173 167 171 169 164 169 169 178 169 85% 38 38 36 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 216 204 189 205 202 211 205 209 207 202 207 207 216 207 10:00 AM 95% 225 209 194 212 207 218 212 216 214 207 214 214 225 214 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 270 254 237 257 252 263 257 261 259 252 259 259 270 25911:00 AM 100% 237 220 204 223 218 230 223 228 225 218 225 225 237 225 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 282 265 247 268 263 275 268 273 270 263 270 270 282 270 12:00 PM 100% 237 220 204 223 218 230 223 228 225 218 225 225 237 225 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 282 265 247 268 263 275 268 273 270 263 270 270 282 270 1:00 PM 100% 237 220 204 223 218 230 223 228 225 218 225 225 237 225 100% 45 45 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 282 265 247 268 263 275 268 273 270 263 270 270 282 2702:00 PM 100% 237 220 204 223 218 230 223 228 225 218 225 225 237 225 85% 38 38 36 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 275 258 240 261 256 268 261 266 263 256 263 263 275 2633:00 PM 100% 237 220 204 223 218 230 223 228 225 218 225 225 237 225 75% 34 34 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 271 254 237 257 252 264 257 262 259 252 259 259 271 2594:00 PM 100% 237 220 204 223 218 230 223 228 225 218 225 225 237 225 60% 27 27 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 264 247 230 250 245 257 250 255 252 245 252 252 264 2525:00 PM 90% 213 198 183 200 196 207 200 204 202 196 202 202 213 202 55% 25 25 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 238 223 207 225 221 232 225 229 227 221 227 227 238 2276:00 PM 50% 119 111 102 112 109 115 112 114 113 109 113 113 119 113 45% 20 20 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 139 131 121 132 129 135 132 134 133 129 133 133 139 1337:00 PM 33% 78 73 67 73 72 76 73 75 74 72 74 74 78 74 40% 18 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 96 91 84 91 90 94 91 93 92 90 92 92 96 928:00 PM 25% 59 55 51 55 54 57 55 57 56 54 56 56 59 56 30% 14 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 73 69 64 69 68 71 69 71 70 68 70 70 73 709:00 PM 15% 36 33 31 34 33 35 34 35 34 33 34 34 36 34 20% 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 45 42 40 43 42 44 43 44 43 42 43 43 45 43 10:00 PM 5% 12 11 10 11 11 12 11 12 11 11 11 11 12 11 10% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 17 16 15 16 16 17 16 17 16 16 16 16 17 1611:00 PM 4% 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 10% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 14 13 13 13 13 14 13 14 14 13 14 14 14 14 12:00 AM 3% 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 5% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 9 8 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 Notes:

Supermarket/Grocery

SUPERMARKET/GROCERY
Appendix A
282
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code.[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 237 Guest Spc. 45 Emp. Spc. Total Spaces

1.001.00

61.935
5 Guest Parking Demand Employee Parking Demand Shared Parking Demand WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
152
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 5% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 37:00 AM 20% 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 30% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 118:00 AM 30% 14 12 12 13 12 13 12 12 13 12 13 12 14 13 40% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 14 14 15 14 15 14 14 15 14 15 14 16 159:00 AM 60% 28 25 24 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 25 28 27 80% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 33 30 29 31 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 30 33 32 10:00 AM 60% 28 25 24 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 25 28 27 90% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 33 30 29 31 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 30 33 3211:00 AM 67% 31 28 26 29 28 28 28 28 28 27 29 28 31 29 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 37 34 32 35 34 34 34 34 34 33 35 34 37 35 12:00 PM 85% 40 36 34 37 36 36 36 36 36 35 37 36 40 38 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 46 42 40 43 42 42 42 42 42 41 43 42 46 44 1:00 PM 90% 42 37 36 39 37 38 37 37 38 37 39 37 42 40 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 48 43 42 45 43 44 43 43 44 43 45 43 48 462:00 PM 95% 45 40 38 41 40 41 40 40 41 40 41 40 45 43 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 51 46 44 47 46 47 46 46 47 46 47 46 51 493:00 PM 97% 46 41 39 42 41 42 41 41 41 40 42 41 46 44 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 52 47 45 48 47 48 47 47 47 46 48 47 52 504:00 PM 100% 47 42 40 43 42 43 42 42 42 41 43 42 47 45 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 53 48 46 49 48 49 48 48 48 47 49 48 53 515:00 PM 100% 47 42 40 43 42 43 42 42 42 41 43 42 47 45 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 53 48 46 49 48 49 48 48 48 47 49 48 53 516:00 PM 100% 47 42 40 43 42 43 42 42 42 41 43 42 47 45 80% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 52 47 45 48 47 48 47 47 47 46 48 47 52 507:00 PM 85% 40 36 34 37 36 36 36 36 36 35 37 36 40 38 50% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 43 39 37 40 39 39 39 39 39 38 40 39 43 418:00 PM 55% 26 23 22 24 23 24 23 23 23 23 24 23 26 25 35% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28 25 24 26 25 26 25 25 25 25 26 25 28 279:00 PM 35% 16 14 14 15 14 15 14 14 14 14 15 14 16 15 20% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 15 15 16 15 16 15 15 15 15 16 15 17 16 10:00 PM 20% 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 20% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 1011:00 PM 5% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 12:00 AM 5% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Notes:

Appendix A
Pharmacy

PHARMACY
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]

1.00 1.001.00
Guest Parking Demand
Total Spaces

13.322
4 Employee Parking Demand Shared Parking Demand

1.00 47 Guest Spc. 6 Emp. Spc. 53
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code.[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 153
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 8% 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 15% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 57:00 AM 25% 12 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 11 35% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 13 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 138:00 AM 50% 24 21 20 22 21 22 21 21 22 21 22 21 24 23 70% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 28 25 24 26 25 26 25 25 26 25 26 25 28 279:00 AM 75% 35 31 30 32 31 32 31 31 32 31 32 31 35 33 85% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 36 35 37 36 37 36 36 37 36 37 36 40 38 10:00 AM 95% 45 40 38 41 40 41 40 40 41 40 41 40 45 43 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 51 46 44 47 46 47 46 46 47 46 47 46 51 4911:00 AM 100% 47 42 40 43 42 43 42 42 42 41 43 42 47 45 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 53 48 46 49 48 49 48 48 48 47 49 48 53 51 12:00 PM 100% 47 42 40 43 42 43 42 42 42 41 43 42 47 45 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 53 48 46 49 48 49 48 48 48 47 49 48 53 51 1:00 PM 100% 47 42 40 43 42 43 42 42 42 41 43 42 47 45 100% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 53 48 46 49 48 49 48 48 48 47 49 48 53 512:00 PM 100% 47 42 40 43 42 43 42 42 42 41 43 42 47 45 85% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 52 47 45 48 47 48 47 47 47 46 48 47 52 503:00 PM 100% 47 42 40 43 42 43 42 42 42 41 43 42 47 45 75% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 52 47 45 48 47 48 47 47 47 46 48 47 52 504:00 PM 100% 47 42 40 43 42 43 42 42 42 41 43 42 47 45 60% 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 51 46 44 47 46 47 46 46 46 45 47 46 51 495:00 PM 90% 42 37 36 39 37 38 37 37 38 37 39 37 42 40 55% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 40 39 42 40 41 40 40 41 40 42 40 45 436:00 PM 50% 24 21 20 22 21 22 21 21 22 21 22 21 24 23 45% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 27 24 23 25 24 25 24 24 25 24 25 24 27 267:00 PM 33% 16 14 14 15 14 15 14 14 14 14 15 14 16 15 40% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 18 16 16 17 16 17 16 16 16 16 17 16 18 178:00 PM 25% 12 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 11 30% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 13 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 139:00 PM 15% 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 20% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 10:00 PM 5% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 10% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 311:00 PM 4% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 10% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 12:00 AM 3% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Notes:

