Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - PA2004-249 - Land Rover - 2101 Dove StreetCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 15 May 9, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center 2101 Dove Street (PA2004 -249) APPLICANT: Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. On May 4, 2006, staff received a letter from the California Regional Water Quality ( ` Control Board (RWQCB) commenting on the recirculated Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) for the proposed Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center. The letter contained comments and recommendations to the use of retention or infiltration of dry- weather runoff and "first flush" runoff filters instead of the proposed fossil filters to they could adequately reduce the level of hydrocarbons and other pollutants from stormwater prior to discharge to the nearby Upper Newport Bay. RWQCB also advises the City and applicant of the State requirements for waste discharge to sewer system and the local sewering agency responsible for the permit issuance. Staff will consider and incorporate these comments /recommendations to the final draft Water Quality Management Plan to ensure that the final WQMP adequately addresses all potential pollutants. The use of on -site retention and infiltration basins will be incorporated within the final WQMP. The document will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Code Enforcement Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff, therefore, believes that the comments received from RWQCB have been sufficiently addressed and would not cause the need to recirculate the IS /MND. Staff has prepared a written response to the RWQCB. A copy of the response letter is attached as Attachment No. I for the Council to consider. Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center May 9, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Prepared by: Submitted by: I ociate alinh M. Ung Temple Planner Planning Director Attachment No. I Response letter to RWQCB dated May 5, 2006 Via- ATTACHMENT I RESPONSE LETTER TO RWQCB DATED MAY 5, 2006 (1) 3 CITY OF '•' Patricia L. Temple, Director May 5, 2006 Mark G. Adelson Regional Planning Programs Section, Chief California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 3737 Main Street, Ste. 500 Riverside, CA 92501 -3348 RE: NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A RECIRCULATED MITIGATED DECLARATION FOR THE LAND ROVER NEWPORT BEACH SERVICE CENTER AT 2101 DOVE STREET, NEWPORT BEACH Dear Adelson: The Planning Department received your letter dated May 2, 2006, and has the following responses: Staff concurs with your determination that the proposed fossil filters would not adequately reduce the level of hydrocarbons and other pollutants in the stormwater prior to discharge to the nearby Upper Newport Bay. The use of retention or infiltration of dry- weather runoff and "first flush" runoff filters or similar acceptable filters would be considered and incorporated into the final draft Water Quality Management Plan to ensure that the document adequately addresses all potential pollutants. This document and improvement plans will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Code Enforcement Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The last noticeable comments from your letter are the advisement for both the City and applicant of the State requirements for waste discharge to sewer system and the local sewering agency responsible for the permit issuance. The City acknowledges the RWQCB's comment regarding discharge from the car wash and building interior to a three -stage clarifier and ultimately to the sewer system. The City will ensure that coordination with the appropriate agencies (i.e., RWQCB, Orange County Sanitation District) is accomplished in accordance with all state and local regulations. 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658- 8915 Telephone: (949) 644 -3200 • Fax: (949) 644 -3229 - www.city.newport- beach.ca.us A Mark G. Adelson May 5, 2006 Page 2 of 2 J Thank you very much for your comments and recommendations. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (949) 644 -3208 or via e-mail at rungPcity.newport- beach.ca.us. Sincerely, osalinh M. Un ssociate Planner v California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Alan C. Lloyd, MD. 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501 -3348 Arnold Schwam i )r Phone (95 1) 782 -4130 — FAX (951) 781 -6288 — TTY (95 1) 782 -3221 Agency Secretory http:// www.waterboards.ca.gDv /santaana 1l:vC.o CLi d� nor r-LANNING D­ TM� May 2, 2006 ;ITY OF NFJNPORT BEACH Rosalinh Ung AM WY 4 2006 PM City of Newport Beach Planning Dept. y1g19110 Ill 11211I213141j16 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 INITIAL STUDY FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LAND ROVER NEWPORT BEACH SERVICE CENTER, 2101 DOVE STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, SCH# 2006021036 Dear Ms. Ung: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), have reviewed the recirculated Initial Study (IS) for a General Plan Amendment for the above - referenced project. Existing buildings and parking lots at the site would be replaced with the proposed vehicle dealership, carwash, and vehicle repair facility. The City of Newport Beach intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of significant environmental impacts posed by this project. We have only the following comments, provided that described mitigation measures are incorporated into project construction and operation: o The original building was a manufacturing facility for insulation components for rocket motors, and any residual hazardous materials onsite will be located through a sampling program and removed (p. 4 -16). Stormwater flowing across the proposed facility, including the service canopy and car wash (Fig. 2 -5), is expected to be captured onsite in more than one catch basin fitted with Fossil Filters (4 -22). Locations of the catch basins should be shown on Fig. 2 -5. The IS anticipates that the Fossil Filters will reduce the level of hydrocarbons and other pollutants in stormwater prior to discharge to nearby Upper Newport Bay. However, this technology is not known to address reduction of all those pollutants for which Upper Newport Bay is listed as impaired, pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 303(d), i.e., sediment, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and metals. For Upper Newport Bay, Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDLs) have. been adopted for sedimentation and nutrients, fecal coliform, chlorpyrifos, and toxic pollutants. Future TMDLs are anticipated for organochlorine compounds and selenium /metals. The IS should analyze the likelihood of discharges from the site containing these pollutants at levels that could effect TMDL compliance. Source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will lower loading of the pollutants of concern (POC) cited above to levels that implement the existing and pending TMDLs must be identified in the IS and incorporated into the project. BMPs incorporating retention or infiltration of dry- weather runoff and so- called "first flush" runoff are Rr known to be effective for the POC listed. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper �P Elb Rosalinh Ung lwz May 2, 2006 o We understand from p. 4 -22 that the car wash will have a three -stage clarifier. Drawings of the clarifier should be included that indicate an outlet to the sewer (such a connection is not clear from the IS). All discharges to the sewer are subject to the permit requirements of the local sewering agency. If any waste discharge to the ground from the facility is intended, then waste discharge requirements issued from this office imposing restrictive limitations on the quality of waste discharges will likely be required by the Regional board. The proponent should be directed to the Regional Board's Permitting Section for detailed permitting information. o P. 2 -10 refers to Clean Water Act Section 401 when there appears to be no dredge or fill projects in navigable waters. The likely intended reference is Section 402. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Glenn Robertson at (951) 782- 3259. Sincerely, Mark G. Adelson, Chief Regional Planning Programs Section cc: State Clearinghouse — Scott Morgan X: Groberts /Data/CEQA Responses /NegDec- City of Newport Bch - Land Rover Dealer- MGA.doc California Environmental Protection Agency OFD %0 Recycled Paper 1 05 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 15 May 9, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung @city. newport-b each. ca. us SUBJECT: Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center 2101 Dove Street (PA2004 -249) APPLICANT: Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. ISSUE Should the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the applications listed below to allow the redevelopment of a former industrial property into a vehicle service and storage facility? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the request by adopting Resolution No. 2006 - for General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -009, Use Permit No. 2004 -043, Traffic Study No. 2005 -006 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2006 - 021036) and introducing Ordinance No. 2006 - for Code Amendment No. 2004- 012, and passing the ordinance to a second reading for adoption on May 23, 2006. DISCUSSION On April 6, 2006, the Planning Commission voted 4 ayes and 1 no (2 absent) to recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council. The project involves the following discretionary applications for the City Council to consider: General Plan Amendment - Change the land use designation of the 4.19 -acre site from Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial to Retail Service Commercial. Code Amendment — Change the zoning designation of the property from APF to RSC. Use Permit — For the operation of vehicle service and storage facility • Traffic Study — Traffic analysis pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The applicant currently operates the Land Rover Dealership located at 1540 Jamboree Road. The Jamboree Road site presently operates as an integrated dealership with sales and service operations. The applicant desires to consolidate three of their franchises onto the Jamboree site Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center May 9, 2006 Page 2 for retail operations, while converting the subject site at 2101 Dove Street to vehicle service and inventory storage. The consolidation of the 3 franchises at the Jamboree site presents capacity issues and the request for a vehicle service and storage facility at the subject property would effectively resolve these issues. All proposed improvements to be made at the Jamboree site are minor and do not require an amendment to the existing Use Permit. The relocation of their service and storage operations to the subject site, however, necessitates approval of the requested applications. Minor interior demolition is proposed while the majority of the building exterior would remain unchanged. Interior improvements also include conversion of the former main office area on the north side of the building into a tool room and locker area for technicians; construction of approximately 27 service bays within the west side of the building; construction of offices, a customer lounge, parts storage areas and restrooms on the southwest corner of the building and construction of a vehicle storage area within the east side of the building. Exterior improvements include construction of a main entrance and customer patio area, a service canopy, a 348 - square foot car wash and a trash enclosure. The existing parking areas will be completely demolished and resurfaced. Landscaping will be provided throughout the property and the parking areas. Four vehicular display pads will be constructed in the grass area located on the north side of the building fronting on Dove Street. Upon completion of the improvements, the overall square footage of the building will be reduced from 62,457 to 58,145 gross square feet, a 4,312 square feet reduction in building size. Vehicular access to the property is proposed to be reduced from 4 driveways (2 along Campus Drive and 2 along Birch Street) to 2 driveways. The driveways will generally remain in the same location but the drive approaches will be modified to meet City standards. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. It is anticipated that a total of 40 employees including service and part managers, technicians, service advisors, parts personnel, service writers and support staff would be working during various shifts. The service department would serve approximately 40 vehicles per day. Service includes minor and major repairs including new and pre -owned vehicle preparation. No body shop, paint booths or fueling services are proposed. The remainder of the building will be devoted to vehicle storage for service vehicles and new inventory. The subject site will serve as overflow storage for the existing off -site storage at the Newport Dunes. No outdoor storage of inventory is planned; however, it could occur from time to time. General Plan Amendment— Change in Designation The project is located in the Campus Drive Area (Statistical Area L4) of the Land Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF). This area is bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street and Bristol Street North. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) permitted by the General Plan for the subject property is 0.50/0.75. The proposed project will have a 0.32 FAR, which is less than the maximum permitted by the General Plan. Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center May 9, 2006 Page 3 The project proposes a change to the General Plan land use designation of the site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail & Service Commercial. The amendment is necessary because vehicle repair /service and vehicle storage are only permitted as ancillary uses in the APF designation. Since the proposed project would not function as an ancillary use to the subject site, the proposed use would not be allowed on the subject site. The change in land use designation to RSC would allow vehicle repair as a primary use and vehicle storage would then be allowed as an ancillary use at the subject site. The change in land use designation would allow the 4.19 -acre site to be used for retail commercial uses as opposed to being used primarily for office uses. The General Plan Amendment will not increase the potential building area entitlement but simply would allow the property to be improved with uses that are predominantly retail in character which provide goods and services to the general public. Surrounding land uses include a mixture of office and retail uses, a carwash /gasoline station, automotive related users and John Wayne Airport. Furthermore, since APF and RSC designations are both part of the City's commercial districts, many of the land uses allowed within these two districts are the same. Vehicle service and storage are also permitted in the PPF as ancillary uses. Within the context of the draft General Plan for the Airport Area, the subject property is currently proposed to be designated Mixed Use B2 which would allow, assuming appropriate approvals and concurrence with the Airport Land Use Commission, a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, high density residential, mixed use development, general industrial, hotel rooms and ancillary commercial uses. A master or specific plan would be required for this area. As a result, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed use of the property would be compatible with the surrounding uses and the new General Plan Land Use designation. Should the application be approved before the General Plan update, staff will make the appropriate changes to the Land Use Map before the new General Plan is approved. Charter Section 423 Analysis Campus Drive Area of Statistical Area L4 has a current General Plan limit of 1,261,727 square feet. The project will not add square footage of non - residential intensity in Campus Drive Area. However, Council Policy A -18 requires that all proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote would be required. If a project generates more than 100 peak hour trips, 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area, or excess of 100 dwelling units, a vote of the citizens would be required, if the Council approves the requested Amendment. Council Policy A -18 includes a Trip Rate Table adopted for use when reviewing proposed GPA's relative to Charter Section 423. As the request is a change in land use designation from APF to RSC with no increase in building floor area, the General Non - Residential Use Category of Commercial is used. This category includes the current land use of APF as well as the proposed designation and assigns the same trip rate for both of these use categories. The trip generation rates are 3 for morning and 4 for evening peak hour per each 1,000 square feet of floor area. Based on these identical rates the proposed land use designation change will result in no additional peak hour trips. In other words, if the site were redeveloped consistent with either land use designation, on average, there would not be a difference in Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center May 9, 2006 Page 4 traffic generation. It should also be noted that the above analysis is based on the "blended" rate for all possible uses that could be developed on the subject site under the two commercial land use classifications. This analysis differs from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis that looks at the increased traffic associated with the change in use for a partially occupied industrial buildings to the proposed service facility. Charter Section 423 also requires that 80% of increases (units, area or traffic) from prior General Plan Amendments within the same statistical area be added to the traffic generated by the project to see if cumulatively a vote would be required. There were three prior amendments approved for Statistical Area L4, and the following chart shows the area and peak hour trips analysis. Amendment Area # of A.M. Peak P.M Peak Hour Dwelling Hour Trips Trips Units Camco Pacific 1,272 s.f. (80 %) 0 2.4(80%) 2.4(80%) GP2001 -004 Willson Automotive 0 0 15.3(80%) 23.3(80%) GP2004 -004 Master Development 1,400 s.f. (80 %) 0 2.4(80%) 2.4(80%) GP2004 -006 Proposed Amendment 0 0 0 10 Total 2,672 s..f. 0 120.1 128.1 As indicated in the preceding table, the project with "prior amendments" do not exceed the 100 peak hour trip, 40,000 square foot or 100 dwelling unit thresholds, therefore a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 is not required. Should the City Council approve the proposed amendment, it will become a "prior amendment' that will be tracked for ten years. The proposed changes to Statistical Area L4, Campus Drive is shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft City Council Resolution (Attachment A). Code Amendment The change of use requires a change in the zoning designation to maintain consistency between the Land Use Element and zoning map. The change in zoning designation from APF to RSC would not cause the property to become nonconforming under the RSC development standards. The proposed project complies with all development regulations specified by the Zoning Code including floor area, the 375 -foot height limitation zone, on -site parking and setbacks. Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center May 9, 2006 Page 5 Traffic Study A traffic study has been prepared for the project pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 1,193 new average daily trips, 113 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 102 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. Fourteen (14) intersections were identified by the Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the study. The TPO analysis resulted in nine (9) out of fourteen (14) study intersections that exceed the one - percent threshold. ICU analysis was performed on these intersections and found that the project related traffic does not cause an unsatisfactory level of service at any of these intersections and no significant impact occurs and no improvements are required at these intersections. The 9 intersections will operate at LOS D or better during peak hours. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document was initially prepared to evaluate the project, followed by a 30 -day review period from February 9 to March 10, 2006. Comments were received from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. (CCRSA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). During the preparation of the responses, new avoidable significant effects were identified. As a result, three (3) mitigation measures have been drafted to reduce these effects to a less than significant level. These issues were identified related to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise. The introduction of three (3) mitigation measures, however, prompted the need to recirculate the MND pursuant to Section 15073.5.b.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The MND has been revised to include the additional mitigation measures (CR -1, HM -5 & N -3) and one minor change to an existing mitigation measure (HM- 1). The revised document was recirculated for public review between April 12 and May 2, 2006 (20 days). Comments were received from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) requesting a new bus turnout/pad to replace the existing bus stop station adjacent to the subject property. The request does not raise any environmental issues because it pertains to an operational improvement to the existing bus stop. The request will be considered by the Public Works Department during the project development. Staff has prepared a written response to the OCTA. A copy of the response letter is attached as Attachment No. H for the Council to consider. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center May 9, 2006 Page 6 ad by: Submitted by: -0�-o "- i& ky"Az h M. Ung Patricia L. Temple ite Planner Planning Director Attachments: A. Draft City Council Resolution B. Draft City Council Ordinance C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1689 D. Excerpt of the minutes from the April 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting E. Planning Commission Staff Report from the April 6, 2006 (Without attachments) F. Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study' G. Project Plans H. Response letter to OCTA dated May 2, 2006 ' Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City Clerk's Office. ATTACHMENT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2006- 021036) AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -009, USE PERMIT NO.. 2004 -043 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2005 -006 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 DOVE STREET (PA 2004 -249) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pendragon North America with respect to property located at 2101 Dove Street, and legally described as Lots 20, 21, 22, 40, 41, & 42 of Tract No. 3201, as shown on map recorded in Book 130, pages 25 -30 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder to redevelop a former industrial property into a vehicle service and storage facility. The application requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the property from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail & Service Commercial. The application also requests a Code Amendment to rezone the subject property from APF (Administrative Professional, Financial to RSC (Retail and Service Commercial) and a Use Permit to allow the operation of a vehicle service and storage facility. Finally, the application also requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). WHEREAS, on April 6, 2006, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project applications, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and comments received thereon were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at the hearing. With a vote of 4 ayes and one no (2 absent), the Planning Commission recommended approval of the applications to the City Council. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on May 9, 2006, to consider the proposed recommendations of the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the project is located in the Campus Drive Area (Statistical Area 1-4) of the Land Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF) and is zoned APF (Administrative, Professional, Financial). WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail & Service Commercial is necessary since vehicle service and vehicle storage uses are only permitted as ancillary uses in the APF designation. The change in land use designation to RSC would allow vehicle repair as a primary use and vehicle storage would then be allowed as an ancillary use at the subject site. The change in land use designation would result in the 4.19 -acre site to be used for retail commercial uses as opposed to being used primarily for office uses. The General Plan Amendment will not increase the potential building area entitlement but simply would allow the property to be improved with uses that are predominantly retail in character which provide goods and services to the general public. Page 2 of 14 WHEREAS, the proposed change of use and proposed vehicle related use will be compatible with the surround land uses which include a mixture of office and retail uses, a carwash /service station, automotive related uses and John Wayne Airport. Additionally, since APF and the RSC land use designations are both part of the City's commercial districts, many of the uses allowed within these two districts are the same. The vehicle service and storage facility, therefore, will be consistent with the proposed Retail & Service Commercial land use designation. WHEREAS, the proposed project results in the redevelopment of an older and underutilized property. With the improvements proposed to be made by the applicant, the value of the property will be increased. The proposed FAR of 0.32 is within the allowable floor area limits and the traffic generated by the proposed project will not exceed the level of service desired by the City as demonstrated by the Traffic Study. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine if the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling unit thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public is required. As the request is a change in land use designation from APF to RSC with no increase in building floor area, the General Non - Residential Use Category of Commercial is used. This category includes the current land use of APF as well as the proposed designation and assigns the same trip rate for both of these use categories. The trip generation rates are 3 for morning and 4 for evening peak hour per each 1,000 square feet of floor area. Based on these identical rates the proposed land use designation change will result in no additional peak hour trips. In other words, if the site were redeveloped consistent with either land use designation, on average, there would not be a difference in traffic generation. Also, with all previously approved amendments, none of the Charter Section 423 thresholds would be exceeded. Therefore, a vote of the electorate would not be required. WHEREAS, the change in zoning designation from APF to RSC would not cause the property to become nonconforming under the RSC development standards. The proposed project complies with all development standards of the RSC zone including floor area, the 375 -foot height limitation zone, on -site parking, signage, lighting, building bulk and setbacks. WHEREAS, the proposed location of vehicle service and storage facility and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood. The subject property is surrounded by one and two -story office and commercial buildings, automotive related uses and John Wayne Airport. There is no surrounding residential that would be disturbed or could be impacted by the proposed use. WHEREAS, a Traffic Study has been prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 1,193 new average daily trips, 113 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 102 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. The study concluded that the proposed project will not cause a significant impact at the study area c� Page 3 of 14 intersections as all intersections will operate at LOS D or better; therefore, no improvements are required at these intersections. WHEREAS, On April 20, 2006, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission considered and determined that the proposed project is consistent with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between February 9 and March 10, 2006. Comments were received from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. (CCRSA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). During the preparation of the responses, new avoidable significant effects were identified. As a result, three (3) mitigation measures have been drafted to reduce these effects to a less than significant level. These issues were identified related to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise. The introduction of three (3) mitigation measures, however, prompted the need to recirculate the MND pursuant to Section 15073.5.b.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The MND has been revised to include the additional mitigation measures (CR -1, HM -5 & N -3) and one minor change to an existing mitigation measure (HM- 1). The revised document was recirculated for public review between April 12 and May 2, 2006 (20 days). Comments were received from the Orange County Transportation Authority. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt: Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2006 - 021036); approve General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -009 by amending the Land Use Element, Statistical Area L4, Campus Drive Area of the General Plan as depicted in Exhibit "A" and Land Use map in Exhibit "B ", Use Permit No. 2004 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -006, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "C" ir. , Page 4 of 14 This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of May 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Page 5 of 14 Exhibit "A" THE FOLLOWING CHANGES WILL BE MADE TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED: 3. Campus Drive. This area is bounded by Campus Drive, MacAuthur Boulevard, Birch Street and Bristol Street North. The area is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Retail and Service Commercial land uses. The maximum allowed floor area ratio is 0.5/0.75. Ia Page 6 of 14 Exhibit "B" PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, & FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL TO RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL. 13 Page 7 of 14 Exhibit "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Use Permit No. 2004 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -006 (PA2004 -249) 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans date stamped of March 23, 2006. 3. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 5. Should this operation be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 6. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. 7. The facility shall be designed to meet fire protection requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building Department. Traffic Engineering 8. All parking stall dimensions shall comply with City's Standard Drawings STD - 805 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -B. 9. Sight distance at all entrances (monument signs, walls, display vehicles and landscaping etc.) shall conform to the City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. No deliveries shall occur on any portion of public right -of -way. All deliveries shall be handled on -site. All delivery routes shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. Driveway approaches shall be constructed per City Standard STD - 160 -L, modified to comply with current ADA requirements. The driveway shall be minimum of 26 feet Page 8 of 14 wide (measured from bottom X to bottom X). The abandoned driveway approaches shall be reconstructed per City Standard STD - 165 -L. 12. Parking plans shall be fully dimensioned. The center parking aisle near Campus Drive shall shift toward Campus Drive to improve the overall circulation within the parking area. 13. Gate openings shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide to accommodate two- directional travel. 14. A new driveway approach shall be provided on Dove Street -for access to the customer parking area. The final location and design of the driveway approach shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer. 15. Staging of construction equipment shall not be permitted on -the public right -of -way. 16. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 17. All walkways and planters within the parking lot shall be widened, where applicable, to act as wheel stops. The maximum allowable parking stall overhang is 2 feet 6 inches. Fire Department 18. Prior to the issuance of building permit, fire sprinkler contractor or fire protection engineer shall determine the use and viability of existing sprinkler system as the existing system may not be adequate for the proposed use. 19. Prior to the issuance of building permit, fire service shall be provided underground with a double backflow preventor. An encroachment permit from Public Works Department shall be required. A fire permit shall also be required. 20. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, the Fire Department connection to Dove Street shall be relocated and shall be within 150 feet of a fire hydrant. 21. Fire sprinkler system shall be monitored indefinitely. 22. Sprinkler demand may be increased depending on the types of materials stored in the inventory storage. 23. A special building features for high stockpile shall be required if the storage has piles, pallets, racks or shelves exceed 12 feet in height in the inventory area. 24. The applicant must indicate occupancy classification, type of construction and square footage comply with the 2001 Edition of the California Building Code. 15 Page 9 of 14 Development Services En(gineering 25. Prior to the issuance of buildinq permit, the applicant shall coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority to ascertain that the proposed frontage improvements along Birch Street will not conflict with OCTA operations. 26. Prior to the issuance of building permit, an ADA travel path shall be required between the Birch Street sidewalk and the new building. 27. The current sidewalk location within the Campus Drive right -of -way fronting this development shall remain as a 'Path of Travel ". 28. Given the existing topography, on -site drainage shall not be routed in a manner that would cause any spillage onto the existing development southerly of this project. 29. All surface runoff shall be directed toward and treated by an at/below grade storm water clarifier before the water can be discharged. 30. Except for storm overflows, no curb drains shall be installed to allow the discharge of polluted on -site runoff onto the public right -of -way. 31. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the existing curb drains along Dove Street shall either be eliminated or retrofitted for storm overflows only. New curb /gutter shall be constructed where the existing curb drains have been removed. 32. Prior to the issuance of building permit, depending upon the final site drainage design, additional on -site drainage provisions may be required. 33. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the existing curb access ramp at the southeast corner of Campus Drive /Dover Street and at the southwest corner of Dover Drive /Birch Street shall be reconstructed to comply with the current ADA requirements. 34. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, the existing uplifted /damaged /displaced concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter that surround this development shall be reconstructed per City Standards. 35. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, all existing street trees shall be protected in place. Additionally, per Chapter 13 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, new street trees shall be installed along the street frontages that surround this development. 36. Upon completion of construction, the existing red curbs that surround this development shall be repainted. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of such work. 37. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, "No Parking" signs shall be installed along new red curbs per City Standards. )b Page 10 of 14 38. Upon completion of construction, the portion of the existing Campus Drive roadway fronting this development, from the easterly roadway edge of gutter up to the northbound No. 2/3 traffic lane line shall be grounded and capped with a 3 -inch thick AC pavement overlay. New sprayable thermoplastic traffic striping and markings and raised pavement markers shall be installed within the limits of said roadway work. 39. In the event that the City's Birch Street roadway rehabilitation project is completed prior to the development construction completion, any damage done to the Birch Street new roadway pavement by the applicant will cause the applicant to repave the roadway at no cost to the City. Utilities Department 40. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the fire service shall be upgraded per STD 517 -L. 41. Prior to the issuance of building permit, a 2 -inch RPP backflow device shall be installed to the existing water meter. 42. Prior to the issuance of building permit, sewer cleanout at the property line shall be required. Building Department 43. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 44. Prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City. Mitigation Measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 45. The Project Applicant shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements as follows: a. Exposed pits (i.e., gravel, soil, dirt) with 5 percent or greater silt content shall be watered twice daily, enclosed, covered, or treated with non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications. 0 Page 11 of 14 b. All other active sites shall be watered twice daily. c. All grading activities shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds (i.e., - greater than 25 mph) if soil is being transported to off -site locations and cannot be controlled by watering. d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off -site shall be covered or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). e. All construction roads internal to the construction site that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles, shall be surfaced with base material or decomposed granite, or shall be paved. f. Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. g. Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. h. Water or non -toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. i, Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall not exceed 15 mph. 46. During construction activities if any archaeological resources are encountered, all work shall cease in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. If major archaeological resources are discovered which require long -term halting or redirection of grading, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and the City of Newport Beach Planning Department The archaeologist, in consultation with appropriate agencies and Native American organization, shall determine appropriate action which ensures proper exploration and /or salvage. 47. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide verification (i.e., sample results) to the City of Newport Beach that on -site soils have been tested. Any soils encountered or removed during construction activities (particularly within the building's interior or behind the building near the loading dock) shall be sampled for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). If soil contamination is discovered, the applicant shall work with the City of Newport Beach and the appropriate regulatory agency to determine the appropriate action (i.e. remediation or excavation of soils). 48. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit verification to the City of Newport Beach that an asbestos survey has been conducted within the existing building. If asbestos is found, the Project Applicant shall follow all procedural �O Page 12 of 14 requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. 49. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the City Newport Beach Fire Department detailing all hazardous materials at the project site, storage methods, and spill prevention plans. 50. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan to the City of Newport Beach as mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 51. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit verification to the City of Newport Beach that lead -based paint and mercury surveys have been conducted within the existing building. If lead -based paint or mercury is found, the applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and disposal of such hazardous substances. 52. Prior to issuance of grading or building permit, the applicant shall develop and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP shall contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to local receiving water from pollutants in storm water runoff. The Project Applicant shall provide the City of Newport Beach with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with RWQCB. 53. The applicant shall demonstrate implementation of appropriate source control and treatment control Best Management Practices as specified in the Draft Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Walden & Associates dated October 7, 2004, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 54_ Construction activities shall be confined to any weekday between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. and on any Saturday between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. 55. Noise - generating equipment operated at the project site shall be equipped with effective noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and /or motor enclosures). All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated. 56. The applicant shall comply with John Wayne Airport's Airport Environs Land Use Plan Noise Impact Zone I requirements to ensure the service advisor offices and customer lounge are sufficiently sound attenuated from the combined input of all present and projected exterior noise to meet 55 dBA Leq. These measures shall be incorporated during the detailed design stage of the project to comply with the minimum sound insulation requirement. The final design shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department. Achieving this level of sound insulation may include the followings: I Page 13 of 14 a. Installation of air - conditioning /mechanical ventilation such as the interior space will not have to rely on open windows for ventilation; b. Installation of dual insulating glazed systems; C. Provision of doors and openings to the exterior with acoustic seals; d. Addition of additional wall insulation; and /or e. Provision of fitting vents with dampers and /or acoustic louvers. 57. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall pay a fair share contribution fee to the City of Newport Beach per Section 15.38 of the Municipal Code. 58. New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems where possible. 59. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform the tenant if possible, leave a note, and in some cases shut off the water. 60. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning) 61. All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the Project Applicant shall complete all required repairs. 62. Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. 63. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. Planning Department 64. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the proposed landscape areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department, General Services Department and Public Works Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 65. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be )6 Page 14 of 14 maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 66. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. 67. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. �l ATTACHMENT B DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE A,�, ORDINANCE NO. 2006- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITIr OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -012 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 DOVE STREET (PA2004 -249) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pendragon North America with respect to property located at 2101 Dove Street, and legally described as Lots 20, 21, 22, 40, 41, & 42 of Tract No. 3201, as shown on map recorded in Book: 130, pages 25 -30 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder to redevelop a former industrial property into a vehicle service and storage facility. The application requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the property from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail & Service Commercial. The application also requests a Code Amendment to rezone the subject property from APF (Administrative Professional, Financial to RSC (Retail and Service Commercial) and a Use Permit to allow the operation of a vehicle service and storage facility. Finally, the application also requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). WHEREAS, on April 6, 2006, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project applications, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and comments received thereon were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at the hearing. With a vote of 4 ayes and one no (2 absent), the Planning Commission recommended approval of the applications to the City Council. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on May 9, 2006, to consider the proposed recommendations of the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the project is located in the Campus Drive Area (Statistical Area 1-4) of the Land Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF) and is zoned APF (Administrative, Professional, Financial). WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail & Service Commercial is necessary since vehicle service and vehicle storage uses are only permitted as ancillary uses in the APF designation. The change in land use designation to RSC would allow vehicle repair as a primary use and vehicle storage would then be allowed as an ancillary use at the subject site. The change in land use designation would result in the 4.19 -acre site to be used for retail commercial uses as opposed to being used primarily for office uses. The General Plan Amendment will not increase the potential building area entitlement but simply would allow the property to be improved with uses that are predominantly retail in character which provide goods and services to the general public. C) ?I Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the proposed change of use and proposed vehicle related use will be compatible with the surround land uses which include a mixture of office and retail uses, a carwash /servic:e station, automotive related uses and John Wayne Airport. Additionally, since APF and the RSC land use designations are both part of the City's commercial districts, many of the uses allowed within these two districts are the same. The vehicle service and storage facility, therefore, will be consistent with the proposed Retail & Service Commercial land use designation. WHEREAS, the proposed project results in the redevelopment of an older and underutilized property. With the improvements proposed to be made by the applicant, the value of the property will be increased. The proposed FAR of 0.32 is within the allowable floor area limits and the traffic generated by the proposed project will not exceed the level of service desired by the City as demonstrated by the Traffic Study. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine if the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling unit thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public is required. As the request is a change in land use designation from APF to RSC with no increase in building floor area, the General Non - Residential Use Category of Commercial is used. This category includes the current land use of APF as well as the proposed designation and assigns the same trip rate for both of these use categories. The trip generation rates are 3 for morning and 4 for evening peak hour per each 1,000 square feet of floor area. Based on these identical rates the proposed land use designation change will result in no additional peak hour trips. In other words, if the site were redeveloped consistent with either land use designation, on average, there would not be a difference in traffic generation. Also, with all previously approved amendments, none of the Charter Section 423 thresholds would be exceeded. Therefore, a vote of the electorate would not be required. WHEREAS, the change in zoning designation from APF to RSC would not cause the property to become nonconforming under the RSC development standards. The proposed project complies with all development standards of the RSC zone including floor area, the 375 -foot height limitation zone, on -site parking, signage, lighting, building bulk and setbacks. WHEREAS, the proposed location of vehicle service and storage facility and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood. The subject property is surrounded by one and two -story office and commercial buildings, automotive related uses and John Wayne Airport. There is no surrounding residential that would be disturbed or could be impacted by the proposed use. WHEREAS, a Traffic Study has been prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA ,23 Page 3 of 5 analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 1,193 new average daily trips, 113 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 102 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. The study concluded that the proposed project will not cause a significant impact at the study area intersections as all intersections will operate at LOS D or better; therefore, no improvements are required at these intersections. WHEREAS, On April 20, 2006, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission considered and determined that the proposed project is consistent with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between February 9 and March 10, 2006. Comments were received from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. (CCRSA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). During the preparation of the responses, new avoidable significant effects were identified. As a result, three (3) mitigation measures have been drafted to reduce these effects to a less than significant level. These issues were identified related to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise. The introduction of three (3) mitigation measures, however, prompted the need to recirculate the MND pursuant to Section 15073.5.b.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The MND has been revised to include the additional mitigation measures (CR -1, HM -5 & N -3) and one minor change to an existing mitigation measure (HM -1). The revised document was recirculated for public review between April 12 and May 2, 2006 (20 days). Comments were received from the Orange County Transportation Authority. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: A revision to Zoning Map depicted in Exhibit "A" shall be adopted. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. -2.4 Page 4of5 This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on , and adopted on the day Of 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 'Z� Exhibit "A" PROPOSED CHANGE TO T Page 5 of 5 NG MAP FROM APF TO RSC Zoning Districts Finand2l CalewldY R 1� low/ �41 IS" CofmwalY �l ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1689 RESOLUTION NO. 1689 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2006- 021036) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004- 009, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -012, USE PERMIT NO. 2004 -043 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2005 -006 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 DOVE STREET (PA 2004 -249) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pendragon North America with respect to property located at 2101 Dove Street, and legally described as Lots 20, 21, 22, 40, 41, & 42 of Tract No. 3201, as shown on map recorded in Book 130, pages 25 -30 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder to redevelop a former industrial property into a vehicle service and storage facility. The application requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the property from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail & Service Commercial. The application also requests a Code Amendment to rezone the subject property from APF (Administrative Professional, Financial to RSC (Retail and Service Commercial) and a Use Permit to allow the operation of a vehicle service and storage facility. Finally, the application also requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). WHEREAS, on April 6, 2006, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project application, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and comments received thereon were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. WHEREAS, the project is located in the Campus Drive Area (Statistical Area 1-4) of the Land Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF) and is zoned APF (Administrative, Professional, Financial). WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail & Service Commercial is necessary since vehicle service and vehicle storage uses are only permitted as ancillary uses in the APF designation. The change in land use designation to RSC would allow vehicle repair as a primary use and vehicle storage would then be allowed as an ancillary use at the subject site. The change in land use would result in the 4.19 -acre site to be used for retail commercial uses as opposed to being used exclusively for office uses. The General Plan Amendment will not increase the potential building area entitlement but simply would allow the property to be improved with uses that are predominantly retail in character which provide goods and services to the general public. IN City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 16 WHEREAS, the proposed change of use and proposed vehicle related use will be compatible with the surround land uses which include a mixture of office and retail uses, a carwash /service station, automotive related uses and John Wayne Airport. Additionally, since APF and the RSC land use designations are both part of the City's commercial districts, many of the uses allowed within these two districts are the same and include vehicle service and storage. The vehicle service and storage facility, therefore, will be consistent with the proposed Retail & Service Commercial land use designation. WHEREAS, the proposed project results in the redevelopment of an older and underutilized property. With the improvements proposed to be made by the applicant, the value of the property will be increased. The proposed FAR of 0.32 is within the allowable floor area limits and the traffic generated by the proposed project will not exceed the level of service desired by the City as demonstrated by the Traffic Study. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to be reviewed to determine if the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling unit thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public is required. As the request is a change in land use policy from APF to RSC, the maximum peak hour trips methodology has been used. According to Council Policy A -18, the broad list of uses permitted in the RSC, APF and RMC zones has the same average rate. The trip generation rates are 3 for morning and 4 for evening peak hour trips per each 1,000 square feet of floor area. Based on these identical rates the proposed amendment will result in no additional peak hour trips. There would not be an appreciable difference in traffic generation, on average, in the event that the site was redeveloped consistent with either land use designation. Also, with all previously approved amendments, none of the Charter Section 423 thresholds would be exceeded. Therefore, a vote of the electorate would not be required. WHEREAS, the change in zoning designation from APF to RSC would not cause the property to become nonconforming under the RSC development standards. The proposed project complies with all development standards of the RSC zone including floor area, the 375 -foot height limitation zone, on -site parking, signage, lighting, building bulk and setbacks. WHERAS, the proposed location of vehicle service and storage facility and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public: health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood. The subject property is surrounded by one and two -story office and commercial buildings, automotive related uses and John Wayne Airport. There is no surrounding residential that would be disturbed or could be impacted by the proposed use. WHEREAS, a Traffic Study has been prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its 30 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 16 implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 1,193 new average daily trips, 113 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 102 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. The study concluded that the proposed project will not cause a significant impact at the study area intersections as all intersections will operate at LOS D or better; therefore, no improvements are required at these intersections. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment from February 9 to March 10, 2006. Comments were received from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. and Department of Toxic Substances Control. After duly considering the comments, new potentially significant impacts were identified. The potential impacts related to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise. As result, three (3) mitigation measures were identified that would reduce or avoid the impacts to less than significant levels. The identification of new potentially significant impacts and three mitigation measures to avoid or lessen potential impacts necessitates re- circulation the MND pursuant to Section 15073.5.b.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. WHEREAS, on the basis of the present environmental record recognizing the need to re- circulate the MND, the project should not have a significant impact upon the environment with the application of the mitigation measures as conditions of approval. It is further recognized that additional comments may be received on the revised MND that must be fully considered by the City prior to adoption of the MND and final action on the project by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2006 - 021036, prepared for the project subject to its re- circulation and careful consideration of any additional comments received. Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -009 per revised Campus Drive Area (Statistical Area L -4) depicted in Exhibit "A" and Land Use map depicted in Exhibit "B ", and revision to Zoning Map depicted in "C ", Use Permit No. 2004 -043, and Traffic Study No. 2005 -006 all subject to Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and made part hereof. 31 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 16 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6th DAY OF APRIL 2006. AYES: Eaton, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn NOES: Hawkins ABSENT: Cole and Tucker BY: yi el Toerge, Chairman BY: Barry Eato ecretary 3� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 5 of 16 Exhibit "A" THE FOLLOWING CHANGES WILL BE MADE TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED: 3. Campus Drive. This area is bounded by Campus Drive, MacAuthur. Boulevard, Birch Street and Bristol Street North. The area is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Retail and Service Commercial land uses. The maximum allowed floor area ratio is 0.5/0.75. 33 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 16 Exhibit "B" PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, & FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL TO RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL. M City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 16 Exhibit "C" PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE ZONING MAP FROM APF TO RSC Subject Site APF W RSC me' p h fir I -11 C ��._ N y I (i &V Zoning Districts ®ACnin., /,efntlona1 6 Fln.ncOICwMMtlN �S -RpW ISWIU �' Comnlar�W 4 we m i 1 Cr �1 Q u `L ,q_WP(IXi MnCI: tiF 35 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 8 of 16 Exhibit "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Use Permit No. 2004 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -006 (PA2004 -249) The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2, The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans date stamped of March 23, 2006. 3. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 5. Should this operation be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 6. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. 7. The facility shall be designed to meet fire protection requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building Department. Traffic Engineering 8. All parking stall dimensions shall comply with City's Standard Drawings STD - 805-L-A and STD - 805 -L -B. 9. Sight distance at all entrances (monument signs, walls, display vehicles and landscaping etc.) shall conform to the City's Sight Distance Standard 110 -L. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 9 of 16 10. No deliveries shall occur on any portion of public right -of -way. All deliveries shall be handled on -site. All delivery routes shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. Driveway approaches shall be constructed per City Standard STD - 160 -L, modified to comply with current ADA requirements. The driveway shall be minimum of 26 feet wide (measured from bottom X to bottom X). The abandoned driveway approaches shall be reconstructed per City Standard STD - 165 -L. 12. Parking plans shall be fully dimensioned. The center parking aisle near Campus Drive shall shift toward Campus Drive to improve the overall circulation within the parking area. 13. Gate openings shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide to accommodate two - directional travel. 14. A new driveway approach shall be provided on Dove Street for access to the customer parking area. The final location and design of the driveway approach shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineer. 15. Staging of construction equipment shall not be permitted on the public right -of- way. 16. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 17. All walkways and planters within the parking lot shall be widened, where applicable, to act as wheel stops. The maximum allowable parking stall overhang is 2 feet 6 inches. Fire Department 18. Prior to the issuance of building permit, fire sprinkler contractor or fire protection engineer shall determine the use and viability of existing sprinkler system as the existing system may not be adequate for the proposed use. 19. Prior to the issuance of building permit, fire service shall be provided underground with a double backflow preventor. An encroachment permit from Public Works Department shall be required. A fire permit shall also be required. 20. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, the Fire Department connection to Dove Street shall be relocated and shall be within 150 feet of a fire hydrant. 21. Fire sprinkler system shall be monitored indefinitely, JI City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 10 of 16 22. Sprinkler demand may be increased depending on the types of materials stored in the inventory storage. 23. A special building features for high stockpile shall be required if the storage has piles, pallets, racks or shelves exceed 12 feet in height in the inventory area. 24. The applicant must indicate occupancy classification, type of construction and square footage comply with the 2001 Edition of the California Building Code. Development Services E=ngineering 25. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant shall coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority to ascertain that the proposed frontage improvements along Birch Street will not conflict with OCTA operations. 26. Prior to the issuance of building permit, an ADA travel path shall be required between the Birch Street sidewalk and the new building. 27. The current sidewalk location within the Campus Drive right -of -way fronting this development shall remain as a "Path of Travel ". 28. Given the existing topography, on -site drainage shall not be routed in a manner that would cause any spillage onto the existing development southerly of this project. 29. All surface runoff shall be directed toward and treated by an at/below grade storm water clarifier before the water can be discharged. 30. Except for storm overflows, no curb drains shall be installed to allow the discharge of polluted on -site runoff onto the public right -of -way. 31. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the existing curb drains along Dove Street shall either be eliminated or retrofitted for storm overflows only. New curb /gutter shall be constructed where the existing curb drains have been removed. 32. Prior to the issuance of building permit, depending upon the final site drainage design, additional on -site drainage provisions may be required. 33. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the existing curb access ramp at the southeast corner of Campus Drive /Dover Street and at the southwest corner of Dover Drive /Birch Street shall be reconstructed to comply with the current ADA requirements. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 11 of 16 34. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, the existing uplifted /damaged /displaced concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter that surround this development shall be reconstructed per City Standards. 35. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, all existing street trees shall be protected in place. Additionally, per Chapter 13 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, new street trees shall be installed along the street frontages that surround this development. 36. Upon completion of construction, the existing red curbs that surround this development shall be repainted. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of such work. 37. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, "No Parking" signs shall be installed along new red curbs per City Standards. 38. Upon completion of construction, the portion of the existing Campus Drive roadway fronting this development, from the easterly roadway edge of gutter up to the northbound No. 2/3 traffic lane line shall be grounded and capped with a 3- inch thick AC pavement overlay. New sprayable thermoplastic traffic striping and markings and raised pavement markers shall be installed within the limits of said roadway work. 39. In the event that the City's Birch Street roadway rehabilitation project is completed prior to the development construction completion, any damage done to the Birch Street new roadway pavement by the applicant will cause the applicant to repave the roadway at no cost to the City. Utilities Department 40. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the fire service shall be upgraded per STD 517 -L. 41. Prior to the issuance of building permit, a 2 -inch RPP backflow device shall be installed to the existing water meter. 42. Prior to the issuance of building permit, sewer cleanout at the property line shall be required. 31 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 12 of 16 Building Department 43. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 44. Prior to the issuance of the grading or buildinq permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format of the DAMP title 'Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City. Mitigation Measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 45. The Project Applicant shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements as follows: a. Exposed pits (i.e., gravel, soil, dirt) with 5 percent or greater silt content shall be watered twice daily, enclosed, covered, or treated with non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications. b. All other active sites shall be watered twice daily. c. All grading activities shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph) if soil is being transported to off -site locations and cannot be controlled by watering. d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off -site shall be covered or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). e. All construction roads internal to the construction site that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles, shall be surfaced with base material or decomposed granite, or shall be paved. q6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 13 of 16 Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. g. Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. h. Water or non -toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall not exceed 15 mph. 46. During construction activities if any archaeological resources are encountered, all work shall cease in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. If major archaeological resources are discovered which require long -term halting or redirection of grading, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The archaeologist, in consultation with appropriate agencies and Native American organization, shall determine appropriate action which ensures proper exploration and /or salvage. 47. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide verification (i.e., sample results) to the City of Newport Beach that on -site soils have been tested. Any soils encountered or removed during construction activities (particularly within the building's interior or behind the building near the loading dock) shall be sampled for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). If soil contamination is discovered, the applicant shall work with the City of Newport Beach and the appropriate regulatory agency to determine the appropriate action (i.e. remediation or excavation of soils). 48. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit verification to the City of Newport Beach that an asbestos survey has been conducted within the existing building. If asbestos is found, the Project Applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. 49. Prior to issuance of occupancy_ permit, the applicant shall file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the City Newport Beach Fin= Department detailing all hazardous materials at the project site, storage methods, and spill prevention plans. 50. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan to the City of Newport Beach as mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 4) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 14 of 16 51. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit verification to the City of Newport Beach that lead -based paint and mercury surveys have been conducted within the existing building. If lead -based paint or mercury is found, the applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and disposal of such hazardous substances. 52. Prior to issuance of grading or buildin permit, the applicant shall develop and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP shall contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to local receiving water from pollutants in storm water runoff. The Project Applicant shall provide the City of Newport Beach with a copy of the NOI and their application check, as proof of filing with RWQCB. 53. The applicant shall demonstrate implementation of appropriate source control and treatment control Best Management Practices as specified in the Draft Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Walden & Associates dated October 7, 2004, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 54. Construction activities shall be confined to any weekday between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. and on any Saturday between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. 55. Noise - generating equipment operated at the project site shall be equipped with effective noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and /or motor enclosures). All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated. 56. The applicant shall comply with John Wayne Airport's Airport Environs Land Use Plan Noise Impact Zone I requirements to ensure the service advisor offices and customer lounge are sufficiently sound attenuated from the combined input of all present and projected exterior noise to meet 55 dBA Leq. These measures shall be incorporated during the detailed design stage of the project to comply with the minimum sound insulation requirement. The final design shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department. Achieving this level of sound insulation may include the followings: a, Installation of air - conditioning /mechanical ventilation such as the interior space will not have to rely on open windows for ventilation; b. Installation of dual insulating glazed systems; C. Provision of doors and openings to the exterior with acoustic seals; d. Addition of additional wall insulation; and /or e. Provision of fitting vents with dampers and /or acoustic louvers. 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 15 of 16 57. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall pay a fair share contribution fee to the City of Newport Beach per Section 15.38 of the Municipal Code. 58. New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems where possible. 59. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform the tenant if possible, leave a note, and in some cases shut off the water. 60. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning) 61. All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the Project Applicant shall complete all required repairs. 62. Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. 63. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. Planning Department 64. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the proposed landscape areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department, General Services Department and Public Works Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 65. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 16 of 16 fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 66. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. 67. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. q� ATTACHMENT D MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 6, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING q5 Ytannmg uommsssson Minutes 04/00 /2006 Page 2 of 13 yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: Cole and Tucker bstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Thirtieth St. Architects, Inc. (PA2005 -158) ITEM NO. 3 ',.2961 Cliff Drive PA2005 -158 Request to subdivide an existing single-family residential lot, creating two single - family Removed from residential lots. The project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Calendar General Plan to allow the subdivision of a property located within Statistical Area H -1, which currently prohibits subgivisions. The property is 33,193 square feet in size and is currently developed with a single-family residence. Ms. Temple reported that the applicant has asked that this item be removed from calendar. Motion was made by Chairperson Toer e,to remove this item from calendar Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Cole and Tucker Abstain: None SUBJECT: Steadfast Investment Properties (PA200,5 -293) ITEM NO. 4 4343 Von Karman Avenue PA2005 -293 Request for General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -007 and Planned Community Continued to Development Plan Amendment No. 2005 -005 to increase the makimum allowable 05/18/2006 ntitlement for the property by approximately 1,740 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed project involves infilling a multi -floor lobby area (spanning the 15t and 2nd floors) within an existing three -story building; the expansion will occur completely within he interior of the existing building and will result in no changes to height or the exterior appearance of the building. The property is within the Kell Center Planned Community (PC) District. Ms. Temple reported that the applicant is requesting a 60 day continuance and recommended that this item be heard on May 18, 2006 due to the timing of action on , he General Plan Update in June. A brief discussion followed related to the timing of he General Plan issue and timing of future additional applications. Motion was made by Chairperson Toer a to continue this item to May 18th. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: Absent: None F Cole and Tucker s� �° Copy Abstain: None SUBJECT: Pendragon North America (PA2004 -249) ITEM NO. 5 2101 Dove Street PA2004 -249 Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. proposes to redevelop the former industrial Recommended property into a vehicle service and storage facility to support their existing sales and for approval service facility located at 1540 Jamboree Road. The requested applications would change the General Plan land use - designation from Administrative, Professional & In file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm 04/27/2006 rtannmg Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 iancial Commercial to Retail Service Commercial. The existing APF zoning is also posed to be changed from APF (Administrative, Professional & Financial) to RSC etail Service Commercial). The proposed use requires a Use Permit for the proposed eration of vehicle service and storage facility at the subject site. Finally, a traffic study required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Ung gave an overview of the staff report. She noted that comments had been :eived on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and that there were three new ligation measures to address those concerns. These additional measures prompt need to re- circulate the environmental document, therefore, staff has prepared an rata to include these new measures. Staff has also drafted minor changes the the aft resolution. This revision clarifies the scope of the review and the recommendation the environmental document by the Commission to the City Council. Staff believes at this recommendation can be made and recommends the Commission consider the aft environmental document, including the Errata, and require the re- circulation of the cument to be made prior to the consideration by the City Council. Commission inquiry, Ms. Ung noted: • Changes to the environmental document are listed in the Errata. • Culture resources - changing from less than significant impact to potential significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. This was added in response to comments from an agency regarding archeological resources encountered during the construction process being appropriately handled. • Hazardous materials - soils contamination is to be determined and addressed. • Construction - during construction lead based paint and mercury levels are to be determined prior to the building permit issuance. • Noise - the project applicant shall comply with the John Wayne Airport's Airport Environs Land Use Plan Noise Impact Zone 1 requirements. nmissioner Eaton noted these mitigation measures necessitate the recirculation of Mitigated Negative Declaration. He opined that these measures are site specific , therefore, the Commission does not need to hold up the process to see this rculation as long as the Council sees it. Staff concurred. missioner Henn asked how this project fits within the context of the new General for that area. Temple answered that the General Plan Land Use Element designates this area as ninistrative Office Category. Should changes be made in the interim, staff will make appropriate changes to the Land Use Map before the General Plan is finalized. a area will be designated as Mixed Use (132) which would allow, assuming ropriate approvals and concurrence with the Airport Land Use Commission were ieved, the potential to accommodate residential housing within the overall cap of )0 units. However, noise generated by the John Wayne airport would make dential units development on this particular property highly unlikely. Discussion tinued. c Marcussen, architect for the project and representing the applicant, gave the lowing presentation: • The existing Land Rover facility has outgrown the site. • It will be maintained as a sales facility adding sales of Auston Martin. The Dove Street facility will be servicing all vehicles except the Auston Martin fleet. • The Jamboree site will act as a storage and staging facility. • Referencing exhibits, he noted the features of the proposed project. Page 3 of 13 0 file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm 04/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 • The project will have a second floor, a canopy for service and car wash. • He went on to explain the functionality of egress and ingress, service and storage functions. • He displayed color pallet to be used on the building, materials, elevations and floor plan. • Enhanced paving and landscaping will be improved. hairperson Toerge asked about the recommended third driveway on Dove Street. Marcussen answered that there is one driveway approach on Birch and on ipus. He noted they do not see customer parking issues associated with those two roaches. City Engineering has, proposed adding an additional customer service ance along Dove Street. He questioned the proximity and the need for this added away. He noted he is not in support of this condition. imissioner Eaton questioned the placement of this driveway and asked if there is a ian strip along Campus? What will happen at the existing dealership on boree? Marcussen noted that a driveway at the rear of the project site is not customer king and is specifically for storage. He added that the Jamboree facility will be for as for Jaguar, Land Rover and Auston Martin and will serve as a service facility only Auston Martin. Currently, only Land Rover and used car sales at this site. Edmonston noted that the third driveway was suggested and that portions of npus Drive have raised medians therefore the additional driveway would provide er access. He noted that the benefit of the driveway is better than the detriment of proximity to Campus Drive. comment was opened. comment was closed. Toerge noted his support of the additional driveway. r McDaniel noted his support of the additional driveway. lotion was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend approval of General Plan ,mendment 2004 -009, Code Amendment No. 2004 -012, Use Permit NO. 2004 -043, raffic Study No. 2005 -006 and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Errata thereto, ubject to the circulation pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines to the City Council subject to ie resolution. ;ommissioner Hawkins noted he supports the project and the recirculation of the nvironmental document; however, he can not support the motion. He stated the ,solution is internally inconsistent. By requiring a re- circulation it undercuts any ndings in connection with the adequacy of the environmental document. The ,commendation for the re- circulation means there is something that has not been nalyzed and the record will remain open. He noted we could move this on by saying ie have reviewed the environmental document and we recommend it be re- circulated rior to the hearing before the City Council; not taking any substantive position in onnection with the adequacy of the environmental document. istant City Attorney Harp noted that there is an issue because of the re- circulation. Ically, at this stage, you have an environmental record that is complete with all the iments. Because it is going to Lie recirculated there may be additional comments Page 4 of 13 Y file: / /F:AUsers \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm 04/27/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/2006 i so you may not have a complete environmental record here. He recommends that Planning Commission recommend, based on the environmental record in front of r, that there is no substantial evidence that this project will have a significant effect the environment based on what you have, but notifying the City Council that the ord is still open, it is being re- circulated and that they will be receiving comments i that they need to take a look at that issue once they have all those comments in. iguage has been drafted to change the first finding to reflect this. on the resolution followed and purpose of the recommendation followed. s. Temple noted that the City has locally adopted guidelines in the Policy Manual for administration of the California Environmental Quality Act, and clearly knowledges that the certifying body of any environmental document is the body who responsible for the final action at that is the City Council. The Planning Commission the recommending body. Toerge amended his motion to include the comments by the Assistant City Eaton, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Hawkins Cole and Tucker None General Plan Update raft Environmental Impact Report, and Harbor and Bay, Historical Resources, ecreation. "Arts and Cultural, Natural Resources, Safety, and Noise Elements. rperson Toerge,noted that the Commission will be taking a break at 6:00 p.m. missioner Cole arriyed at 4:00 p.m. s. Temple noted the Draft Environmental Impact Report is not ready as yet, but when is they will be available in the libraries and for purchase. She then noted that the port is an overall status of where"ttye City is in this process. The General Plan Public view draft has been publicized and suTmarized in the draft table are key changes ade as relates to Planning Commission I recommended changes and what ended up in e Element based on input from the Harbor Commission and the City Council. She commended that any formatting or typographical errors can be made via email to the rairperson Toerge noted that the Elements will be takerfln, the order they are �sented in the staff report. `11% rmmissioner Hawkins asked about the Implementation Plan, which, is the final chap the Environmental document. He noted they have not reviewed tha,`chapter and ked if any sections related to this Implementation Plan are being addressed or twill s be done later? 5._ Temple noted that currently the hearing notice is being revised to include the ementation Plan at one of the subsequent hearings. rbor and Bay Element r. Elwood Tescher noted that this Element was originally separated into portions of e Land Use, Natural Resources and Safety Elements. It was requested by the Harbc )mmission to combine these and have a separate element although pertinent polices frle:HF: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \04062006.htm Page 5 of 13 ITEM NO. 4 Continued to April 20, 2006 04/27/2006 ATTACHMENT E APRIL 6, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT �a FILE COPY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 5 April 6, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center 2101 Dove Street General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -009 Code Amendment No. 2004 -012 Use Permit No. 2004 -043 Traffic Study No. 2005 -006 Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2004 -249) APPLICANT: Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. REQUEST Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. proposes to redevelop the existing 4.19 acre property located at 2101 Dove Street into a vehicle service and storage facility to support their existing Land Rover dealership located at 1540 Jamboree Road. The project involves the following discretionary applications for the Planning Commission to consider: • General Plan Amendment - Change the land use designation of the 4.19 -acre site from Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial to Retail Service Commercial. • Code Amendment - Rezone the subject property from APF to RSC. • Use Permit — For the operation of vehicle service and storage facility. • Traffic Study — Traffic analysis pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -009, Code Amendment No. 2004 -012, Use Permit No. 2004 -043, Traffic Study No. 2005 -006 and Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the re- circulation pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, to the City Council by adopting the attached draft resolution. II � ;�. ..,3 ,: y ,,, li `.i Y � �l r. i� N �� ( r �. - 'a"` � ♦ F ` a� \= v `f ' � .Ash` + > bin \'` Subject Sine ✓ _ 1 gga�yy y `\'1 o� •+giA a( � 'SSYf�V`Y+±7i� • �v�ys •� yr. c �2 ;/ ;3t; .