Pharmacy

PHARMACY
Appendix A
53 [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code.[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 47 Guest Spc. 6 Emp. Spc. Total Spaces

1.001.00

13.322
4 Guest Parking Demand Employee Parking Demand Shared Parking Demand WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
154
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross 1
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 5% 12 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 12 11 20% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 20 18 18 20 19 20 20 20 20 19 20 19 20 197:00 AM 10% 24 20 20 23 23 24 24 24 24 22 23 22 23 23 20% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 32 28 28 31 31 32 32 32 32 30 31 30 31 318:00 AM 20% 47 40 40 46 45 47 46 47 47 44 45 43 45 45 29% 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 58 51 51 57 56 58 57 58 58 55 56 54 56 569:00 AM 29% 68 58 58 66 65 67 67 68 68 63 65 63 65 65 39% 15 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 83 72 72 81 80 82 82 83 83 78 80 78 80 80 10:00 AM 54% 127 108 108 123 121 126 124 127 127 118 122 117 122 121 73% 28 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 155 135 135 151 149 154 152 155 155 146 150 145 150 14911:00 AM 83% 195 166 166 189 185 193 191 195 195 181 187 179 187 185 98% 37 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 232 202 202 226 222 230 228 232 232 218 224 216 224 222 12:00 PM 98% 230 196 196 223 219 228 225 230 230 214 221 212 221 219 98% 37 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 267 232 232 260 256 265 262 267 267 251 258 249 258 256 1:00 PM 98% 230 196 196 223 219 228 225 230 230 214 221 212 221 219 98% 37 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 267 232 232 260 256 265 262 267 267 251 258 249 258 2562:00 PM 88% 207 176 176 201 197 205 203 207 207 193 199 190 199 197 93% 35 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 242 210 210 236 232 240 238 242 242 228 234 225 234 2323:00 PM 59% 139 118 118 135 132 138 136 139 139 129 133 128 133 132 69% 26 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 165 143 143 161 158 164 162 165 165 155 159 154 159 1584:00 PM 54% 127 108 108 123 121 126 124 127 127 118 122 117 122 121 59% 22 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 149 129 129 145 143 148 146 149 149 140 144 139 144 1435:00 PM 59% 139 118 118 135 132 138 136 139 139 129 133 128 133 132 69% 26 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 165 143 143 161 158 164 162 165 165 155 159 154 159 1586:00 PM 83% 195 166 166 189 185 193 191 195 195 181 187 179 187 185 88% 33 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 228 198 198 222 218 226 224 228 228 214 220 212 220 2187:00 PM 78% 183 156 156 178 174 181 179 183 183 170 176 168 176 174 88% 33 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 216 188 188 211 207 214 212 216 216 203 209 201 209 2078:00 PM 49% 115 98 98 112 109 114 113 115 115 107 110 106 110 109 59% 22 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 137 119 119 134 131 136 135 137 137 129 132 128 132 1319:00 PM 29% 68 58 58 66 65 67 67 68 68 63 65 63 65 65 39% 15 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 83 72 72 81 80 82 82 83 83 78 80 78 80 80 10:00 PM 20% 47 40 40 46 45 47 46 47 47 44 45 43 45 45 29% 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 58 51 51 57 56 58 57 58 58 55 56 54 56 5611:00 PM 10% 24 20 20 23 23 24 24 24 24 22 23 22 23 23 20% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 32 28 28 31 31 32 32 32 32 30 31 30 31 31 12:00 AM 5% 12 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 12 11 20% 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 20 18 18 20 19 20 20 20 20 19 20 19 20 19 Notes:
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.

Fast-Food Restaurant
235 Guest Spc. 38 Emp. Spc. 273 Total Spaces
Guest Parking Demand Employee Parking Demand Shared Parking Demand [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code.

1.001.00

FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Appendix A
10 27.342
155
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 5% 12 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 12 11 15% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 16 16 18 17 18 18 18 18 17 18 17 18 177:00 AM 10% 24 20 20 23 23 24 24 24 24 22 23 22 23 23 20% 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 31 27 27 30 30 31 31 31 31 29 30 29 30 308:00 AM 20% 47 40 40 46 45 47 46 47 47 44 45 43 45 45 30% 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 58 51 51 57 56 58 57 58 58 55 56 54 56 569:00 AM 30% 71 60 60 69 67 70 70 71 71 66 68 65 68 67 40% 15 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 86 74 74 84 82 85 85 86 86 81 83 80 83 82 10:00 AM 55% 130 111 111 126 124 129 127 130 130 121 125 120 125 124 75% 28 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 158 138 138 154 152 157 155 158 158 149 153 148 153 15211:00 AM 85% 201 171 171 195 191 199 197 201 201 187 193 185 193 191 100% 37 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 238 207 207 232 228 236 234 238 238 224 230 222 230 228 12:00 PM 100% 236 201 201 229 224 234 231 236 236 219 227 217 227 224 100% 37 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 273 237 237 266 261 271 268 273 273 256 264 254 264 261 1:00 PM 100% 236 201 201 229 224 234 231 236 236 219 227 217 227 224 100% 37 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 273 237 237 266 261 271 268 273 273 256 264 254 264 2612:00 PM 90% 212 180 180 206 201 210 208 212 212 197 204 195 204 201 95% 35 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 247 214 214 241 236 245 243 247 247 232 239 230 239 2363:00 PM 60% 142 121 121 138 135 141 139 142 142 132 136 131 136 135 70% 26 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 168 146 146 164 161 167 165 168 168 158 162 157 162 1614:00 PM 55% 130 111 111 126 124 129 127 130 130 121 125 120 125 124 60% 22 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 152 132 132 148 146 151 149 152 152 143 147 142 147 1465:00 PM 60% 142 121 121 138 135 141 139 142 142 132 136 131 136 135 70% 26 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 168 146 146 164 161 167 165 168 168 158 162 157 162 1616:00 PM 85% 201 171 171 195 191 199 197 201 201 187 193 185 193 191 90% 33 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 234 203 203 228 224 232 230 234 234 220 226 218 226 2247:00 PM 80% 189 161 161 183 180 187 185 189 189 176 181 174 181 180 90% 33 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 222 193 193 216 213 220 218 222 222 209 214 207 214 2138:00 PM 50% 118 100 100 114 112 117 116 118 118 110 113 109 113 112 60% 22 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 140 121 121 136 134 139 138 140 140 132 135 131 135 1349:00 PM 30% 71 60 60 69 67 70 70 71 71 66 68 65 68 67 40% 15 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 86 74 74 84 82 85 85 86 86 81 83 80 83 82 10:00 PM 20% 47 40 40 46 45 47 46 47 47 44 45 43 45 45 30% 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 58 51 51 57 56 58 57 58 58 55 56 54 56 5611:00 PM 10% 24 20 20 23 23 24 24 24 24 22 23 22 23 23 20% 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 31 27 27 30 30 31 31 31 31 29 30 29 30 30 12:00 AM 5% 12 10 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 12 11 20% 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 19 17 17 19 18 19 19 19 19 18 19 18 19 18 Notes:

Guest Parking Demand

1.001.00

FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT
Appendix A
WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
Fast-Food Restaurant

27.342
10 Shared Parking Demand
37 Emp. Spc.