� � • a . <r S• a"1 f _ � '4` . - �Q'��! • _ •b i Ski � / h� Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 6, 2006 Page 3 BACKGROUND The 4.19 -acre site presently is developed with a 62,457 - square foot, vacant industrial building. The existing building was originally occupied by Edler Industries, Inc., which manufactured thermo insulation components for rocket motors from 1964 to 2001. Since then, the property has been leased to various business operators on a temporary basis, which include a stone and tile sales business, a batting cage and sports equipment sales business, a patio furniture sales business and various :storage operations and most recently a car rental business. A majority of the building is one level except mezzanine levels. The building has an existing loading dock on the south side of the building with surface parking located on the east and west sides. Vehicular access to the property is provided via existing driveways on Campus Drive and Birch Street. In February of 2003, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment to allow for the consideration of self- storage facilities in the range of permitted uses in the Campus Drive area of Statistical Area L -4 (Airport Area) in order to allow the property to be developed as a self- storage facility. The property owner later withdrew their request in favor of the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant currently operates the Land Rover Dealership located at 1540 Jamboree Road. The Jamboree Road site presently operates as an integrated dealership with sales and service operations. The applicant desires to consolidate three of their franchises onto this site for retail operations, while converting the subject site to vehicle service and inventory storage. The consolidation of the 3 franchises at the Jamboree site presents capacity issues and the request for a vehicle service and storage facility at the subject property would effectively resolve these issues. All proposed improvements to be made at the Jamboree site are minor and do not require an amendment to the existing Use Permit. The relocation of their service and storage operations to the subject site, however, necessitates an approval of the requested applications. The applicant proposes to convert the existing building into a vehicle service and storage facility. Minor interior demolition is proposed while the majority of the building exterior would remain unchanged. Interior partition walls, stairways, an existing below -grade loading dock and an electrical enclosure would be demolished. The mezzanines would be partially demolished and remodeled for parts and storage areas. Interior improvements also include conversion of the former main office area on the north side of the building into a tool room and locker area for technicians; construction of approximately 27 service bays within the west side of the building; construction of offices, Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 6, 2006 Page 4 a customer lounge, parts storage areas and restrooms on the southwest comer of the building and construction of a vehicle storage area within the east side of the building. Exterior improvements include construction of a main entrance and customer patio area on the west side of the building and construction of a service canopy, a 348- square foot car wash and a trash enclosure on the south side of the building. All existing and proposed mechanical units will be ;screened from view. The existing parking areas will be completely demolished and resurfaced. Landscaping will be provided throughout the property including site and building perimeters and the parking areas. Four vehicular display pads will be constructed in the grass area located on the north side of the building fronting on Dove Street. Upon completion of the improvements, the overall square footage of the building will be reduced from 62,457 to 58,145 gross square feet, a 4,312 square feet reduction in building size. Vehicular access to the property is proposed be reduced from 4 driveways (2 along Campus Drive and 2 along Birch Street) to 2 driveways. The driveways will generally remain in the same location but the drive approaches will be modified to meet City standards. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. It is anticipated that a total of 40 employees including service and part managers, technicians, service advisors, parts personnel, service writers and support staff would be working during various shifts. The service department would serve approximately 40 vehicles per day. Service includes minor and major repairs including new and pre -owned vehicle preparation. No body shop, paint booths or fueling services are proposed. The remainder of building will be devoted to vehicle storage for service vehicles and new inventory. The subject site will serve as overflow storage for the existing off -site storage at the Newport Dunes. No outdoor storage of inventory is planned; however, it could occur from time to time. DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment— Change in Designation The project is located in the Campus Drive Area (Statistical Area L4) of the Land Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF). This ,area is bounded by Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street and Bristol Street North. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) permitted by the General Plan for the subject property is 0.50/0.75. The proposed project will have a 0.32 FAR, which is less than the maximum permitted by the General Plan. The project proposes a change to the General Plan land use designation of the site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail & Service Commercial. The amendment is necessary because vehicle repair /service and vehicle 6(o Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 6, 2006 Page 5 storage are only permitted as ancillary uses in the APF designation. Since the proposed project would not function as an ancillary use to the Airport Office Area, the proposed use would not be allowed on the subject site. The change in land use designation to RSC would allow vehicle repair as a primary use and vehicle storage would then be allowed as an ancillary use at the subject site. The change in land use would allow the 4.19 -acre site to be used for retail commercial uses as opposed to being used exclusively for office uses. The General Plan Amendment will not increase the potential building area entitlement but simply would allow the property to be improved with uses that are predominantly retail in character which provide goods and services to the general public. Surrounding land uses include a mixture of office and retail uses, a carwash /gasoline station, automotive related uses and ,John Wayne Airport. Furthermore, since APF and RSC designations are both part of the City's commercial districts, many of the land uses allowed within these two districts are the same and include vehicle service and storage. As a result, the proposed use of the property, in staffs opinion, would not be incompatible with the surrounding uses. Applicable General Policies The Land Use Element has 12 general policies to guide consideration of the potential amendments. The following discussion relates to those general land use policies that are applicable to the proposed project. B. To ensure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties, and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. To ensure that traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City, variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the trip generation characteristics of land uses. The proposed project results in the redevelopment of an older and underutilized property. With the improvements proposed to be made by the applicant, the value of the property will be increased. The proposed FAR of 0.32 is within the allowable floor area limits and the traffic generated by the proposed project will not exceed the level of service desired by the City as demonstrated by the Traffic Study discussed below. The proposed changes to Statistical Area L4 pertaining to Campus Drive Area is shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit 1). Charter Section 423 Analysis Campus Drive Area of Statistical Area L4 has a current General Plan limit of 1,261,727 square feet. The project will not add square footage of non- residential intensity in Campus Drive Area. However, Council Policy A -18 requires that all proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote would be required. If a project generates more than 100 peak hour trips, 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor 61 Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 6, 2006 Page 6 area, or excess of 100 dwelling units, a vote of the citizens would be required, if the Council approves the requested Amendment. Council Policy A -18 includes a Trip Rate Table adopted for use when reviewing proposed GPA's relative to Charter Section 423. As the request is a change in land use designation from APF to RSC, the maximum peak hour trips methodology will be used. This category is identified in Council Policy A -18 for RSC, APF and RMC zones and is the same average rate! for the broad list of uses permitted in these zones. The trip generation rates are 3 for morning and 4 for evening peak hour trips per each 1,000 square feet of floor area. Based on these identical rates the proposed amendment will result in no additional peak hour trips. In other words, if the site were redeveloped consistent with either land use designation, on average, there would not be an appreciable difference in traffic generation. In conclusion, a vote of the electorate is not required. Charter Section 423 also requires that 80% of increases (units, area or traffic) from prior general plan amendments within the same statistical area be added to the traffic generated by the project to see if cumulatively a vote would be required. There were three prior amendments approved for Statistical Area L4, and the following chart shows the area and peak hour trips analysis. Amendment Area # of A.M. Peak P.M Peak Hour Dwelling Hour Trips Trips Units Camco Pacific 1,272 s.f. (80 %) 0 2.4(80%) 2.4(80%) GP2001 -004 Willson Automotive 0 0 15.3(80%) 23.3(80%) GP2004 -004 Master Development 1,400 s.f. (80 %) 0 2.4(80%) 2.4(80%) GP2004 -006 Proposed Amendment 0 0 0 0 Total 2,672; s.f. 0 20.1 28.1 As indicated in the preceding table, the project with "prior amendments" do not exceed the 100 peak hour trip, 40,000 square foot or 100 dwelling unit thresholds, therefore a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 is not required. Should the City Council approve the proposed amendment, it will become a "prior amendment" that will be tracked for ten years. The Steadfast Investment project is also being considered on the same Planning Commission agenda. Should the project be approved, the total A.M and P.M peak hour trips and building square footage would not exceed the Charter Section 423 thresholds. Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 6, 2006 Page 8 Use Permit The applicant requests approval of a Use Permit for the operation of vehicle service and storage facility under the proposed RSC designation for the subject site. A recommendation to the City Council to approve these uses requires that the Planning Commission make the following findings: • That the proposed location for the vehicle service and storage facility is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the district in which the proposed vehicle service and storage facility site is located; • That the proposed location of the vehicle service and :storage facility and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City; and • That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Compatibility of the proposed vehicle service and storage facility with nearby uses is also a consideration in the Use Permit approval. The subject property is surrounded by one and two -story office and commercial buildings, a carwash /gasoline station, automotive related uses and John Wayne Airport. The existing 24 -foot high building will be improved with design elements that resemble an office or administrative building and will be substantially consistent in design, quality of materials, scale, and building volume with that of nearby structures. Furthermore, on -site improvements which include the provisions of extensive landscaping treatments throughout the property, a new trash enclosure and newly paved parking lots are expected to enhance the visual characteristics of the property. To improve traffic and circulation on the project site and adjoining streets, vehicle access to the subject property is proposed to be reduced from four to two driveways and will have modified driveway approaches to meet the City's standards. However, the Traffic Study recommends that the project provide a driveway on Dove Street. This is to allow patrons traveling southbound on Campus Drive access to the site on Dove Street without having to make a u -turn at the intersection of Campus Drive and Quail Street. The Traffic Engineer reviewed and concurs with this recommendation. The new access point will be located on the west side of the building and will be aligned with the closest 69 Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 6, 2006 Page 9 driveway parallel to the existing building. A condition of approval requiring this provision has been included in the draft resolution. Noise sources on the project site, including automotive repair equipment, were considered in the Initial Study prepared for the project as required by CEQA. No sensitive noise receptors, e.g. residences, are located in the vicinity of the proposed service center and the Initial Study found that the highest noise levels would result from construction of the vehicle service and storage facility. The proposed vehicle service center is subject to Mitigation Measure N -1 that requires that construction activities be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach noise standards and that the hours of construction are limited accordingly. The Initial Study indicates that operational noise sources would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure N -2 requiring noise control devices to minimize operational noise impact consistent with the City's noise standards. Based upon the operational characteristics of the use, a review of surrounding land uses, building and site improvements, traffic considerations, noise and lighting, staff believes that the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the Use Permit for the proposed facility through the adoption of conditions of approval provided the General Plan Amendment and Code Amendment are also approved. Traffic Study The traffic study identifies the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the proposed development. A traffic study is required when a project will generate more than 300 average daily trips pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The City Traffic Engineer prepared a preliminary estimate of trips and concluded that a traffic study would be required.. A traffic study has been prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result in a net increase of 1,193 new average daily trips, 113 vehicle trips during morning (AM) peak hour and 102 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. Fourteen (14) intersections were identified by the Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the study. Project related traffic is expected to result in a one percent increase in nine (9) out of the fourteen (14) study intersections. Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis was performed on the following 9 intersections: 1. Mac Arthur Blvd. at Birch Street 2. Mac Arthur Blvd. at Jamboree Road 3. Campus Drive at Dove Street 4. Campus Drive at N Bristol Street 5. Campus Drive at SE Bristol Street rl Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 6, 2006 Page 10 6. Birch Street at Dove Street 7. Birch Street at N Bristol Street 8. Birch Street at SE Bristol Street 9. Jamboree Road at Campus Drive The study concluded that the project related traffic does not cause an unsatisfactory level of service at any of these intersections as all of the intersections will operate at LOS D or better. Therefore, no significant impact occurs and no improvements are required at these intersections. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by PCR Service Corporation for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit No. 3. The MND identifies six (6) issue areas with 24 mitigation measures. Those issues are: Air Quality, Hazards /Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems. The MND was circulated for public review between February 9 and March 10, 2006. Comments were received from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. (CCRSA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). During the preparation of the responses, new avoidable significant effects have been identified. As result, three (3) mitigation measures have been drafted to reduce these effects to a less than significant level. These issues identified related to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise. The introduction of three (3) mitigation measures, however, has prompted the need to re- circulate the MND pursuant to Section 15073.5.b.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff has prepared an errata (Exhibit 3) to include three (3) new mitigation measures (CR -1, HM -5 and N -3), minor changes made to Mitigation Measure HM -1, the revised the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Response to Comments Document for the Planning Commission to consider. Staff also respectfully recommends that the Commission consider the draft MND including the errata and require the recirculation of the MND to be made prior to the City Council's consideration. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. 61 Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 6, 2006 Page 11 Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Summary Staff believes that findings necessary for project approval can be made. It is staffs opinion the proposed project would not prove detrimental to the area because the proposed vehicle service and storage facility would be compatible with the surrounding uses. Furthermore, because of its close proximity to the John Wayne Airport, the subject property is significantly impacted by the noise from the airport. Consequently, it is not an ideal location for many uses. The noise is much less of a nuisance to an automotive use; therefore, it would be a suitable use of the subject property. The recirculation of the MND is necessary in order to ensure that the public and other agencies have the opportunity to comment on the revised document before it may be adopted. With the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures, the project's environmental impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be compatible with the surrounding uses and that the site should be redeveloped for office uses, the project should be denied or modified to address any issues that may arise. If a redesigned project is advisable, staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant time to revise their plans accordingly should this course of action be sought. Prepared by: ,.,4 Ro I alinh M. Ung, so iate Planner Submitted by: LEWL- Patricia L. Temple, PI nning Director Exhibits: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006- _ 2. Applicant's Letter of Request 3. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (Errata, Revised Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program and Responses to Public Comments included)' 4. Project Plans ' Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the Planning Department U! ATTACHMENT F RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY E RECIRCULATION OF INITIAL STUDY LAND ROVER NEWPORT BEkH SERVICE CENTER PCR TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................... Page ................................................... ............................1 -1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPT ION ............................................. ............................... 1. Project Background ................................................. ............................... 11. Project Location And Surrounding Area ................ ............................... 111. Existing Characteristics ........................................... ............................... IV. Proposed Project ..................................................... ............................... V. Schedule .................................................................. ............................... V1. Necessary Approvals ............................................... ............................... .......... 2 -1 .......... 2 -1 .......... 2 -1 .......... 2 -3 .......... 2 -3 .......... 2 -9 2Q 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ....................................... ............................... 3 -1 4. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATION ................... ............................4 -1 1. Aesthetics . ................................................................................................................... 4 -1 11. Agricultural Resourccs ......... ....................................................................................... 4 -2 111. Air Qual ity . ...................................................................................... ............................4 -3 IV. Biological Resources... .... ............................. .................. — 4-9 V. Cultural Resources. ................................. ......... 4-11 V1. Geology and Soils. — ...... ......... ........ ........................................ .............. .... 4-12 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................. ...........................4 -15 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality . ..................... ............................................................ .4 -20 IX. Land Use and Planning. . .... ........ ............... ................. - ......... 4 -27 X. Mineral Resources........ ... ............. ................ -- ..... ........ ... 4-29 XI. Noise. .......... ......... ........................................... 4-30 XII. Population and Housing................................................................ ...........................4 -35 XIII. Public Services... .... ....... ....... 4 -36 XIV. Recreation ................... ......................................................... ......... . ........................... 4 -37 XV. Transportation and Circulation. ...................... .... 4 -33 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. .... ...... ...... ...... -.. - .... ... 4 -51 XVII.Mandatory Findings of Significance. ........ ......... ......... 4-56 City of Newport Beach land Rover Newport Bench Ser iev Center Ki Scrviccs Corporation April 1006 Page TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Pape 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM . ................................. 5-1 TECHNICAL APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX B: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPENDIX C: WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX D: TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY City of Newport Beach PCR Services Crxpormion PI&C ii Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April Aft LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure2 -1 Regional Map ........................................................................... ............................2 -2 Figure 2 -2 Vicinity Map ............................ ............................... Figure 2 -3 Aerial Photograph ................................................................. ............................... 2 -5 Figure2 -4 Existing Site Plan ......................... .......................... .............................................. 2 -6 Figure2 -5 Proposed Site Plan ................................................................ ............................... 2 -8 Figure 4 -1 Study Intersections- ..................... ................................. ........................ .......... 4 -41 Figure 4 -2 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................ ...........................4 -42 Figure 4 -3 Future 2007 Traffic Volumes without Proposed Project .... ............................... 4 -44 Figure 4 -4 Future 2007 Traffic Volumes with Proposed Project ............. ...........................4 -46 Figure 4 -5 General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes without Proposed Project ...................4 -48 Figure 4 -6 General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes with Proposed Project ........................4 -50 Cily of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Senim Center PCR Services Corporation April 2(X)6 Page iii LIST OF TABLES Table Table 4 -1 Estimated Worst -Case Construction Emissions ................... ............................... Table 4 -2 Operational Emissions .......................................................... ............................... Table 4 -3 Existing Levels of Service at Study Intersections ................ ............................... Table 4 -4 Future 2007 Levels of Service at Study Intersections without Proposed Project Table 4 -5 Future 2007 Levels of Service at Study Intersections with Proposed Project..... Table 4 -6 General Plan Buildout without and with Proposed Project .. ............................... Table 5 -1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................... ............................... Page ..... 4 -5 ..... 4 -7 ... 4 -43 ... 4 -45 ... 4 -47 ... 4 -49 ..... 5 -2 City of Nmport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corpoation April 2006 Page iv 1. INTRODUCTION 1. INTRODUCTION Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. ( Pendragon) is proposing to convert the existing building located at 2101 Dove Street into a vehicle service center and storage facility. The project as proposed would require approval of a General Plan Amendment and Code Amendment to change the land use designation and zoning of the 4.2 -acre site from Administrative, Professional, and Financial to Retail and Service Commercial. The project would also require the approval of a Use Permit (1) to allow the development and operation of the vehicle service center as the primary use under the proposed Retail and Service Commercial zoning designation; and (2) to allow the operation of the vehicle storage facility as an ancillary use. The majority of the improvements would occur within the building's interior. However, exterior improvements would also occur including the construction of a main entrance and patio area, a service canopy, and a car wash. Additionally, both parking lots would be completely demolished and resurfaced. Upon completion of these improvements, the building would total 58,145 gross square feet, which is 4,312 square feet less than the existing building. This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the project under CEQA and, as such, has primary responsibility for approving the project. The Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the project for each environmental category listed in the City of Newport Beach's adopted Environmental Checklist Form. Mitigation measures have been developed and outlined in this Initial Study, which will mitigate the potential effects of the project to a point where no significant effect on the environment would occur. Therefore, based on the conclusions of this Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as defined by CEQA can be processed for the project. The following annotated outline summarizes the contents of this Initial Study: Initial Study for Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center • Section 1. Introduction, provides the reader with the procedural context regarding the preparation of the Initial Study and insight into its composition. • Section 2. Project Description, provides a complete description of the project based on available information, including background information, project location, site characteristics, schedule, and necessary approvals. • Section 3. Environmental Checklist Form, provides an issue -by -issue determination that identifies whether the potential environmental effects of the project City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR services Corporation April 2006 Page 1 -1 1. Introduction are considered to be Potentially Significant, Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated, Less than Significant, or No Impact. • Section 4. Explanation of Checklist Determination, contains the environmental analysis and Source references to Support the conclusions of the Environmental Checklist Form, recommended mitigation measures, and a determination of the significance of cach impact with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. • Section 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, lists all of the mitigation measures to be implemented as part of the project as well as the timing of each mitigation measure, the agency or party responsible for implementing it, and the agency or party responsible for monitoring it's implementation. Technical Appendices for Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center • Appendix A. Air Quality Analysis Worksheets, provides the output files of the URBEMIS 2002 emissions inventory model used to calculate project - related emissions. • Appendix B. Environmental Review, provides a summary of previous hazardous material assessments (Phase I and II) prepared for the project site and provides a discussion of the likelihood of past, present, or potential releases of hazardous materials at the project site. • Appendix C. Water Quality Management Plan, provides a discussion of possible urban pollutants and ways to prevent pollutants from leaving the site and entering the Storm drain system as required by the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach. • Appendix D. Traffic Impact Study, provides a description of the existing traffic conditions at the project site and identifies potential traffic and circulation impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed project. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PC 1Z Services Corporation April 2006 Page 1 -2 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION I. PROJECT BACKGROUND Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. (Pendragon) currently operates a Land Rover Sales and Service Center at 1540 Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. Pendragon is proposing to relocate the service center portion of the Jamboree Road location to 2101 Dove Street also in the City of Newport Beach. All service needs are currently conducted at the Jamboree Road location (i.e., minor to major repairs, new and pre -owned vehicle preparation) and would transfer to the Dove Street location. In addition to the service center, the Dove Street location would also serve as a vehicle storage facility for cars that are being serviced and new inventory. Currently, all new vehicle deliveries from the manufacturer are stored at the Dunes location and delivered to the Jamboree Road location as necessary. While this procedure would continue, any overflow of new vehicles from the Dunes location would be taken to the Dove Street location for storage. The proposed service center and storage facility at Dove Street is located approximately four miles from the Jamboree Road location. II. PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING AREA The project site is located at 2101 Dove Street in the northernmost portion of the City of Newport Beach (City) in Orange County, California. The cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine are located less than one -half mile west and east of the project site, respectively. John Wayne Airport is located immediately west of the project site, while the Pacific Ocean is located approximately five miles to the south. The project site is located approximately one and a quarter mile south of California Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway), one mile east of State Highway 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway), and approximately one -half mile north of the 73 Transportation Corridor. Figure 2 -1 on page 2 -2 depicts the project site in a regional context. The area surrounding the project site consists primarily of light industrial, commercial, and aviation uses. The project site is bound by Dove Street to the north, beyond which are commercial uses.' To the east, the project site is bound by Birch Street. Beyond Birch Street are more commercial uses. A cluster of two -story office buildings known as Executive Plaza IV The street system it? Ivhich tha, project is located nuns diagonally. For proposes of clarity, Campus Drive and all other streets that run parallel to it arc described as north -south .streets. Dove Street and all other streets that nin parallel to it tire described as east -west streets. City of Nei, port Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corpwnrion April 2006 Page 2 -1 -r,,,Pinon Hills Hesperia ANdELES NATIO �Al- FOREST W! htwood -N S A S a n b -C N j y r e I A4) 0 H San Antonio A; ta in qp�N BCR:,�,1ROINo NATl('.1AP,-, FOREST A W. Wilson 5,710 R. CrelstKine Bursa L 0 S ANGELES ...... G evor C 0 U--N -T Y-1 G end le Azusa asadena Rancho Cucamonga 0 Fontana San ernardino Ytii Hollywoo 0 Rialto--- 0 We Po Highland Los An 0 Ontario Cohon", — — - — - — - — - Redlands O �j — - — --- glewood Whittier Chino Ma ha an N lk Norco I - • 0 oreno iverside ?B, ac //Fullerton PROJECT SITE �Jonrance rona R R S 1 0 San Pedro I ,Beac\k h, E Pert is \ C LnBeac�h U N T Y Hunting Costao Sun City (D �.Mesa -ORES T\� Irvineo I TO Newport Be,'-cr,—r,) Laguna Beach" Murrieta Dana Point Catalina Island L- - - San Clemente P,9 f CAMP PENDLETON Irook U'S I'll \Avalon 0 C 6, A N 0 1 E 0 C 0 Ut N T Figure 2-1 0 5 10 20 Miles Regional Map Source: POR SeMces coporatim. 2005 2. Project Description abuts the project site to the south. To the west, the project site is bound by Campus Drive. On the other side of Campus Drive is John Wayne Airport. Figure 2 -2 on page 2 -4 depicts the project site in a local context. An aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding uses is shown in Figure 2 -3 on page 2 -5. III, EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS The project site, which is 44 feet above mean sea level, is currently developed with a 62,457 square foot, concrete tilt -up, warehouse -type Structure on approximately 42 acres of land. The main entrance and office area front Dove Street along the north side of the building. The majority of the building is one -story except for the central portion and an area on the Southern portion that include a mezzanine level. A loading dock is located on the south side of the building. Surface parking lots are located both cast and west of the building footprint. Vehicular access to the project site is provided via four driveways; two driveways on Campus Drive, and two driveways on Birch Street. Figure 2 -4 on page 2 -6 depicts the existing layout of the project site. The building, which was originally constructed in 1964, was a manufacturing facility for thermo insulation components for rocket motors until mid 2001 (Edler Industries). Currently, portions of the building are being leased on a month -to -month basis to various businesses for storage, printing, and office space, while the parking lot is being leased to various businesses for vehicle parking and storage. The site, which is located in Statistical Area L4 (Airport Area) of the General Plan Land Use Element, has a zoning and General Plan land use designation of Administrative, Professional, and Financial (APF). The maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) for this section of Statistical Area L4 is 0.50/0.75. The properties located north and south of the project site are also :zoned APE The properties located east of the project site are zoned Planned Community No. I l (PC -11). IV. PROPOSED PROJECT The Project Applicant proposes to convert the existing building into the vehicle service center and storage facility. Although the exterior building shell would remain intact, minor demolition would occur. Interior partition walls, stairways, an existing below grade loading dock, and an electrical enclosure would be demolished to accommodate the proposed improvements. Interior improvements include conversion of the former main office area on the north side of the building into a tool room and locker area for technicians; construction of approximately 27 service bays within the west side of the building; construction of offices, a customer lounge, parts storage areas, and restrooms on the southwest corner of the building; and construction of a vehicle storage area within the east side of the building. While the majority of City of Newport Beach I.and Rover Newport Beach Service Center FUR Services Corporation Apri 12006 Page 2 -3 I& A, v' O Ayx zwpopT OLF CURSE 7 - PC R ' / J� A Tq;'VM 11."L TjIv OR4UGE ,: eN* to A ZRQ A/ "NE qxiDIZU 'N THE S,'7770N .0 'o V[�7C.f HOTEL 3EAC41 AIN 73 70 NE`: pN' ?1-AE 41 0 450 900 1800 Feet Source. PCR Services Cwpomon, 2005. YZ Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map LEGEND Project Site IN FIN t John Wayne F. Airport Ak AA4 F A. AN k A S. C9 A, N, kk '4? v �44 !TV,j el, 4- 0 200 400 800 Feet Sourcer USGS,2W ;?Ism Figure 2-3 Aerial Photograph 'r r N � v 7 w BIRCH STREET C PARKING' � Y — _ K PARKING � � —� -z \ z -n -n PARKING d d LL O ui W Q O Z LL LL o F 00 < p0 m W O \ Ln 3° 0 00 t- o 0 1 0 PARKING _ PARKING\ U 1 - Z .y K `6 q CAMPUS DRIVE L 2. Project Description the existing mezzanine level within the central portion of the building would be demolished, the mezzanine level within the southern portion would be reused/rervorked for use as parts storage areas. Exterior improvements include construction of a main entrance and patio area on the west side of the building and construction of a service canopy, car wash, and trash enclosure on the south side of the building. Minor improvements would be made to the roof of the building (i.e., existing mechanical units will be screened from view). However, the existing height of the building (24 feet) would remain unchanged. Both parking lots would be completely demolished and resurfaced. Additionally, extensive landscaping treatments are proposed along the perimeter of the property boundary, at various locations along the building perimeter, and within the parking lots. Four concrete pad displays will be constructed in the grass area located on the north side of the building. The overall exterior design of the proposed project is not typical of a traditional service center but rather more akin to that of an office or administrative building. Figure 2 -5 on page 2 -8 depicts the proposed site plan. Upon completion of these improvements, the building would total 58,145 gross square feet, which is 4,312 square feet less than the existing building. The FAR for the site would be 0.32 which is well within the allowable FAR permitted (0.50/0.75) for this section of Statistical Area L4 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. A. Operations Approximately 40 employees including service and parts managers, technicians, service advisors, parts personnel, service drivers, and support staff would work at the project site. The hours of operation would be 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Saturday, and closed Sunday. The proposed service center consists of approximately 34,259 square feet including the service bays, offices, parts storage areas, and all other service related amenities. The service center would service approximately 50 vehicles per day. Service will include minor to major repairs as well as new and pre -owned vehicle preparation. However, no body shop, paint booths, or fueling services are proposed. A courtesy shuttle will be offered should a customer require transportation to their home: or office. For customers requiring a loan car, a rental car company will deliver a vehicle to the project site as needed from their off -site location. The vehicle inventory storage facility would total approximately 23,886 gross square feet. The storage facility is designed to store up to 200 vehicles within the building (which will include cars being serviced). All new vehicles from the manufacturer that cannot be stored at the Dunes location would be delivered directly to this location. In the event that a customer at the City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation Apri12006 Page 2 -7 N� v �- L 7 � CA BIRCH STREET c o. 0 / 4n V _ — \, \ \\ zu _ El _ LLJ \ Z LL \ \\ W ♦ \ � o r Q � z \ a W \ "L" MiLLLUJ - o o ,\ v� oar - \ I\ o m CAMPUS DRIVE ol 2. Project Description Jamboree sales center should choose to purchase a vehicle being stored at the project site, the vehicle would be shuttled from Dove Street to Jamboree Road for customer pick -up. B. Traffic, Circulation, and Parking Vehicular access to the project site would be reduced from four driveways (two along Campus Drive and two along Birch Street) to two driveways (one on Campus Drive and one on Birch Street). The driveways would generally remain in the same location but the approach would be modified per City requirements. Additionally, the parking lot areas would be designed to accommodate a 20 -foot fire lane. No access is or would be provided along Dove Street. The City's parking requirement for inventory type uses is 1 stall per 500 square feet and for repair type uses is 1 stall per 300 square feet. Based on these requirements, the proposed project would necessitate 162 parking spaces (48 parking spaces for inventory uses which total approximately 23,886 square feet and 114 parking spaces for repair type uses which total approximately 34,259 square feet). The project proposes a total of 170 parking spaces. V. SCHEDULE Construction of the proposed project is expected to last approximately eight months (one month for demolition and , I months for grading and construction). Construction is expected to commence in May 2006. Assuming the eight month construction period, the proposed project would be complete and operational by December 2006. VI. NECESSARY APPROVALS A. Lead Agency Approval The City of Newport Beach will serve as the Lead Agency. Implementation of the proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: • General Plan Amendment (GP2004 -009): The General Plan land use designation for the project site is currently Administrative, Professional, and Commercial (APF). The types of uses being proposed by the Project Applicant (vehicle service and storage) are permitted under this land use designation. However, it is limited to an ancillary use. Therefore, the Project Applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from APF to Retail and Service City of Newport Beach land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Sm im Corporation Apra 2006 Page 2 -9 2. Project Description Commercial (RSC) which would allow the uses being proposed with a Use Permit (see Use Permit below). • Code Amendment (CA2004 -012): The project site is currently zoned Administrative, Professional, and Commercial (APF). The types of uses being proposed by the Project Applicant (vehicle service and storage) are permitted undo this zoning designation. However, it is limited to an ancillary use. Therefore. the Project Applicant is requesting a Code Amendment to change the zoning designation from APF to Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) which would allow the uses being proposed with a Use Permit (see Use Permit below). • Use Permit (UP2004 -043): Vehicle service is only permitted under the Retail and Service Commercial land use and zoning designation with the approval of a Use Permit and vehicle storage is only permitted under the Retail and Service Commercial land use and zoning designation as an ancillary use with the approval of a Use Permit. Therefore, the Project Applicant is requesting a Use Permit (1) to allow the development and operation of the vehicle service center as the primary use under the proposed Retail and Service Commercial zoning designation; and (2) to allow the operation of the vehicle storage facility as an ancillary use. B. Other Required Permits and Approvals A public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval power over a project is known as a "Responsible Agency," as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381. The Responsible Agencies, and their corresponding approvals, for this project include the following: • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit; National Pollution Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit) • Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (Finding of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport) C. Reviewing Agencies Reviewing Agencies include those agencies that do not have discretionary powers, but that may review the Initial Study for adequacy and accuracy. Potential Reviewing Agencies include the following: • South Coast Air Quality Management District • Southern California Association of Governments City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 2 -10 2. Project Description • County of Orange (Planning and Development Services Department) • Orange County Health Care Agency • Native American Heritage Commission • California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California • California Department of Transportation — District 12 • City of Irvine • City of Costa Mesa City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 2 -I1 'J. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 3. Contact person and phone number: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 4. Project location_ 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, California 92660 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. 28662 Marguerite Parkway Mission Viejo, California 92692 6. General plan designation: Administrative, Professional. and Financial (APF) 7. Zoning: Administrative, Professional, and Financial (APF) 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Refer to Section 2., Project Description 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Refer to Section 2., Project Description 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Permit) • Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (Finding of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport) City of Newport Beach pCR Scrcices Corponlion Page 3 -1 Land Rorer Newpct Beach Service Center April 2000 3 Environmental Checklist Form ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑Biological Resources ® Hazards /Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ® Utilities /Service Systems [J Agriculture Resources ®Cultural Resources ® Hydrology/Water Quality ® Noise ❑ Recreation ® Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: F1 Air Quality ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Land Use /Planning ❑ Population/Housing [] Transportation/Traffic ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or City of Ne vporl Bweb Land Rover Newport Bench Service Center PCR services Corporation April 2006 Page 3 -2 3. Environmental Checklist Form NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards. and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. jignature Rosalinh Ung Printed Name April 11, 2006 Date City of Newport Beach For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault Capture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as \veil as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced). City of Newport Reach PCR Services Corporation Page 3 -3 Land Rover Newport Reach service Center Apd12006 3. Environmental Checklist Form 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering. program EIR, or other CEQA process. an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier E1R or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. City of Newport Reach PCR services Corpondtm Page 3 -4 Land Rover Newport Beach Servicc Center April 2000 3. Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Issues: Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AEST14ETICS — Would the project: J a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings'? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland. or Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ due to their location or nature, coUd result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use" III. AIR QUALITY— Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ ® ❑ ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? City of Newport Beach 1'CR Sen ices Corpomfion Page 3 -5 Land Rover Newport Beach service Center Apri12WG Issues: c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for 020ne precursors)? 3. Environmental Checklist Form d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant Potentially ❑ ® ❑ Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact _Incorporated El El -Impact ® ❑ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ❑ of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ ED through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulation or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service'' c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption. or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional. or state habitat conservation plan? City of Newpon Beach PCR Services Corporation Page 3 -6 Land Rover Newpon Reach Service Center April 2006 Issues: V. CULTLJRAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse ..'hange in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature'? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking-? iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become Instable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ON of Newport Beach PCR Services Corporation Page 3 -7 3. Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impa tImpact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Land Rorer Newport Beach Service Center Ap61200 3. Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Issues: Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact_ VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create it significant hazard to the public or the El El El environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials'? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment'? 0 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ® ❑ ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be it net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Serviee Center PCR Services Ceaporaiion April 2006 Page 3 -8 3. Environmental Checklist Form e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -pear flood hazard area is ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on o federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? it Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding. including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mndflovv? ❑ Potentially ❑ k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality Significant ❑ Issues: Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ❑ Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pauern of the site ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or area. including through the alteration of the course of a fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing). stream or river, in a manner which would result in substamtial waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, erosion or siltation on- or off -site? delivery areas. loading docks or other outdoor work areas? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or area. including through the alte- nation of the course of a ❑ ❑ ® stream or river. or substantially increase the rate or amount of affect the beneficial uses of the ter eiving waters? surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow ❑ or off site'? ® ❑ velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -pear flood hazard area is ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on o federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? it Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding. including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mndflovv? ❑ ❑ ❑ k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ during or following construction? 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing). waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas. loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ affect the beneficial uses of the ter eiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow ❑ ❑ ® ❑ velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ surrounding areas? City of Newport Beach PC:R Services Corporation Page 3 -9 Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 2006 Issues: IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: 3. Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact __lmpact al Physically divide an established community'? ❑ ❑ ❑ N b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulation of an agency withjurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state`? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan'? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise level in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ® ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ® ® ❑ where such it plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ El would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PC:R Services Corporation April 2006 Page 3 -10 Issues: XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: 3. Environmental C hecklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated — Impact Impact - a) Induce substantial population growth in an area. either ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ directly (for example. by proposing new homes and businesses) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or indirectly (for example. through extension of roads or other ❑ ❑ ❑ infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing. ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑ elsewhere'? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection'? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION FRAFFIC —Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips. the volume to capacity ratio on roads. or conscstion at intersections)? City of Newport Brach Ismd Rorer Newport Beech Service Center PCR Services Coq,ornion Apnl 20% Page 3 -11 Issues: b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively_ a level of service standard established by the county congestion manuecnent agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 3. Environmental Checklist Form e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity'? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the prglect a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Iiave sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? I) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? City of Newport Reach PCR Services Cixpuraion Pape 3 -12 ❑ Potentially ❑ ❑ Significant ❑ Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ® ❑ ❑ - e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity'? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the prglect a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Iiave sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? I) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? City of Newport Reach PCR Services Cixpuraion Pape 3 -12 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El X El 1 ►1' ►1 ►I ® ❑ ® ❑ El Z ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ land Rover Newport Beach Service Center ApHI2006 Issues: h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMW), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors' ?) XV11. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 3. Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No _]m act Incor oy rated _ ]m a_p ct __]m act_ El El ❑ M a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of the environment, substantially. educe the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory'? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ M ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ M ❑ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects en human beings. either directly or indirectly? Citv of Newport Beach 11('R ScrciceS Corporation Page 3-13 Lmid Rover Newport Beach Senice Center April 2nIX 4. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATION 4. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATION I. AESTHETICS. Would tyre project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project site and surrounding vicinity are developed with light industrial, commercial, and aviation uses and are located in an urbanized area with relatively flat topography. The project site does not contain any resources that might be considered scenic, nor can scenic views be experienced from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have it substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is developed with light industrial, commercial, and aviation uses and is located in an urbanized area within the City of Newport Beach. Other than planted ornamentals, there are no natural or notable scenic resources on the project site. There are no buildings that are considered to be visually or historically significant and none of the roadways that border the project site are designated as state or city scenic highways. Therefore, no scenic resources would be damaged or affected by the proposed project. No mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to convert the existing building into a vehicle service center and storage facility requiring only minor modifications and improvements to the building exterior. However, the exterior design is not typical of a traditional service center but rather more akin to that of an office or administrative building. All service bays will be located within the building's interior. Additionally, all existing mechanical units will be screened from view, new exterior paint will be provided, and extensive landscaping will be planted throughout. These modifications and improvements are expected to enhance, not degrade, the visual character of the project site and surrounding area. As such, the project would not substantially degrade the current visual characteristics or quality of the project site and its surroundings. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Beaeh Land Rover Newport Beach Senice Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -1 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing lighting sources on the project site include security lighting on the building facade. Existing light sources in the surrounding vicinity include street lighting along the adjoining streets, lighting associated with adjacent light industrial, commercial, and airport uses, and transient vehicular lighting from cars traveling on adjacent roadways. As discussed above, the proposed project consists of the conversion of an existing building into a vehicle service center and storage facility. The lighting currently located on the building fagade would be retained. For security purposes, additional lighting would be provided in the parking lot. The parking lot lighting would comply with the standards as established in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code which requires that exterior lighting be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the project site. Transient sources of light associated with the proposed project (i.e., automobile, trucks lights) would be similar to that which occurs on the adjacent streets. Furthermore, the project site is not located near sensitive land uses such as residences, childcare facilities, churches, schools, etc. Thus, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No mitigation measures are required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural &aid Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use is assessing impacts on agriculture and.farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural uses? No Impact_ According to the 2002 Important Farmland Maps, the project site is not located on designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). The project site is located in an area designated as "D — Urban and Built -Up Land ". Furthermore, the project site is not used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert Farmland to non - agricultural uses. No mitigation measures are required. City of Nervport Beach Land Rover Newport Reach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -2 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned Administrative, Professional, and Financial (APF) by the City of Newport Beach. The project site is not used for agricultural purposes nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No mitigation measures are required. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural resources or operations currently exist on or near the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment that would result in the conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use. No mitigation measures are required. 111. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the followitig determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located within the 6,600 square mile South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non - attainment (i.e., ozone, carbon monoxide, and PMto). Together with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), SCAQMD is responsible for formulating and implementing air pollution control strategies throughout the Basin. SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was updated in 2003 to establish a comprehensive air pollution control program leading to the attainment of state and federal air quality standards. As discussed in Response No. III. b) below, significant air emissions would not result from construction or operation of the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement all necessary, feasible air pollutant control measures specified in the AQMP and would comply with applicable SCAQMD District Rules. As implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the attainment of air quality standards, the project would not conflict with the SCAQMD's AQMP. Citv of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beaeh Serviee Center PCR services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -3 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination With regard to the Congestion Management Plan (CMP), the proposed project would not add 50 or more trips during the A.M. or P.M, weekday peak hours at any CMP intersection. Also, the project would not add 150 or more trips during the A.M. or P.M. weekday peak hours at any CMP mainline freeway monitoring location (discussed in Section XV, Transportation and Circulation). Thus, the proposed project would not exceed any CMP thresholds. In summary, project development would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP or CMP. No mitigation measures are required. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As indicated above, the project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin. The Basin is characterized by relatively poor air quality. State and federal air quality standards are often exceeded in many parts of the Basin. Construction SCAQMD has established regional and local daily significance thresholds that address pollution sources associated with general construction activities, such as the operation of construction equipment, fugitive dust from grading activities, and travel by haul trucks and construction workers. PCR Services Corporation calculated project construction emissions using the URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model, originally developed by the California Air Resources Board. The air quality analysis worksheets (dated December 2005) are contained in Appendix A of this document. Estimated construction emissions are presented in Table 4 -1 on page 4 -5.' As indicated in Table 4 -1, under conservative assumptions, regional burden and localized emissions from project construction activities would fall below SCAQMD significance thresholds. To ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, Mitigation Measure AQ -1 is recommended. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would ensure potential impacts associated with regional and localized emissions from construction of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level. AQ -1 The Project Applicant shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements during construction activities as follows: Construction emission estimates assume compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding the control o u. vive if g dust. of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -4 4_ Explanation Of Checklist Determination Table 4.1 Estimated Worst -Case Construction Emissions Construction Phase Demolition (1.0 month i Site Preparation (0.5 month) Building ErectionfFiniAing (6.5 months) SCAQMD Daily Threshold Worst -Case Daily Emissions Over (Under) Pollutant Emissions (Pounds per Day) _ CO ROG NOx sox PMio' 40 6 73 <1 10 21 i 17 <1 58 44 65 42 <1 2 550 75 loo 150 150 44 65 73 <1 58 (506) (10) (27) (150) (92) PMta emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for figitive dust control. Source: PCR.Sen ices Corporation. December 2005. Land Clearing/Earth- Moving — Exposed pits (i_e., gravel, soil, dirt) with 5 percent or greater silt content shall be watered twice daily, enclosed. covered, or treated with non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications. — All other active sites shall be watered twice daily. — All grading activities shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph) if soil is being transported to off -site locations and cannot be controlled by watering. — All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off -site shall be covered or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Paved Roads — All construction roads internal to the construction site that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles, shall be surfaced with base material or decomposed granite, or shall be paved. — Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. City of Newport Beacb Land Rover Newport Beacb Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -5 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination — Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Unpaved Roads — Water or non -toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. — Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall not exceed 15 mph. Operation SCAQMD has also established significance thresholds to evaluate potential impacts associated with long -term project operations. Long -term air pollutant emissions come from two types of sources: mobile source and stationary source. Mobile source emissions are associated with vehicular travel, and are a function of the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). There is a direct relationship between mobile emissions and VMT. As VMT increases or decreases, so do related air pollutant emissions. Stationary source emissions for this project are primarily related to combustion emissions associated with energy consumption (i.e., electricity). The traffic impact study prepared for the proposed projcct analyzed trip generation for future 2007 without the proposed project and future 2007 with the proposed project land use scenarios. The traffic impact study concluded that the proposed projcct would result in a net increase of 1,193 daily trips, when compared to the future 2007 without project scenario. Mobile source emissions related to project- generated trips were estimated using the URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model, as recommended by the SCAQMD. These worksheets are included in Appendix A of this document. Net mobile emissions attributable to the project are anticipated to increase. In addition, the project would also increase net stationary source emissions attributable to the site. Stationary source emissions were estimated based on emissions factors prescribed in Table A9 -11 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Net criteria pollutant emissions due to the proposed project are shown in Table 4 -2 on page 4 -7. As shown in Table 4- 2, net emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds for the proposed project. Therefore, project emissions associated with operations of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on air quality. No mitigation measures are required. city of Newport [teach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR services Corporation April 2606 Page 4 -6 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination Table 4 -2 Operational Emissions SCAQNID recommends a hot -spot evaluation of potential localized carbon monoxide (CO) impacts when vehicle to capacity (VIC) ratios are increased by two percent or more at intersections with a level of service (LOS) of D or worse' As further described in Section XV, Transportation and Circulation, traffic congestion would increase incrementally under project buildout, when compared to the existing use. Thus, an analysis of critical vehicular movements for project buildout indicates that project - related traffic volumes and VIC ratios would not increase by more than two percent at any intersection with poor level of service (i.e., LOS D or worse). As a result, a CO hot -spot analysis is not warranted. Therefore, the project would not have a potential to cause or contribute to a significant impact with respect to one -hour or eight - hour local CO concentrations due to mobile source emissions. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. z Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, University, of California at Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, 1997, Prepared for the California Department of Transportation, Environmental Program. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -7 Pollutant Emissions (Pounds per Day) CO _ ROG NOx SOX PMto Proposed Project Mobile Sources" 126 10 16 <1 13 Area and Stationary Sources 1 I I <1 0 Total Emissions 127 11 17 <1 13 Existing Uses Mobile Sources 37 3 5 <I 4 Area and Stationary Sources 1 0 1 <I <I Total Emissions 38 3 6 <1 4 Proposed Project less Existing Uses 89 8 11 <1 9 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 550 55 55 150 150 Over (Under) (461) (47) (44) (150) (141) " Calculated based on the emissions generated from the number of gross daily trips to be. added by the proposed project (1,557). Calculated based on the emissions generated from daily trips from existing uses (364). Source' PCR Services Corporation, December 2005. SCAQNID recommends a hot -spot evaluation of potential localized carbon monoxide (CO) impacts when vehicle to capacity (VIC) ratios are increased by two percent or more at intersections with a level of service (LOS) of D or worse' As further described in Section XV, Transportation and Circulation, traffic congestion would increase incrementally under project buildout, when compared to the existing use. Thus, an analysis of critical vehicular movements for project buildout indicates that project - related traffic volumes and VIC ratios would not increase by more than two percent at any intersection with poor level of service (i.e., LOS D or worse). As a result, a CO hot -spot analysis is not warranted. Therefore, the project would not have a potential to cause or contribute to a significant impact with respect to one -hour or eight - hour local CO concentrations due to mobile source emissions. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. z Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, University, of California at Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, 1997, Prepared for the California Department of Transportation, Environmental Program. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -7 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. The regional burden emissions calculated for the proposed project and presented in Table 4 -2 are less than the applicable SCAQMD daily si- nificance thresholds, which are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable State and national ambient air quality standards. These standards apply to both primary (criteria and precursor) and secondary (ozone) pollutants. Although the project site is located in a region that is in non - attainment for ozone and PMu), the emissions associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable, as the emissions would fall below SCAQMD daily significance thresholds. Furthermore, as discussed previously in Response No. III. a) above, the project would be consistent with the AQMP which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and surrounding area consist primarily of light industrial, commercial, and aviation uses. In general, CO is the primary pollutant of concern, with regard to harmful pollutant concentrations, for developments such as the proposed project. As discussed in Response No. III. b) above, construction and operation of the proposed uses would not result in any substantial local or regional air pollution impacts and, therefore, would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors to substantial air pollution. As such, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. No objectionable odors are expected as a result of either construction or operation of. the proposed project. The proposed project would use conventional building materials. It is not anticipated that odiferous building materials would be used. Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving high volumes_ of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong- smelling elements used in manufacturing processes. In addition, odors are also associated with uses such as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. Small quantities of chemicals associated with auto repair would be used at the site (e.g., cleaning solvents, petroleum products), but not in substantial quantities that would present an odor issue. As such, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Reach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center F'CR Services corporation April 2006 page 4 -S 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area have been developed with various light industrial, commercial, and aviation uses, associated infrastructure, and non - native, ornamental landscaping for over 40 years. Because of the urbanized nature and high levels of activity on and surrounding the project site (John Wayne Airport is located immediately west of the project site, across Campus Drive), the site is not a location that supports habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Furthermore, no sensitive biological resources are noted on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would occur. No mitigation measures are required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As discussed in Response No. IV. a) above, the project site and surrounding area are located in an urbanized area. The project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No mitigation measures are required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area have been developed with various light industrial, commercial, and aviation uses, associated infrastructure, and non - native, ornamental landscaping for over 40 years. The project site does not contain any wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. No mitigation measures are required. Citv of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -9 4. F,xplanatiun Of Checklist Determination (1) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area have been developed for over 40 years. Because of the urbanized nature and high levels of activity on and surrounding the project site (John Wayne Airport is located immediately west of the project site, across Campus Drive), the project site does not contain substantial habitat for native resident or migratory species, or native nursery sites. The San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary is located one mile east of the project site. However, construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with wildlife at this location. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites. No mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area have been developed for over 40 years. As a result, the project site does not contain significant biological resources such as heritage trees protected by local policies or ordinances. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No mitigation measures are required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is an established, urbanized, developed property in the City of Newport Beach. The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, of other approved habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted conservation plan. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach service Center PCR services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -10 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. The building located at the project site was originally constructed in 1964 as a manufacturing facility for thereto insulation components for rocket motors (Edler Industries). The building lacks sufficient integrity and significant historical and/or architectural importance to merit recognition as a historical resource. The building is less than fifty years of age and, therefore, does not meet federal, state, or local minimum age criteria and exceptional historical and/or architectural significance necessary for determination as a historical resource. Furthermore, no historical resources exist within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? PotentiallV� han Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site and Surrounding area are located in an urbanized area where extensive grading and landform alteration has occurred. Specifically, the project site was developed with existing uses in 1964. Due to previous ground disturbing activities on the project site (grading for construction of the existing building and parking lot) and surrounding area, any surficial archaeological resources, which may have existed at one time. have likely been removed. Furthermore, the proposed project would only involve minor surficial grading to resurface the existing parking lot. The existing building would remain intact with the exception of some minor modifications. The potential for encountering archaeological resources is minimal. 4:h F the sal -r ,I Gf s.1� _ .�nifi r ' rs r.� tential site .. �p ^; ^o^p ^v` ��jRc �� ^cc': ^r�TiT'p°crT'.rP°�.-vir oh6eologw ^1 No mitigation °�l. However. Mitigation Measure b CR -1 is recommended to ensure that any potential impacts to archaeological resources are reduced to a less than significant level. CRA If any archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, all work shall cease in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. If major archaeological resources are discovered which require Tong -term halting or redirecting of grading, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the Project Applicant and the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The archaeologist, in consultation with the appropriate agencies and Native American organizations, shall determine appropriate action which ensures proper exploration and/or salvage. Citv of Newport Beach land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -11 4. Erpl:mation Of Checklist Determination c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. V. b) above, the project site and surrounding area are located in an urbanized area where extensive grading and landform alteration has occurred. Due to previous ground disturbing activities on the project site and surrounding area, any surficial paleontological resources, which may have existed at one time. have likely been removed. Furthermore, the proposed project would only involve minor surficial grading to resurface the existing parking lot. The existing building would remain intact with the exception of some minor modifications. The potential for encountering paleontological resources is minimal. Therefore, the proposed project would not result: in significant impacts to potential on -site paleontological resources. No mitigation measures are required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. No known burial sites are located on the project site. Moreover, the proposed project would only involve minor surficial grading to resurface the existing parking lot. Therefore, the potential for encountering human remains is minimal. Any discovery of such remains during grading activities would be treated in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, including those outlined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 150645(e). Therefore, the potential impact of the proposed project relative to the distrtrbancc of any human remains would be less than significant. No mitigation measures arc required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. Fault rupture is the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. The project site is not located within a designated Alquist - Priolo City of Newport Bench Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -I2 4. Explanation Of Checklist De(erminalion Earthquake Fault Zone.' There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. No mitigation measures arc required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. VI, a) -i) above, no known active faults have been identified within the project site and it is not located within a designated Mquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the project site is located within the seismically active region of Southern California. Several active or potentially active faults are located within the region. Slight to intense ground shaking is possible at the project site if an earthquake occurs on a segment of the active faults in the region. According to the City of Newport Beach Public Safety Element's Potential Seismic Hazard Area Map, the project site is designated as a "Category 1" area for potential ground shaking. Category 1 areas have the lowest potential for risk. The proposed project does not involve the construction of new structures on the project site but rather the conversion of an existing building. Therefore, the seismic - related risk associated with the proposed project would be no greater than the risk associated with the existing building on the project site. Furthermore, any modifications to interior walls would conform to the current seismic design provisions of the 2001 California Building Code. Therefore, adequate structural protection in the event of an earthquake would be provided, thus reducing impacts from strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures arc required. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, saturated, granular soils lose their inherent shear strength due to excess water pressure that builds up during repeated movement from seismic activity. Factors that contribute to the potential for liquefaction include a low relative density of granular materials and a shallow groundwater table. The project site is not located within a liquefaction zone.' Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to the risk of seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. No mitigation measures are required. Department of Conservation, Califarnia Geological Sarvey, Alquisi- Priolo Earthtpmke Fault Zane Alap, Ala), 1, 1999. ' California Departmew of Cousenuiiou, Division of Alines and Geology. Seismic Hazard Zones A9ap, Tustin Quadrangle. April 17, 1997. Cily of Newporl Beach Land Rover Newporl Beach Service Cenler PCR Services Corpora ion April 2006 Pale 4 -13 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination iv) Landslides? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are relatively flat, and are surrounded by existing urban development. Furthermore, the project site and surrounding area are not located within an earthquake- induced landslide zone.' Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to the risk of landslides. No mitigation measures are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Approximately 88 percent of the project site is currently developed with impervious surfaces (a building and parking lot). The remaining areas (12 percent) are developed with pervious surfaces (landscaping). Implementation of the proposed project would involve only minor improvements to the existing building and parking lot. Specifically, the building would be converted into a vehicle service center and storage facility and the parking lot would be demolished and resurfaced. As such, the proposed project has minimal potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of the topsoil except during construction. During this time, on -site soils would be temporarily exposed. However, soil erosion would be minimized through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program as discussed in Section VIII (Hydrology and Water Quality). Therefore, impacts resulting from substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? No Impact. Because the project site has been developed since 1964, it is unlikely that the current soil conditions are inadequate to support the current structures and land use. If unfit soil conditions were present at the project site, they would have been mitigated during initial construction. According to the City of Newport Beach Public Safety Element's Slope Stability Map, the project site is not located in an area with unstable geologic conditions. Furthermore, as discussed in Response No. VI. a) above, the project site is not located in a liquefaction or landslide zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. No mitigation measures are required. Ibid. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center FCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -t4 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. Expansive soils are typically associated with fine - grained clayey soils that have the potential to shrink: and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and drying. According to the City of Newport Beach Public Safety Element's Expansive and Collapsible Soil Hazard Areas Map, the project site is designated as a "Category F area. Category 1 areas are likely to have moderate to highly expansive soils. However, as discussed in Response No. VI. c) above, the project site has been developed since 1964. If expansive soils were present at the project site, they would have been mitigated during initial construction. Therefore, no impacts resulting from expansive soils are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The project site is and would remain connected to the sewer system. Therefore, the proposed project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur. No mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the projeer: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? An Environmental Review was conducted by CENTEC Engineering to summarize previous hazardous material assessments (Phase I and 11) prepared for the project site and to identify the likelihood of past, present, or potential releases of hazardous materials at the project site. The report, which is summarized below, is included in its entirety as Appendix B to this document. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The following discussion of hazards and hazardous materials at the site is described in terms of hazardous materials that may have been associated with previous uses at the site; potential hazards or City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport peach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -15 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination hazardous materials associated with construction of the proposed project, and potential hazards associated with operations- related activities at the site. Previous Use The project site was occupied by a manufacturing facility ( Edler Industries) for thermo insulation components for rocket motors from 1964 until mid 2001. Operations included the use and storage of various hazardous materials on -site (i.e., waste oil, solvents, coolants, etc.). A Phase II investigation was conducted in 2002 after Edler Industries had vacated the premises to determine if subsurface soils or groundwater were impacted by Edler's manufacturing operation. Several off -site sources of potential contamination also posed concern to the project site including if dry cleaning operation to the north, the presence of underground storage tanks at a car rental facility to the northeast, fueling and maintenance activities at the John Wayne Airport, and a sewer line release of hazardous wastes along Campus Drive. In addition, a release of gasoline was confirmed at Beacon Bay Car Wash located northeast of the project site. The release impacted groundwater which flows westerly toward the project site. The Phase II subsurface investigation conducted at the project site revealed concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil samples underneath the machine shop and hazardous material storage area of the former manufacturing facility. However, due to various factors including the relatively low concentrations and shallow extent of the contamination, these results do not pose a concern to the project site. The Phase II also revealed concentrations of gasoline and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in the groundwater samples near the southeast comer of the project site. Since neither gasoline nor MTBE are known to have been utilized at the project site, and the location of the contamination is down gradient from Beacon Bay Car Wash where gasoline and MTBE contamination are known to have occurred, it is reasonably assumed the results indicate the contamination plume from the car wash has migrated to the southeast comer of the project site. In April 2002, the Orange County Health Care Agency reviewed the results of the subsurface investigation conducted at the project site, concluded no significant release had occurred, and determined that no further action was required. Because evidence of shallow soil contamination has been found at the project site and the potential for other isolated areas of shallow soil contamination exists in areas not evaluated during the Phase I1, demolition and excavation of the building's interior flooring and parking lot could encounter contaminated soils. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HM -I below is recommended to reduce any potential impacts from hazardous materials to a less than significant level. HM -1 Any soils encountered or removed during construction activities (particularly within the building's interior or behind the building near the loading dock) City of Newport Beach PCR Services C'.orpontion Page 4 -16 Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center April 2006 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination 40fn de...,411:0H Of the btiildifi . n„B_:.,,....d .._L:..,. 1,,, shall be sampled for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic com ounds (VOCs). If soil contamination is discovered, the Project Ap 1p icarlt shall work with the City of Newport Beach and the appropriate regulator agency to determine the appiopriatc action (i.e., remediation or excavation of soils).treatea as hazardous and disp sed of ..eear. ring!, b ' Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Projcct Applicant shall provide verification (i.e., ° ^mot sampling results) to the City of Newport Beach that on -site soils have been testedthe waste has been disposed of in an appropriate hazardous waste disposal faG lity. Construction Due to the time frame in which the building located at the project site was constructed (1960s), it is likely that some of the current building materials contain asbestos. The project proposes some interior demolition of partition walls and stairways. If asbestos is present within the building, demolition activities would have the potential to release asbestos fibers into the atmosphere if they are not properly stabilized or removed prior to demolition activities. The removal of asbestos - containing materials is regulated by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 and therefore would be removed (if present) by a certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with applicable regulations prior to demolition. Therefore, with implementation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable Upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. FUVI -2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit verification to the City of Newport Beach that an asbestos survey has been conducted within the existing building. If asbestos is found, the Project Applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Due to the time frame in which the building located at the project site was constructed (1960s), it may contain lead -based paint or mercury. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HM-5 is recommended to ensure that any potential impacts from these contaminants (if found) are reduced to a less than significant level. IIIvI -5 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit verification to the City of Newport Beach that lead -based paint and mercury surveys have been conducted within the existing building. If lead -based paint or mercury is found, the Project Applicant shall follow all procedural require nents and regulations for proper removal and disposal of such hazardous substances. Cily of Newport Reach Land Rover Newport Reach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Pane 4 -17 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination Operation The proposed project would include the use of hazardous materials in day -to -day operations. The hazardous materials would consist of those materials typical of vehicle repair facilities including but not limited to oil, antifreeze, grease, etc. The Project Applicant would be required by the City of Newport Beach to file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the City Newport Beach Fire Department detailing all hazardous materials at the project site, storage methods, and spill prevention plans. The Project Applicant would also be required to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan, as mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). To ensure that the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards from the routine storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, Mitigation Measures HM -3 and HM -4 are recommended. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure potential impacts associated with the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operations are reduced to a less than significant level. HM -3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the City Newport Beach Fire Department detailing all hazardous materials at the project site, storage methods, and spill prevention plans. HM -4 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan to the City of Newport Beach as mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools located within one - quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one - quarter mile of a school. No mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The former manufacturing facility is listed on various hazardous waste databases associated with the storage and use of hazardous materials and the subsurface investigation that revealed shallow soil contamination. However, as discussed in Response No. VII. a) and b) above, in April 2002, the Orange County Health Care Agency City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Reach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -18 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination reviewed the results of the subsurface investigation, concluded no significant release had occurred, and that no further action was required. Therefore, the project site's listing on these databases would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation measures are required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site, which is located adjacent to the John Wayne Airport, is within the limits of its Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) as established by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Development projects within the John Wayne Airport AELUP are subject to review by the ALUC. The John Wayne Airport AELUP has established various zones surrounding the airport including a Noise Impact Zone, Runway Protection Zone, Building Height Restriction Zone, and Imaginary Surface Zone. The Noise Impact Zone establishes land uses that are "normally acceptable ". "conditionally acceptable', and "normally unacceptable" within each noise impact zone delineated by the respective Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)` noise contour derived from studies of aircraft flight operations into and out of the John Wayne Airport. The project site is located within Noise Impact Zone I which could potentially experience sound levels of 65 decibels (dB) CNEL and above from airport operations. Commercial related uses such as those proposed by the project are considered "conditionally acceptable" within this Noise Impact Zone. Conditionally acceptable means that the use is acceptable provided that the structures are sufficiently sound attenuated, which in the case of the proposed project sufficiently attenuated to a minimum of 65 dB.' The existing structure, which has been in. operation at the project site for over 40 years, is sufficiently sound attenuated to meet the 65 dB threshold. The proposed project would not create any new openings in the existing building. Furthermore, noise insulation features for the building (including retail and office areas) would be incorporated into the project design. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioners, are planned to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AELUP's Noise Impact Zone. e CNEL is defined as the 24 -hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 -10 P.M.) penalized by 5 dBA and nighttime hours (10 P.M. -7 A.M.) penalized by 10 dBA prior to averaging. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Amended December 19, 2002. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4-19 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination The Runway Protection Zone (also known as the Clear Zone) identifies areas within the direct pathway of the runways that should remain relatively clear of development. The project site does not fall within the Runway Protection Zone. The project site is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the southernmost runway. The Building Height Restriction Zone and Imaginary Surface Zone establish the maximum permissible heights of structures based on their distance from the airport. The existing structure has been located at the project site for over 40 years. It does not exceed the height restriction or penetrate the imaginary surface. Because the proposed project would not alter the height of the existing structure on the project site (24 feet), the proposed project would remain consistent with the AELUP's Building Height Restriction Zone and Imaginary Surface Zone. Based on the discussion above, the proposed projcct would be consistent with the John Wayne Airport AELUP. Furthermore, the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and any General Plan Amendment must be reviewed by the ALUC per Section 21676(6) of the Public Utilities Code. Review of the project by the ALUC shall ensure the project's consistency with the John Wayne Airport AELUP. Impacts related to people working in the area would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area? No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to the hazards involved with residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No mitigation measures are required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. According to the General Plan Public Safety Element's Major Evacuation Routes Map, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a City - designated evacuation route. Furthermore, construction activities would generally be confined to the projcct site and would not physically impair access to and around the project site. No changes to the surrounding streets are proposed as part of the project. Additionally, any change in emergency vehicle access to the project site would be reviewed by and provided in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. Therefore, no impacts to emergency response plans or evacuation plans would occur. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Reach Land Rmer Newporl Reach service Center I'CR Services Corporation April 2000 Page 4 -20 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland tires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area. No natural vegetation and/or habitat exists on the project site or surrounding area that would result in a potential risk for wildland fires. Furthermore, according to the General Plan Public Safety Element's Potential Fire Hazard Area Map, the project site is not located within a potential fire hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No mitigation measures are required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Under the authority of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Program which is designed to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff. In the State of California, the NPDES Program is overseen by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) which is divided into nine regions. The City of Newport Beach is located within Region 8 (the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board [ RWQCB]). The City of Newport Beach is a co- permittee with Orange County in the NPDES Program. Accordingly, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations to protect water quality during construction and operation of the proposed project as described in further detail below. Construction Construction activities associated with the proposed project may have the potential to impact water quality. Demolition and resurfacing of the parking lot would expose surface soils which may result in soil erosion and subsequent deposition of particles in drainage areas. Additionally, the temporary use of hazardous materials in the form of paint, adhesives, surface coatings and other finishing materials may result in the subsequent deposition of these pollutants in drainage areas and ultimately the degradation of downstream receiving water bodies. However, prior to construction, the Project Applicant will be required to develop and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction that would minimize impacts to local receiving water from pollutants in storm water City of Newport Reach Land Rover Newport Reach Service Center PCR services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -21 4. Explanation Off hecklist Determination runoff. To ensure compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity, Mitigation Measure WQ -I is recommended. Implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ -1 would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and that impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. WQ -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall develop and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity. The SWPPP shall contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to local receiving water from pollutants in storm water runoff. The Project Applicant shall provide the City of Newport Beach with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with RWQCB. Operation The proposed project would introduce new types of uses at the project site including vehicle maintenance /repair and a car wash. As such, the type of runoff and wastewater generated at the project site would be altered. Potential pollutants from vehicle maintenance /repair and the car wash include heavy metals, organic compounds, trash. debris, oil, and grease. In accordance with City and NPDES requirements, a Draft Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared by Walden & Associates for the proposed project. The report in its entirety is included as Appendix C to this document. The WQMP addresses the manner in which pollutants generated by the proposed project would be managed to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would occur. As described in further detail in the WQMP, source control and treatment control BMPs would be implemented. Source control BMPs include but are not limited to storm drain stenciling and signage; efficient irrigation systems; education for property owners, tenants, occupants, and employees; a spill contingency plan; and litter control. Treatment control BMPs include but are not limited to a three -stage clarifier and catch basins fitted with fossil filters. With the incorporation of the BMPs outlined in the WQMP, operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. To ensure implementation of the WQMP, Mitigation Measure WQ -2 below is recommended. Mitigation Measure WQ -2 would ensure that operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and that impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, as discussed in Response Nos. VII. a) and b) above, the Project Applicant is required by the City of Newport Beach to file a Hazardous, Materials Business Plan with the City Newport Beach Fire Department detailing all hazardous materials at the site, storage methods, and spill prevention plans (see Mitigation Measure H',v4-3 above). The Project City of Newport Beach land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR services Corpornon April 2006 Page 4 -22 4. Exolanation Of Checklist Determination Applicant would also prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan, as required by the SWRCB (see Mitigation Measure HM -4 above). WQ -2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate implementation of appropriate source control and treatment control Best Management Practices as specified in the Draft Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Walden & Associates dated October 7, 2004, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned land uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The proposed project would not alter the amount of impervious surface already located at the project site. Therefore, no impacts due to interference with groundwater recharge would occur. Furthermore, the project would not deplete groundwater supplies as no groundwater extractions are: proposed. No mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily alter existing drainage patterns as there would be areas of exposed soil particularly during redevelopment of the parking lot. If a storm event were to occur during these activities, exposed sediments may be carried off -site and into the local storm drain system increasing siltation. However, as discussed in Response No. VIII. a), the Project Applicant would be required to develop and submit a SWPPP to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity (see Mitigation Measure WQ -1 above). Operation of the proposed project would generally maintain the existing drainage system (via sheet flow to the storm drain system). However, a few minor modifications would be made as described in the WQMP. Specifically, catch basins fitted with fossil filters would be installed in the parking lot to treat runoff prior to entering the storm drain system. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. No additional mitigation measures are required other than those described above. Cilv of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCk services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -23 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. Approximately 88 percent of the project site is currently developed with impervious surfaces (a building and parking lot). The remaining 12 percent is developed with pervious surfaces (landscaping). The proposed project would not alter these percentages. Therefore, the amount of surface runoff generated at the project site would remain the same as existing conditions. Furthermore, as described in Response No. VIII. a) above, the proposed project would generally maintain the existing drainage system, with a few minor modifications. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site. No mitigation measures are required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. VIII. d) above, the proposed project would not alter the amount of surface runoff generated by the proposed project given that the amount of pervious and impervious surface would remain the same. Furthermore, as discussed in Response No. VIII. a) above, source control and treatment control BMPs would be implemented as described in the WQMP to minimize and treat the amount of polluted runoff generated from the proposed uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase stormwater surface runoff or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No mitigation measures are required. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. VIII. a) above, the proposed project would introduce new types of uses at the project site including vehicle maintenance /repair and a car wash. However, a WQMP has been prepared to address the manner in which pollutants generated by the proposed project would be managed to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would occur. Therefore, with the incorporation of the BMPs outlined in the WQA4P, the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -24 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood plain as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain' nor does the proposed project involve the construction of housing. Therefore, no impacts resulting from placement of housing within a 100 -year flood plain would occur. No mitigation measures are required. h) Place within A 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. Therefore, no impacts resulting from the placement of structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area would occur. No mitigation measures are required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As discussed in Response No. VIII. g) above, the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. Furthermore, no dams or levees are present on or near the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. No mitigation measures are required. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi - enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by significant undersea disturbances such as earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. Mudflows result from the downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity. The project site is not located in the immediate vicinity of a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank capable of creating a seiche. The closest body of water is located approximately one mile to the south of the project site (Upper Newport Bay). Due to the distance and relatively small surface area of the Upper Newport Bay, inundation of the project site by seiche is highly unlikely. The project site is located 3 ESRUFEMA Project Impact, Hazard Information and Awareness Site, Flood Hazard Map, based on FEMA Digital Q3 Flood Data, http :Grit =ww.esri.com /hazards, September 20, 2005. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation Apri 12006 Page 4 -25 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination approximately five miles north of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, inundation of the project site by tsunami is also unlikely. The project site is located in a relatively flat area. It is not positioned downslope from an area of potential mudflow. Therefore, inundation of the project site by mudflow is unlikely. No mitigation measures are required. k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. VIII. a) above, the Project Applicant would be required to develop and submit a SWPPP to the Santa Ana RWQC13 for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity to eliminate or reduce erosion and polluted runoff. Operation of the proposed project would introduce new types of uses at the project site including vehicle maintenance /repair and a car wash. However, a WQMP has been prepared to address the manner in which pollutants generated by the proposed project would be managed to ensure that no violations of water quality standards would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction. No mitigation measures are required. 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would convert the existing building into a vehicle service center and storage facility. The service center would include service bays for maintenance /repair work and a car wash. No vehicle fueling is proposed. All the service bays as well as the car wash and hazardous material storage areas would be located within the building. A WQMP has been prepared for the proposed project to address the manner in which pollutants generated by the proposed project would be managed. As detailed in the WQMP, drainage from within the building would be directed to a three -stage clarifier prior to being discharged to the municipal sewer system. Additionally, drainage from the parking lot would be directed to various catch basins fitted with fossil filters prior to being discharged to the storm drain system. With the incorporation of the 13MPs outlined in the WQMP (refer to Appendix C of this document), the proposed project would not result in a significant amount of pollutants being discharged to stormwater. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -26 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Costa Mesa/Ncwport Tributary in the San Diego Creek Watershed. The receiving waters of this watershed is the Upper Newport Bay. As discussed in Response No. VIII. 1) above, the project proposes to implement BMPs per the WQMP which includes the installation of catch basins fitted with fossil filters to treat stormwater prior to being discharged into the storm drain system. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the potential for stormwater discharge to affect receiving waters. No mitigation measures are required. n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less Than Significant Impact. Approximately 88 percent of the project site is currently developed with impervious surfaces (a building and parking lot). The remaining 12 percent is developed with pervious surfaces (landscaping). The proposed project would not alter these percentages- Therefore, the volume of stormwater runoff generated at the project site would remain the same as existing conditions. As described in Response No. VIII. a) above, the proposed project would generally maintain the existing drainage system, with a few minor modifications. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing flow velocity of the project site. No mitigation measures are required. o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed project world temporarily expose soils particularly during redevelopment of the parking lot. If a storm event were to occur during these activities, exposed sediments may be carried off -site and into the local storm drain system. However, as discussed in Response No. VIII. a) above, the Project Applicant would be required to develop and submit a SWPPP to the Santa Ana RWQCB for compliance with the Statewide NPDES permit for construction activity to eliminate or reduce erosion and polluted runoff (see Mitigation Measure WQ -1 above). Furthermore, because the proposed project would maintain the existing amount of impervious and pervious surfaces at the project site post - construction (88 and 12 percent, respectively), the potential for erosion during operation would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. No additional mitigation measures are required other than those described above. Citv of Newport Reach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -27 4. Explanafion Of Checklist Determination IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a concrete tilt -up, warehouse - type structure on approximately 4.2 acres of land. The proposed project would convert the existing building into a vehicle service center and storage facility. While the use within the structure would change slightly (it was formerly a manufacturing facility), the exterior layout of the project site would be maintained and all development would occur within the existing boundaries. Therefore, the proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. No mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the City of Newport Beach. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan identifies the general locations and intensities of land uses in the City. The Land Use Map designates the project site as Administrative, Professional, and Financial (APF). As designated by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, the project site is also zoned APF. The types of uses being proposed by the Project Applicant (vehicle service and storage) are permitted under this land use designation and zoning. However, they would only be allowed as an ancillary use to an existing use that is consistent with the zone. Since the proposed project would not function as an ancillary use to an existing use within the general area, the proposed use is not consistent with the existing AFP designation. Therefore, the Project Applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment and Code Amendment to change the land use designation and zoning from APF to Retail and Service Commercial (RSC), which would allow the uses being proposed with approval of a Use Permit. As a vehicle service (primary use) and storage facility (ancillary use) are only permitted under the RSC land use and zoning designation with approval of a Use Permit, the Project Applicant is also requesting the approval of a Use Permit in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment and Code Amendment. Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment, Code Amendment, and Use Permit, the proposed project would not conflict with City of Newport Beach General Plan and zoning designations. Furthermore, because APF and RSC are both part of the City's Commercial Districts, many of the land uses allowed within these two districts are the same and include vehicle service and storage. Therefore, the RSC land uses being proposed on the project site would not be incompatible with the surrounding APF land uses. Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy B and F of the City's Land Use Element. Policy B's objective is to ensure redevelopment of older or City of Newport Reach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2005 Page 4 -2 8 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination underutilized properties. Policy F's objective is to ensure that industrial developments are compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. No mitigation measures are required. The project site is located within the John Wayne Airport AELUP. Development projects within the John Wayne Airport AELUP are subject to review by the ALUC. As discussed in Response No. VII. e) above, the John Wayne Airport AELUP has established various zones surrounding the airport including a Noise Impact Zone, Runway Protection Zone, Building Height Restriction Zone, and Imaginary Surface Zone. The Noise Impact Zone establishes land uses that are "normally acceptable ", "conditionally acceptable ", and "normally unacceptable" within each noise impact zone delineated by the respective Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)9 noise contour derived from studies of aircraft flight operations into and out of the John Wayne Airport. The project site is located within Noise Impact Zone I which could potentially experience sound levels of 65 decibels (dB) CNEL and above from airport operations. Commercial related uses Such as those proposed by the project are considered "conditionally acceptable" within this Noise Impact Zone. Conditionally acceptable means that the use is acceptable provided that the Structures are Sufficiently sound attenuated, which in the case of the proposed project Sufficiently attenuated to a minimum of 65 clB.10 The existing structure, which has been in operation at the project site for over 40 years, is sufficiently sound attenuated to meet the 65 dB threshold. The proposed project would not create any new openings in the existing building. Furthermore, noise insulation features for the building (including retail and office areas) would be incorporated into the project design. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air Supply systems or air conditioners, are planned to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AELUP's Noise Impact Zone. The Runway Protection Zone (also known as the Clear Zone) identifies areas within the direct pathway of the runways that should remain relatively clear of development. The project site does not fall within the Runway Protection Zone. The project site is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the southernmost runway. The Building Height Restriction Zone and Imaginary Surface Zone establish the maximum permissible heights of structures based on their distance from the airport. The existing structure has been located at the project site for over 40 years. It does not exceed the height restriction or penetrate the imaginary surface. Because the proposed project would not alter the height of the existing structure on the project site (24 feet), the proposed project would remain consistent with the AELUP's Building Height Restriction Zone and Imaginary Surface Zone. Based on the discussion above, the proposed project would be consistent with the John Wayne Airport AELUP. Furthermore, the proposed project includes 9 CNEL is defined as the 24 -hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 -10 P.M.) penalized by 5 dBA lord nighvime hours (l0 P.M. -7 A.M.) penalized by 10 dBA prior to averaging. 10 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Amended December 19, 2002 City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -29 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination a General Plan Amendment and any General Plan Amendment must be reviewed by the ALUC per Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code. Review of the project by the ALUC shall ensure the project's consistency with the John Wayne Airport AELUP. No mitigation measures are required. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is an established, urbanized, developed property in the City of Newport Beach. As discussed in Section IV above (Biological Resources), the project site does not support habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species and is not located within an approved habitat or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are located in an area that has been urbanized for over 40 years. No mineral resources are known to exist on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No mitigation measures are required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated on the City of Newport Beach General Plan or any other local plan as having locally- important mineral resources. As noted in Response No. X. a) above, no mineral resources are known to exist on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Reach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -30 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) establishes regulations regarding allowable increases in noise levels as a result of project implementation, both in terms of established noise criteria and construction activities. Section 10.26 of the NBMC establishes ambient sound level standards for specific land use zones, such as residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The NBMC allows for an instantaneous increase of 20 dBA" over the ambient standards which apply to all noise sources. Such increase may include building construction, demolition, or activities involving heavy equipment. Section 10.28.040 of the NBMC also limits noise levels generated by construction activities when construction activities are within vicinity of a residential or commercial zone. Noise generated from construction activities shall not disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity. The NBMC allows construction on any weekday between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. and on any Saturday between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.bl. In addition to the previously described NBMC provisions, the City has also established noise guidelines that are used for planning purposes. These guidelines are based in part on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services and are intended for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. CNEL noise levels for specific land uses are classified into four categories: (1) "normally acceptable," (2) "conditionally acceptable," (3) "normally unacceptable," and (4) "clearly unacceptable." A CNEL or Ljo` value of 70 dBA is considered the dividing line between a "conditionally acceptable" and "normally unacceptable" noise environment for noise sensitive land uses, including residences, parks, schools, and playgrounds. CNEL increases of less than 3 dBA are not considered an adverse change in the environment, while an increase between 3 and 5 dBA is generally considered to be an adverse impact. A CNEL increase of greater than 5 dBA is considered a significant impact.- 11 Decibel (A- Iveighted scale). 12 Day/Niglit Average Sound Lerel. City of Newport Beach PCR Services Corporation Page 4 -31 Newport Beach Ser ice Center Apri 1'_006 4. Explanatitm OtChecklist Determination Construction Construction noise impacts are discussed in Response No. Xl. d) below. As demonstrated. noise generated by on -site construction activities would have a less than significant impact on surrounaing land uses with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Operation Project operations would affect the noise environment via motor vehicle travel and on- site stationary noise sources. Motor vehicle travel on local roadways attributable to the proposed project, as discussed in Response No. Xl. c) below, would have a less than significant impact on community noise levels. Noise levels associated with on -site operations (e.g., rooftop mechanical equipment and automotive repair equipment) are also considered less than significant as discussed in Response No. Xl. c) below. Because operational noise would be less than significant, no mitigation measures are required. The project site is located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport AELUP as established by the Orange County ALUC. The project site is within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour which means the project site could potentially experience sound levels of 65 dB CNEL and above from airport operations. Potential noise impacts to the project site from airport operations are discussed in Response No. Xl. e) below. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the limited scope of the physical worked being performed on the project site, the project would be constructed using typical construction techniques. High groundborne vibration construction equipment such as pile drivers would not be utilized. As such, it is anticipated that the equipment to be used during construction would not cause excessive groundborne noise or vibration. Post - construction on -site activities would be limited to auto repair uses that would not generate excessive groundborne noise or vibration. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Long-term operations of the proposed project would have a negligible effect on the community noise environment in the proximity of the project site. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Reach Service Center PCR Services Corporation A P rd 2606 Page 4 -.32 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination The existing noise environment in the project area is dominated by aircraft noise from the John Wayne Airport, as well as nearby light industrial and commercial activities. Operational noise associated with the proposed project would likely be greater than noise levels associated with the existing commercial uses under the baseline condition. Noise generated by the project would result primarily from parking lot noise and mechanical noise. Vehicle repair activities are anticipated to be conducted within vehicle repair bays. As such, noise associated with vehicle repair activities (e.g. air compressor and compressor driven equipment) would not represent a substantial source of noise due to the semi - enclosed space of the vehicle repair bays. In addition, all mechanical devices, including on -site HVAC would comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, which establishes maximum permitted noise levels from mechanical equipment and would not exceed the significance threshold. The project site borders Campus Drive and Dove Street, which are located along the western and northern boundaries of the project site, respectively. Predicted roadway traffic noise levels at project buildout would be approximately 66.7 dBA CNEL along Campus Drive and 62.4 dBA CNEL along Dove Street. Thus, noise levels at the project site boundary do not exceed the City's exterior noise standard. Furthermore, as the project site is classified as conditionally acceptable for commercial land uses along Campus Drive, noise insulation features for the retail and office areas of the project would be incorporated into the project design. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioners, would also ensure that interior noise levels are maintained at acceptable levels. Roadway traffic noise associated with the proposed project would be negligible, as the project would only increase the site's existing daily trip generation by 1,193 trips, which would occur over a 24 -hour time period. In addition, the proposed project would not substantially change the fleet mix or distribution of traffic. The greatest increase in traffic would occur along Birch Street, between Quail Street and Dove Street. Traffic volumes along this segment would increase from a future 2007 without project scenario of 586 vehicles per hour (VPH) to a future 2007 with project scenario of 644 vph, generating an additional 0.4 dBA in noise. As a result, the project would result in a slight increase in traffic noise levels even though the increment would be inaudible. In general, traffic volumes must double to achieve a 3 -dBA traffic -noise level increase, provided that average vehicle speed and traffic mix (e.g., percentage of heavy -duty truck traffic) remains constant. The proposed project would not cause traffic volumes to double at any intersection or roadway segment location, cause a substantial change in the average vehicle speed, nor materially change the roadway traffic vehicle fleet mix. As such, potential increases in noise levels resulting from project implementation would be below the 3 -dBA significance threshold. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Citv of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Reach Service Center PCR services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -33 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Land uses around the project site consist mainly of commercial and light industrial uses. No residential uses are located within the vicinity of the project site. Peak construction noisc levels for most of the equipment that would be used during construction would range from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. The estimate of peak noise levels is based on conservative assumptions, and would be relatively infrequent and temporary. The average (Leq) noise level generated by construction activity generally ranges from 77 to 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet." Typically, noise levels at receptor locations would be less, because the noisiest equipment is not used continuously. Noise levels diminish at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Thus, a noise level of 89 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet would be about: 83 dBA at 100 feet, and 77 dBA at 200 feet. As heavy equipment passes near project site boundaries, the peak construction noise level could reach 90 dBA or more for brief periods in areas immediately adjacent to the project site. As construction equipment travels toward the center of the project site, peak noise levels would diminish as described above. However, construction activities would be conducted in a manner consistent Nvith the City Noise Ordinance (any weekday between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.m. and on any Saturday between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.m.). Therefore, short -term noise from construction activities would be less than significant. Nevertheless, construction noise levels would substantially exceed existing ambient noise levels for nearby land uses, and, therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures N -1 and N -2, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. N -1 Construction activities shall be confined to any weekday between the hours of 7:00 A.m. and 6:30 P.m. and on any Saturday between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.m. N -2 Noise - generating equipment operated at the project site shall be equipped with effective noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures). All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated. " USEPA 1971. City of New port Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -34 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentiallyhess—'Fhaa Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Response No. VII. e) above, the project site is located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport AELUP as established by the Orange County ALUC. The John Wayne Airport AELUP has established various zones surrounding the airport including a Noise Impact Zone. The Noise Impact Zone establishes land uses that are "normally acceptable ", "conditionally acceptable ", and "normally unacceptable" within each noise impact zone delineated by the respective CNEL noise contour derived from studies of aircraft flight operations into and out of the John Wayne Airport. The project site is located within Noise Impact Zone I which could potentially experience sound levels of 65 dB CNEL and above from airport operations. Commercial related uses such as those proposed by the project are considered "conditionally acceptable" within this Noise Impact Zone. Conditionally acceptable means that the use is acceptable provided that the structures are sufficiently sound attenuated, which in the case of the proposed project sufficiently attenuated to a minimum of 65 dB." The existing structure, which has been in operation at the project site for over 40 years, is sufficiently sound attenuated to meet the 65 dB threshold. The proposed project would not create any new openings in the existing building. Furthermore, as the project site is classified as conditionally acceptable for commercial land uses along Campus Drive, noise insulation features for the retail and office areas of the project would be incorporated into the project design. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioners, would also ensure that noise levels are maintained at acceptable levels. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AELUP's Noise Impact Zone. Ne .However to ensure compliance with the AELLP's Noise Impact Zone (,_Mitigation Measure N -3 is recommended. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure N -3, impacts would be less than significant. N -3 The Project Applicant shall comply with John Wayne Airport's Airport Environs Land Use Plan Noise Impact Zone I requirements to ensure the service advisor offices and customer lounge are sufficiently sound attenuated from the combined input of all Present and projected exterior noise to meet 55 dBA Leq. Achieving this level of sound insulation may include the following: I installation of air- conditioninOmechanical ventilation such that the interior space will not have to rely on open windows for ventilation; (2) installation of dual insulating glazed systems; (3) providing doors and windows opening to the exterior with acoustical seals; (4) adding additional wall insulation; and/or 14 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Amended December 19, 2002. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center " Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -35 4. Explanation of Checklist Determination (5) fitting vents with dampers and/or acoustic louvers. The appropriate measures shall be incorporated during the detailed design stage of the project to comply with the minimum sound insulation requirement. The final design shall be subject to the approval of the City of Newport Bcach Building Department. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private airstrip facilities located within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working or residing in the project area to excessive noise levels from a private airstrip. No mitigation measures are required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project- a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the development of land uses that would result in population growth. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing property to provide services that are already being conducted at it separate location within the City (1540 Jamboree Road). The new facility would continue to serve existing customers and employees would relocate from the Jamboree location to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce population growth in the area either directly or indirectly. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No housing is located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation measures are required. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No housing is located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project City of Newport Reach Land Rover Newport Reach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -36 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination would not displace any people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation measures are required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection to the project site is provided by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). Station No. 7 (Santa Ana Heights), located at 2301 Zenith Avenue, is the fire station closest to the project site (less than one mile south). In addition to the NBFD, the City maintains an automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The project site is developed with uses that require fire protection services from the NBFD. The proposed project, which consists of the conversion of an existing building into a vehicle service center and storage facility resulting in the reduction of approximately 4,000 square feet, would not create a substantial need for additional fire protection services. Response times to the project site would remain the same as under current conditions. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local codes, ordinances, and requirements so as to reduce the potential for fire hazards (i.e., installation of fire hydrants, fire sprinklers, etc). Therefore, no need for new or altered fire protection services is anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. ii) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection to the project site is provided by the City of Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD). The NBPD headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, approximately three miles south of the project site. The project site is developed with uses that require police protection services from the NBPD. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would result in the reduction of approximately 4,000 square feet. This decrease would not create a substantial need for additional police protection services. Therefore, less than significant impacts associated with police protection are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation Apri 12006 Pa-e 4 -37 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination iii) Schools? No Impact. Educational services in the City of Newport Beach are provided by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. The proposed project does not include the development of land uses that would result in an increase in the number of school -aged children in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase student population necessitating a need for new or expanded school facilities. No mitigation measures are required. iv) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. Because the proposed project does not include the development of land uses that would result in population growth, the proposed project would not result in any substantial increases in demands on other public facilities such as roads, libraries, hospitals, or post offices. Therefore, no impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are required. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or he accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project does not include land uses that would increase the demand for recreational facilities (i.e., residential). The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing property to provide services that are already being conducted at a separate location within the City. It is not anticipated that this redevelopment would attract new residents to the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of recreational facilities nor does it include land uses that would increase the demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, it would not necessitate the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Reach Land Rover Newport Reach Service Center 116 Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -38 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination XV. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? A Traffic Impact Study (dated December 22, 2005) was prepared by RK Engineering Group to characterize the existing traffic conditions surrounding the project site and to identify any potential traffic and circulation impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed project. The analysis was performed in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines. The City Traffic Engineer identified the following fourteen intersections for inclusion in the Traffic Impact Study: • MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive • MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street • MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road • Campus Drive and Dove Street • Campus Drive and N Bristol Street • Campus Drive and SE Bristol Street • Birch Street and Dove Street • Birch Street and N Bristol Street • Birch Street and SE Bristol Street • Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive • Jamboree Road and Campus Drive • Jamboree Road and N Bristol Street • Jamboree Road and SE Bristol Street • Jamboree RoadLEastbluff Drive and University Drive However, based on the City's TPO guidelines, only intersections where project - generated traffic is equal to or greater than one percent of the combined total for existing, ambient growth, and approved- project traffic need be examined through an Intersection Capacity Utilization City or Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Pagc 4 -39 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination analysis. Nine of the fourteen intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer exceeded the one percent threshold. Therefore, only these nine intersections were analyzed in the Traffic Impact Study. The study, which is summarized below, is provided in its entirety as Appendix D to this document. Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the City's TPO guidelines, the following nine intersections were selected for analysis. Figure 4 -1 on page 4 -41 depicts the location of each study intersection in relation to the project site. Study Intersections • MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Sheet • MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road • Campus Drive and Dove Street • Campus Drive and N Bristol Street • Campus Drive and SE Bristol Street • Birch Street and Dove Street • Birch Street and N Bristol Street • Birch Street and SE Bristol Street • Jamboree Road and Campus Drive Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to assess the operation of the study intersections. ICU values are calculated based on the volume of traffic using the intersection compared to the capacity of the intersection. A Level of Service (LOS) rating (A through F) is then assigned to the intersection based on the ICU value. The City of Newport Beach considers LOS A through D to be operating satisfactorily while LOS E and F are considered unsatisfactory. According to the City's established significance threshold criteria, it significant impact would occur if project - generated traffic would cause an intersection to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E or F. For intersections operating at LOS E or F under existing conditions (i.e., pre - project), it significant impact would occur if project- generated traffic would increase the ICU value by 0.01 or more. Existing weekday morning and afternoon peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 A.M., and 4:00 to 6:00 P.M.) traffic volumes for the study intersections were provided by the City of Newport Beach for years 2002 through 2004. Figure 4 -2 on page 4 -42 depicts the existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the nine study intersections. Table 4 -3 on page 4 -43 summarizes the results City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -40 Legend: • -Study Area Intersection WWI Not to scale Source' RK Engineenng Group, nc., 2005. Figure 4 -1 Study Intersections Legend: 10/20 = AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 4 Figure 4 -2 Not to scale Existing Traffic Volumes source: RK EngineeMg Group, tna. 2005. 4. Explanation of Checklist Determination Table 4 -3 Existing Levels of Service at Study Intersections of the existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU analysis and corresponding LOS for the study intersections. As shown in Table 4 -3, all study intersections currently operate at satisfactory levels (LOS D or better) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, except the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road which operates at LOS E during the P.M. peak hours. To determine future traffic volumes on the study intersections without the proposed project, three variables were considered including ambient growth, approved projects in the vicinity, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity. Because the proposed project is expected to be complete and operating by the end of 2006, ambient growth at a rate of one percent per year was added through 2007 to several of the study intersections as specified by the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, traffic volumes from sixteen approved projects and eleven reasonably foreseeable future projects were added to the future traffic scenario. Figure 4 -3 on page 4 -44 depicts the future A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes without the proposed project at the nine study intersections. Table 4 -4 on page 4 -45 summarizes the results of the future A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU analysis and corresponding LOS for the study intersections without the proposed project. As shown in Table 4 -4, at the project's opening year, all study intersections would operate at satisfactory levels (LOS D or better) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, except the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and .Jamboree Road which would continue to operate at LOS E during the P.M. peak hours. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were determined based on actual traffic operations at two existing Pendragon sites located in Santa Monica and Hollywood. Based on Cily of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR services Corporniion Apri12006 Paige 4 -43 ICU _ _ LOS Intersection A.M. PA11 A,M, P.M. -- MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street 0.38 0.48 A A MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road 0.78 0.92 C E Campus Drive and Dove Street 0.63 0.44 B A Campus Drive and N Bristol Street 0.44 0S4 A A Campus Drive and SE Bristol Street 0.64 0.45 B A Birch Street and Dove Street 0.60 0.57 B A Birch Street and N Bristol Street 0.61 0.61 B B Birch Street and SE Bristol Street 0.42 0.45 A A Jamboree Road and Campus Drive 0.75 0.81 C D Source: RK Engineering Group, December 2005. . of the existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU analysis and corresponding LOS for the study intersections. As shown in Table 4 -3, all study intersections currently operate at satisfactory levels (LOS D or better) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, except the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road which operates at LOS E during the P.M. peak hours. To determine future traffic volumes on the study intersections without the proposed project, three variables were considered including ambient growth, approved projects in the vicinity, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity. Because the proposed project is expected to be complete and operating by the end of 2006, ambient growth at a rate of one percent per year was added through 2007 to several of the study intersections as specified by the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, traffic volumes from sixteen approved projects and eleven reasonably foreseeable future projects were added to the future traffic scenario. Figure 4 -3 on page 4 -44 depicts the future A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes without the proposed project at the nine study intersections. Table 4 -4 on page 4 -45 summarizes the results of the future A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU analysis and corresponding LOS for the study intersections without the proposed project. As shown in Table 4 -4, at the project's opening year, all study intersections would operate at satisfactory levels (LOS D or better) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, except the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and .Jamboree Road which would continue to operate at LOS E during the P.M. peak hours. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were determined based on actual traffic operations at two existing Pendragon sites located in Santa Monica and Hollywood. Based on Cily of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR services Corporniion Apri12006 Paige 4 -43 0 0 N� _^p r.r L-59154 •\ bQ 27 y 227(143 2 146/201 34/119) a.3�J ?, \� /y 160/202— °N� 46/77 —1 1Si /J �-0 �? ti p \pq ��/ Corinthian Way A�A� 0g6- / \� s ghtt���y Q\ D n t D P J�I�o 92479225 OSt. Bowsprit Dr. 1 �o' 18\6 �5 p ��i �JPfa t b S7b25. �,7 ' 332i4,ybl—'1 Irvine AvD. ���z' / w c� Upper ,'ro/ 0 Newport T Plaza Dr. FBA sr0/ l 011 pbQb„�`' SA��\b5� Unrvenr Dr. �y\� 1 y /Jg6e9 00 Legend: 10120 = AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 4 -3 Not to scale Future 2007 Traffic Volumes without Proposed Project Source: RN Engineering Group, Inc.. 2005. 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination Table 4 -4 Future 2007 Levels of Service at Study Intersections without Proposed Project Intersectilon MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road Campus Drive and Dove Street Campus Drive and N Bristol Street Campus Drive and SE Bristol Street Birch Street and Dove Street Birch Street and N Bristol Street Birch Street and SE Bristol Street Jamboree Road and Campus Drive ICU A.M. — .A.M'._... LOS _ P.M. 0.410 0.525 A A 0.766" 0.962 C E 0.636 0.437 B A 0.439 0.552 A A 0.646 0.451 B A 0.609 0.568 B A 0.614 0.615 B B 0.422 0.456 A A 0.803 0.881 D D The decrease in ICU value over existing conditions (Table 4 -3) is due fa improvements recentiv made at file intersection. Source: RK Engineering Croup, December 2005. these trip generation rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1,557 trips per day, including 157 trips in the A.M. peak hours and 146 trips in the P.M. peak hours. However, because the project site is currently occupied by several tenants, the estimated number of trips generated by the current tenants (364 trips per day, including 44 trips in the A.M. peak hours and 44 trips in the P.M. peak hours) was subtracted from the proposed project's estimated trips. Therefore, the proposed project is estimated to generate a net increase of approximately 1,193 trips per day, including 113 trips in the A.M. peak hours and 102 trips in the P.M. peak hours over existing uses. The distribution of these trips was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses and highways within the area and existing traffic volumes. Trips were then assigned to the study intersections accordingly to determine the future plus project traffic conditions. Figure 4 -4 on page 4 -46 depicts the future plus project A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the nine study intersections. Table 4 -5 on page 4 -47 summarizes the results of the future A.M. and P.m. peak hour ICU analysis and corresponding LOS for the study intersections with the proposed project. AS shown in Table 4 -5, the proposed project would not cause any intersection to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E or F. Furthermore, for the intersection operating at LOS E (MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road), the project would not increase the ICU value by 0.01 or more. To assess the long -term traffic impacts of the proposed project, ICU analysis was also performed under General Plan buildout conditions. Twelve of the original 14 study area City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation Apri12006 Page 4 -45 0 0 N ^M =o L-59l54 �1 bq _ q 227843 .I I_ �146R01 3411 19-J I 8— 1646[0277--;t 0 Corinthian Way 6 �6 tz \ d1/ 6 O /) ) Cad tea. AGS / y �0� Z X011 i/�sl�/F,o� hoo0c a o3+ � chSr 1 JQc ?° P_ Q —� 1x921111 25 41i 5t Bowsprit Dr. $'° 241816 p p\ N Mesa Irvine h�AV G,Z /S 5'16 -IS27— m 33�.�61 —i mPw Upper 0� Newport %Sr ct Plaza Dr. l rn/ Sr l 43 4, \ q q\ 9)369? /�'Vp Y 63 ✓ /'V p� /3 ' hA� \bhp Universi Dr. Obr�\r \ 0 tivq�bb ph ,ySy66 .y�� 1 c5 9 00 Legend: 1012D = AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes Figure Not to scale Future 2007 Traffic Volumes with Proposed Project Sounce. RK Engineenng Group, Inc.. 2005. 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination Table 4 -5 Future 2007 Levels of Service at Studv Intersections with Proposed Project Intersection MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road Campus Drive and Dove Street Campus Drive and N Bristol Street Campus Drive and SE Bristol Street Birch Street and Dove Street Birch Street and N Bristol Street Birch Street and SE Bristol Street Jamboree Road and Campus Drive Change in ICU value from fixture 2007 without the proposed project (Table 4 -4). Source: RK Engineering Group, December 2005. intersections were analyzed under this scenario." Traffic volumes for the General Plan buildout conditions were obtained fi-om the City of Newport Beach. Figure 4 -5 on page 4 -48 depicts the General Plan buildout A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the twelve intersections without the proposed project. Table 4 -6 on page 4 -49 summarizes the results of the General Plan buildout A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU analysis and corresponding LOS for the intersections without the proposed project. As shown in Table 4 -6, five intersections would operate at unsatisfactory levels at General Plan buildout including MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road (A.M. and P.M.); Campus Drive and N Bristol Street (A.M. and P.M.); Campus Drive and SE Bristol Street (A.M. only); Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive (P.M. only); and Jamboree Road and Campus Drive (A.M. and P.M.). Figure 4 -6 on page 4 -50 depicts the General Plan buildout A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the twelve intersections with the proposed project. Table 4 -6 summarizes the results of the General Plan buildout A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU analysis and corresponding LOS for the study intersections with the proposed project. As shown in Table 4 -6, although the same intersections would continue to operate at unsatisfactory levels, the proposed project would not cause any intersection to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E or F. Furthermore, for the intersections operating at LOS E, the proposed project would not increase the ICU value at the respective intersections by 0.01 or more. us Analysis of long -term traffic impacts under a scenario such as General Plan buildout is not required by the TPO but was requested by due City of Newport Beach. The twelve intersections were selected based on their inclusion in the General Plan buildout model analysis. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation .April 2006 Page 4 -47 ICU LOS _ Change in ICU' A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. AAL P.M.__ 0Al2 0.527 A A 0.002 0.002 0.767 0.963 C E 0.001 0.001 0.645 0.446 B A 0.009 0.009 0.442 0.556 A A 0.003 0.004 0.651 0.456 B A 0.005 0.005 0.631 0.582 B A 0.022 0.014 0.616 0.620 B B 0.002 0.005 0.428 0.456 A A 0.006 0.000 0.804 0.882 D D 0.001 0.001 Change in ICU value from fixture 2007 without the proposed project (Table 4 -4). Source: RK Engineering Group, December 2005. intersections were analyzed under this scenario." Traffic volumes for the General Plan buildout conditions were obtained fi-om the City of Newport Beach. Figure 4 -5 on page 4 -48 depicts the General Plan buildout A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the twelve intersections without the proposed project. Table 4 -6 on page 4 -49 summarizes the results of the General Plan buildout A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU analysis and corresponding LOS for the intersections without the proposed project. As shown in Table 4 -6, five intersections would operate at unsatisfactory levels at General Plan buildout including MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road (A.M. and P.M.); Campus Drive and N Bristol Street (A.M. and P.M.); Campus Drive and SE Bristol Street (A.M. only); Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive (P.M. only); and Jamboree Road and Campus Drive (A.M. and P.M.). Figure 4 -6 on page 4 -50 depicts the General Plan buildout A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes for the twelve intersections with the proposed project. Table 4 -6 summarizes the results of the General Plan buildout A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU analysis and corresponding LOS for the study intersections with the proposed project. As shown in Table 4 -6, although the same intersections would continue to operate at unsatisfactory levels, the proposed project would not cause any intersection to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E or F. Furthermore, for the intersections operating at LOS E, the proposed project would not increase the ICU value at the respective intersections by 0.01 or more. us Analysis of long -term traffic impacts under a scenario such as General Plan buildout is not required by the TPO but was requested by due City of Newport Beach. The twelve intersections were selected based on their inclusion in the General Plan buildout model analysis. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation .April 2006 Page 4 -47 e�m o'�vOi h °py° r ° O X 602/01/ ;003/0-040 h'�p �${ 00N 190 5 00 lot, So 0 y 450/410 810/520 -1 - I-/y0 0 5 7 0/380 � 40/50 a} 1020 /58 210S 0 ^_PC 170/120 -� O ti~ ti je�91�06 Way / Corinthian °Op^ hqO rh '° sc l 0 0 C, a ,I?. /S D� �4 Qaol >CO_ k—,701 0 OSL Bowsprit Dr. o ;°� �3601BSO " phcp �PSaO pia r 19 570 R60, .� 051�0� Irvine Ave c.�` P >� // r � h~ B o0 c° 0` . Upper ,moo / K ewport Sr Plaza Dr. mh p 9 /4�,j0.j g0 O ,y�gpC' /'rS i b 6 Universi pr. h,�pp� A �o o,O D ��pp a`Owo 4- 470/410 —100150 rJ { f-280/190 Legend: 520a10 —� 'I 1 102 100/90°- 0O 0 = AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes ON —N N 4 Figure Not loscale Genera] Plan e Buildout'TrafficVolumes without Proposed Project Source. RK Engineering Group. Inc., 2005. 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination Table 4 -6 General Plan Buildout without and with Proposed Project Intersection MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road Campus Drive and N Bristol Street Campus Drive and SE Bristol Street Birch Street and N Bristol Street Birch Street and SE Bristol Street Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive Jamboree Road and Campus Drive Jamboree Road and N Bristol Street Jamboree Road and SE Bristol Street Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive and University Drive General Plan Buildout General Plan Buildout without Proposed Project with Proposed Project Changein ICU _ LOS ICU LOS ICUs A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 0.717 0.856 C D 0.720 0.858 C D 0.003 0.002 0.708 0.795 C C 0.709 0.797 C C 0.001 0.002 0.966 0.980 E E 0.967 0.981 E E 0.001 0.001 0.971 0.975 E E 0.978 0.979 E E 0.007 0.004 0.913 0.755 E C 0.918 0.760 E C 0.005 0.005 0.780 0.710 C C 0.782 0.716 C C 0.002 0.006 0.521 0.527 A A 0.528 0.527 A A 0.007 0.000 0.672 0.940 B E 0.672 0.941 B E 0.000 0.001 0.925 1.111 E F 0.925 1.112 E F 0.000 0.001 0.685 0.700 B B 0.685 0.703 B C 0.000 0.003 0.857 0.827 D D 0.861 0.830 D D 0.004 0.003 0.572 0.604 A B 0.573 0.605 A B 0.001 0.001 Change in ICU value from General Plan buddout without the proposed project to with the proposed project. Source: RK Engineering Group, December 2005. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not exceed, or contribute to a cumulative exceedance of a level of Service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways. As shown above in Table 4 -5, the project's greatest contribution to a change in ICU is 0.022 which is minimal and would not cause the particular intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS. Notwithstanding, the Project Applicant is required to pay a fair share contribution fee per Section 15.38 of the City's Municipal Code which helps pay for future intersection and roadway City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -49 2 ri 0!190 22/1503 NI �230l940 1100150 3/130 Sp�910V /\S s Oi/ 844!522 102158— s9� 0 570 80— r /3 43!52 —i 173/172--t °vm� Wo 1gp5�\ p��bp n Jlj4j � J�Sbp / O/ 6j C/s 70/1 \ n 6006 -S, X40 / Corinthian Way \cP,�p\/� \0.\pp�ti e., C titi a3p4 �6S � v / 3v j 0 S9�S /P8 D' Bowsprit Dr. 1�170I16 Irvine r36 IBg0 P S� 'bersto/ 60, 14801031 Upper .6 hj Newport bra Or Plaza Dr. rtp/ i "701AX0 r 5238100' 0 o Universi °o Pip p���r'q m r�p\'� \"gyp ,�✓06�//3 /SjO�6,, �y\p b \��bp \� 5 pip 1/61��95 �p \\bpry�f YY b5 p6 Legend: I OR0 = AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 4 -6 Not to scale General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes with Proposed Project Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2005. 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination improvements identified in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure T -I below, impacts would be less than significant. T -I Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall pay a fair share contribution fee to the City of Newport Beach per Section 15.38 of the Municipal Code. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project site is developed with a structure and parking lot that has been operating adjacent to the John Wayne Airport since 1964. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of the existing structure. It would not alter the height of the structure (24 feet) or include any other improvements that would cause a change in current air traffic patterns. Furthermore, as discussed in Response No. VII. e) above, the proposed project would be consistent with the John Wayne Airport AELUP. Therefore, no impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. Vehicular access to the project site would be reduced from four driveways (two along Campus Drive and two along Birch Street) to two driveways (one on Campus Drive and one on Birch Street). The driveways will generally remain in the same location but the approach will be modified per City requirements. Additionally, the parking lot areas would be designed to accommodate a 20 -foot fire lane. As such, the proposed project would improve traffic and circulation on the project site and adjoining streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. No mitigation measures are required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the closure or blockage of any street, or impair access to and around the surrounding areas. Furthermore, as discussed in Response No. XV. d) above, the parking lots located within the project site would be designed to accommodate a 20 -foot fire lane. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No mitigation measures are required. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -51 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The City's parking requirements for inventory type uses and repair type uses is 1 stall per 500 square feet, and 1 stall per 300 square feet, respectively. Based on these requirements, the proposed project would need to provide 162 parking spaces (48 parking spaces for inventory uses which total approximately 23,886 square feet and 114 parking spaces for repair type uses which total approximately 34,259 square feet). The project proposes to provide 170 parking spaces. This exceeds the City's parking requirement. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. No mitigation measures are required. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing building. It would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Furthermore, the project does not propose to alter any existing bus turnouts or established alternative transportation programs within the City. No mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. VIII a) above, the City of Newport Beach is located within the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8) and is a co- permittee with Orange County in the NPDES Program. Accordingly, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations to protect water quality during construction and operation of the proposed project including the preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would net exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. No mitigation measures are required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach currently provides water service to the 62,457 - square foot building located on the project site. A 12 -inch, 6 -inch, and 8- City of Newport Beach land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -52 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination inch water main are located along Campus Drive, Dove Street. and Birch Street, respectively. Although portions of the building are currently being leased on a month -to -month basis to various businesses for storage, printing, and office space, the original construction and initial use of the building was for light industrial purposes (i.e,, manufacturing). Assuming full utilization of the building based on its intended use, the project site is estimated to utilize approximately 3,498 gallons of water per day.16 The proposed project, which consists of the conversion of the existing building into a vehicle service center and storage facility, would maintain a similar land use (light industrial). Therefore, to estimate the future water demand of the proposed project, the same generation factor (56 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day) was utilized. Based on this veneration factor, the proposed project would require a total of approximately 3,256 gallons of water per day. Because the proposed project would include a car wash which would generate additional water demand, a generation factor for the washing of cars was applied. Car washes typically utilize approximately 20 gallons of water per vehicle." The proposed project is estimated to service approximately 50 vehicles per day. Assuming all vehicles are washed (worst -case scenario), the car wash would require 1,000 gallons of water per day. Combined, the proposed project would require 4,256 gallons of water per day (3,256 plus l ,000), or 758 gallons of water per day over existing uses (4,256 minus 3,498). The existing water supply and water distribution system would be adequate to accommodate the water demand generated by the proposed project. No improvements to existing off -site water lines would be required. Improvements to existing on -site water lines (laterals) may be required: however these improvements would be minor and would be the responsibility of the Project Applicant to ensure appropriate connections to existing water lines. The City also provides wastewater service to the project site. An 8 -inch sewer main is located along Campus Drive and Birch Street. The project site is connected to the sewer main in Campus Drive via three laterals and to the sewer main in Birch Street via three laterals. The treatment of wastewater generated within the City is conducted by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Although portions of the building are currently being leased on a month -to- month basis to various businesses including storage, printing, and office space, the original construction and initial use of the building was for light industrial purposes (i.e., manufacturing). Assuming full utilization of the building based on its intended use, the project site .is estimated to generate approximately 2,973 gallons of wastewater per day." The proposed project, which consists of the conversion of the existing building into a vehicle service center and storage facility, would maintain a similar land use (light industrial). Therefore, to estimate the future wastewater generation of the proposed project, the same generation factor (i.e., 85 percent of 16 Based on Irvine Ranch Water District's 2003 Water Resources Master Plan, Table 3 -1, Land Use and Water Use Factors (Light Industrial - 56 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day). i� International Canvashing Association. is Wastewater generation is generally estimated as 35 percent of water consumption. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Pa .-e 4 -53 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination water consumption) was utilized. Based on this generation factor, the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 2,768 gallons of wastewater per day. Because the proposed project would include a car wash which would generate additional wastewater, a generation factor to account for the wastewater from the car wash was applied ( ,i.e., 85 percent of water consumption). Assuming all vehicles are washed, the car wash would generate 850 gallons of wastewater per day. Combined, the proposed project would generate 3,618 gallons of wastewater per day (2,768 plus 850), or 645 gallons of wastewater per day over existing uses (3,618 minus 2,973). The existing sewer system would be adequate to accommodate the wastewater generation from the proposed project. No improvements w existing off -site sewer lines would be required. Improvements to existing on -site sewer lines (laterals) may be required; however these improvements would be minor and would be the responsibility of the Project Applicant. Similarly, the wastewater treatment facilities maintained by OCSD would be adequate to accommodate the wastewater that would be generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. No mitigation measures are required. c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed project would not alter the amount of stormwater runoff generated by the proposed project given that the amount of pervious and impervious surface would remain the same. Therefore, no new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be needed. No mitigation measures are required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Response No. XVI. b) above, the water demand for the proposed project would be less than significant. Although the City has sufficient water supply available to serve the proposed project, implementation of the water conservation measures listed below in Mitigation Measures U -I through U -6 are recommended as they would help reduce the demand for groundwater, surface water, and imported water supplies. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures U -I through U -6, potential impacts to water supplies would be less than significant. U -I New landscaping shall incorporate drought - tolerant plant materials and drip irrigation systems where possible. City of Newport Reach Land Rover Newport Reach service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -54 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination U -2 Water leaving the project site due to over- ini -ation of landscape shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform the tenant if possible, leave a note, and in some cases shut off the water. U -3 Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning). U -4 All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the Project Applicant shall complete all required repairs. U -5 Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards- U-6 Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. XVI. b) above, the OCSD has the available capacity to serve the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Orange County has three landfills — the Frank Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, the Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano, and the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea. The solid waste generated by the proposed project would likely be taken to the Frank Bowerman Landfill in Irvine. The facility has a maximum daily tonnage capacity of 8,500 tons and is scheduled to close in 2022.' If for some reason the Frank Bowerman Landfill cannot accept the solid waste (i.e., it reaches its daily tonnage limit), waste haulers would be diverted to one of the other two landfills in the County. The Prima Deshecha Landfill has a maximum daily tonnage capacity of 4,000 tons and is scheduled to close in 2067. The Olinda Alpha Landfill has a maximum daily tonnage capacity of 8,000 tons and is scheduled 19 County of Orange, Integrated Waste Management website, www.oc1andlfl11s.com. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -55 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination to close in 2013, although a study is currently underway that may extend the life and disposal capacity of the landfill. Construction of the proposed project would involve the generation of construction and demolition debris from the building interior and parking lot. The existing building shell would remain intact. Therefore, construction and demolition debris would. be minimal. The three County landfills have ample capacity to accommodate the construction and demolition debris generated by the proposed project. The project site is currently occupied and generating solid waste. The proposed project, which consists of the conversion of the existing building into a vehicle service center and storage facility, would result in the reduction of approximately 4,000 square feet. Due to the decrease in square footage, solid waste generation would likely decrease. The three County landfills have ample capacity to accept the solid waste generated by the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (i.e., recycling). In addition to solid waste, the proposed project would generate hazardous waste including waste oil, used oil filters, antifreeze, and sludge /waste from the three -stage clarifier. Hazardous waste disposal is not permitted in County landfills. The Project Applicant would be responsible for hiring a hazardous waste hauler to dispose of such waste. As the three County landfills have ample capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs of the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be subject to AB 939 which requires cities to participate in countywide programs and to implement site - specific source reduction, recycling, and reuse programs to reduce their waste streams by 50 percent. The City of Newport Beach has an approved list of solid waste haulers for construction, demolition, and commercial waste. These City- approved haulers are responsible for meeting the requirements of AB 939 (i.e., meeting specific diversion rates, recycling, etc.). As the Project Applicant would be required to utilize one of the approved waste haulers, it would be in compliance with AB 939. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No mitigation measures are required. Cily of Newport Beach land Rorer Newport Beach Service Center P6 Services Corponnlon April 2006 Page 4 -56 4. Explanation (A Checklist Determination h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors ?) No Impact. None of the BMPs recommended in the project's WQMP include new or retrofitted storm water treatment control BMPs that could result in significant environmental effects. Therefore, no impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are required. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and surrounding area are located in an urbanized area. Specifically, the project site is developed with a structure and associated parking lots. The proposed project would merely convert the interior of the existing structure and re- grade the parking lots. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). Less Than Significant Impact. The potential for cumulative impacts occurs when the independent impacts of the proposed project are combined with the impacts of related projects in proximity to the project site such that impacts occur that are greater than the impacts of the project alone. As discussed in the preceding analysis, for the majority of the environmental topics covered in this Initial Study it has been determined that the proposed project would have no impact or less than significant impacts. With respect to Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation April 2006 Page 4 -57 4. Explanation Of Checklist Determination and Service Systems, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would ensure that the effects of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level. Because the mitigation measures for these topics are project- specific and would reduce the project's potential impacts to less than significant levels, no cumulative impacts would occur. Furthermore; any similar impacts from development of related projects also would imp�ement similar mitigation measures such that impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. As discussed in the preceding analysis, all potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. City of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corporation Apri{ 2006 Page 4 -58 5. MITIGATION MONITORINGAND REPORTING PROGRAM 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As of January 1, 1989, CEQA requires a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for projects where mitigation measures are a condition of their approval and development. This MMRP has been prepared for the Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center in compliance with the requirements of Section 21081.6 of CEQA. This document identifies the potential significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and specifies measures designed to mitigate adverse impacts to the environment. Table 5 -1 on page 5 -2 lists all of the mitigation measures required in connection with approval of the proposed project. The MMRP describes the procedures the responsible party will use to implement the mitigation measure, identifies at what point the mitigation measure is to be executed, and the agency or party responsible for ensuring that the mitigation is implemented. Monitoring refers to the observation of mitigation activities at the project site, in the design of plans, or in the operation of the proposed project. Citv of Newport Beach Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center PCR Services Corpmation April 2006 Page 5 -1 E �q O a` w x •o c R cn c 0 E 0 C 0 y w vi C R Y on 0 0.. cn C d u rr �+ � C 7 O 0 0 C Y O O N •O T w u a p u 3 E ii» a is u � �y c •+� Y o a O O d u N a a 0 a a c 8 a N s -o a c o a o u N w q U— CL N O U N q u U a E 3 U 73 C p a u _6 w o 3 .7 D c3 O U O c Q. m> w= o o r � N 0 'o .D r� N E a; on 0 a u N O O w bo L O U an ' ° O 73 N C ? O d T dO u ` N -o bo ti � E Q. u a 0 c O u 0 �" N U O C N i 0 3 t u U u .Q•— 0 3°u q— 0 u ° ti3 Q �'o owg -E �. D OL p O a `° D U a '`icy N N M !r u > u° D .c anT ' u w d M ° Q. OA'E w N N a E N U R� a °' o s N o c to on p c a o 3 u N G N> U D F 'vi d _ a .� r ��; — 3 �' o 0 0 on N 0° a° D ° 0 N s 0 73 o- w�u ¢emu rs I 1 3 U 1 3 � 0.. I E> I Q. I 'O en e � L F a � o d zoo � ti u " C N 7 3 dQ� N a a 0 a a c 8 a N a x en C O O c on a L C ry v n 0 V W a J p L ^ ` p" o an c a L Y O O ° O N L `• O a U Q O O U U O d v LE o 'Q �., m •y ` O y U— ,'p ° cs u oL m C O ❑ tC G N° m U G N n. U G a W q y ° a c Mi oa a L C ry v n 0 V W a O 6. u 7 ° C G' d a ob U � c H L � L Y O s F° c 0 2 0 N O u �o m a 0 a� z> �v o rn v1 P. i y _ L L G L2` ,�C� ii c.Q mQ aQUWQ C4 �' 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 o yt of � O.N c m9 ZWt �� D �,Et 3 y a n w Gn G G uLLw ��ny��3 E o 0 _ n w�r. 0' 'E 3 0 n ffi o U E o L _ C) L C' .J o o a a E 3 ^ .a .^., O 0. O a .n "•i 0. ao 0 N O u �o m a 0 a� z> �v o rn v1 P. ; \ � e \\ \\ 2 (�) \\\ 2 ®/r �(4\ ) ƒEe \ \�\ \ \ \\ k} \\ \ee/ & \&a \\\ �: I& f% r� \� \\ }\ \� \\ 2) -7 >4 $ y)\ zC5 §\} \ \\ \77y 222\ \ \ \\ \� \ \ \ \� \ »% }\ / \\ ■ §7 2zQ2\ ;EQ2\ \zQS\ £ 2333 e/233 2 ±j33 /)\ 00 4± J3 2J (�) \\\ 2 ®/r �(4\ ) ƒEe \ \�\ \ \ \\ k} \\ \ee/ & \&a \\\ �: I& f% r� \� \\ }\ \� \\ 2) -7 >4 $ y)\ zC5 §\} \ \\ \77y 222\ \ \ \\ \� \ \ \ \� \ »% }\ / \\ ■ E L 00 L c. oD C 9 L O e d O 'O U ° ~ G G/ O a c R o F � G z C N Q 0 I� �a I ou a c y •� of o� o� L a o' ¢ o v o o _ UN v _ v d UUd � UUd U U d M c ° W o�Z d N C L W :J C W. y O L ti L .D L Pa � c c i• pp U 3 d L i n-; U UJ CS L L 6b 3 'o � ❑: � E � E .o 'n ° � U o o °' o. .'L' � L L° U 0 n U ti L :- N N � U '_'� L 7 .,.., G C O •.-• U �• cU.f .G .. 3 L E L b C O E O o U C W. U .0 ,U ocn.0 C C c) G 'O ° U U C U C U 73 E ° E a d E ° c o d a a c4 v a n Fa` o aa.�c' O C N Q 0 I� �a I ou a E ^U a` C� C a a C t e0 C y c c cu In a L OL L a u o C C m G O C V � .r en � C d O C F � 'z c 0 00 r L C a O p ah � L =s � 3� o bD G. C fa C 0 = a � d N Q a T N O v»L UWCa C .- y L � Q v N O sa E � C o o w .b h u c w ° O N CG u c c a Q u u A a c5 �i L H L C V o u Q C o N N .o Imo. OA o c L V on o = E .