1.001.00
273 Total Spaces
[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual.[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code. 236 Guest Spc.

Employee Parking Demand
156
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18% 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 10:00 AM 33% 47 9 12 17 24 11 21 41 32 10 12 9 23 47 55% 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 9 7 5 5 5 5 9 56 14 17 22 29 16 26 50 39 15 17 14 28 56 11:00 AM 47% 67 13 17 24 34 15 30 58 46 15 17 13 32 67 73% 12 6 6 6 7 6 7 12 9 6 6 6 7 12 79 19 23 30 41 21 37 70 55 21 23 19 39 79 12:00 PM 62% 88 18 23 32 44 20 40 77 60 19 22 18 42 88 73% 12 6 6 6 7 6 7 12 9 6 6 6 7 12 100 24 29 38 51 26 47 89 69 25 28 24 49 100 1:00 PM 69% 98 20 25 35 49 23 44 85 67 22 25 20 47 98 73% 12 6 6 6 7 6 7 12 9 6 6 6 7 12 110 26 31 41 56 29 51 97 76 28 31 26 54 1102:00 PM 73% 104 21 27 37 52 24 47 90 71 23 26 21 50 104 73% 12 6 6 6 7 6 7 12 9 6 6 6 7 12 116 27 33 43 59 30 54 102 80 29 32 27 57 1163:00 PM 69% 98 20 25 35 49 23 44 85 67 22 25 20 47 98 73% 12 6 6 6 7 6 7 12 9 6 6 6 7 12 110 26 31 41 56 29 51 97 76 28 31 26 54 1104:00 PM 65% 92 18 24 33 46 21 41 80 63 20 23 18 44 92 73% 12 6 6 6 7 6 7 12 9 6 6 6 7 12 104 24 30 39 53 27 48 92 72 26 29 24 51 1045:00 PM 51% 72 14 19 26 36 17 32 63 49 16 18 14 35 72 58% 9 5 5 5 5 5 5 9 7 5 5 5 5 9 81 19 24 31 41 22 37 72 56 21 23 19 40 816:00 PM 44% 62 12 16 22 31 14 28 54 42 14 16 12 30 62 51% 8 4 4 4 5 4 4 8 6 4 4 4 5 8 70 16 20 26 36 18 32 62 48 18 20 16 35 707:00 PM 33% 47 9 12 17 24 11 21 41 32 10 12 9 23 47 40% 6 3 3 3 4 3 3 6 5 3 3 3 3 6 53 12 15 20 28 14 24 47 37 13 15 12 26 538:00 PM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19:00 PM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10:00 PM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111:00 PM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Notes:

Appendix A
Family Entertainment

FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT
WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]

1.00 1.001.00
Guest Parking Demand
Total Spaces

38.535
4 Employee Parking Demand Shared Parking Demand

1.00 142 Guest Spc. 16 Emp. Spc. 158
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code.[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 157
Land Use
Size KSF
Pkg Rate[2] /KSF
Mode Adjust
Non-Captive Ratio
Gross
Spaces
Time % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec % Of Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec Peak Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec L. Dec of Day Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Peak [3] Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces 6:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25% 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 10:00 AM 25% 36 28 32 33 36 22 25 26 27 25 26 27 22 29 75% 11 10 11 11 11 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 10 47 38 43 44 47 30 34 35 36 34 35 36 30 39 11:00 AM 65% 94 74 85 86 94 56 66 68 71 66 68 70 56 75 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 108 86 99 100 108 66 77 79 83 77 79 82 66 88 12:00 PM 85% 122 96 110 111 122 73 85 88 93 85 88 90 73 98 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 136 108 124 125 136 83 96 99 105 96 99 102 83 111 1:00 PM 90% 130 103 117 118 130 78 91 94 99 91 94 96 78 104 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 144 115 131 132 144 88 102 105 111 102 105 108 88 1172:00 PM 95% 137 108 123 125 137 82 96 99 104 96 99 101 82 110 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 151 120 137 139 151 92 107 110 116 107 110 113 92 1233:00 PM 95% 137 108 123 125 137 82 96 99 104 96 99 101 82 110 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 151 120 137 139 151 92 107 110 116 107 110 113 92 1234:00 PM 90% 130 103 117 118 130 78 91 94 99 91 94 96 78 104 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 144 115 131 132 144 88 102 105 111 102 105 108 88 1175:00 PM 95% 137 108 123 125 137 82 96 99 104 96 99 101 82 110 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 151 120 137 139 151 92 107 110 116 107 110 113 92 1236:00 PM 100% 144 114 130 131 144 86 101 104 109 101 104 107 86 115 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 158 126 144 145 158 96 112 115 121 112 115 119 96 1287:00 PM 95% 137 108 123 125 137 82 96 99 104 96 99 101 82 110 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 151 120 137 139 151 92 107 110 116 107 110 113 92 1238:00 PM 90% 130 103 117 118 130 78 91 94 99 91 94 96 78 104 100% 14 12 14 14 14 10 11 11 12 11 11 12 10 13 144 115 131 132 144 88 102 105 111 102 105 108 88 1179:00 PM 65% 94 74 85 86 94 56 66 68 71 66 68 70 56 75 75% 11 10 11 11 11 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 10 105 84 96 97 105 64 75 77 80 75 77 79 64 85 10:00 PM 10% 14 11 13 13 14 8 10 10 11 10 10 10 8 11 10% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 12 14 14 15 9 11 11 12 11 11 11 9 1211:00 PM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12:00 AM 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Notes:

Family Entertainment

FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT
Appendix A
158
[1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Third Edition, 2020.[2] Parking rates for all land uses based on City code.[3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. 144 Guest Spc. 14 Emp. Spc. Total Spaces

1.001.00

38.535
4 Guest Parking Demand Employee Parking Demand Shared Parking Demand WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1]
158

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 7. Key View Map
Legend
Project Site
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 6, 2024. 0 100 200
US Feet
1 2
5 6
3 4
••••
159

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8a. Visual Simulation – Key View 1
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,.o,o Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
160

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8b. Visual Simulation – Key View 2
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,. 0 , 0 Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
161

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8c. Visual Simulation – Key View 3
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,.o,o Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
162

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8d. Visual Simulation – Key View 4
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,.o,o Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
163

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8e. Visual Simulation – Key View 5
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,.o,o Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
164

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8f. Visual Simulation – Key View 6
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024.