� on C O � a> E L ° u E� T Q �o �o CO a C c=j b N 4. O O 7d O N � ,LJ � N s 3 y b0 � C N O 30 M � a O v to T o a > J GJ Q O y v U U Q T ah � L =s � 3� = a � d N Q a O v� y .o sa E � O t w .b h u c w ° O N L V+ ` A a c5 T = a O T W V C O � V O .. a N � Q L U _N � G E o a W O M y°p i a E U � V ' q U W L U N .O O v ° c E u 0 o a UUQ y T 3 ° a -o Y N 3 L a c L � v " v� T v y v w, w � V N ° > E aE N ,U+ O > v v Q U = X N =� u C O h V � M 3� ut � V _ = C to to C C C 0 n� z L n L C V F @ r n°a �u n� J `oH ti �n d 0. cU C G oU C C c C 0 Vl E c L eo 0 a eo c � L � O G d G a O 'O V O A .y OL � G L Gl O L. F° i c O w W OL C .y 0 C OJ i T 'S U E c 0 v v N E ° cNY y L 3 D M v v v L i UJ N S L N U n 3 a v v v ti W 0 v L C u U N O ' O ,O, y L a V E a C b O O N J O 0 c 0 0 U U v Li 0. Y h v m e O 0 s v V N N vi y CL iN UU7L1 a; u La O O u O C d 3 U 1 a�G�a C .y 0 C OJ i T 'S U E c 0 v v N E ° cNY y L 3 D M v v v L i UJ N S L N U n 3 a v v v ti W 0 v L C u U N O ' O ,O, y L a V E a C b O O N J O 0 c 0 0 U U v Li 0. Y h v m e O 0 s v V N N vi y CL APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Pendragon Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) F 310 N VOI Gf, L1 :'15iOP'e1.t VI P[oject a: Pe n].aocn \Cans ::uc: {c:: <on s: tuctf nn.vi0 [ojec[ Mam e: o [ago. Cone[ -Cti on [ojec[ 1.1.1ire: ury C r Bab . ILOa 1. 71p Cee -elan Xo[nr vela,' -e Enis.ims Pa sea ona EXFAC 30C3 ve vs:a. 3,2 pETA [L P - IPOUnasiGay Ei FUnme rl Cona[ruc[3on E[a [t Mon[1: antl ' /eat: Jw:e. }O.F [al Lana V e Aieat,o ed p ¢eiti, : 9 .. ea ge ii stm rCea P Pay: FinglemFa m3ly Vn3 Mu1[v`F an 31 y)V. it Pe tail /G ((ice /I n st itu0[iona l /In tlu s: ri al E.... e i rage: Still <GISTPUCTS 01! .S"i.N .11ite ES XIT :GAT F.p lie : /aayl WIO Eonree P,v: NC6 <9 Y 3 rtlinl. EY NAIIFi .51 • 3006 .. Plus" 1 penal 3t.ne Em356:on¢ "i"_ ed Due[ >.S0 .1 Zed Die set B, )1 3 ".51 10.'i 1,40 I.fO "', and I,1 S 1 59.5[ 1.91 O.C9 0.91 .L06 ork"r Trips 0.01 0, 1 1 0 10 Max: mum IOSitlaY 4. JB "'1, JO.IC C.49 �. },51 l.'03 fN Se i SYte G: aai:y Eni 65i ons 0(('PmC pY 0501 ].5) >.li ]0.96 On "1Diesel 000 0.00 r Tri PS .00 - .Oc X,n:nun los /a ay ]s4 11.1; ]1,100 , 01 5e ", 0.99 9J0 Pnaa" ) Bm lal aB cnattxcu n. BIa9 Cons[ O[I. POaa Diesel :.81 ]. 1a 1.95 Bl ag A =ti xa r ker ttipa A 0. 01.10 0. 0.9v .40 O.o] rcs Coa[if.95 Olt'G as 59.)] rca Co acY n9s not ke¢ iJ PS kspaal[ 0It'Gas .00 Aaplfa r. 0: 0.00 0 00 0.00 AspNi[ C afa pY es el O.00 As paaJ[ vo Mer Tips P-,-. fee /day 45,04 91,99 41,SC ..te i 1 1.96 0.09 Xyt .FS /day all FP_ere 65,06 :3,1] 9),50 0.49 e." '1.5: 51,)0 • 3C0 > "• flu se 1 - pemali [i en Emissions .ivc Wit 0.00 WI OP ('oad G 591 dl'POad Diesel x .00 0 UC O.00 .0C orkef ps . O.CO O. Oa 0 .00 Xa"i mum - 1G5 /]aY G.00 0.00 e 0.00 e, 0 4v 0 Oa 0.00 0.00 Passe } 5f <e emdf:g Emiesioas Fug ie-d Di, a. OC 0.00 0!!'Pmd Di es"1 0.00 .00 00'Pmd p sel .00 C.00 0.00 .-11,I Trips mxl m.m les/my O.00 O.00 o.eo O.uu O.G. e.eo O.Ou Paaae J Buum:g Co cs<ry c<lon Play c ort.Pma 0 x"i PId9 Cons[ 4094") Tri P.s 110 Avca Coat Y rqs Grlle, AYSa COa<i MS xCV 0."r Tri Fs .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 As Pnalt 011'aa! 0.31 Aeo:lr Ge!'0.Wd Diesel 3,98 :B.9B I0. 3? AsOaa It Gn'Paatl p{nscl 0.06 1.:5 2 0.00 0 tl 0.03 0 00 A.rona[ x0 rt"v Trips .01 0.01 0.: P.OG o.00 0.09 ream�m Ins /aay ..n oa.0 Jp nc O.ep 1.:6 1. }s 0.01 na: Ibs /any au paaees 9.11 .0..9 -,PY 0.00 1.:4 l.ss o.01 Pagel of 2 Pendragon Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) [oc¢[rve[l. -n...e la [er vl[lga[ on N.e azurez .. rrb ar Comply vlth Rule c0] i[I:i Yea[ f Phase 1 ..ul tl6 v..a.�o 5oIixoe o 1 xo: 0.01 eo e. 01 sea 0.m cane eav on'Pma P k iYa vel \Tffl: 0 Pray [n]lt ump[l all ROatl 6qui pm<n[ ,mf,roe for ti,. 1: ate:, Ya r¢ /Wy C- [a¢r¢ 91 d 1 inaoq 99 0.15s s.s PN Se Eusucton A 55umptlo.. u/YleiaaiY ny vam,Y r , It'lc f etc: 1 00a n[sh [ or Plrase ] 1.106 „ 2'..e lla me v e wily Ic.ic t eN nll, sl start tl nln /rear for sW chase 6n: la lnq: ]nl '0E a a Pr- 1 nxn: esea WPhase R lldur9 carat lon: a mnm¢ a([P. d Equlpcent Off oid F9u�: M1^P 0.1 Tma x ¢epov[r wad r r r¢ /wv 1F Ho rSr"`.r' Oere Equipment 190 [F .630 e�lntlrr c[[ial says t Rwgn T o[k111 a.t95 '3C w.er[ :/pb6sl as cs Oot he[e Equlpae nc n.s "1 start n nth /ya ar 1 mVn Asa Nchlte c[ufal eoa rings: Nov 'Of me WPha se Nchite[[u[a] Cwtfnge Ou at to n: 1 n[h¢ 1 iratco [I w ade [e /6a bhoes l9 4.16, 9.5 chase 3 e Grad in9 A zun¢[iona i[I:i Yea[ f Phase 1 ..ul tl6 tl chase 1 Yu a[lon: 0 n[hs on'Pma P k iYa vel \Tffl: 0 all ROatl 6qui pm<n[ ze0o. r e Fac mr r¢ /Wy C- [a¢r¢ 91 d 1 inaoq 99 0.15s s.s PN Se Eusucton A 55umptlo.. u/YleiaaiY ny n[sh [ or Plrase ] 1.106 „ Thee 6.5 mnn thz start tl nln /rear for sW chase 6n: la lnq: ]nl '0E WPhase R lldur9 carat lon: a mnm¢ a([P. d Equlpcent 0.1 Tma x ¢epov[r wad r r r¢ /wv taanaast real :a.¢ Oere Equipment 190 [F .630 t Rwgn T o[k111 a.t95 1 1 w.er[ :/pb6sl as cs n.s "1 start n nth /ya ar 1 mVn Asa Nchlte c[ufal eoa rings: Nov 'Of me WPha se Nchite[[u[a] Cwtfnge Ou at to n: 1 n[h¢ Star[ n na,VnlY [ [ SWPha se [: .sun �p3 .1hal Eahi ha sa TsFha 1[ Du ra[io n: 1 man [h¢ f to �frr e cad Equ 1pme n[ fnt 'IT cepover [19: .odd Fa[[or rz /Wy 0[he[ Equlpmen[ fthf 63 f. ing Cgut ymen[ 0.5 ]C Enan9ea made to the oe[a alz ¢alu es for Lantl use Trip Pe[centaaee EIa [g ez made m the default va \u ec for Co na vuCt ion The u ridiln [ Ault Phase Length¢ f [haul mol l a lonm T[eek EapaeltY Chan,rd [ [ 13 a lathy P11g it1'Ie I,t , Eml zs ion R.- t .'ee [r— If iha s eI sltlgal—I m e Eo i3 p [a eDan ce'. Eonyly vfth xvle 003 has been erar9rd it— off to on. Page Z of Z c o .N m T m C C Z-0 m E c 0 o o m > c m E ❑ w` � m m O > n > w O O O 0 N m O O O O O O O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MZoZo r V N' o Z o Z y y o Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z o Z O Z N O 0 0 -'O >>- }} W : N � 0 O O OOO'- o r r W rO0h0 0 0 �% N OOO cO N O O OOO ^Td$iv ¢ m ¢ m m ¢ ¢ ❑ ❑ `,$. p`o N �nrrncoo (O (O O O O o�nmom�nmmov 10 10 10 (h LO A N N 10 O mm W LL. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fw_ 0 y¢ a¢ a¢ a¢ a¢ a¢ a¢ a¢ a¢ a ma t' a o a o m m y m y Z Z�� yin in N y N 0 o in m -` 'ALL in o o `o in in w w m m o o >> E m o om`m min w w❑`❑` -`` m m m w w y y y y o omm 5.c m m m m y y E E c >> m aa va00ZZ(q q > >C 5 D > >>> c c c 0 O Z Z 0 0 a m m m m m m m a a a a a a m m m m>>> y m a > y >> y c m c m c m c m c m c m m 0 m 0 0 L L L L Vl N N Vl Vl Vl � � N N u uEEEEEE uuu=uuEE _- y_ m i!m{ o o m m d m oLry ZE � w w ;0 O O !, !n . m J J O O n E 0 0 0 0 o 0 m 0 0❑ 0 0 Z 0 Z 0 m o m m U m U o 0 0 o a rmmmm O O ,599 ��m�mmma� = J (n (n (n (n m m y y a p p E E E L L L L L d O L O E E E E E E E E E E U U U U U Um Q]i � � N r N c� r> o o �n �n co i z n r r m m rn m 2 U m 0 J N a u 0 y m o a` L_ C U ti �? 0 N m N r a (h i m a x Z d Z N c 6 0 zy T Q 0 J 2101 Dove Street (Pendragon Automotive) Existing Mobile Area Stationary Total Existing Project Mobile Area Stationary Total Project Net Project Net Mobile Net Stationary Total Net SCAQMD Significance Threshold Difference Significant? Regional Emission Calculations (lbs /day) CO NOxi PM101 ROC: sox 37.2 4.6 4.0 3.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 38.2 5.8 4.0 3.4 0.1 126 16 13 10 0 1 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 128 17 13 11 0 89.2 11.0 9.3 7.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.2 11.0 9.3 7.:1 .0 550 55 150 55 LO..0 0 (461) (44) (141) (48;1 0) No No No N o 12/29/2005 12:41 PM Regional Emissions.xls Regional 2101 Dove Street (Pendragon Automotive) Electricity Usage Electricity Usage Project Electricity Emission Factors (Ibs /MWh) " Warehouse 56.1 4.35 252,931 0.693 0.139 0.007 Usage Rate Total Electricity Usage CO ROC NOx PM10 sox Land Use i,000 st It (kWhlsa.Myrl (KWhWearl (MWh1Day) 0_2 0_01 1.15 0.04 0.12 Existing -0.01 0.00 0.00 Emissions from Electricity Consumption (Ibslday) Office 1)1.8 12.95 256.410 0.702 0.140 0.007 0.808 0.028 0.084 Total Existing 256,410 0.702 0.14 0.01 0.81 0.03 0.08 Project Warehouse 56.1 4.35 252,931 0.693 0.139 0.007 0397 0028 0.083 Total Project 252,931 0.693 0.14 0.01 0.80 0.03 0.08 N¢t Emissions From Electricity Usage 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 Summary of Stationary Emissions CO ROC NOx PM10 sox Total Existing Emissions(lbs /day) 0.14 001 0.81 003 008 Total Project Emissions ( Ibslday) 0.14 001 0.80 0.03 0.08 Total Net Emissions (Ibslday) 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 ' Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9 -11 -A. CEOA Air Oual ty Handbook. SCAOMD, 1993. ° Emission Factors from Table AM1 -B, CEOA Air Oually Handbook. SCAGMD. 1993. ` Natural Gas Usage Rates ban Table A9 -12 -A. CEOA Air GIaIIN Handbook. SCAGMD. 1993. ° Emission Factors from URBEMIS2W2 Version 87 (US EPA 19951 ` The emission factors for NOx in Ibs per million cuff of natural gas are 100 for nonresident at uses and 94 for residents) uses. 12298005 12 :41 PM Regional Emissions.xls Stationary E'P ?EXIS zJU: E'es Ms ntl ays tl. :.0 Pile N ;z \ApNCI56 US V IEICN \a pc lve i [ ^ \FnnasagOn lG pe ca[:O ns \fp era: icny 1= e5_.f. pE.a.1. (:ols[[vN z1U1 Ceve 5 IFC nd:ape r.l [o +Fx isr s: r[ CFe: f[ic:+s - - �[n <oa .eas us nngP l PS a:�.n CE tA:L REPO NI Eeoxnas; Nay - x, n[ea A SCti RCE eM1551 ON £ST 1NRtE5 tU in[er P on as Fe: F' Y. '1 an dS Ca Pi n9 - •�n.e: ens. -a .em li a4RTEU JPE Mi1M1AL Eq I55IJN5 nW NJv c 501 Ge ne ca] at [ice Cui ltli n9 3.11 .. -] 3t, IB O.Oi mrw £n1551b6 Gtas(m/: J.11 S.JJ ll.la U.OY 1.9t �cl vae [ Ca zSCY [:i FS. C oEPAi 1JNSL I +eh is lel E41fE I<N EST I.wTES Anel(f - i¢a[: 2w empe: at u[¢ Ifl: 60 Se of on. xa n. e• FH FAC ve: <s an: EYFRf,1 U 01 11111121 Semma:y o[ Lana is es. vnac ._pe Ac eaga iriP pace u._. ri p< c. ne, al mote hw lm nq la..i Er, P <n000 sp. 1.. 19. e9 To.al xe e;e.e .�. e. T.a:e lea z.en.sz Ve of [le A5 imPlaav Flee: 4sa. Vehicle type ke:ee nl T e x n -C a[el y5'. - [aly�� sel L A +any D,im ms �s, IU .eo 1 7 ei.se z.20 aey D. s01- 1 o.000 l.lo a.00 la.1a -�u.o a.y w o. <c o.00 zo .oC .00 nloam n�n.,.y la. aal -1 D. 000 1. oo a.00 za.oe eo.oa a-heavy , 0Ury eU. 000 0.90 0.u0 :LIC a.90 ma.00 00. ;a :ea xe 60, o o.00 a. za a eanvy Lio . ez.a U.00 +.aN lu.ap a.Uo :oa.o m[ef na me 1 :a .21 e.Da al.m a.aa al .omTO, maI e[eao Tar L. nFU� Imu em � 9.n eav Le n Iml l.al IIS f.q Js.a qa.o eo.a AO.O SODA zo.o n.a u.o my lane —el ,e ne:al o[r [eahei CNanges made [a [he tle [aul[ val pe5 [o. La nJ L.e T: ip Fe:een[aV�- <ha ngaa mnee [o -n¢ dz /a Ul[ ralUea [o: A— <h anq matle [[ [hP ae [dU l[ val Uea [o Ope:a[[en< op e: al e n yea cha ngca ( a 1U0 a 1001, e wes [empe: ch an ['0 [0 6U. nel a than 90 ITe o0e [a[soria. <umme[ selepc[lon [i[em c:la nq ea [[om D [u .. Gage 1 Oper [tons IEn. in9! - xpz.[n :3/19/3005 3:36 PN :.RB EZ tS 3003 Eo[ xt e.tlova 0.).0 Pf to N V \WRRISE Ot Vi S[ON \A,tive proj er[e\ pen e[agon \Ope [a [f on. \Ope [a [i ona VEZf atf ngl.veb P roj er[mN [ Ipe nd rayenl - Ezf e[l n9 OFe [a [f one Pmjer fair 511 10 ILaa Mget . areal cn -AOae vo[or n.'e of [te Em t, ¢: ona 6 zea ov ENEA111- -Pt- 3.3 XT 1ea:.nea. DETAIL yAE s:,mmerl AREA s MISSION PPILRATES ISUmmer powaa per pay. V y teal O PAT .tole -.[ emlaafona o.m o.11 vnt 0 o vv Lantla ca Pf ng e con.nm.r Pm[t. 'm[v aa�ra ma[lnv rus v.a v.0 o. e9 o. vo o.ov I. RELIE ROD PER ED OP-11 office bufiding 3.1B 4 .51 I1.3B 0.03 3.11 TOTAL ExI_SIONS It C. /aayl 3.1E a.51 35.39 p.1 3.9) p r n to[ pa a¢Ey [rf p¢. ¢ nor mol me ao�b�a �o,.. fog aai� =[m.n mr r:[.r„a1 [rle.. OPEBATtd1AL IV.hfrf.l En ISSICN ESTIYFTES afy.f. Year. 3Om .mperama IE1: 75 1.....: E-r EMEAC Ve[.f on: E11EAC30o3 19/30031 summary o. Lana u.... 01. T ',I Ln[[ Typo 1rrea9e Trip Ra[e D. f[. Trl, General '11- ..Olaf. .9.5> [rt p¢ /3000 aq. E[. 19. 1. 360.00 of Total Trip¢ Tout Vmscie off.¢'r- 3.111.53 vent rte Aa umPtf ena Ptee[ nlz f cle Type [ ryPe ETP el 1190[ A Light T < 3.150 IL. L191,[ T- 1,111 1.90 ck 5.153. e Ltae*ruXeavy LtteNeavy ea vy I .00 0.00 N ea ry�x ea vy 3 BB.90 Line Na 60.000 IOa 0 Erb- 0 10 le SCe Iloal 0 velN 0 [ondf [tong Tra e.ihnt Commercial a - rk .5R N Trip M h Imll eal N a Impl:l .0.0 41 40.0 E rot Trip. xe.f aen[IaI 30.0 31.0 .1 .0 of r:f P, rn,I my Gn.ral creel [e O�11Im9 15.0 11.5 0.5 anye. mass [o [ne aee,mt va mea mr Lana we Tr1p Pera uy., Cm .1- maa. 1. A. a.eau l[ v... .r Area rnRERer made [o [ha aeeau It .a lv.. f.r op s cation. rM a oat an Yea[ [ .nyea fr.. 3 The Pp -rill tool r1n[er I- Pera[ure [han9ea E 15030 Tl:e ape [e [f tool . empe ra to re r vMrr P 115. TM ope [a [f octal aumnet felertlon 1[em rNny ea frcm0 0 to 5. Page 1 OPe ta[irna fEZt s[i n91 BDp. [rc OMEEMIS ]002 Eo[ Nindaz Y.].0 V: \MMOISE p ON \AC[i ve Pe ote c[a \Pen de a9on \Cpee ona \Opeaa[i or., IEli It i 197 . deb eojec[mName: f01 Oove SIT..' I lPeed ea9on) Ezi a[lag OPeea[i one [ P[0]ec[ f.oc v!b C Ale ..ain ILaa Arge1 a steal Op POad Motor Veeicxe El1-1on. E.O. ona ENMEO 00x MI-iin x.x OR TAIL REPORT IPOVntic /Oay Summed AREA SOORR EMISSION ESTIMATES ISUmmee P a Pee pat. Vnml[19a[edl Sout S. I, 0.01 O.i) 0.11 L 0.P1 REST 'It a 1 9 emia eiona Laude CIP in [ Pratt, TOTALS Ilba /daYCUnmi [i ga [edl 0.e1 0.14 OAS 0.00 C100 NINITIOPTED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS O .2 PROP Central dxfioe bu;la;n9 )po 1X37 BC.T6 O.01 ).Pt TMAL EMISSIONS tlea /aayl ).Ox e.xx 00.16 0.02 1 .9, [ incmd. n e.I O.-M, trip.. E- or xnemde dwmc[codnt1l aa5m sent for Interns, Iri'.. OPERATIONAL (Veblclel EMISSION tSTIMATES lTalyail 7111: 1007 en,T-u" (P) : 85 Se a a ON. Summer EMMES Ve[.Loi: EMPESSr Ox l9 (x nnxl Sumnuey of Land uIt,: No. I III Onrz ryPe Er it., tip Xa[e N. 1. Trip. Cetaeeal .1f l- Wilding IB..I ii pz11000 nq. Tt. ]9.60 )64 .00 Of T [al Teipa Or m [a vinl rue n) e. tta.e l la z61).sI V.hll- A.,dmpc, ona. Ple O[ Mir. ,throe Type t Type porn.OTlye[ II.I YS[ - L%h Au [o 155 n20 ,BO 9t. 80 L19Lt T-OR = s.10 ),)0 96.00 L19N[ Try cR 'PSI 6.]p 1.90 1.20 MM T-IR x.00 Sir I Meavy .00 Li[e -xeaM, I�10, 000 .ap .00 eaoy 000 ,00 20.00 ea vy -Xeary )3.00[ - 60.000 0.00 00.90 Lt.. H . 60.000 i0a x00.0 pen- e Seoecycle 01.60 51.60 e OOl B e.)0 B Tlavel Contlf[ ion. 0 ziden [ ie) 1-TIC, al IT- Netk STOP OOMIT .I porn -N OeO Customer V1ean Trip Sen9[n Im (t cal 1 6.9 S.s R vest Te1p Le n9 [e Imlf ecl t 6.9 6.0 f0.) Trip Speeaa Impnl )s.v c0.0 60.0 ap.0 . of Teipn - Reai tle n[ta] 20.0 )T.0 6).0 o[ i - ilErr eei.] (11 fantl uzel trn eeatf o[[lcI nuif oil, )5.0 1,.5 01.5 CN n9ea was to [tle III111t Val Oe. for to nd pat Trip percentage, OTa n9e. ..1e [o tee EOI-11 M-I. for II. LTa1q 1a mach [o [ne ae601 -I... fan Opte.[ion. Tne opt ia[t en al eni, zt on yea. ce angN it- 2006 to x001. Tne Op e ea tt Por Mint IT tempeeatuee a shed fem III OPeeationax s [e Meeatuee changed [ion 90 to 06. Ttw oFeta lefu) ..-IT Sete et ien (trn etuyed tees I. to 6. Page 1 oPeratroa. IFC[�a xPl m.ta urls ry ees i:v FN �rxecNS loos ,or umaox, a T.o J: \TONOISE �IVI$t(in \Active Pa ojec[e \Penacaoon\npeaa [!ong \npe aa[SOOg IFUa use MPl .vab r�l ec ] Wve :Pen aa9onl Pa o)ec [suns roi e[[ L vcn a nd lLOg 2, ea ,rea I ea on Eoaa not.,. een:me Emigg t.,,,a e.am on snFA.x oo....r�ron OET41L e "O,nag;my a u.n -e rl A E EwlsslON EYPIw1Te5 1 v. Per oay U 9 teal o ag oNsc N ae] o o.00 x.00 o.ao o.00 u�aa<aPi lr t anc er em„a.. Ar cbi [e turalt It, c mi i I .BI l9iAlS l/d ay.unlga[etll O.B6 0 S6 o.il O. oO 0.00 ummti [CAT EO OPEPATi n!IAL Emis stON. Be II Futo P, it Center 10.c6 10.15 116.]. lcl,t, EnY S3IONS Ilbs/aaYl 1I r6 ]0.15 1,, .11 I.Il 1J.,, It nclud r pI—ty tr ip g. eoea no. Include douetet covntirnq adjustment for rcterna] trlI,a OPEGi1..NA. Ived rcl el ENlsstgl EETIMTEe al ya is Year. :ocl emperature (P1+ 60 Season. xr.tIr EnFAC v'e raion. En[ACIIII 19/]0031 summary of Land Us— No. [at J:.� jpe ac ea 9e riP Pale Uni [a Tr iPg Auto Peparr It. SB.1S :all] renam rn —�trraxe tea I. n2 si van.dm Agg em Pt ions Pl eel Nam. x.na ryPI rma n Ilya[ alyat ,at gnt A Lfynt r ID. a 9a.o I F[ r ]6.r ett .". xe avy III Y vY Mr- , ll.po1.60. 000 .t0 e.90 11rGan NO o. Of rc Y ele .<f 1t.6 Sc bwl e to III Nome I-slet fonatti- geaemttu co,m�e rc.a] _] e l Iorrs w snp ca e r« Lng to lm l el v5 79 it S. l s ee as Imp An IS.c •0 0 g0.0 ♦0.0 0 of nips Bes ident ial 3o.e n.o U o n kps tat IBy Lena use) Av to Pe pa center 3 0 1.0 9c,0 f g maae to III default values for Aa ea enanxes maae ao Ina aefamc remes for open trop. open nal e n year < —In It.. 2111 o00. enP era [u re a an9ed t oFer nal a empera angel [ro fte oFer rrona] gunmen gel ec[ronrl[en <A ang ed [r.um B [0 6. 13 115:1 to5 ±.13 pry Operation¢ IPU Cure Xpl - NOx.tr. Vhh.Il 3003 For xindora e.).0 Pile N V� \AONJ [SP p1 V151 VX \Acre ve Pro)e ct s \Pen dr agen \pperat ]ana\Ope ra t tons Ifu to re xP1 .0 rE re je: IPe ra gaol ro5 e< OPerat aonv raj« so.,p 1-1 Al . e udl We An s areal eI Pcad me.u. Vehicle Emisaiona Bleed on Q FAC3003 1111¢11 3.3 ARFAI L �POUnde /pay R6 Summed A v.CE EY.1sc" F. -RA'ItS (Summer 'o... per pay. Vnmlt l9atedl ra l�G 0.04 0.56 0.a] 0 e.00 miner emisxl ons ng 9 Ptaa. reTAits ne.1axn olm , l tlgateel 0.9B 0.5] 1.35 e.OB 0.00 uxAmcFTm OlIt.Tt . EN ISSIANS p: m A `t. ReP Sr Center 9.4] 15.61 II1.91 0.e7 1 1.21 TOTA.. Pxl_F1rns upe /day) 9.47 15.61 a]. 91 1 .7 1,33 ]nude amn far Wa1Ey tri P1, Aces'It melvae alums 10-119 adjuo -F mr 11t1tna I,ipe. OPERATIONAL IVenlele) Bn1SSI" ESTIeek ES Teal. 3007 se-.: S.- RFFAt Ve1e111. EMFAC3003 [1/30031 Summary 11 1.111 pees. 0*It Type Ae 1191 Tr 1p Pate unl to Tr 1ps Auto Pe pair Celt er 36.70 tripe /1000 ep. (t. SA. 15 1.557.00 pe Total VeN rle M(l 1st Tra ve lea 9. 113.91 lepl e]e F¢ un pt loos , Ll p1-1 got lA *o a Type x n -Gat alYSt t o ly ¢t Lllb :mcR < L750 It, Rj9ht 11.11 1,151. 5 16.10 96.90 ea T 'X¢wLlt e Llte -Xeavy med -Rea ea vy -X ea vy ) 1.60.000 0,90 0,10 Fe Llne X 6o. p00 1ps Travel Co nd1t 10ns es l dent ial Covme«fal Shop Other x leth )m 13 e.1 1� il'Ip Le h Imll ell 1 4.1 6.0 1 5.5 TrlF Speeaz I 40 0 40,0 a0 0 4 f It" . Res ld en[]al 30,0 l].0 a).0 1[ i:Ips 11]11 Ipy 1 ed use) Auto Ptpa3t Ge ]ter 3.0 1.0 97.0 c mate t1 the aenmt Lauer f- L.1a pee TrIe Per,et -3ee anger Bede to the defamt velum for Area C 11911 made to the aef¢ult values for p er atlone The ape rat Iona] emlasl on Year c tug ea flan 3 Tire o,A rat llnal vl It er to mPerature ct eG It- t o]60. 1pe rate anal s empe ra t v re ep ang eG (rcw Tp ape ra Clonal summer ¢elect 111 Item c 119 eA froe R to 5. Page 1 OPeza ei ons IM1[uze Mpl 0.0C.[>[ U0.P En._ .9U1 Foe Winaovs B. ..0 21f' L ^N iRC[i ve P ena:a9o^\OPe: a[ic na \OPe:a[iona IF'a[v:e XPI .ueC IPena za9onl [ Op e: a[i ona S C Coa z5B a5 ILOS AD Moe les ai ell .:I Eoai Yo[cz \'e Ci cle Emi asi oz.e Baa etl on EMFF C1001 1- 1- on 1 1 DETAIL FEPOFT mo_, fi D'y ' ...-I FFEA ° Fr:E .!SlIDE ES T,-IE2 (T... P a:tls Pee Dtj. .th a,ma: ea.,55,o,:5 0.00 1.]n tls [a p: na 5 0 11 0 0 z Fzac[a ' If Ci[ec [oral (o in9a TGl 0.00 0.0° D- I.'LATED OPEFATiOn+Y Fn.55aLIi5 ED, C9 503 PM.° .._.o At Paic Cm_ez IU. 11 la„al 111.]1 0.9! 11.11 T[4u Emsslnn5 nea /m y: 1U.11 -:1 n1..1 D Oa 11.11 1: 1 c nc We [ z' by 0+. aovEle [zf ps. 'i,,9 atlju none [uz .n[e. nal [ziPa. ...EU+.ON.V. (Vei.i<lel G.55101v E.T. vxT S Yeaz. 1U9> empe za[..ze Itl1 e1 .ea scn. Summer I..,., 'v ez s. on: En FA C1001 19 /:coil bum a.y of La.d 'lea. v.. r /pe Az. eage T[iP vaee Un.[• �i p[ nv.n ie pair Cen[ez if.]B .r: PSi1000 1q. t[. 1B. 11 ..f 1T .00 [al Trips 11'1.00 'a[al :el.i [le ni lel Taa ve.etl 9. ].1.9T :ehi <le Accam P[. na. Feet ni e. 4e M1!_le IyPe Type x [e l'i s[ [a lY1[ Oi of e. Lil T Li9 F L. ff gn[ lbs H S. >U C[ T A 1 :7110 1 a6.. .9t .>51� a of 3.90 L i[e ?l ea y' 8. 10110, 009 1..0 .Of Li[e.Nea vy 0.a fltd avy Nea'ry' .O U] 60 lf . Ono Line N 6e. 000 .[1 .00 Uzb as 9 .10 0.111 0.00 00,0 0 z<YC.e f2 a( wl P 0.00 n0[az M1cme ..10 B.aO Travel umme: el al ap n R1P 1 <ng[M1 (m i. esl W 06 0 1ef t Tz1P b .lea n10Y] z,p SpeeJ1 Imph' i a0.0 a0.0 •0.0 t 0' Tztps Nviben[ial 10 0 37.0 u 0 T11p1 :ctal ICY I'll of el 1-0 Pep. iz tenter 1.0 110 9].0 f loges made to [M1e tletavt[ Values toz -d 0fe .rip Pe:ce _ Cba.ryes made [O [Ce de'a'lt vg Dtt. to: Area fl.a E- made [o If. default values [o: :IE- ion :: npe:atfonat emt ¢st on yea: [ -13. t n 1001 10 100]. TFe ope: vi nt e: temps eM1an ged Irom f0 t opet empe:a [..le ebanged I 90 t ins of ?: a[i Dolt ¢u-e: aelec[lo0 faem cl:aneedtt:..m B [o a. ,age 1 APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CFNIEC .�. engYneermg Environmental Assessments and Solutions 4299 MOCAr1hUr Blvd., 8u4e 107 • Newport BeoCh. CA 92650 (949) 476 -8922 • FAX (949) 474 -3222 August 2, 2004 Mr. Malcolm Bailey PENDRAGON % R, G. MAC COMPANY 250 Newport Center Drive, Suite M -106 Newport Beach, CA 9:2660 Subject: Environmental Review of Property Located at 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, California 92660 Centec Project #074085 Dear Mr. Bailey: Centec Engineering is pleased to present the following summary report comprising a review and summary of environmental information for the above- referenced subject property. Centec understands Pendragon is considering leasing the property, and requires a better understanding of the environmental integrity of the site as part of their lease consideration. To complete this Environmental Review, the following elements were considered in order to determine the likelihood that hazardous materials or other environmental concerns may have impaired the site: • On -site inspection by Centec professionals to identify any visible signs of improper hazardous material use or storage, hazardous waste spills, leaks, or odors, and any other conditions that may indicate the presence of contamination or other forms of environmental concern; • Anne Marie Brown Environmental Management Consulting, "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, 2101 Dove Street, Newport Beach, California," May 1993; • Centec Engineering, Inc., "Limited Phase I Environmental Review of Property Located at 2101 Dove Street, Newport Beach, California 92660," January 22, 1998 • Centec Engineering, Inc., "Phase it Investigation for property known as Former Edler Industries 2101 Dove Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660," February 25, 2002 • Centec Engineering, Inc., "Addendum to Phase 11 Investigation," March 6, 2002 CEN'I�C Emimnmendl Am ena a dSolutions PENDRAGON August 2, 2004 - Page 2 The property is a rectangular, level lot comprising 4.191 acres, developed with a 61,702- square foot building formerly housing Edler Industries, Inc. which manufactured thermo insulation components for rocket motors. Currently there are several occupants, including a stone and tile sales business, a batting cage and sports equipment sales business, a patio furniture sales business, and what appears to be a storage space for shower enclosures and doors and personal storage in some locked areas. The subject property is located on the southerly side of Dove Street, including the entire block between Campus Drive and Birch Street, as shown on the Site Location map (Map A). The address is 1201 Dove Street, Newport Beach, California 92660. Based on a review of the Anne Brown "Phase I" report from 1993, in which the property was noted to have been in manufacturing use since original construction in 1964, Centec conducted its environmental assessment in January 1998. The Centec Limited Phase I report was completed while Edler Industries was still present and actively operating at the site, and had the following descriptions and comments regarding the property: The subject property is an industrial building with associated parking. The building has an office area and a manufacturing area. Bulk quantities of oil, water soluble machine coolants, and flammable solvents are stored in 55- Gallon drums outside the building in bermed shed areas. There were small areas of staining, but the stains were within the berm and did not appear to have migrated or be significant. There is a spray booth which has a current valid permit, but is not currently being used for painting. It currently serves as an office space. There is also a baghouse which collects the dust from the grinders. There are also many large pieces of equipment such as autoclaves and hydroclaves,, boilers, water systems hydraulic presses and an x -ray machine system. These pieces appeared extremely well - maintained and no evidence of stains or leaks was noted. The pre -1980 construction of the building (originally completed in 1964) suggests the possibility that asbestos containing materials were used in some construction areas (including, perhaps, the joint compound for the drywall, vinyl flooring, and spray -on material for the ceiling in the lobby), however, no damaged friable materials were noted during the on -site inspection and no samples were obtained for analysis. Although asbestos does not appear to be a significant issue relative to the perceived asset value, a thorough asbestos survey may be prudent prior to extensive renovation or demolition activities of the premises. No signs of significant spills were noted the day of the on -site inspection. Parking for the subject property is on both the west and east sides. The asphalt paving appears to be worn from age, but there were no obvious signs of significant stains or spills noted. The trash bin did not appear to contain obvious signs of suspicious abandoned materials. The landscaping consists of very well maintained engineering IEC Enviroomant¢l Asxssmeu% xnd Soludws PENDRAGON August 2, 2004 - Page 3 shrubs, lawn, and trees, and it displayed no signs of stress normally associated with toxic waste spills or dumping. Centec's Phase II subsurface investigation in January and February 2002 was conducted after Edler had vacated the premises, and was intended to determine if subsurface soils or groundwater may have been impacted by Edler's manufacturing processes and activities. The report stated: The purpose of this work was to investigate groundwater and shallow soils to determine if the property may have been impacted by significant on -site or off-site sources of hazardous waste contamination. The investigation was requested by Mr. Edler to accommodate pending real estate and lease transactions, and was promulgated by specific environmental concerns noted in a March 27, 200;1 "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment" report completed for the subject property by Kleinfelder, Inc. The building has been vacant and unused since mid -2001. In their report, Kleinfelder noted that the property had been in use for manufacturing of aerospace parts since 1964. On -site environmental concerns were identified, including areas of oil staining, possible spills of hazardous wastes in the chemical storage area, and areas of cracked concrete flooring which could allow migration of chemicals into the underlying soils. Kleinfelder also noted potential off -site concerns, including a dry cleaning operation and underground fuel storage tanks (USTs) at a car rental lot across Dove Street to the north - northeast, fueling and maintenance activities at the John Wayne Airport across Campus Drive to the west, and a sewer line release of hazardous wastes along Campus Drive 1,000 feet to the north. Known gasoline contamination was also noted at the Beacon Bay Car Wash across the intersection of Dove Street and Birch Street to the east, with research confirming that the groundwater contamination tended to flow westerly toward the subject Edler property. On January 21, 2002, Centec conducted the initial field investigation. Mr. Steven Collins, a Registered Environmental Assessor with the State of California and the President of Centec, conducted the field work. Sample locations were chosen to representatively collect data throughout the property, both inside and outside the building. Both soil and groundwater samples were collected, as deemed possible and useful, in order to establish the absence or presence of significant levels of contamination from on -site and off -site sources. Hydro Punch groundwater samples were collected from six boring locations (B -1 through B -6) around the perimeters of. the property, and soil samples were collected from 11 locations inside and outside the building (B -4 and B -7 through B -15). A second investigation, consisting of 8 additional borings, was then conducted to further define the presence of machine oils that were detected under the former 0 CENrIEC engineering - Environmental Asuaments arM Solutlans PENDRAGON August 2, 2004 - Page 4 location of a lathe previously in use by Edler Industries in the east side of the building. All of the groundwater samples and representative soil samples were analyzed for a full carbon chain scan for petroleum hydrocarbons and for common cleaning solvents and other VOCs, including volatile gasoline: constituents. The sampling activities and analytical data indicated a significant concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons was only present in one of the soil sampling locations tested. Heavy machine oils or waste oils (17,000 mg /kg) were detected at 2 feet bgs in the southerly section of the former machine shop portion of the building (Boring B -15). Only trace concentrations of VOCs were detected in this sample and in the 4 -foot sample from the adjacent boring (B -17), but no VOCs were detected at 6 or 10 feet bgs. Only low concentrations (ND to B4 pg /kg) were detected at 4 -15 feet bgs in this location. A 2 -foot sample from the northern part of this room contained a low level of oils (230 mg /kg), as did the 2 -foot sample collected from adjacent to the former hazardous material storage area 1230 mg /kg). No VOCs were detected in these samples. Analytical results of the six groundwater samples identified slightly elevated levels of gasoline (0.35 -0.44 mg /L) and MTBE (0.38 -0.59 mg /L) in the two southernmost samples identified as B -2 and B -3. Since neither gasoline nor MTBE was known to have been used on the property, and these locations are generally southwest of Beacon Bay Car Wash, where gasoline and MTBE contamination is known to have occurred, it is reasonably presumed these results indicate a westerly perimeter of the Beacon Bay plume of gasoline contamination has migrated under the south - southeasterly section of the subject property. The collection of data suggests the subject property has not been significantly impacted by on -site or off -site sources of contamination. The groundwater results do not suggest that on -site sources of spillage or leakage have impacted the groundwater. The gasoline and MTBE detected in the southerly portion of the property is reasonably presumed to be from an off -site source. Although heavy waste or machine oils were detected in shallow soil in three locations, two of the concentrations were relatively low (less than 1,000 mg /kg) and not considered significant since no associated VOCs were detected. An elevated level of heavy oils was detected in a shallow location in the former machine room, but the leakage did not migrate to any significant extent below 2 feet bgs, was not detected to any significant extent in surrounding borings 3 -5 feet away, and did not include significant levels of VOCs. Although other isolated areas of rsurficial machine oil leakage may be present, it is reasonably presumed that the dense soils found below the site would tend to minimize the vertical migration of the wastes, as apparently occurred in the vicinity of Boring B -15. The overall results, therefore, do not suggest that additional actions are necessary or warranted. C�ENTEC E"Nrorvnmtnl aygFpy�p[cepA $pw(�gf August 2, 2004 - Page 5 A copy of the Site Plan (Map B) and Site Plan Detail (Map C) showing pertinent site features and the locations of Centec's borings, as well as Table 1 summarizing the analytical results from the Phase II investigation, are included for reference. This information was forwarded to the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) for its review and comments. Based on the information provided, OCHCA requested some additional research and comments regarding a waste storage pad and a sump in the truck well, which were provided in the March 6, 2002 "Addendum" report. Following receipt of the Addendum, OCHCA concluded that no significant release had occurred at the site and determined that "no further action is required." A copy of the April 11, 2002 "case closure" letter is included for reference. At the inspection on July 29, 2004, Centec noted the above - mentioned tenants, and that the balance of the building is entirely vacant. All of the Edler equipment and supplies are gone. No areas of stains or spills were noted in any of the former production areas inside; the building. There is an area of old staining on the stepped storage space on the south side of the building formerly used by Edler for drum storage. This area was investigated during the January 2002 subsurface investigation and was found not to be an issue. The landscaping still appears adequately maintained, but there in. a 55- gallon drum at the center of the southern boundary that has something in it and should be disposed of appropriately. A pile of soil was noted just to the south of the caged transformer area on the southwest side of the building exterior. It is unclear where this soil came from, but it did not appear to be stained and no odor was detected from it. None of the current occupants utilize hazardous materials or generate hazardous wastes. Photographs of the property taken during the current inspection are included for reference. In summary, based on the visual evidence and research conducted for this limited environmental review, we generally conclude there are no known or apparent compelling reasons to suspect that the subject property located at 2101 Dove Street, Newport Beach, California 92660, is adversely impaired by significant hazardous material contamination. Accordingly, the subject property is considered of low environmental risk and no additional research or site investigations are recommended this time. This Limited Environmental Review was performed in accordance with generally and currently accepted environmental engineering principles and practices. The findings of this report concerning the subject property should be considered a professional opinion based upon the data obtained during this preliminary and limited .investigation and should not be considered a definite statement that hazardous contamination is or is not present at the site. Any findings or recommendations concerning asbestos - containing materials should be considered limited in scope and are intended for preliminary screening purposes only. The conclusions made in this report are based on and in accordance with information obtained at this time from visual inspections of the Enviro�ertinl ,t�aSFpWp{ypd jpy W yr�s August 2, 2004 iV - Page 6 property and from relevant federal, state, regional, and local agencies. Although Centec Engineering, Inc. believes that the information contained herein is reliable, no guarantee is made as to the accuracy of information provided to Centec by others. This information in this report was prepared for and is presented exclusively to Pendragon. Although Centec Engineering consents to the release of this report to third parties at the discretion of Pendragon, Centec makes no warranty of any kind to third parties and cannot be held liable for any reliance by third parties upon the information contained herein. Reviewed and Approved by: CENTEC ENGINEERING, INC. � No. 0039,4 s E,tp. Jun° 30; 2005 Steven N. Collins, REA Principal Q. Resenar "0 3726 W, I �j 13 A X.. b 71 A 40 Z I r/ p2m. tA' V;�. Jr, D SCALE (in feet) QCENMC A engineering g 0 2000 4000 SITE LOCATION N 1 Property located at 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 SOURCE: USGS 7,5 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP TUSTIN QUADRANGLE Centec Project 11012007 SITE LOCATION y. ...... .. ... uF pi vi'ry y 5 dap • ... ' • G 4 �r • G %?4 ----------- v f� :c: '�d' f G i • • r j C } r r F • !I tl 5 f4 X Y: / x . r eV w I F. r srorl i� i� 1.4 r , i t J 1 f h y t62 ' ` In s` f' 4: k 1 i r< � M �I I Jq fi 1 t " 4jY y t I x ?. 5 2P? b r • { { , 5 f F. s srorl i� i� ` r , i C f ]jj ri y t62 ' ` In s` s srorl i� i� ` i C f ]jj ri ! ELI Y r s` f' 4: �I I Jq fi 4jY y t LIGHT PLANE & HELICOPTER STORAGE X J a 0f o II U w U J LL �O LL � ow °oa 3 TRANSFORMERS CAMPUS DRIVE PROPERTY BOUWDAKY B -5 ASPHALT PAVED L� CO2 TANK PARKING LOT N B -12 B HAZARDOUS PLASTICS RECESSED 8 MATERIAL AREA FLOOR, STORAGE WATER AREA B 9 vp PUMP B -i i B-10 L SUBGRADE LOADING PLASTICS $ DOCK AREA MFA O Z Q z 2 — STORY OFFICE AREA 5,000 — GALLON SILO I gz N L1 W W l` W O 0 FIRE STATION Z cc Z o z Q tD U J = U w Cr W e- �z 0z oD N �0 z 5 0 5 —GALLON ° MACHINE W Z o OIL DRUMS SHOP °o [C 0 B -16 g v F PARTS j — — ' ! J rn STORAGE a U) l o0 ♦B-3 B-15 B -14 B -13 (See Map C B -1 fordetail ASPHALT PAVED of areal PARKING LOT- PROPERTY BOUNDARY T B-2 4201 BEACON BAY CAR WASH/ = Ceniec Boring Location BIRCH STREET TEXACO � CEN'MC MAP B NOT TO SCALE engmeermg SITE PLAN .4 Property located at 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 CBntec Project #012007 SITE LOCATION m ►D . B -20 ® B -17 ®® B -15 B -18 8 -21 B -22 Easterly Wall of Building 1 ®= Centec Soil Boring CCENMCC MAP C SITE PLAN (DETAIL) Property located at 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Centec Project #012007 ►41 I SCALE (in feet) 0 3 8 Y: SITE LOCATION TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FORMER EDLER INDUSTRIES 2101 Dove Street, Newport Beach, California 92660 Analvtical results reported in parts per million (mq /kq for soil and mq /L for water) 17B-2 water NO NO water 0.3501ges) MTBE =0.380 water 0.440 (gas) MTBE =0.590 B -4 water NO NO 13-5 water NO NO B -6 water NO NO B -4 2 250 IC2z -C39) NO B -7 2 NO NO B -8 12 NO NO B-9 8 NO NO B -10 5 10 NO NO NO NO B-11 5 NO NO B -12 2 NO NO B -13 2 NO NO ' B-14 2 NO NO B -15 2 6 17,000 (C2= C3d NO xylene =0.026 styrene 0.010 trimethylbenzene = 0.010 NO B -16 2 230 (C2, cul NO B -17 4 10 15 55 27 84 Toluene = 0.012 PCE = 0.010 NO B 18 2 5 130 54 NO 8-19 2 5 90 51 NO — B-20 2 73 NO 5 34` B -21 2 140 ND 5 79 ND 8 -22 2 85 5 — 8 -23 2 77 5 — 8 -24 2 97 5 — NOTES: Samples from B-1 through 8 -16 collected on January 21, 2002 and analyzed January 22 -25, 2002 Samples from B-17 through B-24 collected February 18, 2002 and analyzed February 19, 2002 Water = HydroPunch groundwater sample collected at approx'. 25 -30 ft. bgs TPH/TRPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (water samples) or full carbon chain scan (C$ CAB) for Borings B -4 through B -16, EPA Method 8015 modified OR Tot0 Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons for Borings 8 -17 through B -24, EPA Method 418.1 VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds, EPA Method 82606 (only compounds detected above Method Detection Limits are listed) Ft. bgs = Feet below ground surface NO= Not Detected at or Above Method Detection Limits (MDL) — = Not Analyzed Excellence %tislity JP7vice April 11, 2002 Paul Edler 20142 Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92707 COUNTY OF ORANGE JULIETTE A. POULSON, RN, MN HEALTH CARE AGENCY DIRECTOR MIKE SPURGEON DEPUTY AGENCY DIRECTOR REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES REGULATORY HEALTH SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STEVEN K. WONG, REHS, MPH DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Subject: Case Closure Re: Former Edler Industries 2101 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 OCHCA Case N021C3 Dear Mr. Edler. MAILING ADDRESS: 2009 EAST EDINGER AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 -0720 TELEPHONE: (714) 6873600 FAX (714) 972 -0749 E -MAIL environI"QiQhm.rn.menge.a.us This letter confirms the completion of remedial investigation at the above - referenced site. With the provision that the information provided to this Agency was accurate and representative of existing conditions, it is the position of this office that no further action is required at this time, This confirmation of completion is limited in scope. It is limited to site conditions made known to this Agency under the .above - referenced case number. It is based on an evaluation of the health threat presented by the inhalation, ingestion, or dermal absorption of the residual contaminants. In addition, this evaluation considered the present and proposed use of the property. Changes in the present or proposed land use may require further site characterization and/or site mitigation activity. The presence of petroleum. hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds in soil and the potential for residual Contamination to cause groundwater degradation —in addition to the presence of gasoline and MTBE in groundwater f om an offsite source impinging upon the eastern fringe of the property— were discussed with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Regional Board staff concurred that no further action is required at this time. Please be advised that this letter does not relieve you of any liability under the California Health and Safety Code or Water Code for past, present or future operations at the site. Nor does it relieve you of the responsibility to clean up existing, additional or previously unidentified conditions at the site, which cause or threaten to cause pollution or nuisance or otherwise pose a threat to water quality or public health. It is the property owner's responsibility to notify this Agency of any changes in future contamination findings or site usage. Paul Edler April 11, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Luis Lodrigueza at (714) 667- 3717. Sincerely, Karen L. Hodel Program Manager Hazardous Materials Mitigation Section Environmental Health Division KLH:LL: cc: Ann Sturdivant, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Steven N. Collins, Centec Engineering IC:EdlerIndustriesclosureAal APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) For: Fixed Operations Facility 2101 Dove Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOT 19 OF TRACT NO. 3201, BOOK 130, PAGES 25 — 30, MISC. MAPS, ORANGE COUNTY, CA Prepared for: Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. 28662 Marguerite Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692 (949) 365 -1744 Prepared by: Walden & Associates 2552 White Road, Suite B Irvine, CA 92614 949 -660 -0110 October 7, 2004 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Misc. Maps Orange County, California OWNER'S CERTIFICATION WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FIXED OPERATIONS FACILITY 2101 DOVE STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PERMIT NAME & NUMBER - TO BE DETERMINED This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. by Walden & Associates. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City Newport Beach, requiring the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up -to -date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non -point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Stormwater Runoff Management Program. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors -in- interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. Signed: Name: Russell M. Smith, FIMI Title: Company: Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. Address: 28662 Marguerite Parkway, Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Telephone #: (949) 365-8750 Date: Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Certification Dove Sheet WQMP.doc Page i October 7, 2004 Water Quallty Management Plan (WQMP) F1xed Service Operations FacUity Lot 19 of Tract No. 3101, Book 130, Pages 15 — 30, Mlsc Maps Orange County, Califomia Contents Section I Discretionary Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions ....................... 1 SectionII Project Description ............................................... ............................... 2 SectionIII Site Description ................................................... ............................... 3 Section IV Best Management Practices ( BMPs) .................... ............................... 4 Section V Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs ............................. 13 Section VI Location Map, Plot Plan & BMP Details .............. ............................... 14 Section VII Education Materials Included ........................... ............................... 16 Attachment A — Urban Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program .......... ............................... 17 Attachment B — Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides ........................18 Attachment C — EPA: When It Rains It Drains ........................................... ............................... 19 Attachment D — EPA: Preventing Pollution through Efficient Water Use . ............................... 20 Attachment E — Solution to Pollution — Twenty Ways ............................... ............................... 21 Attachment F — County Ordinance No. 3802 ............................................. ............................... 22 Attachment .G — County Ordinance No. 0 -97 -3987 Water Management and Urban Runoff..... 23 Attachment H — Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Form ....................... ............................... 24 Pendiagon North America Automotive Inc. Dove sbCCI WQMPA" October 7, 2004 Contents Page ii Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Misc. Maps Orange County, California Section I Discretionary Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions In accordance with the City of Newport Beach and NPDES requirements, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by a licensed civil or environmental engineer and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach. Conditions of Approval will be included in this project WQMP when they become available. Pendiagon North America Automotive Inc. Section I Dove Street WQMPAd Page I October 7, 2004 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Misc. Maps Orange County, California Section II Project Description The project is located at 2101 Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach. The site is on the Southeast comer of Dove Street and Campus Drive. The existing zoning is Administrative Professional Commercial (APC). The proposed zoning is Retail Service Commercial (RSC). The proposed project activities include a main building for auto service and preparation of vehicles for sales. This project facility is to develop a service and parts center and vehicle storage. The project would be dedicated to support a sales operations showroom facility on Jamboree Boulevard. This project includes a main structure where the auto servicing is performed with associated offices. Uncovered parking areas will surround the site. The main building will house vehicle maintenance bays and vehicle wash bays. No body shop or paint booths will be utilized at this site. Drainage from within the building will be directed to clarifiers prior to reaching the sewer system. Drainage from the parking lot will be directed to catch basins fitted with fossil filters prior to entering the storm drain system. Landscape areas will be constructed along the frontages with Campus Drive, Dove Street and Birch Street. There will be no association formed for maintenance. All BNIP maintenance will by provided by the owner. In addition there will be no infrastructure transferred to a public agency The expected pollutants form this project include heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris and oil and grease. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for this project is 7539, Automotive Repair and Service shops. This project does not include any food preparation, cooking or eating areas. Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dove Stre [WQQW.d. October 7, 2004 Section 11 Page 2 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3101, Book 130, Pages 15— 30, Misc Maps Orange County, California Section III Site Description The site is located on the southeast comer of Dove Street and Campus Drive, in the City of Newport Beach. The street address is 2101 Dove Street, Newport Beach, California 92660. The site encompasses approximately 4.2 acres. Currently the site is not occupied and consists of a one story concrete biulding. On the north side adjacent to Dove Street, there are planter areas and walkways. On. the south side, currently there are concrete pads and A.C. pavement. On both east and west of the existing building, there are currently stripped parking stalls, A.C. pavement driveways and planter. areas. The proposed project will consist of utilizing the existing building and parking areas. It is anticipated that 200 vehicles will be stored at this facility. In addition, this facility anticipates operating with 40 employees with 34 service bays in the building. The proposed project will also consist of removing and constructing new driveway entrances on Birch Street and Campus Drive; construct new curb and gutter; construct new planter areas; and construct new A.C. pavement, and construct clarifiers and catch basins and connect them to the existing curb and gutter. Delivery of supplies and vehicles will be accomplished "At- Grade" at various locations on the site. There will be no below grade loading docks. The existing loading dock on the south side of the building will be demolished and filled in. Materials to be delivered include automobiles, automobile parts, automobile fluids (oil, grease, solvents) and general office supplies. The site is very flat. It is proposed to drain the parking lot and the driveways to the four corners of the site and catch basins with media filters. The catch basins will then empty into existing storm drains and /or existing gutters. The service bays will empty to a clarifier before discharging into a sanitary sewer. The site is located in the east Costa Mesa /Newport Tributary in the San Diego Creek Watershed. The receiving waters of the watershed is Upper Newport Bay. The Orange County Stormwater Program, Table 7.11 -3, lists the following pollutants of concern for Upper Newport Bay: • Metals • Pesticides Pendiagon North America Automotive Inc. Section III Dove Street WQMFAd Page 3 October 7, 2004 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Misr- Maps Orange County, California Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) Site Design Considerations This project site design includes a number of BMP's to reduce or eliminate pollution from entering the existing storm drain system. Drainage from the service building is directed to a 3 -stage clarifier that drains to the existing sanitary sewer system. The parking lot and driveways drain to catch basins with media filters that eventually outlet to the existing public storm drain systems. Source Control BMPs The following tables show source control BMPs (routine non - structural and routine structural) included in this project and those that were not included. Routine Non - Structural BMPs Identifier Name Check One If not applicable, state brief reason Included Not Ap Iicable N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants XX N2 Activity Restrictions XX No association N3 Common Area Landscape Manarlement XX No common area N4 BMP Maintenance XX NS Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) XX N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance XX No Industrial Permit N7 Spill Contingency Plan XX NB Underground Storage Tank Compliance XX No Underground Tanks N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance XX N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation XX N11 Common Area Litter Control XX N12 Employee Training XX N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks XX No Loading Docks N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection XX N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots XX Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dove Sheet WQMPAd October 7, 2004 Section ry Page 4 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25-30, Misc Maps Orange County, California N1 — Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. will provide information contained within this report to educate its employees of general good housekeeping practices that contribute to the protection of storm water quality. See all attachments. N4 - BMP Maintenance Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. will be responsible for implementation of each non - structural BMP and scheduled cleaning of all structural BMP facilities. See Table 1. N5 — Title 22 CCR Compliance Compliance with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and relevant sections of The California Health and Safety Code regarding hazardous waste management shall be enforced by the County of Orange Environmental Health on behalf of the State. Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. will comply with all applicable sections of Title 22 CCR. N7 — Spill Contingency Plan This plan will be prepared by Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. that describes necessary stockpiling of clean-up materials, notification of responsible agencies, disposal of clean -up materials and any necessary documentation. See attachments. N9 — Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. will comply with all City of Newport Beach ordinances and fire protection agencies for the management of hazardous materials used on -site. N10 — Uniform Fire Code Implementation Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. will comply with all provisions of Article 80 of The Uniform Fire Code and the City of Newport Beach Laws and Ordinances. N11 - Common Area Litter Control Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. will implement trash management and litter control procedures aimed at reducing off -site migration of trash and pollution of drainage water, Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. may contract with landscape maintenance firms to provide this service during regularly scheduled maintenance, which should consist of litter patrol and emptying of trash receptacles. Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Section IV Dove Street WQMP.doo Page 5 October 7, 2004 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Faci lity Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Mist Maps Orange County, Caiifomia N12 — Employee Training Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. will train its employees in the methods of storm water protection. This will include the use of the materials contained within this WQMP. See attachments. N14 — Clarifiers and Catch Basin Inspection Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. will be responsible for having the clarifiers and catch basins inspected and cleaned prior to the first flush storm event, or no later than October 1st of each year. N15 - Private Street Sweeping Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. will be responsible for having the driveways and parking areas swept prior to the storm season, no later than October 1st of each year and on a regular basis (at 6 month intervals minimum) Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Section IV Dove St twom?Ad Page 6 October 7, 2004 y4 d� g � m 3 2 w q ti O V V C d cr L LL m C m O CL y ce C 0 m a E CL FE 7� .Q H n bD [ ro o F, u h c 0 E d C e C] 4 Z� � 3y w 8 9 d G a S 7 0 N L\ A 0 u L I Fr `: �4 tL° LL 3 O Y > n c c U F U U i'di• U U U U U U U {. N rn N (D rn(D rn(D rn(D rn N a? C E C E C E E C C j Q 7 Q 7 Q 7 0 0 0 J.a�ZO C O y C O y C O y C O y C O y C O N C O y ZO a)ZO QZO mZo mZo mZo M c c n C m c c° c n C r c n n morn C3) :porn worn C3) worn morn worn c worn ME) rnC �O� ID -0 u�vD a)vn ovD ooD u�vD nc 11C nc p.c nc nc nc U) a a i� c in as c in as c in as c in as c iA as c O O O c c c c c c c c 0 c O O .�� O O ._� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U 0 U2 U 0 U U U U U U U U Y7 7 7 7 7 .�-. E E C C C 0 C N 0 N N .�-. O 0 C 0 C 0 C C 0 C C C 0 0 C C C 0 C C C 0 O C `ya 0 U U 0 Q U 0 U U o Q U o U U 0 Q U 0 U U Q 0 U 0 U U Q o U o U U Q o U o U U o Q U 0 O ` (D C 0 C N O t ti , 3 0 n o v N E (D _ c a';_ ` c C 0 a O U (D CL - N E O U U E >+ � N U C O U N 0 J :a0 m U c m U m p U U l C ti m N c N U 0 ° n E E — m o =v (D �h n mo c o fi :.'n51 O r `..;z _ z z z z z z n bD [ ro o F, u h c 0 E d C e C] 4 Z� � 3y w 8 9 d G a S 7 0 N L\ A 0 u L v 4 U q)e �v� p y4 ti d�S v to 3 M Z R 0 q ti 0 V �m m C A o p, E Ln C O 0 Q b �i Q o z� m3 b c 0. F! N n d A D A C d '°- N N (L) _a, o Y N C N, C m U O O 'M O m ' U .0 N L N E E >, y0 E C o m '- — 3'- o L o nN m o c m E o E m YO c c m L N C c 'V O"O� O U l9 L C� E m d .U-. > N (D O N O L E- N N U C l0 l9 U c �, "O O 12 O c- m 0 N N C O E _T C .0 N L c > 0O m 0 N r_ O 0 Cl C N i Z CL _..i• (. 7 O M N O C cu m m m of N v4. ; E E L -O L U L r C i • c O y N Z O c O N m Z O c O y m Z O C C O. C c n C c n CL c do do � .'.� d c U) (L C U) (L C U O O .0 O O O O E E U) p c j c N p c j c ;n N p c j c 000iiUQUiiUQU � c U i N y O_ N C i:?yfi}.j N m a K m d D1 V O_ M, C ' U 3 m c F- N m N J a T ?: E w m C) m a c%l a u� Z Z Z �m m C A o p, E Ln C O 0 Q b �i Q o z� m3 b c 0. F! N n d A D A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3101, Book 130, Pages 15— 30, Misc. Maps Orange County, Califomia Source Control BMPs (Continued) Routine Structural BMPs Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage Storm drain stencils are highly visible source control messages, typically placed directly adjacent to storm drain inlets. The stencils contain a brief statement that prohibits the dumping of improper materials into the storm drain system. Graphical icons, either illustrating anti- dumping symbols or images of receiving water fauna, are effective supplements to the anti- dumping message. Stencils and signs alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. The following requirements shall be included in the project design and shown on the project plans: 1. Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language (such as: "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN ") and /or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. f endragon North America Automotive Inc. Section IV Dore Stet WQMP.dm Page 9 October 7, 2004 Check One Name If not applicable, state brief reason Not Included Applicable Provide storm drain system stenciling and XX si na e Design and construct outdoor material storage XX No outdoor storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Design and construct trash and waste storage XX areas to reduce pollution introduction Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, XX and source control Protect slopes and channels and provide XX No Slopes or Channels energy dissipation Incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories (from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit a. Dock areas XX No dock areas b. Maintenance bays XX c. Vehicle wash areas XX d. Outdoor processing areas XX No outdoor processing areas e. Equipment wash areas XX I. Fueling areas XX No fueling areas g. Hillside landscaping XX No hillside landscaping h. Wash water control for food! preparation XX No food preparation areas areas i. Community car wash racks I I XX l No community car wash racks Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage Storm drain stencils are highly visible source control messages, typically placed directly adjacent to storm drain inlets. The stencils contain a brief statement that prohibits the dumping of improper materials into the storm drain system. Graphical icons, either illustrating anti- dumping symbols or images of receiving water fauna, are effective supplements to the anti- dumping message. Stencils and signs alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. The following requirements shall be included in the project design and shown on the project plans: 1. Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language (such as: "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN ") and /or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. f endragon North America Automotive Inc. Section IV Dore Stet WQMP.dm Page 9 October 7, 2004 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) mixed Service Operations facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Misr— Maps Orange County, Califomia 2. Post signs and prohibitive language and /or graphical icons which prohibit illegal dumping at public access points along channels and creeks within the project area. 3. Maintain legibility of stencils and signs. Design and Construct Trash and Waste Storage Areas to Reduce Pollution Introduction The trash enclosure is designed to have drainage diverted around the area, not through the area. The trash bins will have rain tight lids installed. Use Efficient Irrigation Systems and Landscape Design The irrigation system will comply with the City and County requirements with respect to water conservation and programmable timers. The landscape areas will comply with the City approved landscape plans and maintenance will comply with the County Management Guidelines on Fertilizers and Pesticides. Maintenance Bays, Vehicle Wash and Equipment Wash Areas The maintenance bays, vehicle wash areas and equipment wash areas will be all enclosed in the main building. Drainage from these areas is collected directly into a 3 -stage clarifier that overflows to the sanitary sewer system. Site Design BMPs The following table shows site design BMPs that are included in this project. A description of each BMP follows: Site Design BMPs Technique Included? Brief Description of Method Yes No Minimize Impervious Area /Maximize XX landscape planter areas Permeability (C- Factor Reduction) Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas XX Planter area between parking lots (DCIAs) (C -Factor Reduction) Create Reduced or "Zero Discharge" Areas XX (Runoff Volume Reduction) Conserve Natural Areas (C- Factor Reduction) XX Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Section IV ooveS� ewQMr.do Page 10 October 7, 2004 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3101, Book 130, Pages 15 — 30, Mist Maps Orange County, California Minimize Impervious Area The parking areas on the west and east sides of the site include new landscaped planter areas along the perimeter of curbs. In addition, turf block areas on the north side of the site will increase the pervious areas of the project. Minimize Directly Connected Areas The turf block areas on the north side of the site disconnect the two parking areas and minimize the impervious surface. Treatment Control BMPS The following table shows treatment BNMs that are included in this project. A description of each BMP follows: Treatment Control BMPs Name Included? If not applicable, state brief reason Yes No Vegetated (Grass) Strips XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Vegetated (Grass) Swales XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Proprietary Control Measures XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Dry Detention Basin XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Wet Detention Basin XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Constructed Wetland XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Detention Basin/Sand Filter XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Porous Pavement Detention XX Use clarifier and fossil fitters instead Porous Landscape Detention XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Infiltration Basin XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Infiltration Trench XX Use clarifier and fossil filters instead Media Filter XX Proprietary Control Measures XX Media Filter All catch basins will have a filter insert (Flo- GardTM) mounted inside. This will provide "initial" filtering while providing high flow bypass. Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dove Seeet WQMP.dw October 7, 2004 Section IV Page 11 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3101, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Mist Maps Orange County, California Clarifier One clarifier will be constructed in the proposed building to capture any oil/ grease hydrocarbons/ metals that are associated with vehicle light maintenance. Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dove Street WQMFAd October 7, 2004 Section IV Page 12 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25— 30, Misr- Maps Orange County, California Section V Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs The following Table 2 indicates BMP Inspection and Maintenance Responsibilities for the structural source control BMPs and the Treatment BMPs.' Responsible Person: Russell M. Smith Company: Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. Title: Phone Number: (949) 365 -8750 Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. V..e Srt 'V WQMPAa October 7, 2004 Section V Page 13 4�'4C d U O 4 A O C ym N m A i y C A N q Q 4 A ti ti d� O l tp 3 M Z ti O q ti O V H a m C O U C N E FE L F L W L 7 U. C R .0 O CL y o�C C O N CL V) C N F $µ O T m -01 O N @ t @ N O_ 6 C r m O N N0 m N m O C Q) T.S O_ >, m C C L - O Y N L Q) O r m N c C N o ` e �>, N� L 'ji i U-0 N 3T�QmC�0)33N�o O m ^. m m Em c�C 0)- - >c N ��mc O T m O Q) 3` L O m 7 d Q) N 7 O C C m U c N-0 r r YO C 0 O w d O O 0) C X N Q) O T m U V N � E N N C p N c >. (6-0 m E C C C_ U N U O. O O C Q) U.� 0 O m C L 0_ m m U j E N N N ' U Y Q) m U O_-0 Q) , M2 C N L" L C N C m X 7 7 wss m 3 m C 0 N .� :tll Q) C O Q) E O O m N m O N m U C C O N 0 N N C C U U m m L O) � E >. C- 7 C C E Q) ` Un c. C m. OEEww`m C C N .0 '� °.gym Q) m m -0 —0 E-0 O O .�c UU c c m C O m C O m C O U V U V U U Q) Q) > > c E Q N C .0 E Q N C .0 E Q N C OO E E 0 -0 L U '0 L 0 O O L L 7 7 C O y C O N C O 0 y Q .1 0 -0 O n t o m m iZ C C C C C C O- 0 .0 0 'C O N Ol C O Ol _ O N 01 C Q) Q) .` m 'c .` m 'c .c m 'c E E 2 C d O_ C d O_ C a L C U) C U) U) c C O O '2 �- z ;Z 00 O -o ai oai o 0 ` 0 m m ut[ C C O C C O C C p C =C 'C0a'C�<C)0< ali :e .c S N m @ r m 0_ m JN '- N Q U a c N C N C O O i m 0� m m C m N Q) m 'c U o o c m Q m N E'�O W N C O Q) 'C C T U m E O m c m Q U ri m Qi p C - d m- m c c N.QLL V . ' � O m tom— °aim p N U F w a n N O N u W fi O d d %x O ? z� 3 y c d c". c N w d D v Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Misc. Maps Orange county, California Section VI Location Map, Plot Plan & BMP Details Location Map Site Plan Clarifier Detail Maintenance Procedures for Clarifier Kristar Flo- GardTm Fossil Filter Detail Maintenance Procedures for Flo-Gard Filters. Environmental Chemical Solutions, Inc. Bmp Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dovc Sneer WQMP.4o October 7, 2004 Section VI Page 14 I. N JOHN WAYNE- P P ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT �PQ IT O OLD � �0 IRVINE �P AVE. VICINITY MAP NO SCALE VICINITY MAP VI. - FIGURE 1 Fixed Operations Facility 2021 Dove Street Newport Beach, Ca. G y T m G*j 'D m z N T Z m � b Q Cb ZL W n n `i• V( HC 1� F °c mx �a 4€ c I CAMPUS DRIVE _ 1119 '1011% 2n. �c Gm w� O lO m y A m m -I 9� Hm c r ._ - -- _ I I � \ 1 I� - - — - - -- \ O 22 6 m gg 9. p✓ j. �+, �. 3 � �- S `� - --- -- - - - -- Al?/ r f4 ^� I qq h 9R BIRCH STREET �c Gm w� O lO m y A m m -I 9� Hm c O 22 6 rtSAI v 9. p✓ j. �+, �. 3 � S `� -� 6.. 30" 6„ 30" 6„ 6„ 67F- a i Im, I] STEEL CHECKER GRATE COVERS CI ELEVATION Clarifier Detail No Scale Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Misc. Maps Orange County, California Clarifier Maintenance Procedure Clarifier Maintenance Clarifier maintenance shall be conducted by on -site maintenance staff as well as Safety Kleen (or similar) vacuum truck sump service as needed. Frequency shall be twice yearly for major maintenance with additional inspections during wet months. Major maintenance shall occur on or about October 15t and April 15t11 each year prior to and after the usual wet season of our region. Major maintenance shall include grate and diamond plate removal, sediment removal and cleaning of catch basins and clarifiers. Cleaning or replacement of fossil filters shall be as recommended by filter manufacture. A written maintenance log shall be kept with the company records and available for inspection by any official with jurisdiction in WQMP matters. Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dove Seeet WQMPAd October 7, 2004 Section VI Page 15 TOP VIEW Debris Trap Fossil RockTIA Pouches Vornate Bypass Liner Support Basket Catch Basin (Flat Crate Style) Dutlet Pipe lnifiA R„ Crate NOTES: SIDE VIEW US PATENT Casket 1. FloGard"4PLUS(frmne mamt) high rapacity catch basin inserts are available in sizes to fit mast in lustrystandard Utfimate Bypass catch basin seas and styles (see specifier chart). Refer to the FlpGaidTM+PLUS (vall muurd) cuert for devices to fit Debris Trap norstanGUd or comlination style catch basin 2 Ffterlrsert shall have both an initial" Waring bypass and Support Basket "Arrete "high -0ow bypass feature. 7. Fltlerassen6hy shall be constructed from stainless steel (Type 304) d. Allow a rrinimum of 7 -0" of clearance between the bonom Fossil Rork Poches of grate and top of idet or outlet Ope(s). Refer to the FloGardn' hued for "shallW installations 5. Rtler mn5um shag he Rubbenzere installed and rreirdsned in accordance with nowfacbaer rrcarrtrerdations. liner Outlet pipe FLO- GARDTM' +PLUS CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERT (Frame Mount) FLAT GRATED INLET KnStar Enterprises, Inc., Santa Rosa, CA (800) 5748819 Flo-GardPlus Finer installed NOTES: t. FIoQrd- +PLUS(frens mein) high capacity catch basin inserts are available in stirs to fit most irdostrystandard cakh ban sizes and styles Isee sliecifrrchart). Rai to the FoGard -+PLUS (wail rzi inserl for devices to fit nonstandard or cmbinstion style catch basins. 2 Filter insert shall hive both an "initial" filtering bypass and 'dfmiate' hio4low bypass feature. 1 Flterassurbly shad be constructed from stainless steel R1Te 704 G Allay a rriniman of 70 of clearance between the bottom of grate and top of Indetor outlet pipe(s). Refer to the FbGardTM insert for Wipe instailatiad. 5. Filter mum shall be Ibbherizem Installed and maintained in accordance with mnufachm recormiendatiats. US PATENT FLO-GARD TM +PLUS CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERT (Frarne Mount Installation) FLAT GRATED INLET KdStar Enterpnses, inc., Santa Rosa, CA (800) 579 -8819 GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE OF FLO- GARDr'rr +PL US CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTERS SCOPE: GEpPOfrgeHS u I ^/y Federal, State and Local Clean Water Act regulations and those of insurance carriers require that stormwater filtration systems be maintained and serviced on a recurring basis. The intent of the regulations is to ensure that the systems, on a continuing basis, efficiently remove pollutants from stormwater runoff thereby preventing pollution of the nation's water resources. These Specifications apply to the Flo - Gard' +Plus Catch Basin Insert Filter. RECOMMENDED FREQUENCY OF SERVICE: Drainage Protection Systems (DPS) recommends that installed Flo- Gard�t+Plus Catch Basin Insert Filters be serviced on a recurring basis. Ultimately, the frequency depends on the amount of runoff, pollutant loading and interference from debris (leaves, vegetation, cans, paper, etc.), however, it is recommended that each installation be serviced a minimum of three times per year, with a change of filter medium once per year. DPS technicians are available to do an on -site evaluation, upon request. RECOMMENDED TIMING OF SERVICE: DPS guidelines for the timing of service are as follows: 1. For areas with a definite rainy season: Prior to, during and following the rainy season. 2. For areas subject to year -round rainfall: On a recurring basis (at least three times per year). 3. For areas with winter snow and summer rain: Prior to and just after the snow season and during the summer rain season. 4. For installed devices not subject to the elements (washracks, parking garages, etc.): On a recurring basis (no less than three times per year). SERVICE PROCEDURES: I . The service shall commence with collection and removal of sediment and debris (litter, leaves, papers, cans, etc.) and broom sweeping around the drainage inlet. Accumulated materials shall be placed in a DOT approved container for later disposal. 2. The catch basin shall be visually inspected for defects and possible illegal dumping. If illegal dumping has occurred, the proper authorities and property owner representative shall be notified as soon as practicable. 3. The catch basin grate shall be removed and set to one side. Using an industrial vacuum, the collected materials shall be removed from the liner. (Note: DPS uses a truck - monnted vacuum for servicing Flo-Gard TM +Plus catch basin inserts.) 4. When all of the collected materials have been removed, the filter medium pouches shall be removed by unsnapping the tether from the D -ring and set to one side. The filter liner, gaskets, stainless steel frame and mounting brackets, etc. shall be inspected for continued serviceability. Minor damage or defects found shall be corrected on- the -spot and a notation made on the Maintenance Record. More extensive deficiencies that affect the efficiency of the filter (tom liner, etc.), if approved by the customer representative, will be corrected and an invoice submitted to the representative along with the Maintenance Record. 5. The filter medium pouches shall be inspected for defects and continued serviceability and replaced as necessary and the pouch tethers re- attached to the liner's D -ring. See below. 6. The grate shall be replaced. EXCHANGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXPOSED FILTER MEDIUM AND COLLECTED DEBRIS The frequency of filter medium pouch exchange will be in accordance with the existing DPS- Customer Maintenance Contract DPS recommends that the medium be changed at least once per year. During the appropriate service, or if so determined by the service technician during a non - scheduled service, the filter medium pouches will be replaced with new pouches and the exposed pouches placed in the DOT approved container, along with the exposed debris. Once the exposed pouches and debris have been placed in the container, DPS has possession and must dispose of it in accordance with local, stale and federal agency requirements. Note: As the generator, the landowner is ultimately responsible for the proper disposal ofthe exposed filter medium and debris. ,Because the materials likely contain petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals and other harmful pollutants, the materials must he treated as an EPA Class 2 Hazardous Waste and properly disposed of DPS relieves the landowner ofthe actual disposal task, and provides certification of its completion in accordance with appropriate regulations. DPS also has the capability of servicing all manner of catch basin inserts and catch basins without Inserts, underground oil /water separators, stormwater interceptors and other such devices. All DPS personnel are highly qualified technicians and are confined space trained and certified. Call us at (888) 950 -8826 for further information and assistance. 05/04/04 Best Available Technology / Best Management Practice THE LAW 'qt is declared to be the public policy of the state to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state, and to that end require the use of all known available and reasonable methods by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the state. Consistent with this policy, the state will exercise its powers, as fully and as effectively as possible, to retain and secure high quality for all waters of the state. The state in recognition of the federal government's interest in the quality of the navigable water of the United States, of which certain portions thereof are within the jurisdictional limits of this state, proclaims a public policy of working cooperatively with the federal government in a joint effort to extinguish the sources of water quality degradation, while at the same time preserving and vigorously exercising state powers to insure that present and future standards of water quality within the state shall be determined by the citizenry, through and by the efforts of state government, of the state." ` This statement was taken from the State of Washington's water pollution control RCW, but the policy's intent could apply in any state. States are charged with enforcing the federal mandate to continue reducing the amount of pollution entering the surface waters of the United States. This Best Available Technology/Best Management Practice package is intended to aid the customer in using cleaning chemicals with the most environmentally correct methods possible. The stormwater regulations state that nothing is allowed in the stormwater system other than sto.rmwater. The recommendations in this package for the application of our solutions, in no way imply that any chemical has been approved to wash directly into the stormwaters of the state. However, due to health and safety issues, hydrocarbon cleaning is necessary. ECS believes that if the cleaning is to be done, then the best available technology should be used with a best management practice to insure that there will be little or no environmental impact on the stormwater system. Page I "ICS" is an ECMTM Company 'Delivering solutions to the customer" ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS The most Environmentally Correct Methods of hydrocarbon management available // ■ . �' Transportation Solutions ICS provides environmentally correct solutions which have been created to meet the new, more demanding needs of the transportation industry. By utilizing an advanced technology, we have created methods and solutions for cleaning and removing problematic hvdrocarbons. Problem Overview: The transportation industry, whether air, rail, marine or ground, is facing increased pressure from regulatory agencies. One area of major concern is the handling of hydrocarbons. Spills, runoff and the cleaning, disposing and remediation of hydrocarbons are big problems. Current procedures, though they may be effective, are becoming unacceptable because of the barrage of environmental regulations. ICS has developed solutions to these problems. Solutions: FM181 -This NCP listed product is a special formulation for dealing with hydrocarbon spills that have the potential to enter surface or ground water. FM182 - This unique formulation was developed for general purpose cleaning of any hydrocarbon from equipment and hard surfaces. It will instantly combine with the hydrocarbon, rendering it harmless to the environ- ment. By utilizing ar. advanced encapsulation chemical, the hydrocarbon is broken down and quickly biodegraded. FM184 - Specifically designed to de -gas tanks, this product quickly reduces explosion potential to very low levels. FM186 -A special formula was designed to handle hydrocarbon problems such as diesel, oil or gasoline spills. Our proprietary blend me -is governmental guidelines for a response BMP (FM186 has passed the 96 hour aquatic toxicity test after being combined with diesel). International Chemical Systems, Inc • PO Box 2029 • Gig Harbor, WA. 98335 Phone: 253 -853 -5999 • Fax: 253 -851 -3822 • In California: 916 - 813 -0525 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. " Delivering solutions to the customer" Technical Description ECS, a division of International Chemical Systems, has developed a hydrocarbon cleaning chemical that goes far beyond removal of the offending hydrocarbon. This proprietary chemistry micro emulsifies then encapsulates the hydrocarbon, thereby removing and rendering it harmless to the environment at the same time. In the past, this statement has been challenged. Therefore, in order to prove its validity, we contacted MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. MBC combined the product with diesel and ran the attached Bioassay. Diesel is toxic to aquatic life at 5 parts per million (ppm). When combined with our product, the diesel was over 500 ppm before it became toxic. This fish toxicity test proves our ability to substantially reduce the impact of hydrocarbons on the environment. (See attached Bioassay) The difficulty of meeting stormwater regulations is no more evident than in the simple fact that the use of hot water alone violates the law. Hot water releases untreated hydrocarbons into the stormwater system which creates an extremely toxic condition. We believe our products are today's best available technology because when used with best management practices they are effective at cleaning hydrocarbons while at the same time, reducing their impact on the environment. Using this best available technology along with the recommended best management practices demonstrate that this facility is utilizing the most environmentally correct methods possible. Page 3 9 November2000 Inta_maiional Chemical Systems 10421 Burnham Drive, Bid. 23 Gig Harbor, WA 98532 j ({ Attention: Mr. Ed Grubbs J Dear Mr. Grubbs: The following are the results of the California Department of Health Services (DOHS) 96 -hour Ac, fm Aquatic Toxicity serial dilution test performed on the FM 185 sample prepared as per your specincatons on 31 October 2000. MBC of ized the latest California Department of Health Services procedures (Polisini 1888) for testing the sample. Currently, Trtie 22, Section. 6626124, Article 6 of the Cal'ifamia Code of Regulations requires wastes to pass the 96 -hour Aquatic Toxicity testing with greater than 50% survival at the 500 mgA (ppm) concentration and 609/0 survival at the 750 mgA (ppm) concentration for compliance using the data from the serial dilution testing. The Department of Health Services will use this data to consider the mixture fordesignation as a non - hazardous material. MBC Sample Number 01.035 - Client Identification: 2.5% FM 186 Conti Chevron Gasoline PERCENT SURVIVAL 125 ppm 100% 250ppm 100% 500 ppm 100% 750 ppm 100% 1000 ppm 0% LCso = 866 ppm of FM 1861 Chevron Gasoline Application rate: 1 part 2.5% FM 186 to 6 parts Chevron Unleaded .(37 octane) Gasoline The actual LCso was calculated from test fish surviving at 96 hour using the TOXDAT multi- method program as described in ?elder and Weber (1955). The program calculates the LCso and 900A confidence irrtsnrais by the binomial, moving average, and probft methods. The LC5) value reported is based on the value caloulated by the binomial-method. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at your convenience. Cordially, MBC Applied environmental Sciences Michael d. Mancuso Vice °resident Operations International Chemical Systems, Inc, ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. . K,kTERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET HYDROCARBON' MITIGATION AGENT FP4 186 -2 "Deliverin; Solutions to the Customer" Emergency: 1 -877- CLEAN -OK SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS This product does not contain any hazardous ingredients as defined by CERCLA and Caiifomia's Prop. 65 SECTION III - PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3oitin Point: SECTION I - GENERAL INFORMATION. Name: FM 186 -2, Hydrocarbon Mitigation Agent Manufacturer Environmental Chemical Solutions, Inc. Vanor Pressure mm/H : P.O. Box 2029 Percent Volatile by Vol.: Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Vapor Density Air 1: Tel: (877) CLEAN -OK (877 - 253 - 2665) Generic Description Water Based, Biodegradable, Wetting Agents & Surfactants HMIS Code Health 1, Fire 0, Reactivity 0 HIvilS Key 4 = Extreme, 3 = High, 2 = Moderate, '.: = Slight, 0 = Insignificant D.O.T. Class Not regulated; not hazardous Formula: Proprietary SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS This product does not contain any hazardous ingredients as defined by CERCLA and Caiifomia's Prop. 65 SECTION III - PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3oitin Point: <264F Melting Point 32F Specific Gravity: " '" " 1.00:E.01 Vanor Pressure mm/H : NA ' Percent Volatile by Vol.: NA Vapor Density Air 1: NA Flammable Limit: NA Flash Point: NA Solubility in Water Complete Reactivity with Water: No Auto-Ignite Temperature : No Freeze Temperature: 28, F Eva oration Rate: > 1 as compared to Water Freeze Harm: None .Appearance: White Opaque Liquid (undyed) Shelf Life: I A prox. one year unopened Odor: No Fragrance - Unopened Fire Extinguisher Media: NA PH: 7.0 to 7.6 t.5 - (depending on application specific requirements) Special Fire Fighting Procedures: NA Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazards: None Solvent for Clean -Up: Water SECTION IV - Fire and Explosion Data Special Fire Fighting .Procedures NA Pleat Volatile by Volume NA Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazards None Flammable Limit NA Solvent for Clean-Up Water Auto Ignite Temperature NA Flash Point NA Fire Extinguisher Media NA Copyright 1999, Inmmational Chemical Systems, Inc All rights reserved u9 199 msds for fm 1862 SECTION V - SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS AND SPILL/' YAK PROCEDURES Precautions to be taken in Handling and Storage: Use good normal hygiene. Precautions to be taken in case of Spill or Leak - Small shills: in an undiluted form, contain. Soak up with absorbent materials. Large spills: in an undiluted form, dike and contain. Remove with vacuum truck or pump to storage/salvage vessel. Soak up residue with absorbent materials. Waste Disposal Procedures: Dispose in an approved disposal area or in a manner that complies with all local, state, and federal regulations. SECTION VI - HEALTH H_a.Z.ARDS Values: NA Signs and Symptoms of Over Exposure - Acute: Moderate eye irritation. Skin: Causes redness, edema, drying of skin. Chronic: Pre - existing skin and eye disorders may be aggravated by contact with this product Medical Conditions Generally Aggravated by Exposure: Unknown Carcinogen: No Emergency First Aid Procedures - ",yes: Flush thoroughly with water for l:i minutes. Get medical attention. Ion: Remove contaminated clothing. Wash exposed areas with soap and water. Wash clothing before reuse. Get attention if irritation develops. Ingestion: Get medical attention. Inhalation: None considered necessary. SECTION VII - SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION Respiratory Protection: Not necessary Ventilation Required: Normal Local Exhaust Required: No Protective Clothing: Gloves, safety glasses, wash clothing before reuse. SECTION VIII - PHYSICAL HA7AARDS Stability: Stable Incompatible Substances: None known Polymerization: No Hazardous Decomposition Products: NA SECTION IX - TRANSPORT & STORAGE DOT Class : Not Regulated/Non Hazardous Freeze Temperature : 28OF Storage :35'F-120'1-' Freeze Harm None Shelf Life : Approximately one year unopened SECTION X - REGULATORY INFORMATION The knformation on this Material Safety Data Sheet reflects the latest information and data that we have on hazards, properties, and handling of this product under the recommended conditions of use. Any use of this product or method of application, which is not ,scribed on the Product label or in this Material Safety Data Sheet is the sole responsibility of the user. This Material Safety Data .,eet was prepared to comply with the OSHA Hazardous Communication Regulation. ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Laws That Affect You Washington State Law. (Very similar to all other States.) RCW 90.48.010 Policy enunciated "It is declared to be the public policy of the state to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state, and to that end require the use of all known available and reasonable methods by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the state. Consistent with this policy, the state will exercise its powers, as fully and as effectively as possible, to retain and secure high quality for all waters of the state. The state in recognition of the federal government's interest in the quality of the navigable water of the United States, of which certain portions thereof are within the jurisdictional limits of this state, proclaims a public policy of working cooperatively with the federal government in a joint effort to extinguish the sources of water quality degradation, while at the same time preserving and vigorously exercising state powers to insure that present and future standards of water quality within the state shall be determined by the citizenry, through and by the efforts of state government, of the state." RCW 90.48.080 Discharge of polluting matter in water prohibited. "It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, run or otherwise discharge into any of the waters of this state, or to cause, permit or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep or otherwise discharged into such waters any organic or inorganic matter that shall cause or tend to cause pollution of such waters according to the determination of the department; as provided for in this chapter". RCW 90.48.140 Penalty. Any person found guilty of willfully violating any of the provisions of this chapter or chapter 90.56.RCW, or any final written orders or directive of the department or a court in pursuance thereof shall be deemed guilty of a crime, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Each day upon which a willful violation of the provisions of this chapter or chapter 90.56 RCW occurs may be deemed a separate and additional violation. Page z ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Best Management Practice Hard Surface Cleaning and Spill Response The goal of this BMP is to eliminate the environmental impact of hydrocarbon cleaning on the stormwater system. Current cleaning methods utilizing detergents, solvents or even hot water, severely impact the stormwater system. These cleaning methods deliver untreated toxic hydrocarbons directly into that system. If the hydrocarbons are not removed, then rainwater will wash toxic hydrocarbons into the system with like results. Using this BMP with Environmental Chemical Solution's FM products, reduces the environmental impact on the stormwater system. Cleaning of areas on the outside of the facility should always be done during the driest days possible. 2. If possible, all F.M cleaning solutions should be disposed of in a sanitary sewer or washed. into landscaped areas depending on the location of the application. 3. If an oil/water separator is not included in the stormwater runoff system, any catch basin which could possibly receive wash water should have the recommended "T " installed. This will create a makeshift oil/water separator. 4. Float an oilphillic pad in the oil/water separator to absorb any untreated hydrocarbon. Fuel Pump Cleaning Spray Method Sponge, Mop and Bucket Method Floor & Shop Cleaning Sponge, Mop and Bucket Method Sprayer and Brush Method Spill Response Kit Spill Kit Methoc! Spill Bucket Cleaning D- I Spill Response Small Spills Large Spills Exterior Area Cleaning Sprayer & Brush Method Pressure Washing Method Porous Surface Stain Cleaning FM 186 -2 Utility Sprayer Filling Method ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Best Management Practice Fuel Pump Cleaning Spray Method The best available technology for this method is the hydrocarbon mitigation product FM 186 -2. Spray the cleaning solution onto the pump surface. Scrubbing will aid the product's effectiveness in emulsifying the hydrocarbon. After the hydrocarbon has been removed, wipe down the pump surface and dispose of the toweling in any normal manner. (This product may be diluted up to three times.) Sponge, Mop and Bucket Method The best available technology for this method is the hydrocarbon mitigation product FM 186 -2. Mix FM 186 -2 with water, (hot when available), it may be diluted up to 3:1. Sponge or mop the areas to be cleaned with the solution. When finished cleaning, rinse the area with fresh water. Reuse the solution until dirty and dispose of it in the sanitary sewer. Always dispose of spent solution according to federal, state and local laws. f ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I Best Management Practice Spill Response The purpose of this plan is to provide guidance for employees of your company in controlling hydrocarbon spills. A Assess situation. B Be safe. C Contain and clean. D Dispose. Small Spills 1. For minor hydraulic fluid, gas, oil, or other petroleum product spills, spray or squirt FM 185 -2 directly onto the spill or sheen until no product odor remains (approximately 1:1). 