D<t- ;,.,:,,·,:, Pl•11n1ug Gro"p ••••
165
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Apartments Near Trader Joe’s
Greg Stevens <[email protected]>
Thu 9/5/2024 8:31 AM
To:Rose Rivera <[email protected]>
I got a text about submitting a vote on whether to approve apartments near Trader Joe’s. I vote no.

I have lived in Aliso for 22 years and have seen the town explode with apartment building. Apartments have never had enough parking for residents resulting in a lot of in street spillover parking. I don’t think that is a good scenario for a shopping plaza. Besides, don’t you think we have enough apartments in town?
Greg Stevens
166
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Avalon Apartments vote
Caylynn Cole <[email protected]>
Wed 9/4/2024 7:43 PM
To:Rose Rivera <[email protected]>
Hello,
I am a homeowner at 73 Remington, Aliso Viejo we are voting against the proposed Avalon apartments.

Thank you!
Caylynn Cole
Mobile: 562.239.6964
167
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Tyler Lee <[email protected]>
Wed 9/4/2024 2:02 PM
To:Rose Rivera <[email protected]>
Hello Rose,
My name is Tyler Lee. I'am a long time resident of Aliso Viejo and recently became aware of the possible construction plan to build yet another set of apartments known as Avalon Aliso Viejo in our community. I am writing to voice my comments of disapproval of this project.

This project will do nothing to improve the quality of life we have here in Aliso Viejo. There are already barely any decent family communities left in Orange County as it is, and nothing is as good as Aliso Viejo. For our quiet family community, this apartment complex will only cause even more traffic in and around that plaza area plus with the addition of new shops. Aliso Viejo is not and has not been built with the engineering infrastructure to accommodate even more additional residents. Squeezing every inch out of land left in Aliso is not the right thing to do nor is it conducive to our community. The design of the parking lot where the trader joes and lowes (use to be) is not only horribly designed but to add fuel to the fire you are planning to build apartment residences on that lot.

With all do respect I leave you this in closing, please leave Aliso Viejo alone, we do not want nor do we need any additional apartments here.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Tyler Lee
168
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Mitzi Ortiz
To: So Kim
Subject: FW: Apartments on Enterprise
Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 9:59:04 AM
From: Terrie McKinley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 12:58 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Apartments on Enterprise
It appears that you are determined to turn your back on the residents of Aliso Viejo by signing off on the apartment development in the Trader Joes center. Whatever “encouragement” you received from the developers to go forward with this project will have to be enjoyed in your retirement, because there is a huge coalition of residents that will be voting all of you out of office. What kind of people sell out their constituents? And to the owner of the Trader Joes property, my family will take our business to the Laguna Hills location.

Terrie and Roger McKinley
949-2465323
Sent from Mail for Windows
169
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Mitzi Ortiz
To: So Kim
Subject: FW: No on the Avalon Project
Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 9:57:14 AM
From: Vivian Willis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2024 1:33 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: No on the Avalon Project
It will be too high and an eyesore in an area not designed for that level of congestion.

Vivian Willis
Sent from my iPhone complete with typos
170
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Re: Public Review Period for the Avalon Aliso Viejo Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Gina Fabiola <[email protected]>
Sat 8/31/2024 2:59 PM
To:Rose Rivera <[email protected]>;Gina Fabiola <[email protected]> Hi Rose
Thank you for sending this.. I am extremely concerned as I spoke with approx 100 of my neighbors and they all said they did not receive this email. Is the city sending out by mail to all residents? People have a right to know this info and be able to respond.

I am very opposed to this development for the following reasons.

1. Strain on infrastructure and lack of necessary existing infrastructure

2. Increased traffic and congestion in this area which has other negative impacts

3. increased air pollutions and toxic fumes from all the additional cars, suvs. trucks and construction

4. Increased noise at all times both during construction and after due to more traffic and people.

5. Increased crime

6. Destroyed mountain view from an 8 story tall building - which doenst match the heights of the other buildings.

7. Negative impact on native landscaping, trees, flowers and wildlife. Fragile bird species and other animals would be harmed.

8. Coyote issues - what are you going to do with the existing den of coyotes that reside in that area? Simply allow them to scatter and be more of a danger to our pets, or will you plan on trapping and culling them?

9. Lowering of property values due to congested area and higher crime.

I am vehemently against this development, we need more retail and activities like a Crunch Fitness or a Planet Fitness and recreational activities, not housing built into a corner lot that is going to lower our property values.

Thank you for your help.. I will await your reply, Please can you make sure all of AV Residents get this email?
Best Regards,
Gina Fabiola, ASID, IIDA, CID, LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE
Rose Rivera wrote:
171
Good morning,
The City of Aliso Viejo, as Lead Agency, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has released the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for Avalon Aliso Viejo, a proposed mixed-use project at 26501 Aliso Creek Road (The Commons shopping center), for a 30-day public review and comment period. Attached is the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration which includes a description of the proposed Project and information on how to view and provide comments on the Draft IS/MND.

The Draft IS/MND 30-day public review period begins on Monday, August 26, 2024, and will conclude on Wednesday, September 25, 2024. All parties are invited to submit written comments on the IS/MND to the address below for consideration by the City Council. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, comments should be sent at the earliest possible date but must arrive no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 25, 2024. The draft IS/MND can be found here:
https://www.avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3848/Avalon-Aliso-Viejo-ISMND-Public-Draft-withAppendices Written comments may be submitted to the City of Aliso Viejo, Department of Planning Services.

Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization and send your comments to:

Rose Rivera, Senior Planner
City of Aliso Viejo Department of Planning Services
12 Journey, Suite 100, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Or via email: [email protected]
Sincerely,
Rose Rivera | Senior Planner
AV_citylogo City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
T: 949-425-2528
AVCity.org
Confidential Communications: This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received.
172
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Mitzi Ortiz
To: So Kim
Subject: FW: High Density Housing at Commons
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:13:10 PM
From: Adam Adam <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:07 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: High Density Housing at Commons
Greetings,
While I support the idea of additional affordable housing in Aliso Viejo, trying to squish more housing in the old Lowe's parking lot is a bad idea. With the current construction project at the Commons, I do not understand how a legitimate feasibility test could be completed.

Please consider a different location for the needed affordable housing.

Adam Slack
36 Overture Ln
Aliso Viejo
173
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Patricia Miller
To: City Council
Cc: Mitzi Ortiz; So Kim
Subject: AvalonBay - Aliso Viejo
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 7:59:04 AM
Hello Aliso Viejo City Council,
I am a resident of AvalonBay Eaves apartments in Mission Viejo. I've been a resident at Eaves for more than 20 years.. I heard about the proposed project in Aliso Viejo. I am writing to encourage you to please approve the proposed project in Aliso Viejo. I can assure you as a long term tenant for AvalonBay, they are reliable and maintain the property well.

I am grateful for my time in Mission Viejo. I would like to move into the Aliso Viejo project when it becomes available. I would be closer to my parents who live in Aliso Viejo. Being able to have AvalonBay as a continued operator in a building with newer amenities and walking distance to my everyday needs would greatly enhance my quality of life. We need more housing in Orange County and especially affordable housing.

Please approve this project.

Tank you,
Todd Miller
174
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Mitzi Ortiz
To: So Kim
Subject: FW: Support for AVB Commons Center Mixed Use Development Date: Monday, August 19, 2024 1:25:43 PM
Attachments: image001.png
From: Kevin Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 9:45 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Mitzi Ortiz <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for AVB Commons Center Mixed Use Development Dear Mayor Mike Munzing and City Council:

I am sending this letter to show my full support for the proposed mixed-use project at the Commons center. This project serves as an opportunity for our leaders in the City of Aliso Viejo to demonstrate what good building projects in this City can look like and to address the housing crisis.

Our firm, VCA Green, a sister company apart of VCA Consultants Inc. (formerly VanDorpe Chou Associates) and has been in business in Orange County since 1979.

Avalon Bay has an outstanding reputation in the building industry as a leader in quality, and its property management and construction related approach has an exceptional track record of building quality. Providing funding to ensure the products they put out are both environmentally friendly and socially accepted in the communities they build in.

Please vote "YES" on this development.

Sincerely,
Kevin Perez, LEED GA, HERS I & II Energy Rater, PV & Solar Verifier | Project Manager VCA Green|Sustainable Opportunities
714.363.4700 | vca-green.com
Orange | Oakland | Denver | Chicago | Honolulu
175
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Mitzi Ortiz
Cc: So Kim
Subject: FW: Support for AVB Commons Center Mixed Use Development Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 5:31:53 PM
From: Tom Garnett <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 3:44 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mitzi Ortiz <[email protected]> Subject: Support for AVB Commons Center Mixed Use Development Dear Mayor Mike Munzing and City Council:

I am sending this letter to show my support for the proposed mixed-use project at the Commons center. This project serves as an opportunity for our leaders in the City of Aliso Viejo to demonstrate what good building projects in this City can look like and to address the housing crisis.

Many people are finding it difficult to find housing, and this project will provide them a great opportunity.

Avalon Bay has a great reputation in the building industry, and its management has an exceptional track record of building quality, attractive projects over the past 20 years.

Please vote "YES" on this development.

Sincerely,
Tom Garnett
949-633-1738
176
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Tom VanDorpe
To: City Council
Cc: So Kim; Mitzi Ortiz
Subject: RE: Support for AVB Commons Center Mixed Use Development Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 11:37:14 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Mayor Mike Munzing and City Council:

Our firm, VCA Consultants Inc. (formerly VanDorpe Chou Associates) has been in business in Orange County since 1979. We have 170 employees, a number of which reside in the City of Aliso Viejo, and whom could benefit from this project moving forward. Many of our employees are finding it difficult to find housing, and this project will provide them a great opportunity.

Avalon Bay has a great reputation in the building industry, and its management has an exceptional track record of building quality, attractive projects over the past 20 years.

Please vote "YES" on this development.

Sincerely,
Tom VanDorpe, SE | CEO | President
VCA Consultants
714.978.9780 | vcaconsultants.com
Structural | Code | Green | Verde | ESS
177
From: Mitzi Ortiz [email protected]
Subject: FW: Housing Supporter
Date: June 25, 2024 at 2:57 PM
To: So Kim [email protected], Rose Rivera [email protected] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Steven Lundrigan via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 2:47 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Supporter
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
Thank you for your continued leadership and keeping Aliso Viejo a great place to live. I do wish that our community will grow so others can also enjoy this beautiful city. I’m sure you are aware of the housing crisis and what this means for Aliso Viejo. We need to do our part. Adding housing in the Town Center that incorporates market rate and affordable housing will create an inclusive community alongside everyday necessities and retail.

I want our workforce to be able to live here. There has not been a new multi-family development since Vantis and that is discouraging.

I support this project and hope you do too.

Sincerely,
Steven Lundrigan
85 argonaut suite 210
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
[email protected]
178
From: Mitzi Ortiz [email protected]
Subject: FW: AvalonBay Project
Date: June 24, 2024 at 5:33 PM
To: So Kim [email protected], Rose Rivera [email protected] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Les Card via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 5:59 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: AvalonBay Project
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Avalon Bay Aliso Project and the expansion of housing opportunities in Aliso Viejo.

With the population steadily increasing and housing prices soaring, it's clear that action must be taken to address the housing shortage in our community.

By investing in the development of housing options, including affordable housing, we can ensure that individuals and families of all income levels have access to safe and stable housing. This not only benefits those in need of housing, but it also contributes to the overall health and prosperity of our local business community.

I urge you to prioritize policies and initiatives that encourage the construction of new housing units in Aliso Viejo. Together, we can work towards a future where everyone has a place to call home.

Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.

Sincerely,
Les Card
1733 La Colina
Santa Ana, CA 92705
[email protected]
179
From: Mitzi Ortiz [email protected]
Subject: FW: AvalonBay Project
Date: June 24, 2024 at 5:49 PM
To: So Kim [email protected], Rose Rivera [email protected] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Todd Cottle via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 9:43 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: AvalonBay Project
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Avalon Bay Aliso Project and the expansion of housing opportunities in Aliso Viejo.

With the population steadily increasing and housing prices soaring, it's clear that action must be taken to address the housing shortage in our community.

I urge you to prioritize policies and initiatives that encourage the construction of new housing units in Aliso Viejo. Together, we can work towards a future where everyone has a place to call home.

Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.

Sincerely,
Todd Cottle
14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200
Tustin, CA 92705
[email protected]
180
From: Mitzi Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 1:30 PM
To: So Kim; Rose Rivera
Subject: FW: Town Center Housing
From: Tony Nissen via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 1:22 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Town Center Housing
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
The city of Aliso Viejo has limited space to build because of all our natural landscape and parks. I support the project at The Commons because building a parking lot is the best use of the space. With the limited space of the parking lot – we can only build vertical. Also, I would also like to note this project will not displace anyone – residents, businesses, offices! There is an all-time high demand for housing but the cost to own is just crazy right now. Young folks and families need more rental housing in Aliso. I think people deserve to live in Aliso because it is a great, safe and clean city.

More homes close to our retail also means there is opportunity for additional pedestrianfriendly infrastructure. I do not think this project will cause traffic and in fact I think it can help create safer streets. The more time people spend walking, the less cars we will see.

Please support and approve the project.

Sincerely,
Tony Nissen
41870 Kalmia St, Suite 125
Murrieta, CA 92562
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 181
From: Mitzi Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 1:08 PM
To: So Kim; Rose Rivera
Subject: FW: AvalonBay Project
From: HERSEL ZAHAB via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 1:04 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: AvalonBay Project
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Avalon Bay Aliso Project and the expansion of housing opportunities in Aliso Viejo. With the population steadily increasing and housing prices soaring, it's clear that action must be taken to address the housing shortage in our community.

I urge you to prioritize policies and initiatives that encourage the construction of new housing units in Aliso Viejo. Together, we can work towards a future where everyone has a place to call home.

Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.

Sincerely,

HERSEL ZAHAB
1520 BROOKHOLLOW DR
Santa Ana, CA 92705
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 182
From: Mitzi Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:55 PM
To: So Kim; Rose Rivera
Subject: FW: AV – Housing
From: Laer Pearce via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:44 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: AV – Housing
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my full support for the I I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my full support for the Avalon Bay Aliso project.