2. Work the FM 186 -2 into the hydrocarbon with a stiff bristle push broom. Add additional FM 186 -2 until the odor of the hydrocarbon has been eliminated. Continue to brush to make sure the mixture is uniform, and then soak up with universal absorbents. When the gas smell is gone, the hydrocarbon has been completely neutralized and is now in a nonhazardous form. The absorbents can now soak up the solution and be disposed of as a normal, solid waste. Larger Spills 1. Locate the source and stop the spill. The contaminated area should be cordoned off and customers and others kept out. If the size of the spill exceeds the size of the vehicle and it's associated with the pumps, press the emergency shutoff to shut down the system. Containment of spills is a critical first step, both for safety as well as to protect the environment. Small spills spread up to the size of a vehicle and up to about 5 gallons maximum. Spills larger than 5 gallons require concerted action to contain and control. Pao. c ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Best Management Practice Spill Response (continued) 2. Health and safety are primary concerns as a large spill is handled. The use of FM 186 -2 to reduce the level of volatile hydrocarbon is also an important step. Even though a complete reaction may not take place, the volatile levels will be significantly reduced during an. event. The telltale smell of hydrocarbon is the best indicator as to whether the absorbent contains a hazardous or nonhazardous mixture. 3. Sock booms have been provided to surround the spill. It is imperative that the storm water system be protected from any spilled hydrocarbon. If the spill is large enough, surround storm drains with white oilphillic socks. 4. After protection has been provided for the storm drain system, assess the extent of the spill. If necessary, absorb raw hydrocarbon in white oilphillic pads. These will be placed in the hazardous materials container. 5. When the spill is contained, begin cleanup with FM 186 -2 to neutralize the hydrocarbon. Again work the FM 186 -2 and the hydrocarbon togetherwith a stiff bristle push broom to completely neutralize the hydrocarbon. Then use the universal absorbents to absorb this material. As before, if the towels smell like FM 186 -2, they are no longer a hazardous waste and may be disposed of as a normal solid waste. Once the spill is contained and there is no danger to personnel or to the environment, then cleaning the remainder of the hydrocarbon can take place at a more leisurely pace. The use ofFM -186 -2 can then provide a thorough cleaning and removal of the remainder of the hydrocarbon. 7. Should the spill originate from a customer's vehicle, efforts should be made to stop the source of the spill (without taking personal risk). Surround the spill and contain as much as possible. Use of the absorbent booms should provide containment and protection for the stormwater system. o - -- ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice Hard Surface Cleaning and Spill Response The goal of this BNIP is to eliminate the environmental impact of hydrocarbon cleaning on the stormwater system. Current cleaning methods utilizing detergents, solvents or even hot: water, severely impact the stormwater system. These cleaning methods deliver untreated toxic hydrocarbons directly into that system. if the hydrocarbons are not removed, then rainwater will wash toxic hydrocarbons into the system with like results. Using this BMP with Environmental Chemical Solution's FM products, reduces the environmental impact on the stormwater system. 1. Cleaning of areas on the outside of the facility should always be done during the driest days possible. 2. If possible, all FM cleaning solutions should be disposed of in a sanitary sewer or washed into landscaped areas depending on the location of the application. 3. If an oil/water separator is not included in the stormwater runoff system, any catch basin which could possibly receive wash water should have the recommended "T" installed. This will create a makeshift oil/water separator. 4. Float an oilphillic pad in the oil/water separator to absorb any untreated hydrocarbon. Fuel Pump Cleaning Spray method Mop and bucket method Floor Cleaning Sponge, mop and bucket method Sprayer and brush :method Spill Response Kit Spill kit method Spill Bucket Cleaning Pa,-e 7 Spill Response Small spills Large spills Exterior Area Cleaning Sprayer & brush method Pressure washing method Porous Surface Stain Cleaning FM 156 -2 Utility Sprayer Filling Method ENVIRONMENT_4L CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice Fuel Pump Cleaning Spray Method The best available technology for this method is the hydrocarbon mitigation product FM 186 -2. Spray the cleaning solution onto the pump surface. Scrubbing will aid the product's effectiveness in emulsifying the hydrocarbon. After the hydrocarbon has been removed, wipe down the pump surface and dispose of the toweling in any normal manner. (This product may be diluted up to three times.) Sponge, Mop and Bucket Method The best available technology for this method is the hydrocarbon mitigation product FM 186 -2. Mix FM 186 -2 with water (hot when available). It may be diluted up to 3:1. Sponge or mop the areas to be cleaned with the solution. Reuse the solution until dirty and dispose of all cleaning solutions and any rinse water in the sanitary sewer. Always dispose of spent solution according to federal, state and local laws. Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice Spill Response The purpose of this plan is to provide guidance for employees in controlling hydrocarbon spills. A Assess situation. B Be safe. C Contain and clean. D Dispose. Small Spills 1. For minor hydraulic fluid, gas, oil, or other petroleum product spills, spray or squirt FM 186 -2 directly onto the spill or sheen until no product odor remains (approximately 1:1). 2. Work the FM 1.86 -2 into the hydrocarbon with a stiff bristle push broom. Add additional FM 186 -2 until the odor of the hydrocarbon has been eliminated. Continue to brush to make sure the mixture is uniform, and then soak up with universal absorbents. When the gas smell is gone, the hydrocarbon has been completely neutralized and is now in a nonhazardous form. The absorbents can now soak up the solution and be disposed of as a normal, solid waste. Larger Spills 1. Locate the source and stop the spill. The contaminated area should be cordoned off and customers and others kept out. To reduce the danger of explosion reduce the vapors by spraying FM 186 -2 solution over entire spill area. If the size of the spill exceeds the size of the vehicle and it's associated with the pumps, press the emergency shutoff to shut down the system. Containment of spills is a critical first step, both for safety as well as to protect the environment. Small spills spread up to the size of a vehicle and up to about; 5 gallons maximum. Spills larger than S gallons require concerted action to contain and control. Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. " Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice Spill Response (continued) 2. Health and safety are primary concerns as a large spill is handled. The use of FM 186 -2 to reduce the level of volatile hydrocarbon is also an important step. Even though a complete reaction may not take place, the volatile levels will be significantly reduced during an event. The telltale smell of hydrocarbon is the best indicator as to whether the absorbent contains a hazardous or nonhazardous mixture. Sock booms have been provided to surround the spill. It is imperative that the storm water system be protected from any spilled hydrocarbon. If the spill is large enough, surround storm drains with white oilphillic socks. 4. After protection has been provided for the storm drain system, assess the extent of the spill. If necessary, absorb raw hydrocarbon in white oilphillic pads. These will be placed in the hazardous materials container. 5. When the spill is contained, begin cleanup with FM 186 -2 to neutralize the hydrocarbon. Again, work the FM 186 -2 and the hydrocarbon together with a stiff bristle push broom to completely neutralize the hydrocarbon. Then use the universal absorbents to absorb this material. As before, if the towels smell like FM 186 -2, they are no longer a hazardous waste and may be disposed of as a normal solid waste. 6. Once the spill is contained and there is no danger to personnel or to the environment, then cleaning the remainder of the hydrocarbon can take .place at a more leisurely pace. The use of FM 186 -2 can then provide a thorough cleaning and removal of the remainder of the hydrocarbon. 7. Should the spill originate from a customer's vehicle, efforts should be made to stop the source of the spill (without taking personal risk). Surround the spill and contain as much as possible. Use of the absorbent booms should provide containment and protection for the stormwater system. Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice Spill Response (continued) 8. The choice of absorbent pads is important. The white oilphillic pads will pick up hydrocarbon but not water. These pads can float on the surface of water and selectively soak up gas and oil. Universal absorbents will soak- up water, gas, oil and hydrocarbon treated with FM 186 -2. In a rainy environment, universal absorbents will fill up completely and soon be overloaded. 9. Place the white pads and booms at strategic points to provide.maximum hydrocarbon collection ability. For example, you might place them at the critical points of entering the storm system, or running into the street. Then, use additional white pads to collect as much as possible of the unreacted hydrocarbon. Universal absorbents can then be used to collect unreacted hydrocarbon if necessary, or if time allows, can be used to collect the FM 186- 21hydrocarbon nonhazardous combination. 10. A spill larger than 10 gallons requires the personnel operating the facility to place an emergency call to the fire department. Steps can still be taken should a larger spill occur that can provide protection for personnel as well as for the environment. The use of absorbent material and FM 186 -2 can be helpful in reducing the amount of environmental damage that a large spill can cause. Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. " Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice Floor and Shop Cleaning Sponge, Mop and Bucket Method The best available technology for this method is the hydrocarbon mitigation product FM 186 -2. Mix FM 186 -2 with water (hot when available). It may be diluted up to 3:1. Sponge or mop areas to be cleaned with the hot solution. Reuse the FM 186 -2 solution until dirty and then dispose of it in the sanitary sewer. Always dispose of spent solutions in accordance with federal, state and local laws. Sprayer & Brush Method The best available technology for this method is the hydrocarbon mitigation product FM 186 -2. Spray the area to be cleaned. Using a stiff brush, scrub the hydrocarbon contaminated area. When finished, flush with some fresh water and then collect all liquid with universal absorbents. These can then be disposed of as a normal solid waste. Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. " Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice Exterior Area Cleaning Heavy deposits of various hydrocarbons build up where vehicles stop or park. These deposits are a major source of contamination in the stormwater system which will eventually contaminate our streams and result in severe degradation of water quality. Sprayer, Brush and Flush Method The best available technology for this method is the hydrocarbon mitigation product FM 186 -2. Using a squirt bottle or utility sprayer, spray the area to be cleaned. With a stiff brush, scrub the hydrocarbon contaminated area. When finished, flush with a small amount of fresh water. Collect and dispose of spent solution and rinse water according to local, state and federal regulations. Pressure Washing Method The best available technology for this BMP will vary depending on the type of pressure washer being used. New pressure washing technology allows the area to be pressure washed, vacuumed up and reused. Contractors can contact us for the appropriate products to be used. These products can then easily be disposed of according to local, state and federal regulations. First, follow recommendations one through four on page six. Depending on the type of pressure washing system, feed the appropriate FM solution through the system. Work the solution completely into the hydrocarbon. If necessary, pre- treat the heavy areas and brush to breakdown the hydrocarbon/dirt complex. Pressure wash the contaminated areas using as little solution as possible. When the FM solution interact, with the hydrocarbon, asphalt attack is halted immediately. It is not necessary to completely wash away the hydrocarbon as the indigenous bacteria on the surface will biodegrade the treated hydrocarbon quickly. Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions w the customer" Best Management Practice Spill Response Kit Method A ASSESS SITUATION. B BE SAFE. C CONTAIN AND CLEAN. D DISPOSE. Small Spills 1. For minor hydraulic fluid, gas, oil, or other petrolewn product spills, spray or squirt FM 186 -2 directly onto the spill or sheen until no product odor remains (approximately 1:1). 2. Using the pads provided, soak up the solution. 3. Properly dispose of used pads. Large Spills o —� 1. Use sock booms or other absorbents to surround and contain the spill to prevent migration of spilled material. To reduce the danger of explosion reduce the vapors by spraying FM 186 -2 solution over entire spill area. 2. Reclaim as much of the spilled material as possible. Place in a container sealed and labeled per Local, State and Federal regulations. 3. Place used booms and pads in plastic disposal bag, tie off, and dispose of Properly. 4. Spray area liberally with FM 186 -2. 5. Soak up residual oil/FM complex with the universal pads provided and dispose of as solid waste in accordance with application regulations. IN ALL CASES Do not allow spilled material to run into storm drains, drainage ditches or any other waterways. 2. Call for assistance if spill is too large to absorb with materials at hand. 3. Used spill kit components should be reordered as soon as possible. Call: 1- 877 - CLEANOK (1- 877 -253 -2665) Page 14 i ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions to the customer' Best Management Practice Porous Surface Stain Cleaning Hydrocarbon contaral nation is most commonly found on paved and asphalt areas. There are times when this contamination falls on soil, gravel or other more porous surfaces. In these cases, the use of the hydrocarbon mitigation agent FM 186 -2 is the best available technology for this application. The addition of FM 186 -2 begins the remediation of the contamination. As with cleaning procedures, the mixing of the FM 186 -2 with the hydrocarbon is important. In addition, turning of the surface by mechanical action, increases the oxygen level within the substrate. This enhances the natural bacterial growth which is the key to the elimination of the contamination. The following procedure should be followed for maximum results: 1. Assess the extent of the contamination. This involves both the amount and the area that the hydrocarbon reached. 2. Turn over the surface of the contaminated area. This can be done by hand, shovel, rototiller, or if the area is large enough by earth moving equipment. By turning the surface additional oxygen and mixing is provided which allows more rapid soil bacterial growth. 3. Apply 5 gallons of FM 186 -2 solution per cubic yard of soil. 4. Apply one cup lawn fertilizer to the area. (Note: Be sure that the fertilizer does not contain any additional component that inhibits bacterial growth.) 5. Turn over the surface again to completely mix the FM 186 -2 and the fertilizer. 6. Add approximately 10 gallons of water to each cubic yard of soil. Keep the soil moist but do not over water, Too much water will slow the remediation process. Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice Porous Surface Stain Cleaning (continued) 7. Sampling can be done at this point. This will give an idea of the actual amount of contamination present The action of FM 186 -2 will cause an increase in the hydrocarbon test results due to the strong microencapsulating action. Samples can also be evaluated by the diesel or other hydrocarbon smell. As the process continues, the smell is a good indicator of progress. 8. After 45 days, resample the area and evaluate progress. This can be accomplished both by test results and the presence of hydrocarbon odor. 9. Keep area moist and continue to monitor until hydrocarbon odor is no longer present. Page 16 ENATMONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice Spill Bucket Cleaning, The goal of this BMP is to eliminate the environmental impact of hydrocarbon cleaning and to provide a method that eliminates the risk of high pH cleaning materials. Current methods of cleaning spill buckets utilizes removing the hydrocarbon with rags or paper towels and then disposing of these materials as hazardous waste. These cleaning methods deliver toxic hydrocarbons as well as high pH and toxic cleaners to landfills, waste treatment plants, or septic systems. Using this BMP with Environmental Chemical Solution's products eliminates the environmental impact on the receiving systems. 1. Following each fuel delivery, remove the spill bucket cover and inspect inside the spill buckets on the fuel storage tanks. 2. On some tank configuration, there is a drain into the tank. Following the policy of your company, open the drain and empty as much of the fuel as possible. Securely close the drain. I Spray FM 186 -2 solution into the spill bucket. 4. Soak up the solution with towels or universal sorbent pads. The sorbents should have the odor of FM 186 -2, not fuel. 5. Spray additional FM 186 -2 solution into the spill bucket. 6. Soak up the solution with towels or universal sorbent pads. The sorbents should have the odor of FM 186 -2. 7. When the spill bucket has been cleaned, absorb all remaining liquid with towels or universal sorbents. Spill bucket should be as dry as possible. 8. Replace the lid on the spill bucket. 9. Dispose of used. towels and sorbents as solid waste in the garbage. Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions to the custonter" Best Management Practice FM 186 -2 Utility Sprayer Filling Method The goal of this BMP is to outline the steps necessary to properly fill the FM 186- 2 utility sprayer. 1. Prepare the sprayer for refilling by releasing the internal air pressure. Lift the red circular valve near the top of the sprayer. This should release the pressure. 2. Grasp the black handle and turn counterclockwise. After one - quarter turn, the handle will be out of the pump. This is the pumping position of the handle. Continue to rotate the handle until both the handle and the lower pump begin to come free of the container. It is tight so the sprayer can build up air pressure to operate the unit. Note: Pa here is printed on the black pump base that secures the handle. This is for maintenance purposes. When opening the unit for Ming ... DO NOT PRY OPEN THE—RASE OF THE HANDLE! 3. Continue to turn the black handle until the handle and pump come loose from the base container. 4. Life the black handle and pump from the container. 5. Fill the container to the 2- gallon mark with FM 186 -2 solution. Do this slowly to minimize the formation of foam. 6. Insert the black handle and pump into the filled container. 7. Rotate the black handle clockwise (about one quarter turn) to connect the handle with the pump. Continue to tighten until both are snug. DO NOT OVERTIGHTEN. 8. Now rotate only the handle one - quarter turn. This frees the handle from the lower pump section and now the handle can be raised and lowered to build pressure in the utility spray container. Page 18 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions to the customer" Best Management Practice FM 186 -2 Utility Sprayer Filling Method (continued) 9. After building the desired pressure, lower the handle into the pump base and rotate one - quarter turn to lock the handle in place. 10. The FM 186 -:2 utility sprayer is now ready for operation. 11. The sprayer can now be picked up by the handle and transported to the application area. 12. Grasp the nozzle and press the flow control lever to begin applying FM 186 -2. The solution stream can be adjusted by turning the spray control fitting that is positioned on the end of the wand. 13. Each sprayer has a detailed instruction manual that is attached. Please refer to this manual for additional instructions and information. Page 19 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. "Delivering solutions to the customer" "Environmental Chemical Solutions, Inc. is an environmental chemical company that provides products and consulting services to assist businesses in complying with environmental regulations. Environmental Chemical Solutions, Inc. is not a law firm and is not qualified to give legal advice. Therefore, nothing contained herein should be considered as legal advice with respect to the interpretation or application of an federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance. Nothing contained herein should be interpreted to be any sort of representation of what any enforcement agency may or may not do with respect to the application or enforcement of any federal, state, or local law, regulation or ordinance." Page 20 TRAINING LOGSHEET Location: Wafer Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Faality Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Misc Maps Orange County, California Section VII Education Materials Included • Attachment A - County Urban Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program • Attachment B - Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides • Attachment C - EPA: When it Rains it Drains • Attachment D - EPA: Preventing Pollution through Efficient Water Use • Attachment E - Solution to Pollution - Twenty Ways • Attachment F - County Ordinance No. 3802 • Attachment G - County Ordinance No. 0 -47 -3487, Water Management and Urban Runoff • Attachment H - Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Form Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dove Str WQMPA. October 7, 2004 Section VII Page 16 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fired Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Trod No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Misc. Maps Orange County, California Attachment A — Urban Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Section VII Dove Street WQMP.da Page 17 October 7, 2004 � C T y$y� ZR a a E b ry J Em J A c Jv €$op w o °E w i m 0 5$ o y m o�.�ow O O O �! C �J q �D+_ QCJ W p10 E O a r E u c o m L m $ E d LV `^ O p ow 0 o c . O y 0, Y m °a 1.02 0 O v 3 CCC C ha o n = U a q 0E Y a S E E a .$ 3 °Y., E L c 6 M cp v EDm aUh c 5 0 3 tl d N5 o c m c c C P rYL W Cqy NZ ai G o 9 y E c m y 4 RCR u y a z xtb } iA .5�, nggc Enc ao m3 ID �/ 4 Chi 3 cE u n:b cvn } /� 3q 5 ANC N Ntl DpO'NC 3 ' S a E C ' qEm° � rc QEE ! jni ; ✓�y�a j $ iLn 5.9 L (p Q L c c c O Q oAL m 9— 8 fib` _3q h9Li° wE�p,� cs«ab" nD "gY pl N C Q C' .9 �� c —oo o .aa tj E a y b 'g'g 4 3 lac hmw En S ,q �� §F�'=e,E C •MO r aRpa,�pawE W $a,Yb B' P¢T�P1ot8 `¢ E i ='a Al �l av v 9�'nO� �3'rn Qxm'a� Z ym O d w 1O+ Z 3 OI M� C � A 7 S 3 i t p ;'2r W m G) C Y z w �a�r p� O C O �0 N W OOQ 0 th N _Z ffi y� 9 wQI y Y ` W 0 A N Z N W S 0 �Z 2 9 3 a AN j e F m O •• in v 00 G mcua C ^Xa 2 v. a -4 2 ffi C a_ G J ffi d$ a m > so p `^ O Q 0a0 i 3 4154 a LLLU9 aC ggsY uYmo aua-a O Q O N O cOCqm _ V G i a 9 p A O. 3� m m q Y i u O O 6 6 U LL O C rJ m . . . . . . . . . . . . C L ` �E Sm O °v ME N O O �`ow 3Y ��.y� C .0 1J a W .Z` T N` E w ocwE C w U i L% F" a ac c O O Ot O Emc ',?0' ca a3 3 E Y���v �_$� N W Z C c V q.m m c° d E W 2LA m m� s� 3} O e m id- ;s. fi ':. G c a � o cmO r' u v O M Z O O Q r d O U Z 'SQy� i r k O oE`oM s. gx u W m O S H m m ° nn NNNOO noo..m -. -.+ m..oma omamm mm n n�v��am�ii m.+ mom moos -.mm� nm•+o �ioNnmN O9')Y J�Q ty w�oom -. cvJ� nnc5 cv ..mddoj J�.: nnNm �cn a�'a a+d a -O �� m W�NO a N momm n ac��m °�i nn. p � 4 u V � aa'aaammaaao+"ti mw'a g'gm...'w'mo�'mww�.. d, d'd'm ,d„d' ooh » am 6$ �yB $ CCCn no°.iv CCC nm „a°, 3�m�w Cdr,$ n�rniCC��iCn, U� n B g @ °mcY s, RI as � ` 111 a °O. &I B a n S a $pp M ai w A aaI � Z Yy a �' a 3 m B Y rJ to odx p a3a�a °a6 �a��3�yU.3s;aLL mc 5m �' O a�i �+ a tiil m ay„ %�}1l a yAy p a 0 9 aY D u �9 o E'8��5 o'�d ” �4f �g�`�9gL �36�03Aq y? at °= cia O0. mw ❑m LLOx?,9 ,9 :5.7 ���z0�w'r�r��i�m��3a•oo�°v� � �e°. �°. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) rixed Service Operations facillty Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Mist Maps Orange County, Californla Attachment B — Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dore S"d WQMP.dK October 7, 2004 Section VII Page 17 COUNTY OF ORANGE PUBLIC FACILITIES & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF FERTILIZERS AND PFSTIC"ES September 2000 (Revision to March 1993) VICKI L. WILSON Director ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHARLES V. SMTIH TODD SPITZER First District Third District JAMES W. SILVA Second District THOMAS W. WILSON Fifth District CYNTHIA P. COAD Fourth District TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Status of Fertilizer and Pesticide Use 1.2 Management Options 1.3 Definitions 2.0 Fertilizer Management 2.1 Identification and Scope of Guidelines 2.2 General Considerations 2.2.1 State and Federal Law 2.2.2 General Recommendations 2.3 Planning for the Use of Fertilizers 2.3.1 Soil Testing 2.3.2 Application Rates 2.3.3 Timing 2.4 Application Methods 2.4.1 Banding of Fertilizer 2.4.2 Foliar Fertilization 2.4.3 Broadcast Application 2.4.4 Fertigation 2.5 Storage and Handling of Fertilizers 2.5.1 General Description 2.5.2 Dry Fertilizer 2.5.3 Liquid Fertilizer 3.0 Pesticide Management 3.1 Identification and Scope of Guidelines 3.2 General Considerations 3.2.1 State and Federal Law 3.2.2 Chemical Labels and Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) 3.2.3 General Recommendations 3.3 Planning for the Use of Pesticides 3.3.1 Selection of Appropriate Pesticides 3.3.2 Certification, Licensing and Permitting 3.3.3 Employee Training 3.3.4 Accident Mitigation 3.3.5 Emergency Medical Care 3.3.6 Equipment and Equipment Maintenance 3.3.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Protection F -i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 3.4 Application of Pesticides 3.4.1 Supervision 3.4.2 Proper Techniques 3.4.3 User Safety and Protection 3.5 Storage, Disposal and Transportation 3.5.1 Proper Storage 3.5.2 Proper Disposal 3.5.3 Safe Transportation Methods 4.0 Integrated Pest Management 4.1 Background of IPM 4.2 Scope of Guidelines 4.3 Alternatives to Pesticides REFERENCES F -H GLOSSARY California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6 (3 CCR) The State of California Code regulating pesticides and pest control operations. California Fertilizer Association (CFA) An organization promoting progress in the fertilizer industry in the interest of an efficient and profitable agricultural community. Activities of CFA include developing and disseminating new information to its members and others; supporting production- oriented research programs to identify maximum yield systems for farmers; promoting argonomic topics at our schools, colleges and universities; and maintaining open communications among the industry, universities and other state and federal agencies. Chemical Labels As required by federal law, manufacturers of pesticides must provide chemical labels on the containers of all pesticides distributed. These labels include all necessary information on the chemical constituents of the pesticide, including recommendations and instructions for use, toxicity classification and the appropriate warning statements and emergency procedures in case of acute exposures. As required by state law, labels must be kept in good, readable condition and be attached to all pesticide containers at all times. Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) A document required under the municipal NPDES stormwater permits issued to the co- permittees by Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Equivalent Training A term referring to public agency employees dealing with the application of pesticides who have not received a qualified applicator's license (QAL) from the State of California, but who has completed a training course in pesticide application offered by the County of Orange. Eutrophication A decrease in dissolved oxygen in a body of water to such an extreme extent that plant life is favored over animal life. For example, a lake that is overgrown in algae on the surface is likely in a state of eutrophication. Integrated Pest Management The trend in vegetation management that supports moving away from reliance on pesticides and toward an integrated approach of limited pesticide use with more environmentally friendly pest control techniques. Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) MEP means taking into account equitable considerations of competing factors, including, but not limited to, the gravity of the problem, fiscal feasibility, public health risks, societal concern and social benefit. F -iii GLOSSARY (cont'd) Materials Data Safety Sheet (MSDS) Similar to chemical labels and also required by federal law, these sheets should contain all information necessary for the safe handling of pesticides. They include chemical identifications, hazardous ingredients, physical data, fire and explosion data, health hazards, reactivity data, spill or leak cleanup procedures, special protection and special precautions. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The national program under the Clean Water Act for controlling discharges from point sources directly into Waters of the United States. Permittee A permittee to an NPDES permit that is responsible for permit conditions relating to the discharge for which it its operator. As used in the Stormwater Permit Implementation Agreement, permittees are the County of Orange, the 33 cities of Orange County and the Orange County Flood Control District. Pest Control Advisor (PCA) Certification obtained from the State of California after demonstrating adequate knowledge of pests, pesticides and the implications of pesticide use. A recommendation for pesticide use must be obtained from a PCA before public agencies may approve any pesticide applications. Qualified Applicator's License (QAL) A license obtained from the State of California after demonstrating adequate knowledge of the proper techniques for handling, storing, transporting and applying pesticides. Workers must obtain a QAL before being permitted to apply or supervise application of Category 1 pesticides. Qualified Fertilizer Specialist A person designated by the governing public agency who is knowledgeable of the proper techniques for handling, storing, transporting and applying fertilizers as defined in the Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides. This person shall be able to sample, inspect, test and make analyses of fertilizers that are in use or being considered for use in the agency's ,jurisdiction to such an extent to adequately determine their compliance with the management guidelines. Restricted Materials Permit A pennit that must be acquired by any public agency before application of the pesticides listed as restricted by the State of California in the Code of Regulations ( "CCR "), Title 3, Division 6. In Orange County, this permit must be obtained from the County Agricultural Commissioner. F -iv GLOSSARY (cont'd) State Code In this report, referring to CCR, Title 3, Division 6, and noted as "3 CCR" Storm Drain Pipe or channel structure designed to convey only stormwater runoff for purposes of flood protection. Federal regulations use the term "storm sewer." Use of the word "sewer" for a stormwater conveyance structure should be discouraged, since the word "sewer" also includes sanitary sewers and combined sewers which carry human waste. Toxicity Classification The California Department of Food and Agriculture groups pesticides into three categories according to their toxicity or potential to cause injury to people. Category 1 pesticides are the most hazardous and their use is normally restricted, while Category 3 pesticides are the least toxic to people and are generally less hazardous. F -v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document was prepared to establish guidelines for the management of fertilizers and pesticides. The main objective of these guidelines is to safeguard to "the maximum extent practicable "* against unnecessary discharges of fertilizers and pesticides into surface and groundwater systems and to establish safe and reasonable standards for handling those materials. The guidelines are based on state and federal laws, environmental policies and "best management practices" established by various public and private agencies. Through this document, it is envisaged that these practices will establish a set of uniform standards and procedures. F -vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Status of Fertilizer and Pesticide Use Fertilizers and pesticides are a primary tool of vegetation management. Used properly, fertilizers provide important nutrient supplies for vegetation and agriculture, and pesticides help to protect those resources from potential harm. Used improperly, fertilizers and pesticides can become an impairment: to surface and groundwater supplies. Careless application, mixing, transportation, storage and disposal allow chemicals to enter surface and groundwater through runoff and infiltration; the same handling problems endanger human health through exposure to toxic chemicals; soil degradation often results from overuse and misuse of pesticides and fertilizers. Even under ideal conditions, there is still a high level of risk, and consequently, there is a need for considerable professional planning and management. 1.2 Management Options Because of the risk involved in using fertilizers and pesticides, the development of management guidelines for use of fertilizers and pesticides is an essential element of the DAMP. These guidelines are designed not only to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Program, but also to minimize any threat to human health and environmental resources from improper use of fertilizers and pesticides. It is envisaged that consideration of these guidelines by the permittees will cause public agencies to re- evaluate their approach to using fertilizers and pesticides and move toward reducing dependence: on them. The guidelines that follow are intended for the use of the Permittees, ,although they may ultimately be used on a broader scale. They are based on the laws, management guidelines and "best management practices" established by other federal, state and local agencies. They recognize that the safe management of fertilizers and pesticides is a shared responsibility between the field worker and management. These guidelines address the concern for fertilizer and pesticide use at a basic level, and if followed, they should reasonably prevent environmental damage to the highest degree possible. 1.3 Definitions For the purpose of these guidelines, fertilizers may be referred to as "nutrients" or "soil nutrients," and the term "pesticides" will encompass all herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides. The California Food and Agricultural Cade and the California Code of Regulations, Title 3 (3 CCR) *, constitute the laws and regulations referenced in this plan. They are referenced often and usually referred to as the "State Code. "* Also, Permittees will be referred to as "public agencies," and employees working for these public agencies who handle fertilizers & pesticides will be referred to as "workers" or "public employees." F -1 2.0 FERTILIZER MANAGEMENT 2.1 Definition and Scope of Guidelines Fertilizers are nutrients applied to soil to provide a better growing environment for plants. The fertilizers most commonly in use in Southern California today are nitrogen - and phosphorus - based. Both leach into soils easily in the presence of water and have become a water quality concern, causing algal blooms and eutrophication* and, in some cases, causing levels to exceed federal drinking water standards. However, fertilizers also play the important role of promoting vegetation growth that protects soil from erosion and enhances landscape aesthetics. Because there is a necessity for soil nutrients and because there is a potential for adverse effects on local waterways due to the loss of these nutrients through runoff and infiltration, management guidelines are necessary as a means of reducing the loss of fertilizers into water supplies. 2.2 General Considerations 2.2.1 State and Federal Law Because most fertilizers are not as toxic as pesticides, state and federal lawmakers have not developed regulations for their use. Fertilizers are not usually considered an immediate danger to public health or safety. However, the California Fertilizer Association (CFA) *, a Sacramento -based organization, has developed complete management guidelines for fertilizer use and the State Department of Food and Agriculture has recommendations for use of nitrate -based fertilizers, both of which are available for consultation. 2.2.2 General Recommendations 1. Public agencies should periodically have soils tested before applying fertilizers to be certain that application is appropriate for and compatible with soil conditions. The samples should be analyzed by a qualified specialist for fertilizer applications *, and workers should follow the recommendations. -,2. Public agencies should choose to use organic fertilizers such as compost, peat and mulch wherever possible to increase soil porosity and water retention. 3. Workers should apply only the minimum amount of fertilizer needed and incorporate it directly into the soil, around the plant, where possible, to minimize potential surface runoff. 4. Workers should not apply fertilizers in the rain or on the same day that rain is /I expected. 5. Workers should immediately cleanup any spill of fertilizers. F -2 6. Storage facilities should be covered and have impermeable foundations so that potential spills don't have the opportunity to runoff into surface water or leach into groundwater systems. 7. Fertilizers that may be carried by the wind should be stored in areas away from open loading spaces and entrances of storage warehouses. 8. Fertilizers should be securely covered in the vehicle before being taken to application sites so that none can spill or fly out during transport. 9. Use slow release fertilizers --such as water soluble nitrogen fertil zers, coated fertilizers and fertilizers of limited solubility -- whenever possible to minimize the possibility of leaching. 2.3 Planning for Use of Fertilizers 2.3.1 Soil Testing Most fertilizers travel quickly through water. Therefore, fertilizers will leach through soil and potentially contaminate groundwater more quickly after excess watering or irrigation, after heavy rains and where the water table is high. For this reason, soil testing is an important management technique to determine the safest.fertilizeT application rate. The California Landscape Contractors Association (CLCA) has a complete list of organizations in Southern California that offer soil testing and analyzing for fertilizer use. To get a copy of that list, CLCA can be contacted at (916) 448 -2522. If a reliable soil analyst is not already known, it is advisable for public agencies to consult CLCA and research a specialist who can make recommendations for fertilizer use. 2.3.2 Application Rates The amount of fertilizer needed for different applications depends on a number of factors. For specific recommendations, a qualified specialist should be consulted. The following are some factors to be considered: • The vegetation's ability to use fertilizer; • The amount of nutrients already in the soil, including fertilizer that may still be present from a previous application; • The amount of soil nutrients that will or can be obtained from natural processes; • The expected loss of nutrients from the soil; and • The temperature at the time of application. F -3 2.3.3 Timine For vegetation with different growth patterns, fertilizers should be applied at different times and in different quantities. The vegetation being managed should be researched and fertilizers applied only according to the amounts and at the time intervals %f recommended by a qualified specialist for fertilizer applications. This should minimise the waste of fertilizer and reduce any risk of water contamination. 2.4 Application Methods of Fertilizers This section details the most common methods for application of fertilizers. These are not the only acceptable methods of fertilizer application. Every application has its own circumstances and variables to consider. A qualified fertilizer specialist should be consulted to recommend the most appropriate application method 2.4.1 Banding of Fertilizer Probably the most common and safest application method, this involves physically working small amounts of fertilizer into the soil in a band beneath and around the sides of a seed It allows new roots to efficiently use the nutrients and minimises potential nutrient loss to surface runoff. However, given the labor involved, banding may not be practical for most public agency fertilizer applications. 2.4.2 Foliar Fertilization This is fertilizer applied in solution form that is absorbed through leaves and stems. The method can reduce nutrient leaching into the soil when applied correctly and can be performed at the same time as pesticides application to avoid spraying twice. In this case, the guidelines for pesticide applications must also apply. 2.4.3 Broadcast Anolication By this method, dry or liquid fertilizer is uniformly spread over the soil surface. This is often done mechanically, an example being the "drop spreader" which is usually an inverted triangle hopper. The simplest of mechanical applicators, the drop spreader is commonly mounted on wheels and pushed by hand or pulled by vehicle to drop fertilizer out of the bottom of the triangle. Other types of broadcast applicators include spray booms for liquid fertilization or "spinning disks" mounted on a moving vehicle that throw dry fertilizer into the air. It should be noted that these latter methods do not offer much control over fertilizer drift in adverse weather conditions. F-4 2.4.4 FertiQation Although not likely to be used by public agencies for fertilizer applications, this method is common among Californian fanners who incorporate fertilizers into irrigation water. The potential for nutrient leaching using this method, though, appears to be high. 2.5 Storage and Handling of Fertilizers 2.5.1 General Description When stored and handled properly, fertilizers present no hazard to the users' health. Public employees responsible for the storage and handling of fertilizers should be aware that some fertilizers have properties that can result in dangerous chemical reactions if mixed with other substances or under unusual circumstances. For example, ammonium nitrate may become explosive if it becomes mixed in diesel fuel; a dehumidifier may be necessary for storage areas where sensitive fertilizers are stored. Also;, because most fertilizers tend to be corrosive, concrete structures are preferred for fertilizer storage facilities. 2.5.2 Der Fertilizer In most cases, dry fertilizers are safe to store, transport and handle. However, because some fertilizers have unique, potentially dangerous properties, it is advisable for public agencies to consult a qualified fertilizer specialist for the safest storage and handling procedures for specific fertilizers. 2.5.3 Liquid Fertilizer Fertilizers in liquid form are potentially more hazardous than dry fertilizer. Public employees responsible for storage and handling need to be aware of the specific properties of each liquid fertilizer in use, including corrosivity and tolerable temperature and pressure ranges. Protective equipment may be necessary for workers handling fertilizers such as sulfuric or phosphoric acid. A qualified fertilizer specialist should be consulted for recommending the safest handling and storage procedures for specific liquid fertilizers. F -5 3.0 PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT 3.1 Definition and Scope of Guidelines Pesticides are designed to kill or restrict the growth of plants and organisms, and thus, are potentially dangerous chemicals. Increasing scientific concern for their safe use and heightened public awareness of health concerns has led to more and more regulations in the United States at both the state and federal level. Pesticide use by public agencies often involves applications to keep flood control channels and roadways clear or to minimize health and safety hazards of disease- bearing rodents and insects. Any of these applications can drain into stormwater basins if not controlled properly. Although safety concerns and the cost of complying with new regulations have encouraged some public agencies to cut back on the use of pesticides, use is still common, and their management is therefore essential. 3.2 General Considerations 3.2.1 State and Federal Law The California Department of Food and Agriculture and the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) have set forth extensive rules and regulations that must be met by all public agencies. At an absolute minimum, public agencies must comply with these laws or be subject to the penalties described in the statutes. 3.2.2 Chemical Labels and Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) 1. Without exception, chemical labels' provided by the manufacturer of each pesticide are the first source of recommendations and instructions for chemical use. Whenever a chemical is to be used by a worker or a contractor of a public agency, the user needs to be intimately familiar with the label instructions and requirements. As described in the State Code (Ch. 2, Subch. 1, Art. 10), the label must appear on the immediate container of the chemical and include, in prominent, bold type, the appropriate warning or caution statement according to its toxicity classification'. If a chemical is transferred to another container, a copy of the label should be transferred with it. Workers should never handle a container that doesn t have a warning label attached, and the supervisor in charge should be immediately advised of the situation. If a label is badly damaged, the supervisor should replace it. F -6 Workers using pesticides should have readily available the Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)* for each chemical they are using. Although the MSDS is a form that may vary in appearance for different chemicals, the information is the same, as required by law. Similar to the chemical labels, these sheets contain information necessary to handle each chemical safely, and all workers should be familiar with the information. MSDS sheets include chemical identifications, hazardous ingredients, physical data, fire and explosion data, health hazards, reactivity data, spill or leak cleanup procedures, special protection and special precautions. 3.2.3 General Recommendations 1. Public agencies should maintain a complete list of all chemicals and their uses. 2. Public agencies should thoroughly investigate and consider all alternatives to pesticide use. 3. Workers should use pesticides only according to label instructions. 4. Work crews should bring to the work site only the amount of chemical to be used during the application and use only the minimum amount the chemical necessary. 5. Workers should consider weather conditions that could affect application (for example, they shouldn't spray when winds are exceeding 5 mph, when raining or when rain is likely). 6. Workers should consider area drainage patterns (for example, they, shouldn't apply near wetlands, streams and lakes or ponds unless it is for an approved maintenance activity). 7. Workers should consider soil conditions before applying pesticides (for example, they shouldn't apply to bare or eroded ground). Workers should triple -rinse empty pesticide containers before disposal and use the leftover wash as spray. r19. Workers should never clean or rinse pesticide equipment and containers in the ` vicinity of storm drains *. 10. Pesticides should only be stored in areas with cement floors and in. areas insulated from temperature extremes. 11. Workers should secure chemicals and equipment during transportation to prevent tipping or excess jarring in apart of the vehicle completely isolated from people, food and clothing. F -7 12. Workers or their supervisors should inspect pesticide equipment, storage containers and transportation vehicles daily. 13. Public agencies should adopt a plan for dealing with potential accidents before they happen. 14. Workers should immediately clean up any chemical spill according to label instructions and notify the appropriate supervisors and agencies. 3.3 Planning for Use of Pesticides 3.3.1 Selection of Appropriate Pesticides 1. Pesticides are to be used only after recommendation from a state - licensed or certified pest control advisor. 2. Public agencies should also seek advice for appropriate pesticide use from the Orange County Agricultural Commission, from other professional pesticide handlers and/or through professional publications. The County Agricultural Commission can be contacted at (714) 447 -7100. 3. A special effort should be made to limit use of restricted pesticides and all other Category One pesticides. 3.3.2 Certification. Licensing and Permitting 1. Pesticides are only to be applied by or under the direct supervision of an individual with a qualified applicators license (QAL)* for pesticide applications or by workers with equivalent training *. 2. Chemicals listed as "restricted" in the State of California may be used only under a restricted materials permit* (StateCode Ch. 2, Subch. 4) to be issued by the Orange County Agricultural Commission. The permit must be renewed annually for continued use. For more information,'contact the Commission at (714) 447 -7100. 3. All other guidelines concerning permits, licensing and certification requirements to be followed before pesticide application are detailed in the State Code, Chapter 3, Subchapter 1. F -8 3.3.3 Employee Trainine Public agency employees must know the information on the chemical label and its MSDS before using pesticides in any capacity. In addition, they should (a) know the immediate and long -term health hazards posed by chemicals to be used, the common symptoms of chemical poisoning and the ways poisoning could occur, and (b) know the safe work practices to be followed, including the appropriate. protective clothing, equipment, mixing, transportation, storage, disposal and spill cleanup procedures that apply to the specific chemicals being used. 2. In addition to the training and annual continuing education required for licensing and certification (3 CCB, Ch. 3, Subch.3, Art. 2), public employees are encouraged to participate in continuing pesticide education programs whenever the programs are available. 3.3.4 Accident Miti ag tion Public agencies using pesticides should have plans for dealing with potential accidents before they happen. These plans should consider: Labels and MSDS Sheets -- All workers handling pesticides must be familiar with these instructions. The steps for accident mitigation are spelled out on chemical labels and MSDS sheets. 2. Spill Cleanup Kits -- Any time pesticides are being handled, there should be a cleanup kit on hand in case of an accident. This means there should always be a cleanup kit located in pesticide storage areas, on vehicles used to transport pesticides and on location where the chemicals are being applied. Although these kits may vary in what they contain depending on the chemical type and the situation, at a minimum they should include: • spill - control procedures • a five gallon drum with sealable lid • a dust pan and broom • a squeegee • a shovel • protective goggles, gloves, boots, coveralls • a tarp (for covering dry spills) • detergent and water (check label or MSDS for proper use) • barricade tape, florescent traffic safety cones or string; to cordon off an area • large sponges, containment booms or some other absorbent material F -9 Cleanup Procedures Spilled pesticides must be prevented from entering the local surface and/or groundwater supplies. Specific recommendations for spill cleanup should be available on each chemical label or MSDS. Specific recommendations for the sequence of procedures may also vary depending on the situation. However, generally, in case of a spill, the responsible worker(s) should: EVALUATE the accident and quickly determine the most immediate concerns (medical and/or environmental). CONTAIN OR CONTROL the spill. NOTIFY the supervisor in charge who should, in turn, notify the proper authorities. If contact cannot be made, dial 911. ISOLATE the area with fluorescent traffic safety cones, ropes or some other cordoning device to be sure that no one walks, wanders or drives through the spill area. CLEAN UP the spill as best as possible following label instructions and using the appropriate spill cleanup kit. EVALUATE any damage that may have occurred resulting from the spill (property damage, health damage, equipment damage, etc.) and make notes on all relevant details and circumstances before leaving the scene. PREPARE A COMPLETE REPORT detailing the incident immediately after leaving the scene upon returning to the work place and submit it to the immediate supervisor. 3.3.5 Emergency Medical Care Accident situations requiring emergency medical care are likely to involve acute exposure to potentially toxic chemicals. Instructions for handling these exposures appear on the chemical label. Workers should: 1. Be aware of the symptoms of acute exposures for each chemical being used. 2. Have a predetermined strategy for dealing with exposure scenarios, including knowing (a) the label recommendations for dealing with acute exposures and (b) the nearest medical facility where emergency care is available. F -10 3.3.6 Equipment and Equipment Maintenance All equipment for the handling of pesticides should be inspected and cleaned by workers before each use to ensure that there are no problems that could lead to chemical leaks, spills or accidents during the day's work (State Code Ch. 3, Subch. 3, Art. 2). 3.3.7 Groundwater and Surface Water Protection Similar to the discussion of leaching in fertilizer management, the main factors determining the rate at which pesticides enter groundwater and surface water systems are chemical mobility, solubility and persistence and the soil type. For emunple, potentially dangerous chemicals are likely to have a high solubility and an extremely long half -life, and they are not likely to be easily absorbed into the soil. Therefore, chemicals that decompose rapidly may be preferred. However, note that to choose a chemical that may need to be applied two or three times as often may not make sense from a transportation and application risk standpoint. Because of these factors, regardless of the category of chemicals being used, pesticide. advisors should always test the soil for compatibility with specific chemicals before recommending pesticides for a specific area. Furthermore, because the effect of these uses is not always immediately apparent, public agencies should periodically test areas that could be particularly vulnerable to contamination or deterioration. The results of these tests should be kept on public record. 3.4 Application of Pesticides 3.4.1 Supervision 1. In cases where supervision of pesticide applications is required by the State Code, supervision must be handled by a state- licensed or certified pesticide applicator. For all other pesticide applications, supervision may be handled by workers with equivalent training. 2. Public agencies that contract pesticide applications should periodically inspect contracted work crews to be certain that contractors are following proper management guidelines. Public agencies handling their own applications should likewise inspect their work crews on a regular basis to ensure that safety standards are being met. F -11 3.4.2 Proper Techniques 1. Read the label carefully and follow application instructions exactly. Be absolutely certain that the right chemical is being used for the right job before applying. 2. To prevent potentially harmful runoff, only the absolute minimum amount of pesticides should be used to ensure vegetation safety. 3. Recommendations for best weather conditions to prevent pesticide spray drift are outlined in State Code Chapter 2, Subchapter 4, Article 2. 3.4.3 User Safety and Protection 1. Public agencies should have on hand equipment for application of pesticides should include eye protection, gloves, respiratory gear and impervious fall -body, chemical resistant clothing when called for by the chemical label. 2. Even when wearing respiratory gear or masks, when dealing with spray applications of pesticides, workers; should avoid directly inhaling in the spray mist. 3. Workers should avoid working alone, especially at night. 4. Workers should clean equipment, clothing and self thoroughly after each application. 5. State laws regarding re -entry into fields that have recently been treated with pesticides should be followed (State Code Chapter 3, Subchapter 3, Article 3). 6. Public agencies are responsible for knowing and informing workers about the specific pesticides being used including how they are properly handled, the dangers involved and the proper training and safety procedures. 7. Public agencies are responsible for keeping updated records and a complete list of the pesticides being used in their jurisdiction. This should include the chemicals, amount in storage, amount of applications, dates and location of applications and pests controlled with each application. 8. Public agencies should keep all relevant label and MSDS information for each chemical updated and readily available at all times to workers handling the materials. F -12 3.5 Storage, Disposal and Transportation 3.5.1 Proper Storage 1. Storage areas should be away from living areas and in a covered area that is well- insulated from temperature extremes; they should have a cement floor and good ventilation. Also, storage areas should be clearly marked according to state standards and be securely locked at all times when not in use. 2. Public agencies should ensure that chemical labels on pesticides being stored or used are kept in good condition and attached to all containers holding pesticides (State Code Ch. 3, Subch. 2, Art. 4). 3. Workers should ensure that storage equipment and containers are inspected daily for leaks or defects before being taken on the job. Containers should also be inspected and before storing at the end of the day. 3.5.2 Proper Disposal 1. Workers should make certain that chemical containers are triple -rinsed before disposal (State Code Ch. 3, Subch. 2) 2. It is recommended that cleaned containers be sent back to the manufacturer for recycling whenever possible. However, once triple- rinsed, most haulers will take them to most landfills. 3. Workers should use left over rinse water as spray. 4. Public agencies should ensure that surplus or out -of -date chemicals are given to a licensed hazardous waste hauler for disposal. 3.5.3 Safe Transportation Methods 1. Workers should ensure that all pesticides containers are tightly sealed and secured from tipping or excess jarring (State Code Ch. 3, Subch. 2, Art. 4). 2. Transportation compartments on vehicles should be isolated from the compartment carrying people, food and clothing and should be securely locked (State Code Ch. 3, Subch. 2, Art. 4). 3. Workers should transport only the amount of pesticide needed for the day to the site. 4. Workers should be certain that the appropriate chemical labels and MSDS sheets, a spill cleanup kit, the location of emergency medical care and a first: aid kit are always brought along when transporting pesticides. F -13 5. Public agencies should encourage all vehicles used for pesticide transportation to include radio communications for contacting help in case of a spill or some other emergency. 4.0 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT* 4.1 Background on Pesticide Use For most of the last 50 years, the trend in vegetation management has been toward a greater reliance on pesticides. The result has been not only a tremendous increase in the use of many dangerous chemicals, but also an enormous increase in the number of pests that are resistant to the pesticides being produced. In essence, as more pesticides have been produced, more resistant strains of pests have evolved. Worse, recent studies have shown that the end result of this global trend has been no net gain in vegetation survival rates. With these realizations becoming well known, vegetation managers are now moving away from their reliance on pesticides and toward an integrated approach that combines limited pesticides use with more environmentally - friendly pest control techniques. 4.2 Scope of Guidelines For public agencies in Orange County, IPM practices should be preferred to the sole use of pesticides as the primary means of vegetation management. These techniques are designed to prevent overuse and to reduce reliance on them. IPM should be considered by all public agencies or their contractors before intensive use of pesticides. The goal of IPM is not to eliminate all pests, but to keep their populations at a manageable number. Pesticides are part of IPM techniques, but they are used in small quantities and only after all other alternatives have been reviewed. 43 Alternatives to Pesticides Some of the alternatives to pesticides that may be considered as part of an IPM program include: Introduction of natural predators such as ladybugs, lacewings, garter snakes and toads. Also, some bacteria, viruses and insect parasites may be preferable to pesticides. 2. Selected removal or rotation of vegetation habitat to eliminate the breeding places of specific pests. 3. Weeding, hoeing and trapping manually. Pruning and thinning of trees is also an effective means of preventing epidemic tree insects and diseases. F -14 Also, at certain times of the year and under certain environmental conditions, certain pests can be expected. Therefore, timely planting or well-timed use of'small quantities of pesticides may avoid the need for some chemical use. F -15 REFERENCES California Department of Food and Agriculture, Nitrate Working Group. Nitrate and Agriculture in California. 1989. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Pesticides and Pest Control Operations. Barclays Official California Code of Regulations - 1992. California Fertilizer Association. Guidelines for Protection of Water Quality at Retail Fertilizer Facilities. 1988. California Fertilizer Association, Soil Improvement Committee. Western Fertilizer Handbook 1985. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound. 1990. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Order No. 90 -71, NPDES No. CA 8000180. 1990. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Order No. 96-31, NPDES No. CAS618030. 1996. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Order No. 90 -38, NPDES No. CA 0108740. 1990. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Order No. 96-03, NPDES No. CAS0108740. 1996 City of Mission Viejo. Specifications for the Maintenance of Municipal Landscapes of Mission Viejo. 1989. City of San Clemente, Parks Div. Herbicides & Pesticides Safety Manual 1991. City of Tustin. Hazard Communication Employee Training. 1992. County of Orange, Environmental Resources Division. Drainage Area Management Plan, Final Draft. 1991. County of Orange, Environmental Resources Division. Drainage Area Management Plan. 1993. County of Orange, Environmental Resources Division. Management of Pesticides, Herbicides and Fertilizer's: A Survey to Help Establish Guidelines. 1992. F -16 REFERENCES (cont'd) Environmental Impact Profiles. Environmental Impact Report: Vegetation and Pest Management Program for Orange County Flood Control District, 1974. Fitzgerald, Wendy S. (California Department of Water Resources, Flood Project Analysis). Levee Management Plans, Sutter Yard, 1989 -90. Monsanto Agricultural Co. A Natural Balance. Restoring Native Habitats 1991. United States Department of Agriculture. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, Volumes 1 -3. 1989. University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences. Safe Handling of Agricultural Pesticides. 1978. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Safe and Effective Use of Pesticides. 1990. F -17 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25-30, Misc, Maps Orange County, California Attachment C — EPA: When It Rains It Drains Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Section VII Dore Street WQMPAd Page 18 October 7, 2004 0 , -nr C: r r Z M.0 .0 0 T: 8 E2 0 75 0 U) C) VJ Cij i. 0 , -nr C: r r Z M.0 .0 0 T: 8 E2 0 m r., T V r c d u c w N a n` c E o � u � c v y > � C G N v v C oa a c „ a L c sJr .. 7t � C � ` r v is q L • 1 C 's r. Z = e'��T J.•I 9�y si i:� • r., T V r c d u c w N a n` c E o � u � c v y > � C G N v v C oa a c „ a L c J C � ` r v L • 1 C 's r. Z r., T a � c c v y > v c ❑ u G C r a J �={ J 's = i .r �I I I' i MR . O J N O C N % u Q V O C I� .• L Y N C u N J J 1' CJ• Q C W— y c c a o :t c 'o - c V N V y N ii 3 °i tc 77 u u p V_ p « V V C - N r • � Vp. - N N _� »v d a. C: v^ p p p n MR . O J N O C N % u Q V O C I� .• L Y N C u :t c 'o E c N V y N ii 3 °i tc 77 u u p V_ p « V V C - N r • � Vp. N N V t4 N a. C: v^ p p p n o p c o c-0 to Y \• - ` J ; p V Ci v p c E V c Q/ Oy N V V C Y� ij L Y 3 z F— p Z Z O Lij C- N W � _ _ T L N— G . � rt � n a. _ G C. s N �t Z x .n 3= C T h Y x� i P ^ w ..� F- Ct W SS F- c W 0Qn� °3F-0 �Y .r• 6 W W O W _0LLF-3 O 3�aZui h 4: N �t Z x .n 3= C T h Y x� i P ^ w t ° 7 ,J, C i v C :J 2 c y C :.t r T - ;� n O T n C L a cc O C II U v✓ Z XZ C .L _ t = W O W Z Q O:E ° n= v° N L = � N 2 - ✓_ -_Q r Q W Q_ W Q 3 =_ z2z' - == �z P r i z = r :J L /[ C � � V :n rn rl x x x 9 s 'l. r. r i �y 5994 all uB�e "y� .ter a a 6 O q a U v t 2 a t ° 7 ,J, C i v C :J 2 c y C :.t r T - ;� n O T n C L a cc O C II U v✓ Z XZ C .L _ t = W O W Z Q O:E ° n= v° N L = � N 2 - ✓_ -_Q r Q W Q_ W Q 3 =_ z2z' - == �z P r i z = r :J L /[ C � � V :n rn rl x x x 9 s 'l. r. r i �y 5994 all uB�e "y� .ter R4 lae: / @2) z,= � Se3)3 5! \) / \!r ) )) \ \\ } \} 2 §!72$[3 ) } \\ \ \ \\ { {/\ $2 (e r 0 lk A wl 3 c W /y 0 V 3 u G O .OJ G n N G •N b o � a v F O •�G ° •A' s - r — — S lr u 3 i u _ _ L N I r� � r Q >r•. = f _ = r D T a an• u C 7 L G J 'J N ` � r. - 'J r L _ - c c � � 7 C i L J W � — _u G 7 G cs Q O 7 o. �cl G •u n Z Q cy � C N pn �•n H n � b C .�J G L c3 C ¢ a 3 R N W v O p Z . N C LL C W a7c� W 00 H H 0 J O D 6 —y H O O S ,,, N Z Ova p O O O a C v W D W H C p i ¢ C O H v O N 0 b `n C b ° u � � C v NoL N ue�o N N •.. C � � V�v u � 4 I'+ E d u y n 3 Lac L n ti O ++ p �3 s R L A A = c E ` 3 — n - J � > � C C r C .M - - e m . V C C „ J � V 3 n G v c C � C� `7 G- :J � r � C 01%. Q 2 s uj L N 0 G v� r 0 lk A wl 3 c W /y 0 V 3 u G O .OJ G n N G •N b o � a v F O •�G ° •A' s - r — — S lr u 3 i u _ _ L N I r� � r Q >r•. = f _ = r D T a an• u C 7 L G J 'J N ` � r. - 'J r L _ - c c � � 7 C i L J W � — _u G 7 G cs Q O 7 o. �cl G •u n Z Q cy � C N pn �•n H n � b C .�J G L c3 C ¢ a 3 R N W v O p Z . N C LL C W a7c� W 00 H H 0 J O D 6 —y H O O S ,,, N Z Ova p O O O a C v W D W H C p i ¢ C O H v O N 0 b `n C b ° u � � C v NoL N ue�o N N •.. C � � V�v u � 4 I'+ E d u y n 3 Lac L n ti O ++ p �3 s R L A A = c E ` 3 — n - J � > � C C r C .M - - e m . V C C „ J � V 3 n G v c C � C� `7 G- :J � r � C Y C i V• II J to _' EF •dL L N C L G 41 y r ' C G r �•0 3 0 o y n >1 U M 7 Y C i V• II J to _' EF 1 4 I- Q M Q O Q f+w 0 0 •-w '7 ii •� L C I.n y N N � Q V 'a a C � w � C 3- F � .r y iC Q• +•+ v U a'c3c y � C N C h C C C n i n v _ �_ — V� 7 C Y _ � >• E W caE,3� oCar, c „e n 3 3��oorQEVR oo- a•��oFc > '^ C4 3 v H dt >> L ti y c o W F= O O r Q• 6 e to � 'o �I =ya_ 1 _A_� to g~ v 1 o c C L R Z r D � • ® v � C > u N L •C " .°L. Y :� y > to ct � L J L - u l R Z __ •J •. Z a O � v � t' = r ^ � � � V L ft _ "S C.M.- at Z O M n T ^ `• \. Y CL O• to _ L N a L N u 1 •p C � 1� ❑.c `v C E C V \. > m �, 7-0 � v� L L B — � •h T _ �� 2 J G_ ` �❑ ° u N C C G to U^ F L C L R Z r •C " .°L. Y :� y > C. N L _ Z O M n T ^ `• u CL to _ L a > m �, 7-0 � v� L L B — v � •h T N _� y L C T /a C' C_:YI..,.Y .. 7 H C N L L 'C O O •1 3 _ _ .. = L / _ to Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, MAm Maps Orange County, California Attachment D -- EPA: Preventing Pollution through Efficient Water Use Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Section VII D-. 56 WQMP.dm Page 19 October 7, 2004 N O n OyM O C M C OOM NQQ O u m O a N c d C 5 m Mc, �W< Q W Q W Cli T O «o rC � L tM T cc L t ■O •V d 0 L m CL O.. ;E Q W Q W Cli T O «o rC � U a d p o m iy C Q C C« Lim 3 O r 3 N 4 W C m 3 N 3 12 � IL U U 43rV O U C"V d d U o�c U O 9 ®NO N y �E 93y� 0 �O�. m c'o�« �L C V .0 Q) om a3 IA E c E � 'ee�3 p W O c W O E U y j VI Ui 4 Y 0. a u W0 ° A N 0 Y V a e m a3 a)0.°: w 33 c 3 :: 3 o a a a d Y•F ;nx Ey .8 r+ Q)Q �v ay o bo r y 3 a9 D C �7 e 3 do d1 C O L O 3 y& a a Y A CL L (0 c eo3 ':' ry c Y o a oy c E a o a.3 s 3v ° 90 2 Y' q Y a ro- u xvoy wa�a 3 C 8 6 W ,° J o o - r+ aci 3 y •C . a c d ° is a10i � Y fJ ga 345 °> C y N d d ..ai a Y 3 ii �yy OF! d W vm Y� 3a mb IBC y�` 4m um 0 �m 3 amp _ a o b m c °: bo , ap �a�a s 34 E O a 0 p a� c eon �6 d eo. °' ^�' mt0�' o Fa�, �8 Q) y �" A ... d :7 L 4 1.. •ia Y :a a > [7 c'o ; �3m m k � 2 aUy i5° o v O c D o Oi o O a a c 1=0 m r ego 3 °C ° o a3i O N r0 F R Vl jy yV N '' " N >' v d N NFL i 3 _N U= o c 5 o 7 5� 'D a�i ,L •u °� .� s 2 Y o° 9 � r � ` p, � •�°. a�'i o c R. � � is 3 0 0 0 ow bo �y E w O d o •p p A 3 0. L7 �° �p ro H °�� 'c �L 9 s y is 'c V es eo O H — .D � ° y 1. > y �, ° O L � o A 9 7 ro A O da d ro w� 0 a CA o rs E > o s = � w a� w . = o m d F y a ul H � y 7 R. 0. 0� y tom' .L. and �0 t6D t o > 9 o a o •+ 1p c�c oac ro ra o •U A °' eon F c 9 s •5 y Qi o Qi 3 ego, y 0." m a >o C4 B: Uor3 O C a H t 7 E E O V m s 0 G h UO e0 G N V 0) Q 3 u 0 La u a 0 d 3C 3 h V 0. tQ�e' V m V w 0) 00.0 c/ w 3 0 .G., n j A .� o .G y po h E A y G w Oy0 i u L QUj N p 'O �3 U m Cy 'o O0 3 = a o h V 5.. o •o u° y u 0. a > N N c o d o U •� O 0. 7 u •o •y y > >. •O A v u u •� � a a o U a E U 0� d G-Z 0) O U Q U y O v v w '0 m C) ,tom EE �m y v v d m imeo 4 c 3 2 eo •o y y E ro 3 °' a 5 u O Po v u d m 3 u 3 n` a 5u u3 °eb 3 3 d eo eo d a+ m :2 5 5 U o, °' gg 3 m r 3 u c O & a o Q) y ,m m m d ;° ° y o h n a W o 3 0, d m ;; 4 y d.. E h 4 Q V° .°' m X y c °o ° °''' Q�m N~ 3 ° u u m 4 3 !~ $ Rf O G O u u c v o� oleo po m d S 0 ebo x° c w � .5 iw U m a w o U u Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25-30, Misc. Maps Orange County, California Attachment E — Sollution to Pollution — Twenty Ways Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Section VII Dove Street WQMPAd Page 20 October 7, 2004 i■ r O © Q U � L � N C (u <� mac/ L u W 1O � U O +jra�ry' MI O Co ON cu CJO L- Q W � O N 0 0 0 0 J H '30: i i o E O m E c c� m m c c L, c= to N W J _ _ p O O m m V V ' m N N N T j ° o E o E N N 3 O ° m n n_ a En . c � a O a o . C - — — N V V N c c c c n n - 0 - -0 - C m m w O O m O 7 L m c o a O O m L 7 y C C O Sr m m d c N a m V n O O O S N d a N a m E L — m m o Z m L m m a . ° oy a .= E N ° L Li E E S c7caci T T L E d J- m i m T d t9 m u N N m m J o c m m c o a ° �� U p. m tN• .0 0 9 C N U a w 3t m m S E_ c o J c m ° U y H D :N TO Lm '3'�9m OINmJV a N a J C L C m m VV C m L a d m a - N p V a O c�c c'o'o` Elm °°' ;am a9.�m ND L c00-0 mmn m > mN9 mLa.m E E N N p N N U O R0 O° L? 7 .m :7 J m V 0 1p E CM cc _ a h a n m m w i QI r 2 w 'm6 m o r d a E T y= m a= 7 m m N N m n N N m N C L N C J IN N n 0 4 0 L m— 0 m L m C m C 0 N CL m C iD CR — m 0 E a c a O N m a .m c m c p o m m e a V a > c d m aoa°r �rnq —EU i? mom a —° O 3 c c a; 0— m 3 O p CL n m .°. a w T O m m c O .0 ac= mac `mmw d =c 3Ecc Z, m E m m 19 w 3 3 t9 m Q 9 m N CL 0 m N m ° m` y m a E > m E m.m t9 N 3 nit. DO'S mot o3o ncmim E 'a 9 J CL T42 < m > y p C O o vi N m U 0 O n t 3 y > E N m a r V V CV ° m v .C] u°i ° mrn Tn.. 111 o u° tD d m'C O m .7 > m L op.mdc m E ^ d m O m L p N m O — m 0 N M ro p o n 3 p p _..� ID O m N m cm J0 m N * - Eo =Lm T y= m a= 7 m m N N m n N N m N C L N C J IN N n 0 4 0 L m— 0 m L m C m C 0 N CL m C iD CR — m 0 E a c a O N m a .m c m c p o m m e a V a > c d m aoa°r �rnq —EU i? mom a —° O 3 c c a; 0— m 3 O p CL n m .°. a w T O m m c O .0 ac= mac `mmw d =c 3Ecc Z, m E m m 19 w 3 3 t9 m Q 9 m N CL 0 m N m ° m` y m a E > m E m.m t9 N 3 nit. DO'S mot o3o ncmim E 'a 9 J CL T42 < m > y p C O o vi N m U 0 O n t 3 y > E N m a r V V CV ° m v .C] u°i ° mrn Tn.. 111 o u° tD d m'C O m .7 > m L op.mdc m E ^ d m O m L p N m O — m 0 N M ro p o n 3 p p _..� ID O m N m cm J0 m N * - Eo =Lm d m'C O m .7 > m L op.mdc m E ^ d m O m L p N m O — m 0 N M ro p o n 3 p p _..� ID O m N m cm J0 m N * - Eo =Lm C/) _C/) E O cB O O` 4 0 �w y 1 /) Q) Z: C/) �'caE C/) y'O LO y 7 1313 ai n m � y Q) O O U y =Q) 7 E —; C_ cv •z Z c a� Z 4 y L w 3 3 F t V � L U �Q m= � m 7 L o— m `off N G 3 � L � V N� NCC l7 c o > y m m c m 3 m m to c L o CD to 3 m N N o c m a° m 3 c •c � a� C/) 3 � y O C O C y �E O :3 C/) O O� aci °�c DI y E O O cn o _ L .. O c y Z CU C R! 3 Q) o— cu C/)�_ m cfi O W °•S y Q) C/) _C/) E O cB O O` 4 0 �w y 1 /) Q) Z: C/) �'caE C/) y'O LO y 7 1313 ai n m � y Q) O O U y =Q) 7 E —; C_ cv •z Z c a� Z 4 y L w 3 3 F t V � L U �Q m= � m 7 L o— m `off N G 3 � L � V N� NCC l7 c o > y m m c m 3 m m to c L o CD to 3 m N N o c m a° m 3 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Mist Maps Orange County, California Attachment F - County Ordinance No. 3802 Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dove 5 rt,t WQMP.d. October 7, 2004 Section VII Page 21 z. ORCiNANCE No. 3aO2 AN OROINANCE OF THE C07N7'{ 4F ORANGE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING VARIOUS 4 PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING THE CONSERVATION OF VATER IN LANDSCAPING FOR COMMON AREAS CF {ULTIFAMILT AND NON - RESIDENTIAL OE'7ELOPM -e.VT 5! The Board of Supervisors of the County cC Orange,. California ordains as follows: 7`. i SECTION 1: Section 7- 9- 77.8(h) of the Codified Or.dinancr�; !RZ " Multifamily 8i I Dwellings" District Regulations) is hereby added to read as follows: 9; (h) Landscaping. For multifamily projects of five oc mcre unit: and common areas of planned deva-lopmenls. Per section 71- 9- 132.-,. 10 111 SECTION 2: Section 7- 9- 78.8(h) of the Codified Ordinances (R3 "Apartment" District Regulations) is hereby added to read as follows: 12 r (h) Landscaping. For multifamily projects of Give oc more units and 13j common areas of planned developments. Per section 7- 9- 132.2. SECTION 3: Section 7- 9- 79.8(h) o! the Codified Ordinances (R4 "Suburban 15 Multifamily Residential" District Regulations) is hereby added to read as l6 � follows: (h) Landscaping. For multifamily project: of five or more units and 17� common areas of planned developments. Per section 7 -9- 132.2. I8 j SECTION 4: Section 7 -9 -132.2 of the Codified Ordinances (Landscaping) is 19i hereby amended to read as follows: 20j Section 7 -9 -1312.2 Landscaping 21 Landscaping, consisting of ;roes, shrubs, vines, ground co•:er, turf or I any combination thereof, shall be Installed and maintained subject to the 22 folloving standards: 23I (a) Boundary landscaping is required for a minimum depth equal to the required setback distance.or ten (10) feet (whichever is less) along all 24` property lines abutting streets except for the required street openings. 75I (b) Landscaping. along all streets and boundaries shall be in compliance with Section 7 -9- 1.37.5, "Fences and walls." 'I 27 / ` 23 r 1 � 1- i ',c;• Any lacisc ?peci,area hall bye zepa�rn'ed from ,n adjacent ha.::k'ng or 3! Iiehlcular area by a va_i or curb at least six (6) inchas higher than the i adjacent parkin;• or vehicular area. 4� (d) Permanent -watering facilities shall be provided for all ).an ?sc.,gnd 5` arcas. i G 11 (e) Required iandsc:Aping 5h, ^.11 `+e maintatezd in a neat, clean and healthy u neiCion. This shall include proper prc:nina, moving of lavns, veedine, 7 :•;mov;:1 cf litter, fertilizing and 'wate.:ing as needed and the replacement of plants vhen necessary. 8 !f) For projects vl :h Landscaping of nors tl.un one cumulative acre, a 9 lar.d:scape and irrigation system play. .-hall be submitted And appzovati p ;inc to . the issuance of buildlr.Z permits (vitl', lmpi.emencation vec'; is submitted and LO approved prior to the issuance of use and occupancy permits) to comply vitll crite ::a approved by Board of iuper•:iZ ors' -ater Conservation P.esoLutior.. ll !gQ In addition to other p:oiw s !h,nt may be subject to Section 12 7- •- 1'2.2, the follovirg prnjRcts .all he subject Co these regulctiens regavdiess of the distri:t, planniA ccmmunit•1 or specific plsu in vhich they 3 l are located: 1) Multifamily p;oj?cts of five or noce units; 2) hesiceo*.ial planner, developme.n.rr (commnr arcs .nly); and 3) :on_�crr.ia2lOfEice /I :�duotrial J, projects involvi.ng•1anpscapinF/ irrigation of more than one cumulative acre. 5 G 8 9 0 1 2 :3 '4 :5 '.G 8 2. i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 13 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 srC ?IGN 3 . This Ordinance shall take effect and be 2.n :.,,. force thirty (30) days :rem and a — er its passage and, be `ore ;:te� expiration of fifteen (15) days a_ °ter the passage therec-, shall be published once. in the saddle�ac:< Valley News a newspaper published in the County or Orange, State of.Califor:aa, together wit :^ t.ne names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for or against the same. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Orange Cou:ity, California SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVER:D TO THE CFAIR.MUM OF THE BOARD lark of the Boar%r Supervisors County of Oranc California STA'L'E ::F !AL!:eORNiI.A ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, LINDA D. RUTH, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, held on the 24th day uc October 19 , the foregoing ordinance containing - five sections was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS HARRIETT M. WIEDER, GADDI.H. VASQUEZ, ROGER R. STANTON, DON R. ROTH AND THOMAS F. RILEY NOES: SUPERVISORS: NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE- Ii: WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official seal of the Board of Supervisors of the State of California, this 26th day of October. DATED: October 26, 1990 PUBLISH: saddleback Valley News November 2, 1990 and County affixed the U: Orange, 9 90 LI24 D. RUTH Clerk of the Board of/* upervisors i of Orange County, LiZornia 3. 1, j s RESOLUTION OF TEE BOARD Of SUMVISORS 4 4 OP OUR= CLUNTT CALIFORNIA s OCTOBER 24, 1990 On motion of Supervisor Wieder duly seconded and carried, the folloving Resolution vas adopted: 8. VREREAS, the County of Orange has an adopted General Plan and 91 Comprehensive•Zoning Code; and 10 ll VHEREAS, on June 5, 1990 this Board received. Gui del ines for conserving eater utilized in landscape irrigation from the Vater Conservation Task Force; 12 i and 13 1-4 VBEREAS, this Board supports the goals of conserving vater in landscaping irrigation as identified by the Vater Conservation Task Force l) 1 members; and 16 VEEREAS, the State of California has received less than normal levels of precipitation for the past four years resulting in a common need to 18 conserve available potable vaters and encourage utilization of reclaimed 19 vater; and ?0 ! VHEREAS, this Board has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CZQA), the CEOA Guidelines and the County environmental 12 i procedures by revieving and considering Negative Declaration IP 90 -40 and has i3 determined that the proposed program vill not have a significant effect on the environment; and :4 .5 6 9 Page 1 Resolution- No. 910 -1341 Public Haring — Zoning Code Amendment No. 90 -5, Water Conservation Implementation Program :eb r VH =REAS, this Board has rev:eved the recommended c- iteria for tie Vater Conservation Implementation Program and has considered the E8A repor.5 dated September 25, 1990 and the comments and responses received at the ;: Planning Commission hearing. ti NOV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board hereby approves this Resolution of Vater Conservation Criteria for use in landscaping projects as identified in the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange. 8 (1) Landscape and irrigation system plans required by Zoning Code section 9 7- 9 -132.Z shall be prepared and certified by.a licensed landscape i t0 architect or licensed landscape contractor. prior to,ths issuance of tI building permits and include but'no.t•be limited to: i (1) A site analysis study vhich includes evaluation of macro and 13 micro climates, solar exposure, prevailing vind conditions, q seasonal temperature patterns, soils and drainage, grade and 15 slope analysis and street 'visibility; I • 16j (ii) utilization of•the best available irrigation technology to 17 maximize efficient use of vater. This could- include the use of historical evapo - transpiration rates, weather station (CIMIS) l9 I data, moisture sensors, rain shutoff devices, drip systems, I 19i multi- program electronic timers and matched output sprinkler Zpl heads; I 21 j (iii) project: characteristics including visibility, adjacent development, activity and usage and focus area; X31 2 4 ' (iv) availability and special conditions for use of reclaimed vater; Z5I (v) consideration of planting zones or "hydrozones" to facilitate a Z6 I zoned irrigation system; .7 I Page Z 29 C 2 3 S S 7 8 9 10 11 12 l9 15� 1G u 17 PI l8 19 20 21 2Z 23 24 23 17 28 (vi) Landscaping plant palette selections utilizing potable water sources shall include law water using or drought - tolerant species. (vii) A minimum of t7a inches (2 ") of mulched chip and fiber material shall be added to the sail surface after planting (slopes exceeding 25X from horizontal, 4 to 1, or areas planted with turf or full coverage ground cover are exempt). (viii) The. use of turf should not be included an slopes exceeding 25X (4, to 1) from horizontal or an areas where irrigation systems do" nat deliver 10OX of their output to the turf and other landscape. Landscape project plans which include turf an slopes exceeding 25X shall include design features for the prevention of run -off. (2) Implementation reports required by Zoning Code Section 7- 9 -13Z.2 shall include but noc be limited to the submittal of the following prior to the issuance of use and occupancy permits: (i) an Irrigation Management Report far each landscape irrigation system shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor prior to the issuance of final certificates of use and occupancy to identify appropriate long term use and maintenance of the system. This report shall include a vadering schedule vhich incorporates the specific vater needs of the plant material throughout the calendar year, a hardvare component list for all materials used in the system and a recommendation of regular maintenance schedules for the irrigation systes; Page 3 0 1 3 4 S 6 8� I 9i to S ( l 12 13 t5 16 1, is 19 Ili ?0 i i 21 ` �3 i Z4 25 26 Ij 23 (ii) certification by a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor that the irrigation system vas installed in accordance with the certified plan and shall furnish said certification in writing prior to the issuance of final certificates of use and occupancy and the release of the financial security guaranteeing the landscape improvements to the manager, Building inspection Division; (iii) a Certified Vater Audit for the irrigation system prior to the issuance of final certificates of, use and occupancy to verify that the irrigation design coverage and conservation goals are met. Subsequent water audits are recommended to be prepared each year. Page 4 Z 3 Chairman of the Board of Supervisors 5° G SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED 7 TO THE CHA.IRKAN OF THE BOARD i a. 9i LINDA D. RUTH [0l Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Orange, California tlI i 12 j AYES: SUPERVISORS H:ARRIETT K. WIEDER, GADDI H. VASQUEZ, ROGER F 13� STANTON, THOMAS F. RSLEY, DON R. ROTH NOES: - SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE �5! STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 16 i ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, LINDA D. RUTH, Cle = "z of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, 18 California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution vas duly: and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held t9 I on the 24th day of October , 1990 and passed by a unaQim0ud vote of said Board. 20 IN 7ITNESS 7HEREOP, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 29th day 21 of - October, 1990. 22 ?3I� LINDA D. RUTH 24j Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California 25 71 27 29 Page 5 0 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Fixed .Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, Pages 25 — 30, Mist Maps Orange County, California Attachment G — County Ordinance No. 0 -97- 3987 Water Management and Urban Runoff Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. D.v. Sue.t WQMPAd October 7, 2004 Section VII Page 22 1j ORDINANCE NO. 0-97 -3987 2I AN ORDINANCE ADDING DIVISION 13 TO TITLE 4 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE 31 I COUNTY OF ORANGE RELATING TO STORM y WATER MANAGEMENT AND URBAN RUNOFF a, The Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, California, does ordain as follows: -'ISECTION 1. Division 13 is hereby added to Title 4 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange to read as follows: a Division 13 9 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND URBAN RUNOFF 10 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 11 Sec. 4- 13 -10. Adoption of the water Quality Ordinance. 121 Pursuant to Article XI, Sec. 7 of the State Constitution, 13 which authorizes the County to exercise the police power of the State by adopting regulations promoting the public health, public 141 safety and general prosperity, and in compliance with the 15Iconditions of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit ("NPDES Permit "), there is hereby adopted a Water Quality Ordinance. , W 16 Sec. 4- 13 -20. Purpose. 6-, 1- n The purpose of the water Quality Ordinance is to prescribe 181,1 regulations as mandated by the Clean Water Act 133 USC Sec. 1251 = 3Bq., as amended] to effectively prohibit non -storm water 19+ discharges into the storm sewers and to reduce the discharge of pollutants. Human activities, such as agriculture, construction 20 and the operation and maintenance of an urban infrastructure may result in undesirable' discharges of pollutants and certain 21 sediments, which may accumulate in local drainage channels and waterways and eventually may be deposited in the waters of the 22 United States. This Ordinance will improve water quality by controlling the pollutants which enter the network of storm drains 23 throughout Orange County. 24 Sec. 4- 13 -30. Definitions. 25 (a) "Authorized Inspector" shall mean the person designated 26 by the Director of Public Facilities and Resources Department and persons designated by the Authorized Inspector as investigators and under his /her instruction and supervision, who are assigned to 4 27 investigate compliance and detect violations of this-Ordinance. A 28 c:p9r50na1 \D9T97 \Oior =97.ord \*p 1.. 7/07/97 i t. (b) "County" shall mean the County of Orange, California. ,I (c) "Co- Permittee" shall mean the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, and all the municipalities within Orange County which are responsible for compliance with the terms of the NPDES Permit. I (d) "DAMP" shall mean the Orange County Drainage Area 5i Management Plan, as the same may be amended from time to time. 6 (e) "Development Project Guidance" shall mean DAMP Chapter i VII and the Appendix thereto, entitled Best Management Practices -j, for New Development Including Non- Residential Construction Projects and all subsequent amendments thereto. 8 (f) "Discharge" shall mean any release, spill, leak, pump, 9 flow, escape, leaching (including subsurface migration or deposition to groundwater), dumping or disposal of any liquid, 10� semi -solid or solid substance. 114 (g) "Discharge Exception" shall mean the group of activities not restricted or prohibited by this Ordinance, including only: 12 Discharges composed entirely of storm water, 13 Discharges subject to regulation under current EPA or Regional Water Quality Control Board issued 14 NPDES permits, State General Permits, or other i waivers, permits or approvals granted by an 15� appropriate government agency; Discharges from ;oo property for which best_ management practices set 16 Ii forth in the Development Project Guidance are being ;_. , implemented and followed; Discharges to the Storm ;0 17 Water Drainage System from potable water line flushing, fire fighting activities, landscape V 18� irrigation systems, diverted stream flows, rising groundwater, and de minimis groundwater 19 infiltration to the Storm Water Drainage System (from leaks in joints or connections or cracks in 20 water drainage pipes or conveyance systems); Discharges from potable water sources, passive 21 foundation drains, air conditioning condensation and other building roof runoff, agricultural 22 irrigation water runoff, water from crawl space pumps, passive footing drains, lawn watering, non - 23 commercial vehicle washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool 24 discharges; Discharges of reclaimed water generated by a lawfully permitted water treatment facility; 25 street wash waters when related to cleaning and maintenance by, or on behalf of, the County; s 26 Discharges authorized pursuant to a permit issued under Article 6 hereof; Discharges allowable under 27 the Domestic Sewage Exception; Discharges for which ® 28 the discharger has reduced to the extent feasible C:9ec2ena1\09297 \Ateca97.ocd\e9 2. 7/07/97 10 11 12 13 14 5 16 1" 18 19 20 21 22 73 24 25 26 2, the amount of pollutants in such Discharge; and, Discharges authorized pursuant to federal or state laws or revulations. In any action taken to enforce this Ordinance,, the burden shall be on the Person who is the subject of such action to establish that a Discharge was within the scope of this Discharge Exception. (h) "Domestic Sewage Exception" shall mean discharges which are exceptions to this Ordinance and excluded from the definition of Prohibited Discharge, as defined herein, including only: Discharges composed entirely of accidental spills of untreated sanitary wastes (commonly called domestic sewage) and other wastes, but limited solely to wastes that are controlled by and are within publicly owned wastewater treatment system collection facilities, immediately prior to the accidental spill. (i) "Enforcing Attorney" shall mean the District Attorney acting as counsel to the County or his /her designee, which person is authorized to take enforcement or other actions as described herein. For purposes of criminal prosecution, only the District Attorney or his /her designee shall act as the Enforcing Attorney. (j) "EPA" shall mean the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America. (k) "Hearing Officer" shall mean the person designated by the Director of the Public Facilities and Resources Department who shall preside at the administrative hearings authorized by this Ordinance and issue final decisions on matters raised therein. (1) "Illicit Connection" shall mean any man -made conveyance or drainage system, pipeline, conduit, inlet or outlet, through which the Discharge of any Pollutant to the Storm Water Drainage System occurs or may occur. The term Illicit Connection shall not include Legal Nonconforming Connections or connections to the Storm Water Drainage System that are hereinafter authorized by the agency with jurisdiction over the system at the location at which the connection is made. (m) "Invoice for Costs" shall mean the actual costs and expenses of the County, including but not limited to administrative overhead, salaries and other expenses recoverable under State law, incurred during any Inspection conducted pursuant to Article 2 of this Ordinance, or where a Notice of Noncompliance, Administrative Compliance Order or other enforcement option under Article 5 of this Ordinance is utilized to obtain compliance with this Ordinance. C:9���on�1 \DP297 \8toc�97.ocd \�y 3. 7/07/97 10 Il 12 13 14 15 y y V W 16 u jzz oz Ii V " 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 S 26 h N O 27 W 29 (n) "Legal Nonconforming Connection" shall mean connections to the Storm water Drainage System existing as of the adoption of this Ordinance that were in compliance with all federal, state and local rules, regulations, statutes and administrative requirements in effect at the time the connection was established, including but not limited to any discharge permitted pursuant to the terms and conditions of an individual discharge permit issued pursuant to the Industrial waste Ordinance, County Ordinance No. 703. (o) "New Development" shall mean all public and private residential (whether single family, multi -unit or planned unit development), industrial, commercial, retail, and other non- residential construction projects, or grading for future construction, for which either a discretionary land use approval, grading permit, building permit or Non - residential Plumbing Permit is required. (p) "Non- residential Plumbing Permit" shall mean a plumbing permit authorizing the construction and/or installation of facilities for the conveyance of liquids other than storm water, potable water, reclaimed water or domestic sewage. (q) "NPOES Permit" shall mean the currently applicable municipal discharge permit[s] issued by the Regional water quality Control Hoard Santa Ana and San Diego Regions, which establish waste discharge requirements applicable to storm runoff within the County. (r) "Person" shall mean any natural person as well as any corporation, partnership, government entity or subdivision, trust, estate, cooperative association, joint venture, business entity, or other similar entity, or the agent, employee or representative of any of the above. (s) "Pollutant" shall mean any liquid, solid or semi -solid substances, or combination thereof, including and not limited to: (1) Artificial materials (such as floatable plastics, wood products or metal shavings). (2) Household waste (such as trash, paper, and plastics; cleaning chemicals, yard wastes, animal fecal materials, used oil and fluids from vehicles, lawn mowers and other common household equipment). (3) Metals and non - metals, including compounds of metals and non - metals (such as cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, silver, nickel, chromium, cyanide, phosphorus and arsenic) with characteristics which cause an adverse effect on living organisms. G: persons 1 \0!297 \atarn97.a rd \ep 4. 7/07/97 (4) Petroleum and related hydrocarbons (such as fuels, lubricants, surfactants, waste oils, solvents, coolants 2I -and grease). i 3i (5) Animal wastes (such as, Discharge from confinement facilities, kennels, pens, and recreational facilities, including, stables, show facilities, and polo fields). (6) Substances having a pH less than 6.5 or greater than 8.6, or unusual coloration, turbidity or odor. (7) Waste materials and wastewater generated on construction sites and by construction activities (such as painting and staining; use of sealants and glues; use of lime; use 8 of wood preservatives and solvents; disturbance of asbestos fibers, paint flakes or stucco fragments; 9! application of oils, lubricants, hydraulic, radiator or battery fluids; construction equipment washing, concrete t0; pouring and cleanup; use of concrete detergents; steam cleaning or sand blasting; use of chemical degreasing or tt diluting agents; and use of super chlorinated water for d potable water line flushing). 12; j (8) Materials causing an increase in biochemical oxygen 13; demand, chemical oxygen demand or total organic carbon. 14, (9) Materials which contain base /neutral or acid extractable organic compounds. 15 (10) Those pollutants defined in Sec. 1362(6) of the Federal 16 Clean Water Act; and 1', (11) Any other constituent or material, including but not limited to pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, fecal 18 coliform, fecal streptococcus or en.terococcus, or eroded soils, sediment and particulate materials, in quantities 19 that will interfere with or adversely affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters, flora or fauna 20I of the State. 21 (t) "Prohibited Discharge" shall mean any Discharge, which contains any Pollutant, from public or private property to (i) the 22 Storm Water Drainage System; (ii) any upstream flow, which is 23 tributary to the Storm Water Drainage System; (iii) any groundwater, river, stream, creek, wash or dry weather arroyo, wetlands area, marsh, coastal slough, or (iv) any coastal harbor, 24 bay, or the Pacific Ocean. The term Prohibited Discharge shall not include Discharges allowable under the Discharge Exception. 25 (u) "Significant Redevelopment" shall mean the rehabilitation 26 or reconstruction of public or private residential (whether single 27 family, multi -unit or planned unit development), industrial, commercial, retail, or other non - residential structures, for which 28 C:p*rs0n&l \DPT97 \5torU97.ord \ep 5. 7/07/97 W 1 either a discretionary land use approval, grading permit, building permit or Non- residential Plumbing Permit is required. (v) "State General Permit" shall mean either the State General Industrial Storm Water Permit or the State General 3� Construction Permit or any other State General Permit that has been 4;I or will be adopted and the terms and requirements of any such permit of either or both. In the event the U.S. Environmental si Protection Agency revokes the in -lieu permitting authority of the State Water Resources Control Hoard, then the term State General Permit shall also refer to any EPA administered storm water control program for industrial and construction activities. (w) "Storm Water Drainage System" shall mean street gutter, 8; channel, storm drain, constructed drain, lined diversion structure, wash area, inlet, outlet or other facility, which is a part of a 91 tributary to the County -wide storm water runoff system and owned, operated, maintained or controlled by the County of Orange, the 10.1 Orange County Flood Control District or any Co- Permittee City, and j used for the purpose of collecting, storing, transporting, or 111 disposing of storm water. I 12 ARTICLE 2. ILLICIT CONNECTIONS AND PROHIBITED DISCHARGES 131 Section 4- 13 -40. Prohibition on Illicit Connections and Prohibited Discharges. 14 i (a) No Person shall: (1) Construct, maintain, operate and /or utilize any Illicit 16' Connection. 17 (2) Cause, allow or facilitate any Prohibited Discharge. 18, (3) Act, cause, permit or suffer any agent, employee, or independent contractor, to construct, maintain, operate 191 or utilize any Illicit Connection, or cause, allow or facilitate any Prohibited Discharge. 70 (b) The prohibition against Illicit Connections shall apply 211 irrespective of whether the Illicit Connection was established prior to the date of enactment of this Ordinance; however, Legal 22 i Nonconforming Connections shall not become Illicit Connections ' until the earlier of the following: 23 ' (1) For all structural improvements to property installed for 24 the purpose of Discharge to the Storm Water Drainage System, the expiration of five (5) years from the 25 adoption of this Ordinance. 26 (2) For all nonstructural improvements to property existing for the purpose of Discharge to the Storm Water Drainage 2' System, the expiration of six (6) months following delivery of a notice to the owner or occupant of the C:par2ena1 \DPT97 \Drer*97.ard \ap 6. 7/07/97 property, which states a Legal Nonconforming Connection has been identified. The notice of a. Legal Nonconforming ,; Connection shall state the date of expiration of use under this Ordinance. 3 '1 A reasonable extension of use may be authorized by the 4;� Director of Public Facilities and Resources Department or the Authorized Inspector upon consideration of the following factors: 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 o; W 16 ' u S 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 The potential adverse effects of the continued use of the connection upon the beneficial uses of receiving waters; (2) The economic investment of the discharger in the Legal Nonconforming Connection; and (3) The financial effect upon the discharger of a termination of the Legal Nonconforming Connection. (c) A civil or administrative violation of Section 4- 13 -40(a) shall occur irrespective of the negligence or intent of the violator to construct, maintain, operate or utilize an Illicit Connection or to cause, allow or facilitate any Prohibited Discharge. (d) If an Authorized Inspector reasonably determines that a Discharge, which is otherwise within the Discharge Exception, may adversely affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters, then the Authorized Inspector may give written notice to the owner of the property or facility that the Discharge Exception shall not apply to the subject Discharge following—expiration of the thirty (30) day period commencing upon delivery of the notice. Upon expiration of the thirty (30) day period any such discharge shall constitute a violation of 4- 13- 40(a). (e) If a request for an extension of use is denied, the owner or occupant of property on which a Legal Nonconforming Connection exists may request an administrative hearing, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sections 4- 13 -70(f) through(j), for an extension of the period allowed for continued use of the connection. ARTICLE 3. CONTROLS FOR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT Section 4- 13 -50. New Development and Significant Redevelopment. (a) All New Development and Significant Redevelopment within the unincorporated area of the County shall be undertaken in accordance with the DAMP, including but not limited to the Development Project Guidance. (b) Prior to the issuance by the County of a grading permit, building permit or Non - residential Plumbing Permit for any New Development or Significant Redevelopment, the Public Facilities and Resources Department and /or Planning and Development Services C :p*eaen&1\D9T97 \1[0ei97.oed \*p 7. 7/07/97 10 11 12 13 14 ' V 16 a o 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 h w w 24 25 26 27 Department shall review the project plans and impose terms, conditions and requirements on the project in accordance with Section 4- 13- 50(a). If the New Development or Significant Redevelopment will be approved without application for a grading permit, building permit or Non- residential Plumbing Permit, the Public Facilities and Resources Department and /or Planning and Development Services Department shall review the project plans and impose terms, conditions and requirements on the project in accordance with Section 4- 13 -50(a) prior to the issuance of a discretionary land use approval or, at the County's discretion, prior to recordation of a subdivision map. (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing Sections 4- 13 -50(a) and (b), compliance with the Development Project Guidance shall not be required for construction of (1) a (one) single family detached residence or (2) improvements, for which a building permit is required, to a (one) single family detached residence unless the Public Facilities and Resources Department and /or Planning and Development Services Department determines that the construction may result in the Discharge of significant levels of a Pollutant into a tributary to the Storm water Drainage System. (d) Compliance with the conditions and requirements of the DAMP shall not exempt any Person from the requirement to independently comply with each provision of this Ordinance. (e) If the Public Facilities and Resources Department and /or Planning and Development Services Department determines that the project will have a de minimia impact on the quality of storm water runoff, then it may issue a written waiver of the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Development Project Guidance. (f) The owner of a New Development or Significant Redevelopment project, or upon transfer of the property, its successors and assigns, shall implement and adhere to the terms, conditions and requirements imposed pursuant to Section 4- 13 -50(a) on a New Development or Significant Redevelopment project. (1) Each failure by the successors or assigns, terms, conditions and section 4- 13 -50(a) on Redevelopment project this Ordinance. owner of the property, or its to implement and adhere to the requirements imposed pursuant to a New Development or Significant shall constitute a violation of (g) The Public Facilities and Resources Department and /or Planning and Development Services Department may require that the terms, conditions and requirements imposed pursuant to Section 4- 13-50(a) be recorded with the County Recorder's office by the property owner. The signature of the owner of the property or any successive owner shall be sufficient for the recording of these terms, conditions and requirements and a signature on behalf of the County of Orange shall not be required for recordation. C:ptcfonal \DFT97 \ltorn97.ocd \•p 8. 7/07/97 11 Sec. 4- 13 -51. Cost Recovery ,?f The County shall be reimbursed by the project applicant for all costs' and expenses incurred by the Public Facilities and Resources Department and /or Planning and Development Services 3i Department in the review of New Development or Significant 4,I Redevelopment projects for compliance with the DAMP. The Public Facilities and Resources Department and /or Planning and Development 5; Services Department may elect to require a deposit of estimated costs and expenses, and the actual costs and expenses shall be 6 Ideducted from the deposit, and the balance, if any, refunded to the project applicant. 10 11 12 13 14 .: 15 16 o; 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 N e 27 LL is Sec. 4- 13 -52. Litter Control No Person shall discard any waste material including but not limited to common household rubbish or garbage of any kind (whether generated or accumulated at a residence, business or other location) , upon any public property, whether occupied, open or vacant, including but not limited to any street, sidewalk, alley, right -of -way, open area or point of entry to the Storm Water Drainage System. ARTICLE 4. INSPECTIONS Sec. 4- 13 -60. Scope of Inspections (a) Right o incnect. Prior to commencing any inspection as hereinbelow authorized, the Authorized Inspector shall obtain either the consent of the owner = occupant of the property or shall obtain an administrative inspection warrant or criminal search warrant. (b) Entry to Inm2 t. The Authorized Inspector may enter property to investigate the source of any Discharge to any public street, inlet, gutter, storm drain or the Storm Water Drainage System located within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. (c) CnmV1iAnr0 AqnPqAMPntq. The Authorized Inspector may inspect property for the purpose of verifying compliance with this Ordinance, including but not limited to (i) identifying products produced, processes conducted, chemicals used and materials stored on or contained within the property, (ii) identifying point(s) of discharge of all wastewater, process water systems and Pollutants, (iii) investigating the natural slope at the location, including drainage patterns and man -made conveyance systems, (iv) establishing the location of all points of discharge from the property, whether by surface runoff or through a storm drain system, (v) locating any Illicit Connection or the source of Prohibited Discharge, (vi) evaluating compliance with any permit issued pursuant to Article 6 hereof, and (vii) investigating the condition of any Legal Nonconforming Connection. C:p *ra0n&1 \DP297 \itori97.ord \ep 9. 7/07/97 4 5 ,I 6 10 12 13 14 15 0 0 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 M1 M1 O 27 28 (d) Parfrhle E uipmen . For purposes of verifying compliance with this Ordinance, the Authorized Inspector may inspect any vehicle, truck, trailer, tank truck or other mobile equipment. (e) Records Review. The Authorized Inspector may inspect all records of the owner or occupant of property relating to chemicals or processes presently or previously occurring on -site, including material and /or chemical inventories, facilities maps or schematics and diagrams, Material Safety Data Sheets, hazardous waste manifests, business plans, pollution prevention plans, State General Permits, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, Monitoring Program Plans and any other record(s) relating to Illicit Connections, Prohibited Discharges, a Legal Nonconforming Connection or any other source of contribution or potential contribution of Pollutants to the Storm Water Drainage System. ( f ) s_amplPb & Tost. The Authorized Inspector may inspect, sample and test any area runoff, soils area (including groundwater testing) , process discharge, materials within any waste storage area (including any container contents) , and /or treatment system Discharge for the purpose of determining the potential for contribution of pollutants to the Storm Water Drainage System. The Authorized Inspector may investigate the integrity of all storm drain and sanitary sewer systems, any Legal Nonconforming Connection or other pipelines on the property using appropriate tests, including but not limited to smoke and dye tests or video surveys. The Authorized Inspector may take photographs or video tape, make measurements or drawings, and create any other record reasonably necessary to document conditions on the property. (g) Monitoring. The Authorized Inspector may erect and maintain monitoring devices for the purpose of measuring any Discharge or potential source of Discharge to the Storm Water Drainage System. (h) Tosqt, R a +1 a. The owner or occupant of property subject to inspection shall, on submission of a written request to the Authorized Inspector receive copies of all monitoring and test results conducted at the property. ARTICLE 5. ENFORCEMENT Sec. 4- 13 -70. Administrative Remedies (a) Notice of Noncompliance. The Authorized Inspector may deliver to the owner or occupant of any property, or to any Person responsible for an Illicit Connection or Prohibited Discharge a Notice of Noncompliance. The Notice of Noncompliance shall be delivered in accordance with Section 4- 13 -70(e) of this Ordinance. (1) The Notice of Noncompliance shall identify the provision(s) of this Ordinance, or the applicable permit which has been violated. The Notice of Noncompliance shall state that continued noncompliance may result in C :persona1\0►T97 \3to:=n97.o=d \ap 10. 7/07/97 tl i additional enforcement actions against the owner, occupant and /or Person. (2) The Notice of Noncompliance shall state a compliance date that must be met by the owner, occupant and /or Person; provided, however, that the compliance date may not 4;I exceed ninety (90) days unless the Authorized Inspector extends the compliance deadline an additional period not days 5� exceeding ninety (90) where good cause exists for the extension. h(b) Adminigtrativp Cnmpliancp Orders. I (1) The Authorized Inspector may issue an Administrative 8� Compliance Order. The Administrative Compliance Order shall be delivered in accordance with Section 4- 13 -70(e) 9; of this Ordinance. The Administrative Compliance Order may be issued to: l0 a. The owner or occupant of any property requiring t1i abatement of conditions on the property that cause or may cause a Prohibited Discharge or an Illicit Connection in violation of this Ordinance; 131 b. The owner of property subject to terms, conditions or requirements imposed on a project in accordance lad with Section 4- 13 -50(a) to .ensure adherence to those terms, conditions and requirements. t5! �o° C. A permittee subject- to the requirements of any ::1 lG permit issued pursuant to Article 6 hereof to ;;; ensure compliance with the terms, conditions and �z l'; y requirements of the permit. l8i d. Any Person responsible for an Illicit Connection or j Prohibited Discharge. l9 (2) The Administrative Compliance Order may include the 20' following terms and requirements: 2 1 1 a. Specific steps and time schedules for compliance as reasonably necessary to eliminate an existing 22 Prohibited Discharge or to prevent the imminent threat of a Prohibited Discharge, including but not 23 limited to a Prohibited Discharge from any pond, pit, well, surface impoundment, holding or storage 24 area; 25 b. Specific steps and time schedules for compliance as reasonably necessary to discontinue any Illicit 2G Connection; a 27 C. Specific requirements for containment, cleanup, removal, storage,, installation of overhead 4 28 c:D• n ona1 \DFT97 \atocu97.ocd \ep 11. 7/07/97 11 covering, or proper disposal of any Pollutant j having the potential to contact storm water runoff; d. Any other terms or requirements reasonably calculated to prevent imminent threat of or continuing violations of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to requirements for compliance with best management practices guidance documents SI promulgated by any federal, State of California or regional agency; G e. Any other terms or requirements reasonably calculated to achieve full compliance with the terms, conditions and requirements of any permit g issued pursuant hereto. 9I (c) CPege and negist Orders. to (1) The Authorized Inspector may issue a Cease and Desist Order. A Cease and Desist Order shall be delivered in 11 accordance with Section 4- 13 -70(e) of this Ordinance. A Cease and Desist Order may direct the owner or occupant. 12; of any property and /or other Person responsible for a violation of this Ordinance to: 13 a. Immediately discontinue any Illicit Connection, or 14I Prohibited Discharge to the Storm water Drainage. System; ng 15 b. Immediately contain -er divert any flow of water off ;y 16 the property, where the flow is occurring in violation of any provision of this Ordinance; C. Immediately discontinue any other violation of this is Ordinance. 19I d. Clean up the area affected by the violation. 20 i (2) The Authorized Inspector may direct by Cease and Desist Order that: (1) the owner of any property, or his 21 successor -in- interest, which property is subject to any conditions or requirements issued pursuant to Section 4- '-? 13- 50(a); or, (2) any permittee under any permit issued pursuant to Article 6 hereof: 23 a. Immediately cease any activity not in compliance 24 with the conditions or requirements issued pursuant to Section 4- 13 -50(a) or the terms, conditions and 25 requirements of the applicable permit. r a 26 (d) Recovery of rosts. The Authorized Inspector may deliver to the owner or occupant of any property, any permittee or any other Person who becomes subject to a notice of noncompliance or 2a administrative order, an Invoice for Costs. An Invoice for Costs e:P.rs0n&1 \0P?97 \3t0 o97.ord \*P 12. 7/07/97 shall be delivered in accordance with Section 4- 13 -70(e) of this Ordinance. An Invoice for Costs shall be immediately due and payable to the County for the actual costs incurred by the County in issuing and enforcing any notice or order. (1) If any owner or occupant, permittee or any other Person �i subject to an invoice for costs fails to either pay the Invoice for Costs or appeal successfully the Invoice for Costs in accordance with Section 4- 13- 70(f), then the Enforcing Attorney may institute collection proceedings. G (e) DDp?ivery of Notice. Any Notice of Noncompliance, -.j Administrative Compliance Order, Cease and Desist Order or Invoice of Costs to be delivered pursuant to the requirements of this g; Ordinance shall be subject to the following: 9; (1) The notice shall state that the recipient has a right to appeal the matter as set forth in Sections 4-13-70(f) 10i through (j) of this Ordinance. 11 (2) Delivery shall be deemed complete upon (a) personal service to the recipient; (b) deposit in the U.S. mail, 12; postage pre -paid for first class delivery; or (c) facsimile service with confirmation of receipt. 13 (3) where the recipient of notice is the owner of the property, the address for notice shall be the address from the most recently issued equalized assessment roll for the property or as otherwise appears in the current records of the County. — 16 (4 ) where the owner or occupant of any property cannot be 17jl located after the reasonable efforts of the Authorized Inspector, a Notice of Noncompliance or Cease and Desist t8 Order shall be deemed delivered after posting on the property for a period of ten (10) business days. 19II (f) Administrative Hearing for Nit-iniag of Nonr- nmjil.innce. 70 %I Administrative Complianro Order:. Znvoices for Costs and Adverse nAt rmina ion.. Except as set forth in Section 4- 13- 70(h), any 21i Person receiving a Notice of Noncompliance, Administrative Compliance Order, a notice of Legal Nonconforming Connection, an 22 Invoice for Costs, or any Person who is subject to any adverse determination made pursuant to this Ordinance, may appeal the 23 matter by requesting an administrative hearing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, these administrative appeal procedures shall not 24 apply to criminal proceedings initiated to enforce this Ordinance. 25I (g) Rw_uest for Administrative Hearing. Any person appealing a Notice of Noncompliance, an Administrative Compliance Order, a 26 notice of Legal Nonconforming Connection, an Invoice for Costs or an adverse determination shall, within thirty (3O) days of receipt thereof, file a written request for an administrative hearing, 29 accompanied by an administrative hearing fee as established by C:D6r20n&1 \DPT91\3t0rf91.0rd \*p 13. 7/07/97 I 1 separate resolution, with the Office of the Clerk of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, with a copy of the request for 7' administrative hearing mailed on the date of filing to the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department. Thereafter, 3 a hearing on the matter shall be held before the Hearing Officer within sixty (60) days of the date of filing of the written request 4,I unless, in the reasonable discretion of the Hearing Officer and 5Jpursuant to a written request by the appealing party, a continuance of the hearing is granted. 10 11 12 13 14 15 W 0 16 0 0 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 N N O 27 28 (h) Adminie ra iye H wring for Cease and Desist orders and Rmgrgpsy ha Pm n Artinns. An administrative hearing on the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order or following an emergency abatement action shall be held within five (5) business days following the issuance of the order or the action of abatement, unless the hearing (or the time requirement for the hearing) is waived in writing by the party subject to the Cease and Desist Order or the emergency abatement. A request for an administrative hearing shall not be required from the Person subject to the Cease and Desist Order or the emergency abatement action. (i) Hearing Proceedings. The Authorized Inspector shall appear in support of the notice, order, determination, Invoice for Costs or emergency abatement action, and the appealing party shall appear in support of withdrawal of the notice, order, determination, Invoice for Costs, or in opposition to the emergency abatement action. Except as set forth in Section 4- 13 -30(g) (definition of Discharge Exception), the County shall have the burden of supporting any enforcement or other action by a preponderance of the evidence. Each party shall have the right to present testimony and other documentary evidence as necessary for explanation of the case. (j) Final opriginn and An,.ep&1. The final decision of the Hearing Officer shall issue within ten (10) business days of the conclusion of the hearing and shall be delivered by first -class mail, postage prepaid, to the appealing party. The final decision shall include notice that any legal challenge to the final decision shall be made pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 and shall be commenced within ninety (90) days following issuance of the final decision. The administrative hearing fee paid by a prevailing party in an appeal shall be refunded. (1) Notwithstanding this Section 4- 13- 70(j), the final decision of the Hearing Officer in any proceeding determining the validity of a Cease and Desist Order or following an emergency abatement action shall be mailed within five (5) business days following the conclusion of the hearing. (k) Cnunty Abatpmpnt. In the event the owner of property, the operator of a facility, a permittee, or any other Person fails to comply with any provision of a compliance schedule issued to C:perfona1\0P?97 \srnrZ97.nrd \ @p 14. 7/07/97 1� such owner, operator, permittee or Person pursuant to this Ordinance, the Authorized Inspector may request the Enforcing 2 Attorney -to obtain an abatement warrant or other appropriate judicial authorization to enter the property, abate the condition and restore the area. Any costs incurred by the County in obtaining and carrying out an abatement warrant or other judicial authorization may be recovered pursuant to Section 4- 13- 71(d). 10 11 12 13 14 15 d � O 'rZ 16 a� 17 18 19 70 21 22 23 24 3 26 h a 27 e 28 Sec. 4- 13 -71. Nuisance Any condition in violation of the prohibitions of this Ordinance, including but not limited to the maintenance or use of any Illicit Connection or the occurrence of any Prohibited Discharge, shall constitute a threat to the .public health, safety and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance pursuant to Government Code Section 38771. (a) rnurt Ord r tn Pninin or Ahate. At the request of the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his /her designee, the Enforcing Attorney may seek a court order to enjoin and /or abate the nuisance. (b) Notice to owner and occupant. Prior to seeking any court order to enjoin or abate a nuisance or threatened nuisance, the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his/her designee, shall provide notice of the proposed injunction or abatement to the owner and occupant, if any, of the property where the nuisance or threatened nuisance is occurring. (c) F_mAqAnrX AhatPmPnt. In the event the nuisance constitutes an imminent danger to public safety or the environment, the Authorized Inspector may enter the property from which the nuisance emanates, abate the nuisance and restore any property affected by the nuisance. To the extent reasonably practicable, informal notice shall be provided to the owner and occupant prior to abatement. If necessary to protect the public safety or the environment, abatement may proceed without prior notice to or consent from the owner or occupant thereof and without judicial warrant. (1) An imminent danger shall include, but is not limited to, exigent' circumstances created by the dispersal of Pollutants, where the same presents a significant and immediate threat to the public safety or the environment. (2) Notwithstanding the authority of the County to conduct an emergency abatement action, an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 4- 13 -70(h) hereinabove shall follow the abatement action. (d) R i h.rs m n of oqt-g. All costs incurred by the County in responding to any nuisance, all administrative expenses and all other expenses, recoverable under State law, shall be recoverable C:peraana3 \DPS97 \3tarZ97.ard \@p 15. 7/07/97 1i from the Person(s) creating, causing, committing, allowing or maintaining the nuisance. (e) NuisAnnp r.ion. All costs shall become a lien against the ;i property from which the nuisance emanated and a personal obligation against the owner thereof in accordance with Government Code 4;I Sections 38773.1 and 38773.5. The owner of record of the property subject to any lien shall be given notice of the lien prior to 5. recording as required by Government Code Section 38773.1. 6 (1) At the direction of the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his /her designee, the Enforcing 7, Attorney is Authorized to collect nuisance abatement costs or enforce a nuisance lien in an action brought for g; a money judgement or by delivery to the County Assessor of a special assessment against the property in accord 9, with the conditions and requirements of Government Code Section 38773.5. 101 Sec. 4- 13 -72. Criminal Sanctions 11 (a) ProePriitnr. The Enforcing Attorney may act on the 12 request of the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his /her designee, to pursue enforcement actions in accordance 13i with the provisions of this Ordinance. 14 (b) Infractions. Any Person who may otherwise be charged with a misdemeanor under this Ordinance may be charged, at the 151 discretion of the Enforcing Attorney, with an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $100 for- a first violation, $200 for a 16 second violation, and a fine not exceeding $500 for each additional ;:: violation occurring within one year. i a � 17 � (c) MiadP�nnra. Any Person who negligently or knowingly 1gi violates any provision of this Ordinance, undertakes to conceal any violation of this Ordinance, continues any violation of this 19i Ordinance after notice thereof, or violates the terms, conditions and requirements of any permit, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor 20 punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for a period of not more than six months, or both. 21 Sec. 4- 13 -73. Consecutive Violations Each day in which a violation occurs and each separate failure 23 to comply with either a separate provision of this Ordinance, an Administrative Compliance Order, a Cease and Desist Order, or a 24 permit issued pursuant to this Ordinance, shall constitute a separate violation of this Ordinance punishable by fines or 25 sentences issued in accordance herewith. 26 Sec. 4- 13 -74. Non - exclusive Remedies N 27 Each and every remedy available for the enforcement of this Ordinance shall be non - exclusive and it is within the discretion of 28 c:par9nnal \0)T97 \seoru97.nrd \ap 16. 7/07/97 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 0 �VV 16 Z Z b c 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Y 27 28 the Authorized Inspector or Enforcing Attorney to seek cumulative remedies, except that multiple monetary fines or penalties shall not be available for any single violation of this Ordinance. Sec. 4- 13 -75. Citations Pursuant to Penal Code Section 836.5, the Authorized Inspector shall have the authority to cause the arrest of any Person committing a violation of this Ordinance. The Person shall be released and issued a citation to appear before a magistrate in accordance with Penal Code Sections 853.5, 853.6, and 853.9, unless the Person demands to be taken before a magistrate. Following issuance of any citation the Authorized Inspector shall refer the matter to the Enforcing Attorney. Each citation to appear shall state the name and address of the violator, the provisions of this Ordinance violated, and the time and place of appearance before the court, which shall be at least ten (10) business days after the date of violation. The Person cited shall sign the citation giving his or her written promise to appear as stated therein. If the Person cited fails to appear, the Enforcing Attorney may request issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the Person cited. Sec. 4- 13 -76. Violations of Other Laws. Any Person acting in violation of this Ordinance also may be acting in violation of the Federal Clean Water Act or the State Porter - cologne Act and other laws and also may be subject to sanctions including civil liability- Accordingly, the Enforcing Attorney is authorized to file a citizen suit: pursuant to Federal Clean Water Act Section 505(a), seeking penalties, damages, and orders compelling compliance, and other appropriate relief. The Enforcing Attorney may notify EPA Region IX, the Santa Ana or San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards, or any other appropriate state or local agency, of any alleged violation of this Ordinance. Sec. 4- 13 -77. Injunctions At the request of the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his /her designee, the Enforcing Attorney may cause the filing in a court of competent jurisdiction, of a civil action seeking an injunction against any threatened or continuing noncompliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (a) Order for RPimhurnPmPnt,. Any temporary, preliminary or permanent injunction issued pursuant hereto may include an order for reimbursement to the County of all costs incurred in enforcing this Ordinance, including costs of inspection, investigation and monitoring, the costs of abatement undertaken at the expense of the County, costs relating to restoration of the environment and all other expenses as authorized by law. C:p*rsnn&1 \D)T97 \3torn97.ard \4p 17. 7/07/97 -I 31 a.' �I 1 6: 8. I 91 I 10 11 i 12 13 i ° I i . 16 �I u c 17, 18 jI 19' i 20 21 77 23 24 ' 25 r 26 M � 28 Sec. 4- 13 -78. Other Civil Remedies (a) The Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his /her designee may cause the Enforcing Attorney to file an action for civil damages in a court of competent jurisdiction seeking recovery of (i) all costs incurred in enforcement of this Ordinance, including but not limited to costs relating to investigation, sampling, monitoring, inspection, administrative expenses, all other expenses as authorized by law, and consequential damages, (ii) all costs incurred in mitigating harm to the environment or reducing the threat to human health, and (iii) damages for irreparable harm to the environment. (b) The Enforcing Attorney is authorized to file actions for civil damages resulting from any trespass or nuisance occurring on public land or to the Storm Water Drainage System from any violation of this Ordinance where the same has caused damage, contamination or harm to the environment, public property or the Storm Water Drainage System. (c) The remedies available to the County pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance shall not limit the right of the County to seek any other remedy that may be available by law. ARTICLE 6. PERMITS Sec. 4- 13 -80. Procedure. (a) (1) Permit. On application of the owner of property or the operator of any facility, which property or facility is not otherwise subject to the requirements of a State General Permit or a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit regulating storm water discharges, the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his/her designee, may issue a permit authorizing the release of non -storm water Discharges to the Storm Water Drainage System if: a. The Discharge of material or constituents is reasonably necessary for the conduct of otherwise legal activities on the property, and b. The Discharge will not cause a nuisance, impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters, or cause any reduction in established water quality standards. (2) Anelicatien. The applicant shall provide all information requested by the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his /her designee, for review and consideration of the application, including but not limited to specific detail as to the activities to be conducted on the property, plans and specifications for C %pacsona1 \DPT97 \1cocv97.0cC \ap 1e. 7/07/97 facilities located on the property, identification of equipment or processes to be used on -site and other information as may be requested in order to determine the constituents, and quantities thereof, which may be :I discharged if permission is granted. 4j (3) Permit Tqquanrp. The permit shall be granted or denied by the Director, Public Facilities and Resources �I Department or his /her designee, no later than sixty (60) days following the completion and ,acceptance of the application as determined by the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his /her designee. a. The applicant shall be notified in Person or by first -class mail, postage prepaid, of the action taken. 91 (4) permit Conditions. The permit may include terms, lot conditions and requirements to ensure compliance with the objectives of this Ordinance and as necessary to protect 11i the receiving waters, including but not limited to: 12( a. Identification of the Discharge location on the property and the location at which the Discharge 13 will enter the Storm Water Drainage System; i 14i b. Identification of the constituents and quantities thereof to be discharged into the Storm Water ;; 15 Drainage system; 16; C. Specification of pollution prevention techniques f and structural or non - structural control 1' requirements as reasonably necessary to prevent the occurrence of potential Discharges in violation of 18 this Ordinance; 19J d. Requirements for self - monitoring of any Discharge; 20 e. Requirements for submission of documents or data, such as technical reports, production data, 21 Discharge reports, self- monitoring reports and waste manifests; and f. Other terms and conditions appropriate to ensure 23 compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance 24 and the protection of receiving waters. (5) c: n ral Permit. In the discretion of the Director, 25 Public Facilities and Resources Department or his/her designee, the permit may, in accordance with the 26 conditions identified in Section 4- 13- 80(x)(4) hereinabove, be prepared as a general permit applicable '7 to a specific category of activities. If a general A 28 permit is issued, any Person intending to Qischarge C:pscs0ns1\D)T97 \8e0ca97.ocd \ @p 19. 7/07/97. 1! within the scope of the authorization provided by the general permit may do so by filing an application to 2 Discharge with the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his /her designee. No Discharge within the scope of the general permit shall occur until 3! such application is so filed. a. Notwithstanding the foregoing in this Section �I 4- 13- 80(a)(5), the Director, Public Facilities and j Resources Department or his /her designee, in his discretion, may eliminate the requirement that an application for a .general permit be filed for any specific activity for which a general permit has been issued. s (6) permit Fees. The permission to Discharge shall be 9 conditioned upon the applicant's payment of the County's costs, in accordance with a fee schedule adopted by 10 separate resolution, as follows: 11 a. For individually issued permits, the costs of reviewing the permit application, preparing and 12 issuing the permit, and the costs reasonably related to administrating this permit program. 13 j b. For general permits, the costs of reviewing the 14i permit application, that portion of the costs of preparing the general permit which is reasonably 5i attributable to the permittee's application for the general permit, and -the costs reasonably related to 16' administering the general permit program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no fee shall be 1, charged for a general permit 'issued pursuant to Section 4- 13- 80(a)(5)(a). 18 (b) Permit 4uaDen5ion. Revocation or Modification. 19 j (1) The Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department 20 or his /her designee may suspend or revoke any permit when it is determined that: a. The Permittee has violated any term, condition or ?? requirement of the permit or any applicable i provision of this Ordinance; or 23 b. The Permittee's Discharge or the circumstances 241 under which the Discharge occurs have changed so l that it is no longer appropriate to except the 25 Discharge from the prohibitions on Prohibited Discharge contained within this Ordinance; or 2 26 C. The Permittee fails to comply with any schedule for 2' compliance issued pursuant to this Ordinance; or C:p�csoo�l \DTT97 \s coc�97.ord \gyp 20. 7/07/97 I � , J � V y � V . 1 01 � D e N 0 it I I;I d. Any regulatory agency, including EPA or a Regional 21 � Water quality Control Board having jurisdiction over the Discharge, notifies the County that the Discharge should be terminated. 31I (2) The Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department 4 or his /her designee, may modify any permit when it is determined that: 5 a. Federal or state law requirements have changed in a 6i manner that necessitates a change in the permit; or -I b. The Permittee's Discharge or the circumstances under which the Discharge occurs have changed so 8i that it is appropriate to modify the permit's terms, conditions or requirements; or 9 C. A change to the permit is necessary to ensure 10 compliance with the objectives of this Ordinance or to protect the quality of receiving waters. t1 The Permittee, or in the case of a general permit, each 12� Person who has filed an application pursuant to Section 4- 13- 80(a)(5), shall be informed of any change in the 13 permit terms and conditions at least sixty (60) days prior to the effective date of the modified permit. In 14 the case of a general permit issued pursuant to Section 4- 13- 80(a)(5)(a), any charge in the permit terms and 15 conditions shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the County at least sixty (60) days 16 prior to the effective date of the modified permit. 17 (3) The determination that a permit shall. be denied, suspended, revoked or modified may be appealed by a 18 permittee pursuant to the same procedures applicable to appeal of an Administrative Compliance Order hereunder. !9 In the absence of a judicial order to the contrary, the Permittee may continue to discharge pending issuance of 20 the final administrative decision by the Rearing Officer. 21 (c) Permit RnfmrrPmRnt. 22 (1) Penalties. Any violation of the terms, conditions and requirements of any permit issued by the Director, Public 23 Facilities and Resources Department or his/her designee, shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance and 24 subject the violator to the administrative, civil and criminal remedies available under this Ordinance. 25 (d) rnmpliwnre. Compliance with the terms, conditions and 26 requirements of a permit issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall not relieve the Permittee from compliance Z7 with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and 28 c:palaona1 \DPT97 \2[o u97.o1d \ap 21. 7/07/97 i 1� permit requirements, applicable to the activity for which j the permit is issued. ?` (1) Limited Poarmittpla Right. Permits issued under this 311 Ordinance are for the Person identified therein as the Permittee" only, and authorize the specific operation at 4 the specific location identified in the permit. The issuance of a Permit does not vest the Permittee with a 51 continuing right to Discharge. o (2) Trmnsfor of P rmi s. No permit issued to any Person may be transferred to allow: -1 a. A Discharge to the Storm Water Drainage System at a g location other than the location stated in the original permit; or 9 b. A Discharge by a Person other than the Person named 10 in the permit, provided however, that the County may approve a transfer if written approval is 11 obtained, in advance, from the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department or his /her 12 designee. 13 ARTICLE 7. INTERAGENCY COOPERATION 14 Sec. 4- 13 -90. Federal Clean Water Act. J � W. 15 (a) The County intends to cooperate with other agencies with jurisdiction over storm water discharges to ensure that the W 16 regulatory purposes underlying storm water regulations promulgated pursuant to the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. S 1251 et seq.) are met. 17 { (b) The County may, to the extent authorized by law, elect to 18 contract for the services of any public agency or private enterprise to carry out the planning approvals, inspections, 19 permits and enforcement authorized by this Ordinance. Z0 ARTICLE 8. MISCELLANEOUS .21 Sec. 4 -13 -100: General Provisions. 22 (a) rnmplianep Disrlaimpr. Full compliance by any Person or entity with the provisions of this Ordinance shall not preclude the 23 need to comply with other local, state or federal statutory or regulatory requirements, which may be required for the control of 24 the Discharge of Pollutants into storm water and /or protection of 25 storm water quality. e (b) Spvprahility. If any provision of this Ordinance or the 26 application of the Ordinance to any circumstance is held invalid, N the remainder of the Ordinance or the application of the Ordinance Z7 to other Persons or circumstances shall not be affected. 28 C:pecsona1 \DPT97 \&eocn97.0rd \*p 22. 7/07/97 I (c) Rppea1 of Prior Ordinance. The enactment of this Ordinance by County shall repeal the provisions of Article 3, ,;� Sections -4 -3 -148 through and including section 4 -3 -190 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange, enacted for the 3;1 permitting of Discharges of industrial waste to ground or surface waters and no new Discharge permits shall be issued thereunder; 4 :1 provided however, that connection to Discharge under the terms and .1 conditions of any individual Discharge permit issued prior to the 51 date of enactment of the water Quality Ordinance shall be allowed '] hereunder as a Legal Nonconforming Connection. 10 11 12 13 14 IS a ' 16 Z: t' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 26 c 27 28 (d) mAgri nom. Headings of the sections of this Ordinance are inserted for convenience only and shall have no effect in the application of this Ordinance. ARTICLE 9. JUDICIAL REVIEW Sec. 4 -13 -110. Procedure. The provisions of Sections 1094.5 Civil Procedure set forth the procedure act taken pursuant to this Ordinance. review of any action taken pursuant to such action within ninety (90) days of for which review is sought. and 3.094.6 of the Code of for judicial review of any Parties seeking judicial this Ordinance shall file :he occurrence of the event SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and, before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the passage thereof, shall be published once in the orange county Reporter a newspaper published in the County of Orange, State of California, together with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for or against the same. C %pstsons1\DFT97 \Oto n97.ocd \sP 23. 7/07/97 i i .I z� 41 1 <I 6 .j i SCI i 9: L O I I 17 13 i 14 j O V !I 16 V 1 1 J� 1 19 29 2I 22 23 24 25 a 26 N T 2/ 3 Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY n OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD a +` ATTEST YfY \YLI�L V . DLW11 Clerk of the Board of SupervLgors County of Orange, California STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, DARLENE J. BLOOM, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, held on the 22nd day of July 1 1997, the foregoing ordinance containing two sections was passed and ad9Pted by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS., Todd Spitzer, charles V. Saith, James W. Silva, Tbomas W. Wilson, chairman William G. Steiner NOES: SUPERVISORS: ABSENT: SUPERVISORS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, L have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the* Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, State of California, this 22nd day of July 997. / / IZ• A Ole, UfYlLL/�L V. Q"WM Clerk of the Board of Sup isors County of Orange, California C:p*rsana1 \09297 \3tara97.0r Q \*p 24. 7/07/97 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMO) Fired Service Operations Facility Lot 19 of Tract No. 3201, Book 130, pages 25 — 30, Misc. Maps Orange County, California Attachment H — Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Form Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. Dove Streit WQMP.dx October 7, 2004 Section VII Page 23 Water Quality Management Plan Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Tracking No. Assigned by the City of Newport Beach: Submission of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City of Newport Beach that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan ( "WQMP ") for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (and his /her agent) of the site (or a portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. 1. Previous Owner/Previous Responsible Party Information Company /Individual Name Contact Person Street Address Title City State Zip Phone II. Information about Site Transferred Name of Project (if applicable) Title of WQMP Applicable to Site: Street Address of Site (if applicable) Planning Area (PA) and /or Tract Number(s) for Site Lot Numbers (if Site is a portion of a tract) 1 Date WQMP Prepared (and revised if applicable) 111. New Owner/New Responsible Party Information Company /individual Name Contact Person Street Address Title City State Zip Phone IV. Ownership Transfer Information General Description of Site Transferred to New Owner General Description of Portion of Project/Parcel Subject To WQMP Retained by Owner (if any) Lot/Tract Numbers of Site Transferred to New Owner Remaining Lot/Tract Numbers Subi ect to WQMP Still Held by Owner (if any) Date of Ownership Transfer Note: When the Previous Owner is transferring a Site that is a portion of a larger project/parcel addresses by the WQMP, as opposed to the entire project/parcel addressed by the WQMP, the General Description of the Site transferred and the remainder of the project/parcel not transferred shall be set forth as maps attached to this notice. These maps shall show those portions of a project/parcel addressed by the WQMP tha', are transferred to the New Owner (the Transferred Site), those portions retained by the Previous Owner, and those portions previously transferred by Previous Owner. Those portions retained by Previous Owner shall be labeled "Previous Owner ", and those portions previously transferred by Previous Owner shall be labeled as "Previously Transferred." F'. \W ORDDOCS \NPDBS \Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Newport Beach.doc V. Purpose of Notice of Transfer The purposes of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility are: 1) to track transfer of responsibility for implementation and amendment of the WQMP when property to which the WQMP is applicable is transferred from the Previous Owner to the New Owner, and 2) to facilitate notification to a transferee of property subject to a WQMP that such New Owner is now the Responsible Party of record for the WQMP for those portions of the site that it owns. VI. Certifications A. Previous Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am no longer the owner of the Transferred Site as described in Section II above. I have provided the New Owner with a copy of the WQMP applicable to the Transferred Site that the New Owner is acquiring from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of Previous Owner Representative Title Signature of Previous Owner Representative Date B. New Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the Transferred Site, as described in Section II above, that I have been provided a copy of the WQMP, and that I. have informed myself and understand the New Owner's responsibilities related to the WQMP, its implementation, and Best Management Practices associated with it. I understand that by signing tkds notice, the New Owner is accepting all ongoing responsibilities for implementation and amendment of the WQMP for the Transferred site, which the New Owner has acquired from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of New Owner Representative Title Signature Date F: %WORDDOCS %NPDESWotice of Transfer of Responsibility Newport Beach.doc APPENDIX D TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 2101 DOVE STREET TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (Revised 12/22/05) City of Newport Beach, California , 11 51"M I u" w engineering group, inc. H - � el e � e 4 _ engineering group, inc. engineering group, inc. transportation planning - traffic engineering acoustical / air quality studies December 22, 2005 Mr. David L. Keely Public Works Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: 2101 Dove Street Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Traffic Impact Study (Revised 12/22/05) Dear Mr. Keely: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to submit this revised Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Traffic Impact Study of the proposed development at 2101 Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach. This study has been revised per City of Newport Beach comments, dated December 20, 2005. Pendragon North America Automotive, Inc. is proposing to redevelop the existing site into an auto care center with approximately 58,145 square feet of building. The project would consist of service, parts, and vehicle storage uses. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to review existing and future conditions with and without the proposed future development. Future conditions will include a growth rate, approved projects, and cumulative projects in the vicinity of the site. Based upon our analysis of existing and future traffic volumes, the project will not have a significant impact at any study area intersections projected to perform at unsatisfactory levels of service. Therefore, no mitigation was required as a part of this study. RK is pleased to provide this traffic impact study of the 2101 Dove Street development in the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions regarding this study, or would like further review, please do not hesitate to-call us at (949) 474 -0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERINC (�' \.'-�V Robert Kahn, P.E Principal Attachments RK: MA: rd1RK4422. doc JN:0559 -04 -01 Martina Albers Transportation Planner 20201 s.w. birch street suite 250 newport beach, catifornia 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902 http://www.rkengineer-com 2101 DOVE STREET TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (REVISED 12/09/05) City of Newport Beach, California Prepared for: Public Works Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Prepared by: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 20201 S.W. Birch Street, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Kahn, P.E. Martina Llbers No. 0555 EXP. 12131/05 becember 22, 2005 RK: MA:rd1RK4422. doc IN:0559 -04 -01 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction .......................................................... ............................... 1 -1 2.0 Intersection Analysis ............................................. ............................... 2 -1 2.1 ICU Analysts 2 -1 2.2 Definition of Deficiency 2 -3 3.0 Existing Conditions ............................................... ............................... 3 -1 4.0 Future Conditions ................................................. ............................... 4-1 4.1 Background Growth, Approved Projects, Cumulative Projects 4 -1 4.2 Project Trip Generation 4 -4 4.3 Project Trip Distribution 4 -7 4.4 Project Trip Assignment 4 -10 5.0 1 %Traffic Volume Analysis ................................... ............................... 5 -1 6.0 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis .............. ............................... 6 -1 6.1 Existing Plus Approved Projects 6 -1 6.2 Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project 6 -1 7.0 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis ........................ 7 -1 7.1 Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects 7 -1 7.2 Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project 7 -1 8.0 General Plan Buildout Traffic Analysis .................. ............................... 8 -1 8.1 General Plan Buildout B -1 8.2 General Plan Buildout Plus Project B -4 9.0 Mitigation Measures ............................................. ............................... 9 -1 10.0 Recommendations ................................................ ............................... 10 -1 List of Attachments Exhibits LocationMap ............................................................................ ............................... A SitePlan .................................................................................... ............................... B Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................. ............................... C Approved Projects Traffic Volumes ............................................. ............................... D Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ........................................... ............................... E Project Outbound Trip Distribution ............................................ ............................... F Project Inbound Trip Distribution ............................................... ............................... G Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................. ............................... H Existing Plus Approved Projects Traffic Volumes ......................... ............................... I Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project Traffic Volumes ....... ............................... J Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ................... K Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project Traffic Volumes L General Plan Traffic Volumes ................. ............................... ............................... M General Plan Plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................... ............................... N Recommendations.................................................................... ............................... 0 List of Attachments Existing Weekday Peak Hour Level of Service Analysis .................. ............................... 1 TripGeneration Rates ................................................................ ............................... 2 Project Trip Generation .............................................................. ............................... 3 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis ................................... ............................... 4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis ................ ............................... 5 General Plan Buildout Plus. Project Weekday Peak Hour Level Of Service Analysis ............................................................. ............................... 6 Appendices Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets ...... A Intersections With Annual Growth Rate ..................................... ............................... B Approved Projects Information .................................................. ............................... C Cumulative Projects Information ................................................ ............................... D 2101 Dove Street Trip Generation Study .................................... ............................... E Existing Land Uses Trip Generation ............................................ ............................... F 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ....................................................... ............................... G Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Level of Service Analysis Worksheets ................. ..............................: ......................... H General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes ....................................... ............................... I General Plan Buildout Level of Service Analysis Worksheets ........ ............................... J 0 Introduction This study is a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) study of a proposed redevelopment of the existing site located at 2101 Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach, as shown on Exhibit A. More specifically, the site is located south of Dove Street, east of Campus Drive, and west of Birch Street. Pendragon North American Automotive, Inc. is proposing to redevelop the existing site into an auto care center with approximately 58,145 square feet of building. The site will contain a variety of uses, including auto repair, storage, and other facilities. The service facility will provide the auto service needs of the existing Land Rover Dealership located on Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The site plan for the proposed development is illustrated on Exhibit B. The project is forecast to open in year 2006; therefore, the analysis has been conducted for year 2007. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to review Existing, Existing Plus Approved Projects, Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project, Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects, Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project, General Plan Buildout, and General Plan Buildout Plus Project conditions. This study was prepared in accordance with City of Newport Beach TPO and General Plan Amendment requirements, and per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements The following study area intersections were analyzed as part of this study: worth -South Street East- West - Street. , Campus Drive MacArthur Boulevard Birch Street Jamboree Road Dove Street Campus Drive N Bristol Street SE Bristol Street Dove Street Birch Street N Bristol Street SE Bristol Street Von Karman Avenue Campus Drive 1 -1 Exhibit A Location Map I Legend: • = Study Area Intersection N 0559- D9 -01(ExA) 2101 DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Newport aeech, C Iitomia 1 -2 engineering group, inc. Exhibit B Site Plan siecn •run 0559-09 -01 (EXB) engineering 2101 DOVE STREETTPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, ChyofNewpom Beach, CalHanfa group inc. 1 -3 rc m IT- F1 4 , �I 1 � E °i w E e � e siecn •run 0559-09 -01 (EXB) engineering 2101 DOVE STREETTPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, ChyofNewpom Beach, CalHanfa group inc. 1 -3 'North -South Street Eest West.Street Campus Drive Jamboree Road N Bristol Street SE Bristol Street Jamboree Road /Eastbluff Drive University Drive This study has been prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance guidelines. Consistent with TPO methodology, all study area intersections were evaluated to identify any locations where the project has the potential to increase traffic on any leg of the intersection of 1 % or more in the Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project condition. Intersections where the project would not increase traffic on any leg by 1% or more would not require further analysis. Cumulative projects have also been included in the traffic impact analysis to comply with the CEQA requirements. The study will determine any recommendations necessary to accommodate the report. 1 -4 2.0 Intersection Analysis 2.1 ICU Analysis The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. ICU is usually expressed as a percent. The percent represents the portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The calculation method consists of the following: 1. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) for study area intersections; 2. Saturation Flow Rate: Saturation flow value of 1,600 vehicles per lane. No adjustments are used for protected movements with dedicated lanes (i.e. right or left turn lanes). 3. Level of Service (LOS) Ranges: The following thresholds are used in assigning a letter Value to the resulting LOS: Critical Volume: .Os Interpretation:: Capacity Ratic A Excellent operation — free -flow 0.00-0.60 B Very good operation — stable flow, little or no delays 0.61 -0.70 C Good operation — slight delays 0.71 -0.80 D Fair operation — noticeable delays, queuing observed 0.81 -0.90 E Poor operation — long delays, near or at capacity 0.91 -1.00 F Forcedflow — congestion >1.00 ity of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Chapter 15.40. Appendix A. Subsection 3 -i. Year 1991 2 -1 4. Peak - Periods: Weekday peak -hour analysis periods are defined as follows: 7:00 to 9:00 AM 4:00 to 6:00 PM All peak hour studies are contained within these periods. 5. Peak -Hour: The highest one -hour period in both the AM and PM peak periods, as determined by four consecutive 15- minute count periods, are used in the ICU calculations. Both AM and PNI peak hours are studied. 6. Peak -Hour Data Consistency: Variations in peak -hour volumes can affect LOS calculations because they vary from day -to -day. To minimize these variations, no traffic counts are taken on Mondays, Fridays, holidays, or weekends. 7. Right Turn Movements: It is assumed that right turn movements are accommodated during non - conflicting left turn phases (e.g., northbound right turns during westbound left turn phase), as well as non - conflicting through flows (e.g., northbound right turn movements and north/south through flows). Right turn movements become critical when conflicting movements (e.g., northbound right turns, southbound left turns, and eastbound through flows) represent a sum of V/C ratios that are greater than the normal through and left turn critical movements. 2 -2 If a free right turn lane exists (right turns do not have to stop for the signal), a flow rate of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane is assumed. The V/C ratio of the right turn lane is reported but not included in the sum of the critical V /C: ratios. 2.2 Definition of Deficiency The City of Newport Beach considers LOS D (0.90 or less volume to capacity ratio) as the upper limit of satisfactory operations. Mitigation is required for any intersection where project related traffic causes the intersection to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E. if an intersection is operating at LOS E or worse during pre- project conditions, project impact occurs when the project related traffic increases the ICU by 0.01 or more. 2 -3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 -4 3.0 Existing Conditions Existing traffic volumes at the fourteen study area intersections are shown on Exhibit C. These volumes were provided by the City of Newport Beach (2002 through 2004). Based on the peak hour traffic volumes at the study area intersections and the methodology described in Section 2.0, the weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection levels of service were assessed at all of the fourteen study area intersections for Existing conditions. The intersection capacity analysis was performed using the ICU method spreadsheets provided by the City of Newport Beach. The intersection capacity worksheets for Existing conditions are included in Appendix A. Table 1 presents the Existing conditions intersection levels of service. All of the study area intersections are operating at Level of Service D or better during Existing peak hour conditions, with the exception of the following intersection that operates at Level of Service E during the PM peak hour: North -South Street; East -West Mac Arthur Arthur Boulevard Jamboree Road 3 -1 Exhibit C Existing Traffic Volumes 0559 -04-01 (E.C) - englneenmg 2101 DOVESTREETTPO TRAFFIC IMPACTSTUDY, Crtyof N.wpe Bedh, CWifome group, inn. 3 -2 TABLE 1 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Level of Service Analysis , ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization 3 -3 i.NktaMMK4422xis JN:0559 -04 -01 Level of ICU, Service AM PM AM PM Intersection MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) 0.58 0.74 A C • Birch Street (EW) 0.38 0.48 A A • Jamboree Road JEW) 0.78 0.92 C E Campus Drive (NS) at: • Dove Street (EW) 0.63 0.44 B A • N Bristol Street (EW) 0.44 0.54 A A • SE Bristol Street (EW) 0.54 0.45 B A Birch Street (NS) at: • Dove Street (EW) 0.60 0.57 B A • N Bristol Street (EW) 0.61 0.61 B B • SE_ Bristol Street (EW) 0._4.2 0.45 A A Von Karman Avenue (NS) at: _ • Campus Drive (EW) 0.43 0.75 A C Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) 0.75 0.81 C D • N Bristol Street (EW) 0.49 0.57 A A • SE Bristol Street (EW) 0.65_ 0.66 B B Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive (NS) at • University Drive (EW) 0.58 0.52 A A , ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization 3 -3 i.NktaMMK4422xis JN:0559 -04 -01 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -4 4.0 Future Conditions 4.1 Background Growth, Approved Projects, Cumulative Projects To determine future traffic volumes on the study area roadways and at the study area intersections, three primary variables were considered. These include a determination of the annual ambient traffic growth rate (based on the recent years' traffic growth trends in the study area), specific approved projects in the study area, and growth due to cumulative projects that may significantly affect increases in local traffic. An ambient background traffic growth rate of 11/6 per year was utilized in the analysis at the intersections specified by the City. of Newport Beach. The list of roadways with the ambient growth rate is included in Appendix B. The City of Newport Beach has identified traffic growth from sixteen approved projects that are anticipated for completion within the next few years. The approved projects peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit D and are included in Appendix C. Furthermore, traffic from eleven reasonably foreseeable projects within the City of Newport Beach was also added as part of the cumulative analysis (consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)). The cumulative projects peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit E and the trip generation and distribution for each of the cumulative projects are included in Appendix D. Expected traffic generated from these projects has been estimated by applying standards trip generation rate data derived from the Newport : Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) or the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines. For each project, the forecast future trip generation has been estimated based on the type of land use proposed and the size of building area. For purposes of estimating Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects traffic condition and their 4 -1 Exhibit D Approved Projects Traffic Volumes 0559-04 -01 (&D) engineering 2101 DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Cxy of Newport Beach, Czlifomia group, inc. 4 -2 Exhibit E Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes 0559-09 -01 (&fl enyumenny 2101 DOVE STREETTPOTWFIC IMPACT STUDY, CIryof Newport Beach,CaIUrff1a group, Inc. 4 -3 associated levels of service, those trips were then assigned to the fourteen study area intersections. 4.2 Project Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. The traffic generation for the proposed 2101 Dove Street project is based upon the specific land uses that have been planned for the development. The project site is proposed to redevelop the existing site into an auto care center with approximately 58,145 square feet of building. The site will contain a variety of uses, including auto repair, storage, and other facilities. Trip generation rates for the proposed project's land uses are shown in Table 2. The trip generation rates are based upon actual traffic operations at two existing Pendragon North America sites located in Los Angeles. The two sites were reviewed by RK, and traffic counts were obtained at both locations along with the various land use information for both sites. The trip generation rates for the proposed 2101 Dove Street site were calculated based upon this information and were reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach staff. The trip generation study for the 2101 Dove Street development prepared by RK is included in Appendix E. Both daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed project are shown in Table 3. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of approximately 1,557 trip -ends per day, with 157 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 146 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. However, the site is currently occupied by a variety of tenants. Based upon information provided by the City of Newport Beach, Hertz Rent a Car, Avis Rent a Car, Body Scan, Phillips Auto, United Auto, Kevin Rhoads, and the Spina Bifida Foundation utilize the parking lot at the site but do not occupy any interior space. However, Autobytel currently occupies 4,000 square feel: of the site, Synergy Direct occupies 4,000 square feet, Proball =A TABLE 2 Trip Generation Rates' Land Use Units Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out In Out Santa Monica and Hollywood Pendragon Sites (Weighted Average) TSF 1.38 1.32 1.21 1.30 26.77 ' Based upon actual traffic operations of two existing Pendragon North America sites. ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet j:Vktab1e5WK4422.x15 4 -5 IN:0559 -04 -07 TABLE 3 Project Trip Generation' Land Use Quantity Units Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out In Out Proposed Land Use: Automotive Care Center 58.145 TSF 80 70 76 1,557 Less Existing Land Use: Various Tenants' Mixed -37 _77 -7 -10 -34 -364 Net Trip Generation 43 70 60 1 42 1,193 Based upon the trip generation study for the project prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet ' Information provided by the City of Newport Beach. i:4ktab1es\RK4422.xls 4 -6 IN:0559 -04 -01 occupies 5,200 square feet, DMP Properties occupies 1,100 square feet, Nathan Alan Jewelers occupies 1,100 square feet, Amaree's occupies 1,000 square feet, Edler Industries occupies 2,000 square feet, and the San Clemente Trading Co. occupies 1,200 square feet. Tables showing the trip generation calculations for the existing land uses are included in Appendix F. The site currently generates approximately 364 trip -ends per day, with 44 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 44 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. These trips have been deducted from the project related traffic; therefore, the proposed development is projected to generate a net total of approximately 1,193 trip -ends per day, with 113 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 102 net vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. 4.3 Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of employment, commercial, and recreational opportunities, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. The proposed project will have access to Campus Drive and Birch Street. The trip distribution for this analysis has been based upon project build out conditions, based upon those highway facilities that are in place or will be contemplated over the near -term. Furthermore, the trip distribution for the project has been reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach staff. The outbound and inbound trip distribution patterns for the project are shown on Exhibits F and G, respectively. 4 -7 Exhibit F Project Outbound Trip Distribution Legend: 10 - Percent from Project H 0559 -04-01 (EXD Z 101 DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Newport Beach, California �. engineering group, inc. Exhibit G Project Inbound Trip Distribution I Legend: 10 = Percent to Project N D559-04 -01 [W engineering 2101 DOVE STREETTPO TRAFFIC IMPACT MODY, Chy of Newport Bead, California group, inc. HE 4.4 Project Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's net trip generation, trip distributions, and existing arterial highway and local street systems. Based upon the identified project trip generation and distributions, project related traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit H. 4 -10 Exhibit H Project Traffic Volumes 0559-04-01 engineering _ 2101 DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City ofNewponB�,CWIromFe group, inc. 4 -11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4 -12 5.0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis The 1% traffic volume analysis for all fourteen study area intersections was performed according to the City of Newport Beach traffic study guidelines. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the intersections where the project related traffic on any leg of the intersection will be equal or more than 1% of the traffic generated by Existing Plus Approved Projects. The following nine intersections were identified as having a project contribution of 1% or more from the Existing Plus Approved Projects generated traffic: North -South Street East -West street Mac Arthur Boulevard Birch Street Jamboree Road. Dove Street Campus Drive N Bristol Street SE Bristol Street Dove Street Birch Street N Bristol Street SE Bristol Street Jamboree Road Campus Drive Only approved project trips are added to the Existing Plus Approved Projects traffic for the 1% volume analysis. This is a more conservative approach as compared to the addition of cumulative projects. Because the addition of cumulative projects related trips to the future traffic volumes would generated greater traffic volumes, the project contribution would also have to be greater in order to contribute 1% to any leg of the intersections. As a result, the same nine intersections are analyzed in both Existing Plus Approved Projects and Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects conditions. The 1% volume analysis worksheets are included in Appendix G. For purposes of project impact analysis, the nine intersections identified above will be considered the study area intersections. It is not necessary to analyze the remaining six intersections since the project will not increase the traffic on any leg of these intersections by 1% or more. However, thirteen of the original fourteen study area intersections will be 5 -1 analyzed for General Plan Buildout and General Plan Buildout Pius Project conditions. The remaining two (2) intersections (Campus Drive at Dove Street and Birch Street at Dove Street) were not analyzed by the City of Newport Beach in their model and therefore, have been excluded from the General Plan Buildout analysis. 5 -2 6.0 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis 6.1 Existing Plus Approved Projects The intersection analysis methodology utilized for the Existing Plus Approved Projects condition is the same as that used to analyze Existing conditions. An Existing Plus Approved Projects level of service analysis was prepared for the intersections with a project contribution of 1% or more. The results of the analysis of the Existing Plus Approved Plus Project traffic conditions for the nine signalized study area intersections are summarized in Table 4. Based on future ambient growth, as well as the approved projects discussed previously in this report, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The Existing Plus Approved Projects traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit I. 6.2 Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project An intersection analysis of Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project conditions was also conducted. The results of the analysis at the nine study area intersections are also shown in Table 4, and are compared to the Existing Plus Approved Projects analysis. There is no change in the levels of service at any of the intersections and all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The traffic volumes for Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project are shown on Exhibit 1 and the ICU worksheets for this analysis are included in Appendix A. 6 -1 TABLE 4 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis ' ICU = Intersection Capacity UtTzation ' The decrease in ICU over Existing conditions is due to current improvements at the intersection. h\rktah1eSRK4422.x1s 6-2 JN:0559-04 -01 Existing Plus Approved Projects E Existing Plus Approved P Projects Plus Project Level of ICU' L Level of Service I ICU' S Service C Change in ICU' AM P PM A AM P PM A AM P PM A AM P PM A AM P PM Intersection A Mac Arthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Birch Street (EW) 0 0.40 0 0.50 A A A A 0 0.40 0 0.50 A A A A 0 0.00 0 0.00 • Jamboree Road (EW)2 0 0.69 0 0.89 B B D D 0 0.7_0_ 0 0.89 B B D D 0 0.01 0 0.00 Campus Drive (NS) at: • Dove Street (EW) 0 0.64 0 0.44 B B A A 0 0.65 0 0.45 B B A A 0 0.01 0 0.01 • N Bristol Street (EW) 0 0.44 0 0.55 A A A A 0 0.44 0 0.56 A A A A 0 0.00 0 0.01 • SE Bristol Street (EW) 0 0.65 0 0.45 B B A A 0 0.65 0 0.46 B B A A 0 0.00 0 0.01 Birch Street (NS) at: • Dove Street (EW) 0 0.61 0 0.57 B B A A 0 0.63 0 0.58 B B A A 0 0.02 0 0.01 • N Bristol Street (EW) 0 0.61 0 0.62 B B B B 0 0.62 0 0.62 B B B B 0 0.01 0 0.00 • SE Bristol Street (EW) O OA2 0 0.46 A A A 0 0.43 0 0.46 A A A A 0 0.01 0 0.00 Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) 1 0 0.79 1 0 0.84 1 C C D D 0 0.79 0 0.84 C C I D D 0 0.00 0 0.00 ICU = Intersection Capacity UtTzation ' The decrease in ICU over Existing conditions is due to current improvements at the intersection. h\rktah1eSRK4422.x1s 6-2 JN:0559-04 -01 Exhibit I Existing Plus Approved Projects Traffic Volumes I Legend: 10/10 = AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 05594M-01 (EA) 2101 DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Cky of N-"Port Beads, C- Oforria 6 -3 engineering group, inc. Exhibit J Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project Traffic Volumes I Legend: 10/20 = AMIPM Peak Hour Volumes N 0559-04 -01 (F6J) engineering 2101 DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Newpc Desch. C.Ii(om¢ group, inc. 6 -4 7.0 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis 7.1 Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Analysis has also been performed for Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects conditions, and the results are showy in Table 5. This cumulative analysis is not required as part of the TPO, but is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and was requested by the City of Newport Beach to address the specific cumulative projects. All nine study area intersections that were identified earlier in this report are included in this analysis. As mentioned previously, the trip generation and distributions for the cumulative projects are provided in Appendix D. Trips from these projects were added to Existing Plus Approved Projects traffic volumes and the resulting Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit K. Based on future ambient growth, the approved projects discussed previously in this report, and the cumulative projects, the following intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour during Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects conditions: North -South street East-West Street Mac Arthur Boulevard Jamboree Road 7.2 Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project An intersection analysis of Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project conditions was also conducted. The results of the analysis at the nine study area intersections are also shown in Table 5, and are compared to the Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects analysis. There is no 7 -1 TABLE 5 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis ' ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization ' The decrease in ICU over Existing conditions is due to current improvements at the intersection. 7 -2 j:VktableSV K4422.x1s JN:0559 -04 -01 Existing Plus Approved Projects Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project Level of ICU' Level of Service ICU, Service Chan a in ICU' AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Intersection Mac Arthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Birch Street (EW) 0.410 0.525 A A 0.412 0.527 A A 0.002 0.002 • Jamboree Road (EW) 0.766 0.962 C E 0.767 0.963 C E 0.001 Campus Drive (NS) at: _0.001 • Dove Street (EW) 0.636 0.437 B A 0.645 0.446 B A 0.009 0.009 • N Bristol Street (EW) 0.439 0.552 A A 0.442 0.556 A A 0.003 0.004 • SE Bristol Street (EW) 0.451 B A 0.651 0.456 B A 0.005 0.005 Birch Street (NS) at: _0.646 _ • Dove Street (EW) 0.609 0.568 B A 0.631 0.582 B A 0.022 0.014 • N Bristol Street (EVt) 0.614 0.615 B B 0.616 0.620 B B 0.002 0.005 • SE Bristol Street (EW) 0.456 A A 0.428 0.456 A A 0.006 0.000 Jamboree Road (NS) at: _0.422 1 • Campus Drive (EW) 0.803 0.881 D D 1 0.804 1 0.882 D D 0.001 0.001 ' ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization ' The decrease in ICU over Existing conditions is due to current improvements at the intersection. 