As a member of this community, I believe that this development will bring numerous benefits and opportunities to our area.

Having reviewed the plans, I like the design and the positive impact it will have on our neighborhood. Here are a few reasons why I am in favor of this project:
- Affordable Housing: The Avalon Bay Aliso project includes a significant portion of affordable housing units, which addresses a pressing need in our community. Providing affordable housing options ensures that individuals and families from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds can continue to live here.
- Economic Growth: This development will stimulate economic growth by creating job opportunities during both the construction phase and once the project is completed.

Additionally, the increased foot traffic in the area will benefit local businesses and contribute to the vitality of our commercial district.
- Community Amenities: In addition to housing, the project will include public green spaces, a new grocer, Lucky Strike Bowling, and Sender 1, which are great family entertainment options for residents in our community.
- Urban Revitalization: The project will revitalize a completely unused commercial area within our city without displacing any residents or businesses.

In conclusion, I believe that the Avalon Bay Aliso project aligns with the long-term interests CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 183
and aspirations of our community. I urge you to support this development and help pave the way for a brighter future for all residents of our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Laer Pearce
23 Blackhawk
Coto de Caza, CA 92679
[email protected]
184
From: Mitzi Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:40 PM
To: So Kim; Rose Rivera
Subject: FW: Aliso Commons Supporter
From: Todd Cunningham via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:36 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Aliso Commons Supporter
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
Thank you for your dedication to Aliso Viejo. I would like to submit a comment in support for the mixed-use project at the Commons that will include housing and retail.

I do believe adding housing here will positively impact the center and our community services. This project can help to ensure more dollars are being spent here to increase our revenue. Our increased revenue can help improve or even expand our services to meet the needs of the growing community.

Adding a new community will bring attract new business and services to the area to cater to residents. This will benefit all residents in Aliso Viejo because the opportunity for new services is endless.

The city will feel the positive impact of this project for years and generations.

Sincerely,
Todd Cunningham
25492 Spotted Pony Ln
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 185
From: Mitzi Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:18 PM
To: So Kim; Rose Rivera
Subject: FW: OC Builders support more homes!
From: Henrik Nazarian via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 11:38 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: OC Builders support more homes!
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my full support for the Avalon Bay Aliso Project and its potential positive impact on our local community, particularly our businesses.

As a member of OC homebuilders, I am keenly aware of the importance of sustainable development that not only enhances our living environment but also contributes to the economic growth of our area. The Avalon Bay Aliso Project, with its proposed combination of 343 units of mixed-income housing and neighborhood-serving retail, stands out as an opportunity to achieve precisely that.

One of the key benefits of this project is its potential to invigorate our local economy by creating new opportunities for businesses, as well as providing an influx of new customers for the existing local businesses.

This project is exactly the refresh the Commons needs. I look forward to seeing it built! Sincerely,
Henrik Nazarian
1638 Virden Drive
Glendale, CA 91208
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 186
From: Mitzi Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:17 PM
To: So Kim; Rose Rivera
Subject: FW: OC Businesses support more homes!
From: Jasvina Gill via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 11:40 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: OC Businesses support more homes!
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my full support for the Avalon Bay Aliso Project and its potential positive impact on our local community, particularly our businesses.

As a member of OC business community, I am keenly aware of the importance of sustainable development that not only enhances our living environment but also contributes to the economic growth of our area. The Avalon Bay Aliso Project, with its proposed combination of 343 units of mixed-income housing and neighborhood-serving retail, stands out as an opportunity to achieve precisely that.

This project is exactly the refresh the Commons needs. I look forward to seeing it built! Sincerely,
Jasvina Gill
20331 Irvine Ave. E-5
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 187
From: Mitzi Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:17 PM
To: So Kim; Rose Rivera
Subject: FW: AV – Housing
From: Russ Khouri via [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 12:13 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: AV – Housing
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my full support for the Avalon Bay Aliso project.

As a member of this community, I believe that this development will bring numerous benefits and opportunities to our area.

In conclusion, I believe that the Avalon Bay Aliso project aligns with the long-term interests and aspirations of our community. I urge you to support this development and help pave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 188
the way for a brighter future for all residents of our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Russ Khouri
40 Wakonda
Dove Canyon, CA 92679
[email protected]
189
Soka University of America
Maathai 409
1 University Drive Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
June 10, 2024
Dear Aliso Viejo City Council,
My name is Ryan Allen. I am an Assistant Professor at Soka University of America here in Aliso Viejo.

I’ve been working here for 2 years now after moving down from Orange, CA, and I plan on being in this community for a long time. I recently purchased a condo in Laguna Hills, as the commute from North Orange County was inhospitable. My wife and I originally wanted to buy property in Aliso near Soka, but unfortunately the high cost and low inventory of housing made that impossible.

I’ve been keeping up with the proposed mixed-use project at The Commons, and I am writing to share my support.

There simply is not enough housing supply in Aliso to meet the demand, this includes both renters and homeowners. A mixed-use development like this in the city’s commercial center that includes both marketrate and affordable units is exactly what we needed. I do enjoy my place in Laguna Hills. Given I am now just a short walking distance away from grocery stores and restaurants—it is a safe and convenient place to live. I can see the exact same benefits the potential residents will have at the Commons being right next to the restaurants, retail, and even a new bowling alley.

We cannot just freeze our city in amber. If we held that sentiment, then nothing would be here now. We need to get back to traditional California, which was about building housing and making progress. I am tired of telling young people that they should move to Texas or Florida. I don’t want to pull up the ladder behind me to another generation, my students. We should extend the ladder and allow the city to level up.

After all, this is supposed to be our town center. There is nothing sacred about a parking lot.

I love working at Soka and being part of the Aliso community. It is, though, sometimes a struggle to see how car-centric the community is when we do have recreational walking paths and horse trails hidden within our parks. But when I drive to work in the morning, I always see masses of people biking or walking.

The people want more opportunities to get out of their cars for work, shopping, or just a night out in the town. I see The Commons being a logical step in the development of the neighborhood and area. There is nothing out of place about it.

I hope you approve the project. Thank you.

Best,
Ryan M. Allen
405-410-7679
[email protected]
190
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Cc: So Kim; [email protected]
Subject: Commons redevelopment
Date: Thursday, May 30, 2024 4:52:55 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Hello,
I’ve been a resident in Aliso for the last 20+ years. It’s been great seeing the city grow, but we desperately need improvements in our Town Center. The proposed redevelopment at the Commons is a great first step. The addition of new housing will give a much-needed boost to local businesses and will also help the City respond to the State’s housing requirements.

Furthermore, building housing that’s walking distance from job opportunities, grocery stores, restaurants and entertainment is just smart city planning. It is sad to see businesses that you start to love and support leave the city because the movie theater isn’t enough to support them. It is imperative that we make Aliso Viejo a destination for residents of south county to visit and spend their entertainment and retail dollars.

My only wish is that the city and developers try to think of ways to incentivize the new residents to use the toll road that way they can easily get on the highway from their home.