7 -2 j:VktableSV K4422.x1s JN:0559 -04 -01 Exhibit K Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects f Legend: 10/20 = AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes N _ 0559 -09 -01 (BdO engineering 2101 DOVE STREETTPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. City ofNewpm Bead. C.Iifomia group, inc. 7 -3 change in the levels of service at any of the intersections. Although the following intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, no mitigation measures are required because the intersection is currently operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour during Existing conditions and the project does not increase the ICU at the intersection by 0.01 or more: North -So"U'Ah Str 'eeV1":: Etl Mac Arthur Boulevard Jamboree Road The traffic volumes for Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project conditions are shown on Exhibit L and the ICU worksheets for this analysis are included in Appendix H. 7-4 Exhibit L Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects ILegend: N 1020 = AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 0557.0"1 (ExQ engineering 2101 DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Newport Beads California group, Inc. 7 -5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK lad 8.0 General Plan Buildout Traffic Analysis 8.1 General Plan Buildout Analysis has also been performed for General Plan Buildout conditions and the results are shown in Table 6. This analysis is not required as part of the TPO, but was requested by the City of Newport Beach to assess long -term traffic impacts as a result of the proposed project. The following twelve of the original fourteen study area intersections were analyzed for General Plan Buildout conditions: North = South Street East -West Street Campus Drive Mac Arthur Boulevard Birch Street Jamboree Road N Bristol Street Campus Drive SE Bristol Street Birch Street N Bristol Street SE Bristol Street Von Karman Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Jamboree Road N Bristol Street SE Bristol Street Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive University Drive The remaining two intersections (Campus Drive at Dove Street and Birch Street at Dove Street) were not analyzed by the City of Newport Beach in their model and therefore, have been excluded from the General Plan Buildout analysis. Traffic volumes for General Plan Buildout conditions were obtained from the City of Newport Beach and are shown on Exhibit M and are included in Appendix I. As shown in Table 6, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak hours during General Plan Buildout conditions: 91 TABLE 6 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Weekday Peak Hour Level of Service Analysis ' ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization jA rktWeMK4422x6 8 -2 1 IN:0559 -04 -01 General Plan Buildout General Plan Buildout Plus Project Level of Level of ICU Service ICU' Service Change in ICU' AM PM AM PM AM J PM AM F PM AM PM Intersection Mac Arthur Boulevard (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EM 0.717 0.856 C D 0.720 0.858 C D 0.003 0.002 • Birch Street (EW) 0.708 0.795 C C 0.709 0.797 C C 0.001 0.002 • Jamboree Road (EW) 0.966 0.980 E E 0.967 0.981 E E 0.001 0.001 _ Campus Drive (NS) at: • N Bristol Street (EN 0.971 0.975 E E 0.978 0.979 E E 0.007 0.004 • SE Bristol Street (EW) 0.913 0.755 E C 0.918 0.760 E C 0.005 0.005 _ Birch Street (NS) at: • N Bristol Street (EVV) 0.780 0.710 C C 0.782 0.716 C C 0.002 0.006 • SE Bristol Street (EW) 0.521 0.527 A A 0.528 0.527 A A 0.007 0.000 _ Von Karman Avenue (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EW) 0.672 0.940 B E 0.672 0.941 B E 0.000 0.001 Jamboree Road (NS) at: • Campus Drive (EVJ) 0.925 1111 E F 0.925 1.112 E F 0.000 0.001 • N Bristol Street (EW) 0.685 0.700 B B 0.685 0.703 B C 0.000 O.DO3 • SE Bristol Street (EW) 0.857 0.827 D 0.861 0.$30 D D 0.004 0.003 _ Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive (NS) at JA • University Drive (EW) 0.572 0.604 B 0.573 0.605 A B 0.001 0.001 ' ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization jA rktWeMK4422x6 8 -2 1 IN:0559 -04 -01 Exhibit M General Plan Traffic Volumes 2101 DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Giry of Newporc R®ch, Caldomia rDu 1 inc. M1 North -South Street East -West Street Mac Arthur Boulevard Jamboree Road Campus Drive N Bristol Street SE Bristol Street Von Karman Avenue I Campus Drive J Jamboree Road ! Campus Drive 8.2 General Plan Buildout Plus Project An intersection analysis of General Plan Buildout Plus Project conditions was also conducted. Due to the fact that the site is zoned for industrial uses, the net project trip generation was added to the General Plan Buildout traffic volumes. The results of the analysis at the twelve study area intersections are also shown in Table 6, and are compared to the General Plan Buildout analysis. The following five intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak hours during General Plan Buildout Plus Project conditions: North -South Street East -West Street Mac Arthur Boulevard Jamboree Road Campus Drive N Bristol Street SE Bristol Street Von Karman Avenue Campus Drive Jamboree Road Campus Drive However, no mitigation measures are required because the project does not cause any of the intersections to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E and does not increase the ICU by 0.01 or more at the intersection of Mac Arthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road, which is currently operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour during Existing conditions. The traffic volumes for General Plan Buildout Plus Project conditions are shown on Exhibit N and the ICU worksheets for this analysis are included in Appendix J. I1 2101DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Gry of Newport Beazh. California group, inc. m THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK E£. 9.0 Mitigation Measures Based upon the City of Newport Beach "significant impact criteria" for signalized intersections, the project does not exceed the critical threshold of deterioration from LOS D or E, or cause an increase of 0.0; or more of the ICU at any LOS E: baseline intersection. Therefore, the project will not create any significant adverse operating conditions at the fourteen study area intersections and no mitigation measures are required. 9 -1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - 10.0 Recommendations it should be noted that access to Campus Drive for patrons originating from the east may be difficult. The applicant should consider providing an additional curb cut on Dove Street. Complete any remaining ultimate half - section street improvements fo, Campus Drive, Birch Street, and Dove Street adjacent to the project site in conjunction with development. The project site should provide sufficient parking to meet City of Newport Beach parking code requirements in order to service on -site parking demand. Stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends should be provided at the project access points. Complete internal circulation system per City of Newport Beach standards. Sight distance at the project access points should be reviewed with respect to City of Newport Beach Standard STD -110 -L at the time of final grading, Landscape, and street improvement plans. Traffic signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. Participate in any approved City of Newport Beach transportation fee programs. Recommendations are summarized on Exhibit 0. 10 -1 Exhibit O Recommendations Install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends at all project access points. Complete any remaining half- section street improvements for Campus Drive, Dove Street and Birch Street where adjacent to the project sP, Dr. Upper Newport Plaza Dr. Provide parking based on City of Newport Beach Parking Code. Complete internal circulati on per City standards. Participate in any approved City of Newport Beach Traruportation Fee programs. Review, sight distance at afl project access points at time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans per City Standard STD -I I O -L. Legend: Stop Sign f4= = Full Access 1 (= = Right In/Out Only Access N 0559 -04-01 (Es0) 2101 DOVE STREET TPO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City ( Newport Beach, Califomb 10 -2 Access to Campus Drive for patrons originating from the east may be difficult The applicarit should consider providing an additional curb cut on Dove Street. engineering group, Inc. Appendix A Existing Plus Approved Projects, Plus Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets MA4295AI,11 I X1 Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will beless than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT MA4295AM FORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS O 41 INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295 Fo 0.N EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM 1 EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT { Movement Lanes 1 Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 Capacity Capacity 1 Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I i I I Volume I I I NL I 1600 I 129 0.081 ' 5 1 1 1 0.084 0 1 0.084 ' 1 NT 1 4800 I I 686 0.143 27 1 6 1 0.150 j 2 1 0.150 1 NR { N.S. { I 246 { I 10 1 0 1 { 0 { 1. SL 1 1500 I I 41 1 0.026 I 2 1 0 1 0.027 0 1 0.027 I I ST 1 948 I 3B I 12 I 3 1 ) 6400 - - } 0.154 - } 0.174 } 0.175 ' I SR I 103 4 1 10 1 2 I EL I I 32 1 1 I 1 1 4 I I ET 4800 1 154 0.048 6 1 0 0.050 0 0.051 ' I ER I 44 2 1 0 I 3 I f WL 1 1600 1 I 140 1 0.088 6 1 0 1 0.091 0 1 0.091 ' WT I 3200 I I 218 1 0.068 1 9 1 0 1 0.071 I 0 1 0.071 1 I WR I N.S.1 i 57 I 2 1 0 I I 0 I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.381 I I 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.399 I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.401 1 I X1 Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will beless than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT MA4295AM FORM 11 MA4295PM I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.478 I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. X Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greaterthan 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will beless than or equal to 0,90 J Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT MA4295PM I osol FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS "QLr F0 {iN INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING 1 PROPOSED I EXISTING EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED ( PROJECTED I PROJECT 1 PROJECT! ! Movement I lanes I Lanes I PKHR I VIC GROWTH I PROJECT 1 V/CRatto I Volume I VIC I ! I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio 1 i I I I I I I 1 Volume I I I 1 NL 1600 I I 54 1 0.034 I 2 1 0 1 0.035 I 0 1 0.035 I 1 NT I 4800 I 937 I 0.195 37 I 7 1 0.204 3 1 0.205 ' I NR j N.S. I ! 204 ! ! B I 0 1 I 0 j I SL I 1600 I I 132 ! 0.083 5 I 0 I 0.086 0! 0.086 I ST I 776 I 31 ! 8 I 2 I 1 } 6400 - - -) 0.125 - ) 0.132 - ) 0.133 I I SR 1 I 27 I 1 1 1 I 3 I j EL I I 110 ! 4 1 5 I 2 I 1 ET 4800 I I 194 0.079 8 1 0 0.083 0 0.084 ' I ER I I 74 I 3 1 0 I 2 ! I WL I 1600 I I 193 I 0.121 a l 0 1 0.126 0 1 0.126 WT 1 3200 1 I 234 1 0.073 I 9 1 0 1 0.076 I 0 1 0.076 ! I WR I N.S. I I 52 I I 2 1 0 l I o 1 I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.478 I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. X Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greaterthan 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will beless than or equal to 0,90 J Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT MA4295PM I osol FORM II JA4275AM I X1 Projected + project traffc I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected + Project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT JA4275AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CP -QCi INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD (E -W) 8 MACARTHUR BLVD (N -S) 4275 FO RN EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2002 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL .1 COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I 1 NL 1600 I 176 1 0.110 1 9 1 0 1 0.058 I 0 1 0.058 I I NT I I 1663 1 83 1 6 1 6 1 I 1 } 4600 - } 0.420 ' - } 0.332 ' } 0.333 ' I NR I I 354 j 18 1 1 1 I o f I I SL I 1600 I I 57 1 0.036 ' 3 1 1 1 0.019 0 1 0.019 ' I ST 4800 I I 276 1 0.058 14 1 1 1 0.061 1 11 1 0.063 I SR N.S. I I 129 1 6 1 10 I 1 0 1 I EL I 3200 ( I 464 I 0.145 I 23 I 11 I 0.156 I 0 1 I 0.156 1 I ET j 4800 1 1 1167 1 0.243 ' 58 I 20 I 0.259 0 I I 0259 ' ER I N.S. 1 230 1 1 12 1 0 1 1 0 1 I WL 1 3200 1 I 257 1 0.080 13 1 0 1 0.084 0 1 0.084 ' W'T 1 4800 1 I B11 1 0.169 I 41 1 36 1 0.185 1 0 1 0.185 1 I WR I N.S. I I 227 I I 11 I 9 1 I o f I I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.779 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.694 1 I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.895 I I X1 Projected + project traffc I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected + Project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT JA4275AM JA4275PM I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.910 1 j J EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I DABS I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIO14AL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 D.887 I XI Projected + projectiraffic LC.U, will be less than or equal to 0.90 J Projected + project traffic I,C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected + project 1raRc I.C.U. wl.;ystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement. PROJECT JA4275PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c�P "y1j Fp ANA INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E -W) & MACARTHUR BLVD(N -S) 4275 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2002 PM I I EXISTING PROPOSED ( EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED ( PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC ( GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I VIC I Capacity I Capacity ( Volume I Ratio ( Volume I Volume ( w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL I 1600 I I 267 I 0.167 13 I 0 1 D.088 D I 0.088 ' ( NT I I 487 I 24 i 1 1 I 9 1 I } 4800 - — - ) 0.148 - - ) 0.117 - ) D.118 I NR I I 223 I 11 I 0 1 I D I I SL I 1600 I I 179 I D.112 i 9 1 8 j 0.061 I D I 0.061 ST I 4800 I I 1503 I D.313 75 I 5 I 0.330 6 1 D.331 ' I I I SR I N.S. I I 388 I I 19 I 1D I I D( 1 EL I 3200 I 178 1 0.056 j 9 1 9 1 0.061 I D I D.061 I ET I 48DO I I 1103 1 0.230 55 I 3D I D248 D I D248 ' ER I N.S. I I 58 I i 3 j D I I D I I I WL I 3200 ( ( 669 I 0.209 33 1 1 1 0.220 0 1 0220 ' W r 4800 I I 1044 I 0218 I 52 I 27 1 0.234 I D I D.234 I j WR I N.S. I — I Bg 1 ! 4 1 2 1 I D 1 1 I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.910 1 j J EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I DABS I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIO14AL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 D.887 I XI Projected + projectiraffic LC.U, will be less than or equal to 0.90 J Projected + project traffic I,C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected + project 1raRc I.C.U. wl.;ystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement. PROJECT JA4275PM CA4220AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE & DOVE STREET 4220 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PKHR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I 1 I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I I I I I I I I I Volume I I 1 NIL 1 16001 I 291 0.018 1 01 0 1 0.018 181 1 NT I 1 1873 1 01 0 10 1 } 4800 - -- } 0.445 - -- } 0.447 ' ) i NR 1 I 264 1 0 I 10 1 30 j SL 1 1600 1 1 213 1 0.133 ' 0 1 01 0.133 ' 01 I ST 1 1 596 I 01 0 1 61 I } 4800 - } 0.126 - - - - - -- } 0.126 - — } SR I I 8 I o f 0 1 01 I EL I I 6 I of of 1 01 I ET 1600 1 1 0 0.005 0 1 0 0.005 ' 0 I ER I I 2 I 0 I 0 0 I WL I 16001 1 201 0.013 1 0 1 1 0.013 I 2 1 WT 1 I 5 01 0 0 1 } 1600 - } 0.051 --- -- } 0.051 ' -- } I WR I ( 76 1 01 0 1 0 I EXISTING I.C.U. I O.634 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMM ITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.636 1 1 EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. 1 1 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 FI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 H Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: _ - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - PROJECT CA4220AM 2003 AM PROJECT 1 V/C 1 Ratio I 0.029 I 0.456 I — I 0.133 0.128 1 I 0.005 ' I 0.014 I 0.051 1 1 1 I - — I 1 0.6451 FORM II CA4220PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE & DOVE STREET 4220 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I— I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECTI I Movement I Lanes I Lanes PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I f Volume I I I NL 1 1600 I 1 10 { 0.006 0 1 0 1 0.006 11 I 0.013 ' NT I I 840 1 0 1 0 I 6 I I } 4800 - - - -- } 0.199 - - - -- - - ----- } 0.199 - -- } 0.204 I NR I I 113 1 0 1 2 I 18 I SL I 1600 I I 841 0.053 I 0 1 0 1 0.053 1 Of 0.053 1 1 ST I I 1716 I 0 1 0 1 9 1 - -- } 4800 - - - -- - - - -- } 0.358 - } 0.35B } 0.359 - I SR I I 0 I 01 0 1 0 1 I I I 0 I 01 01 1 01 1 ET 16001 1 0 0.000 I 01 0 0.000 1 0 0.0001 I' ER I I 0 I 01 0 1 0 1 I WL I 1600 1 I 631 0.039 I 0 1 4 0.042 1 3 0.044 1 1 WT 1 ) 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 1 I } 1600 - — } 0.073 ' - -- } 0.073 ' } 0.073 ' WR 1 1 117 I 0 1 0 1 0 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.437 1 I I EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTEDW /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.4371 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I 0.4451 IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less thdn or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1J Projected +project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Q Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT `~ — � y FORM II CA422OPM BR4172AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CUSP 'tt� INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVEIIRVINE AVENUE 417'2 co RN EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1 w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I NIL I 3200 1 404 I 0.126 1 0 1 1 1 0.127 ( 0- 0.127 I NT 1 4800 1 1329 1 0.277 0 1 13 1 0280 ' 15 I 0.283 ' I NR I I I I I I I I I 1 SL I ST 1 64001 I 1831 0.029 1 01 10 1 0.030 1 41 0.0311 1 SR 1 3200 1 j 51 1 0.016 1 0 1 1 j 0.016 1 14 1 0.021 I EL I I I 1 I I I I I ET 1 I I I I I l I t I ER I WL 1 1600 1 252 1 0.158 0 1 2 1 0.159 ' 0 1 0.159 ' I WT I I 840 I 01 21 i 141 I I j 6400 - j 0.143 1 - 0.143 - - 0.147 I I WR I 74 I 0 l 0 1 1, 11 I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.435 I I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.439 1 I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ( I 0.4421 IXi Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems imlxovemenlwill be less than or equal to 0.90 0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U, with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Desorption of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II BR4172AM BR4172P..M INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVEARVINE AVENUE 4172 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 PM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED j PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 1 V/C ( GROWTH PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume 1 V/C I 1 Capacity 1 Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio 1 Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratlo I I I I 1 I I I Volume I I I NL I 3200 I 371 1 0.116 • 0 10 1 0.119 0 1 0.119 NT 48001 1 7241 0.151 1 0 1 18 1 0.155 1 21 1 0.1591 NR 1 I I 1 I I I C I SL ! I ! I I I I I ST I 6400 1 I 929 1 0.145 0 1 2 1 0.145 • 2 1 0.146 SR i 3200 1 I 207 ! 0.065 I 0 1 2 1 0.065 1 8 1 0.0681 EL I I I I I I I I ET ER I I I I I I I I I WL 1 16001 1 1991 0.1240 01 0.124 1 01 0.1241 wT I I 1740 0 1 20 I 6 1 I - 6400 - — - } 0.283 - - 0.286 WR I I I 72 I DI DI. I 151 I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.544 1. 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.550 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I 0.555 I IXl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 J Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 �} Projected +project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvementwill be less than or equal to 0.90 Cl Projected + Project traffic I.C.U. wi':h project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II BR4172PM BR4155AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRrVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NIL I I I I I I I I I NT 1 I 862 1 0 I 5 1 I 01 I I ) 8000 - ) 0.128 - — 0.128 - 0.128 ' I NR 1 159 I 0 I 0 I 1 01 I I SL 1 1600 1 I 137 1 0.086 • 0 1 3 1 0.088 4 I 0.090 I ST I 48001 I 3861 0.080 I 0 8 1 0.082 1 01 0.082 I I SIR I I I I I I I I I EL I I 1161 1 0 I 9 1 I 15 I I I ) 6400 - ) 0.428 0.430 - 0.433 ET 1 I 1581 I 0 1 1 1 I 2 1 I ER I 320D I I 363 I 0.113 I 0 1 25 I 0.121 I 0 I 0.121 I I WL I I I I I I I I I I WT I I I I I I I I I WR I I I I I I I I I i I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.642 I I EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ID Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ID Projected + Project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement 1 0.646 1 I 0.651 I PROJECT FORM II BR4155AM BR4165PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION; BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVEIIRVINE AVENUE 4155 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 PM I ( EXISTING PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I lanes I PK HR VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume Ratio I Volume I Volume I wto Project I I Ratio I I f I I I I { ( Volume ( I I I AL I I I I I [ I I I ( NT I I 649 1 0 j 26 1 I 0 1 1 I } 8000 - — - } 0.104 ' - 0.108 - 0.108 I NR I I 179 I 01 61 I OI I SL I 1600 I I 208 1 0.130 0 1 0 1 0.130 2 1 0.131 ' I ST I 48001 I 9161 0.191 I 0I 01 0.191 I 01 0.191 I I SR EL I I 501 I 0 1 2 1 i 21 I I ( } 64DO - — - } 0.212 - - 0.213 - 0.217 ' ( ET I I 858 I 01 21 I 31 I I ER I 32001 I 3361 0.105 I 01 41 0.106 I 0I 0.106 I i WL I I I I I I I I I I I WT I WR EXISTING I.C.U. I D.446 I I I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.451 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 1 1 0.4561 IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 (.J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wisystems improvementwill be less than or equal to 0.90 LJ Projected + projecttrafliic I.C.U. with project improvement5 will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement PROJECT FORM 11 BR4155PM B14225AM i EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.603 1 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.609 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 1 1 0.631 I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than dr equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement: PROJECT FORM II B14225AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS' c "9C INTERSECTION: BIRCH STREET & DOVE STREET 4225 r Fp pN�P EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes j Lanes 1 PH HR 1 V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V1CRatio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio 1 I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 16001 51 0.003 1 01 0 1 0.003 I 0 1 0.003 I 1 NT 1 714 1 0 1 0 1 7 1 } 3200 - - } 0.283 } 0.283 ` } 0285 NR I 1 190_ 0 0 0_ 1 SL 1 1600 1 64 1 0.040 0 1 - 0 1 -- 0.040 0 1 0.040 ST I 284 0 0 1 I 2 1 I I } 320C } 0.096 - 0.096 - 0.096 1 SR I I 22 I 01 DI I DI I I EL 1 16001 1 631 0.039 I 01 01 0.039 01 0.039 I I ET I 391 I 0 1 10 1 4 I 1 } 1600 - } 0.263 } 0.269 ` } 0288 ER I 29 0 0 26 1 WL 1 16001 I 271 0.017 01 01 -- 0.017' 21 0.018! I I WT I 16001 I 58 0.036 I 0 1 1 0.037 1 2 0.038 I I WR I 1600 1 30 ( 0.019 I 0 1 0} 0.019 I 0} 0.019 1 i EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.603 1 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.609 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 1 1 0.631 I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than dr equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement: PROJECT FORM II B14225AM 814225PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BIRCH STREET & DOVE STREET 4225 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 20D3 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity ) Capacity I Volume ) Ratio ) Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 1600 I 1 15 1 0.009 D I D I D.DD9 D I D.009 NT I 417 I D I D I 4 1 I } 320D - -- } D.151 - } 0.151 - } D.152 NR I I 65 I DI D I D I SL 1 160D I 21 I D.D13 I D I D I 0.013 I D I D.D13 I I ST I 1 964 I D I D I I 3 1 I 1 } 320D - - -- } D.313 - - D.313 - D.314 ' I SR I I 38 I DI DI I Df i 1 EL I 1600 1 I 29 1 D.D18 I D I D I D.D18 1 D 1 D.D18 1 ET 1 1 95 I 0 1 2 I 2 ) } 1600 - - -- } D.069 - } D.D71 • } D.D82 ' ER 1 16 I D I D I 16 I I WL 1 160D 1 I 28D I D.175 D I D I D.175 3 1 D.177 ' I WT 1 1600 I 329 I D206 D 1 4 D2D8 1 3 D21D I 1 WR I 160D I I 87 1 D.054 I D 1 D D.054 1 D D.D54 I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 DL66 1 D 1 1 EXISTING + REGGROWTH+ COMMITTED W /PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.568 I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. I I 1 D.5821 IXI Projected + project iraf c I.C.U. will be less than or equal to D.90 IJ Projected + pmled traffic I.C.U. will be grealer than D.9D U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be lass than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description otsystem improvement — PROJECT FORM II 814225PM B R4175AM I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.613 I EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT BR4175AM I 0.614 I I I 0.616 I FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c"QCr INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 FO0.N�A EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NIL 1 320D 112 I 0.035 I 0 1 1 0.035 I 0 1 0.035 I NT 3200 I I 1080 I 0.338 0 0 1 0.338 2 1 0.338 I NR I I I I I I I I SL I I I I I I I I I I ST I 137 I 0 1 B I 1 17 1 I } 6400 - -- -- - } 0.040 - — - - - -- - — - - -- - 0.042 - - 0.047 I I SR I I 122 i 0 I 0 1 i 14 I I 1 EL 1 1 I I I I I I I E7 I I I I I I I I I I ER I WI- I I 463 0 1 11 I I 0 1 I I W7 B000 I I 1450 0.275 0 1 3 I 0.276 11 I 0.278 I WR I I 284 I 0 1 0 1 I 2 1 I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.613 I EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT BR4175AM I 0.614 I I I 0.616 I FORM II BR4175PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c�P 9�rFO RN INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT] I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I'K HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC i I I Capacity I Capacity Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio ] I I I I I I Volume I I I NIL I 3200 139 I 0.043 0 1 12 I 0.047 0 I 0.047 ' NT I 3200 I I 335 I 0.105 I 0 1 0 1 0.105 I 3 j 0.106 1 NR I SL I I I I I ! I ! ! ! ST I I 615 I 0 I 1 1 I 10 I I I } 6400 - — — } 0.246 ' -- - -- 0.246 - 0.249 ' I SR I 958 I o f o f I 8 1 I EL I I I I I I I I I ET I I I I I I I I I I I ER I I I I I I I I WL 1 1544 1 0l 21 I of I WT } 8000 1 z I 1890 } 0.321 0 i 1 ] 0.322 15 I 0.324 ! } } WR I I 136 I o f o f I 3 1 I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.510 I I I EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.615 1 I I EXISTING + COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.6201 I XI Projected +project traf0c I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wtsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: 4 ' PROJECT _ FORM II BR4175PM BR4160AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c�P "QG/ RN INTERSECTION: $ BRISTOL STREET & BIRCH STREET 4160 cp EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement Lanes I Lanes PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL I I I I I I I I NT 405 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 I I } 6400 - } 0.105 ' } 0.106 } 0.106 ' NR I 269 I 0 i 2 1 I 0 1 SL 1 3200 I I 249 I 0.078 0 1 0 1 0.078 17 1 0.083 ' ST I 3200 I ( 371 I 0.116 I 0 1 19 I 0.122 I 0 1 0.122 I I SR I I I I I 1 I I I I EL I I 669 I 0 1 0 1 i 2 1 I { ET 6000 I { 872 0.238 0 1 1 1 0.238 4 1 0.239 ' ER I 161 I 0 1 3 1 I 0 1 I WL l l I I I I I I I I wr I I I I I I WR I I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.421 1 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. IXI Projected + projectlraf8c I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement PROJECT BR4160AM l U.92Z I 0.428 1 FORM It BR416oFM EL f I 227 J 0 J 0 J ET 8000 I I 1180 0.192 ' 0 1 12 j ER I 129 I 0 1 0 WIL I I I I I I I WT I I I I I WR ! I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.453 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WlPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 jJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: I 0.194 I i I 0.456 1 31 I —} I 2 I 0.194 — } j 01 I -- I I I - I I 1 — I I 1 0.456 I PROJECT FORM 11 BR4160PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C q C/ �P INTERSECTION: S BRISTOL STREET 8 BIRCH STREET 4160 FO ATE EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL J COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT ( Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacifir I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL I I I I I I I I I NT I j 257 I 0 j 12 j J 0) j I } 6400 - — - } 0.086 - } 0.091 - } 0.091 I NR I I 305 I 0 1 10 I I 0 1 I SL I 3200 I 338 0.106 I 0 1 0 1 0.106 I 10 I 0.109 I I ST 3200 I I 836 I 0261 0 1 2 1 0262 0 I 0.262 ' SR EL f I 227 J 0 J 0 J ET 8000 I I 1180 0.192 ' 0 1 12 j ER I 129 I 0 1 0 WIL I I I I I I I WT I I I I I WR ! I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.453 I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WlPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 jJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: I 0.194 I i I 0.456 1 31 I —} I 2 I 0.194 — } j 01 I -- I I I - I I 1 — I I 1 0.456 I PROJECT FORM 11 BR4160PM JA4305AM I ST I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I c'9C /Fp 36 I INTERSECTION: 0 JAMBOREE ROAD 8 CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 4800 - - - -- } 0.N�P EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC I SR I' I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes - I Lanes I PK HR I V/C GROWTH PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I 01 Capacity I Capacity Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I } I I I I 1 Volume I I ET NL 1500 I I 197 0.123 6 1 0 1 0.127 0 I NT I i 1541 I 46 I 19 I 0 I } 6400 - — - - -- } 0.252 - - -- } 0.262 - - -- } I NR 9 1 I 70 I 21 0l I of I SL I 3200 I I 298 I 0.093 9 1 0 1 0.096 I 0 1 I ST I I 1660 I 50 I 36 I ( 0 } 4800 - - - -- } 0.384 ----- } 0.403 ' I SR I' I 181 I 5 1 0 1 2 R I I 135 I 41 01 I 4 } 4800 - } 0.065 } 0.067 ' I ET I I 178 I 5 1 0 l I 0 I ER I N.S. l I 23 I I 1 1 1 1 1 0 WL I 1600 I I 290 I 0.181 9 1 1 1 0.188 0 I WT I 3200 I 380 ( 0.119 I 11 0 1 0.122 j 0 I WR I I – 1600 I I 136 I — 0.085 I 4 0 1 -- 0.088 I 0 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.753 I I EXISTING+ REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.785 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH +PROJECT I.C.U. Split Phase EIW direction -- - - -- - - - — - — - IXI Projected + project'traffic I.C. U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement - - - - -- — — - - -' - -- PROJECT _ �+ JA4305AM 2004 AM PROJECT I V/C I Ratio 1 — 1 0.127 0.262 0.096 I — I I 0.403 I - -I I 0.068 I 0.188 0.122 I - I I 0.088 I I I I - I I 0.786 I FORM II JA4305P�.M INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c�P "9tIF00.N INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 PM I EXISTING J PROPOSED I EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL I COMMITTED PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 J Movement I Lanes I Lanes J PK HR j V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I VIC J I I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I W/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume j NL 1 1600 I 66 I 0.041 2 1 0 j 0.043 0 j 0.043 NT I 1787 1 54 1 30 I I 0 I I j } 6400 - - -- } 0.318 - - ) 0.332 - } 0.332 j NR I 245 i 7 1 0 1 I 0 1 I I SL I 3200 I 374 I 0.117 11 1 0 0.120 0 1 0.120 I I ST 1 I 2258 I 68 1 28 I I 0 1 I I } 4800 - — } 0.518 ' } 0.540 ' } 0.540 1 SR I I 230 I 7 1 0 j I 3 1 j I EL I 1 268 I 8 1 0 l { 2 1 j I } 4800 - -- } 0.160 } 0.164 } 0.165 J ET I 498 I 15 I 0 1 I 0 1 I ER I N.S. I i 33 I 1 1 0 l I 0{ 1 V& 1 1600 I I 138 I 0.086 ' 4 1 1 1 0.089 0 I 0.089 J WT I 3200 I I 266 J 0.083 I 8 1 1 1 0.086 1 0 1 0.086 1 I WR I 1600 I I 223 I 0.139 I 7 1 0 I 0.144 I 0 1 0.144 I I EXISTING I.C.U. j 0.805 I I i EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.836 I I EXISTING+ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. j 0.837 I Split Phase EAV direction — — 1X1 Projected +Project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0A0 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project y Description of system improvement v ` PROJECT FORM 11 JA4305PM Appendix B Intersections With Annual Growth Rate CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATE COAST HIGHWAY East city limit to MacArthur Boulevard 1% MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 1% Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard 1% Newport Boulevard to west city limit 19. IRVINE AVENUE All 1% JAMBOREE ROAD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 1% San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison 1% Bison to Bristol 1% Bristol to Campus 1% MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 1% San Joaquin Hills Road to north city limit 1% NEWPORT BOULEVARD Coast Highway to north city limit 1% Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth. Appendix C Approved Projects Information Traffic Phasing Data 20- MAY -05 Projects Less Than 100% Complete page: 1 Project Number Project Name Percent 148 FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION 36% 154 TEMPLE BAT YAHM EXPANSION 65% 157 FORD REDEVELOPMENT 95% 167 CANNERY LOFTS VILLAGE 0 168 HOAG HOSPITAL PHASE 11 0% 555 CIOSA - IRVINE PROJECT 91 % 910 NEWPORT DUNES 0% 936 1401 DOVE STREET 0% 937 NEWPORT AUTO CENTER EXPAN 0% 938 OLSEN TOWNHOME PROJECT (1 0% 939 BAYVIEW LANDING SENIOR HO 0% 940 BIRCH BAYVIEW PLAZA II 0% 941 4941496 OLD NEWPORT BL 0% 942 401 OLD NEWPORT BL 0% 943 NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER 0% 944 1901 WESTCLIFF SURGICAL C 0% E' Z Lu: w UJ: uj: CL CL ct:: cc of: V) LO: v): E E G:— V)t V); of; of; of: \ \0 Z Z > V) 0 tm C: a co 0 0 U cc CD of z z m Z of &\ < \ rL : M: rL < z Z: Z: W: w M:w E: Of M:o C[) 1 10 M � N 0- v): Z;m �:z M ©z < 76 Z: /3 Wm 6 : C:. < \��z_, E' Z Lu: w uj: CL CL ct:: of: V) LO: v): V)t V); of; of; of: I Z Z Z m of z < Z of < of M: 2:2 r;\ . Z: Z: W: 0- v): 0- V) M ©z Z: /3 Z: C:. < N m > w: w•. W•. w; W E Jf L7 N W: J: W: J: W: J. W: C G y 7 fn a a a a CD U m 2 = a' 2 it: R v);, r N: tn; t 'm r WN r ON rm� 'O fn: m: J: J: C 00 0 O N U r i CJ J Z• Z; ZI Z U w LI) •: •: t o M m m ,a z:,n N Z; r Z F > a yr yr o v) JI' r W J: J O J; p U J; M a Z: U Z: � Z: Zi Q a a_ E m U m Z w m:N x M;c r m'•J m:> Z :z �: Z:w �! Z: IL �i Z!� (0 ED ' ED N �m;ON C:Q V N C a _ m y gym: m�°.,° ,gym' W; F W: y IL W: `m; c- V)• `m: av; m: av: a•� E: 2 a;o Eon 2 i a:N E:N 2 E. E.� 2 N' CD N N m: N N 7: m i tq P �: ' m I N O Z :C Z� th Z :d Z; N Z:C Z;� N Z; d' Z� t ¢a ¢a < as as m a r49 CIS E (D N c d C _ v 0 O� C co .N N N V L m aO CL L � 7 0 Q. Q. Q �r O Q C O r V ym t r C O N a a U mt Z: UJ c!0 E!N N :N C? Zls{ Q C; 0 N C; �l I �i �i W. W w a F U)j Nj FFZiO N Z� Jl Z; mm 0 w; CL U)i s mm z �m Z i :F. a 4. q E E B§ ;E §\ 04 �Cp )� I\ /a /> CL. b, \ im- \ k § ) \� \ ` \ >� Er \ w, ) |;) , \ :) a / W ;, \.� Z :\ q «i ! | \; E; � E ' E J � �§ ` c 0 o \� �k/ )00 E.1 yea ' \a£ ( §k7 \ ) MIO $; ' f§ / m: ƒMi -¥ . $ \(, \mv } -. ° &! n R E E 7 m N v m C 3 O D OD Q N V t V m CL . m V O 4+ � a = L Q Q Q Q 0 0 N �I oe: N n FW; W: W: N d a �;v a J: ZI F C1 N O co Z; m Q ,W y W O m Ztm -;2: Q' N w i n n F Y : 0 CO! 2 v): 2 n; ; MN O Z:C Z. < IL \; ~ E � § § kJ _ E \o \§» \ 44� � § K E § §~ \2\ ) t % \2§ � .( [ d � � 2 Ir |;m ©_ \ / Z :( M: m 2 $ • " «E Appendix D Cumulative Projects Information M Table 3 - Summary of Cumulative Projects Cit Pro 'ectName Project Description South Coast Shipyard 28 Apartments 19.6 KSF Commercial Newport 10.4 KSF Commercial Office Beach _ Mormon Term le 1746 KSF Mormon Temple Saint Mark Presbyterian Church 34.8 KSF Church _ 4.72 KSF Daycare Our Lady Queen of Angels 18.5 KSF Church 250 Students St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 35.95 KSF Church Bonita Canyon �_ Rt _ff al Center 40.3 KSF Commtmi etail 11.58 KSF Restaurant Mariners Church 35 KSF Health Club 328.25 KSF Church Exodus Community Center and Tarbut 48.73 KSF Health Club V'Torah Expansion 83.49 KSF Church - High School 320 Students - Elementary/Middle School 160 Students - Child Care Center 27.78 KSF Newport Coast 3,180 SF Residential (954 future) 1,880 Condo I MF Residential (564 future) Newport Ridge 2,107 SF Residential (632 future) 1,281 MF Residential (384 future) 102.959 KSF Commercial Lower Bayview Senior Housing 120 Senior Housing DU Bonita Canyon - Residential 436 Apartments Irvine Crossings 736 Apartments 102.6 KSF Industrial Campus Center Phase IIB 202 Condominiums Irvine 132.8 KSF Office Marble Mountain - 221 Singie- Family Dwelling 330 Condominiums Centrat Park 1,380 Multi- Family Dwelling 19.6 KSF Retail 90.0 KSF Office Scholle Development 425 KSF Office 1 7.5 KSF Restaurant 54 KSF Health Club / -12 KSF Office ! - 23 KSF Industrial _ DU = Dwelling Units SF = Single - Family (Residential) KSF = Thousand Square Feet MF = Multi- Family (Residential) Newport Lexus 11 - September, 2004 Traffic Impact Study 3. SOUTH COAST SHIPYARD The South Coast Shipyard project consists of 28 residential units, 19,600 square feet of commercial retail, and 10,400 square feet of commercial office. The project retains 10,400 square feet of existing commercial office and 3,800 square feet of existing retail. The project is located at 2300 Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach. Proiect Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. The project site is proposed to be developed with 28 residential dwelling units, 19,600 square feet of commercial retail, and 10,400 square feet of commercial office. Trip generation rates for the proposed development are shown in Table 3 -1. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the City of Newport Beach. In order to determine the net trip generation for the site, it is necessary to subtract the existing uses form the proposed project. Both daily and peak hour net trip generation estimates for, the proposed project are shown in Table 3 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 892 net trip -ends per day with 55 net trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 79 net trips per hour during the PM peak hour. Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traff.c to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the 3 -1 TABLE 3 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' I Ir I PEAK HOUR +[— AM PM LAND USE UNITS I N r OUT IN OUT DAILY Residential - Apartments DU 0.90 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Commercial Retail TSF 0.60 0.50 1.90 2.00 45.00 General Office TSF 2.60 0.35 1.49 7.26 22.44 Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates, Institue of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 710 Z DU = Dweliing Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:iUcJobst006361Exc n [00636- 02.xisjT 3 -1 3 -2 TABLE 3 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITYJ UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Existing Credits Commercial Retail 3.8 TSF 2 2 7 8 171 Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 15 76 233 TOTAL CREDITS Pro osed Project 29 6 23 83 404 Residential - Apartments 28 DU 25 12 12 6 181 Commercial Retail 19.6 TSF 12 10 37 39 Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 15 76 OTAL 64 26 64 121 M892 NET NEW TRIPS 35 20 41 38 DU = Dwelling Unit TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:WCJObs 100636 \Exc A100636 -02.xls]T 3.2 3 -3 proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 3 -A, it should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 3 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to and from the project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential, commercial, and recreational opportunities. 3-4 C Z M0 H H CO _M/ x -W W H N_ F� 0 I% FEa a N N a V F� N 3 -5 4. MORMON TEMPLE The proposed Mormon Temple is located at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Road at Prairie Road in the City of Newport Beach. The site is currently vacant and does not generate a significant amount of traffic. A Mormon Church currently exists and is located adjacent to the proposed temple site. The proposed Temple will share access off the Prairie Road north of Bonita Canyon Road. The project includes a 17,460 square foot Temple facility to accommodate seating for 100 persons. The project site includes a total of approximately 147 on -site parking spaces. Proiect Trip Generation Trip generation rates, which are appropriate for the project, are identified and the resulting trip generation is determined. The trip rates have been based on the traffic study prepared for the proposed temple (Mormon .Temple Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysts (Revised May 10, 2002) Urban Crossroads, Inc.) and are summarized in Table 4 -1. Based on the trip rates presented in Table 4 -1, Table 4-2 summarizes the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site during the AM peak hour (7 -9 AM), the PM peak hour (4-6 PM), and for the entire day. Tuesday through Thursday are considered typical days in which to collect traffic data. However, due to the peaking characteristics that were observed on Friday, this data was also included in the analysis to ensure a conservative "worse case" scenario. Based upon the trip generation rates, the project trip generation was calculated and is shown in Table 4 -2. As indicated in Table 4 -2, the proposed use would generate approximately 410 trips per day with 25 trips during the AM peak hour and 26 trips per hoar during the PM peak hour- 4-1 TABLE 4 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' WEEKDAY CONDITIONS WEEKEND CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP DAILY RATE IN OUT Morman Temple Rates Based on: Thousand Square Feet 3.12 2.98 44.11 Source: Empirical data collection/trip generation analysis conducted by Solaeoui Engineers, LTD (September 15, 2001) U:\UCJObs10D636 \Exce✓ OO636.02x1s1T4 -1 4 -2 TABLE 4 -2 NEWPORT BEACH MORMON TEMPLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY WEEKEND PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR [:::LAND IN OUT DAILY Mormon Temple AM PM U JTIJ UNITS' 1N OUT IN OUT DAILY Mormon Temple Thousand Square Feet 17.46 TSF 20 5 16 10 410 WEEKEND ' TSF =Thousand Square Feet U: \UcJ0bs \00636 \Ex m 11(00636 -02.xISIT4 -2 CJml PEAK HOUR LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' IN OUT DAILY Mormon Temple Thousand Square Feet 11 ] 7.46 TSF 54 52 770 ' TSF =Thousand Square Feet U: \UcJ0bs \00636 \Ex m 11(00636 -02.xISIT4 -2 CJml Proiect Trip Distribution The trip distribution patterns based on the residences of Temple members will be used for routing project traffic on the roadway network. Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. The trip distribution patterns and percentages have been based on the roadway system surrounding the site and the residences of temple members (or stakes) in relation to the site. Appendix "B" contains the information regarding the location of the stakes and the logical route that would be used to access the . proposed site. Exhibit 4 -A illustrates the project distribution percentages. The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial highway and local street systems. MI `t Z d m X m Lli :i F 0 a W a LU z a 0 4 -5 z �a m C 7 5. ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH St. Mark's Presbyterian Church proposed project will consists of a church and day care center. The church will consist of 34,800 square feet and the day care center will consist of 4,720 square feet, respectively. The project is located in the City of Newport Beach at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Proiect Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. The project site is proposed to be developed with a 34,800 square foot church and 4,720 square foot day care center. Trip generation rates for the proposed development are shown in Table 5 -1. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the City of Newport Beach. Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 5-2. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 66 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 86 trips per hour during the PM peak hour.. . Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was 5 -1 TABLE 5 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' PEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USc UNITSZ IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Church TSF 0.08 0.03 0 -34 0.30 NJA3 Daycare I TSF I 6.90 L 6.12 6.40 7.22 79.26 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates z TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 NIA = Not Available U:\ UCJobs \006361Excell[00536- 02.xLsT 5 -1 5 -2 TABLE 5 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Church 34.8 I TSF 3 1 '12 10 NW Da care 4.720 1 TSF 1 33 1 29 1 30 34 1 374 OTAL 36 30 42 44 N!A ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 N/A = Not Available UAUcJobsW06361EtceN00636- 02 x1s7T 5-2 5 -3 determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The inbound trip distribution pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 5 -A. Exhibit 5 -13 graphically depicts the outbound trip distribution pattern for the project, respectively. It should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 5 -A and 5-13 reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to and from the project site. This reflects the directionality of the: project traffic to the adjacent residential, commercial, and recreational opportunities. 5-4 Q =Z `n O m >> X V m "' Z W � �a mI- H W gm a� C13 ° 2? z a 5 -5 m 2 LO V i-- OG C w V zF a� W Q m � N ~ LN � z a� Yp �o z a N S -6 �a m a 6. OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS The proposed project consists of a church and a private elementary school. The church will accommodate 18,900 square feet; while the school is expected to have 250 students. The project is located in the City of Newport Beach at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Eastbluff Drive / Ford Road. Proiect Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 6 -1. Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 5 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 78 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 12 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. 6 -1 TABLE 6 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITSZ PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church TSF 0.08 0.03 0.34 0.30 N/A' Classrooms STU 0.18 0.12 NOM ! NOM 1.09 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates x TSF = Thousand Square Feet; STU = Students ' N/A= Not Available ' NOM =Nominal U:1 UalobsY00636\ExceRI0063 "2.xls]T E. -1 6 -2 TABLE 6 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT N OUT Church TSF 2 1 6 6 N/A' Classrooms STU 45 1 30 1 0 1 0 1 273 'Total 1 47 F 31 6 1 6 1 N/A 1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; STU = Students Z NIA = Not Available U;% UcJobs500636 1Ezcell[00636- 02rJs]T 6 -2 6 -3 Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions: based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 6 -A. it should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 3 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the project site. This eflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential and commercial opportunities. GM <�z W Xa� W LL. a ON W c W J O 6 -5 7. ST, ANDREW'S CHURCH The proposed project consists of a 32,000 square -feet addition to an existing church complex including a youth center ! gymnasium, classrooms, offices and a parking structure (not included in the square - feet). The project will replace the 32,000 square -feet of youth center, classrooms, offices. The project is located in the City of Newport Beach at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and 15th Street. Project Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 7 -1. Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 7 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 4 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 21 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. 7 -1 TABLE 7 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITSZ PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church TSF 0.08 0.03 0.34 0.30 N/A ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 N/A = Not Available U:1UcJobs5006361Ez ll[D0636.02.xis]T 7 -1 7 -2 TABLE 7 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USE UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Church TSF 3 1 11 10 N/A ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 NIA = Not Available U:\UcJobs100636kExceR (00636- 02.xls]T 7 -2 7 -3 Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 7 -A. It should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 7 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential and commercial opportunities. 7-4 QSZ m == X V m Lys _H LU RL' � oa z- Q� N 7 -5 10. MARINERS CHURCH The proposed project consists of a health club and church development. The health club will accommodate approximately 35,000 square feet and the church will consist of 328,250 square feet. The project is located in the City of Newport Beach at the intersection of Bonita Canyon Drive and Newport Coast Drive. Project Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 10 -1. Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 10 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 6,192 person trip -ends per day with 406 person trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 503 person trips per hour during the PM peak hour. However, based on the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM), approximately 4,505 vehicle trips per day will be generated with 252 AM trips and 319 PM trips. Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational 10 -1 TABLE 10 -1 PERSON TRIP GENERATION RATES? LAND USE UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY 1 AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Health Club TSF 1.25 0.85 2.93 1.93 54.14 Church, Synagogue TSF 1 0.63 j 0.38 1 0.55 1 0.46 13.09 Source! City of Irvine Mariners Church Master Plan, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. s TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:\UcJobsl006361Excei 1[00636- 02.xISF 10 -1 10 -2 TABLE 10 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Person Trip Generation Health Club 35.0 TSF 44 30 103 68 1,895 Church, Synagogue 328.25 TSF 207 125 181 151 4,297 Total Person Trip Generation 251 155 284 219 6,192 Total Vehicle Trip Generation 157 95 182 137 4,505 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 Derived during traffic model mode choice process U: 1UcJobs \006361Exceil[00636 -02.xls]T 10 -2 10 -3 opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 10 -A. it should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 10 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to/from the project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential and commercial opportunities. 10-4 �z °o n� m xe w H r�l .,l F� V V H OC W Z Q, 10 -5 9 11. EXODUS COMMUNITY CENTER AND TARBUT VTORAH EXPANSION The propcsed project consists of a 48,730 square foot health club, an 83,490 square foot church, a 320 student hig.i- school, a 100 "0 student elementary/middle school, and a 27,780 square foot child care center development. The project is located in the City of Irvine at the intersection of Culver Drive and Bonita Canyon Drive. Project Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the speck land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 11 -1. Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 11 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 7,376 person trip -ends per day with 947 person trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 911 person trips per hour during the PM peak hour. However, based on the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM), approximately 5,365 vehicle trips per day will be generated with 584 AM trips and 573 PM trips. Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. 11 -1 TABLE 11 -1 PERSON TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS2 PEAK HOUR AM PM IN OUT IN OUT DAILY ITAM Person Trip Rates Health Club TSF 1 1.25 1 0.85 1 2.93 1.93 54.14 Church, Synagogue I TSF 0.63 0.38 0.55 0.46 13.09 High School STU 0.37 0.18 0.03 0.08 1.94 Elementary. Middle School STU 024 0.17 0.03 0.07 1.54 Child Care Center TSF 9.53 9.14 6.13 13.25 99.99 Source: City of Irvine Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion Traffic Study Austin -Foust Associates,'Inc. 2 STU = Students TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:\UcJcbs \0063E\E mNO063602xisTf 11 -1 11 -2 TABLE 11 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Trips Club 48.73 TSF 61 41 143 94 2638 ,Synagooue [Elementary. B3.49 TSF 53 32 46 38 1093 High chool 320 STU 118 58 10 26 621 Middle School 160 STU 38 27 5 11 246 are Center 27.78 TSF 265 254 170 368 2778 PERSON TRIP GENERATION 535 412 374 537 7376 TOTAL VEHICLE TRlP GENERATION 331 253 240 333 5365 ' STU = Students TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 Derived during traffic model mode choice process U: \UCJvWD0636TE ceNQ063"ZAslT 11 -2 11 -3 Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 11 -A. It should be rioted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 11 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the project site. This reflects the directionality of the project I.raffic to the adjacent residential and commercial opportunities. 11-4 =o mo= S F- m LL) N_ H � D� ao � N Lu z z a W� z 0 0 0 x 11 -5 NEWPORT COAST The proposed project consists of single and multi - family residential dwelling units. These developments are located within the Sphere of Influence of Newport Beach but were processed through the County of Orange. The developments are generally located between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to Newport Coast Drive. Proiect Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the speck land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Tabie 12 -1. Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 12 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of approximately 103,015 trip -ends per day with 7,599 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 6,625 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. 12 -1 TABLE 12 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITSZ PEAK HOUR AM PM IN OUT N OUT DAILY Condomini Jrr' ' nhouse DU 0.17 0.49 0.47 0.36 8.10 Multi Family Dwelting DU 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Single Famil Detached Residential DU 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.40 11.00 State Park (gross acres) AC 0.21 0.90 0.29 0.31 19.15 �6)Oq Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates z DU = Dwelling Units AC = Acres U:\ UcJcbs \00636\Excel4D0636- 02xlslT 12 -1 12 -2 TABLE 12 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TAZ PLANNING AREA LAND USE I QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK i10UR I DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT 1A CondominiumrT own bOuse 121 DU 2" 59 57 44 980 113 Single Family Detached Residential 36 DU 7 25 25 14 396 1C Condominium/Townhouse 888 DU 151 435 417 320 7,193 1 2A Single Family Detached Residential 206 DU 41 144 144 82 2,266 13C Multi Family Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 ) 50 23 751 l 13D Multi Family Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 50 23 751 13E Multi Family Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 50 23 751 j TOTAL FOR TAZ 1 532 810 1 793 529 13,088 J 3A Single Family Detached Residential Sin le Family Detached Residential 347 DU 69 243 243 139 3,817 3B 450 DU 90 315 315 180 4,950 48 Sin le Famil Detached Residential 587 DU 117 411 411 235 6,457 2 13A Multi Family Dwelling 1 117 1 DUL 105 1 49 1 50 j 23 757 Multi Family Dwelling 117 DU 105 49 50 23 757 ji138 14 S le Family Detached Residential 26 DU 5 18 18 10 286 17 State Park Cross acres) 2,807 AC 589 2,526 81 4 870 53,754 TD-AL FOR TAZ 2 T 1,080 1 3.611 1,901 1,480 70,778 3 2" Sin le Family Detached Residential 62 DU 12 43 43 25 682 4A Single Fa Detached Residential 784 DU 157 549 549 314 8,624 TOTAL FOR TAZ 3 169 592 592 ( 339 9,306 2C Sin le Family Detached Residential 307 DU 61 215 215 123 3,377 4 5 Single Family Detached Residential 300 ji DU 60 210 210 120 3,300 6 Single ainnfly Detached Residential 75 DU 15 53 1 53 1 30 1 825 8 CondominiuMTownhouse 289 DU 1 49 1 142 1 136 1 104 1 2.341 TOTAL FOR TAZ 4 185 820 1 614 1 377 1 9,843 TOTAL FORALL ZONES 1,966 5,633 3,900 2,725 103,015 tJ^/�7�iJ .�i`� ✓� � nlT ' V D U =Dwelling ling Units AC = Acres U:tUclobsUC6361Exc kOO636-02.xIsiT 12 -2 lam \ 12 -3 Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the four project traffic analysis zones are graphically depicted on Exhibits 12 -A through 12 -D, respectively. It should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibits 12 -A through 12 -D reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential and commercial opportunities. 12-4 0 W O m LU W Z N smz _ Ha ji ,,, a .1 „� SJ�NiN Q � V F- by O S n O �k 0.6 n N h Mme/ l • W � C O a <� I` V H O z = � Q Q p � V O ' p 2 Add0. 6 �- V ` F � 1 I O 4:z\�f F a auxan�xv J .V RHI W m Z � 0 W O m m m Z-5 0P N Jt� � Co! \v 0 N smz Q � V N S n O n N h a <� O z = Q p � V 3Atl_ p 2 Add0. 6 �- 3a auxan�xv �; m V � 3AV m m Z-5 0P N Jt� � Co! \v 0 mNZ N W mOW Z N LU Na QO r Z H as Uco U� G WA C' a F- 0 V F C` 0 a W Z W 12 -6 m uMZ u+ f_ZW m N X N a w -a N a_ z� =� W� N O H a }- u O IL Z 0 0 t PPINK IIzZIIA"A� 12 -7 M na -Ai/ 0 oe� N W w \ r �ZLU m0 N X LA LLJ -a Z � o ` am s m L� cl v r \ b y F. O �. V � O a m JFp0.a� J Z f// 0 D 8 a N Q F- 12 -8 13. NEWPORT RIDGE The proposed project consists of single and multi - family residential dwelling units and commercial uses. These developments are located within the Sphere of Influence of Newport Beach but were processed through the County of Orange. The developments are generally located between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to Newport Coast Drive. Proiect Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 13 -1. Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 13 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of approximately 35,519 tip -ends per day with 3,654 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 3,471 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. 13 -1 TABLE 13 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM UNITS IN OUT IN OUT Multi Family welling DU 0-< 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 113ingle Family Detached Residential DU 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.40 11.00 !Commercial TSF 0.60 0.50 1.90 2.00 45.D0 �0.Gr1 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates Z DU =Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:\ UcJobslOO6361ExceR [00636-02x1;.Tr 13 -1 13 -2 TABLE 13 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION DU � Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U : \UWODs\MS3ff\EXMN[DD63"2.xfslT 13 -2 13 -3 PEAK HOUR AM PM TAZ PLANNING AREA, LAND USE Single Family Detached Residential Single Family Detached Residentiai Single Family Detached Residentai Single Family Detached Residential Multi Family Dwelling Multi Fa mily Dwelling Multi Family Dwelling Multi Familv Dwelling Single Family Detached Residential Commercial Sin le Famil Detached Residential QUANTITY 93 147 138 125 100 63 112 112 323 102.959 200 350 705 - 347 26 547 UNITS' DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU TSF DU DU DU DU DU DU DAILY ?,023 11617 1,518 1,375 647 408 725 725 3,553 4,633 1,620 17 3,8850 50 7,755 11,605 2,245 286 3,539 6,070 35,519 IN 19 29 28 25 90 57 101 101 65 62 34 611 70 141 211 312 5 492 809 1,631 OUT 65 103 97 88 42 26 47 47 225 51 98 890 245 494 739 146 18 230 394 2,023 IN 65 103 97 88 43 27 48 48 226 196 94 1,035 245 494 735 149 18 235 402 7=1 76 OUT 37 59 55 50 20 13 22 22 129 206 72 685 140 2B2 422 69 10 109 188 1,295 1 1A 2 3 4 5 7 ' 8 9 11 12 12 TOTAL FOR TAZ 1 Single Family Detached Residential Single Family Detached Residential TAZ 2 Multi Family Dwelling Single Family Detached Residential Multi Family Dwelling TAZ 3 2 21 22 TOTAL FOR 3 13 14 15 TOTAL FOR TOTAL FOR ALL ZONES DU � Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U : \UWODs\MS3ff\EXMN[DD63"2.xfslT 13 -2 13 -3 Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the three project traffic analysis zones are graphically depicted on Exhibits 13 -A through 13 -C, respectively. It should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibits 13 -A through 13 -C reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential and commercial opportunities. 13-4 a� C-�WZ 0 W61 m ~� W _ xx Qo ZP u �? wr N r 0 W LN 0 F'� t- O a W Z 0 0 0 1 1 E N a m 13 -5 u w a 0 LL p z z� W w 41 u � o JFF i e� I ra CO r W z F=-z� m0�= N X y a N D. J � a_ z +- a� a12 �o 1- a o� O W z O 0 lB 13 -6 mmJE - VFt / P / c N i m O / O � 0 lB 13 -6 mmJE - VFt / P / c M N a°' Q H COAST m SVa o e 0 ;od m N o � r � 5 HALL 3ntl L n GSS Md T Z iAV � � N � 3Ltl311 DUtl / y L SAN MIGUU m OOHN3AV M ` DO PY N � 1 � T I < Nip~ m 0 13 -7 T J� 15. LOWER SAYVIEW SENIOR HOUSING The proposed project consists of a senior housing development. The senior housing development will accommodate approximately 150 dwelling units. The project is located in the City of Newport Beach at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. Project Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 15-1. Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 15 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 600 trip -ends per day with 60 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 60 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the 15-1 TABLE 15 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates Z DU = Dwelling Units 15 -2 PEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USE UNITSZ IN OUT IN OUT DAILY Elderly Residential DU 1 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.10 4.00 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates Z DU = Dwelling Units 15 -2 TABLE 15 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ' DU = Dwelling Units U UcJObs \00536%Exc N00636- 02.xlslT 15 -2 I 5 -3 aEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USE UNITS' N OUT IN OUT DAILY Elderly Residential DU 15 1 45 45 15 600 ' DU = Dwelling Units U UcJObs \00536%Exc N00636- 02.xlslT 15 -2 I 5 -3 project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 15-A. It should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 15 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to/from the project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential and commercial opportunifies. 15-4 Q (D Z S0 to = � N _C- Z � 7 ~ W_ i MMa W W \ bl/ryog I 1 t T rD 15 -5 I eI D Z W W J Eta r M 0 0 0 0 r z V w 6 O Ed 16. RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BONITA CANYON AND NEWPORT COAST The proposed project consists of 436 apartment units. The project is located in the City of Newport Beach at the intersection of Bonita Canyon Drive and Newport Coast Drive. Project Trio Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed development. Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 16 -1. Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are shown in Table 16 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 2,821 trip -ends per day with 222 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 274 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. Traffic Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. T'S TABLE 16 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE ! UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY _ AM PM IN OUT IN ' OUT Apartments DU 0.09 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 DU = Dwelling Units U:1UcJobs1D06361Excell !00636- 02.xtsTr 16.1 16 -2 TABLE 16 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Z DU = Dwelling Units U: \UcJobs1D0636EX� l \[DD636- 02AIsIT 56-2 16 -3 PEAK HOUR AM PM LAND USE I UNITS' IN I OUT IN OUT DAILY Apartments DU 39 183 187 87 2821 Z DU = Dwelling Units U: \UcJobs1D0636EX� l \[DD636- 02AIsIT 56-2 16 -3 Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 16-A. It should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 16 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential and cornmercial opportunities. 1611 Jz S JO S W V; r j= N 10 za z~ a a F- z 0 m 16 -5 Appendix E 2101 Dove Street Trip Generation Study rL engineering group, inc. September 23, 2005 Mr. David Keely CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1768 transportation planning • traffic engineering acoustical / air quality studies Subject: 2101 Dove Street Trip Generation Study (Revised 9123/05) Dear Mr. Keely: Introduction RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) has completed a trip generation study for the proposed development of 2101 Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project is located south of Dove Street, east of Campus Drive, and west of Birch Street in the City of Newport Beach. The location of the site is shown in Exhibit A, and the proposed site plan is shown in Exhibit B. The purpose of this trip generation study is to evaluate the potential trip generation of the project, which will be the off -site service facility for Pendragon North America existing Land Rover facility on Jamboree Road. This facility is located at 1540 Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach, and has an area of approximately 26,250 square feet. The existing facility will have its service/parts/vehicle storage facility moved from the existing location at 1540 Jamboree Road to 2101 Dove Street. Therefore, the specific purpose of this trip generation study is to evaluate the potential trip generation for the service/parts/vehicle storage facility without actual sales operations that will continue to occur at the Jamboree Road site. The proposed Dove Street off -site service facility will have 34 service bays, 50 employees, and will service approximately 70 vehicles per day. Its hours of operation will be from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. It is also estimated that approximately 6 vendors, including vendors and mechanics, will come to the proposed site everyday. Based upon discussions with the City of Newport Beach staff, the trip generation study would review the actual traffic characteristics of similar land uses currently in operation by Pendragon North America. In this way, the actual trip generation characteristics could be monitored, and trip generation rates could be developed for the off -site service/parts/vehicle storage facility. Pendragon North America currently operates two other facilities in the Southern California region that have similar characteristics. Both of these facilities have separate locations for Jaguar /Land Rover sales and service/parts/vehicle storage facilities. These sites were reviewed by RK, and traffic counts were obtained at both locations along with the various land use information for both sites. The location of these facilities is shown on Exhibits C through E. 20201 s.w. birch street, suite 250 newport beach, california 92660 tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.4 74.0902 htW /www. rkengineeccom Based upon this information, trip generation rates were calculated for the existing service /parts /vehicle storage facilities in Hollywood and Santa Monica. Only the traffic generated by the separate services/parts /vehicle storage facilities were utilized in the calculation of trip generation rates in this trip generation survey. In addition, RK reviewed trip generation characteristics for similar land uses as identified by the NBTAM, ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers), and SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). Trip generation rates were provided by ITE Trip Generation, 7'h Edition, 2003 and SANDAG Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002 edition. Findings The following findings have been determined based upon the study: 1. Pendragon North America currently operates two similar facilities as being proposed for the 2101 Dove Street facility. The characteristics of each site are included in Table 1. The Santa Monica site is located at 3300 Olympic Boulevard in the City of Santa Monica. The location of the site is shown on Exhibit C. This site also has a vehicle storage and employee parking facility located adjacent to the site on Exposition Boulevard (Exhibit Q. The second site is located in Hollywood at 1520 Wilcox Avenue (Exhibit D). This facility also has a separate vehicle storage facility located at 1020 Cory Avenue (Exhibit E). 2. Traffic counts were obtained at both of the two (2) sample sites. Photographs of the sites are included in Appendix A. The 24 -hour counts, which are included in Appendix B, were reviewed for reasonableness as part of the study process. Furthermore, the tubes used in collecting the count data were visually monitored by Southland Car Counters throughout the day to ensure the accuracy of the counts. The site traffic counts are included in Table 2. 3. Based upon the two sample sites, the weighted average daily trip generation was 26.77 trip -ends per day per 1,000 square feet of building. The AM inbound trip generation rate was 1.38 vehicles per hour per 1,000 square feet, and the AM outbound peak hour outbound trip generation rate was 1.32 vehicles per hour per 1,000 square feet. The PM inbound trip generation rate was 1.21 vehicles per hour per 1,000 square feet, and the PM outbound peak hour trip generation rate was 1.30 vehicles per hour per 1,000 square feet. 4. The weighted average trip generation rates calculated in this study were compared to trip generation factors prepared by the NBTAM, ITE, and SANDAG. The weighted average trip generation rates were of the same order of magnitude with respect to daily trip generation rates identified by both the ITE and SANDAG; however, the daily trip generation rate provided by the NBTAM was greater than the weighted average trip generation rate. The weighted average AM /PM peak hour trip generation rates were genera;ly equivalent to the trip generation rates provided by the NBTAM. The AM /PM peak hour trip generation rates were also slightly less than the Auto Care Center trip generation rates iden -ified by the ITE and the Auto Service/Parts trip generation rates also identified by the ITE. The weighted average survey site trip generation rates were slightly greater than the AM /PM peak hour rates based upon the New Car Sales rate times 60 percent, or the Auto Repair Center rates generated by SANDAG. A comparison of the trip generation rates is included in Table 5. 5. Based upon this study, the proposed development of 2101 Dove Street would generate 1,557 trip -ends per day, with 157 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 146 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. However, the site is currently occupied by various tenants. According to information provided by the City of Newport Beach, the site currently generates 364 trip -ends per day, with 44 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 44 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed 2101 Dove Street development will generate approximately 1,193 net trip -ends per day, with 113 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 102 net vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Trip Generation Survey The procedures used in this trip generation study were to identify two comparable facilities to the off -site service facility being proposed at 2101 Dove Street. Pendragon North America currently operates two such facilities, one in Hollywood and one in Santa Monica that have similar types of operation. These facilities have separate locations for sales and service/parts/vehicle storage. The Santa Monica service facility is located at 3300 Olympic Boulevard (Exhibit U, and the Hollywood facility is located at 1520 Wilcox Avenue (Exhibit D). The Santa Monica facility also has a vehicle storage and employee parking facility adjacent to the site on Exposition Boulevard. The Hollywood facility has a vehicle storage facility associated with the site at 1020 Cory Avenue also in Hollywood (Exhibit E). Photographs of the access points to all of these facilities are included in Appendix A. The description of both of these facilities is included in Appendix C. The two sample sites provide only service/parts and vehicle storage. A summary of the land uses, location, and addresses is included in Table 1. 24 -hour traffic counts were obtained on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at each of the driveways serving the two facilities. The 24 -hour counts are included in Appendix B. A summary of the site traffic counts at each of the driveways is included in Table 2. The total site traffic counts are included in Table 3. he Santa Monica site generated a total of 1,344 trip -ends per day, with 152 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 119 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The Hollywood site generated 1,264 trip -ends per day, with 111 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 126 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Based upon the traffic counts and land use quantities at each of the sites, trip generation rates were calculated for each facility. A summary of the trip generation rates is included in Table 4. The Hollywood site included a much smaller building than the Santa Monica site and therefore, generated substantially greater trips per 1,000 square feet. The weighted average of the two sites is more indicative of typical conditions that might be expected at a facility similar to the proposed 2101 Dove Street off -site service facility. That proposed facility is expected to have a building with an area of approximately 58,145 square feet. The weighted average trip generation was 26.77 trip -ends per day per 1,000 square feet, with 1.38 vehicles per hour per 1,000 square feet inbound during the AM peak hour and 1.32 vehicles per hour per 1,000 square feet outbound during the AM peak hour. The PM inbound trip generation rate was 1.21 vehicles per hour per 1,000 square feet, and the PM outbound trip generation rate was 1.30 vehicles per hour per 1,000 square feet. The results of the trip generation analysis are shown in Table 4. Trip Generation Comparison A trip generation comparison has been made between the study results and other data identified by the NBTAM, ITE, and SANDAG. A summary of this comparison is included in Table 5. A comparison was made with auto dealer /sales (NBTAM), new car sales (assuming 60 percent of the total rate applies to service/parts) (ITE), auto care center (ITE), auto parts and service (ITE), and auto repair center rates from the SANDAG trip generation study. The study results seem to closely relate with respect to the daily trip generation, except for the daily trip rate that is provided by the NBTAM, which is higher than the weighted average rate. The weighted average AM peak hour trip generation rates are slightly higher than the NBTAM auto dealer /sales rates, ITE rates for new car sales and auto care center, and auto repair rates from SANDAG, and lower than the ITE auto care center rates and auto parts and service rates during the PM peak hour. Proiect Trip Generation Based upon the trip generation rates calculated in this study, the potential trip generation for the proposed site has been calculated. The results of this analysis are shown on Table 6. The proposed project would consist of a building with an area of 58,145 square feet. The project would generate 1,557 trip -ends per day, with 157 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 146 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. However, the site is currently occupied by various tenants. According to information provided by the City of Newport Beach, the site currently generates 364 trip -ends per day, with 44 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 44 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed 2101 Dove Street development will generate approximately 1,193 net trip -ends per day, with 113 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 102 net vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Conclusions RK has completed a trip generation study for the proposed Pendragon North America service /parts and storage facility to be located at 2101 Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach. This project would accommodate the service/parts and storage needs of the existing facility located at 1540 Jamboree Road. Based upon this study, the trip generation rates have been calculated for the proposed use based upon two comparable facilities in Southern California operated by Pendragon North America. The trip generation rates are generally similar to other rates identified by the NBTAM, ITE, and SANDAG. RK appreciates this opportunity to work with the City of Newport Beach on this project. If you have any questions regarding this study, please call me at (949) 474 -0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP cc t Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal TqF>:XG Attachments Exhibit A Location Map J N 055941 -0I (&AI 2101 DOVES FZEETTPoP GENERATION 0 UDY, Newport Bach, Card r engineering group, inc. Exhibit B Site Plan I N 055941 -0!(&B) 2101 DOVE STREETTRIP GENERATION STUDY. Newport Reach. CAKU is engineering group, inc. Exhibit C Santa Monica Site Driveway plumbers I, 2 and 3 Vehicle Service I N 0559- D4- DI(Exq engineering VDI DOVE STREET TRIP GENERATION STUDY,Ne pe Beach, Mdifomia group, inc. Exhibit D Hollywood Site Driveway Numbers 5 and 6 Vehicle Service 0559-04-01 (EXD) engineering 2101 DOVE STREET TRIP GENERATION STUDY. Newport B-- h,Cxdf -mI- group, inc. Exhibit E Hollywood Site Driveway Number 4 Vehicle Service J N 0559 -09-01 (ExE) engineering 21DI DOVE STREET TRIP GENERATION STUDY. Newport Beach, Calif M group, inc. TABLE 1 Sampie Site Land Uses Location Address Land Uses Quantity Units Hornburg Santa Monica Jaguar Service • Dwy 1 3300 Olympic Boulevard Auto Service Inbound Driveway 68,940 TSF • Dwy 2 3300 Olympic Boulevard Auto Service Outbound Driveway 68,940 TSF • Dwy 3 Exposition Boulevard Vehicle Storage and Employee 50,400 TSF Parking - Inbound /Outbound Drivewav Hornburg Hollywood Jaguar Service. • Dwy4 1020 Cory Avenue Vehicle Storage 4,500 TSF Inbound/Outbound Driveway • Dwy5 1520 Wilcox Avenue Vehicle Service 24,000 TSF Inbound/Outbound Driveway • Dwy 6 1520 Wilcox Avenue Vehicle Service 24,000 TSF Inbound/Outbound Driveway j.• rktableArk270 x279678 JN:1698 -04 -02 TABLE 2 Site Traffic Counts ' One -way driveway f:\rktabkArk27OMK179618 JN:1698-04 -02 Peak Hour AM (7 -9 AM) PM (4-6 PM) In Out In Out Location Daily Santa Monica • Dwy 1' 20 - 43 - 473 • Dwy 2' - 30 - 27 480 • Dwy3 68 34 18 31 391 Total 88 64 61 58 1,344 Hollywood • Dwy 4 6 7 6 8 143 • Dwy 5 13 32 26 31.5 505 • Dwy6 27 26 25 26 616 Total 46 65 57 69 1,264 Grand Total Both Sites 134 129 118 12,7 2,608 ' One -way driveway f:\rktabkArk27OMK179618 JN:1698-04 -02 TABLE 3 Total Site Traffic Counts Location Size Units' Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out In Out Santa Monica 68.9,402 TSF 88 64 61 58 1,344 Hollywood 28.500 1 TSF 46 65 57 69 1,264 Total Both Sites 134 129 118 127 2,608 7 TSF = Thousand Square Feet. 2 Does not include open parking lot on Exposition Boulevard. j: irks 6 rerirk27OMK27967B )N: 7 698-04.02 TABLE 4 Trip Generation Rates Location Size Units' Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out In Out Santa Monica 68.940 TSF 1.28 0.93 0.88 0.84 19.50 Hollywood 28.500 TSF 1.61 2.28 2.00 2.42 44.35 Weighted Average of Both Sites 1 1.38 1.32 1.21 1.30 26.77 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet. j: rktabtesvk2700vtK2796B IN: 1698-04 -02 TABLE 5 Trip Generation Comparison' Location Peak Hour Daily AM I PM In Out In Out Auto Dealer /Sales - NBTAM 1.39 0.59 1.07 1.55 47.91 New Car Sales - ITE #841 (60% of Total Rate) 0.91 0.32 0.62 0.97 20.00 Auto Care Center - ITE #942 1.91 1.03 1.69 1.69 30.732 Auto Parts and Service - ITE #943 WA N/A 1.87 2.59 40.55' Auto Repair Center - SANDAG 1.12 0.46 0.88 1.32 20.00 Santa Monica and Hollywood Pendragon Sites (Weighted Average) 1.38 1 1.32 1 1.21__J_ 1.30 1 26.77 1 Trips per TSF (Thousand Square Feet) of building. 2 Estimated based upon SANDAG PM peak hour to daily percentages. j:Yktabks\rk270 WtK279M JN:1598 -04 -02 TABLE 6 Project Trip Generation' Land Use Quantity Units Z Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out In Out Proposed Land Use: Automotive Care Center 58.145 TSF 80 77 70 76 1,557 Less Existing Land Use: Various Tenants - Mixed' -37 -7 _ -10 -34 -364 Net Trip Generation 43 70 60 42 1,193 Based upon survey results. ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 Information provided by the City of Newport Beach. i.ArktabkSVk270Mr27967B IN:1698 -04 -02 Appendix A Photographs RK Ali 01 I t S`a 1 2 w. C pY t _1 all W.SW.OIy RK l��VNr IL At ..l'L :. r u RK J L Rat RK Appendix 5 1520 Wilcox Ave. Driveway Number 5 D559 -01 -DI (Ap-5) engineering 2101 DOVE STREET TRIP GENERATION STUDY, Newport Beach, Caffo is group, inc, RK Appendix B Traffic Counts Volumes tor: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 City: Los Angeles Project #: 04- 2062 -001 Location: Dwy 1 C Olympic BI AM Period iN SB. EB WB PM Period IN SB EB WB D9:D0 D 12:00 14 -- 00:15 0 12:15 19 00:30 0 12:30 12 01:00 0 13:00 14 01:15 D - 13:15 7 01:30 0 13:30 9 02:00 0 14:00 7 02:15 0 14:15 11 02:30 0 14:30 7 03:00 0 15:00 14 03:15 0 15:15 11 03:30 0 15:30 10 03:45 0 0 15:45 14 57 57 D4:00 0 16:00 3 04:15 0 16:15 25 04:30 0 16:30 11 05:00 0 17:00 4 05:15 0 17:15 3 05:30 0 17 :30 4 06:00 0 18:DD 1 06:15 0 18:15 0 06:30 D 18:30 0 1 07:00 5 19:06 0 D7:15 3 19:15 0 07:30 7 19:30 0 08:00 7 20:00 0 08:15 9 20 :15 0 DB:30 6 20:30 0 08:45 7 29 29 20:45 0 0 09:00 18 21:00 0 09:15 23 21:15 0 - 09:30 9 21:30 0 09:45 12 62 62 21:45 0 0 10:00 14 22:00 0 . 10:15 13 22:15 0 10:30 6 22 :30 0 11:00 11 23:DD 0 11:15 10 23:15 0 11:30 8 23:30 0 11:45 2D 49 49 23:45 0 0 Total Vol. 219 219 254 - 254 AM - '46.3% r_(. , 11 45 11:45 _:: 65' Volumes for: Wednesday, November 03, ZD04 City: Los Angeles Project #: D4- 2062 -002 Location: Dwy 2 @ Olympic BI AM Period OUT SB EB WB PM Period OUT S8 EB WB 00:OD 0 12:05 27 00:15 0 12:15 15 00:3D 0 12:30 10 00:45 D 0 12:45 10 62 62 01:00 0 13:0D 12 01:15 0 13:15 7 01:30 0 13:30 4 02:00 0 14:DD 13 02:15 D 14:15 16 02:30 0 14:30 30 02:45 0 0 14:45 21 60 60 03:00 0 15:0D 16 03:15 0 15:15 13 03:30 0 15:30 16 n3:45 0 0 15:45 14 59 59 04:00 0 16:00 11 04:15 0 16:15 12 04:30 0 16:30 9 D4:45 0 0 16:45 5 37 37 05:00 0 17:00 1 05:15 0 17:15 11 05:30 a 17:30 5 05:45 0 0 17:45 13 30 30 06:00 0 18:00 2 06:15 3 16:15 2 06:30 1 18:30 0 07:00 10 19:00 0 07:15 5 19:15 0 07:30 7 19:30 1 07:45 B 30 30 19:45 0 1 1 09:00 2 20:00 D 08:15 5 20:15 0 08:30 13 20:30 0 08:45 9 29 29 20:45 0 0 09:00 11 21:90 0 09:15 15 21:15 0 09:3D 13 21:30 0 09:45 5 44 44 21:45 0 n 10:00 14 22:00 0 10:15 2 22:15 0 10:30 9 22:30 0 10:45 19 44 44 22:45 a n 11:00 11 23:00 D 11:15 7 23:15 0 11:31) 16 23:30 D 11:45 10 44 44 23:45 D D Total VoL 199 199 281 '2B1 Daily. Totals NB: SB EB WB Combined 480 460 eak Hour 11:7Q {. 11:3Q 'x.,.1445 ., .. Volumef 68 '.66 `166 P.H.F..... 0.63 0.63. Volumes for: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 City: Los Angeles Project n : 04- 2062 -003 Location: Dwy 3 (_lr. Exposition BI 19:00 0 0 07:15 27 9 AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB 30 SB EB WB 00:00 0 _ 0 12:00 2 0 D 0 2 7 8 oa:15 0 0 12:15 2 2 2 0 0 00:30 0 0 12:30 1 0 2 8 16 8 19 DO:AS 0 0 0 0 12:45 5 10 6 12 22 01:00 0 0 13:00 7 9 22:15' 0 0::15 0 0 13:15 8 10 0130 0 0 13:30 3 10:45 2 2 0 01:45 0 0 0 0 13:45 0 18 0 21 39 02:OD 0 0 14:00 2 0 2 0 02:15 0 0 14:15 2 4 0 02:30 0 D 14:30 0 0 0 23:30 02:45 D 0 0 0 14:45 0 4 0 6 10 03:00 0 0 15:00 0 D - 0 03:15 0 0 15:15 0 0 03:30 0 0 15:30 4 4 03:45 0 0 0 0 15:45 4 8 4 8 16 04:DD 0 0 16:00 1 1 04:15 0 0 16:15 1 1 D4:30 0 0 16:30 4 4 D4:45 0 0 0 0 16:45 8 14 8 14 28 05:00 0 0 17:00 5 1B 05:15 0 0 17:15 4 3 05:30 0 0 17:30 4 5 05:45 1 1 0 0 1 17:45 4 17 4 30 47 06:00 3 3 18:00 5 6 06:15 2 2 18:15 0 0 06:30 10 10 16:30 0 0 n6:45 17 32 18 33 65 18:45 0 5 0 6 11 07:00 12 6 19:00 0 0 07:15 27 9 19:15 0 0 07:30 20 30 19:30 0 0 07:45 9 68 9 34 102 19:45 0 0 D 0 08:00 7 8 20:00 0 0 08:15 1 2 20:15 0 0 06:30 0 1 20:30 0 0 nNr45 8 16 8 19 35 20:45 0 0 0 0 09:00 2 '. `43.1% 2 D6:45 06:30: 21:00 0. 43 0 D.70 . -... 09:15 0 0 6: . �' .- -43:9% - -:: 21:15 0 44.2%.;..1 0 '.16.45 09:30 1 .. -23 1 -'55 21:30 0 0 09:45 0 3 0 3 6 21:45 D 0 0 0 10:00 0 0 22:00 0 0 10:15 0 0 22:15' 0 0 10:30 2 2 22:30 0 D 10:45 0 2 0 2 4 22:45 0 0 0 0 11:00 1 1 73:00 0 0 11:15 1 1 23:15 0 0 11:30 0 0 23:30 0 0 11:45 0 2 1 3 5 23:45 0 0 0 D - Total Vol. 124 94 218 76 97 173 - Split%. -.': 56.9 %' '. `43.1% 1 Peak Hour D6:45 06:30: Volume" ` -76 43 ... P.H.F::. - D.70 . -... 0.60_ ... ., . .... ... Daily Totals NB SIB EB WB Combined 200 191 391 PM 6: . �' .- -43:9% - -:: "5611% :'.._'.: .. ,,. -, '.'.t 44.2%.;..1 12:45 - '.16.45 :•16:95 .. -23 1 34 -'55 .. ..: ` 0.8B ..:0:47 Volumes for Wednesday, November 03, 2004 City: Los Angeles Project #: 04- 2062 -004 Location: Dwy 9 @ Cory Av 52.4% :. 13:45 3 AM Period NB SB EB WE PM Period Na SB EB WB 00:00 0 0 12:00 0 0 00:15 0 0 12:15 0 0 00:30 D 0 12:30 _ 1 00:45 D 0 0 0 12:45 0 1 0 1 2 01:00 0 0 13:00 1 1 01:15 0 0 13:15 1 2 01:30 0 0 13:3D 3 3 01:45 0 0 0 0 52.4% :. 13:45 3 8 3 9 17 02:00 0 1 0 -.: 32 21:15 14:00 2 _ 0.41 '- .0.39:..- ... 4 09:30 1 02:15 0 0 21:30 0 14:15 0 0 1 6 02:30 0 13 0 0 0 0 14:30 1 10:D0 1 1 02:45 0 0 0 0 14:45 0 3 0 5 8 03:08 D 0 0 15:00 1 0 03:15 0 0 0 10:45 15:15 4 2 6 25 22:45 03:30 0 0 0 13:D0 1 15:30 0 0 23:00 03:45 0 0 0 0 15:95 1 6 1 7 13 04:00 0 11:30 0 2 16:DD D 23:30 0 04:15 D 0 0 1 5 16:15 1 3 0430 0 33 0 35 68 16:30 2 35 2 75 04:45 0 0 0 0 16:45 0 3 0 5 0 05:00 0 0 NB 58 17:DD 0 Combined 0 05:15 0 0 68 17:15 4 6 AM 05:30 0 0 PM' 17:30 D 0 05:45 0 0 0 0 17:45 0 4 0 6 10 06:00 0 0 18:00 4 4 06:15 0 0 18:15 4 1 06:30 0 0 18:30 1 1 06:45 4 4 1 1 5 18:45 0 9 0 6 15 07:D0 1 1 19:00 1 1 07:15 0 0 19:15 0 0 07:30 0 0 19:30 0 0 07:45 1 2 1 2 4 19:45 0 1 0 1 2 08:D0 0 0 20:00 0 0 08:15 0 0 20:15 0 0 08:30 4 3 20:30 0 0 08:45 2 6 4 7 13 20:45 0 0 0 0 09:00 3 ::51.5w 47.6 ° /a 3 `. 53.3%. 52.4% :. 21:00 0 0 13:15: '..13 15 A D9:15 1 � 12 1 : .9 -.: 32 21:15 0 0- _ 0.41 '- .0.39:..- ... _ ._ .. :.,0.75 09:30 1 2 21:30 0 0 09:45 1 6 1 7 13 21:45 0 0 0 0 10:D0 1 1 22:00 D 0 10:15 8 B 22:15 0 0 10:30 2 2 22:30 0 0 10:45 1 12 2 13 25 22:45 0 0 0 0 13:D0 1 1 23:00 11:15 0 1 23:15 11:30 2 2 23:30 11:45 0 3 1 5 8 23:95 Total Vol. - 33 35 68 35 40 75 Daily Totals NB 58 EB WB Combined 68 75 143 AM PM' S Ift oh." ' . 98.5% ". - ::51.5w 47.6 ° /a '- 46.7% `. 53.3%. 52.4% :. Peak Hour:.. 09:45 ' '10,00 '10i00 „ 13:15: '..13 15 A 13`.15 volume � 12 13 : .9 -.: 32 -.` 21 - PH.F. _ 0.41 '- .0.39:..- ... _ ._ .. :.,0.75 _ :_:075 :1.0.6a .. .. Volumes for: Wednesday, November 03, [004 Giy: Los .Angeles Project -: 04-2062 -005 8 Location: Dvry 5 C Wilcox Aar 5 19:15 0 03:15 0 2 AM Period NB 5B EB WB PM Period NB 56 ED _ WB Ei 9 9 15 MOD 0 0 12:00 9 0 5 15:30 00:15 D D 12:15 s 7 8 0 00:30 C 0 12:30 6 B 4 5 )D:95 C 0 D 0 12:45 5 28 8 25 53 01:00 0 D 13:00 8 4 04:15 01:15 u 0 13:15 2 16:15 2 0 01:30 0 0 13:30 4 0 4 0 01:45 0 0 0 0 13:45 4 18 2 12 30 02:00 0 0 14:00 2 0 2 8 02:15 0 0 14:15 5 05:00 4 02:30 0 0 14:30 8 0 5 02:45 0 0 0 0 14:45 2 17 2 13 30 03:00 0 1) 0 0 15:1)0 8 2 5 19:15 0 03:15 0 2 0 19:30 15:15 9 07:45 2 Ei 9 9 15 19:45 03:39 0 08:00 0 5 15:30 5 0 B 4 7 03:45 0 C 0 D 15:45 B 30 5 20 50 04:00 0 0 0 16:00 6 0 4 04:15 0 0 16:15 2 0 8 ' 04:30 0 0 16:30 9 0 9 04:45 0 0 0 0 16:45 8 25 7 28 53 05:00 0 0 17:00 4 0 10 05:15 0 0 17x5 5 0 9 05:30 0 D 17:30 4 0 10 05:45 0 0 0 0 17:45 8 21 7 36 57 06:00 1 79 2 150 1B:DD 0 0 137 Z76 06:15 4 1 18:15 0 2 06:30 2 0 18:31) 0 NO s8 0 WB Combined 06:45 1 E: 0 3 11 18:45 0 0 0 2 2 07:00 1 1) 19:00 0 0 07:15 2 0 19:15 0 0 07:30 2 5 19:30 0 0 07:45 1 Ei 9 9 15 19:45 0 0 0 0 08:00 4 5 20:00 0 0 08:15 4 7 20:15 0 0 08:31) 1 10 20:30 0 0 OR'45 4 13 10 32 95 2D:45 0 0 1 1 I 09:00 2 65.5 %'45.3%: ": 4 49.6 %. ..54.7 °h 21:1)0 0 0 15-00. 16:45 D9:15 8 - ' 8 4 ' 30 3663. 21:15 0 0 �0.6B: D.77' ! ',. .':' D.83 09:30 4 11) 21:30 0 0 09:45 2 16 1B 36 52 21:45 0 0 0 D 10:00 11 14 22:00 0 0 1D:15 10 5 22:15 0 0 ' 10:30 5 12 22:30 0 0 10:45 2 2.B B 39 67 22:45 0 0 0 0 11:01) 1 5 23:00 0 0 11:15 1 13 23:15 0 0 11:30 9 5 23:30 0 0 11:45 2 B 8 31 39 23:45 0 0 0 0 Total Vol. 79 150 229 139 137 Z76 Daily Totals NO s8 ES WB Combined 218 287 505 65.5 %'45.3%: ": 50.4% 49.6 %. ..54.7 °h Peak Hour ' '09 45: 09:45 D9:45 15-00. 16:45 36:30 ' Voluriie. - ' 8 ',49 •77 :;':' ' 30 3663. .' �0.6B: D.77' ! ',. .':' D.83 Volumes for: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 0 Cry: Los .Angeles Project #: 04- 2062 -006 Location: Dwy 6 @ Wilcox Av 18:00 4 6 2 AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB OTOD 0 0 12:00 10 10 00:15 0 0 12:15 3 4 00:30 0 0 12:30 3 3 00:45 0 0 0 0 12:45 4 20 4 21 41 91:00 0 0 2 13:00 5 18:00 4 6 2 01:15 0 0 4 13:15 6 0 5 18:15 4 01:30 0 0 4 2 4 8 13:30 7 110 224 6 200 - 192 392 01:45 0 0 0 0 13:45 4 22 3 18 40 02:00 0 0 2 14:00 8 12 7 07:00 2 02:15 0 0 14:15 2 2 02:30 0 0 2 14:30 4 19:15 4 2 02:45 0 0 0 0 14:45 7 21 6 19 40 03:OD 0 0 15:00 12 8 10 8 16 03:15 0 0 2 15:15 7 08:00 9 4 03:30 0 0 2 15:30 10 12 08:15 7 03:45 0 0 0 0 15:45 8 37 6 37 74 04:00 0 0 6 16:00 8 20:30 9 0 04:15 0 0 11 16:15 6 26 5 20:45 2 0430 0 0 12 16:30 5 6 05:00 0 0 17:00 8 8 05:15 0 0 17:15 6 6 05:30 0 0 17:30 8 8 06:00 2 10 2 2 2 18:00 2 6 2 0 0 06:15 4 6 2 0 0 18:15 4 30 5 27 57 4 2 4 2 4 8 06:30 2 110 224 1 200 - 192 392 18:30 4 4 06:45 2 10 2 7 17 18:45 2 12 2 12 24 07:00 2 2 19:DO 6 4 07:15 2 2 19:15 2 2 07:30 2 2 19:30 4 4 07:45 2 8 2 8 16 19:45 2 14 2 12 26 08:00 2 4 20:00 2 2 08:15 7 6 20:15 2 2 08:30 7 6 20:30 0 0 08:45 11 27 10 26 53 20:45 2 6 2 6 12 09:00 2 2 21:00 2 1 09:15 6 6 21:15 2 2 09:30 2 2 21:30 D 0 100 11 10 22:00 2 2 10:15 7 6 22:15 0 0 ' 10:30 0 6 22:30 0 0 10:45 4 30 5 27 57 22:45 2 4 2 4 8 11:00 2 2 23:00 2 1 11:15 2 - 2 23:15 2 2 11:30 10 10 23:30 0 0 11:45 - 8 22 10 24 46 23:45 2 6 2 5 11 Total Vol. 114 110 224 200 - 192 392 Daily Totals NB SE3 EB WB Combined 314 302 616 split %' - 50.9%.. . 49.1% 36.4% 51.0% :.: 49.0% ':: 63.6% Peak Hour - _ 09:45 11:36 ,.11:30_ 15 00 "14:45 `16:00 Volume 31. 34 6537...37 74 P.H. F.: - _ . 0.70 .. 0.85 0.81 " :'. 