I do hope you all see the benefits and approve the project.

Thanks,
Mark McCready
Mark McCready
Cruise & Tour Specialist
A Cruise Planners® Independent Franchise Owner
t. 949-662-3650
e. [email protected]
w. www.readytovacay.com
191
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Chris Hall
To: City Council
Cc: So Kim; Mitzi Ortiz
Subject: AvalonBay Aliso Viejo Project
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2024 11:26:04 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Honorable City Council:

I am writing you today to voice my support for Avalon Bay’s mixed-use project proposed for The Commons area in Aliso Viejo. My offices are headquartered in Aliso Viejo. Like so many California cities, additional housing is needed to help chip away at the affordability crisis our state is facing. The site is suitable for housing as it’s located in the City’s commercial center on an underutilized site adjacent to job centers, shopping, and public transit. I urge the City to move this project forward.

Thank you,
Chris Hall
Principal
26840 Aliso Viejo Parkway, Suite 110
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Tel: (949) 388-9269 Ext. 1167
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.dpfg.com
The information contained in this email transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the review and use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone.
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
February 19, 2024
Rose Rivera
Senior Planner
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100,
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
RE: Proposed Multifamily Project with 343 units at The Commons Shopping Center Dear Ms. Rivera,
I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed apartment project within The Commons shopping center from Avalon Bay/Value Rock. As a resident of Aliso Viejo for the last 10 years who has lived in an apartment community and currently owns a home very near the location of this proposed apartment project, I (as well as many of my neighbors) ÍŘôϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťīƅϙèĺĲèôŘĲôîϙſĖťēϙťēôϙıÍťôŘĖÍīϙĲôČÍťĖŽôϙĖıŕÍèťϙťēĖŜϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙıÍƅϙēÍŽôϙĺĲϙĺŪŘϙ City.

I strongly urge the City Council to vote against approving the current proposal. A public forum must be held during an upcoming City Council meeting for residents to voice their opinions on this project so that the City Council can hear from its constituents and make a fully informed decision.

It is my understanding the proposed project is 343 apartment units, comprised of 6 residential stories plus a rooftop pool/spa and Clubhouse amenity, and a central parking structure within the center of the building, and over 17,000sqft of potential ČŘĺŪĲîϙƲĺĺŘϙ retail space. On this small 4.4 acre lot crammed into the corner of the Commons parking lot, this equates to almost 78 residential units per acre, which exceeds the 50 units per gross acre maximum Density requirement set forth in the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code

15.10.010, Section B(4) for a RVH Residential – Very High Density District. ēôŘôϙÍŘôϙÍīŜĺϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťϙèĺĲèôŘĲŜϙwith such a high density project located adjacent to the Enterprise roadway, which is only two lanes in either direction and already serves as a busy arterial between Aliso Viejo Parkway and Aliso Creek Road. The 343-unit project will result ĖĲϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťīƅϙČŘôÍťôŘ ÍŪťĺıĺťĖŽôϙťŘÍƯĖèϙĖĲϙťēôϙÍŘôÍϠϙſĖťēĺŪťϙÍĲƅϙprovisions to enhance ingress or egress from the shopping center(s) or widening adjacent roadways. Additionally, the new and exciting retail tenants of the Commons will see their open lot parking spaces usurped by residents and guests of the proposed Avalon Bay/Value Rock project, which will 221
ēÍŽôϙÍϙĲôČÍťĖŽôϙôƯôèťϙĺĲϙťēôϙīĺĲČôŽĖťƅϙĺċϙťēôŜôϙcommercial tenants in the rest of the Commons.

In recognition of the need for the City of Aliso Viejo to comply with the State mandate to ŕŘĺŽĖîôϙÍϙıĖĲĖıŪıϙÍıĺŪĲťϙĺċϙƯĺŘîÍæīôϙFĺŪŜĖĲČϠϙit may be necessary for a version of this project to move forward, however ťēôϙ
ĖťƅϙıŪŜťϙŜťÍĲîϙƱŘıϙĖĲϙŘôŗŪĖŘĖĲČϙa project that is
either lower density and/or requires the developers to include roadway enhancements to ċÍèĖīĖťÍťôϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťīƅϙĖĲèŘôÍŜôîϙÍŪťĺıĺťĖŽôϙťŘÍƯĖèϙto and from the Commons shopping center and along the Enterprise roadway.

Before approving this kind of development, the City should also require an impact study on the additional costs this project may have on public resources, such as schools, ÍϙťŘÍƯĖèϙ study, and weigh additional multifamily projects currently proposed within the City to determine if this project- as proposed- is truly the highest and best use of this space in terms of continuing to make Aliso Viejo a safe, well-planned City to live, work, and prosper.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,
Ryan Fink
Vantis Resident
Aliso Viejo, CA
222
From: Eric Rangel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2024 7:58 AM
To: Rose Rivera <[email protected]>
Subject: 26501 Aliso Creed Rd

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Rose,
I hope you are doing well.

I wanted to express my concern, as well as several other member of our communities concern, of the apartment complex our municipality is considering granting permits.

I’m not sure if your familiar with our area but every shopping centers parking lot is nearly always full and increasing the density, as Aliso Viejo has been allowing for the past few years, will hurt this city in the long run.

The residence of this community did not expect to be living in a sea of apartments when they purchased their homes in Aliso.

Would you please guide me to the email of the City Council that will be approving this monstrosity? Also are there any community meetings for this project to get the city’s approval? Best,
Eric Rangel
223
From: Torrence Granzella <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2024 8:09 AM
To: Rose Rivera <[email protected]>
Subject: Avalon Bay Project.

I’d like to express my concern over this project as it would add to overcrowding especially on the road ways. We need more single family homes in the community. My vote is a no against this apartment project.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
224
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Denton Chase
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim; David Doyle; Kathy Lee
Subject: The newly proposed Avalon Bay Development
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 11:39:46 AM
Hello Mayor Richard Hurt,
We are 10-year residents of Aliso Viejo and live in the Vista Point Ridge community. First off, thank you to you and your colleagues for your service to our community, we have little in the way of complaints, everyone is doing a great job keeping our city running efficiently.

We wanted to simply make you aware of our support for the new Avalon Bay project. The old saying has been you live in Aliso but drive out of Aliso to get what you need. If we responsibly added more housing, and thus more residents, that saying could be altered and have a beneficial impact for our local businesses. In fact, my wife is a Dermatologist in Laguna Hills (Halcyon Dermatology) and we would prefer to have her practice located where we live here in Aliso, but we have the concern about this drive out of Aliso for services mentality.

Apartment housing residents and additional congestion are legitimate concerns, but it seems like we have the capacity to absorb one more type of project, especially considering many of our recent retail businesses pay high commercial retail rent and need more customers to be able to stay and not leave, like many have done in the recent few years.

Should you have any questions or need anything else for the city unrelated to this matter, please always feel free to reach out, we are more than happy to help our city in any way we are able.

Take care,
Denton Chase
57 Timberland
225
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Ahmee Gerrard
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim; David Doyle
Subject: Vantis resident- Yes, Avalon Aliso Viejo!
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 5:41:05 PM
Dear Mayor Hurt,
I am a resident of Vantis and have been in this community for 4.5 years. I hold the title of the Community Manager at Vantis, but I would like to write my support as a resident in Aliso Viejo.

We need more housing in Aliso Viejo and housing that offers an affordable component at different levels. This project will include very low-, low- and moderate-income units and bring more opportunities for these tenants to use comfortable amenities and be close to retail.

The proposed Avalon Aliso Viejo project will have two centers that are within walking distance, that includes grocers, drug stores, restaurants, and other retail. We need to minimize the time people spend in their cars. At Vantis, residents enjoy walking in their immediate neighborhood and being close to retail options. Vantis is pedestrian-friendly and making the The Commons into a pedestrian friendly environment as well will improve safety and make is a less car centric city.

I am excited to finally see a new quality apartment complex in Aliso Viejo and being closer to more apartment friendly neighbors. I fully support this project.

Sincerely,
Ahmee Gerrard
Vantis
Ahmee Gerrard
Community Manager
O: 949-643-9700 | F: 949-600-7135
90 Vantis | Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
SheaApartments.com | Facebook | Twitter | Linked In | Review Us On Google! CA BL BRE# 01382566. This e-mail is meant only for the intended recipient and may be confidential or privileged by law. If received in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error and delete the message from your system.
226
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Rodriguez, Sally (MMA)
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim; David Doyle
Subject: Supporter – AvalonBay
Date: Friday, August 25, 2023 10:25:46 AM
Dear Mayor Hurt,
I lived in Aliso Viejo at the City Lights complex for five years. Due to the rising cost of housing in the City, I was priced out and now I live near Temecula with my family. I know so many other individuals at City Lights who also had to move due to the rising cost and the shortage of local multi-family housing supply.

I want an opportunity to move back to Aliso Viejo. I visit regularly because some of my best friends still live there. I go to the Town Center and Commons to enjoy the restaurants and retail. I spend my dollars in this city because I love it here. Aliso Viejo is the perfect place to restart my life because I’m minutes away from the beach and a bigger city like Irvine.

I read about the AvalonBay project and was excited to learn Aliso Viejo will have new housing opportunities! I moved into City Lights when it was the newest apartment complex and it’s taken me years to move back to Aliso due to the lack of options, and especially moderate affordable housing.

I wish housing was more streamlined because a 2027 opening is a long time to wait. As the Mayor, I hope you can help this process move forward quickly so people like me can have housing in the best city in South OC.

I support this project and will be following the process closely.

Thanks for reading this,
Sally Rodriquez
Former Resident at City Lights Town Center, Aliso Viejo.

This e-mail transmission and any attachments that accompany it may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it was intended to be addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, or you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use or retention of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately reply to the author via e-mail that you received this message by mistake and also permanently delete the original and all copies of this e-mail and any attachments from your computer.

Please note that coverage cannot be bound or altered by sending an email. You must speak with or receive written confirmation from a licensed representative of our firm to put coverage in force or make changes to your existing program. Thank you. 227
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Joseph M. Laderer
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim; David Doyle
Subject: Avalon Aliso Viejo Support Letter
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:33:48 AM
Mayor Hurt,
I am writing to express my support for Avalon Aliso Viejo. I’m a 23-year resident of Aliso Viejo, I can honestly say this project would benefit the city of Aliso Viejo in several ways.

First and foremost, I think the project has an opportunity to attract young successful residents that can support our retailers and restaurants. I am also concerned about an “aging” Aliso Viejo, as evidenced by our declining student population. The first step in creating demand from young families is giving them more opportunity to rent here, grow roots, and come to appreciate all that Aliso Viejo has to offer.

Further, it is obvious the area around the Town Center and Commons is aging. The Lowe’s refresh is bringing in something exciting, and the residential piece will only ensure these businesses stay open and help make this part of the city vibrant and exciting.

Sincerely,
Joe Laderer
Aliso Viejo Homeowner
228
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Thomas Merritt
To: So Kim
Cc: Rose Rivera
Subject: RE: Commons Low Income Housing Development
Date: Friday, August 11, 2023 12:19:14 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Ms. Kim,
Following up my objections to the increase in density for the 4.9 acre parcel within The Commons at the City Council meeting on June 7th and in advance of the meeting on August 16, I have been thinking about the low income housing predicament in which the City finds itself.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe an almost 100 foot tall, high density apartment building on a small 4.9 acre footprint with only 10% low income housing is a good solution or fit for The Commons Shopping Center. 10% of 362 apartments is only 36 low-income units.

Fortunately, no proposal has yet been approved and I respectfully urge the City to seek a proposal that will protect the property values and views of the Vantis Condominiums and the members of AVCA. Frankly, a two or perhaps three-story apartment or condominium building with perhaps 50 low income units would satisfy the City’s goal for low income housing and is a better fit for the site and in harmony with the other buildings in the Commons shopping center in which no building exceeds 3 stories in height.

I understand that the 4.9 acre site is owned by ValueRock and the City may need to partner with them to subsidize the development but I encourage the City to explore alternatives to the AvalonBay proposal. Below is a link to a reputable developer of low- income housing with whom I believe the City of Aliso Viejo already has a relationship. I urge the City to contact them and perhaps others as a better option for the site.
https://www.jamboreehousing.com/
Thank you,
Tom Merritt
7 Colonial Way
[email protected]
229
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Natalie Moran
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim; David Doyle
Subject: Yes to Avalon Aliso Viejo!
Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 6:46:27 PM
Dear Mayor Hurt,
I have lived in Aliso Viejo for over 23 years and I fully support Avalon Bay’s proposed mixed-use development at the Commons.

As residents of Aliso Viejo, my family and I shop and eat in the Town Center and Commons regularly.

However, since Covid and the rise of Amazon, we all know that there has been a significant shift in how people shop. It makes sense that some of these aging retail centers in our city will need to evolve into new mix-use projects that include apartments.

It is great to see that the owner of the former Lowe’s is making a significant investment to refresh this large vacant building and reprogram an empty parking lot into an apartment property with retail. I am looking forward to the completion of this project and the enhancement that it will bring to our community.

Thank you,
Natalie Moran
Aliso Viejo Homeowner
230
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 8, 2023
David Boyle, City Manager
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Dear David Boyle:

RE: City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Aliso Viejo’s or (City) housing element adopted June 7, 2023 and received for review on June 9, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on May 3, 2023 with Community Development Director So Kim, and consultant Amber Greg of Community Catalyst. In addition, HCD considered comments from Kate Van Camp, Californians for Homeownership, and the Kennedy Commission pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The adopted housing element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s April 1, 2022 letter; however, additional revisions are necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). The enclosed Appendix describes revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and re-adopted to comply with the requirements.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), a jurisdiction that failed to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline cannot be found in compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c), paragraph (1), subparagraph (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed. As this year has passed and Programs 2 (Adequate Sites for New Housing and Monitoring of No Net Loss) has not been completed, the housing element is out of compliance and will remain out of compliance until the rezoning have been completed.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that 231
David Boyle, City Manager

Page 2 ends

Aliso Viejo City CouncilSeptember 18, 2024

Aliso Viejo City Council
September 18, 2024