0.77 , : =0.77 0.84 Appendix C Sample Site Descriptions Santa Monica and Hollywood Pendragon North America Automotive Inc. November 15, 2004 Operations Overview — Homburg Jaguar and Land Rover Homburg Jaquar, Land Rover - Sunset Boulevard, West Hollywood The Sales location operates as purely a Sales facility for the retailing of Jaguar and Land Rover Motorcars. Established in this location some 50 years ago and serving the City of West Hollywood since 1948. The facility has always operated in two separate locations within the City of West Hollywood, one as above, responsible for Sales and deliveries and another currently located on Wilcox Avenue for the repair and service of these vehicles. In separating these operations we have found advantages in terms of space available in which to operate, and more importantly, we are able to dedicate specialist customer service personnel to the two aspects of our business in extremely convenient locations to our customers. Whilst traditional motorcar dealers tend to operate all aspects of their trade from one location, (a) this is not possible in the City of West Hollywood based on the lack of appropriate property and the associated costs attached to such a parcel of land. Again by providing such exclusivity by separating Sales and Service, we are able to provide excellent customer satisfaction which is demanded by our profile of customer Perhaps more importantly, we enjoy a great deal of efficiency in our operation as vehicles are delivered to off site storage and prepared for retail display affording the customer a great array of choice. Residents close to the facilities ate not inconvenienced by vehicle deliveries. The burden of storing vehicles on site is removed which provides for greater safety and operational space advantages. Homburg Jaguar and Land Rover Service — Santa Monica Our Santa Monica operations again are separated with a dedicated Sales facility and dedicated Service facility. The Sales location is situated on Wilshire Boulevard offering an exclusive showroom for the sales of Jaguar cars right in the heart of Santa Monica and has been established in this location for over 35 years. Again, the customers consider this facility as convenient and appropriate. Our Service operation provides for the servicing of Jaguar cars and Land Rover service exclusively. The reality of adjacent storage for new vehicle inventory contributes to a very effective workshop flow and remains very convenient to our customer base who commute through to nearby highways and commute to the immediate business area surrounding the facility. Appendix F Existing land Uses Trip Generation TABLE 1 Trip Generation Rates' Land Use Units Z Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out In Out Warehousing TSF 0.37 0.08 0.12 0.35 4.96 Percent of Daily Trips During Peak Hours 9.0% 9.5% -- Office TSF 1.36 0.19 0.25 1.24 11.01 Percent of Daily Trips During Peak Hours 14.0% 13.5% -- Average of Percent of Daily Trips During Peak Hours (Warehousing and Office Rates) 12% 12% Ratio of Inbound and Outbound Trips During Peak Hours (Average of Warehousing and Office Rates) 85% 15% 22% 78% ' Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers), Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, 2003. z TSF = Thousand Square Feet jArktables\RK4422 JN:0559 -04 -01 TABLE 2 Existing Land Uses Trip Generation' Land Use Peak Hour Daily AM PM In Out In Out Existing Land Uses 37 7 10 34 364 Since a large share of the trips generated by the existing land uses at the site is a result of activity in the parking lot instead of the existing building, the peak hour trip generation fort he existing land uses was not calculated based upon the square footages provided by the Gty of Newport Beach. Instead, the ratio of AM and PM trip rates in comparison to the Daily trip rates was determined for both Warehousing and Office ITE rates. As shown in Table 1, both AM and PM trip rates are approximately 12% of the Daily trip rates. As provided by the City of Newport Beach, the existing land uses generate 64 trips per day (resulting in 44 trips during the AM and PM peak periods). The 44 trips were then split according to the ratio cf inbound and outbound trips (shown in Table 1) to determine the AM and PM peak hour trips shown in the table above. j:Vktab1esVtK4422 /N:0559 -04 -07 Appendix G 1 %Traffic Volume Analysis I % %MR EICVOL ELAM AIYPTP INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average N'infer /Spring 2004AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOIR REGIONALGROW7I3 VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 981 29 7 1017 )0 6 Southbound 1417 43 30 1490 15 4 Eastbound 1499 45 2 1546 15 11 Westbound 366 11 2 379 4 2 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Pmjected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Trefflc Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (1CU) Analysis is required. TRA SIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION.• MACAR771UR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRRrE 4300 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2004 PAO APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROW7'H VOLUME APPROV ®PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 °/.OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1427 12 1482 15 5 Southbound 1947 —1' 58 L 11 2016 20 6 Eastbound 917 2E 16 961 10 6 Westbound 1376 41 1 1418 14 3 . L J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 %of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysts is required. PROJECT.' 2101 Dove St. DATE: I0t31t2005 I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YNN INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) `JEW P�RT o m c'9Gf F00.N�P APPROACH DIJ=ON I EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF P120JECTED PEAK. HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1061 42 7 1110 t1 2 Southbound 1092 44 22 1158 12 5 Eastbound 230 9 1 240 2 7 Westbound 415 17 0 432 4 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. INTERSECTION: MACART11UR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVEDPROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED ll%OFPROJB=l PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK, HOUR VOLUME PROJECT I PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1195 48 7 1250 13 3 Southbound 935 37 9 981 10 5 Eastbound 378 15 5 398 4 4 Westbound 479 19 0 498 5 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Pmjected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St DATE: 1013112005 I % TRAFFIC VOLWfE ANAL PSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREF RD(E -W) & MACARTHUR BLVD(N -S) 4275 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2002 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION TDCISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS1 PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR I VOLUME I ll'.OFPROJECTEDI PEAK HOUR I VOLUME I PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 2193 110 7 2310 23 6 Southbound 462 23 12 497 5 11 Pastbound 1861 93 31 1985 20 0 Westbound I 1295 I I 65 45 7405 14 0 Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated bo be equal to or greater than 1 %of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFY1C VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E -W) & MACARTHUR BLVD(N -S) 4275 (.Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2002 PAD APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR. REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME I APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME lY OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 977 49 1 1027 10 9 Southbound 2070 104 23 2197 22 6 Eastbound 1339 67 39 1445 14 0 Westbound 1802 90 30 7922 19 0 L X I Projecl Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 ProjectTratfic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St. DATE: 1013112oo5 F CI PO�r c � n I % TRAFFIC VOLVHEANALYSIS INTERSECTION- CAMPUS DRIVE & DOVE STREET 4220 (Eaisdng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PFAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROIE PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2166 0 10 2176 22 58 Southbound SO 0 0 819 8 6 Eastbound 8 0 0 8 0 0 Westbound 101 0 1 102 1 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 %of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. WA .is FN 081 Y13- lu1_ . 9 INTERSECTION. • CAMPUS DRIVE & DOVE STREET 4220 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003PAO APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTHI PEAK HOUR HO VOLUME PROJECTED P PEAK HOUR I %OF PROJECTED PEAK H VOL ME PROJECT PEAK HOU Northbomrd 963 0 2 965 10 35 Southbound 1800 0 0 1800 18 9 Fastbouod 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 180 0 4 184 2 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 %of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St DATE: 10131n005 L% TR,4F_EIC VOL UD1E�IS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVEARVINE AVENUE 4172 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily 7)•gffrc 2004 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME I APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1733 52 14 1799 18 15 Southbound 234 7 11 252 3 18 Eurbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 1166 35 4 1205 12 25 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �J Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME "AL EMS INTERSECTION. • BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVPARVINE AVENUE 4172 (Existing Traffic is Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTNG PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAR HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOl1R VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Norbbound 1095 33 28 1156 12 21 Southbound 1136 34 4 1174 12 10 Eastbomd 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wmtbomd 2011 60 20 2091 21 23 ProjectTratfic is estimated to be less than t% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilzation (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St. DATE: 10/31/2005 I % TR9 FFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS . _ 1 V cq)�°iQ�Y INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVE /IRVINE AVENUE 4155 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 AM) Project Traffic k. estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capaclly Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVEIMVINE AVENUE 4155 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 PM) APPROACH DIIH -MON EXISTNG PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS PROJECTED 1 %OFPROJECTED PROJECT APPROACH PEAK HOAR REGiONALGAOWTH PEAK HOUR I PEAL: HOUR PEAKHOUR PEAK HOUR DIRECTTON VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Eastbound 1695 51 8 1754 18 24 Northbound 1021 31 5 ! 1057 11 0 Southbound 523 16 11 550 6 4 Eastbound 3105 93 35 3233 32 17 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Traffic k. estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capaclly Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVEIMVINE AVENUE 4155 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 PM) APPROACH DIIH -MON EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPAOVID PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OF FR—OJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLLMIE PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Narthbotmd 828 25 32 885 9 0 Sovthbouad 1124 34 0 1158 12 2 Eastbound 1695 51 8 1754 18 24 Westbound 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Pr*d Tmffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater Uran 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St. DATE 101312MS 1% TR 4FFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BIRCH STREET & DOVE STREET 4225 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONALGROWTV PEAKHOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROIECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 909 0 0 909 9 7 Southbound 370 0 0 370 4 2 Eastbound 483 0 10 493 5 30 Westbound 115 0 1 116 1 4 I� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 %of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 11% of Projected Peak HourTraffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 19 I JAIZAW - S INTERSECTION: BIRCH STREET & DOVE STREET 4225 Ob*ting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONAL GROWTH PEAKHOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROIECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROIECP PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 497 0 0 497 5 4 Soutbbound L 1023 A 0 0 1 1023 10 3 Eastbound 140 0 2 142 1 18 Westbound 696 D I 4 700 7 _ 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. OX Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. 2101 Dove St DATE: IW1120o5 7 % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 (Existing Trafc Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 A* 4 SEW PORT � n X v y.y s a.. C'tCt FO 0.N�P APPROACH IDIRBCTIONI EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH I VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR I VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR I VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK. HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1192 0 1 1193 12 2 Southbound 259 0 8 267 3 31 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 2197 0 K 2211 :22 13 Project Traffic is estimated to be less iban 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumas. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION: BRISTOL ST= NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH D1REcnON IMSTING PFAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECIED PEAK HOUR VOI.IJME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 474 0 12 486 5 3 Southbound 1573 0 1 1574 1.6 18 Fastbovud 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wmtbowd 2570 0 3 2573 26 18 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traft is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% a Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St. DATE: 10131/2005 1 % TRAFFl YO I ME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: $ BRISTOL STREET & BIRCH STREET 4160 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 ADS P0 o e \ ) u y _ �GlcO RN�P APPROACH DIRECTION EXISMG PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK ]TOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOlJR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OFPROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 674 0 3 677 7 0 Southbound 620 0 19 639 6 17 Eastbound I902 0 4 1906 19 6 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal tom greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilizaboo (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRA IWC VOL WE ANAL MIS INTERSECTION- BRISTOL STREET & BIRCH STREET 4160 (Erisfing Traffra Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffrc 2003 PAO APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUMM PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OFPROJECPED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 562 0 22 584 6 0 Southbound 1174 0 2 1176 12 10 Eastbound 1536 0 12 1548 15 5 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Pmject Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. 2101 Dove St. DATE. 101311200E L%o-. i�AFFICVOCUMEANALYS INTERSECTION. CAMPUS DRIVE & VON KARMAN AVENUE 4302 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2002 AM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAR HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVID PROJEC PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I°/.OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 679 0 0 679 7 0 Southbound 537 0 0 537 5 0 Eastbmmd 615 0 1 616 6 4 Wastbound 660 0 0 660 7 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �J Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than t% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. INTERSECTION, CAMPUS DRIVE & VON KARMAN AVENUE 4302 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1001 PAV APPROACH DIRECTION FX IMI; PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPROJ REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECI'ID PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 669 0 0 669 7 0 Southbound 1176 0 0 1176 12. 0 Eastbound 931 0 0 931 9 2 Westbound 995 0 1 956 l0 3 o Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �J Project Tragic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St. DATE: 10/31/005 I % TRAFFIC VOL [ME AMAL= INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 (Existing Traffic Yolunees Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAR HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1808 54 19 1881 19 0 Southbound 2139 64 36 2239 22 2 Eaarbomd 336 10 1 347 3 4 Westbound 806 24 1 831 8 0 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Ulfation (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOl,(I ANALYM INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 (Exhfing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 PM) APPROACH DfRECJ70N EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PFAKHOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVEDPROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OFPROJECTID PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2098 6:1 30 2191 22 0 Southbound 2862 86 28 2976 30 3 Eastbowrd 799 24 0 823 8 2 Westbound 627 19 2 648 6 0 0 Project Tralflc Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, C� Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St. DATE: 10,3112005 I% TRAFFIC VOL EW ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 AM) APPROACH DMECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 3536 106 39 3681 37 6 Southbound 1044 31 51 1126 11 0 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 1) 0 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. Fam"FA147.1axw1w _ INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 P* APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWI'H VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME F orthbound 2659 80 47 2786 28 9 outhbound 1967 59 46 2072 21 0 Eastbmmd 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wesiboond 0 0 0 0 D 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. 2101 Dove St. DATE: 10/31/2005 I% FIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 AM) naMz c'aC r Fp 0.��r APPROACH IDIRECTIONI EXISTJNG PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKI {OUR REGIONAL GROWTH I VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR I VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 2401 72 63 2536 25 6 Southbound 554 17 48 619 6 0 Eastbound 2706 81 55 2842 28 22 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Ulinzadon (ICU) Analysis is required. L JLJf/f►7f�7C']�y INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EM3nNG PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL. GROWTH VOLUME APAROV ®PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR I VOLUME ] %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1859 56 102 2017 20 9 Southbound 1I53 35 45 1233 12 0 Eastbound 3116 93 55 3264 33 12 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 �X ] Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 %of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Ut9ization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St. DATE: 10/3112005 1% T FHC � ANAL PSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD &EASTBLUFF DRIVE NORTHAJNIVERSI TYDRIVE 4765 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PFAKHOIIR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 % OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1840 74 60 1974 20 6 Southbound 1482 59 101 1642 16 11 Eastbound 457 18 1 476 .5 0 Westbound 511 20 6 537 .5 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. WevIff"Val MA XFj 4 dr1 l INTERSECTTON. JAMBOREE ROAD &EASTBLUFF DRIVE NORTILIJNIVERSrF (DRIVE 4765 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dar7y Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION SXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVEDPROJECIS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPR.0JECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1532 61 108 1701 17 9 Southbound 1941 78 97 2116 21 6 Pastbound 292 12 0 304 :3 0 Westbound 475 19 10 504 :5 0 XO Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 2101 Dove St. DATE: 1 0131 /2 0 05 Appendix H Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Cumulative Projects Level of Service Analysis Worksheets MA4295AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 BIRCH STREET 4295 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM j I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity Capacity Volume Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w10 Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I J NL J 1600 I 1 129 I 0.081 5 1 1 1 0 j 0.084 0 1 0.084 ` I NT I 4800 I I E ;86 1 0.143 I 27 I 6 1 168 I 0.185 1 2 1 0.185 I I NR I N.S. I I 246 I 10 I 0 0 1 0 1 I I SL f 1600 I 41 0.026 I 2 I 0 1 0 1 0.027 0 1 0.027 I I ST I I 948 I 38 I 12 69 3 } 6400 - - - -- - —- } 0.164 ` — - - - -- } — } 0.185 } 0.186 ' I SR I I '03 { 4 10 0 2 I EL 1 I 32 1 1 1 0 4 I ET 4800 I I 'I54 0.048 6 I 0 0 0.050 0 0.051 ' ER I I 44 2 1 0 0 I 3 I I WL 1 1600 I I '140 I 0.088 6 I 0 I 0 0.091 0 I 0.091 ' I WT 1 3200 1 I 218 1 0.068 1 9 1 0 1 B 1 0.071 1 0 1 0.071 I WR I N.S. I I 57 I I 2 1 0 1 D 0 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.381 I I 1 EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. I I 0.410 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.412 I I XJ Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be less thar or equal to 0.90 J Projected + project traffic LC.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected+ project traffic I.C,U. w /systems improvement will beless than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C,U- with project Improvements Will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT - - - - - - - -'- — - - -- -- — • FORM II MA4295AM MA4295PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c'94FO0.N�P INTERSECT!ON: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 BIRCH STREET 4295 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT] I Movement Lanes Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT" I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Rata I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I f I I I I I Volume I I NL I 1600 I 1 54 I 0.034 1 2 1 0 1 D I 0.035 I 0 1 0.035 I 1 NT 1 4800 1 937 I 0.195 ' 37 I 7 1 12.5 I 0230 ' 3 1 0.231 ' I NR N.S. I 1 204 I e l 0 ') I I 0 I I I SL I 1600 1 I 132 I 0.083 S 1 0 1 1) I 0.086 0 1 0.086 ' I ST I 1 776 1 31 I 8 183 I 2 I 1 } 6400 - } 0.125 - } — — } 0.161 - } 0.162 I 1 SR I 27 I 1 1 1 0 I 3 I I EL 1 1 110 I 4 1 5 0 1 2 I ET 4800 1 I 194 0.079 8 0 0 0.083 0 0.084 ' I ER 1 74 3 1 0 0 I 2 I 1 WL 1 1600 I I 193 I 0.121 8 1 0 1 a l 0.126 ' 0 1 0.126 ' I WT 3200 I I 234 I 0.073 I 9 1 0 0 1 0.076 I 0 1 0.076 I I WR 1 N.S. I I 52 j V 2 1 0 1 1) l 1 0 1 I I EXISTING I.C.U. ( 0.478 I I I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. 1 I 0.525 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.527 1 I XI Projected+ project traffic LC.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ProjectEd + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will b0ass than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U, with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT FORM II MA4295PM JA4275AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E -W) & MACARTHUR BLVD(N -S) 4275 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2002 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I 1 I I I I i I Volume I I I NL 1 1600 1 - - - -- -I —176 I 0.110 L 9 1 0 1 ` 0 1' 0.058 I 0 i 1 0.058 1 1 NT 1663 I B3 1 6 1 121 1 I 6 1 I 1 } 4800 - - -- — - - - - - -- } 0.420 ' - } } 0.367 ' - -) 0.368 ' NR I I 354 18 1 1 1 102 I I 0 1 I 1 SL 1 1600 I 57 1 0.036 ' 3 1 1 1 0 1 0.019 0 1 0.019 ' ST 1 4800 I I 276 1 0.058 1 14 1 1 1 73 I 0.076 1 11 I 0.078 1 1 SR I N.S. 1 129 1 i 6 1 10 I 25 I 1 0 1 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 464 1 0.145 I 23 I 11 I 78 1 0.180 I 0 1 0.180 1 ET I 4800 I I 1167 j 0243 58 1 20 i 93 1 0.279 0 I 0.279 1 ER N.S. I 230 I 12 I 0 1 0 1 I 0( I I WL I 3200 I I 257 I 0.080 13 1 0 1 54 1 0.101 0 1 0.101 ' 1 WT 4800 I I 811 1 0.169 I 41 1 36 I 33 1 0.192 I 0 1 0.192 I I WR I N.S. I I 227 1 I 11 I 9 1 6 1 0 l I 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 0.779 1 1 I EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMTTED+ CUMULATIVE I.C.U. j 0.766 I I I EXISTING+ COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH+ CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT LC.U- I 0.767 I I XI Projec�d +pmjedfraffic I.C.U. will be less than orequal to 0.90 . J Pmjeoted+ project traffic I.C.U. will be [treater than 0.90 I _I Pmjected + pmject traffic I.C.U. wlsystemS Impmvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without plojecl Description of system IMPM%emant PROJECT JA4275AM JA4275PM I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.919 1 I EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH+ COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE I.C.U. I I EXISTING+ COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH+ CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT I.C.U. I –1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. well be greater than 0.90 I J Pmjected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Descrip8on of system improvement: PROJECT JA4275PM I 0.962 I I 0.963 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS �C INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E -W) 8 MACARTHUR BLVD(N -S) 4275 /FO 0.NtiP EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2002 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes { Lanes PIK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume { VIC 1 I Capaclty I Capacity Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 1600 I 267 1 0.167 13 I 0 0 0.088 0 1 0.088 ' I NT I ( 487 I 24 1 1 101 I I 9 I I } 4800 - } 0.148 - } — } 0.145 - } 0.146 I NR I I 223 1 11 I 0 1 81 I I 0 1 I I SL 1 1600 I I 179 i 0.112 I 9 1 8 1 0 0.061 1 0 1 0.061 i I ST I 4800 I I 1503 I 0.313 75 I 5 1 136 0.358 ' 6 1 0.359 ` 1 SR I N.S. I 388 I I 19 10 1 87 1 I 0 1 I 1 EL I 3200 I 1 178 0.056 I 9 1 9 1 55 I 0.078 0 1 0.078 I ET 1 4800 1 1103 1 0.230 55 1 30 1 64 1 0.261 0 1 0.261 ' ER I N.S. I 58 1 I 3 1 0 1 0 1 I 0 i I I WL I 3200 I I 669 0.209 ' 33 1 1 1 113 I 0.255 0 1 0.255 ` I WT I 4800 I I 1044 0.218 I 52 1 27 1 102 1 0.255 I 0 1 0.255 I I WR I N.S. I I 89 I I 4 1 2 1 0 1 I o f I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.919 1 I EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH+ COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE I.C.U. I I EXISTING+ COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH+ CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT I.C.U. I –1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. well be greater than 0.90 I J Pmjected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Descrip8on of system improvement: PROJECT JA4275PM I 0.962 I I 0.963 1 CA4220AM IX1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 FJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems irnprovementwill be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. wi bout project Description of system improvement PROJECT CA4220AM - - -_ - -- -- -FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c��r 4Lr INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE & DOVE STREET 4220 FORK EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes 1 Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume V/C I I Capacity I Capacity ) Volume ) Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Rata I I I I I I I I I Volume I I NL 1 16001 291 0.018 1 01 0 1 0 1 0.018 1 18 1 0.029 1 I NT 1873 I 01 9 0 10 -- } 4800 _ -- } 0.445 -- } — } 0.447 - -- } 0.456 NR 1 1 264 I 01 10 0 I 30 I 1 SL 1 16001 ) 2131 0.133 01 0 1 01 0.133 0 1 0.133 I ST I I 598 0 1 0 0 1 6 1 I 4800 - - -- } 0.126 - – } - -- } 0.126 - } 0.128 I I SR I I 8 I 01 0 0 1 01 1 I EL I 6 01 01 01 I 01 1 ET 1600 1 I 0 0.005 01 0 0 0.005 0 0.005 ER I I 2 1 01 0 0 I 0 I I WL I 16001 I 201 0.013 I 01 1 0 0.013 1 2 0.014 I I Wr i 5 1 01 0 0 1 a 1 1 } 1600 - -- } 0.061 -- } } 0.051 • } 0.051 WR I I 76 1 01 0 0 0 ) I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.634 I I I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. 1 1 0.636 I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I 0.6451 IX1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 FJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems irnprovementwill be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. wi bout project Description of system improvement PROJECT CA4220AM - - -_ - -- -- -FORM II CA422OPM I EXISTING I.C.U. ( 0.437 I I I I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. -- I I 0.437 I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I 0.4461 IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than W equal to 0.90 11 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + pmject traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 , I—I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. wittmut project Description of system Improvement — PROJECT — FORM II CA4220PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c-94 INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE & DOVE STREET 4220 FO FtN�P EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECTI I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I Volume I I I I NL 1600 1 1 10 1 0.006 D 1 0 1 0 1 0.006 11 1 0.013 I NT 1 I 840 I o 1 0 1 I 6 I } 4800 - -- - } 0.199 - - - - - - -- } -- } 0.199 - } 0.204 I NR I 113 0 1 2 0 I 18 I SL ( 1600 84 0.053 0 1 01 0 1 0.053 ( 0 1 0.053 I I ST 1 I 1716 I 0 1 0 1 I 9 I — } 48DO - - - - -- - — } 0.358 — } — } 0.358 } 0.360 ` SIR I ! 0 I— 01 0- O- 0_ I -- I EL I - -! o I DI of 01 - -! I of I I I ET 1600 1 I o 0.000 I o f 0 0 0.000 I o 0.000 I ER 0 01 0 0 I 0 I I WL I 16001 —I I 631 0.039 I 0 1 4 0 0.042 I 3 I p_O44 I I WT I 0 01 0 0 1 0} j I } 1600 - - -- } 0.073 —) — } 0.073 ` } 0.073 ` I WR 1 117 I 0 I 0 0 1 0 I EXISTING I.C.U. ( 0.437 I I I I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. -- I I 0.437 I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I I 0.4461 IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than W equal to 0.90 11 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + pmject traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 , I—I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. wittmut project Description of system Improvement — PROJECT — FORM II CA4220PM BR4172AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c,4FORN�p INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVEARVINE AVENUE 4172 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DA!LY TRAFFIC 2004 AM EXISTING PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C J GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I VIC I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio J Volume I Volume Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I Volume I I NL 1 32W 1 1 404 1 0.126 1 0 1 1 1 01 0.127 1 0- 0.127 1 NT I 48DO 1 1 1329 I 0.277 0 1 13 1 0 1 0.280 15 1 0.283 ' 1 NR I I 1 I I St. ST 1 64001 1 1831 0.029 1 01 101 01 0.030 1 4 1 0.0311 I SR I 32001 I 61 I 0.016 I 01 1 1 0 1 0.016 1 14 1 0.0211 I EL I I ! I 1 I I I 1 ! I ET I I I I I I I I I 1 ER I I I I I I WL I 1500 1 I 252 1 0.158 0 1 2 1 0 1 0.159 0 1 0.159 ` I Wr I I 840 I D I 2 1 e l 1 14 I I 1 } 6400 - } 0.143 1 — - 0.143 - - 0.147 1 WR I I 74 I 0 1 0 1 D I I 11 I I I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.435 1 I 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED+ CUMULATIVE I.C.U. I I 0.439 I I J EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I 1 0.4421 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It BR4172AM BR4172PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c qC/ FO �P RN INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH 8 CAMPUS DRIVEPRVINE AVENUE 4172 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes { Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I VIC Ratio J Volume I VIC I 1 1 Capacity Capacity Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I W/o Project I I Ratio I I I I Volume I I I { NI. 1 3200 I I 371 1 0.116 0 1 10 1 2 1 0.120 0 J 0.120 1 NT 48001 I 724 1 0.151 1 0 1 18 1 1 1 0.155 I 21 1 0.1591 I NR I 1 I I I I SL I I I I I I I I I I ST I 6400 1 I 929 1 0.145 0 1 2 1 1 1 0.146 2 1 0.146 SR 1 32001 207 1 0.065 1 01 2 1 0 1 0.065 1 81 0.0681 1 EL I I I I I I I I I I I ET I I I I I I I I I ER I I I I I 1 I I I WL 1 16001 199 1 0.124 1 01 01 01 0.1241 01 0.1241 I WT I I I 1740 1 0 1 201 01 1 81 1 I - 6400 - } 0.283 — - 0286 - 0.290 I WR I I 72 1 01 01 01 I 151 I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.544 1 I 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. 1 1 0.552 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I 0.5561 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 CJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 CJ Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Desaytion of system Improvement: PROJECT FORM II BR4172PM BR4155AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH 8 CAMPUS DRIVFARVINE AVENUE 4155 ° EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement j Lanes I Lanes I PX HR I V/C J GROWTH I PROJECT J PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I wl/b Ratio I I I I I I Volume I I I I Ni- - NT - - -` 1 -- I -- 862 I D 1 - -_ -5 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 I ) 8000 - -- - ) 0.128 - - - -- - - 0.128 - 0.128 NR 1 I 169 I D 1 0) 0 1 I 0 1 I SL 1 1600 1 I 137 1 0.086 0 1 3 1 0 1 0.088 4 1 0.090 f ST 1 48001 I 386 1 0.080 I 0 1 8 1 0 1 0.082 I 0 1 0.062 1 I SR I I I I I I EL ) 1 1161 I 0 1 9 1 0 1 15 I I I ) 6400 - - } 0.428 ` -- - - -- - 0.43D - 0.433 i � I 1581 1 D1 11 DI 1 21 I I ER 1 32001 363 I 0.113 1 0 1 25 0 1 0.121 1 0 1 0.121 I I I WL I WT I I I I I I I I I I I WR I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.642 1 1 I i EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE LC.U. 1 1 0.646 1 1 EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE- PROJECT I.C.U. I I I i 0.651 1 IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FJ Projected+ pmjecttra!fic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 FJ Projected+ Projecttr4fic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Fj Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT rutun n BR4155AM BR4t55PM EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.446 1 1 EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED+ CUMULATIVE I.C.U. 1 EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH+ CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT I.C.U. 1 a1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. vAII be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement vAll be less than or equal to 0,90 LI Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4155PM 0.451 1 1 1 0.456 FORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c1r -9C/ RN INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVE /IRVINE AVENUE 4155 FO EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 20D4 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity 1 Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I NIL I I I I 1 I I NT I 649 D 1 26 1 2 1 1 D 1 1 } 8000 - - } 0,104 - - -- - 0.108 - 0.108 ` I NR I 1 179 1 0 1 6 1 D 1 1 0 1 1 I SL 1 1600 1 1 208 1 0.130 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.130 2 1 0.131 ` ST 1 4800 1 1 916 I 0.191 1 D I 0 1 1 1 0.191 1 0 1 0.191 1 I SR I I 1 I I I I I I EL 1 1 501 1 01 21 01 I 211 1 I 1 6400 - - } 0.212 ' - - — - 0.213 - 0.217 ` I ET I 858 1 01 21 01 1 31 1 1 ER 1 32001 1 3361 0.105 I 0 1 41 2 1 0.107 1 0 1 0.107 1 I WL I ! I I I I I WT I I I I I l 1 WR I I I I I I I I I I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.446 1 1 EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMITTED+ CUMULATIVE I.C.U. 1 EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH+ CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT I.C.U. 1 a1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. vAII be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement vAll be less than or equal to 0,90 LI Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4155PM 0.451 1 1 1 0.456 FORM 11 B14225AM I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.603 + I I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. 1 0.609 1 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I 0.6311 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less Char. or equal to 0.90 I—I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project — - Description of system improvement: - - - -- —' _ —i -- - -- _ - PROJECT — i —' FORM II B14225A1et INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS '9G! RNA INTERSECTION: BIRCH STREET & DOVE STREET 4225 FO EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 1 V/C GROWTH I PROJECT PROJECT I V /CRatlo I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I { I I NL 1 1600 1 1 5 1 0.003 1 01 01 01 0.003 1 0 1 0.003 1 j NT I I 714 1 01 0 0 1 7 1 I } 3200 - - - -- - - - - - -) 0.283 ) — } 0.283 ` ) 0.285 ` I NR I 190 1 0 1 0 0 I 0 I 1 SL 1 1600 1 64 1 0.040 01 01 0 1 0.040 ` 0 1 0.040 ` 1 ST 1 284 i 01 01 01 1 21 1 I — } 3200 - -- - - - - -) 0.0% - - - — - 0.096 - - 0.096 1 1 SR I 1 22 1 01 01 01 1 01 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 631 0.039 1 01 01 0 1 0.039 1 0 1 0.039 1 I ET 1 1 :391 I 01 10 0 1 4 I 1 } 1600 - - -) 0.263 ` - - ----) } 0.269 ` ? 0.288 ` I ER I I 29 0 0 0 I 26 I WL 1 1600 1 1 27 1 0.017 01 01 0 1 0.017 2 1 0.016 ` I WT 1 1600 581 0.036 1 01 1 0 0.037 I 2 0.038 1 I WR 1 1600 I I 301 0.019 1 01 0 0 0.019 I 0 0.019 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.603 + I I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. 1 0.609 1 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I 0.6311 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less Char. or equal to 0.90 I—I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project — - Description of system improvement: - - - -- —' _ —i -- - -- _ - PROJECT — i —' FORM II B14225A1et B14225PM EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.566 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. FXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.9D L1 Projected +project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems lmprovement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: 0.568 1 — I I 1 0.5821 PROJECT _' -- - - -- _ - -_ _ — — _ - -_— - _ - -_ FORM 11 B14225PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c 4C! FD �P 0.N INTERSECTION: BIRCH STREET & DOVE STREET 4225 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2D03 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Rath I I I I I Volume I I I NL 1 160D 1 15 1 0.009 0 1 0 0 0.009 0 1 0.009 ` I NT J I 417 I DI D D I 4 1 } 3200 - - } 0.151 - — - - } — } 0.151 - } 0.152 I NR I I 65 I 01 0 0 1 0 I SL I 1600 I 1 21 1 0.013 1 01 0 1 0 1 0.013 1 01 0.013 1 ST I I 964 1 01 01 01 1 31 1 1 } 3200 - ) 0.313 ` - -- - — - 0.313 - 0.314 ` I SR I 38 01 01 01 1 01 1 1 EL I 16001 I 291 0.018 1 0 1 01 01 0.018 1 01 0.018 1 1 ET I 95 0 1 2 0 1 2 I 1 } 1600 - - -- - } 0.069 - } — } 0.071 ) 0.082 ` 1 ER I 1 16 1 01 0 0 I 16 I WL I 16DD j 1 280 1 D.175 0 1 0 1 0 1 D.175 3 1 D.177 ` J WT I 1 60D 1 329 1 0.206 j 01 4 0 0.208 J 3 0.210 1 WR I 16001 ( 871 D.054 1 01 0 0 0.054 1 0 0.054 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.566 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. FXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.9D L1 Projected +project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems lmprovement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: 0.568 1 — I I 1 0.5821 PROJECT _' -- - - -- _ - -_ _ — — _ - -_— - _ - -_ FORM 11 B14225PM BR4175AM EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.613 1 j EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROVTI H + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. j XI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4175AM - - I j 0.614 I I I 0.616 I FORM Il INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c}P "yG/ FO FN INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NCRTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILYTRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NIL I 3200 j 1 112 1 0.035 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.035 0 1 0.035 1 I NT 1 3200 1 I 1080 1 0.338 _ 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.338 2 1 0.338 _ j NR I I I I I I I I SL I I I I I I I ST 1 I 137 I 0 1 8 1 0 1 1 17 1 I I } 6400 - -- } 0.040 - - - -- - -- - - -- - 0.042 - 0.047 1 I SR I I 122 I 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 14 1 I - I I El I ET - I I ER I -- I I I I I WL 1 1 463 0 1 11 0 1 1 0 1 WT 8000 1 1450 0.275 0 1 3 1 0 1 0.276 11 I 0.278 _ I WR 1 264 I 0 1 01 01 1 2 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.613 1 j EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROVTI H + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. j XI Projected +project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR4175AM - - I j 0.614 I I I 0.616 I FORM Il BR4175PM EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.610 I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. I I 0.615 1 I I EXISTING+ COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH+ CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.6201 1 X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L S Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement:_ — PROJECT FORM 11 BR4175PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS COP "9ClFp{tN INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 NIL 1 3200 1 I 139 1 0.043 0 1 12 1 0 1 0.047 0 1 0.047 ' NT 1 3200 1 1 335 1 0.105 I 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.105 I 3 1 0.106 1 I NR I I I I I I I SL I I I I I I I I I I ST 1 i 615 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 10 I I I } 6400 - – - -- } 0246 ' - - -- - - -- - 0246 - 0249 ` I SR 1 1 958 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 I 8 1 1 EL I I I I I I I ET I I I I I I I I I ER I I I I I I I I I I I WL I I 544 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 I 1 WT 8000 1 1890 0.321 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.322 ' 15 j 0.324 ' 1 WR I 136 I 01 01 01 I 31 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.610 I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. I I 0.615 1 I I EXISTING+ COMMITTED +REGIONAL GROWTH+ CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.6201 1 X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L S Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement:_ — PROJECT FORM 11 BR4175PM BR4160AM 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 0.421 I EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMMED +CUMULATNEI.C.U. I EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH+ CUMULATIVE +PROJECT I.C.U. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project tmafllc I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/syslurns improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L_I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement 1 0.422 1 I I I I I 0.426 I PROJECT FORM II BR416oAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c q4 FO �P A� INTERSECTION: S BRISTOL STREET & BIRCH STREET 4160 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PKHR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity Volume Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I NIL NT I 1 405 I 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 —) 6400 - - } 0.105 - } - - -- ) 0.106 ' - -) 0.106 ' NR I I 269 1 0 1 z 1 0 l I 0 1 I SL I 3200 I I 249 I 0.078 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.078 17 1 0.083 ' ST I 3200 I I 371 1 0.116 1 0 1 19 j 0 1 0.122 1 0 1 0.122 I SIR 1 EL I 869 I 0 i 0 1 0 1 I 2 1 I I ET 8000 I I 872 0.238 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.238 4 1 0239 ' ER I 1 161 0 1 3 1 0 1 I 0 1 I -I WL I I I I I I I I I WT ! ! { 1 1 I I I I 1 I WR I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 0.421 I EXISTING +REGIONAL GROWTH +COMMMED +CUMULATNEI.C.U. I EXISTING+ COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH+ CUMULATIVE +PROJECT I.C.U. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project tmafllc I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/syslurns improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L_I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement 1 0.422 1 I I I I I 0.426 I PROJECT FORM II BR416oAM BR4160RM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: S BRISTOL STREET & BIRCH STREET 4160 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMUU\TIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity 1 Capacity Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I 1 I Volume I I I NL I I I I I I I I I NT 257 1 0 1 12 1 D 1 1 0 1 1 } 6400 - } GA88 - — } 0.091 - 1 0.091 1 I NR I 1 305 1 0 1 10I 0 I 0 1 1 1 SL f 1 3200 1 1 338 I 0.106 I 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.106 1 10 1 0.109 1 I ST I 32D0 1 I 836 1 0.261 ' 0 1 2 1 0 1 0.262 ' 0 1 0262 SR I I I I I I I EL 1 1 227 7 1 0 l 0 1 0 1 3 1 I ET 8000 1 1180 0.192 0 1 12 1 0 1 0.194 2 1 0.194 ' ER I 129 I D 1 0 1 0 1 I 0 1 I I `A'L I I I I I I I I I WT I WR I t I I I t 1 I 1 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.453 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. - -- 0.456 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED+ REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. J 1 0.456 IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT FORM II BR4160PM JA4305AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS pAt p- INTERSECTION JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2004 AM — I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I i Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I 1 Capacity I Capacity I Volume Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I W/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I i I I Volume I I I 1 NIL I 1600 I 197 1 0.123 6 1 0 1 0 1 0.127 0 1 0.127 ' 1 NT 1 I 1541 46 1 19 1 195 I 0 I 1 ) 6400 - - -- - - - - -- } 0.252 - — - } – } 0.293 - } 0.293 I 1 NR 70 I 2 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 I I SL 3200 I 298 1 0.093 1 9 1 0 1 0 1 0.096 1 0 1 0.096 I 1 ST I I 1560 5D 1 36 1 87 1 ) 0 1 I } 4800 - – - - - - -- } 0.384 ' } } 0.421 } 0.421 ' SR I 181 I 5 1 0 1 0 I I 2 1 I I EL I I 135 I 4 1 0 1 0 1 4 1 I 4800 - - -- } 0.065 - - -- } } 0.067 } 0.068 ' ET I I 178 5 1 0 1 0 1 I 0 1 I ER I N.S.1 1 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 I 0 1 I WL 1 1600 1 I 290 1 0.181 9 1 1 1 0 1 0.188 0 1 0.188 ' WT 1 3200 1 I 380 1 0.119 11 1 0 1 0 0.122 1 0 1 0.122 WR 1 1600 1 1 136 1 0.085 I 4 1 0 1 0 0.088 I 0 1 0.088 I j EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.753 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.G.U. I I 0.803 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. —' 0.804 Split Phase FJW direction 1XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. 'Ail[ be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. wAwut project -- Description of system improvement: PROJECT _ – _ - -_ - -_ – –_ -- _ - - -- -FORM II JA4305AM JA4305PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C gClF00.�� �P INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2DD4 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I CUMULATIVE I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT] I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL 1 1600 I 66 I 0.041 2 1 0 1 0 1 0.043 0 1 0.043 ' I NT I I 1787 I 54 I 30 1 145 1 0 1 I 1 — } 6400 - - } 0 -318 - - -- - } — — } 0.354 - } 0.354 1 NR I 1 245 I 7 1 0 1 0 1 I 0] I 1 SL 1 3200 I I 374 I 0.117 11 I 0 1 0 0.120 I 0 1 0.120 { ST } 1 2.258 1 68 1 28 { 215 1 { 0 I 1 } 4800 - - } 0 -518 ' — - — } --- - -) 0.585 } 0.585 ' 1 SR I 230 7 1 D I 0 1 I 3 1 I EL I I 268 8 1 D I D I 2 1 I I } 4800 - } 0.160 ' } — } 0.164 ' } DABS ' ET I I 498 I 15 I D D I I D I I I ER I N.S. 1 1 33 1 1 1 1 0 1 D I 1 D 1 I WL I 1600 I I 138 1 0.086 4 1 1 1 0 1 0.089 0 1 0.089 ' I WT 1 3200 I I 266 1 0.083 6 1 1 1 0 0.086 O I 0.086 I 1 WR 1 1600 1 223 1 0.139 1 7 1 0 1 0 1 0.144 I 0 1 0.144 1 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.805 i EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED + CUMULATIVE I.C.U. I I 0.881 I } EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.882 Split Phase EfW direction 1X1 Projected + project traffic LC.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 FJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected +project traft I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LJ Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements vAl be less than I.0 -U. without project — — — - --- - --- - -- -- - Description of system improvement -- PROJECT FORM 11 JA4305PM Appendix I General Plan Buildout Traffic Volumes 9. MacArthur & Campus General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C N81- 1 1600 130 .081 280 .175* NBT 4 6400 1280 .200* 1420 .222 NBR 1: 1600 110 .069 110 .069 SBL 1 1600 250 .156* 150 .094 SBT 4 6400 1120 .175 1310 .205* SBR 1 1600 430 .269 900 .563 EBL 2 3200 810 .253* 520 .163* EBT 3 4800 1020 .213 580 .121 EBR d 1600 170 .106 120 .075 WBL 2 3200 110 .034 150 .047 WBT 3 4800 520 .108* 1500 .313* WBR f 40 60 50 190 WK Right Turn Adjustment .025 130 SBR .358* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION -* 10. MacArthur & Birch 717 1.214 General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 40 .025 170 .106* NBT 3 4800 1180 .246* 990 .206 NBR 1 1600 120 .075 70 .044 SBL 1 1600 270 .169* 130 .081 SBT 4 6400 800 .167 1150 .220* SBR 0 0 340 .213 260 EBL 1.5 450 410 EBT 1.5 4800 570 .221* 380 .175* EBR 0 40 50 WK 1 1600 40 .025 130 .081 WBT 2 3200 230 .072* 940 .294* WBR f 10 350 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .708 .795 * 11. Von Karman & Campus General Plan Buildout AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .006 10 006* NBT 2 3200 790 .247* 620 .194 NBR f 550 50 200 4:d S8L SBL 1 1600 50 .031* 190 .119 SBT 2 3200 560 .209 1050 .406* SBR 0 0 110 110 250 EBL EBL 1 1600 370 .231* 250 .156* EBT 2 3200 720 .225 890 .278 EBR 1 1600 50 031 30 .019 WBL 1 1600 50 .031 40 .025 WBT 2 3200 390 .163* 1050 .372* WBR 0 0 130 100 140 Right TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 12. MacArthur & Von Karman 672 .940 General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 160 .100 50 .031* NBT 3 4800 1360 .283* 860 .179 NBR 1 1600 550 .344 200 .125 S8L 1 1600 60 .038* 80 .050 SBT 3 4800 570 .119 1180 .246* SBR 1 1600 190 .119 110 .069 EBL 1 1600 40 .025 *. 150 .094 EBT 2 3200 160 .050 290 .091* EBR f 30 130 WBL 2 3200 140 .044 860 .269* WBT 1 1600 210 .131* 210 .131 WBR f 50 100 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .061* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .538 .637 -* 13. Jamboree & Campus General Plan Buildout i AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 160 .100 100' 063* NBT 4 6400 2250 .384* 1830 .381 NBR 0 0 210 710 .444 SBL 2 3200 660 .206* 360 .113 SBT 3 4800 1530 .390 2730 .642* SBR 0 0 340 350 EBL 2 3200 220 .069 670 .209* EBT 2 3200 310 .097* 840 .263 EBR f 20 20 WBL 2 3200 760 .238* 340 .106 WBT 2 3200 660 .206 630 .197* WBR 1 1600 180 .113 500 .313 Right Turn Adjustment E/W Split Phasing WBR .116* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 14. Jamboree & Birch 925 1.227 General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 390 .244* 120 .075* 4800 22780 .490 1800 .383 NBT 0 SBT 3 4800 1810 :006* 2210 .460* SBR f 850 300 EBL 1.5 160 650 EBT 0.5 3200 120 .088* 60 .222* EBR f 10 360 1 WBT 1600 60 .188* 160 .137* WBR 0 0 190 10 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .897 .894 * 15. Campus & Bristol (N) General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 520 .163 580 -181* NBT 3 4800 3190 .665* 1570 .327 NBR 0 0 0 .0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6400 370 .058 1870 .292* SBR 2 3200 300 .094 1300 .406 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 .3200 280 .088 420 .131 WBT 4 6400 161D .306* 3060 .502* WBR 0 0 350 .494 150 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .167* SBR .114* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION + 16. Birch & Bristol (N) 971 1.089 General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 130 .041 160 .050* NBT 2 3200 1380 .431* 420 .131 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 1.5 6400 150 .063 790 .364* SBR 2.5 250 1540 EBL 0 0 0 D EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 430 .269 510 WBT 3.5 8000 1570 .327* 1750 .296* WBR 0 790 .494 110 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .167* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .925 .710 17. Campus /Irvine & Bristol (S) General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 2300 _350* 1700 .261* NBR 0 0 500 390 .097 SBL 1 1600 100 .063* 340 .213* SBT 3 4800 550 ..115. .122 1950 .406 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1410 1.500 1* 460 (.281}* EBT 2.5 6400 1790 .500 1340 .281 EBR 2 3200 580 .181 590 .184 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .923 .755 18. Birch & Bristol (S) General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V /C. NBL 0 0 0 0. NBT 2.5 6400 570 .153* 260 .081 NBR 1.5 410 310 .097 SBL 2 3200 190 .059* 400 .125 SBT 2 3200 390 .122 910 .284* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 950 {.3091* 270 EBT 3.5 8000 1340 .309 1550 .243* EBR 0 180 120 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 521 .527 + 29. MacArthur & Jamboree General Plan Buildout .069* LANES CAPACITY NBL 2 3200 NBT 3 4800 NBR . 1 1600 SBL 2 3200 SBT 3 4800 SBR f 3200 570 .178 260 EBT 3 4800 EBR f 110 WBL 2 3200 WBT 3 4800 WBR f .194 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL V/C VOL V/C 210 .066 220 .069* 1930 .402* 780 .163 560 .350 .490 .306 120 .038* 260 .081 450 .094 1660 .346* 120 NBL 470 3200 570 .178 260 .081 1980 .413* 1390 .290* 110 2560 50 NBR 360 .113* 880 .275* 930 .194 1660 .346 170 0 170 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .966 .980 44 30. Jamboree & Bristol (N) General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 1310 .409 1040 .325* NBT 3 4800 3290 .685* 2560 .533 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 2.5 6400 700 .197 1590 .375* SBR 1.5 560 810 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .685 . .700 31. Bayview Place & Bristol (S) General Plan Buildout Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 D NBT 0 0 0 2360 0 2650 NBR 2 3200 80 .025 360: .113 SBL 0 0 0 0 SST 3 4800 670 .140 1610 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 2D80 950 EBT 4 6400 3710 .580* 3310 .517* EBR 1 1600 120 .075 10 .006 WBL 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 WBR C 0 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .025* NBR .113* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 32. Jamboree & Bristol (S) 605 .630 General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LAVES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL D 0 0 D NBT 5 B000 2360 .301* 2650 .344* NBR 0 0 50 100 SBL SST 3 4800 670 .140 1610 .335 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 2D80 950 {.483 }* EBT 1.5 4800 590 .65D* .369 1370 .483 EBR 2 3200 1130 .353 1340 .419 WBL i WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .951 .827 33. Jamboree & Bayview Way General Plan Buildout LANES CAPACITY NBL i 1600 NBT 4 6400 NBR 0 0 SBL 2 3200 SBT 1 40 SBR 100 1600 EBL 2 3200 EBT 1 1600 EBR 1 . 1600 .050 40 .013* WBT 2 3200 WBR 1 1600 Right Turn Adjustment AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL V/C VOL V/C 150 .094 70 .044* 2230 .362* 2550 _411 90 80 CAPACITY 100 .031* 140 .044 1550 .242 2750 .430* 170 .106 80 .050 40 .013* 90 .028* 10 .006 10 .006 40 ..025 220 180 .113 20 .006 50 .016 10 .003* 10 .003* 50 .031 130 .081 Multi 043* Multi .176* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION * 34. Jamboree & Eastbluff /Univ. 452 .681 General Plan Buildout AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 60 .038 40 .025 NBT 4 6400 1610 .252* 2060 .322* NBR 1 1600 220 .138 310 .194 SBL 2 3200 150 .047* 440 .138* SBT 4 6400 1180 .184 2130 .333 SBR 1 1600 280 .175 .410 .256 EBL 1.5 520 210 EBT 0.5 3200 . 100 .194* 90 .094* EBR 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 WBL 1.5 280 .088* 190 .059* WBT f.5 4800 1000 .063 .031 WBT 410 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .581 .613 Appendix J General Plan Buildout Level of Service Analysis Worksheets MA4300AM INTERSECTION: I EXISTING I Movement I Lanes I I Capacity I I I I I - - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300 OPA AM PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT I PROJECT I Lanes PKHR I V/C 1 Volume I Vic capacity Volume I Ratio I I Ratto I I I I I i NL I 1600 I 1 130 I 0.081 1 2 1 0.083 I NT 1 6400 1 I 1280 I 0.200 4 J 0.201 ' ( NR ( 1600 I ( 110 I 0.069 ( 0 j 0.069 I 1 SL 1 1600 1 250 1 0.156 ' 0 1 0.156 ' 1 ST 1 6400 1 I 1120 0.175 1 2 1 0.175 1 J SR I 1600 1 430 I 0269 1 2 1 0270 I J EL ( 3200 1 810 I 0253 4 1 0.254 ' J ET ) I I 1020 1 0.248 I 4 1 0.249 1 I - 4800 - — - I ER 1 I 170 3 1 1 WL I 3200 I I 110 j 0.034 1 0 1 0.034 I 1 WT I 4890 1 1 520 1 0.10B ' 2 1 - 0.109 I I 1 WR 1 N.S.1 I 60 I I 0 1 I GP I.C.U. I 0.717 1 I I GP + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.720 1 (XI Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement: PROJECT FORM If MA4300AM MA4300PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300 NL 1 1600 1 1 0.175 ' 280 GPA PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP GP I PROJECT PROJECT I Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR V/C I Volume I V/C { { Capactty I I I I Capacity I I Volume { I Ratio I I Ratio I I NL 1 1600 1 1 0.175 ' 280 NT 1 6400 i 1 1420 1 0.222 1 I NR 1 1600 1 110 0.069 1 I SL 1 1600 1 I 150 I 0.094 1 I ST 1 6400 1 1 1310 1 0.205 ' 1 SR 1 1600 1 900 1 0.563 1 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 520 1 0.163 ' I ET I I 580 I 0.146 1 - 4800 _ I ER 1 I 120 I I WI. 1 3200 1 1 150 I 0.047 { I WT 1 4800 1 1 1500 1 0.313 ' I WR I N.S. I I 190 I I I GP I.C.U. I 0.856 1 I GP+ PROJECT I.C.U. "'SB right includes overlapping EB left 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvementwill be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT MA4300PM i 2 01 01 31 3 1 2 { zI 21 01 3I 01 I I I 0.177 I 0.222 1 I 0.069 1 - I 0.094 1 I 0.205 I 0.564 1 — I 0.163 - I 0.147 - I I 0.047 1 I 0.313 I V.OJO � MA4295AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 BIRCH STREET 4295 GPA AM I ( EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP ] GP I PROJECT ) PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes Lanes PK HR I V/C ) Volume I V/C I ] { Capacity I Capacity Volume ( Ratio ) I Ratio ) ] NL ] 1600 I ] 40 I 0.025 ) 0 ( 0.025 I ] NT 4800 ] ] 1'80 I 0.246 2 I 0.246 ' I NR ] 1600 ) ] 120 I 0.075 I 0 I 0.075 I SL 1600 I ] 270 I 0.169 0 ) 0.169 ' ] ST ) 800 ] 3 I ! } 5400 - - - } 0.178 ) } 0.179 I ] SR I 340 I 2 ) I EL 450 ] 4 I ET 4800 ) I 57D 0221 0 0.222 ' ER I ] 40 I 3 I WL ) 1600 ] 40 ] 0.025 I 0 ] 0.025 I WT I 3200 I I 230 I 0.072 0] 0.072 ' WR I N.S. ] I 10 I I 0) I GP I.C.U. I 0.708 I i GP + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.709 I I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + projeattraffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 J Projected + project traf5c I.C.U. w /systerns improvement will beless than or equal to 0.90 ] _ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement: PROJECT - FORM II MA4295AM MA4295PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295 GPA PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I Volume I VIC Capacity I Capacity I Volume I I I I I I Ratio I I I Ratio I NL I 1600 I I 170 1 0.106 0 I 0.106 ' I NT I 4800 I I 990 1 0.206 I 3 I 0.207 I NR I 1600 I I 70 I 0.044 I 0 I 0.044 I I SL I 1600 I I 130 I 0.061 j 0 0.081 { ST I { 1150 y 2 { } 6400 - - } 0.220 } 0221 SR I I 260 I 3 I EL I i 410 I 2 I ET 4860 ( I 380 0.175 0 0.176 I ER I I 50 2 I WL I 1600 I 130 j 0.081 I 0 I 0.081 I WT I 3200 I I 940 I 0.294 0 1 0.294 WR j N.S.I I 350 I I O I I I GP I.C.U. I 0.795 I I GP+ PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.797 I I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will beless than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 MA4295PM JA4275AM 1 WR I N.S. 1 170 1 I 0 1 I 1 GP I.C.U. I 0.966 J J { GENERAL PLAN +PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.967 1 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 XJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I —1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will he less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: `PROJECT JA4275AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CgCiFpfit��P INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD (E -W) & MACARTHUR BLVD (N -S) 4275 GPA AM I I EXISTING I- PROPOSED I GP' (^ GP I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I Volume I V/C I I I I Capacity I I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I I I I I I Ratio I I I NL I 32DO I I 210 1 0.066 1 0 1 O.D66 I I NT I 4800 I 1930 1 0.402 6 0.403 ' NR I- 1600 I 560 1 0.350 I 0 I 0.350 I SL I 3200 I I 120 1 0.038 0 1 0.038 ' J ST I 4800 I 450 I 0.094 1 11 1 0.096 I SR I N.S. 1 120 I I 0 I I I EL 3200 I 1 570 I 0.178 1 0 1 0.178 1 1 ET ( 4800 I i 1980 1 0.413 ' 0 1 0.413 ' I ER I N.S. { J 110 I I 0 1 I WL 1 3200 I 360 1 0.113 0 1 0.113 ' WT 48DO I I 930 1 D.194 I 0 1 0.194 I 1 WR I N.S. 1 170 1 I 0 1 I 1 GP I.C.U. I 0.966 J J { GENERAL PLAN +PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.967 1 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 XJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I —1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will he less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: `PROJECT JA4275AM JA4275PM I WR I N.S. I 1 170 I I 0 1 1 GP I.C.U. i 0.980 1 GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U, will be greater than 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT JA4275PM aE.wPC) o \� � n u ys, z °` INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS p sirr.0a�+ INTERSECTION; JAMBOREE RD {E -W) & MACARTHUR BLVD(N -S) 4275 GPA PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes PK HR I V/C I Volume I V/C 1 { I { Capacity { I I Capacty I Volume { I I Ratio 1 I { I Ratio { I I NIL 1 3200 1 1 220 1 0.069 0 1 0.069 ' NT 1 4800 1 1 780 1 0.163 9 1 0.164 1 NR I 1600 1 1 490 { 0.306 I 0 1 0.306 1 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 260 { 0.081 1 0 I 0.081 1 1 ST 1 4800 1 I 1660 1 0.346 ' 6 1 0.347 ' I SR I N,S. 1 I 470 I o f I 1 EL 3200 1 1 260 j 0.081 1 0 1 0.081 1 1 ET 1 4800 1 I 1390 1 0.290 ' 0 1 0.290 ' I ER 1 N.S. I I 50 I o f j WL 1 3200 1 1 880 1 0.275 0 1 0275 ' 1 WT 1 4800 I 1 1660 1 0.346 1 0 1 0.346 1 I WR I N.S. I 1 170 I I 0 1 1 GP I.C.U. i 0.980 1 GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U, will be greater than 0.90 1 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT JA4275PM BR4172ANI L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wift be less than or equal to 0.90 j ] Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Cl Projected + pmject traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 D Projected +project traffic I.C.U. vvith project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT FORM 0 BR4172AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CP 9G/ INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVEIIRVINE A% FORN� GPA AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP GP - i PROJECT I PROJECT 1 Movement I Lanes ( Lares PKHR I V/C { Volume I V/C 1 I I Capacity I I I I Capacity I Volume I I I Ratio I I I I Ratio I 1 NL I 3200 1 1 520 1 0.163 1 01 0.1631 NT 1 4800 1 1 3190 1 0.665 15 1 0.668 ' NR t 1 I I I I I SL I I I I ST 1 6400 1 I 3701 0.058 1 41 0.0581 SR 1 3200 1 I 300 j 0.094 1 14 1 0.098 1 { EL I I I I I I I I ET I I I I I I I ER I I I I I I I 1 WL I 3200 I 280 { 0.088 1 01 O.0881 WT 1 1610 1 14 1 1 1 - } 6400 - -- - } 0.306 ' -- - 0.310 ' WR 1 I 350 I 11 I 1 GP I.C.U. { 0.971 I I 1 GP +PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.9781 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wift be less than or equal to 0.90 j ] Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Cl Projected + pmject traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 D Projected +project traffic I.C.U. vvith project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT FORM 0 BR4172AM BR4172PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVERRVINE A\ I I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 GP { GP I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes PK HR I V/C { Volume 1 I Capacity { Capacity 1 Volume I I I I I I Ratio { I I NIL 3200 1 580 1 0.1B1 ' { NT 4800 { 1570 1 0.327 1 I NR I I I I SL I I I I 1 ST 1 6400 1 1870 1 0292 ' { SR 1 32001 1 13001 0.406 1 I EL I I I I ET I I I I I { ER I I { I I I V& I 3200 { 1 420 1 0.131 I I WT I I I 3060 1 1 6400 - } 0.502 — I wR I I 150 1 1 GP I.C.U. 0.975 1 GP + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Pmjecled + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvementwill be less than or equal to 0.90 FJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT BR4172PM FORM II GPA PM { PROJECT { { V/C i { I Ratio { I -- 0 1 I 0.181 ' -- 21 i -- I I 0.331 1 I I -- I -- 2 1 I f I 0.293 ' -- 8 I I -- I 0.4091 1 I I -- I -- 0 1 I I I I 0.131 1 BI I — - 0.505 ' 15 I I -- { I I 0.979 1 FORM II BR4155AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS car qtr a�� Fo INTERSECTION: BRISTOL. STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINEA GPA AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 I Movement Lanes I Lares PK HR V/C I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity Volume I Ratio I I I I I I I I Ratio I I NL I I I I 1 NT I I 2300 I 0 1 I 1 —) 8000 - -- - --- - ---- —) 0.350 ' -- 0.350 I NR I Soo I o f I SL 1 1600 I 1 100 0.063 4 1 0.065 ` ST I 48001 J 5501 0.115 1 0 1 0.115 1 I SR I I I I I I — I EL 1 I 1410 1 15 1 I 6400 - -- } 0.500 ` — - 0.503 1 ET I 1790 2 1 1 ER 1 32001 1 580 1 0.181 0 1 0.181 j WL I WT I i wR I I I I I I I 1 GP I.C.U. I 0.913 1 I GP +PROJECT I.C.U. I I 0.9181 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IXj Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Q Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system Improvement — PROJECT FORM II BR4155AM HR4155PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CAP q<rFO R� INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVE /IRVINE r GPA PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT { PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR I V/C I Volume I V/C 1 I I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Ratio 1 I I NL I I I I I I ! I NT I I 1700 1 0 1 I I } 8000 - - } 0.261 — - 0.261 ' I NR I 1 390 1 01 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 340 I 0.213 2 1 0214 ' I ST 1 48001 I 19501 0.406 I 0 1 0.406 I I SR l I I I I I i EL I 1 460 21 1 I I } 6400 - } 0281 — - 0285 ' I ET I I 1340 I 31 I ER 1 32001 1 5901 0.184 I 0 1 0.184 1 WL I I I I I I I I I wr l ! I I I I wR I I I I I I I 1 GP I.C.U. I 0.755 I I 1 GP +PROJECT I.C.U. 1 I 0.7601 IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 lJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Descrip0on of system improvement PROJECT FORM 11 BR4155PM BR417SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH 8 BIRCH STREET 4175 GPA AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED GP { GP I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 I Movement I Lanes I Lanes PK HR I V/C I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I I I Capacity I I Volume 1 I Ratio 1 I I I Ratio I 1 I NL 1 3200 I 1 130 1 0.041 { 0 1 0.041 j I NT I 3200 I I 1360 I 0.431 • 2 1 - -- 0.432 i NR I St. I I I I I I I I ST 1 1 150 1 17 j I I } 6400 - — - ) 0.063 - — - 0.067 j I SR I I 250 1 14 I EL I I I I I I I ET 1 I I I I I I ( ER I I I I I I I I WIL I 430 1 B I I 1 WT 6000 I 1 1570 0.349 ' 11 I 0.350 { wR I I 790 1 2 1 I { GP I.C.U. I 0.780 I I ( GP + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.782 I I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + Project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /system!; improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: — PROJECT FORM II BR4175AM BR4175PM I GP + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.7161 I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: - -- - — - - -_ - - -- PROJECT FORM II BR4176PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CAP 9(IFp 0.� INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175 GPA PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I Volume I V/C I I I I Capacity i I Capacity I Volume Ratio I I I I I Ratio I I I I NL I 3200 I I 160 I 0.050 0 1 0.050 NT I 3200 I 420 I 0.131 I 3 1 0.132 I I NR I I I I I I I I SL I I I I I I I I ST I I 790 I 10 I I I } 6400 - - - - - -- - — } 0.364 - 0.367 SIR I I 1540 I e l I I EL I I I I I I I E i I I I I I ER I I I I I I WL I 510 I 0 l I I WT 8000 I 1750 0.296 15 I 0.299 WR I ( 110 I 3 1 I GP I.C.U. I 0.710 I I I GP + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.7161 I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: - -- - — - - -_ - - -- PROJECT FORM II BR4176PM ER416CAM I EL I 950 I I ET 8000 I I 1340 0.309 ' I ER I I 180 I I wL I I I I I I wr I I I I I I wR I I I I I J GP I.C.U. I 0.521 J I GP +PROJECT I.C.U. JXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C. U. w /systems improvement WJJ be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I,C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C. U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR41BOAM 2 ( 41 of —i —I —i FORM II 0.310 I I 0.528 I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS q<rFp QN� Z, INTERSECTION: S BRISTOL STREET 8 BIRCH STREET 4160 GPA AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I _ GP I — GP — I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement ( Lanes I Lanes I PK HR ( V!C I Volume i Vic 1 I I Capacity I I I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I I I I I I Ratio I I NL I 1 ! I I I J NT J 570 1 0 J j I — } 6400 - - -- - — } 0.153 ' - - -- } 0.153 ' I NR, I I 410 I B I I SL I 3200 I 190 I 0.059 17 I 0.065 ' I ST I 3200 I I 390 I 0.122 I 0 0.122 I I SR I I I I I I I I EL I 950 I I ET 8000 I I 1340 0.309 ' I ER I I 180 I I wL I I I I I I wr I I I I I I wR I I I I I J GP I.C.U. I 0.521 J I GP +PROJECT I.C.U. JXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C. U. w /systems improvement WJJ be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I,C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C. U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR41BOAM 2 ( 41 of —i —I —i FORM II 0.310 I I 0.528 I I GP +PROJECT I.C.U. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvemenC PROJECT BR416OPM FORM II -- 1 0.527 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS r c \fi=OaH 9[N INTERSECTION: S BRISTOL STREET & BIRCH STREET 4160 GPA PM — --- - -- I - - -- - I EXISTING I - - -------- -- -- - - PROPOSED I GP I - --- -- - - GP ------ - --- PROJECT - -- - - -- - I PROJECT I Movement ( Lanes I Lanes PK HR I V/C I Vclume V!C I I Capacity I I I Capacity I Volume I I I Ratio I I I Ratio { I I I NL NT I 260 I 0 1 1 — } 6400 - -- - - -- } 0.089 - - - - -- } 0.089 I NR I 310 1 0 SL 1 3200 I 1 400 I 0.125 I 10 0.128 I I ST I 3200 I I 910 I 0.284 0 1 0 -284 ' I SR I I I I I I EL I I 270 3 1 { ET 8000 I 1 1550 0.243 2 I 0.243 ' ER I 120 1 0 1 I I WL I WT I WR I I I I GP ICU 1 0527 I 1 I GP +PROJECT I.C.U. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvemenC PROJECT BR416OPM FORM II -- 1 0.527 1 CA 4302AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS q4 FORS INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE & VON KARMAN AVENUE 4302 I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I Volume I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I I I i I I Ratio I NL I 1600 10 I 0.006 I I NT 1 3200 I I 790 I 0.247 ` NR I N.S. I I 501 I SL I 1500 I — 50 1 0.031 ST I 560 I — } 3200 - -- - -- -- } 0.209 - SIR 110 I EL I 1600 I 370 I 0.231 ` ET I 32001 I 7201 0.225 I I ER 16001 I 50 I 0.031 I I WL I 1600 I I 50 I 0.031 I I WT - -- i i I _ _ 390 I - -- } 32W - — - -- } 0.153 ` - - -- WR I I 130 i I _ _ . GP I.C.U. I 0.672 I I GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT CA4302AM FORM 11 0.6721 GPA AM PROJECT I V!C I I I Ratio I I 0 I 0.006 I 0 I 0.247 I -- 01 I I —- 0 0.031 ` I —- 0 I — } 0.209 I 0 1 -- 0 I I 0.231 ` r -- 4 I 0.226 I 0 I 0.031 I I -- 0 I 0.031 I -- 2 I I — } 0.163 0 FORM 11 0.6721 CA 4302PM ��W PORT F O u ) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS cgClFp 0.tr�P INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE 8 VON KARMAN AVENUE 4302 GPA PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP 1 GP I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I Volume I V/C 1 I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I I I I I I Ratio I I I I Ratio 1 I 1 NIL I 1600 1 I 10 1 W)06 0 1 0.006 1 NT J. 32001 6201 0.194 1 0 1 0.194 I NR I N.S. 1 40I I 0 1 I SL 1 1600 1 I 190 1 0.119 1 0 0.119 1 ST 1 I 1050 1 0 1 1 } 3200 - - } 0.406 — } 0.406 SR 1 I 250 1 0 EL I 1600 I 1 250 I 0.156 0 I 0.156 1 ET 32001 1 8901 0278 I 21 0.279 I ER 1 1600 1 I 30 0.019 I 0 1 0.019 1 WL 1 1600 I 1 40 1 0.025 1 0 1 0.025 j 1 Wt' I 1 1050 1 3 1 1 } 3200 - } 0.372 — } 0.373 1 WR 1 1 140 I 0 I 1 GP I.C.U. j 0.940 I i 1 GENERAL PLAN + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.941 1 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement- PROJECT FORM II CA4302PM JA4305AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 GPA AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT I PROJECT j Movement I Lanes j Lanes I PK HR I WC I Volume I V/C I I Capacity ! Capacity I Volume I Ratio I I Ratio NL ! 1600 I I 160 j 0.100 I 0 1 0.100 I NT I I 2250 j 0 1 I I } 6400 - - - - -- - } 0.384 ' } 0.384 ' NR I I 210 I 0! I I SL I 3200 I 660 I 0.206 0 1 0.206 ' ST I ! 1530 I 0 { I j — } 4600 - – -- - -- } 0.390 - - - -- } 0.390 I SR 340 I 2 1 ! I EL 3200 h 220 0.069 j 4 1 0.070 j ET 3200 I 310 0.097 0 1 0.097 I ER I N.S. I I 20 I I 0 1 I WL I 3200 I 760 I 0.238 0 1 0.238 ' I WT I 3200 I ! 660 I 0.206 i 0 1 0.206 I I WR I 1600 I I 180 I 0.113 j D I 0.113 I GP I.C.U. j 0.925 ! I GP +PROJECT I.C. U. 4- I 0.925 i Split Phase F!W direction LI Projected.+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IXj Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic LC.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: — -- — --- i PROJECT --- _- ------ ° ---� -- – - -- --'–'- -'FORM It JA430SAM JA4305PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 { I EXISTING 1 PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJU I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR V/C I Volum { { Capacity I Capacity { I I I I Volume I I Ratio { I I NL I 1600 I 1 100 1 0.063 ' I NT 1 1830 I 1 } 6400 - } 0,397 - 1 NR 1 I 710 1 I SL 3200 I I 360 1 0.113 I { ST I 1 2730 J I } 4800 - } 0.642 ' SR I I 350 1 I EL 3200 1 I 670 0209 ' ET 3200 I 1 840 0.263 1 ER N.S. 1 1 20 I I WL 3200 1 1 340 0.105 1 I WT I 3200 I I 630 I 0.197 ' I WR 1600 1 1 50D 1 0.313 I GP I.C.U. 1 1.111 GP+ PROJECT I.C.U. Split Phase E/W direction U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IXI Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 U Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT – JA43D5PM GPA PM I PROJECT I I V/C 1 Ratio { I I -- I 0 1 0.063 ' 0 1 — } 0.397 1 D I I n I 8113 r i — } 0.642 3 I I 0 1 0.263 1 01 I D I 0.106 1 0 I 0.197 0 1 0.313 1 i 1 1.112 1 FORM II BR4190AV,, INTERSECTION: INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CP q41 FO0. '0� BRISTOL STREET NORTH & JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 GPA AM I EXISTING PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT I PROJECT ! Movement ) Lanes I Lanes I PK HR J V!C I Volume I WC ) Capacity Capacity I Volume Ratio I I I I I ! I I Ratio ) I I I NL I 3200 I I 1310 1 0.409 1 6 I 0.411 ) ! NT ) 4800 I j 3290 I 0.685 0 I 0.685 ' NR ) N S. I I 0 1 I 0 I I I SL ! I I I I 1 I I ST i j 700 I o ) 6400 - ---- -- - } 0.197 - - -- } 0.197 I SR I I 560 I a 1 I EL I I I I I I I ET I I I I I I I ER I I I I I I I I WL I I I I I I 1 I WT 1 I 1 I I I I I WR I I I I I f I I GP I.C.U. I 0.685 I I I GP + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.685 I I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wit project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Descripllon of system improvement: — _ — _ - - - - ^— _ —_- -- _ - -•_ _ PROJECT _ -- _ - --- ~� - —•— — - - - - -- -FORM II BR4190AM BR419OPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 I EXISTING PROPOSED I GP I —GP I PROJECT Movement Lanes Lanes I PK HR I V/C I Volume: Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I I NL I 3200 I I 1040 0.325 I NT I 4800 I I 2560 I 0.533 I I NR I N.S. I 0 I I SL I ST I I 1590 I I } 6400 - — - - -- } 0.375 — I SR I I 810 I I EL I 1 I I I ET I I I I I ER I I I I wL I I I WT WR I GP I.C.U. I 0.700 I GP +PROJECT I.C.U. I XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I —1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I –1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: _ PROJECT BR419OPM 0 I I -- I I I I I I I I - 1 I - I I n env 1 FORM II 0 GPA PM – �- -- PROJECT 1 I V/C I I Ratio I 9 I 0.328 ` 0 I 0.533 I BI I I I 0 0 I I -- I I I I I I I I - 1 I - I I n env 1 FORM II 0 BR417DAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 ` I EXISTING I PROPOSED —' GP - -- GP Movement Lanes I Laries I PK HR I Vic I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I I I I I GPA AM PROJECT I PROJECT I ( Volume ( Vic I Ratio I I I I NL I I I I I I I NT I I 2360 I 6 I I } 6000 - -- - - - --- -) 0.301 ' - -) 0.302 NR ( I 50 { 0 1 I I SL I I I I I ( ST I 4800 I I 670 I 0.140 I 0 1 0.140 I I SR I I I I I I EL I I 20BO I 0 I I 4800 - -- - } 0.556 } 0.559 ET I I 590 I 11 I I ER I 3200 I I 1130 I 0.353 I 11 I 0.357 I WL I WT I I I I I I I ( wR GP I.C.U. I I I 0.857 I I I GP + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.661 XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 tD Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: - - _ - -� -- - - - - -_ - - -~ - - PROJECT FORM II BR4170AM BR417OPM ET I 1370 j 6 1 ER I 3200 I I 1340 I 0.419 I 6 I wL I I I I I I WT I I I I I I I WR I I I I I I GP I.C.U. I I 0.827 I I GP + PROJECT I.C.U. I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.9D U Projected + projed traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + pmject traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C. U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR417OPM -- —FORMB I I n nvn i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 9 < /FD R� L�F INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH B JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 GPA PM I { EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT { PROJECT j Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I Volume I V/C j I Capacity I I I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I i I I I I Ratio I I NL I I I I I I NT I 265D I 9 1 { --- -- } 8000 - ---- - --- } 0.344 ' '-- --— } 0.345 NR I 100 I 0 ( I I SL ST I 4800 I I 1610 j 0.335 I 0 1 0.335 I SR I I I I I I I EL 95o I D I I - - - -- } 4800 - } 0.483 ' -- 0.485 ET I 1370 j 6 1 ER I 3200 I I 1340 I 0.419 I 6 I wL I I I I I I WT I I I I I I I WR I I I I I I GP I.C.U. I I 0.827 I I GP + PROJECT I.C.U. I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.9D U Projected + projed traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 U Projected + pmject traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C. U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT BR417OPM -- —FORMB I I n nvn i JA4765AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 EASTBLUFF DRIVE NORTHNNIVERSIT` I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP I GP I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I Volume I I I I Capacity I I I Capacity I I Volume I I Ratio I I 1 I NL I 1600 1 1 60 1 0.038 1 0 1 I NT I 6400 1 1 1510 1 0.252 6 1 1 NR I 1600 1 220 1 0.138 I 0 1 SL I 3200 1 I 150 1 0.047 0 1 ST 1 6400 1 1 1180 1 0.184 1 11 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 280 1 0.175 1 0 1 I EL I 1 1 520 I 0 1 1 - 3200 - — - } 0.194 } I ET 1 I I 100 I 0 1 1 ER N.S.1 I 10 1 I 0 1 WL z80 0 1 4800 } 0.079 } I WT I I I 106 0 1 1 WR I N.S. I 470 1 I 0 1 I GP I.C.U. I 0.572 1 1 GP +PROJECT I.C.U. I I X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 J Projected + project tralc I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT JA4765AM GPA AM PROJECT VIC I Ratio I I I 0.038 I I 0.253 ' I 0.138 1 1 0.047 I 0.186 1 ( 0.175 1 I I 0.194 ' I I I I I 0.079 ' FORM 11 0.573 JA4755PM GPA PM PROJECT V/C I Raeo I I I 0.025 I I 0.323 I 0.194 1 I 0.138 I 0.334 1 I 0.256 I I I 0.094 I I I I I 0.050 I I I I I I 0.605 I FORM II i PC,p oc�— n x INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 'iLl FO0.a INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD S EASTBLUFF DRIVE NORTH /UNIVERSITY EXISTING I PROPOSED I GP 1 GP PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I Volume I I Capacity I Capacity Volume J Ratio J I I I I I I I l I J I NL 1 1600 I I 40 1 0.025 1 0 1 NT 6400 I I 2060 I 0.322 9 1 I NR 1500 I 1 310 I 0.194 J 0 1 I SL 1 3200 I J 440 1 0.138 0 1 j ST 1 8400 I 1 2130 I 0.333 I 6 1 SR 1 1600 J I 410 I 0.256 0 1 EL I I I 210 I 0 1 1 - 3200 - - } 0.094 — J I ET I I I 90 l 0 1 ER I N.S. I 10 J I 0 1 1 WL I I 190 I o 1 1 - 4800 - - } 0.050 — J I WT I I I 50 I 0 1 I WR 1 N.S. I J 410 I I 0 1 1 GP I.C.U. I 0.604 I GP + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 J XJ Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems idrprovement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT JA4765PM - GPA PM PROJECT V/C I Raeo I I I 0.025 I I 0.323 I 0.194 1 I 0.138 I 0.334 1 I 0.256 I I I 0.094 I I I I I 0.050 I I I I I I 0.605 I FORM II i ATTACHMENT G PROJECT PLANS I)f F_ 2 b � ƒ ƒ I ¢ I e &! / \) \ 2E k 2| ,5 § \ b § 2 9 k m / | \ $ k !§ |j .� !; \ ;Ee &= | /M[ | f � \,. � \ L ;| ] & [ \<J | •.�- �, !; \ ;Ee &= | /M[ | f � \,. � \ L i 111Y15 N]YIY lniYa snanr] O " I 11,x, r r of s a Y H w m mmm� mumnf of mmum mm�mu guilt ��' Ieeunn fl�lll�lllllll; f lull; `m f lllillillilillliiilliilllillllillili f f a owmnumunnuunnnnnnunnnunun m i 111Y15 N]YIY lniYa snanr] O " I 11,x, r r of s a Y H w m i ' � s ; sj fi ai ' 61 fifi IIIIII��'jII s 'a I m m n n n s 6 a Ir- 0 s a 0 0 1 W k Q f� - ��B A■wJ If� Inllnllnnlnllullnnunllullln II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ```lulul`lln`n``n`l`lul 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 oenunuoununnunnuuuunnmumnnun i ' � s ; sj fi ai ' 61 fifi IIIIII��'jII s 'a I m m n n n s 6 a Ir- 0 s a 0 0 1 W k Q nennnnnnnnmm�uuununnunnmunun ��' II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �e I -C- C C E I Ie11111ii11111111111111111 .................. .. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ..IN..1 . G 13 II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIII e1111111111111 111... 1111.. ....111.1...111.11.11.11111..11 �� uamunuunumm�uunnuunununuunm� ttt���■!!!illllllll el sl u a sl n n n u m I EI� 1 I ❑ iE: I 3 f I i E� I S ❑ ° S i 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 H EI� ❑ iE: 3 f i E� ❑ ° S S m et a of cl n n zl n � of -I � d eeumunnnnnnunnnwunumm�unnum �i�8 ��IIINlllllllllllllffllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll n u S •: W g Nil V ll V J13 i O — =I_ o-- o--- 0 4 0- m- Q- S D— I E Ell EM 0 E o i in i S G m U U eeumunnnnnnunnnwunumm�unnum �i�8 ��IIINlllllllllllllffllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Y I eeuunnnumuu�lll I�I III unnnn.11lllllllll �'�' ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllllllllllll � �7E oe Igloo I � I a a V pR c o 1 � a � � R I w I � 3 3 e Hit' Y a��ema eo e 1 s a� f s a u 0 0 zb Q 10 ATTACHMENT H RESPONSE LETTER TO OCTA DATED MAY 212006 -V CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L. Temple. Director (949) 644 -3208 May 2, 2006 Charles Larwood Section Manager, Corridor Studies Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street Orange, CA 92863 -1584 RE: NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A RECIRCULATED MITIGATED DECLARATION FOR THE LAND ROVER NEWPORT BEACH SERVICE CENTER Dear Mr. Larwood: In response to your letter dated April 28, 2006, the Planning Department has reviewed and determined that your request for a new bus turnout/pad to replace the existing bus stop located adjacent to the proposed project does not raise any environmental issues as it pertains to an operational improvement to the existing bus stop. Your request; however, will be considered by the Public Works Department during the project development. Thank you very much for your timely response to the City's notice. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (949) 644 -3208 or via e-mail at rungi M OCTA April 28, 2006 � �nf Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 fir;. I i -_.;Y a 2006 A Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for The land Rover Newport Beach Service Center Dear Ms. Ung: The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center. OCTA has a bus stop adjacent to the proposed development. The Stops and Zones Department has requested that a new bus turnout or bus pad be placed at the current bus stop location. Furthermore, it is recommended that the sidewalk, as per ADA requirement, should remain at least 8' wide by 40' long at the bus stop and at least 4' wide, obstruction -free, to each corner. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me at (714) 560 -5683 or via e-mail at clarwood @OCTA.net. If you have any specific questions related to Stops and Zones design, please contact Bill Batory at (714) 560 -5912 or via e-mail at bbatory@OCTA.net. Sincerely, l%t^ � Vr"t- -fs Charles Larwood Section Manager, Corridor Studies Orange County Transportation Authority —7 550 South Main Street I P.O. Box 1418410range I California 92863 -1584 / (71 a) 560-OCTA (6282) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center (PA2004 -249) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Pendragon North America Automotive for General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -009, Code Amendment No. 2004 -012, Use Permit No. 2004- 043 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -006 for the use of a 4.19 -acre property located at 2101 Dove Street. Pendragon North America Automotive proposes to redevelop the former industrial property into a vehicle service and storage facility to support their existing sales and service facility located at 1540 Jamboree Road. The requested applications would change the General Plan land use designation from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail Service Commercial. The existing APF zoning is also proposed to be changed from APF (Administrative, Professional & Financial) to RSC (Retail Service Commercial). The proposed use requires a Use Permit for the proposed operation of vehicle service and storage facility at the subject site. Finally, a traffic study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during the 30 -day review period from February 9 through March 10, 2006 and consequently during the 20 -day recirculation from April 12 through May 1, 2006 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on May 9, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. 01(/1%44 -' n?, Ar &" LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center (PA2004 -249) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Pendragon North America Automotive for General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -009, Code Amendment No. 2004 -012, Use Permit No. 2004- 043 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -006 for the use of a 4.19 -acre property located at 2101 Dove Street. Pendragon North America Automotive proposes to redevelop the former industrial property into a vehicle service and storage facility to support their existing sales and service facility located at 1540 Jamboree Road. The requested applications would change the General Plan land use designation from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail Service Commercial. The existing APF zoning is also proposed to be changed from APF (Administrative, Professional & Financial) to RSC (Retail Service Commercial). The proposed use requires a Use Permit for the proposed operation of vehicle service and storage facility at the subject site. Finally, a traffic study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during the 30-day review period from February 9 through March 10, 2006 and consequently during the 20-day recirculation from April 12 through May 1, 2006 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on May 9. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. kw (Lie 1 �a i I� i 1 I, 2���rv��ht�•`'m. K �a, 7 I LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach r%c*d ct{ 2 locahm�- X1-3-4 4 kWud �VTU`'- Q��160 Z�r4u ko a - q (4 D6 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Land Rover Newport Beach Service Center (PA204 -249) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Pendragon North America Automotive for General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -009, Code Amendment No. 2004 -012, Use Permit No. 2004- 043 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -006 for the use of a 4.19 -acre property located at 2101 Dove Street. Pendragon North America Automotive proposes to redevelop the former industrial property into a vehicle service and storage facility to support their existing sales and service facility located at 1540 Jamboree Road. The requested applications would change the General Plan land use designation from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to Retail Service Commercial. The existing APF zoning is also proposed to be changed from APF (Administrative, Professional & Financial) to RSC (Retail Service Commercial). The proposed use requires a Use Permit for the proposed operation of vehicle service and storage facility at the subject site. Finally, a traffic study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents were available for public review and inspection during the 30-day review period from February 9 through March 10, 2006 and consequently during the 20-day recirculation from April 12 through May 1, 2006 at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on May 9• 2006, at the hour of 7.00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Jam Free Printing Usriplr rA 6W&Ing www.averycom 1*00# Xgyn AVERY® s160® Use Avere TEMPLATE! 5960TM" 1- 800 -GO- AVERT' -_., AVERY® 5960T- 427 042 32 427 04233 427 042 35 COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY OF- ORANGE 3160 Airway Ave PO Box 4106 316p.Aifway Ave Costa Mesa CA 92626 Santa Ana CA 92702 Costa Mesa CA 92626 427 04236 427 042 40 427 042 66 PAN WESTERN LTD COUNTY _OFORANGE COUNTY OF ORANGE 1300 Dove St #200 PO Box 4106 2400 W Coast Hwy Newport Beach CA 92660 Santa Ana CA 92702 Newport Beach CA 92663 427 04267 427 12101 427 12102 CITY IRVINE Linda Lou Forsblade Campus Birch 1 Civic Center Plz 4200 Campus Dr 636 Harbor Island Dr Irvine CA 92606 Newport Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92660 427 121 18 427 12124 427 12125 Donald Lawrenz William Shattuck CampusBimb 4229 Birch St 4770 Von Karman Ave 636 Harbor Island Dr Newport Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92660 427 13105 427 13106 427 13107 D C West BRABUS NORTH AMERICA INC BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES 225 Brae Blvd 4040 Campus Dr 3848 Campus Dr #210 Park Ridge NJ 07656 Newport Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92660 427 13108 427 131 10 427 131 11 BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES 3848 Campus ar #210 3848 Campus Dr #210 3848 Campus Or #210 Newp6r1 Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92660 Newport Beach CA 92660 427 131 12 427 131 13 427 141 01 Ronald Beard HERTZ CORP NEWPORT COMMERCE POINT LLC 3208 Ocean Blvd 225 Brae Blvd 4425 Jamboree Rd 9250 Corona Del Mar CA 92625 Park Ridge NJ 07656 Newport Beach CA 92660 427 17102 427 17103 BEACON BAY ENTRPRS INC BENI INVESTMENTS LLC 1600 Sunflower Ave #110 17122 Marina View PI Costa Mesa CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ��.. ':�)aw p'ft �j m.` 0.✓ Cr. 091�e�owlsOA&U AV ii uVmweetI t, 6 iMr Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cali£omia. Number A -6214, September 29,1961 . and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am . over the age of eighteen years, and not a_ party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: APRIL 29,2006 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on ''APRIL 29;2006 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature VJJ- A'kUC E P VE D °06 MAY -5 A 9 :33 V .10E OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH